Full text of Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1657 : Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages

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

L

*?.

3

;

YOUTH
UNEMPLOYMENT
AND
MINIMUM
WAGES
BULLETIN 1657
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
1970

KAISSOOW sVlM t

souxh^

S ; c; urR,,»<

'COLL

c,toR 'f COPX

S, offosn°w







YOUTH
UNEMPLOYMENT
AND
MINIMUM
WAGES
BULLETIN 1657
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
George P. Shultz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
1970

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 — Price $1.50







Contents
Page

i

Chapter I. Introduction____________________________________
II

1

Evaluations of Past Experience

Chapter II. Experience of the past: the National minimum___
Chapter III. Changes in the Federal minimum wage and the em­
ployment of young men, 1966-67 ____________________________
III

55

Hiring Standards and Placement of Youth

Chapter IV. Survey of hiring requirements and youth employ­
ment _____________________________________________________
Chapter V. Employment service local office experience in serving
teenagers during June 1969 ________________________________
IV

68
78

Expectations and Earnings

Chapter VI. Wage expectations_____________________________
Chapter VII. Teenage earnings and family incom e___________
V

30

99
104

The Use of Differential Minimum Wages

Chapter VIII. Study of full-time student and learner certification
under the Fair Labor Standards A c t_________________________ 107
Chapter IX. State experience with the minimum wage differen­
tial rates for youth and their effect on employment__________ 121
VI

Foreign Experience

Chapter X. Youth wage rate schemes in Western Europe and
Canada and their effect on youth unemployment______________
Chapter XI. Youth employment and wages in postwar Japan__

135
163

VII

Chapter XII. Summary and conclusions




180
iii

Foreword

In April 1969, the Secretary of Labor requested the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to take the lead in Departmental efforts to study the relationship
between minimum wage levels and the youth unemployment problem. The
Secretary stated that he “would expect the study to draw upon ex­
perience throughout the free world; to develop insights through the use
of regression analysis with respect to past relationships; to review the
experiences and problem of industries employing young people; and to
explore such factors as the attitudes of youth, including inner-city youth,
toward entry wages.”
Special thanks are due the authors of the various chapters: Karl Egge,
Thomas W. Gavett, Melvin Goldberg, Harvey R. Hamel, Hyman B. Kaitz,
Juliet F. Kidney, Andrew I. Kohen, Solomon B. Levine, John W. Piercey,
Norman J. Samuels, Clara F. Schloss, John R. Shea, Gerald G. Somers,
Irvin F. Wingeard, Fred A. Zeller. Further information on the authors
is given at the beginning of each chapter. In addition, acknowledgement
is due Philip Arnow, Director of the Office of Policy Planning and Re­
search in the Department of Labor, John P. Gould, Special Assistant to
the Secretary for Economic Affairs, Neal Q. Herrick, Director of the
Office of Planning in the Wage and Labor Standards Administration, and
Howard Rosen and Stuart H. Garfinkle of the Office of Manpower Re­
search in the Manpower Administration for their valued aid and counsel.
The Office of Manpower Research was especially helpful in developing and
financing the study by the Center for Human Resource Research at the
Ohio State University. Within the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the sub­
stantial help of Sophia C. Travis, of the Office of Manpower and Em­
ployment Statistics, and Matilda R. Sugg, formerly with the Office of
Foreign Labor and Trade, should also be recognized. Thomas W. Gavett,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Wage and Industrial Relations, directed
the study, and the results owe much to his energy and initiative.




— G e o f f r e y H. M oore
Commissioner of Labor Statistics
IV

CHAPTER I

Introduction
In the 20-year span between 1948 and 1968,
the unemployment rate of youths 16-19 years
old 1 increased from 9.2 percent to 12.7 percent.
While the unemployment rate of teenagers has
always been high compared with that for
adults, the ratio of the teenage unemployment
rate relative to that of persons age 25 and over
has increased from 3.2 percent in 1948 to 5.5
percent in 1968.
During those 20 years, the size of the teenage
population and labor force has changed signifi­
cantly, but not smoothly over time. The low
birth rates during the Great Depression, fol­
lowed by unusually high birth rates after World
War II, have placed severe pressures upon the
economy to cope with these irregular growth
patterns.
Compounding the effects of irregular growth
in the teenage population has been the need to
adjust to major shifts in the industrial composi­
tion of employment for teenagers. The move­
ment of jobs and people from farm to city has
affected teenagers even more than adults. An
increasing proportion of teenagers has been en­
rolled in school, with an attendant increase in
the number of young people entering and leav­
ing the labor market and an increasing number
Prepared by Thomas W. Gavett. The author wishes to
acknowledge the valuable help of Sophia Travis, Susan
Holland, Patricia Smith, Arthur Sackley, and Douglas
Fridrich of the BLS staff. Sylvia Weissbrodt prepared
the sections on Federal and State law.
Footnotes appear on p. 16. Appendix tables appear
on pp. 17-29.




seeking short-term or part-time employment
opportunities. Military manpower requirements
have been erratic during the last two decades.
The Korean war and the Viet Nam war have
placed their demands on youth; uncertainties of
the draft have compounded problems of youth
employment.
The concern over teenage unemployment is
not solely a concern over wasted human re­
sources, though that surely is present. Unem­
ployment of teenagers represents, in a sense,
failures and difficulties in adjusting to the life
of work—problems, to be sure, which are not
unique to those teenagers who are unemployed.
What effects this experience may have on the
future careers of teenagers is uncertain, but it
is unlikely to be helpful. The relationship be­
tween unemployment among teenagers and so­
cial discontent and disorder is another concern
present if less frequently voiced.
No single factor explains the high rates of
unemployment experienced by youth. Imperfect
mechanisms for finding out about the world of
work and the existence of jobs, uneven changes
in population, changes in the composition of de­
mand, legal restrictions upon the employment
of youth, as well as general economic condi­
tions, have all played a part.
One factor that may contribute to the adverse
employment experience of youth is the effects of
legal minimum wages—the central concern of
this study. Since the Fair Labor Standards Act
was passed in 1938, the law has been amended
periodically to increase the basic minimum
under the law from the 25-cent minimum origi­
nally set in 1938 to $1.60 in 1968. Coverage
1

2
under the law, originally fairly restricted, was
not basically changed until the 1960’s. While the
minimum wage has been increased and cover­
age extended during the period that has wit­
nessed increased unemployment of teenagers,
causal relationship has been proved. The effects
of the level and coverage of the minimum wage
upon youth employment and unemployment in
the past requires more careful analysis, not for
historical reasons alone, but rather for what
implications experience may have for the fu­
ture.
Analytic framework

Although a substantial amount of informa­
tion is available on the labor force experience of
youth and on developments in minimum wage
legislation, many questions about the relation­
ship between minimum Wages and the problem
of youth unemployment are still to be answered.
The following are the issues to which this study
has been directed.
P a s t e f f e c t s . Have changes in the FLSA
had a significant direct effect upon wages paid
to teenagers? Have increases in the level of
minimum wages and coverage of the law in­
duced employers to lay off teenagers or avoid
hiring teenagers, or to prefer older, more ex­
perienced workers ? Wages have generally been
increasing and we know that minimum wage
legislation has had an impact on wages of some
workers. Little evidence has been available,
however, on the effect of minimum wages on
wages paid to teenagers separate from the con­
sequence of general economic developments.
The employment or the unemployment rate of
teenagers can be affected by the growth of the
relative size of the teenage labor force, the pro­
portion of teenagers enrolled in school, and
other factors. Minimum wage effect on employ­
ment and unemployment must be separated
from these other developments.
E m p l o y e r h ir in g p r a c t ic e s . More informa­
tion is needed about current employer hiring
practices. Do employers frequently stipulate a
minimum age or educational requirement that
excludes some or all teenagers ? Do employers
avoid teenagers because they are “unreliable,”




or because of legal restrictions on the hiring of
teenagers, or because they must pay “too high”
a wage? If minimum wage laws have any im­
pact on employer decisions, we might expect to
find that employers have raised age or educa­
tion hiring requirements as a consequence of
recent changes in the law. Further, if there is
an effect, differences would exist in employment
patterns and hiring practices among employers
who are roughly similar—the same area, the
same industry, about the same size—but differ
with respect to coverage under the law.
E x p e c t a t io n s . If young people are looking for
and expect to get a wage which is substantially
above rates actually paid in the market, the
legal minimum would not be a significant factor
in explaining unemployment problems of youth.
Neither would a lower legal minimum for youth
be an effective measure for increasing employ­
ment of youth if they are unwilling to accept
work at that level. Whether or not wage expec­
tations of youth are affected by the level of the
minimum wage requires investigation. Some
basis for evaluation of the “reasonableness” of
wage expectations would be to compare differ­
ent teenage groups. Do unemployed teenagers,
for example, have wage expectations which are
roughly comparable to wages actually received
by employed teenagers? Also relevant to know
would be whether employed teenagers actually
receive wages that are as high as they had ex­
pected when they looked for a job or whether
they had to adjust expectations down to reality.
Further, what effect does the experience of
being unemployed or of having had a job in the
past have on wage expectations of youth?
A d v e r se e f f e c t s o f a y o u t h d i f f e r e n t i a l
m in im u m . A

lower minimum wage for youth
were put into effect, and if total employment
and total earnings of youth increased, would
there be other, undesired effects? Information
is needed on the contribution teenagers make to
family income, whether the contribution is im­
portant to the family or not, whether or not the
family would suffer if the teenager’s wage rate
was lower.
Of greater concern is the question of whether
youth differential wage would mean a shift of
employment opportunities away from other

3

Where wages of youth are substantially below
those of adults (whether due to a differential
youth minima or other factors), are youth un­
employment rates proportionately lower? Does
foreign experience indicate there would need to
be a substantial difference in minimum wages
E f f e c t s of e x is t in g d if f e r e n t ia l s u n d er
between teenagers and adults to have any sig­
F e d e r a l l a w . Under present regulations, pay­
nificant effects on youth employment? Given
ments below the Federal minimum are permit­ differences in custom and institutions, to what
ted in the case of students and learners. About extent is foreign experience transferable to the
6,000 establishments have been granted certifi­ United States?
cates to authorize payment of lower wages, but
indications are that firms have not fully utilized Changes in the labor force status of youth
these exemptions. Does the inability of employ­ P o p u l a t io n a n d la b o r f o r c e . The population
ers to utilize fully exemptions granted reflect of teenagers has not increased gradually in the
unwillingness of teenagers to work at lower period
World War II. Rather, the effects
wages, or employers' unwillingness to employ of low since
birth
rates during the depression and
teenagers? Information on the extent of utiliza­ major increases
that rate during and after
tion would also be of interest in assessing the the Second Worldin War
have resulted in great
effectiveness of this method of creating a spe­ imbalance in the labor market.
cial minimum wage for youth.
The civilian noninstitutional population of
persons
16- to 19-years old—the group of teen­
E x p e r ie n c e i n t h e s t a t e s . A number of
agers
relevant
for labor market analysis—in­
States which have minimum wages exempt
creased
62
percent
between 1948 and 1968. (See
young people or have a separate minimum for
table
1.1.)
By
the
late 1940's and early 1950's,
the young. Although States generally have minhowever,
the
effect
of depressed birth rates in
imums below the Federal, their experience is
the
1930's
could
easily
be seen. Teenage popula­
relevant since they have in the past, and still do,
tion
decreased
from
about
8,500,000 in 1948 to
cover some industries or establishments exempt
7,900,000
in
1951,
teenagers
in the latter year
from the Federal law. Whether or not differ­
had
been
born
in
the
period
of especially low
ences in the level of minimum wages among the
birth
rates.
By
1956,
this
7-percent
decrease in
States, or differences in treatment of youth
teenage
population
had
been
offset.
In subse­
under State minimum wage laws, explains dif­
quent
years
the
effect
of
increased
birth
rates
ferences in employment experience of youth in
during
the
1940's
began
to
be
felt.
In
the
5
the various States requires further exploration.
years between 1955 and 1960, the teenage popu­
F o r eig n e x p e r i e n c e . Other nations have not
lation increased 22 percent, compared with a
had the same experience with youth in the labor 3-percent increase during the preceding 5 years.
force as the United States, and other nations do In the following 5 years, this group increased
not have comparable systems of minimum wage another 27 percent as the children born in 1946
laws. Basic information on relative rates of un­ and 1947 reached the age of entrance to the
employment for youth, the nature of the legal labor market.
Only in the last few years has the effects of
minimum wages, and the structure of wages in
other countries is needed. An examination of rapid increases in birth rates during the forties
the relationship between wages and youth un­ —an increase from 19.4 live births per 1,000
employment in other countries would provide population in 1940 to a peak of 26.6 in 1947—
relevant insights for the United States. Where ceased to dramatically effect the rate of growth
youth unemployment rates are relatively low, is of the teenage population. Growth in the years
the situation attributable to a differential mini­ between 1965 and 1970 will be only 12 percent.
mum wage for youth or to other factors such as In the decade of the seventies, teenage popula­
placement methods and customs of work? tion will increase only 10 percent in the first 5

groups to teenagers. Would a youth differential
expand opportunities for teenagers only as a
consequence of redistributing unemployment to
older workers? If so, which group of older
workers would be disadvantaged ?




4
Table 1.1 Population, labor force, employment, unemployment, and school enrollment
16- to 19-year olds, both sexes, all races, annual averages
[In thousands]
Percent change, year to year
Year

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

1948_____________
1949_____________
1950_____________
1951_____________
1952_____________
1953_____________
1954_____________
1955____ ________
1956________ ____
1957............... .
1958_____________
1959_____________
1960_____________
1961_____________
1962_____________
1963_____________
1964_____________
1965_____________
1966_____________
1967_____________
1968_____________

8,451
8,216
8,145
7,868
7,924
8,014
8,224
8,365
8,434
8,613
8,986
9,619
10,188
10,513
10,653
11,371
12,113
12,931
13,593
13,482
13,698

Civilian
labor
force

4,435
4,289
4,216
4,105
4,063
4,026
3,976
4,093
4,296
4,276
4,260
4,492
4,840
4,935
4,915
5,138
5,390
5,910
6,557
6,519
6,618

Employed

4,028
3,712
3,703
3,767
3,718
3,719
3,475
3,643
3,818
3,780
3,582
3,838
4,129
4,107
4,195
4,255
4,516
5,036
5,721
5,682
5,780

Unem*
ployed

407
575
513
336
345
307
501
450
478
496
678
654
711
828
720
883
872
874
836
838
839

School
enroll­
ment 1

4,152
3,884
4,101
4,099
4,158
4,360
4,675
4,686
4,935
5,148
5,594
6,119
6,416
6,494
6,886
7,765
8,378
8,983
9,303
9,289
9,870

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

-2 .8
-.9
-3 .4
.7
1.1
2.6
1.7
.8
2.1
4.3
7.0
5.9
3.2
1.3
6.7
6.5
6.8
5.1
-.8
1.6

Civilian
labor
force

-3 .3
-1 .7
-2 .6
-

1.0

-.9
-1 .2
2.9
5.0
-.5
-.4
5.4
7.7
2.0
-.4
4.5
4.9
9.6
10.9
-.6
1.5

Employed

-7 .8
-.2
1.7
-1 .3
-6 .6
4.8
4.8
-

1.0

-5 .2
7.1
7.6
-.5
2.1
1.4
6.1
11.5
13.6
-.7
1.7

Unem­
ployed

41.3
-1 0 .8
-3 4 .5
2.7
-1 1 .0
63.2
-1 0 .2
6.2
3.8
36.7
-3 .5
8.7
16.5
-1 3 .0
22.6
-1 .2
.2
-4 .3
.2
.1

School
enroll­
ment

-6 .5
5.6
1.4
4.9
7.2
.2
5.3
4.3
8.7
9.4
4.9
1.2
6.0
12.8
7.9
7.2
3.6
-.2
6.3

Civilian
labor
force
partici­
pation
rate

52.5
52.2
51.8
52.2
51.3
50.2
48.3
48.9
51.0
49.6
47.4
46.7
47.5
46.9
46.1
45.2
44.5
45.7
48.2
48.4
48.3

1Total school population in month of October

years and 2 percent in the last.
Changes in the size of the teenage civilian
labor force reflect population changes, though
moderated to some extent by a decline in the
labor force participation rate of teenagers. The
increasing proportion of teenagers enrolled in
school is the most important reason for that
decline in participation rates. In fact, the par­
ticipation rate of teenagers enrolled in school
has increased in the last 20 years, while it has
declined somewhat for those not in school.2
However, the participation rate is much lower
for those enrolled in school, and the substantial
increase in the proportion of teenagers enrolled
has brought the overall participation rate down
from about 53 percent in 1948 to 48 percent in
1968.3
In the past two decades the number and pro­
portion of youths enrolled in school has in­
creased substantially. The proportion of 16 and
17 year-olds in school rose by one-third, to 90
percent of their population in October 1968,
while the percentages for the 18-19 year olds
and 20-24 year olds more than doubled to 50
percent and 21 percent, respectively. (See
tables A3, A4, and A5.) A somewhat greater
proportion of white than teenagers of other
races are in school. However, among persons
20-24 years old, a much larger percentage of




the whites than others attend school, 22 percent
and 14 percent, respectively.
Historically, the proportion of girls 18-24
years old enrolled in school (mainly at the col­
lege level) has been below that for men. The
rate of increase between 1947 and 1968 was
greater for women than for men, but they still
had not reached the high level for men.
E m p l o y m e n t a n d u n e m p l o y m e n t . Despite
the substantial 49-percent increase in the teen­
age civilian labor force between 1948 and 1968,
compared with an increase of 30 percent for all
persons, the economy has absorbed an imposing
number of teenagers. Employment of teenagers
has increased by 1.8 million, or about 44 per­
cent, compared with an overall increase in em­
ployment of 30 percent. The rapid growth in
demand for teenagers was not, however, ade­
quate to absorb the available supply.
The unemployment rate for teenagers has al­
ways been high relative to that of adults. The
casual methods teenagers use to find jobs, their
frequent entrance to and exit from the labor
market, and the limited horizon of their jobsearch activities are major contributing factors.
In every year during the postwar period, the
unemployment rate of teenagers has been sig­
nificantly higher than that of persons 25 and

5

over, ranging from about 170 percent higher in
1954 to 450 percent higher in 1968.
General economic conditions affect teenagers
as they do other workers. The recessions of
1949, 1954, 1958, and 1961 brought marked in­
creases in the unemployment rate of teenagers.
(See table A6.) Since teenage unemployment
rates are always higher than those of adults,
the story of what has happened to the relative
position of teenagers in the United States is
better revealed by relating the teenage rates to
the rate for persons 25 and over.
From 1948 to 1962, the ratio of the teenage
jobless rate to that for persons 25 and over fluc­
tuated between 2.7 and 3.5. Beginning in 1963
the divergence increased markedly. In that
year, when the teenage jobless rate rose to 17
percent, the ratio increased to 4 to 1. Since
1963, the gap has continued to widen, reaching
a peak of 5.5 to 1 in 1968. (See table 1.2.)
In 1963, the relative position of teenagers
began to deteriorate markedly as persons born
in 1947 entered the labor force. Not surprising
is the fact that as they “graduated” to the 20- to
24-year age group in the last 2 years, the rela­
tive position of that age group has begun to
deteriorate. (See table A ll.)
C olor -s e x -a g e d i f f e r e n c e s . Population and
labor force patterns were similar for white and
Negro 4 youth and for males and females in the
16-17 and 18-19 age groups in the period after
World War II. Each color-sex group was afTable 1.2. Ratio of unemployment rates, 16 to 19 years,
to rate for 25 years and over, annual averages
Year

1948__________
1949__________
1950__________
1951__________
1952__________
1953.............
1954__________
1955.............
1956__________
1957._________
1958__________
1959__________
1960._________
1961__________
1962__________
1963._________
1964.............
1965__________
1966__________
1967__________
1968__________

Total

3.17
2.79
2.77
2.93
3.54
3.17
2.68
3.06
3.36
3.41
2.84
3.32
3.27
3.11
3.34
4.00
4.26
4.63
4.92
4.92
5.52




All others

White
Ma,e Female

3.63
2.98
3.02
3.38
4.05
3.43
3.07
3.41
3.58
3.88
3.05
3.56
3.56
3.29
3.59
4.30
4.79
5.04
5.32
6.15
6.44

2.44
2.51
2.38
2.13
2.67
2.67
2.15
2.49
2.87
2.72
2.51
2.81
2.96
2.81
3.04
3.51
3.61
3.93
4.27
3.65
4.38

Total

Male Female Total

Male Female

3.30
2.89
2.95
3.00
3.77
3.41
2.88
3.25
3.48
3.42
2.82
3.36
3.46
3.19
3.50
4.08
4.35
4.62
4.87
4.58
5.24

3.77
3.09
3.26
3.64
4.40
3.76
3.44
3.77
3.89
4.11
3.14
3.78
3.68
3.41
3.81
4.54
4.90
5.16
5.25
5.63
5.94

2.27
2.13
1.80
2.19
1.98
2.00
1.57
1.70
2.21
2.71
2.25
2.63
2.64
2.39
2.37
3.33
3.52
4.24
4.84
6.43
6.91

2.41
2.54
2.48
2.00
2.68
2.76
2.12
2.46
2.77
2.64
2.40
2.73
3.02
2.79
2.98
3.43
3.55
3.89
4.03
3.35
4.17

2.49
2.35
1.96
2.44
2.33
2.26
1.91
2.08
2.66
2.98
2.63
3.00
2.89
2.66
2.84
3.70
3.79
4.49
5.18
5.57
6.23

2.44
2.84
2.23
2.82
2.98
2.89
2.64
2.78
3.30
3.61
3.42
3.74
3.40
3.14
3.60
4.28
4.21
4.95
5.59
4.93
5.63

fected by erratic changes in birth rates, each
had higher unemployment rates than adults,
each had substantially higher rates during re­
cessions, and, beginning in 1963, each experi­
enced a material deterioration in its position
relative to adults in the same color-sex group.
Despite these similarities in experience of
various groups of teenagers, notable contrasts
appear in employment and unemployment de­
velopments among youths. From 1955 to 1963,
no significant or sustained increases in Negro
youth employment took place, while employ­
ment rose 600,000, or 19 percent, for white
youth. During this period, the Negro teenager
unemployment rate about doubled, compared
with a rise of one-half for the white teenage
rate. Although employment has increased for
Negro youth since 1963, their unemployment
has also continued to edge up. In contrast, the
number of unemployed white 16-19 year-olds
has declined since 1963.
In the early 1950’s the Negro teenage rate
averaged about one-quarter higher than the
white rate. Beginning in the mid-1950’s, the
jobless rate of Negro relative to white teenag­
ers began to further deteriorate, becoming al­
most double the rate of whites. The economic
resurgence since 1964 brought the unemploy­
ment rate of white teenagers down to 11 from
15 percent, but the Negro rate failed to show
comparable improvement. As a consequence,
Negro teenage jobless rates ran about 125 per­
cent higher than the rate for whites during the
last 3 years.
If we look at white-Negro unemployment
rates among teenage males and females sepa­
rately, we find that the jobless rate is higher for
both Negro men and women. In 1968, for exam­
ple, the rate for Negro teenage males was about
120 percent higher than the rate for whites, and
it was almost 140 percent higher for females.
(See table A12.) Relative to white teenagers,
Negro females have always been worse off than
Negro males. In the last two decades, both male
and female Negro teenagers have slipped rela­
tive to whites. The Negro male teenager has
slipped even more than the female. His jobless
rate, relative to whites, has about doubled; hers
has increased about two-thirds. While the
Negro male’s relative position has deteriorated
more than that of the Negro female, the jobless

6

rate for Negro females still is, in absolute terms
or relative to whites, much higher than that of
the Negro male.
During the 1950’s, the unemployment rate for
all teenage males ran about 10 percent higher
than the rate for females. Since 1963, however,
the situation has been reversed, and the teenage
male’s unemployment rate is about 10 percent
lower than the female rate. The relative deterio­
ration in the position of females compared with
males has occurred primarily among white fem­
ales. (See table A12.)
The experience of 16-17 and 18-19 year age
categories differ from one another. The
younger group still heavily represent those in
secondary schools in most months of the year
and are more apt to be subject to legal or workconnected restrictions. The 18-19 year-olds are
largely out of secondary schools, but the boys
are subject to draft calls.
In the last 20 years, the unemployment rates
for 16-17 year-olds has been consistently higher
than that of the older teenage group, and the
postwar increase in rates was sharper for
16-17 year-olds. The increase in unemployment
rates for teenage girls, previously noted, was
sharpest in the 18-19 age group. (See tables A7
and A8.)
Unemployment rates for Negro 16-17 and
18-19 year-olds closely followed the pattern of
their combined total. In both 2-year age groups,
the rates for Negroes rose more than that for
whites between 1948 and 1963 and declined less
afterward. In 1967 and 1968, the Negro rates
were about 30 percent for 16-17 year-olds and
23 percent for 18-19 year-olds, both rates more
than double those for comparable white age
groups.
P o v er ty a r e a s . In the poverty neighborhoods5
of the Nation’s 100 largest cities, the teenage
unemployment rate was 20 percent in 1968, sub­
stantially above the national average of 12.7
percent. Only 100,000 unemployed 16-19 yearolds, one-eighth of the U.S. total, lived in these
poverty neighborhoods. However, Negro
youngsters were a disproportionately large
concentration. About one-third of all unem­
ployed Negro 16-19 year-olds lived in these 100
poverty neighborhoods; the comparable propor­
tion was only one-fifteenth for white teenagers.




These data underscore the widespread nature
of the unemployment problem for Negro youth.
Negro 16-19 year-olds outside the poverty
areas had almost as high an unemployment rate
as those in poverty neighborhoods. On the other
hand, the poverty area rates for white teenag­
ers were about 30 percent higher than for
whites in the other neighborhoods of large cit­
ies. Moreover, the employment situation for
white youngsters in the poverty areas was
much better than for Negro youngsters outside
poverty neighborhoods.
D u r a t io n
m ent.

and

s e a s o n a l it y

of

u n em plo y­

While unemployment rates of young per­
sons are substantially higher than those for
older workers, the duration of unemployment is
much shorter. About 55 percent of the teenag­
ers were unemployed less than 5 weeks during
the year, compared with 43 percent of those
over age 24.6 Conversely, less than 20 percent
of young persons had been unemployed 15
weeks or more during the year compared with
25 percent of persons age 25 and over. Among
those who were unemployed, relatively more
teenage girls had been jobless for less than 5
weeks compared with males. Unemployment
was not only more frequent among Negro than
white youths, but relatively more Negroes had
been unemployed a total of 15 weeks or more
during the year. About 16 percent of the white,
but 25 percent of Negro teenagers had been
unemployed that long during 1967.
The monthly data on teenage unemployment
indicate much the same story as the annual
work experience data. In 1968, about 63 percent
of all unemployed 16-19 year-olds had been
seeking work for less than 5 weeks. (See table
A17.) Another 28 percent had been jobless 5 to
14 weeks, and the remaining 9 percent had
sought work for 15 weeks or longer. The pro­
portions are not comparable to data from the
annual work experience survey, since the latter
includes all persons who had been in the labor
force anytime during the year—not just the
current month—and reports total length of un­
employment during the year—not just the
length of a current spell of unemployment.
Almost 75 percent of total teenage unemploy­
ment in 1968 arose because of entrance or

7
reentrance into the labor force. The largest
group of jobless teenagers—330,000 or 39 per­
cent of the total—were new entrants, persons
who had never held a full-time civilian job for 2
weeks or longer. A higher proportion of girls
(47 percent) than boys (32 percent) were new
entrants. Another 280,000 unemployed 16-19
year-olds (34 percent of the total) were reen­
tering the labor force—most of them after at­
tending school.
Just over 25 percent of all teenage jobseekers
in 1968 were persons who began seeking work
immediately after losing or leaving a job. Ap­
proximately 130,000 (15 percent of all unem­
ployed teenagers) were seeking work because
they had lost their last jobs. Another 100,000
(12 percent of the total) had left their previous
jobs and immediately began to look for other
employment.
During the 1968 school year, teenage jobless­
ness ranged from about 600, to 775,000, but in
June and July it soared to 1.6 and 1.3 million,
respectively. (See table A18.) For the entire
year, teenage unemployment averaged 840,000,
or about 140,000 above the school-year average;
virtually all of this difference is accounted for
by the summertime increase in those seeking
full-time employment. During the school
months, an average of 335,000 16-19 year-olds
were seeking full-time work; this figure rose to
an average of 900,000 for the 3 summer
months. In contrast, the number of teenagers
seeking part-time jobs was about the same
(360,000) during the school year and the sum­
mer months.
Approximately 43 percent of all unemployed
teenagers in 1968 were seeking part-time jobs.
During the school year this proportion was up
to 53 percent. A larger proportion of teenage
boys (58 percent) than girls (47 percent) was
looking for part-time work during the school
months. School enrollment rates are higher for
boys and, therefore, they have a greater need to
find part-time jobs after school and on the
weekends.
In the last 20 years, there has been no signifi­
cant change in the composition of youth unem­
ployment in the summertime or in the school
year. The teenage level during the school year
(the 9 months excluding June, July, and Au­




gust) remained between 86 and 91 percent of
the annual average unemployment level
throughout the 1948-66 period. Changes in un­
employment definitions introduced in January
1967 tended to lower the school-year average
unemployment level moderately for youth. Con­
siderably more variation appeared between the
June-July unemployment averages (the two
high months) and that for the entire year
(ranging from about 137 to 169), but no trend
is apparent. (See table A19.)
Between 1963 and 1966, the proportion of un­
employed teenagers seeking part-time jobs rose
steadily—from 31.4 to 36.1 percent. (See table
A20.) This shift resulted from a drop in the
number looking for full-time work while the
number seeking part-time jobs remained con­
stant. The substantial rise in school enrollment
rates for teenagers since the early 1960,s has
been reflected in a rapid increase in part-time
employment. For example, from 1963 to 1966,
voluntary part-time employment for 16-19
year-olds rose by about 45 percent, while the
increase in full-time employment was 25 per­
cent. In 1966, 41 percent of all employed teenag­
ers were voluntarily working part time; only 3
years earlier the proportion had been 37 per­
cent. As would be expected, the proportions
working and seeking part-time employment are
substantially higher during the school months
than for the entire year.
Unemployment rates for teenagers seeking
full- and part-time work both declined over the
1963-66 period. However, the full-time rate
dropped more—from 18.7 to 13.7 percent—and
the gap between the full- and part-time rates
narrowed somewhat. School-year unemploy­
ment rates followed the same pattern as the
full-year rates. However, the rate for teenagers
seeking part-time work was moderately lower
during the school months than for the entire
year. Changes in concepts make comparisons
between 1966 and 1967 impossible, and the
overall teenage unemployment picture and its
full-time, part-time composition did not change
between 1967 and 1968.
The composition of teenage employment
E m p l o y m e n t b y I n d u s t r y . The most striking
change in the industrial composition of employ-

8

for a longer period, as noted below.) Among the
16-19 year-old group, employment is heavily
concentrated in retail trade, services, and man­
ufacturing. In 1968 these three industries em­
ployed 75 percent of all working 16-19 yearolds. Between 1963 and 1968, the proportion of
16-19 year-olds employed in education and
other professional services rose from 9.3 to 12.5
percent, and the proportion in public adminis­
tration also increase (1.8 to 2.8 percent). Over
the same 1963-68 period, the proportion in pri­
vate household employment declined from 10 to
7.2 percent. (See table 1.3.)
In 1968, teenagers made up 7.5 percent of
total nonagricultural employment, but they con­
stituted substantially larger proportions in
three industries—retail trade (16 percent), en­
tertainment and recreational services (22 per­
cent) and private households (20 percent). Em­
ployment in private households and small retail
trade and service establishments is generally
not covered by the Federal minimum wage.
Hence, all of the teenagers working as domes­
tics and babysitters, and many of them em­
ployed as camp counselors, waiters, waitresses,
and sales clerks are exempt from minimum
wage provisions. On the other hand, there are

ment of teenagers has been the shift out of
agriculture. In the late 1940’s, about 20 percent
of all employed teenagers worked in agricul­
ture ; in the 1966-68 period the proportion was
down to 7 percent. (See table A21.) Agricul­
ture, however, still employs a sizable proportion
(about 11 percent) of all 16-19 year-old boys.
m terms of absolute numbers, teenage em­
ployment in agriculture fell from about 750,000
in 1948 to 400,000 in 1968. Despite this drop,
teenagers have maintained their share of total
out the postwar period. In the nonagricultural
agricultural employment—10 percent through­
out the post-war period. In the nonagricultural
sector, youth employment fluctuated around the
3 million mark from the late 1940’s until 1959.
In 1959 and 1960 teenage employment in non­
agricultural industries began to rise strongly,
reaching 5.4 million in 1968. During the
1966-68 period teenagers were about 7.5 per­
cent of all nonagricultural workers, up from
about 5.5 to 6.0 percent during the 1950’s and
early 1960’s.
Data on the distribution of 16-19 year-old
teenagers among nonagricultural industries are
not available except for recent years. (Materi­
als for the 14-19 year-old group are available
Table 1.3.

Employed 16-19 year olds by nonagricultural industries, annual average, 1963 and 1968

Industry

T o ta l.,-____________ __________________________

1Not available separately; included under "other professional.'




Industrial
distribu­
tion of
employed
teens

Percent of total
employed in industry
Total

Mining___ __________________________________________
Construction................. ................... .............................................
Manufacturing________________________________________
Durables_________________ ____ ___________________
Nondurables______________________________________
Transportation................ ....... _ ______________________
Railroads____ ____________________________________
Other transportation_______________________________
Other utilities__________________________ ________
Trade_______ ___________ _________________________
Wholesale________________________________________
Retail________________
________________________
Finance____ _________________________________________
Service, __________________________________________
Business and repairs____________ _____ _____ _______
Personal, except private households__________________
Entertainment_______ ____ ______________ _________ _
Medical, except hospitals_______ _______________ ____
Hospitals_____________ _______ ______________ _____
Welfare and religion_______________________________
Education_____________________________ ____ ______
Other professional_________________________________
Forest and fisheries______ _____ ________ __________
Private household_________ _______ ____ ____ ___________
Public administration____________ ____ ______ ______ ____

1963

1968

Industrial
distribu­
tion of
employed
teens

Male

Female

Percent of total
employed in industry
Total

Male

Female

100.0

7.5

4.0

3.4

100.0

6 .0

3.2

2 .8

0 .2

2.5
5.1
4.8
4.1
5.8
4.3

2.3
4.8
3.2
2.9
3.6
2.3
1.5
2.7

0.4
.3

4.7

3.7

3.5

0.2

1 .6
1 .2
2.2
2 .1

18.8
8.5
10.3
4.0

2 .6
2 .1

1 .0

.8

1.5
2.3
35.5
2.5
33.0
5.6
19.6
3.1
4.1

4.0
3.1
5.1
3.3
.9
3.0
4.7
10.5
3.9

4.3
18.5
9.3
9.2
4.1

.2

1.4
2.4
36.4

2 .2

34.2
4.4

2 2 .0

2.7
3.8

2 .8
1 .6

3.3
.7
5.6
1.3
.1
7.2

2 .8

1 .8

3.5

6 .1

13.9
4.7
15.9

6.6

7.0
6.5
8.3

2 2 .2

5.9
7.0
5.3
5.5
5.3
6.6
19.8
3.5

2.1

8.5
3.3
9.6
1.3
3.1
4.7
3.0
15.2

1 .0
2 .1
2 .2

2.2
2.5
5.5
3.5
1.5

.2

.3

4.0
5.4
1.4

6 .2

5.2
3.9

1 .8

5.2
7.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.3
2.9
1.1
16.3

2 .0

2 .8

0)
C1)
<9

3.6
i5.7
.3

10 .0
1 .8

12 .0
6 .8

5.4

6 .1

6.3
18.7
O)
<9
0)

3.6

1 4 .5

9.3
16.5
1.9

1.4

3.2
1.7
.7

1.9

1 .6
.2

2 .2

.7
3.0
4.0

1.7
6.5
2.7
7.3
1.3
2.5
4.3
2.4
13.3
O)
0)
<9

1.5

1 1.1
8.5
3.3
.6

1.2

4.6
5.5
2.9
1.7
3.9
5.2
(9
<9
<9

2 .1

13.3
.8
13.2
1.3

9
few teenagers (less than 5 percent of total em­
ployment) in mining, construction, durable
goods manufacturing, and transportation,
where minimum wage coverage is almost uni­
versal.
Some perspective on the changes that have
occurred in the industrial distribution of em­
ployment can be gained from the decennial cen­
sus, though here we include the 14-19 teenage
group. After standardizing for changes in the
size of the population groups over time, the
movement of teenagers out of agriculture
is, again, striking. Between 1940 and 1960, the
net employment shift out of agriculture
among 14-17 year-old boys was about 44 per­
cent compared with 25 percent for 18-19 yearolds and only 8 percent for all men.7
Among young girls, the shift out of agricul­
ture was smaller (19 percent for those 14-17
and 4 percent for those 18-19), but the shift out
of private household employment was substan­
tial (about 18 percent during the two decades
compared with 10 percent for all women). Al­
most all of the movement out of household em­
ployment occurred between 1940 and 1950 as
the economy moved from the last years of the
depression through World War II and the im­
mediate postwar periods of expanded job op­
portunities.
Among males, retail trade was particularly
affected by the employment shifts. Between
1940 and 1960, the net shift into retail trade
was 20 percent for 14-17 year olds and 10 per­
cent for those 18-19; for all males, there was a
slight (0.2) shift out of retail trade. Services
and manufacturing also absorbed a dispropor­
tionate number of young males.
A large number of 14-17 year-old teenage
girls were also absorbed into retail trade (a net
employment shift of 28 percent between 1940
and 1960), and also an appreciable number
shifted into services, especially professional and
related services (7 percent). Among the older
teenage girls, the important sectors of expand­
ing employment opportunity were finance, in­
surance, real estate (9.3 percent net shift) and
services (6.6 percent).
E m p l o y m e n t b y o c c u p a t io n . Teenage employ­
ment is concentrated primarily in four occupa­




tions—clerical workers (1.3 million), opera­
tives, service workers except private household
workers (together 1.0 million each), and non­
farm laborers (800,000). In 1968, these occupa­
tions included 72 percent of total teenage em­
ployment, up from 67 percent in 1963. (See table
A25.) Between 1963 and 1968, the proportion of
teenagers in two low-skilled occupations, farm
laborers and private household workers, fell
from 17 to 12 percent. There are sharp differ­
ences in the teenage occupational distribution
by sex. Approximately 2.1 million, or 84 per­
cent, of the girls employed in 1968 worked in
clerical, sales, or service jobs. On the other
hand, 2.6 million, or 80 percent, of the employed
16-19 year-old boys were in blue-collar, miscel­
laneous service, or farm laboring jobs.
Many teenagers work in the lowest skill occu­
pations. In 1968, When 16-19 year-olds made up
7.6 percent of total employment, they were
roughly 20 percent of all private household
workers, farm laborers, and nonfarm laborers.
On the other hand, few teenagers are among the
skilled craftsmen (2.5 percent) and profes­
sional and technical workers (1.7 percent). Not
surprisingly, youth employment in the manage­
rial occupations (both farm and nonfarm) is
almost nonexistent.
Persons under age 20 constituted about 11
percent of the total number of persons on active
military duty last year, the lowest percentage in
the period since World War II. (See table 1.4.)
While the number of young people in active mil­
itary duty has been higher during war periods,
the proportion of military personnel under age
20 has generally been lower during war.
The proportion of 18 to 19 year-old men in
the Armed Forces has declined since the 1950's.
During the early 1950's, when persons born in
the depression were in the 18 to 19 group, about
23 percent of the males were in the Armed
Forces, compared with 13 percent the last 5
years as the relatively large number of persons
born during the 1940's came of age.8
Military service

Since June 1948, the military draft has been
in continuous existence in the United States.9
During the late 1940's, military personnel on

10
Table 1.4. Military personnel on active duty, inductees,
and First Enlistments, 1947-68
[In thousands]

Year

18-19
year old
male
popula­
tion as
of July 1

1947__________ 12,277
1948__________ i 2,254
1949__________ 2,268
1950__________ 2,214
1951__...........
2,125
1952__________ 2,071
1953__________ 2,111
1954__________ 2,148
1955__________ 2,136
1956__________ 2,193
1957__________ 2,264
1958__________ 2,296
1959__________ 2,376
1960__________ 2,530
1961__________ 2,807
1962__________ 2,889
1963__________ 2,815
1964__________ 2,805
3,305
1965____ _____
1966__________ 3,696
1967__________ 3,592
1968__________ 3,584

Military
person­
nel on
active
duty as
of July 1

1,561
1,462
1,610
1,481
3,279
3,661
3,590
3,331
2,964
2,835
2,823
2,656
2,553
2,531
2,549
2,860
2,749
2,748
2,698
3,140
3,449
3,593

Military
First
induc­ enlist­
tees in ments
year
in year
ending ending
June 30 June 30

(2>
<2>
(2>

( 2)
587
379
564
265
215
137
180
127

111

90
60
158
74
151
103
340
299
340

( 2)
( 2)
( 2)

(2>

630
510
343
329
440
371
303
271
309
324
360
385
328
345
318
548
483
513

Military
person­
nel
under
age 20 on
active
duty as
of July 1

536
355
417
266
464
490
464
455
545
575
590
435
407
427
423
453
379
355
374
493

668

403

Military
person­
nel
under
age 20 as
percent
of all
military
person­
nel
34.3
24.3
25,9
18,0
14.2
13.4
12.9
13.7
18.4
20.3
20.9
16.4
15.9
16.9
16.6
15.8
13.8
12.9
13.9
15.7
19.4

11.2

Military
person­
nel
under
age 20 as
percent
of male
popula­
tion
18-19
23.5
15.7
18,4

12,0
2 1 .8

23.7

2 2 .0
21.1

25.5
26.2
26.1
18.9
17.1
16.9
15.1
15.7
13.5
12.7
11.3
13.3
18.6

11 .2

1 Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
2 Not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Report, Series P-25, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary, Annual
Report, Selected Manpower Statistics, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract.

active duty averaged about 1.5 million; the
number rose to about 3.5 million during the Ko­
rean war. From the mid-lDSO's to the mid1960’s, slightly more than 2.5 million were on
active duty; the number again approached 3.5
million in the last 3 years as a consequence of
the Viet Nam war.
Inductions into the military service reached a
peak during the Korean war—587,000 were
drafted in 1951, then gradually dropped to a
low of 60,000 in 1961, and rose again in the last
3 years to an average of about 325,000 induc­
tees. Enlistments into the armed forces have
roughly paralleled draft calls.
Since the mid-lOSO's, the age of persons
drafted has been on the average in the low 20’s.
According to U.S. Department of Defense data,
the average age of inductees was slightly more
than 22 from 1956 through 1966, but in the last
few years, average age has been closer to 20.
(See table A26.) Persons enlisting in the Armed
Forces for the first time have generally been
younger than inductees. Their average age had
been about 18 and one-half years from 1956 to




1964, but in the last 3 years has averaged
slightly more than 19 years of age. (See table
A26.)
According to available evidence, military
service has not posed any greater burden upon
the young today than was true during the Ko­
rean war. In fact, the burden is smaller relative
to the size of their population. The uncertainty
of when or whether young men would be
drafted has frequenlty been cited, however, as a
reason for employment problems in the civilian
labor market.
A supplement to the Current Population Sur­
vey in October and November 1964 provides
some information on this problem.10 The sur­
vey covered civilian males, 16- to 34-years old.
About 15 percent of those who had not entered
the military and were not attending school full
time claimed that they had been told by an em­
ployer that they could not be hired because they
might be drafted.
Males in the 19-21 year-age group reported a
negative employer response more frequently
than others, though among males classified 1-A,
the proportion reporting a negative experience
continued to increase through the 22-25 yearold group. (The latter had, of course, a longer
exposure to the labor market and, hence, a
greater possibility of a negative experience.)
Those who had not completed high school re­
ported a negative experience less frequently (8
percent) and those who had some college train­
ing but had not graduated reported a negative
experience most often (25 percent). This pat­
tern held true when standardized for age as
well as for all age groups combined.
The overall proportion of'veterans reporting
a similar experience before entering the service
was about the same, though veterans who were
college graduates and who entered the service
in their twenties reported a negative experience
more frequently than their counterparts who
had not entered the m ilitary.

A substantial minority (about 30 percent) of
the group covered by the survey expressed the
belief that uncertainty over whether they would
be drafted had caused them difficulties. The
question asked however, did not specify employ­
ment problems as distinct from school or per­
sonal problems.

11
In general, the survey only indicates that
about 15 percent of the group had been refused
employment due to the possibility of the draft,
and that the problem was more common among
the better educated and among the most “draftable”—those classified 1-A and 19 years of age
or over.
A 1964 survey of 190 local public employment
offices providing special placement services for
high school graduates and dropouts indicated
that 26 percent of the offices contacted reported
no employer discrimination on the basis of mili­
tary status and 61 percent reported that less
than 25 percent of the employers in the area
discriminated. Twenty-seven percent of the
offices reported that the draft had no significant
effects on the ability of young men to find work;
only 12 percent reported a great effect. Similar
results were reported in a survey of offices per­
forming regular Employment Service
functions.11
Whether or not the results of these surveys
conducted in 1964 would hold true in the recent
years of higher draft calls and greater involve­
ment in Viet Nam is uncertain.
The Fair Labor Standards Act

The Fair Labor Standards Act was
signed July 25, 1938, and became effective on
October 24 of that year. The law provided for
an initial minimum wage of 25 cents, required
payment of time and one-half for hours in ex­
cess of 44 a week, and set 16 as the minimum
age for general employment in establishments
producing goods for shipment or delivery in in­
terstate commerce. If each occupation was de­
clared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor, the
minimum age for employment was 18. Employ­
ment of 14- and 15-year olds was permitted out­
side school hours in a few occupations.
The original act provided for increases in the
basic minimum to 30 cents in 1939 and to 40
cents in 1945, and required payment of pre­
mium overtime rates after 42 hours in 1939 and
40 hours in 1940. Special industry committees,
could recommend rates above the 30-cent limit,
but not more than 40 cents, prior to 1945.
H is t o r y .




Table 1.5. Minimum wage and maximum hours levels
under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
Minimum wage

Maximum hours

Effective date
covered

October 24,1938.... ..........
October 24, 1939__ ___ _ _
October 24, 1940.................
October 24, 1945..______

$0.25
.30

.75

March 1,1956__________

1.0 0

September 3,
September 3,
September 3,
September 3,

1961__ ____
1963...........
1964. ____
1965_______

1.15
1.25

1967________
1968________
1969. . _____
1970 .............
1971 _ _

1:40
1.60

1,
1,
1,
1,
1,

44
42
40

Enactment date

i June 1938

.40

January 25, 1950________

February
February
February
February
February

newly covered newly
covered
covered

V1

October 1949
August 1955
$1.0 0

May 1961
44
42
40,

1.15
1.25,

1.0 0

1.15
1.30
2 1.45
21.60

-X

-

2

44

2

40

242

September 1966

1An amendment enacted June 26, 1940, authorized special industry committees
to recommend rates above the then 30-cent legal minimum, but not above 40 cents,
permitting those industries to reach the 40-cent minimum rate before October 24,
1945, when that rate would become effective, generally, for all covered employment.
The industry committees were predominantly in the apparel and textiles industries.
2 Not applicable to newly covered farm workers.

Initially, coverage of the law was re­
stricted. Government, agriculture, and retail
trade were virtually excluded, as well as most of
the service industry and more than half of con­
struction. The law also contained many exemp­
tions for workers based on the industries or oc­
cupations in which they were employed. In ad­
dition, it excluded establishments not engaged
in interstate commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce or activities necessary for
such operations. In all, about half of the nonsupervisory workers in the private Sector were
covered by the law. (See table 1.5.)
Though the law was, practically nullified by
inflation and rapidly rising money wages dur­
ing and immediately after World War II, the
basic minimum under the law was not changed
until 1950 when the minimum was raised to 75
cents. Although coverage provisions were
amended to incorporate clarifications of the lan­
guage and to include only those workers “closely
related and directly essential” rather than those
“necessary” to the production of goods for in­
terstate commerce, the coverage changes were
negligible. In 1956, the minimum wage became
$1 an hour, but coverage was not changed.
Prior to the 1960’s, increases in the number
of persons covered by the law was attributable
to employment growth or shifts of employment
from sectors not covered by the law to others,

12

such as the shift out of agriculture; changes in
the law itself were not important.
In 1961, Congress substantially expanded
coverage by including all employees of an enter­
prise that had some employees engaged in inter­
state commerce or the production of goods for
interstate commerce. Dollar volume tests were
established as a basis for enterprise coverage.
As a consequence, the number of persons cov­
ered in retail trade, construction, and public
transit increased substantially. The proportion
of nonsupervisory employees covered by the law
had been increased to about 60 percent from 50
percent.
The 1961 amendments also increased the
basic minimum to $1.15 in 1961 and to $1.25 in
1963. Newly covered workers were granted a
minimum wage of $1, which was raised in two
steps to $1.25 by September 1965.
Even more extensive than the 1961 amend­
ments, the 1966 amendments to the law brought
a half-million workers on large farms under
coverage of the law. Also hospitals and schools,
whether public or private; nursing homes;
laundries; and many hotels, motels, and res­
taurants were brought under coverage. Fur­
ther, the enterprise sales test was dropped from
the $1 million under the 1961 amendments to
$500,000 in 1967 and to $250,000 in 1969. As a
consequence, nonsupervisory workers subject to
the law increased from approximately 60 per­
cent in the private sector under the 1961
amendments to over 75 percent.11
In addition to the extensions of coverage, the
1966 amendments raised the minimum wage to
$1.40 in 1967 and $1.60 in 1968 for workers
previously covered and set a minimum of $1 for
newly covered workers effective February 1,
1967, to be raised by 15-cent intervals each year
until $1.60 is reached in 1971. (The minimum
wage for agricultural workers stopped at the
$1.30 reached in 1969.)
M i n i m u m w a g e s a n d e a r n in g s o f w o r k e r s .

While the basic minimum wage has increased
more than six fold since 1938, during the same
period, a substantial increase has taken place in
money wage levels. In manufacturing, where
monthly records on earnings extending far back
in time, the minimum wage was about 41 per­




cent of average hourly earnings when the law
first became effective in October 1938. (See
table A28.) The following year the minimum
wage rose to about 48 percent of average hourly
earnings. By the time of the scheduled increase
in the minimum to 40 cents in 1945, increases in
average hourly wages had made the new mini­
mum relatively no more meaningful than the
original 25 cents. The changes in the basic mini­
mum after the 1940’s have kept the minimum at
about 50 to 55 percent of average hourly earn­
ings in manufacturing in the month when the
change was effective.
Table 1.6. Proportion of earnings covered by the
Federal minimum wage, 1947-681
Basic minimum wage
as a percent o f2
Year

1947________
1948________
1949________
1950 e_______
1951________
1952........ .
1953________
1954........ .
1955________
1956 3______
1957________
1958________
1959________
1960________
1961 s_______
1962________
1963 «_______
1964________
1965________
1966................
1967e_______
1968 e_______

Average
hourly
earnings
private
nonfarm

Total
compen­
sation per
man-hour
private
nonfarm

35.4
32.7
31.4
56.2
51.7
49.3
46.6
45.5
43.4
53.2
52.9
51.3
49.5
47.8
49.1
51.8
51.9
53.0
51.0
48.8
53.8
55.6

31.3
28.7
27.9
49.6
45.5
43.1
40.8
39.5
38.1
46.0
43.4
41.9
40.1
38.5
40.9
43.1
42.9
43.3
41.8
39.5
41.5
44.0

Minimum wages as a Minimum wages as a
percent of average
percent of average
hourly earnings
hourly earnings
weighted by industry weighted by industry
teenage employment
total employment
and proportion of
and proportion
total employment
covered 8
private nonfarm
covered *
private nonfarm

20.3
19.1
18.0
32.3
30.1
28.4
26.9
25.8
24.8
30.7
29.8
28.3
27.3
26.2
28.3
32.8
32.5
33.4
32.5
31.5
39.2
42.6

<6)
(»)
<8>
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
18.2

17.6
21.0
20.2
18.4
18.1
17.8
21.0
27.7

27.1
27.7
27.1
26.7
36.9
40.1

1 In years when the minimum wage changed, the rate used in the calculations was
weighted by the number of months it was in effect. For example in 1968, $1.40 was in
effect 1 month and $1.60 for 11 months, a weighted average rate of $1.58.
2 The basic minimum refers to the single rate provided under law prior to 1961 and,
since 1961, to the rate applicable to previously covered workers.
3 Calculated, as follows:

e [i [(m • -) +on • -)I

where:
E=payroll employment.
A HE— average hourly earnings.
MP=basic minimum wage.
MN— minimum wage for newly covered workers.
disproportion of nonsupervisory employees covered by the basic minimum,
disproportion of nonsupervisory employees covered by the rate applicable to
newly covered workers.
ismajor industry division (wholesale and retail trade treated as separate
divisions).
tstotal private nonfarm economy.
4 Calculations are the same as in footnote 3 except that employment data refer to
the 14-19 age group only. Employment data are not strictly comparable to that for all
workers since it comes from household rather than payroll records and because govern­
ment employment not classified as public administration is included in the other divi­
sions; private households were excluded.
6 Not available.
6
Denotes years when basic minimum wage was changed. There were also changes
for newly covered workers in 1964 and 1965.

13
As in manufacturing, minimum wages have,
in the year the change was effective, averaged
slightly over 50 percent of average hourly earn­
ings in the private nonfarm sector as a whole in
the postwar period. The constant rise in money
wages in the intervening years, however, con­
stituted a partial repeal of the effective mini­
mum wage level. The 75-cent minimum effective
in 1950, for example, was 56 percent of average
hourly earnings. The rapid rise in wages during
and after the Korean war brought the percen­
tage down to 43 in 1955. (See table 1.6.)
The comparison between the basic minimum
wage and average hourly earnings both over­
states and understates what has happened to
the legal minimum compared with actual earn­
ings. The comparison is overstated in that it
does not take into consideration the increasing
importance of supplements to compensation,
such as pensions, health insurance plans, and so
forth. Studies indicate that low-wage firms and
industries pay out less in the form of fringe
benefits than do high-wage firms and industries.
Only legally required payments such as social
security and unemployment compensation are
common in low-wage sectors.
Since workers paid at or near the legal mini­
mum rate are less likely to receive fringe bene­
fits, comparisons are more properly made to
total compensation (including fringes) per
man-hour rather than earnings alone. In the
private nonfarm economy, the minimum wage
was 44 percent of total compensation per man­
hours in 1968 compared with 49.6 percent in
1950 when the 75-cent minimum was made
effective, a decline of 11.3 percent in the pro­
portion. When the comparison was restricted to
earnings alone, the comparable figures indi­
cated a more modest decline of 1.1 percent.
The comparisons between minimum wages
and average hourly earnings or total compensa­
tion per man-hour understates minimum wage
developments in that they take no note of the
significant expansions of coverage that occurred
in 1961 and 1967. Nor do previous comparisons
note that, since 1961, two minimum wage rates
have been applicable to different groups of
workers.
When applicable minimum wages are com­
puted as a percent of average hourly earnings
in each major industry division and weighted




by the proportion of workers covered by the
applicable minimum and the employment in the
industry division, we find a substantial rise in
the effectiveness of minimum wage laws.
The method of calculation can be illustrated
with the following hypothetical example. Sup­
pose there are only two industry divisions in the
country and the following facts are known:
Proportion of
total employ- A verage
m ent in all earn ings
Indus­ industries
hourly
try
(In percent)

A . . . ___ 40
B ___ ___ 60
Total . 100

P roportion of nonsupervisory work
force in industry covered by

—
----------------------------------------------------------------------

$1.60
m inimum

$2.50
3.50

60
90

$1.30
M iniNo
mum m inimum
(In percent)

20
10

20
..................

Total

100
100

The minimum wage as a percent of earnings
weighted by coverage and industry employment
would be:

= .464 or 46.4 percent.

Measured this way, minimum wages effectively
rose from about 32 percent of earnings in 1950
to 43 in 1968 after taking coverage and all ap­
plicable minimums into account—a 32-percent
increase in the proportion compared with a 1percent decline when coverage was ignored and
only the basic minimum wage considered.
If total compensation were considered, as
well as coverage, the estimated effective in­
crease in the proportion between 1950 and 1968
would have been about 18 percent.12
M in i m u m w a g e s a n d d is t r ib u t io n o f t e e n a g e

A disproportionately large num­
ber of teenagers are employed in the trades and
services which have been especially affected by
the 1961 and 1966 amendments to the law. We
have no exact information on the number of
teenagers who work in establishments covered
by the FLSA or on the relationship between
their wage rates and the level of the minimum
wage.
An approximation of the effects of expansion
in coverage can be made, however, if we com­
pute, as before, minimum wages as a percen-

em plo ym en t.

14

tage of average hourly earnings in each major
division and weight by the proportion of work­
ers covered by the applicable minimums, but
use the proportion of teenage employment in
each division rather than the proportion of total
employment.
The significant comparison is between the
data using teenage and that using total employ­
ment. Averaging the years 1954 to 1960, teen­
age employment weights give us an estimate of
minimum wages as a percentage of earnings of
approximately 19 percent compared with about
28 percent when total employment is used.
While the teenage employment weights yield a
figure about 68 percent as large for 1954-60, it
rose to about 82 percent for 1961-66 and 94
percent for 1967-68.
The estimates are not precise: they do not
take into consideration the shift of teenagers
out of agriculture and they do not account for
the proportion of teenagers employed in small
establishments not covered by FLSA. The only
important point, however, is that percent
changes in coverage under the law are apt to
have had more influence on teenagers than on
older, workers.
Federal law

The basic Federal law governing the employ­
ment of children and youth is contained in the
FLSA and in the orders and regulations issued
under that law.
Minors under the age of 16sare subject to
Federal restrictions on occupations and time pe­
riods for work. In general, the FLSA sets a
basic minimum age of 16 for employment, but
permits 14- and 15-year olds to work outside
school hours in certain occupations and under
restricted conditions with respect to maximum
working hours and nightwork as set forth in
Child Labor Regulation 3. In agricultural em­
ployment, minors under 16 may not be em­
ployed during school hours or at any time in an
occupation declared hazardous by the Secretary
of Labor.
Two other Federal laws govern the employ­
ment of minors under 16. The Walsh-Healey
Public Contracts Act includes a prohibition on
the employment of minors under 16 in work




performed under a U.S. Government contract in
excess of $10,000. The Sugar Act deals with the
cultivation or harvesting of sugarbeets or su­
garcane. To qualify for maximum Federal bene­
fits under this law, producers may not employ
children under 14, or permit those of 14 or 15 to
work more than 8 hours a day.
On reaching his 16th birthday, a youth is re­
leased from all Federal restraints on his em­
ployment except for an 18-year employment age
in nonagricultural occupations declared particu­
larly hazardous by the Secretary of Labor
under FLSA, and except for any indirect effect
of the age certification program. Although there
is no Federal requirement for proof-of-age cer­
tificates or work permits for minors of any age,
under a cooperative program between the De­
partment of Labor and the States, as set forth
in Child Labor Regulation 1, State certificates
are accepted as proof of age under FLSA, and
employers are urged to obtain an age certificate
for every minor claiming to be under 18 before
employing him in any occupation, and for
every minor claiming to be 18 or 19 before em­
ploying him in a nonagricultural occupation de­
clared hazardous.
The Secretary has issued 17 hazardous occu­
pations orders establishing an 18-year mini­
mum for employment in occupations involving:
Manufacture or storage of explosives
Occupations of motor-vehicle driver and outsider
helper
Coal mining
Logging and sawmilling
Power-driven woodworking machines*
Exposure to radioactive substances and to ionizing
radiation
Operation of elevators and other power-driven
hoisting apparatus
Power-driven metal forming, punching, and shear­
ing machines*
Mining, other than coal
Slaughtering, meat-packing or processing, or rend­
ering*
Power-driven bakery machines
Power-driven paper-products machines*
Manufacture of brick, tile, and kindred products
Circular saws, band saws, and guillotine shears*
Wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking
Roofing*
Excavation*
* Apprentices and student-learners are exempted
under specified conditions.

15
FLSA does not preempt State jurisdiction in
the regulation of child and youth employment;
on the contrary the act specifically preserves
State law, thus permitting dual coverage.
Whenever both Federal and State law apply to
the same employment, the higher (more strin­
gent) standard must be observed, whether Fed­
eral or State.
State law

Every State has a child labor law, its initial
enactment having predated the Federal law by
several decades. Youth employment is also af­
fected by State compulsory school attendance
laws and by specific provisions in other types of
State laws, primarily those dealing with alco­
holic beverage control, hours and nightwork
regulated by orders issued under minimum
wage programs in a few States, double-award
requirements under workmen's compensation,
mining, occupational licensing, and restrictions
on women's working hours.
Broadly speaking, the child labor laws fall
into a pattern for this age group, although con­
siderable variation exists among State. The
most common standards relate to employment
certificate (or work permit) requirements; min­
imum employment ages during and outside
school hours, as well as in manufacturing, in
nonmanufacturing, and in hazardous or detri­
mental occupations; maximum daily and weekly
hours and days per week; and restrictions on
nightwork. Many of the State provisions are
less restrictive than comparable Federal re­
quirements. Several States also have special
provisions regulating employment in agricul­
ture, street trades, messenger work, or public
performances.
About one-fourth of the States do not impose
any general restraints on employment once the
youth has attained age 16. But in the other
States protective restrictions or requirements
of one or more types are in effect. These deal
with employment- or age-certificate require­
ments, prohibitions on hazardous work, and
limitations on maximum hours and/or night­
work. About a third of the States have re­
straints of all such types.




Most prevalent are limitations on maximum
working hours, which are distinctively State in
origin for this age group, without Federal
equivalents. Twenty-seven States, Washington,
D.C., and Puerto Rico have hours limits for
boys and girls; three, for girls only. In 11 other
States girls of 16 and 17 are subject to hours
restrictions by virtue of laws applicable to fem­
ales as such. The most common limitation is an
8-hour day, 48-hour week, and a 6-day week. In
a number of States more restrictive provisions
apply to those attending school.
Similarly without Federal equivalents are the
State nightwork restrictions, in effect in 20
States, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico for
boys and girls, and in three for girls only. The
mandatory quitting time is often later for boys
than for girls, or for those not attending school,
or on nights preceding nonschool days or during
school vacation. Although the most common
curfew is 10 p.m., a few laws have earlier cur­
fews for girls, and several have later ones for
boys and girls or for boys only.
Employment certificates are required by 20
States, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. In
most of these jurisdictions the minor is re­
quired to obtain a prior promise of employment
from the employer, and in 12 he must also pre­
sent a certificate of physical fitness. Less com­
plex procedures are in effect in six other States,
where only age certificates are mandatory.
Twenty-four States and Puerto Rico have es­
tablished an 18-year entrance age in a consider­
able number of hazardous occupations, as speci­
fied by law and/or regulation. State lists of
such occupations are usually less restrictive
than the Federal counterparts, but a few are
more restrictive or bar certain employment that
presents a moral or emotional hazard rather
than a physical danger.
The workmen's compensation laws of a third
of the States provide for the payment of extra
compensation (usually double) to a minor who
is injured while illegally employed. Under most
of these laws, the employer is specifically liable
for the additional compensation; it is not insur­
able. While not in itself a restriction on lawful
employment, this type of requirement might af­
fect employer practices.

16
There is no Federal law governing compul­
sory school attendance; this is a matter regu­
lated by State law. All States but one have com­
pulsory school attendance laws. Attendance is
usually required between the ages of 7 and 16,
but eight States have statewide full-time at­
tendance requirements until age 17 and four
others until age 18. However, in most of these
latter States children of 14, 15, or 16 may be
excused for purposes of employment. Even in
States which require attendance only until the
age of 16, many permit children below this age
to be exempted from further attendance under
a variety of circumstances related to employ­

ment, economic need, educational attainment,
uneducability, discipline, handicap, or other
particular conditions.
State restraints generally cease when the
youth reaches his 18th birthday, except for the
age provisions in Alcoholic Beverage Control
Laws, which usually establish age 21 as the
minimum in occupations involving the selling or
serving of alcoholic beverages or ages 18 to 21
in places that sell or serve such beverages.
Hours or other types of age restrictions exist in
only a very few States or affect only individual
occupations of a special nature.

-F O O T N O T E S1In this study, the terms “teenager” and “youth”
are used interchangeably. Unless otherwise stated, both
terms refer to the 16-19 age group.
2See S ta tis tic s on M an po w er, a supplement to the
Manpower Report of the President, U.S. Department
of Labor, 1969, P. 33.
3 Significantly, in October 1968, a majority of both
employed and unemployed teenagers for the first time,
were enrolled in school. See table A-29.
4Data refer to Negro and other races. Negroes con­
stitute over 90 percent of the total in this group.
5Poverty neighborhoods include the lowest quartile
of census tracts (based on 1960 Census data) in SMSA’s
of 250,000 inhabitants or more, ranked in terms of
income, education, skills, housing, and broken families.
See table A-13.
9 See tables A-14, A-15, and A-16, Data on work ex­
perience of the population in 1968 were not available
at the time this report was written.
7 See table A-24. Net employment shift between two
time periods for any group is :
Et

— ^-L , where E = employment, i = industrv,
Et




t = total, and the prime (') represents the later time
period.
8 The comparison given in the last column of table
1.4 is not strictly proper. Seventeen year-old males can
enlist with parents’ permission as is true of girls under
age 21. As of March 1969, fewer than 40,000 women
of all ages were in the Armed Forces.
9The World War II draft act expired March 31, 1947
and the draft was reinstated June 24, 1948. No persons
were drafted, however, from late 1945 to 1948.
10The results of the study, financed by the Depart­
ment of Defense, were included in appendix D of the
manuscript, M eetin g O u r M ilita ry M a n p o w er N e e d s ,
U.S. Department of Defense.
11 See table A-27 for detailed estimates for 1969.
12Historical data on total compensation per man-hour
by industry division is not currently available. An ap­
proximate calculation can be made from the materials
in table 1.6. For 1968, for example, minimum wages
as a percent of compensation weighted by coverage
would be (44.0/55.6) (42.6) = 33.7:

Appendix Tables

Table A -1 . Population, labor force, employment, unemployment, and school enrollment
16- to 19-year olds, both sexes, white, annual averages
[In thousands]
Civilian
labor
force
partici­
pation
rate

Percent change, year to year
Year

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

1955......................
1956_____________
1957_____________
1958_____________
1959.........................
1960................ .........
1961_______ _____
1962_____________
1963_______ _____
1964______
..
1965......... ............. .
1966_____________
1967_____________
1968_____________

7,293
7,346
7,505
7,844
8,432
8,924
9,212
9,344
9,979
10,618
11,320
11,863
11,683
11,841

Civilian
labor
force

3,597
3,771
3,774
3,759
4,000
4,276
4,361
4,354
4,558
4,784
5,265
5,828
5,748
5,839

Employed

3,226
3,387
3,373
3,217
3,475
3,701
3,692
3,774
3,850
4,076
4,562
5,176
5,113
5,195

Unem­
ployed

371
384
401
542
525
575
669
580
708
708
703
651
635
644

School
enroll­
ment 1

(2)
<2)

<2)
( 2)

5,442
5,694
5,777
6,172
6,872
7,415
7,921
8,177
8,107
8,599

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

.7
2.2
4.5
7.5
5.8
3,2
1.4
6.8
6.4
6.6
4.8
-1 .5
1.4

Civilian
labor
force

4.8
.1
-.4
6.4
6.9
2.0
-.2
4.7
5.0
10.1
10.7
-1 .4
1.6

Employed

4.9
-.4
-4 .6
8.0
6.5
-.2
2.2
2.0
5.9
11.9
13.5
-1 .2
1.6

Unem­
ployed

3.5
4.4
35.2
-3 .1
9.5
16.3
-1 3 .3
22.1
-.7
-7 .4
-2 .5
1.4

School
enroll­
ment

49.3
51.3
50.3
47.9
47.4
47.9
47.3
46.6
45.7
45.1
46.5
49.1
49.2
49.3

<2)
( 2)
<2)
( 2)

4.6
1.5
6.8
11.3
7.9
6.8
3.2
-.9
6.1

1Total school population in month of October.
2 Not available.




17

18
Table A -2 . Population, labor force, employment, unemployment, and school enrollment
16- to 19-year olds, both sexes, Negroes and other races, annual averages
[In thousands]
Percent change, year to year
Year

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

1955_____________
1956_____________
1957____________
1958_____________
1959_____________
1960_____________
1961_____________
1962_____________
1963_____________
1964_____________
1965_____________
1966_______ _____
1967_____________
1968_____________

1,072
1,087
1,108
1,143
1,188
1,263
1,301
1,309
1,392
1,496
1,610
1,731
1,801
1,858

Civilian
labor
force

Unem­
ployed

Employed

495
527
503
504
491
566
572
561
579
606
644
729
771
779

417
431
407
366
363
428
414
420
403
441
475
544
569
585

School
enroll­
ment 1

78
96
96
138
128
138
158
141
176
165
169
185
204
195

( 2)
<2>
( 2)
( 2)

676
722
717
714
893
963
1,062
1,126
1,182
1,271

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

Civilian
labor
force

6 .5
-4 .6

1.4
1.9
3.2
3.9
6.3
3.0
.6
6.3
7.5
7.6
7.5

15.3
1.1
-1 .9
3.2
4 .7
6 .3
13.2
5 .8

4 .0

23.1
43.8
-7 .2
7 .8
14.5
-1 0 .8
24.8
-6 .3
2 .4
9 .5
10.3
-4 .4

3 .4
-5 .6
- 1 0 .1
- .8
17.9
-3 .3
1 .4
-4 .0
9 .4
7 .7
14.5
4 .6

.2
-2 .6

1.0

3.2

Unem­
ployed

Employed

2.8

Civilian
labor
force
partici­
pation
rate

School
enroll­

ment

46.2
48 .5
45 .4
44.1
41 .3
4 4 .8
4 4 .0
4 2 .9
41 .6
40 .5
40.0
42.1
42 .8
4 1 .9

( 2)

6 .8
- .7
-.4
25.1
7 .8
10.3
6 .0
5 .0
7 .5

1Total school population in month of October.
2 Not available.

Table A -3 . School enrollment as percent of population
all persons 16- to 24-years old, by age and sex
October of 1947, 1957, and 1965-68
16 to 19 years
16 and 18 and
17 years 19 years

Total

ALL PERSONS, BOTH
SEXES
1968__________________
1967__________________
1966__________________
1965_______ __________
1957__________________
1947__________________

71.2
69.3
68.2
67.8
59.2
46.5

90.2
88.8
88.5
87.4
80.5
67.6

50.3
47.6
47.2
46.3
34.9
24.3

21.4
22.0
19.9
19.0
14.0
10.2

MALE
1968__________________
1967__________________
1966__________________
1965__________________
1957__________________
1947__________________

77.3
75.3
74.6
72.9
65.5
50.8

91.7
90.9
89.9
88.0
82.8
67.6

60.4
56.3
57.8
55.6
43.3
31.4

30.5
30.6
29.2
27.6
21.3
17.0

FEMALE
1968__________________
1967__________________
1966__________________
1965__________________
1957__________________
1947__________________
1 Not available.




65.4
63.6
62.1
62.8
53.6
42.5

88.7
86.7
87.1
86.9
78.1
67.5

41.2
40.3
37.7
37.7
28.1
18.5

14.3
15.1
12.4
11.8
8.2
3.9

22 to
20 and
21 years 24 years

31.2
33.3
29.9
27.6

O)
O)
45.0
44.3
41.4
37.6

O)
O)
21.5
24.9
20.9
19.5

O)
O)

20 to 24 years

16 to 19 years

20 to 24 years

Year and sex
Total

Table A -4 . School enrollment as percent of population
white person 16- to 24-years old, by age and sex,
October of 1947, 1957, 1965-68

13.8
13.6
13.2
13.2

(0
<9
20.4
21.0
21.3
21.1

0)
(0
8.3
7.4
6.6
6.5

<9
(9

Year and sex

WHITE PERSONS,
BOTH SEXES
____
1968________
1967__________________
1966__________________
1965
1957
1947
_____

____

Total

71.8
69.9
68 .8
68.3

16 and 18 and
17 years 19 years

Total

50.9
48.3
48 .2
47.1
34.6
24.8

22.4
22.9
21.3
20.2
14.7
10.5

61.4
57.1
59.0
56.6
4 4 .0
32.6

32 .5
32.2
31.6
29.8
22 .9
17.4

41 .3
40.9
38.6
38.3
27 .0
18.3

14.6
15.4
12.9
12.2
8 .3
4 .1

90.8
89.4
89.0
87.8

_______________
_______________
__________

<9

<l>

_______________
_______________
_____________
_______________

78.0
76.0
75.3
73.6

92.1
91.4
90.3
88.6

MALE
1968
1967
1966
1965__________________
1957
1947__________________
FEMALE
1968__________________
1967__________________
1966__________________
1965__________________
1957__________________
1947__________________
1 Not available.

(0

0
0

)
)

65 .8
64.2
62.6
63 .0

(0
(0

<9

0
0

)
)

89.4
87 .4
87.6
87 .0

<9
<9

20 and 22 to
21 years 24 years

32.8
34 .8
32 .2
29.4

0
0

)
)

47 .8
4 6 .9
4 4 .9
39.9

<9
0

)

14.5
14.1
14.0
14.1

0

21 .9
22 .0
23 .0
23.3

<9
0

22.3

25.6
22.3
20 .9

0)
<9

)

<9

)

8.2

7 .4
6 .3

6.6

(9

h

19
Table A -5 . School enrollment as percent of population,
Negroes and other races 16- to 24-years old, by age and
sex, October of 1947, 1957 and 1965-68

Table A -7 . Unemployment rates, 16 to 17 year olds,
annual averages, by color and sex
All other

White
16 to 19 years

Year

20 to 24 years

Total

Male Female

Year and sex
Total

16 and 18 and
17 years 19 years

Total

20 and
22 to
21 years 24 years

NEGROES AND OTHER
RACES, BOTH SEXES
1968__________________
1967__________________
1966__________________
1965__________________
1957__________________
1947__________________

67.7
65.2
64.0
64.3
0)
<0

86.8
85.1
85.4
84.6
0)
(0

46.8
42.8
40.0
40.1
36.7
20.2

14.0
15.3
10.2
10.2
8.8
6.9

MALE
1968____________ ____ _
1967__________________
1966_______ _____ ____
1965__________________
1957__________________
1947_______ __________

72.5
71.0
69.7
67.4
0)
0)

88.9
88.0
87.2
83.3
0)
(0

53.7
50.6
49.1
47.5
38.5
20.7

16.3
18.7
12.3
11.7
10.3
12.3

63.2
59.9
58.8
61.5

84.7
82.3
83.7
85.9

40.6
36.0
31.9
33.5
35.1
19.9

12.3
12.6
8.6
8.9
7.6
2.5

FEMALE
1968__________ ____
1967............. .......... ..........
1966_________________
1965_________________
1957__________________
1947__________________

0)
0)

0)
<9

20.2
22.4
14.2
15.5

(9
<9

25.6
26.4
17.4
21.6

(9
(9

9.2
10.0
7.5
6.3

(9
(9

9.4
13.1
8.6
4.5

(9
<9

16.3
19.3
11.6
10.4

(9
(9

1948__________
1949__________
1950__________
1951__________
1952__________
1953__________
1954__________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959....................
1960__________
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966__________
1967__________
1968__________

10.0
14.0
13.6
9.6
10.0
8.7
13.5
12.3
12.3
12.5
16.4
15.3
15.5
18.3
16.2
19.3
17.8
16.5
14.8
14.7
14.7

10.1
13.7
13.3
9.4
10.5
8.8
13.9
12.5
11.7
12.4
16.3
15.8
15.5
18.3
15.9
18.8
17.1
16.1
13.7
14.5
13.9

9.8
14.4
14.2
10.0
9.1
8.5
12.7
12.0
13.2
12.6
16.6
14.4
15.4
18.3
16.8
20.3
18.8
17.2
16.6
14.8
15.9

Total

Male Female Total

Male Female

10.0
13.5
13.6
9.6
10.3
8.7
13.2
12.0
11.5
11.9
15.2
14.4
14.6
16.7
15.3
17.9
16.5
14.8
13.3
12.8
12.9

10.2
13.4
13.4
9.5
10.9
8.9
14.0
12.2
11.2
11.9
14.9
15.0
14.6
16.5
15.1
17.8
16.1
14.7
12.5
12.7
12.3

9.4
15.8
12.1
8.7
8.0
8.3
13.4
14.8
15.7
16.3
27.1
22.3
22.7
31.0
21.9
27.0
25.9
27.1
22.5
28.9
26.6

9.6
13.6
13.8
9.6
9.3
8.3
12.0
11.6
12.1
11.9
15.6
13.3
14.5
17.0
15.6
18.1
17.1
15.0
14.5
12.9
13.9

10.2
17.3
14.1
10.3
7.4
8.8
15.4
15.0
18.0
17.0
26.5
23.0
23.7
31.0
23.9
31.8
29.5
31.1
26.9
29.9
29.5

11.8
20.3
17.6
13.0
6.3
10.3
19.1
15.4
22.0
18.3
25.4
25.8
25.7
31.1
27.8
40.1
36.5
37.8
34.8
32.0
33.7

9.1
7.5
6.5
7.8

(9
(9

1 Not available.

Table A -6 . Unemployment rates, 16- to 19-year olds,
annual averages, by color and sex
All other

White
Year

1948__________
1949__________
1950..............
1951__________
1952__________
1953__________
1954__________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959.............
1960__________
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966__________
1967.................
1968__________

Total Male Female
16-19 16-19 16-19

9.2
13.4
12.2
8.2
8.5
7.6
12.6
11.0
11.1
11.6
15.9
14.6
14.7
16.8
14.7
17.2
16.2
14.8
12.8
12.8
12.7




9.8
14.3
12.7
8.1
8.9
7.9
13.5
11.6
11.1
12.4
17.1
15.3
15.3
17.1
14.7
17.2
15.8
14.1
11.7
12.3
11.6

8.3
12.3
11.4
8.3
8.0
7.2
11.4
10.2
11.2
10.6
14.3
13.5
13.9
16.3
14.6
17.2
16.6
15.7
14.1
13.5
14.0

Table A -8 . Unemployment rates, 18 to 19 year-olds,
annual averages, by color and sex
White
Year

Total

Female Total Male Female
Total
16-19 16-19 16-19 16-19 16-19 16-19
8.9
13.0
11.8
7.8
8.3
7.5
12.1
10.4
10.1
10.6
14.4
13.1
13.5
15.3
13.3
15.5
14.8
13.4
11.2
11.0
11.0

9.8
13.9
12.4
8.0
8.8
7.9
13.4
11.3
10.5
11.5
15.7
14.0
14.0
15.7
13.7
15.9
14.7
12.9
10.5
10.7
10.1

7.7
11.7
10.9
7.6
7.5
6.9
10.4
9.1
9.7
9.5
12.7
12.0
12.7
14.8
12.8
15.1
14.9
14.0
12.1
11.4
12.1

11.2
16.9
15.3
11.0
10.5
8.8
16.6
15.6
18.1
19.1
27.4
26.1
24.3
27.7
25.3
30.3
27.3
26.5
25.4
26.2
24.9

10.0
16.6
15.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
14.4
13.4
15.0
18.4
26.8
25.2
24.0
26.8
22.0
27.3
24.3
23.3
21.3
23.8
22.1

13.4
17.6
15.6
14.1
12.8
10.1
20.6
19.2
22.8
20.2
28.4
27.7
24.8
29.2
30.2
34.7
31.6
31.7
31.3
29 6
28.7

1948__________
1949__________
1950__________
1951__________
1952__________
1953__________
1954__________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959__________
1960__________
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966__________
1967__________
1968__________

8.6
13.0
11.2
7.1
7.3
6.8
12.0
10.0
10.2
10.9
15.5
14.0
14.1
15.8
13.6
15.6
14.9
13.5
11.3
11.6
11.2

All other

Male Female

9.6
14.6
12.3
7.0
7.4
7.2
13.2
10.8
10.4
12.3
17.8
14.9
15.0
16.3
13.8
15.9
14.6
12.4
10.2
10.5
9.7

7.4
11.2
9.8
7.2
7.3
6.4
10.5
9.1
9.9
9.4
12.9
12.9
13.0
15.1
13.5
15.2
15.1
14.8
12.6
12.7
12.9

Total

Male Female Total

8.2
12.6
10.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
11.3
9.2
9.0
9.5
13.9
12.1
12.6
14.4
12.0
13.7
13.3
12.3
9.7
9.8
9.6

9.5
14.2
11.7
6.7
7.0
7.1
13.0
10.4
9.7
11.2
16.5
13.0
13.5
15.1
12.7
14.2
13.4
11.4
8.9
9.0
8.2

6.7
10.7
9.4
6.5
6.2
6.0
9.4
7.7
8.3
7.9
11.0
11.1
11.5
13.6
11.3
13.2
13.2
13.4
10.7
10.6
11.0

12.0
16.7
16.3
11.6
12.9
8.8
17.2
16.3
18.4
20.5
24.7
28.1
24.9
25.6
25.9
29.5
25.7
22.4
24.3
23.9
22.4

Male Female
10.5
17.1
17.7
9.6
10.0
8.1
14.7
12.9
14.9
20.0
26.7
27.2
25.1
23.9
21.8
27.4
23.1
20.2
20.5
20.1
19.0

14.6
15.9
14.1
15.1
16.8
9.9
21.6
21.4
23.4
21.3
30.0
29.9
24.5
28.2
31.2
31.9
29.2
27.8
29.2
28.3
26.2

20
Table A -1 1. Ratio of unemployment rates, 20 to 24 years,
to rate for 25 years and over, annual averages, by sex
and color

Table A -9 . Unemployment rates, 20-24 years old,
annual averages, by color and sex
All other

White
Year

Total

Male Female

1948__________
6.2
1949.,..........—
9.3
1950__________
7.7
1951,____ _____
4.1
1952,_________
4.6
1953__________
4.7
1954__________
9.2
1955__________
7.0
1956__________
6.6
1957__________
7.1
1958...... ...........11.2
1959__________
8.5
1960__________
8.7
1961__________ 10.4
1962— ............... . 9.0
1963...... .......... .
8.8
1964__________
8.3
1965.................... 6.7
1966__________
5.3
1967__________
5.7
1968__________
5.8

6.9
10.4
8.1
3.9
4.6
5.0
10.7
7.7
6.9
7.8
12.7
8.7
8.9
10.8
8.9
8.8
8.1
6.4
4.6
4.6
5.1

4.8
7.3
6.9
4.4
4.5
4.3
7.3
6.1
6.3
6.0
8.9
8.1
8.3
9.8
9.1
8.9
8.6
7.3
6.3
7.0
6.7

5.6
8.7
7.1
3.8
4.1
4.3
8.3
6.2
5.7
6.3
9.9
7.3
7.9
9.4
7.9
7.7
7.3
6.1
4.6
5.0
5.2

Male Female Total

Male Female

6.4
9.8
7.7
3.6
4.3
4.5
9.8
7.0
6.1
7.1
11.7
7.5
8.3
10.0
8.0
7.8
7.4
5.9
4.1
4.2
4.6

11.7
15.8
12.6
6.7
7.9
8.1
16.9
12.4
12.0
12.7
19.5
16.3
13.1
15.3
14.6
15.5
12.6
9.3
7.9
8.0
8.3

4.2
6.7
6.1
3.9
3.8
4.1
6.4
5.1
5.1
5.1
7.4
6.7
7.2
8.4
77
7.4
7.1
6.3
5.3
6.0
5.9

11.1
14.4
12.8
7.6
9.2
7.0
15.2
12.7
13.1
12.5
19.4
15.7
14.0
16.9
16.0
16.8
15.0
11.1
9.9
10.6
10.1

10.2
12.5
13.0
8.8
10.7
5.5
13.2
13.0
14.8
12.2
18.9
14.9
15.3
19.5
18.2
18.7
18.3
13.7
12.6
13.8
12.3

Table A-10. Unemployment rates, 25 years and over,
annual averages, by color and sex
Total

2.9
4.8
4.4
2.8
2.4
2.4
4.7
3.6
3.3
3.4
5.6
4.4
4.5
5.4
4.4
4.3
3.8
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.3




Total

1948__________
1949,............... 1950__________
1951__________
1952__________
1953__________
1954__________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959__________
1960__________
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966__________
1967__________
1968__________

2.14
1.94
1.75
1.46
1.92
1.96
1.96
1.94
2.00
2.09
2.00
1.93
1.93
1.93
2.05
2.05
2.18
2.09
2.04
2.19
2.52

Male Female

2.56
2.17
1.93
1.63
2.09
2.17
2.43
2.26
2.23
2.44
2.27
2.02
2.07
2.08
2.17
2.20
2.45
2.29
2.09
2.30
2.83

1.41
1.49
1.44
1.13
1.50
1.59
1.38
1.49
1.62
1.54
1.56
1.69
1.77
1.69
1.90
1.82
1.87
1.83
1.91
1.89
2.09

Total

Male Female Total

Male Female

2.07
1.93
1.78
1.46
1.86
1.95
1.98
1.94
1.97
2.03
1.94
1.87
2.03
1.96
2.08
2.03
2.15
2.10
2.00
2.08
2.48

2.46
2.18
2.03
1.64
2.15
2.14
2.51
2.33
2.26
2.54
2.34
2.03
2.18
2.17
2.22
2.23
2.47
2.36
2.05
2.21
2.71

2.66
2.03
1.50
1.60
1.72
1.98
1.84
1.57
1.76
1.87
1.64
1.70
1.44
1.37
1.57
1.89
1.83
1.69
1.80
2.16
2.59

1.31
1.46
1.39
1.03
1.36
1.64
1.31
1.38
1.46
1.42
1.40
1.52
1.71
1.58
1.79
1.68
1.69
1.75
1.77
1.76
2.03

2.47
2.00
1.64
1.69
2.04
1.79
1.75
1.69
1.93
1.95
1.87
1.80
1.67
1.63
1.80
2.05
2.08
1.88
2.02
2.26
2.53

1.85
2.02
1.86
1.76
2.49
1.57
1.69
1.88
2.14
2.18
2.28
2.01
2.10
2.10
2.17
2.31
2.44
2.14
2.25
2.30
2.41

Table A -1 2. Ratios of Negro/white and male/female
unemployment rates, 16-19 year-olds, annual averages
[Ratios of unemployment rates]

Male Female
Total

1948__________
1949_________ _
1950__________
1951__________
1952__________
1953__________
1954__________
1955__________
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959__________
1960__________
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964__________
1965__________
1966__________
1967__________
1968__________

Year

All other

White
Year

All other

White
Total

2.7
4.8
4.2
2.4
2.2
2.3
4.4
3.4
3.1
3.2
5.6
4.3
4.3
5.2
4.1
4.0
3.3
2.8
2.2
2.0
1.8

3.4
4.9
4.8
3.9
3.0
2.7
5.3
4.1
3.9
3.9
5.7
4.8
4.7
5.8
4.8
4.9
4.6
4.0
3.3
3.7
3.2

2.7
4.5
4.0
2.6
2.2
2.2
4.2
3.2
2.9
3.1
5.1
3.9
3.9
4.8
3.8
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.1

Male Female Total
2.6
4.5
3.8
2.2
2.0
2.1
3.9
3.0
2.7
2.8
5.0
3.7
3.8
4.6
3.6
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.9
1.7

3.2
4.6
4.4
3.8
2.8
2.5
4.9
3.7
3.5
3.6
5.3
4.4
4.2
5.3
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.6
3.0
3.4
2.9

4.5
7.2
7.8
4.5
4.5
3.9
8.7
7.5
6.8
6.4
10.4
8.7
8.4
10.4
8.9
8.2
7.2
5.9
4.9
4.7
4.0

Male Female
4.4
7.8
8.4
4.2
4.6
4.1
9.2
7.9
6.8
6.8
11.9
9.6
9.1
11.2
9.3
8.2
6.9
5.5
4.4
3.7
3.2

Negro/White 1

Year
Total

5.5
6.2
7.0
5.0
4.3
3.5
7.8
6.9
6.9
5.6
8.3
7.4
7.3
9.3
8.4
8.1
7.5
6.4
5.6
6.0
5.1

Male

1948................. ..................
1.26
1949__________________
1.30
1950__________________ . 1.30
1951__________________
1.41
1952__________________
1.27
1.17
1953__________________
1954__________________
1.37
1955__________________
1.50
1956__________________
1.79
1957__________________
1.80
1.90
1958__________________
1.99
1959__________________
1.80
1960__________________
1961__________________
1.81
1962__________________
1.90
1963__________________
2.02
1964__________________
1.84
1965__________________
1.98
1966________ ____ ____
2.27
1967__________________
2.38
1968__________________
2.16
1 Data on Negroes include other races.

1.02
1.19
1.22
1.15
1.03
1.04
1.07
1.19
1.43
1.60
1.71
1.80
1.71
1.71
1.61
1.72
1.65
1.81
2.03
2.22
2.19

Male/Female

Female
1.74
1.50
1.43
1.86
1.71
1.46
1.98
2.11
2.35
2.13
2.24
2.31
1.95
1.97
2.36
2.30
2.12
2.26
2.59
2.60
2.37

Total
1.18
1.16
1.11
.98
1.13
1.10
1.18
1.14
.99
1.17
1.20
1.13
1.10
1.05
1.01
1.00
.95
.90
.83
.91
.83

White

Nonwhite

1.27
1.19
1.14
1.05
1.17
1.14
1.29
1.24
1.08
1.21
1.24
1.17
1.10
1.06
1.07
1.05
.99
.92
.87
.94
.84

0.75
.94
.97
.65
.71
.81
.70
.70
.66
.91
.94
.91
.97
.92
.73
.79
.77
.74
.68
.80
.77

21
Table A-13. Teenage unemployment by sex and color in U.S., SMSA’s of 250,000 or more inhabitants,
poverty and other neighborhoods.of these SMSA’s, annual averages, 1968
Unemployment (in thousands)
SMSA's of 250,000 or more

Age, sex, and color
U.S.
total

Total

Total, 16-19,___________________________________
Male____ ____________________________________ ______
Female____ ______ ___________________________ _______
White, 16-19____ _______________________________
Male_____ __________________________________________
Female______________________________________________
Negro and other races, 16-19______________________
Male________________________________________________
Female_______________________ ____ _________________

Table A-14.

Unemployment rates

838
426
412
644
328
316
195
98
96

474
242
232
351
178
173
123
64
59

Poverty
neighbor­
hoods
107
57
50
43
24
19
64
32
32

SMSA’s of 250,000 or more

Other
neighbor­
hoods
367
185
181
308
154
154
59
32
28

U.S.
total

Poverty
neighbor­
hoods

Total

12.7
11.6
14.0
11.0
10.1
12.1
25.0
22.1
28.8

13.4
12.7
14.1
11.4
10.9
12.0
25.9
24.3
28.0

20.0
18.8
21.4
14.3
14.3
14.3
27.3
24.7
30.7

Other
neighbor­
hoods
12.2
11.6
12.9
11.1
10.5
11.8
24.5
23.8
25.4

Incidence of unemployment in 1967 for persons 16- to 24-years old, by age and sex, all persons
Percent distribution by weeks of unemployment

Total with unemployment
during 1967
Age and sex
Number

Total, 16 years and over__________________________
16 to 24 years_________ ______________ _____________
16 and 17 years_________ ______ __________________
18 and 19 years______________________________________
20 to 24 years__________________ ______ _______________
25 years and over__________ __________________________

Percent
of total
working
or looking
for work

15 weeks or more
Total

Less
than
5 weeks

5 to 14
weeks
Total

15 to 26
weeks

27 weeks
or more

11,564
4,501
947
1,373
2,181
7,063

12.9
21.8
22.0
26.5
19.5
10.3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

46.6
53.0
54.6
55.1
51.0
42.6

30.7
27.7
26.4
28.3
28.0
32.6

22.6
19.2
19.0
16.6
21.0
24.8

14.0
11.7
10.3
9.8
13.6
15.4

8.6
7.5
8.7
6.8
7.4
9.4

6,655
2,444
579
672
1,193
4,211

12.6
22.9
23.3
26.1
21.2
10.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

43.4
49.0
50.6
50.3
47.5
40.2

32.8
29.0
25.9
30.4
29.8
35.1

23.7
22.0
23.5
19.3
22.7
24.7

15.2
13.6
12.6
12.1
15.0
16.2

8.5
8.3
10.9
7.3
7.7
8.5

4,909
2,057
368
701
988
2,852

13.4
20.6
20.4
26.8
17.7
10.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

51.0
57.8
60.9
59.6
55.3
46.1

27.8
26.3
27.2
26.4
25.8
29.0

21.2
16.0
12.0
14.0
18.9
24.9

12.3
9.5
6.8
7.6
11.8
14.4

8.9
6.5
5.2
6.4
7.1
10.6

MEN
Total, 16 years and over__________________________
16 to 24 years________________________________________
16 and 17 years_____________________________________
18 and 19 years________
__________________________
20 to 24 years_______ ________________________ ______
25 years and o ve r,,,______ __________________ _______
WOMEN
Total, 16 years and over__________________________
16 to 24 years________________________________________
16 and 17 years___
___ ____________________ _____
18 and 19 years______ _______ ___________ ____ _______
20 to 24 years_____________________ ________ ______
25 years and over_______
__________ ____




22
Table A-15.

Incidence of unemployment in 1967 for persons 16- to 24-years old, by age and sex, white persons
Total with unemployment
during 1967
Age and sex
Number

Total, 16 years and over______ ______ _____________
16 to 24 years____________________________ ____ _______
16 and 17 years_________________________________ _____
18 and 19 years_____ ____ ____________________________
20 to 24 years______ ____ ______________ ______________
25 years and over___________ _________________________

Percent
of total
working
or looking
for work

Percent distribution by weeks of unemployment

15 weeks or more
Total

Less
than
5 weeks

5 to 14
weeks
Total

15 to 26
weeks

27 weeks
or more

9,576
3,714
779
1,130
1,805
5,862

12.1
20.5
20.8
25.0
18.4
9.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

48.3
55.7
57.0
57.7
53.8
43.7

30.6
27.1
24.8
27.7
27.6
32.9

21.1
17.3
18.2
14.6
18.6
23.4

13.1
10.5
9.4
8.6
12.1
14.7

8.0
6.8
8.9
6.0
6.4
8.7

5,595
2,024
474
550
1,000
3,571

11.8
21.7
21.8
24.7
20.2
9.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

45.1
51.7
52.3
51.8
51.3
41.3

33.1
28.9
25.1
30.7
29.6
35.5

21.8
19.5
22.6
17.5
19.1
23.2

14.2
11.8
11.6
10.9
12.4
15.5

7.7
7.7
11.0
6.5
6.7
7.7

3,981
1,690
305
580
805
2,291

12.5
19.3
19.3
25.3
16.5
9.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

52.9
60.4
64.3
63.3
56.9
47.4

27.1
24.9
24.3
24.8
25.2
28.7

20.0
14.7
11.5
11.9
17.9
23.9

11.5
8.9
5.9
6.4
11.8
13.5

8.4
5.8
5.6
5.5
6.1
10.4

MEN
Total, 16 years and over........ ...................... ...................
16 to 24 years_______ _____ __________________________ _
16 and 17 years__________ ____ ___________________ ____
18 and 19 years__________________ _____ ___ _______ ___
20 to 24 years_____ ______ _________________ _______ ___
25 years and over___ _____ ____ ______________ _______
WOMEN
Total, 16 years and over____ ____ ________ _________
16 to 24 years___________________ _________ ___ ____ ___
16 and 17 years________________________________ _____ _
18 and 19 years_________ _____ _______________ ____ ___
20 to 24 years. _____________ _____ ______ ___________
25 years and over________________________ _____ _______

Table A-16.
races

Incidence of unemployment in 1967 for persons 16- to 24-years old, by age and sex, Negroes and other

Total with unemployment
during 1967
Age and sex
Number

Total, 16 years and over_______________ __________
16 to 24 years--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------16 and 17 years................................................ .......... ................
18 and 19 years________ ________________ _______ ____
20 to 24 years............................ ............ ....................... ..............
25 years and over____________ ______ __________________

Percent
of total
working
or looking
for work

Percent distribution by weeks of unemployment

15 weeks or more
Total

Less
than
5 weeks

5 to 14
weeks
Total

15 to 26
weeks

27 weeks
or more

1,988
787
168
243
376
1,201

19.6
30.6
31.0
36.5
27.5
15.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

38.5
40.5
43.5
42.8
37.8
37.1

31.2
31.0
33.9
31.3
29.5
31.4

30.3
28.5
22.6
25.9
32.7
31.5

18.5
17.7
14.9
15.2
20.5
19.1

11.8
10.8
7.7
10.7
12.2
12.4

1,060
420
105
122
193
640

19.6
31.1
33.0
35.0
28.3
15.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

34.9
36.2
42.9
43.4
28.0
34.1

31.4
29.8
29.5
28.7
30.6
32.5

33.7
34.0
27.6
27.9
41.4
33.4

20.9
22.4
17.1
17.2
28.5
20.0

12.7
11.7
10.5
10.7
13.0
13.4

928
367
63
121
183
561

19.7
29.9
28.1
38.3
26.6
16.1

100.0
100.0
O)
100.0
100.0
100.0

42.6
45.5

31.0
32.4
O)
33.9
28.4
30.1

26.4
22.1

15.7
12.3

10.7
9.8

MEN
Total, 16 years and over___ _______ _____ __________
16 to 24 years_____ ____ ____ _________________ ____ ___
16 and 17 years..................................................... .....................
18 and 19 years................ ............................ .............................
20 to 24 years________________ ____ ___________________
25 years and over.................................... ............... ...................
WOMEN
Total, 16 years and over........ ...................... ......... .........
16 to 24 years_______ _______ _________________________
16 and 17 years________________ _____________________
18 and 19 years_______ _______ ___________________ ____
20 to 24 years______ ________ __________________ _______
25 years and over.................. .....................................................
1 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000.




C1)

42.1
48.1
40.6

O)

24.0
23.5
29.2

O)

13.2
12.0
18.0

O)

10.7
11.5
11.2

23
Table A-17.

Unemployed 16-19 year olds, by reasons for unemployment, duration, sex, and color, 1968 annual averages
[in thousands]
Both races

White

All other

Reasons and duration
Total
Total_______________________________________________________________
Less than 5 weeks____ __ ______ ____ _____ ____________
_______ ____
5-14 weeks________________________ _______ _______ _
____________ _ ___
15 weeks and over__________________ _______ ___________
_____________ _ _
Lost Last Job________________________________
_____________________
Less than 5 weeks_____
_______ ________________________________ _____
5-14 weeks______ ______________________________________________________
15 weeks and over________________________________
______ ______________
Left Last Job_________ ____ ___________________________________________
Less than 5 weeks__________________________________________________________
5-14 weeks__________________ _ _________ _________ ___________ _______
15 weeks and over_____
___________________
___________________________
Re-entrance Labor Force, __ _ ________________________________________
_ _ __
_ __________ _________________
Less than 5 weeks___________ _
5-14 weeks.__ __________________ _______ ______________ _______________
________ _________________
15 weeks and over.._______ _____ _ _______
Never Worked Before_____________ _______
_______ ____ ___________
Less than 5 weeks___________ __ ________________________ _________________
5-14 weeks___________ __________ _____ ______________ ______ ___________
________ ___________ _ _____________
15 weeks and over___ ___________

Table A-18.

Male

839
528
236
76
130
84
36
11
97
66
25
7
281
174
83
23
330
205
91
33

Female

427
264
127
36
84
55
23
6
51
34
14
4
153
89
52
11
138
86
38
14

Total

412
264
109
40
46
29
13
5
46
32
11
3
128
85
31
12
192
119
53
19

Male

644
415
174
56
100
65
25
9
74
51
18
5
214
135
62
17
256
163
67
26

Female

328
205
95
28
64
42
17
5
38
26
9
3
119
69
40
10
107
68
28
11

316
210
79
28
36
23
8
4
36
25
9
2
95
66
22
7
149
95
39
15

Total
194
113
62
20
30
18
10
3
23
14
6
2
67
38
21
8
74
42
24
8

Male
98
59
32
8
20
12
6
2
13
8
3
1
34
20
12
2
31
18
10
3

Female
96
54
30
12
10
6
4
1
10
6
3
1
33
18
9
6
43
24
14
5

Unemployed Teenagers seeking full- or part-time employment, by sex, monthly, 1968
[in thousands]
Both sexes

Month

January_______________________________
February____ _____ _____ _
___ ___ __
March_________________________________
April__________________
____________
May_____ _
_ __ . . . . . . ____________
J u n e ..____________ ________________ __
July____ ______________________________
August________ . . . ______ __________ _.
September_______________
________
October________
_________ _ _ ___ _
November,.
___ ___________ _ _ __ _
December. __ ____________________

Total

Male

Full time Part time

Part time
as Per­
cent of
Total

Total

Full time Part time

650
769
722
619
616
1,598
1,302
823
741
723
776
727

335
367
366
313
371
1,200
969
546
362
325
307
257

314
402
356
307
245
398
334
276
379
399
469
471

48.4
52.3
49.3
49.5
39.8
24.9
25.6
33.6
51.2
55.1
60.4
64.7

385
417
400
320
292
778
627
396
339
368
385
410

175
191
174
134
174
594
472
259
138
142
133
140

Annual average_________________________

838

476

362

43.2

426

School year average (excludes June-August)...

705

334

371

52.6

369




Female
Part time
as Per­
cent of
Total

209
226
227
187
118
184
155
137
201
227
251
270

54.4
54.2
56.7
58.3
40.3
23.6
24.8
34.5
59.2
61.6
65.3
65.8

227

199

156

213

Total

Full time Part time

Part time
as Per­
cent of
Total

265
352
322
299
324
820
675
427
402
355
391
317

160
176
193
179
196
606
496
287
223
183
174
117

105
176
129
120
127
214
178
140
179
172
217
201

39.6
50.1
40.2
40.1
39.4
26.1
26.4
32.8
44.4
48.4
55.5
63.2

46.7

412

249

163

39.6

57.7

336

178

158

47.0

24
Table A-19. Levels and rates of 16-19 year-old unemployment, annual averages, school year averages, June-July
averages, 1948-68
[levels in thousands]

Year

Annual
average

1948___ ____________________________________________
1949___________ ______ __________________ _____ ______
1950__________________ ____ ________________________
1951___________ ____ ____________________________ ___
1952____ ___________________________________________
1953,_______________________________________________
1954_______ ____ _________ _____ _____________________
1955________________________________________________
1956__________ ____ _____ ___________________________
1957___________ ____ _________ ________ ______________
1958_____________ ____________ ______ _______________
1959___________ ____ ________________________________
1960__________________ ____ _____ ____ ______ ____ _
1961________________________________________________
1962____ ________________________ ____ _____________
1963________________________________________________
1964________________________________________________
1965___ _______________ _____ _______________________
1966___________________ ____ ________________________
1967 2_______ _______________________________________
1968 2_______ _____________ ____ _________ __________

School year
average 1

School year
as percent
of annual
average

350
500
468
292
304
279
456
404
411
434
592
574
623
717
649
776
770
776
723
721
705

85.6
86.8
91.2
86.9
88.1
90.9
91.0
89.8
86.0
87.3
87.3
87.8
87.5
86.6
90.0
87.8
88.3
88.8
86.4
86.1
84.1

409
576
513
336
345
307
501
450
478
497
678
654
712
828
721
884
872
874
837
837
838

1 Excludes June, July, August.
2 Historical data not comparable with 1967-68 data. Change in unemployment definitions introduced in 1967 excluded from the unemployed




June-July
average

June-July
average as
percent of
annual
average

660
886
748
533
535
439
688
653
803
791
1,075
990
1,104
1,312
1,065
1,405
1,340
1,367
1,376
1,334
1,450

161.4
153.8
145.8
158.6
155.1
143.0
137.3
145.1
169.0
159.2
158.6
151.4
155.1
158.5
147.7
158.9
153.7
156.4
164.4
159.4
173.0

Unemployment rates

Unemployed (in thousands)

Total

Percent
seeking Total
Seeking Seeking part-time
work
full-time part-time
work
work

Seeking
full-time
work

Seeking
part-time
work

FULL YEARS
1963 i_______
1964________
1965________
1966________
<2)
1967________
1968________

904
872
874
837
<2)
838
839

622
574
564
535
<2>
482
476

284
299
312
302
<2>
356
362

31.4
34.3
35.7
36.1
<2>
42.5
43.2

17.3
16.2
14.8
12.8
( 2)
12.8
12.7

18.7
17.6
15.9
13.7
<2)
13.2
13.0

791
771
776
723
<2)
721
705

511
474
458
420
<2>
353
334

281
297
318
303
( 2)
368
371

35.5
38.5
41.0
41.9
(2>
51.0
52.6

16.7
15.7
14.4
12.3
( 2)
12.2
11.8

19.3
18.2
16.1
14.0
<2)
12.7
12.1

15.0
14.0
13.2
11.4
<2)

12.4
12.3

SCHOOL
YEARS
1963 i ______
1964________
1965________
1966________
<2)
1967________
1968________

Annual
average

9.2
13.4
12.2
8.2
8.5
7.6
12.6
11.0
11.1
11.6
15.9
14.6
14.7
16.8
14.7
17.2
16.2
14.8
12.8
12.8
12.7

School
year
average i
8.5
12.4
11.9
7.6
8.0
7.4
12.2
10.6
10.4
11.0
15.0
13.9
14.1
16.0
14.5
16.6
15.7
14.4
12.2
12.2
11.8

June-July
average

12.2
17.5
14.9
10.9
10.9
9.1
14.6
13.4
15.0
14.8
20.4
17.6
17.6
20.5
16.9
21.4
19.4
18.2
16.2
15.8
16.9

those people unable to accept work during the survey week. This change
reduced the levels and rates of teenage unemployment in the spring,
especially in April and May.

Table A-20. Average levels and rates of unemployment
16-19 year olds, by whether seeking full- or part-time
work, 1963-68

Years

Unemployment Rates

13.4
12.9
12.5
10.5
( 2)

11.8
11.5

1 Excludes January 1963, first month when data was collected on whether seeking
full- or part-time work.
2 Break in series; 1967-68 data not comparable with that for earlier years. January
1967 change in definitions reduced teenage unemployment in the spring, especially in
April and May, when many students were looking for full-time jobs to begin when the
school year ended.

25
Table A-21.

Employed 16-19 year olds in agriculture and nonagriculture industries, by sex, 1948-68
Both sexes

Male

Employed 16-19 year olds
as percent of total
employment in:

Female

Year
Total
employed

Agriculture

Nonagriculture

Total
employed

Agriculture

Non­
agriculture

Total
employed

Agriculture

Non­
agriculture

All
industries

Agriculture

4,028
3,712
3,703
3,767
3,718
3,719
3,475
3,643
3,818
3,780
3,582
3,838
4,129
4,107
4,195
4,255
4,516
5,036
5,721
5,682
5,780

734
765
704
638
634
619
584
578
553
541
509
529
566
528
482
461
463
439
410
405
394

3,292
2,947
2,999
3,129
3,085
3,101
2,891
3,064
3,265
3,237
3,073
3,309
3,563
3,580
3,713
3,794
4,053
4,597
5,311
5,277
5,385

2,344
2,124
2,186
2,156
2,107
2,136
1,985
2,095
2,164
2,115
2,012
2,198
2,361
2,315
2,362
2,406
2,587
2,918
3,253
3,186
3,254

604
642
613
534
529
518
491
483
459
458
437
443
471
449
413
381
388
373
349
343
341

1,740
1,482
1,573
1,622
1,578
1,618
1,494
1,612
1,705
1,657
1,575
1,755
1,890
1,866
1,949
2,025
2,199
2,545
2,904
2,843
2,914

1,682
1,588
1,517
1,611
1,612
1,584
1,490
1,547
1,654
1,663
1,570
1,640
1,768
1,793
1,833
1,849
1,929
2,118
2,468
2,496
2,525

130
123
91
104
105
101
93
95
94
83
72
86
95
79
69
80
75
66
61
62
54

1,552
1,465
1,426
1,507
1,507
1,483
1,397
1,452
1,560
1,580
1,498
1,554
1,673
1,714
1,764
1,769
1,854
2,052
2,407
2,435
2,472

6.9
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.1
5.8
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.9
6.3
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
7.1
7.8
7.6
7.6

9.6
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.8
9.9
9.4
9.0
8.8
9.1
9.1
9.5
10.4
10.2
9.7
9.8
10.2
10.1
10.3

1948____________
1949____________
1950____________
1951____________
1952____________
1953____________
1954____________
1955____________
1956____________
1957____________
1958____________
1959____________
1960____________
1961____________
1962____________
1963____________
1964____________
1965____________
1966____________
1967__________
1968____________

Non­
agriculture

it).5

10.3

6.5
5.9
5.8
5.9
5.7
5.6
5.4
5.5
5.7
5.6
5.3
5.6
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.9
7.7
7.5
7.5

Table A-22. Employed persons as percent of total employment in group by industry division, selected age groups and
sex, 1940, 1950, and 1960
Male
Industry division

Total___________________ _ ________ _________________________________
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries______________________ ______ ___________ ___
Mining________________________________________________ ___________ _____
Construction, ____________________________ __ ___________________________
Manufacturing___ ____ . . .
...
.
. . . . __________________ ____
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities.. _ . . . . . . . . _____
Wholesale and retail trade______ ____ _ . . __ ______________________________
Wholesale trade... _____________________________ ______________ ______
Retail trade___________________________________________________________
Finance, insurance, and real estate_____ _____ _________________________________
_________ _ _ _ . . . __ ______
Business and repair services...
_ _ __
Personal services.._____ _____________ ________ ________ ________________ .
Entertainment and recreation services________ . . .
_________________________
Professional and related services__________ ________ __________________________
Public administrations_________ ______________________________ ___________
Industry not reported_______________________ _________________ ______________

1950 2

1960 i

1940 3

Total

14-17

18-19

Total

14-17

18-19

Total

14-17

18-19

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

9.0
1.4
8.4
30.2
8.5
17.0
4.1
13.0
3.4
2.9
2.5
.8
6.9
5.3
3.6

19.4
.2
2.9
19.8
1.6
33.8
1.8
32.0
.7
2.5
5.0
3.4
3.3
.4
7.2

11.9
.7
6.8
25.5
3.8
29.2
3.1
26.1
1.8
3.4
2.8
1.6
5.4
1.4
5.5

15.8
2.2
8.3
27.1
9.2
17.0
3.9
13.2
2.8
2.8
2.9
.9
5.0
4.6
1.3

42.3
.4
2.9
17.1
1.9
20.9
1.4
19.5
.5
1.5
3.1
4.1
1.5
.4
3.6

24.6
1.5
6.6
26.3
5.0
22.0
3.1
18.9
1.6
2.6
2.7
1.9
2.5
1.0
1.8

23.5
2.7
5.9
24.2
8.1
16.2
3.0
13.2
3.0
2.3
3.3
.9
4.3
4.2
1.3

63.0
.4
1.6
11.5
1.6
13.0
.8
12.2
.3
1.0
2.1
1.7
.7
.2
2.7

36.4
1.6
3.5
21.5
3.4
18.1
2.0
16.1
1.2
2.0
2.6
1.7
1.3
4.3
2.3

Female
Total____ ____ _____ _______ ________ _________________________________

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries__________
____________________________
Mining_______________ _ _ ___________
___
_____ __________ _____
Construction. . . . _ . __ ___. . .
_____
_
. . . . _ . . . . . ____
Manufacturing.. _
.
. . . . . ___. . . . . . _
. .
________ . .
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities.. . . . ._ ___________ ___
Wholesale and retail trade___________________________________________________
Wholesale trade______ __________________ _ . _________________________
Retail trade..
__________
. .
_____ ________ . ______ _. ______
Finance, insurance, and real estate._ _____ . . . _ ____
_ ______ . _____
Business and repair services___ ______ _ . . . . . . __ ._ . . .
_________ ___
Personal services____ ____ . . . _ _
. . . _________
. . . __________
Entertainment and recreation services__ . . . _. ______ . . .
. . . . . . ______
Professional and related services__________________ . . . . ____________________
Public administrations__ _____ ____ . . . . . _ ______
_______ ______ . .
Industry not reported______ ._ _ _____ _ . . . . . . . . . ____
__________ _.

2.0
.2
.7
20.8
3.6
20.8
2.1
18.6
5.8
1.6
13.1
.7
21.5
4.3
4.8

4.1
<4)
.3
7.9
1.8
34.9
1.1
33.8
3.6
1.0
25.0
2.4
10.1
.4
8.5

1.3
.1
.7
18.5
5.8
22.7
2.5
20.3
13.0
1.8
8.9
1.0
17.7
2.7
5.9

3.8
.1
.6
23.2
4.4
22.6
2.4
20.1
5.0
1.2
14.8
.9
17.3
4.2
2.0

12.5
( 4)
.2
11.0
1.8
32.9
1.1
31.7
2.5
.5
23.5
3.2
6.4
.4
5.1

3.0
.1
.5
22.0
6.9
26.9
2.9
23.9
10.6
1.3
9.2
1.3
13.8
2.2
2.0

4.4
.1
.3
20.8
3.1
18.2
1.6
16.6
4.1
.7
25.8
.7
16.6
3.0
2.1

23.4
( 4)
.1
13.0
.7
11.3
.7
10.7
.9
.2
42.3
.9
3.3
.2
3.6

5.3
.1
.3
23.6
2.5
20.0
1.6
18.3
3.7
.7
27.7
1.0
11.0
1.2
3.0

1 I960 Census of Population— Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population;
Pt. 1, U.S. Summary, table 212.
2 1950 Census of Population— Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population;
Pt. 1, U.S. Summary, table 132.




3 1940 Census of Population— Vol. Ill, The Labor Force, Pt. 1, U.S.
Summary, table 80.
4 Less than 0.05 percent.

26
Table A-23. Employed Persons as Percent of Industry Employment, by Industry Division, Selected Age Groups and Sex,
1940, 1950, and 1960
Male
Industry division

14-17

18-19

100.0

3.0

2.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

eT s"
.3
1.0
2.0
.6
6.0
1.3
7.5
.6
2.6
6.1
13.0
1.4
.2

SuT
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.2
4.6
2.1
5.4
1.4
3.1
3.0
5.5
2.1
.7

Total
Total_________________ _______ _________ ____ _______ ____________ ____
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries____ ________________________ ____________
Construction____________________________________ _____ ____ ____ ____________
Manufacturing__________ _ ________ ___________________________ _________
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities_____ _____ _______________
Wholesale and retail trade__________________________ ____________ ____________
Wholesale trade______________ . . _____________________________ _______
Retail trade_______________________________________________ ____________
Finance, insurance, and real estate____________________________________________
Business and repair services_______________ ________________________________
Personal services_______ ______ _ _ _____________________________________ _
Entertainment and recreation services________________________________ _____ ____
Professional and related services____________________________ ________ _________
Public administrations_______________ _____ __________________ _______________

1950 2

1960 i
Total

1940 3
Total

14-17

18-19

14-17

18-19

100.0

2.2

2.7

100.0

1.9

3.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

tu T
.4
.8
1.4
.5
2.7
.8
3.3
.4
1.1
2.4
9.1
.7
.2

4~2~
1.8
2.2
2.6
1.5
3.4
2.1
3.8
1.5
2.3
2.5
5.2
1.4
.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

s T
.3
.5
.9
.4
1.5
.5
1.8
.2
.8
1.2
3.5
.3
.1

sT o
2.0
1.9
2.9
1.3
3.6
2.1
4.0
1.3
2.8
2.6
6.1
1.0
3.4

2.5

5.5

100.0

2.0

6.3

8.4

4.4
5.2
4.9
5.3
8.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

10.9

Female
Total___________________________________________ ____________________

100.0

Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries____________________________________________ _
Mining_________________________ ______________ ____________________ ____ _
Construction_____________________________________________ ____ _____________
Manufacturing_______________________ _____________________________ _______
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities__________________________
Wholesale and retail trade____________________________________________________
Wholesale trade__________ __________ ________________________ ______
Retail trade________________________________________________ ____ ______
Finance, insurance, and real estate____ ____ _ . . . . . _______________ ____ ____
Business and repair services.__ . . . . . . _______ _ _______ _____________
Personal services____________ ________ ______ _________________________ .
Entertainment and recreation services__________________________________________
Professional and related services.. ___________________________________________
Public administrations ._ ______________________________________ ______ ____ _

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0




3.2
6.8

.6

1.5
1.2
1.6
5.5
1.6
5.9
2.0
1.9
6.2
10.5
1.5
.3

4.8

100.0

3.1
3.9
4.5
4.3
7.6
5.3
5.6
5.2
10.7
5.3
3.3
6.2
3.9
3.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

.6

1.0
1.2
1.0
3.7
1.2
4.0
1.3
1.1
4.0
8.9

11.9
6.2
3.5
8.4

3.1

3.0

.9

6.6

6.8

6.6

4.4

.6
.9

1.3
.5
1.3
.8
1.3
.4

.7

3.3
2.4

.4

.1

7.7

4.1
6.4
7.2
5.0
6.9
6.3
7.0
5.7
6.5
6.8
9.0
4.2
2.5

Table A-24. Net employment shifts, employed persons, by industry division, selected age groups and sex, 1940-60
United States
Males
Industry division

Total

14-17

18-19

1940-50 1950-60 1940-60 1940-50 1950-60 1940-60 1940-50 1950-60 1940-60
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries______ _______
__________________
___
Mining_________________________ _______ _
_ __________________________
Construction.,____________________________ _ _____________________________
Manufacturing____________ _____________ _ _______________________________
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities____ __________ __________
Wholesale and retail trade.._ j ______ '____________ _______ _________ ____ ____
Wholesale trade. _ ____________________________ ____ _____________ ______
Retail trade____________ _______________________ _______________ ______
Finance, insurance, and real estate________________ ___________________ ____
Services (except private households)________ . . . ____________________ _______
Business and repair services.____
________ _________ _______________
Personal services (except private households). __ ______ ___ ________________
__ ____________
Entertainment and recreation services. . . . _ . _________
Professional and related services
_ _ _ ______ _ ________________
............... ... ............
...... ...
Private households__ .
Public administrations____ _________________ _______________________________
Industry not reported____ ______________ ______ ____ _________________________

-7 .7
- .5
2.4
2.9
1.1
.8
.9
- .2
1.1
.5
-.1
.7
- .3
.4

-6 .8
- .8
.1
3.1
-.7
.2
- .2
.6
1.6
- .3
- .1
1.9
-.1
.7
2.3

-1 4 .5
-1 .3
2.5
6.0
.4
.8
1.1
-.2
.4
2.7
.6
- .4
-.1
2.6
- .4
1.1
2.3

-2 0 .7

-2 2 .9
-.2

1.3
5.6
.3
7.9
.6
7.3
7.3
4.3
.5
.6
2.4
.8
.4
.2
.9

2.7
- .3
12.9
.4
12.5
.2
2.2
1.0
.1
-.7
1.8
1.7
3.6

20.8
1.0
19.8
.4
6.5
1.5
.7
1.7
2.6
2.1
.2
4.5

-1 1 .8
- .1
3.1
4.8
1.6
3.9
1.1
2.8
.4
2.3
.6
.3
.2
1.2
- .2
-3 .3
- .5

-1 2 .7
- .8
.2
-.8
-1 .2
7.2

-4 3 .6
- .2
1.3
8.3

7.2
.2
3.3
.8
-.1
-.3
2.9
.2
.4
3.7

-2 4 .5
-.9
3.3
4.0
.4
11.1
1.1
10.0
.6
5.6
1.4
.2
-.1
4.1
-2 .9
3.2

Females
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries____________ _ _____________ _____ __________
Mining..
_
_ _ ______ _________ _ ________
Construction_________ ____________
_____________ __ _____ _ . . . _____
Manufacturing .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _ _______
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities _ _
_
_ _ _____
Wholesale and retail trade___________ ___________________________ __________
Wholesale trade _
_
. . .
_ __
....
_ ______
Retail trade... __ _____________ _________ ______ _________
________
Finance, insurance, and real estate_____ _ _ ________
_____________
. _
Services (except private households)______ ________ ______ _ _________ _______
Business and repair services-._____ _ _________
__ . . .
____ ____ _______
Personal services (except private households)______________ ________ _____ _
Entertainment and recreation services
_ _ __ _____
Professional and related services__________ ___________ _ ________ _______
Private households______________________________________________________ . . .
Public administrations............................ . . . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________
Industry not reported__________ ____________
_________________________




-0 .6
.3
2. 4
1.3
4.4
.8
3.5
.9
-.2
.5
-1 .6
.2
.7
-9 .4
1.2
-.1

-1 .8
.1
.1
-2 .4
-.8
-1 .8
- .3
-1 .5
.8
3.6
.4
-.8
-.2
4.2
-.9
.1
2.8

-2 .4
.1
.4
.5
2.6
.5
2.0
1.7
3.4
.9
-2 .4
4.9
-1 0 .3
1.3
2.7

-1 0 .9

-8 .4

-1 9 .3

-2 .3

-1 .7

-4 .0

.1
-2 .0
1.1
21.6
.4
21.0
1.6
13.8
.3
8.1
2.3
3.1
-2 6 .9
.2
1.5

.1
-3 .1

.2
-5 .1
1.1
23.6
.4
23.1
2.7
9.7
.8
.6
1.5
6.8
-1 7 .9
.2
4.9

.2
-1 .6
4.4
6.9
1.3
5.6
6.9
2.6
.6
-1 .1
.3
2.8
-1 7 .4

.2
-3 .5
-1 .1
-4 .2
-.4
-3 .6
2.4
4.0
.5
-.1
-.3
3.9
-.2
.5
3.9

.4
-5 .1
3.3
2.7
.9
2.0
9.3
6.6
1.1
-1 .2

2.0
2.1
1.1
-4 .1
.5
-7 .5
-.8
3.7
9.0
3.4

-

1.0
1.0

6.7
-1 7 .6
1.5
2.9

28
Table A-25.

Employed 16-19 year olds, by occupation and sex, annual averages, 1963 and 1968

Occupation

1968

1968

1963

1963

(in thousands)

Percent of total employed

(in thousands)

Percent of total employed

Both

Male

Female

Both
sexes

Male

Female

Both
sexes

Female

Male

Both
sexes

Male

Female

Total____________ _____ - _______

5,780

3,254

2,525

7.6

6.8

9.1

4,252

2,405

1,847

6.2

5.3

7.9

White collar________ ___________________
Professional and technical_____ ______
Manager, Officials and Proprietors______
Clerical_____ _ ___________ ________
Sales workers_________________ _____

2,039
178
35
1,333
493

647
94
26
300
226

1,392
84
9
1,032
267

5.7
1.7
.5
10.4
10.6

3.4
1.5
.4
8.8
8.3

8.5
2.2
.7
11.0
13.9

1,484
111
34
958
381

503
57
27
214
205

981
54
7
744
176

4.9
1.3
.5
9.3
8.7

2.9
1.1
.4
6.8
7.8

7.6
1.8
.6
10.4
10.3

Blue Collar_______ ____________________
Craftsmen_________ _______________
Operatives__________________________
Nonfarm laborers___ _______________

2,076
252
1,049
775

1,810
242
813
756

265
11
236
19

7.5
2.5
7.5
21.8

7.9
2.5
8.4
22.0

5.6
3.4
5.5
15.1

1,413
150
713
550

1,235
144
554
537

178
6
159
13

5.7
1.7
5.7
15.5

5.8
1.7
6.1
15.5

4.6
2.5
4.5
13.8

Service workers,, ______________________
Private households___________________
Other______ _______ ______ ________

1,307
324
984

488
9
478

820
314
506

13.9
18,8
12.9

14.8
25,7
14.6

13.5
18,6
11.5

927
311
616

312
11
301

615
300
315

10.3
13,5
9.2

9.9
18.3
9.7

10.5
13.4
8.7

Farm workers________ _________________
Farmers and farm managers
Farm laborers and foremen,__ ________

358
14
344

310
13
296

48

10.3
.7
22.4

10.8
.7
28.6

8.2

47

9.3

428
19
409

355
17
338

73
2
71

9.3
.8
18.4

9.5
.8
22.7

8.4
1.5
9.7

Table A-26.

Mean age at entrance into armed services1
Enlistees DOD

Fiscal year
1957....... ............ ............... ..................
1958__________________ _________
1959__________ _________________
1960.................. ................... ...............
1961___ ______________ _________
1962.................. ....................................
1963_________ ____ ______ _____
1964.....................................................
1965____________________________
1966........................
........................
1967....... ..............................................
1968____ _______ _____ __________
1

Inductees DOD
22.4
22.6
22.4

18.6
18.5
18.5
18.4
18.6
18.7
18.7
18.9
18.7
19.4
19.2
19.3

22.7
23.1
23.0
23.1
22.4
21.5

20.2

20.3
20.3

DOD data are weighted averages of months.

Source:

Department of Defense.

Table A-27. Estimates of the status of nonsupervisory employees under the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA as
of February 1, 19691
Percent of nonsupervisory
employees covered by FLSA

Employees covered by FLSA
Industry

Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries_____________________
Mining___ _ ___ ______________ _____________ _
_____________ , _
Contract construction____________
Manufacturing,_ _________________ _________________
Transportation, communications, utilities_______ _ _ _ __
Wholesale trade,,, ______
4.
Retail trade_____________________ ____ ______________
Finance, insurance, real estate_________________________
Services (excluding domestic service)__ __
____________
Domestic service _ _ _ _
____ __
____________
Government,,, _ ________
Private economy, excluding agriculture and domestic service,.
Private economy_____________________________________

Number of
nonsupervisory
employees

1,327
558
3,312
18,081
4,026
3,392
9,574
2,963
7,893
2,380
( 2)
49,799
53,506

Covered
by 1966
amendments

617
553
3,277
17,495
3,952
2.576
5,566
2,215
5.576

19
553
2,679
17,425
3,847
2,450
3,158
2,215
1,869

598
70
105
126
2,408

2,742
41,210
41,827

34,194
34,213

2', 742
7,016
7,614

1
Estimates based on employment data for 1968. All employees are
included except academic administrative personnel and teachers in ele­
mentary and secondary schools and executive, administrative, and profes­
sional workers in all other industries. Estimates for agriculture include
data from a survey conducted by the Department of Agriculture as of May
1968. May data do not vary markedly from annual average data.




Covered
prior to 1966
amendments

Total
number
covered

Total
covered

Covered
prior to
1966

46.5
99.1
98.9
96.8
98.2
75.9
58.1
74.8
70.6

598

3,709

82.8
78.2

2 Not available.

45.1

1.4
99.1
80.9
96.4
95.6
72.2
33.0
74.8
23.7

0

( 2)

Covered
by 1966
amendments

0

18.1
.4

2 .6

3.7
25.2

0

47.0

0

0

( 2)

68.7
63.9

( 2)

14.1
14.2

Source: Minimum W age and Maximum Hours Standards under th e Fair
Labor Standards Act (U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour and Public

Contracts Divisions, Jan. 14, 1969), pp. 28-29.

29
Table A-28. Basic Federal minimum wage as percent of
average hourly earnings in manufacturing in month basic
minimum became effective
Effective date
October 1938________________________________________
October 1939______ _____ . _ _ _ _ _ ___________ __
October 1945 ............................................. .......................
January 1950_____ ____ ____ ________ _ ___ .________
March 1956_________________________________________
September 1961 __ __________ ________ _ __________ _
September 1963_________________________________ ___
February 1967—
_________________ __ __________ _
February 1968______ ______ _____ ______ ________ _____




Table A-29. Percent of Employed and Unemployed 16 to
19 Year Olds Enrolled in School, October 1953 to 1968
[Numbers in thousands]

Percent

Employed
40.6
47.6
41.1
53.8
52.1
49.6
51.0
50.2
54.4

Unemployed

Enrolled in school

Year
Total

Number

1953__________________
1954__________________
1955__________________
1956__________________
1957__________________
1958__________________
1959__________________
1960__________________
1961__________________
1962__________________
1963__________________
1964__________________
1965__________ _______
1966__________________
1967________ _____ ____
1968__________________

3,517
3,439
3,802
3,789
3,784
3,643
3,791
4,035
4,001
4,076
4,293
4,433
5,228
5,523
5,300
5,517

Enrolled in school
Total

1,000

1,205
1,389
1,485
1,534
1,572
1,656
1,703
1,607
1,741
2,066
2,135
2,571
2,870
2,852
3,116

Percent
of
total
28.4
35.0
36.5
39.2
40.5
43.2
43.7
42.2
40.2
42.7
48.1
48.2
49.2
52.0
53.8
56.5

Number

236
340
330
294
357
545
564
621
664
559
725
684
723
660
828
725

52
79
103
106

111

142
164
189
206
198
268
269
315
282
403
382

Percent
of
total

22.0

23.2
31.2
36.1
31.1
26.1
29.1
30.4
31.0
35.4
37.0
39.3
43.6
42.7
48.7
52.7

CHAPTER II

Experience of the Past: The National Minimum
Past Studies1

In addition to studies included in this volume,
there are a number of published (Brozen,
Burns, Folk, Thurow) and unpublished (Barth,
Easley-Fearn, Kosters-Welch, Moore, Scully)
studies on the relationship between the national
minimum wage and youth unemployment.
These studies provide no consensus. Brozen,
Burns, Easley-Fearn, Kosters-Welch, Moore,
and Scully concluded that disemployment effects
from minimum wages were demonstrable
Barth, Folk, and Thurow concluded they were
not. Studies have also been made of the effects
of State minimum wage laws on the employ­
ment of youth by Kalachek and Katz.2
S t u d ie s f in d in g
MINIMUM.

adverse e f f e c t s of n a t io n a l

The B ro zen study relies upon
changes in the unemployment rates before and
after changes in the Federal minimum. In the
eight instances when the Federal minimum
was changed, the seasonally adjusted unemploy­
ment rate of 16-19 year olds was lower the
month before the change than the month the
change became effective in six instances, higher
in one case, and the same in the other. If, in­
stead, comparisons are made (which Brozen did
not) between the unemployment rate 2 months
before the change and 1 month after, the rate
rose in only three cases, dropped in four, and
remained the same in one case. This raises some
question about the meaningfulness of the
change in rates between two adjacent months.
Prepared by Hyman B. Kaitz, Chief, Division of
Statistical Standards, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Text footnotes begin on p. 45. Appendixes follow.
30




Brozen’s article also provided data on
changes in unemployment rates for the 12
months before and the 12 months after a
change. In this comparison, the unemployment
rate for teenagers dropped in four of the six
cases where data are available, rose in one, and
remained the same in the other. This is only
slightly different from the record for the overall
unemployment rate, which dropped in five of
the six cases and remained the same in the
other.
Brozen also noted that the ratio of teenage
unemployment rates to the overall unemploy­
ment rate rose in the average of 12 months
after, compared with the average of 12 months
before, minimum wage changes in six instances
reposted.
The B u rn s study is based on unpublished re­
gressions relating the unemployment rate of
teenagers, to the unemployment rate of adult
males (a proxy measure for general business
conditions) and to the minimum wage as a per­
cent of average hourly earnings in manufactur­
ing. He found a significant relationship between
minimum wages and the unemployment rate of
teenagers, especially so in the case of Negro
teenagers. Regressions using one- and twoquarter lags did not materially improve the fit
of the equations in this analysis.
The forecasting ability of the equation for
white teenagers has been examined in some ad­
ditional detail. For the period, 1954-1 (first
quarter) through 1965-11 (second quarter), it
has an adjusted R2 of 0.359 and a Durbin-Watson co-efficient of 0.352. The patterns of resid-

31

uals show that white teenage unemployment is
over-estimated from 1954-1 through 1959-1, and
under-estimated from 1959-11 through 1965-11
with only two exceptions in the latter period.
These patterns indicate that significant varia­
bles have very likely been excluded from this
equation. Since this equation was based on orig­
inal data through 1965-11, it was subsequently
examined for its forecasting ability through
1968-1V. Though it correctly predicted the
direction of change, the equation continued to
underestimate the actual white teenage unem­
ployment rate, although by less than it had be­
tween 1963 and 1965. Clearly other important
influences were at work.
The E a sley-F ea rn study is similar to the F olk
study discussed below. They related the unem­
ployment rate of teenagers in various age-sexcolor-school enrollment groups to the unemploy­
ment rate of adults, the proportion of teenagers
in the labor force, and a set of dummy variables
for each statutory minimum wage level applica­
ble to a particular period of time. Some of the
regression analyses also include dummy varia­
bles for the extensions of coverage effective in
1961 and 1967. The results indicated that both
the level and coverage of the minimum wage
laws had significant adverse effects on the un­
employment of teenagers, especially so in the
case of Negro teenagers.
The K o sters-W elch study, using quarterly
data for the period 1954 through 1968, separate
projected total employment from actual total
employment, the difference being transitional
employment. Using a nonlinear relationship,
the authors regressed the employment of differ­
ent sex-color groups of teenagers against pro­
jected employment, transitional employment
and the minimum wage. The measure of the
minimum wage used was the minimum wage as
percent of average hourly earnings in manufac­
turing times the estimated coverage of the Fed­
eral law. The authors found that increases in
the effective minimum wage would decrease the
teenage share of total employment and also
make teenage employment more sensitive to
cyclical variations.
The M oore study had an elaborate model
which included not only the unemployment rate
of adult males and the relative magnitude of the




minimum wage (as did Burns), but also (in one
regression) the relative size of the teenage
labor force and the proportion of workers (not
only teenage) covered by the minimum wage.
The model also included a complex lag struc­
ture. The lag structure, as fitted, suggested that
minimum wage effects were not fully realized
for 2 years. The lag structure was constructed
so that minimum wages had no effect immedi­
ately but gradually increased. Moore found a
significant adverse relationship between mini­
mum wages and teenage unemployment rates.
Effects upon Negroes were greater than those
upon white, and for females greater than for
male teenagers.
The S cu lly paper related teenage unemploy­
ment rates to these of adult males (as did Burns
and Moore) and added a series of quasi-dummy
variables for periods when the minimum wage
was raised. No other variables were included.
The minimum wage variable was significant in
four out of five instances but, as Scully noted,
the results do not support the conclusion that all
the effects associated with the minimum wage
variable was attributable to the minimum wage.
The studies reviewed above can be criticized
on the grounds that crude measures of the mini­
mum wage were used or relevant variables were
not considered in many of the analyses. Brozen
looked only at the “before” and “after” situa­
tion, which actually presents a mixed picture,
and considered the effects of no other develop­
ments. Scully and Easley-Fearn used dummy or
quasi-dummy variables representing changes
(or levels) of the minimum wage, but no viable
measure of the relative level. Burns used a mea­
sure of minimum wages not especially relevant
to the teenage group and did not consider addi­
tional variables other than the adult unemploy­
ment rate. The analyses by Moore and KostersWelch are more sophisticated but generally con­
sider the effects of few additional variables.
S t u d ie s

f in d in g no adverse e f f e c t s of n a ­

t io n a l m in im u m . F o lk used data from the Oc­
tober Current Population Surveys for 1948 to
1966 to relate the unemployment rate and the
labor force participation rate of different agesex-groups of young people, classified by school

32
enrollment status, to the unemployment rate of
adult males and a time variable. A simple
dummy variable was also included for those
years when the minimum wage was signifi­
cantly increase. Folk did not find the minimum
wage variable significant, and in 11 out of 16
regressions the signs of the regression coeffi­
cients were contrary to theoretical expectations.
T h u ro w related employment of disadvan­
taged to comparable advantaged groups in a so­
phisticated model which included minimum
wage as a percent of average hourly earnings as
an explanatory variable. His model provides a
test of the deterioration in the employment po­
sition of teenagers relative to adults and of
white relative to other teenagers, but not a test
of absolute employment effects nor of relative
unemployment effects. Minimum wages proved
to be an insignificant variable, and parts of
Thurow’s analysis contradict findings in Brozen’s and Moore’s analysis.3
The B a rth model relates employment (not un­
employment) levels of various teenage groups
to the employment level of adults, a trend varia­
ble, and a dummy variable (or variables) repre­
senting periods when the minimum wage was
raised. While structurally similar to the Scully
model (which used unemployment rather than
employment), Barth found the minimum wage
variable freqn ntly insignificant and, where sig­
nificant, only occasionally indicating the direc­
tion of change that economic theory would sug­
gest.
The Folk and Barth studies, like Scully and
Easley-Fearn, used dummy variables, which are
fairly crude measures of minimum wage. Folk
had included a trend variable which may have
picked up some minimum wage effects. Thurow
used stepwise regression methods which have
the danger of discarding relevant variables on
purely statistical grounds. Thurow, Barth and
the Rosters—Walsh study differ from other
studies since they concentrated on measures of
employment rather than unemployment.
S t u d ie s of S ta te m in im u m wage l a w s . An
additional approach to the evaluation of the ef­
fects of minimum wages is through a cross-sec­
tion analysis of State minimum wage laws. K alachek ran a number of regressions relating




teenage employment to the availability of unem­
ployed adult labor, the ratio of teenage to total
employment, a measure of the flexibility of rela­
tive wages, the occupational and industrial com­
position of employment, and other control vari­
ables (proportion of teenagers in school, pro­
portion married, income of married males, and
Negro proportion of the teenage population), as
well as a dummy variable for the presence of a
State minimum wage law. Applying his analy­
sis to data for the 75 largest s m s a ’ s drawn from
the 1960 Census of Population, Kalachek found
that the proxy variable for the minimum wage
either had the wrong sign or was statistically
insignificant in his analyses.
K a tz also analyzed the 1960 census data for
male teenagers in 67 metropolitan areas. Unlike
Kalachek, Katz used estimated hourly earnings,
rather than weekly earnings. Further, the study
used a model with separate equation for labor
demand, teenagers’ demand for schooling, and
the labor force participation of students and of
nonstudents. The preliminary findings of the
study indicate that the demand for teenage
labor was elastic and that minimum wage laws
had a substantial effect on teenage wages and,
hence, that extending minimum wage coverage
to the other States would have curbed employ­
ment opportunities of teenagers in those areas.
In fact, however, the difference in the rate of
employment between the two groups of metro­
politan areas was very modest, though other
factors may have offset the greater differences
expected due to minimum wage coverage alone.
The author speculated that, to the degree the
extensions of coverage of the Federal law in
1961 and 1966 into the trade and service sectors
increased teenagers’ wages relative to those for
adults, it may have reduced teenage employ­
ment. Because a minimum wage might also dis­
courage teenage labor force participation, the
author notes, it would not necessarily cause
higher unemployment rates.
New studies: an introduction

The basic intent of this chapter is to develop
relevant quantitative relations between teenage

33

unemployment and minimum wage rates in
order to discern whether and by how much the
latter affect the former. Section 3 of this chap­
ter includes an analysis of quarterly data from
1954 through 1968. A separate investigation
using annual data for 1948 through 1968 is pre­
sented in section 4, with conclusions based on
all available materials in section 5. A more ex­
tensive discussion of the labor force data used
can be found in the appendix A to this chapter.
The work underlying the rest of this chapter
contains a number of new elements not pre­
viously considered. In the course of this work it
became clear that the study of the effect of min­
imum wage on teenage unemployment could
only be made within a more comprehensive ef­
fort to establish the determinants of teenage
labor force behavior. However, it was also evi­
dent that neither time nor resources was availa­
ble for a comprehensive review and the mate­
rial presented here does not exhaust the possi­
bility for research by others. In fact, several
problems which were uncovered in the present
study need to be dealt with at greater length in
future work.
A considerable amount of the analysis in this
chapter is concerned with unemployment ratios
rather than unemployment rates. It is impor­
tant to note the distinction here in order to
avoid later confusion. The unemployment ratio
is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population which is unemployed, while
the unemployment rate is the percentage of the
civilian labor force which is unemployed. Given
the civilian labor force participation rate (the
percentage of the civilian noninstitutional pop­
ulation which is in the labor force), the rela­
tionship among these various quantities may be
expressed as follows:
_
100 (unemployment ratio)
unemployment rate = ——---- ----------- —----:--------labor force participation rate

Unemployment ratios were the primary varia­
bles in the analysis because they were consi­
dered to be conceptually and analytically supe­
rior to the unemployment rates for reasons dis­
cussed later in this section. Results for unem­
ployment ratios are then translated into results
for unemployment rates, since the letter are
more widely used and understood.




Quarterly data, 1954-68

The equations representing the labor force
behavior of teenagers are all linear in the varia­
bles discussed below, and were fitted by least
squares. The general form is :
Y — bo -J- bi Xi -f- b2X2 -J- • • • ~b bk Xk

Limited investigation of comparable equations
which are linear in the logarithms of the varia­
bles was undertaken, but yielded substantially
similar results and are only briefly mentioned.
All data were seasonally adjusted quarterly
averages, except for population ratios, school
enrollment, and minimum wage variables. The
historical period upon which the regression
equations were based was from the first quarter
of 1954 through the fourth quarter of 1968 (60
observations).
Policy variables

The policy variables are those which reflect
government laws and programs and therefore,
key to the entire analysis. The discussion is lim­
ited to those representing the effects over the
year of the Fair Labor Standards Act and its
amendments, and of Federal manpower pro­
grams in recent years.
M in im u m wage v a r ia b le . The quantification of
the effect of minimum wage provisions of the
act has been attempted in various forms by var­
ious analysts. The simplest of these is a
“dummy” variable which has the value of one
after a change in the minimum wage, and of
zero prior to the change. Because this variable
allows for no gradation, it cannot pick up
change over several time periods. Ordinarily, a
dummy variable is used only when quantifying
a known effect is otherwise not possible.
A second simple variable which has been used
to represent the minimum wage is the actual
dollar value of the minimum rate, but a dollar
variable is deficient by itself. Some account
must be taken of changing wage levels over the
years. For example, the impact of a $1.60 mini­
mum would have been quite different in 1960
than it was in 1968.

34
Others have modified this variable by taking
it as a ratio to a wage rate level, such as aver­
age hourly earnings in manufacturing. This
variable is clearly superior to the two previous
versions. Nevertheless, it still can be considered
only a first approximation for various reasons.
As the f l s a has been amended over the year,
both the minimum rate(s) has (have) changed
and the coverage provisions have changed. The
impact upon the labor market behavior of
young people should take the detailed configu­
rations of these provisions into account. For
one thing, a coverage variable needs to be added
to the equations. In addition, the average hourly
earnings rates need to be calculated for those
industries and parts of industries covered by
the f l s a and used in the denominator of the
minimum rate variable, while the numerator
should be a weighted combination of the various
minimums in effect.
While this minimum wage variable is an im­
provement over those previously used, it still
falls short of what is wanted. More desirable is
a weighted average wage rate offered to youth.
In those industries covered by the f l s a this
would be either the minimum rate or the actual
rate offered if it were above the minimum. In the
uncovered industries and firms, it would be the
actual wage offered. These rates would be
weighted by the number of jobs held by and
offered to youth.
The minimum wage variable actually used
falls short of this goal. Ratios of minimum
wage rates to average hourly earnings were
computed by industry and combined into an
index in which the weight for an industry ratio
was the proportion of the industry covered by
f l s a times the ratio of the number of young
people employed in the industry to total youth
employment. The explicit allowance for youth
employment probably does not add much infor­
mation content to this variable because of the
slow change in its industrial composition. This
minimum wage variable combines both mini­
mum and coverage effects, and no further al­
lowance is made for the latter.

grams to create job or training opportunities
for a considerable number of young people. Es­
timates are available of the number of people of
various ages who have enrolled in the major
programs and how they would be classified
under the definition of the labor force survey.
For example, those groups within the Neigh­
borhood Youth Corps would be counted as “em­
ployed ;” enrollees in the Institutional Training
Program would be called “unemployed,” and
Job Corps enrollees are classified as “not in the
labor force.”
Having the various enrollment figures for the
major programs and knowing how these enroll­
ees are classified by labor force status gives us
some of the information we need. Also needed is
data about what these people would have been
doing in the absence of these programs. For
example, can it be assumed that all those classi­
fied as “employed” under the Manpower Pro­
grams would have, in the absence of these pro­
grams, been unemployed ? A study of these pro­
grams by Malcolm Cohen assumed that “enroll­
ees would have continued at their previous em­
ployment status during their participation in
the Federal manpower program if there had
been no program.”4 This assumption, plus some
others, resulted in estimates of increases to
teenage employment of several hundred thou­
sand. Whether or not the assumptions are real­
istic, clearly some effect is present which must
be covered by regression equations. No assump­
tions have been made about direct quantitative
measures for these program effects and there­
fore, included four dummy variables have been
included, one for each of the years 1965 through
1968, in all of the regression equations. The re­
sults are discussed in the section on the regres­
sion equations themselves.
There is some possibility of interaction be­
tween the dummy variable for 1967 and 1968
and the increase in the minimum wage variable
for those years. However, no such interaction
exists for the dummy variables in 1965 and
1966. Moreover, if the dummy variables exhibit
some progression in pattern from 1965-66 to
M a n po w er program v a r ia b l e s . Since 1965, the
1967-68, the presumption is that something
Federal Government has developed and main­ other than the minimum wage effect is being
tained a number of significant manpower pro­ measured.




35
Dependent variables

The analysis examines the effects of mini­
mum wage provisions on unemployment and
employment patterns of young people. Never­
theless, adjustments by employers to changes in
their labor costs may take place in one or more
of a variety of ways, i.e., price changes, profit
changes, and productivity changes. A compre­
hensive study of the subject might well give
more insights into the adjustment mechanisms
involved.
Efforts will first be directed at the study of
teenage unemployment ratios in the following
categories:
M ale
F em ale
W h ite A ll O th er W h ite A ll O th er
16-17 year olds___
18-19 year olds___

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Subsequently the same equations for all 16-19
year olds combined will be examined.
Various studies have shown that young peo­
ple have a high labor force elasticity to changes
in employment. Roughly, when employment
rises by 10, unemployment falls by only six;
this is an indication that additional people are
drawn into the ranks of the employed from out
of the labor force. These magnitudes are about
the same for both young men and women. Con­
versely, when employment falls by 10, unem­
ployment rises by six, so that presumably four
people leave the labor force. Consequently, the
unemployment rates (ratio of unemployment to
labor force) will exhibit behavior combining the
effects of both numerator and denominator.
Equations using these rates as dependent varia­
bles therefore, will be somewhat more difficult to
interpret. In place of these rates, as indicated
earlier, unemployment ratios (unemployment to
civilian noninstitutional population) are used.
Since the population estimates in the denomina­
tor change rather slowly and exogenously, the
behavior of the ratio will reflect more clearly
the behavior of the numerator. These ratios
lend themselves more readily to projection work
as well. Also, the implication for unemployment
rates can be and is derived.
Two other ratios for the relevant age-sexcolor groups are used as dependent variables.
These are the employment and labor force par­




ticipation ratios. Changes in employer hiring
practices should affect both the employment and
the unemployment ratios. Equations using these
two as dependent variables (and with the same
set of independent variables) then can be sim­
ply added to obtain the corresponding equations
with labor force participation rates as the de­
pendent variable. This has been done, and the
results are presented later in this chapter.
The separate categories of white and other
races, or of male and female, used for the analy­
sis need no explicit justification. The age cate­
gories of 16-17 and 18-19 year olds are consi­
dered to be significant because of the different
influences to which these groups are subject.
The younger group might be expected, other
things equal, to be lower paid, and hence their
employment more influenced by the minimum
wage. This group most generally need work
permits for jobs, and may be subject to other
work-connected restrictions or requirements as
well. In particular, they still heavily represent
those in secondary schools in most months of
the year. A large proportion of the 18-19 year
olds are out of school, but the boys are subject
to draft call.
Since both age groups are influenced strongly
by the school year, the seasonal patterns of em­
ployment and unemployment between the sum­
mer and winter months are very marked. The
question is whether the use of seasonally ad­
justed data for these groups for all periods of
the year in the same regression equation may
affect the analysis in some detrimental fashion.
The increasing rates of school enrollment over
the years have an effect on the seasonal pat­
terns of labor force activity. Since our methods
of seasonal adjustment allow for changing pat­
terns of seasonality, we may perhaps be remov­
ing, via seasonal adjustment, some aspects of
labor force behavior which should have been re­
tained. This suggests that some other labor
force models be examined separately for the in­
school and out-of-school youth, and possibly
with not-seasonally adjusted data. Limited in­
vestigation of this (not reported on here) does
not appear to yield any new insights, however.
Two other approaches have not been exam­
ined because of time and staff limitations. One
of these uses as the dependent variable the ratio

36
of teenage white to all other unemployment, by
sex and age possibly or the ratios of these to
adult unemployment, as the dependent variable.
Another would incorporate some measure of the
duration of teenage unemployment to pick up
an additional dimension.
Independent variables
A r m e d F o r c e s . This is the ratio of male Armed
Forces 16-19 years old to the population for the
same category. This variable is present only in
the equations for males, because it is assume
that minimal substitution of young women for
young men takes place in the labor market.
However, the withdrawal of some young men
from civilian life into military service presum­
ably has some effect on prospects for those who
remain. The variable is unlikely to be successful
in reflecting the negative effect on employment
opportunities for young men waiting to be
called by the draft. It is also deficient in not
reflecting the current number of 16-19 year
olds in the Armed Forces at all times, since the
variable is updated at intervals with no back­
ward revisions. The Armed Forces data thereby
contain some short term time movements which
are essentially statistical artifacts.
A g r ic u l t u r a l e m p l o y m e n t . T wo variables
were constructed, one for white and the other
for all other youth. They are ratios of agricul­
tural employment of the 16-19 year olds to the
relevant population totals. The purpose of this
variable is to reflect the gradual shift from
rural to urban activities. In the rural areas,
young people may be either unpaid or paid fam­
ily workers, but the nature of the labor market
is quite different from that in urban areas
where the personal element in the worker-em­
ployer relationship is less. Interrelationship
with other factors, such as school attendance,
and distance from home to work, are also pre­
sent. Since the data for youth agricultural em­
ployment are quite scarce no further detailed
categories by sex or age were used because of
their substantial irregular movement. Data for
Negro5 youth were so irregular in fact that only
annual averages were used.




U n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e o f a d u l t m a l e s . Some
measure of the level of economic activity must
be included in these equations since youth em­
ployment and unemployment patterns are influ­
enced by the general course of economic activ­
ity. As will be seen below, this variable has the
most important single influence on the employ­
ment and unemployment ratios of the young.
The unemployment rate of adult males does not
have the complex characteristics of that for
young people discussed earlier since the labor
force denominator (the adult male labor force)
is relatively insensitive to changing economic
conditions.

The regression equations
include measures of both relative demand and
relative supply. The ratio of the particular agesex-color population the adult population for
the same sex is a measure of relative supply.
During the latter part of the postwar period
these variables manifested upward trends re­
flecting the early postwar “baby boom.” If at
that time the available jobs for young people
did not expand rapidly enough, an associated
increase in youth unemployment would be ex­
pected. On the other hand, the result might also
be an increase in the “discouragement” effect
with more youth remaining out of the labor
force. Unfortunately, population measures for
the young, in particular Negroes, are somewhat
deficient as described in the appendix on char­
acteristics of the labor force data, and therefore
may not exercise their proper role in these
equations.
P o p u l a t io n r a t io s .

S c h o o l e n r o l l m e n t r a t io s . This factor is an­
other supply-oriented variable although varia­
tions in it reflect variations in demand as well.
Eight measures of the variable are used, one for
each age-sex-color category. The ratios are
available for October of each year; these esti­
mates are used for four successive quarters
starting with the last calendar quarter of each
year. Consequently, they do not reflect enroll­
ment changes during the school year. In addi­
tion, these data, based on a single calendar
month are subject to somewhat higher sampling
errors than the quarterly or annual data used
elsewhere.

37
The equations

The results for the 24 regression equations
are presented in tables 2.1 to 2.7. The symbols
in the tables are identified as follows:
E = civilian employment ratio to population for
the indicated category
U = unemployment ratio to population for the
indicated category
L = civilian labor force participation rate for the
indicate category
AF = ratio of male Armed Forces, 16-19 years old,
to male population, 16-19
A(W) = agricultural employment ratio to popula­
tion, white, 16-19 year old
A (NW) = agricultural employment ratio to popu­
lation, Negro, 16-19 year old
UR =: adult male unemployment rate
P = ratio of population of indicated category to
corresponding adult (20 years and older)
population of same sex
S = school enrollment rate for indicated category
WW = minimum wage variable
Di = variable reflecting factors peculiar to the year
1965
D2 = variable reflecting factors peculiar to the
year 1966
D3 = variable reflecting factors peculiar to the year
1967
D4 = variable reflecting factors peculiar to the year
1968
R2 = coefficient of multiple determination adjusted
for degree of freedom
S.E. = standard error of estimate of the dependent
variable
O = standard deviation of the dependent variable
D-W = Durbin-Watson coefficient
T = ratio of a coefficient to its standard error
Table 2.1.

Employment equations: white
'

Variable

Male 16-17

Male 18-19

Female 16-17

Employment equations: Negroes and

Male 16-17
Coef­
ficient

T

Coef­
ficient

T

Coef­
ficient

T

T

Independent:
Constant. __ 16.719
AF______
.088 .7
A (W )____
1.695 2.4
UR_______ -1.616 2.2
P.......... .... -28.769 1.0
S ____________
.339 1.6
WW______
- .102 .1
3.159 1.4
Di_______
8.723 3.1
D2_______
5.675 2.2
D3_______
5.310 1.9
D4_______

Coef­
ficient

T

53.831
-.0 1 3
1.473
-.7 5 0
-3.372
-.4 2 2
4.515
3.266
4.247
-1.668
.218

.1
2.4
1.1
.1
3.6
1.9
1.2
.9
.3
0

.783
2.656
5.651
1.724

R 2 ___________

S.E______
0________
D-W_____

Female 1

Coef­
ficient

Coef­
ficient

9

T

T

11.840
.967
-.4 9 5
-12.560
.051
.829
.816
4.887
4.684
4.668

.690
3.586
6.373
1.106

-17.630
2.0
1.0
.6
.6
.7
.6
2.9
2.9
2.7

.953
-1.454
87.203
-.0 3 8
.002
-7.757
-10.613
-8.798
-9.829

1.5
2.3
1.8
.3
0
2.8
2.3
1.6
1.7
.252
3.134
3.588
1.140

.660
1.905
3.234
1.346

As noted earlier, the labor force equations
may be derived as the simple sum of the corre­
sponding employment and unemployment equa­
tions.
The statistical significance is evaluated more
easily for the unemployment equations than for
the employment equations. In the former set,
the Durbin-Watson coefficients indicate the
presence of little, if any, positive serial correla­
tion in the residuals. However, still present are
the problems of errors in the independent varia­
bles and of declining sampling errors over the
years, which affect all of the findings to some
Unemployment equations: white
Male 16-17

Female 18-19
Coef­
ficient

Female 16-17

Dependent
E

Variable
Coef­
ficient

Male 18-19

Variable

Table 2.3.

T

Coef­
ficient

T

Male 18-19
Coef­
ficient

T

Female 16-17

Female 18-19

Coef­
ficient

Coef­
ficient

T

T

Dependent
U

Dependent
Independent:
92.276
Constant.
.197 3.2
AF
A(W)
- .458 .5
-1.513 4.9
UR
P.............. . -1.037 .7
S................ - .443 1.4
-2.782 2.9
WW. . .
Di
2.051 2.1
3.999 3.2
d2
6.749 5.9
Ds
8.080 6.2
d4
R2

S.E
0
D-W

Table 2.2.
other races

. .




.817
1.371
3.168
.960

78.764
.060
.655
-2.250
-1.057
- .102
-2.012
- .518
.359
2.025
2.688

56.429
.6
.9
8.3
.6
.6
2.0
.4

.2

1.4
1.9

.795
1.318
2.884
1.480

- .882
-1.423
-3.855
- .048
-2.208
- .411
- .761
3.743
4.617

27.780
.8
4.8
2.2
.2
2.3
.4
.6
3.3
3.7
.653
1.359
2.285
.967

2.380
- .479
2.535
-.0 3 0
.147
-1.227
1.705
1.740
2.432

3.3
1.8
1.5
.2
.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.7
.563
1.382
2.070
1.370

Independent:
Constant...
AF_______
A (W).........
U R ...........
P________
S________
WW______
Di_______
D2_______
Ds_______
D4_______
R 2 ___________

S.E______
0________
D-W_____

2.358
.015 .5
.227 .5
.458 3.2
1.093 1.6
- .058 .4
.305 .7
-.001 0
-.3 3 4
.6
- .174 .3
.9
-.5 3 9
.332
.631
.764
1.671

14.489
- .019
- .903
1.290
-2.050
.017
- .042
.761
.819
.513
.000

.4
2.8
10.4
2.4
.2
.1
1.3
.9
.8
0
.8 8 8

.606
1.792
1.979

4.120

10.560

- .317 .7
.170 1.4
.445 .8
- .009 .1
- .105 .3
- .480 1.2
-.3 4 5
.7
- .197 .4
.156 .3
.284
.575
.673
1.880

-1.195
.336
.552
- .060
- .525
- .035
-1.391
- .718
-.1 3 0

3.7
2.8
.8
1.0
1.3
.1
1.7
1.1
.2
.667
.619
1.055
1.676

38
Table 2.6.

Table 2.4. Unemployment equations: Negroes and
other races
Male 16-17

Male 18-19

Female 16-17

Female 18-19

Coef­
ficient

Coef­
ficient

Labor force equations: Negroes and other races

Variable
Coefficient

T

Coef­
ficient

T

T

33.428
-.1 1 5
-.8 6 0
1.082
-25.362
.291
-4.386
-2.229
-2.978
3.165
2.981

.493
1.634
2.272
1.845

R2___.........

.7
2.0
2.2
.9
3.6
2.7
1.2
.9
.8
.7
.569
2.449
3.692
1.351

-.3 1 8
.278
2.691
-.0 6 2
1.111
.733
1.113
-1.471
-1.578

1.0
.8
.2
1.0
1.3
.7
1.0
1.3
1.3
.511
1.312
1.856
1.674

Female 16-17

Female 18-19

Coefficient

Coefficient

Coefficient

Coefficient

Dependent

23.541

7.830

Male 18-19

T

Dependent
U
Independent:
32.257
Constant.
AF_______
.145 1.8
A (NW)___ -1.324 3.1
UR_______
.460 1.0
P________ -24.698 1.4
S________
.091 .7
WW______ -3.323 3.0
Di_______
2.081 1.5
-.0 9 7
.1
D2_______
5.134
3.2
D3 _______
D4....... — 3.945 2.2

Male 16-17
Variable

-.7 4 0
.370
-11.449
-.1 0 6
1.118
-2.444
-1.048
-1.091
-3.099

2.0
1.1
.4
1.5
.9
1.6
.4
.4
.9

Independent:
Constant.........
AF_________
A (NW)_____
UR_________
P__________
S__________
WW________
Di_________
D2-------------- -d 3_________
d 4_________

48.976
.233
.371
-1.156
-53.467
.430
-3.425
5.240
8.626
10.809
9.255

87.258
- .128
.613
.332
-28.734
-.1 3 1
.129
1.037
1.269
1.497
3.199

19.670

5.911

.649
-.2 1 7
-9.869

.213
-1.084
75.754
-.1 4 4
1.120
10.201
-11.661
-9.889
-12.928

-.011

1.940
1.549
6.000
3.213
3.090

.493
1.740
2.420
2.205

ployment. Thus, increases in the minimum wage
variable should reduce employment among teen­
agers; four of the eight coefficients have the
extent. In the case of the employment equa­ expected negative sign. In the same way, in­
tions, the Durbin-Watson coefficients generally creases in the minimum wage are expected to
indicate the presence of some positive serial increase unemployment of teenagers. The re­
sults are that only 3 of 8 coefficients have the
correlation, whose nature, discussed in the ap­ expected
sign. There may be some indi­
pendix on the characteristics of labor force cation forpositive
the
male
year olds to behave as
data, is different from that for which modified expected; 3 of the 16-17
4
signs
are correct.
estimation techniques have been developed.
Consequently, the significance of the coefficients
2. The wrong signs in the employment equa­
in these equations cannot be readily assessed, tions are not amenable to easy explanation, al­
but is probably overstated.
though possibly relevant variables have been
The results for the coefficients of the mini­ omitted, the relationships improperly specified,
mum wage variable are summarized below:
or deficiencies in the basic data have not been
overcome. However, some possibility exists that
1. Only 7 of the 16 coefficients have the sign adverse employment effects for 16-17 year olds
usually expected under the hypothesis that the may act to improve employment opportunities
minimum wage affects employment and unem- for 18-19 year olds. This may help explain the
large positive coefficient for all other males
18-19, but the statistical significance of the lat­
Table 2.5. Labor force equations: white
ter is unknown. The other positive coefficients
S.E....... .
0

________

D-W_____

Male 16-17

Male 18-19

Female 16-17

Female 18-19

Coefficient

Coefficient

Coefficient

Coefficient

Variables

Dependent
L
Independent:
Constant... .
AF______
A__________
UR_________
P
S_____
WW________
D,_________
d 2_________
Da________
d 4._
____




Table 2.7. Coefficient of minimum wage on variables in
employment and unemployment ratio equation
Age
group

Category
94.634
.212
-.231
-1.055
.056
- .501
-2.477
2.050
3.665
6.575
7.541

93.253
.041
-.2 4 8
-.9 6 0
-3.107
- .085
-2.054
.243
1.178
2.538
2.688

60.549

38.340

-1.199
-1.253
-3.410
- .057
-2.313
- .891
-1.106
3.546
4.773

1.185
- .143
3.087
-.0 9 0
-.3 7 8
-1.262
.314
1.022
2.302

Employment equation Unemployment equation
Coefficient

White males______

...

White females________
All other males___ ____
All other females__

16-17
18-19
16-17
18-19
16-17
18-19
16-17
18-19

-2.782
-2.012
-2.208
.147
- .102
4.515
.829
.002

T-ratio
2.9
2.0
2.3
.2
.1
1.9
.7
0

Coefficient
.305
-.0 4 2
-.1 0 5
-.5 2 5
-3.323
-4.386
1.111
1.118

T-ratio
.7
.1
.3
1.3
3.0
2.7
1.3
.9

39
creased by 25 percent for all groups. For the
third quarter of 1969, the value of WW equals
3.78. An increase of 25 percent in this figure
would yield an added 0.945. Multiplying this in­
crement by the employment ratio coefficients of
WW in the preceding table 2.7 and weighting
the eight categories by their average 1968 civil­
ian noninstitutional population values, the esti­
mated drop is 182,000 in teenage employment.
The same procedure applied to the unemploy­
ment ratio equations yields a net decrease of
34,000 for all teenagers. The two changes yield
a net decrease in the teenage labor force of
216,000, compared with a total teenage civilian
labor force in 1968 of 6,619,000, or a little over
3 percent.
As already indicated, the labor force findings
are
contrary to simple economic theory. If the
Category
White
All other
minimum
wage rises and if this causes an in­
Male, 16-17 .......................... —2.477
—3.425
Male, 18-19 .......................... —2.054
.129
crease
in
wages offered to youth economic
Female, 16-17 ...................... —2.313
1.940
theory
says
that the supply of teenage labor
Female, 18-19 ...................... — .378
1.120
should also rise, since wages are more attrac­
Under consideration is whether an increase tive. If, by supply of labor is meant those who
in minimum wage contracts labor force activ­ are working or who want a job, this may well
ity, either working or looking for work. The be the case. On the other hand, if supply of
evidence is inconsistent with basic economic labor is interpreted as those who are counted as
theory: all of the white groups have a negative employed or unemployed in the labor force sur­
coefficient, plus the all other males, 16-17. The vey, the problem is again one of measurement.
coefficients for the remaining three groups are The finding that an increase in the minimum
positive, influenced largely by positive coeffi­ wage variable shrinks the measured labor force
cients in the employment equations. The equa­ is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that it
tions for the all other categories are subject to also increases the potential labor force. Since
difficulties of interpretation in general. The our results are single equation results, esti­
cause may be partly the thin data base, and mates of the coefficients may be subject to bias,
partly the lack of a good model of Negro behav­ because certain other relationships are excluded
ior. Inquiries are necessary about the effect of from consideration. This point is discussed fur­
minimum wages on employment. The answer ther at the end of this chapter.
must consider the complexity of labor force be­
A cross-section analysis of six groups of male
havior, particularly with respect to “potential” teenagers, using area data from the 1960
unemployment.
Census,7 came up with a similar finding: when
5. These equations contain implications for labor force participation rates of male teenag­
changes in minimum wage rates. Since the im­ ers were correlated against their weekly earn­
plications (in terms of the coefficients of the ings (the use of hourly earnings was rejected
minimum wage variable) are not very reliable because of data problems) in the presence of
statistically, they should be considered with other variables, negative coefficients were found
great reservations. The estimates in the follow­ in all six equations. In other words, the areas
ing paragraph are subject to these reservations with the higher teenage earnings had lower
and can only be considered as reasonable, but teenage labor force participation rates. Since
not as definitely established.
this result was somewhat disconcerting,
Suppose that minimum wage rates were in­ Bowen and Finegan examined it at some length.

are clearly insignificant. With respect to unem­
ployment, the situation is actually somewhat
more complex.
3. If employment opportunities decrease, does
this necessarily result in an increase in
unemployment? Our labor force data indicate
that a considerable number of teenagers want a
job but have not looked for one, and are there­
fore counted as not in the labor force. Conceiva­
bly a decrease in job opportunities could be as­
sociated not with an increase in measured un­
employment, but with an increase in “potential”
unemployment, for which no count exists.6
4. The coefficients of the minimum wage vari­
able in the eight labor force equations also are
useful:




40

of eight labor force participation rates are re­
duced when enrollment rates rise.
The Armed Forces variable seems to play a
role only in the case of employment of white
males, 16-17 years old. The coefficient here is
positive, suggesting that increasing the propor­
tion of 16-19 years olds in the Armed Forces
may give the 16-17 year olds a competitive
advantage compared with the 18-19 year olds.
The agricultural employment variable has six
out of eight positive coefficients in the employ­
ment equations, and seven out of eight negative
coefficients in the unemployment equations.
Since agricultural employment as a percent of
population has been falling, this suggest that
along with the movement from rural to urban
Changes in unemployment rates
activities has come a decline in the employment
Age-sex
White
All other
Males 16-17 ................................... + 1.2
—6.0
ratios and an increase in the unemployment
Males 18-19 ................................... + .2
—6.6
ratios. On balance, the white labor force par­
Females 16-17 ............................... + .6
+ 1.8
ticipation rates have fallen, except for white
Females 18-19 ............................... — .9
+ 1.7
females 18-19 years old, while labor force par­
The net effect for all eight groups is a de­ ticipation rates for all others have risen slight­
crease in the unemployment rate of 0.1 percen­ ly. The movement from employment to unem­
tage points, or essentially no change. No de­ ployment is not inconsistent with the expecta­
tailed analysis by group is attempted to avoid tions.
reading significance into results which may in
7. A separate discussion is needed for the
some instances not support this effort; never­ four dummy variables for the years 1965, 1966,
theless, increases in unemployment rates may 1967, and 1968. Initially the use of single dum­
be consistent with decreases in the number of mies for the 2-year period, 1967-68, in these
equations was explored, on the grounds that the
people classified as unemployed.
change
in the labor force questionnaire in 1967
6. While the other variables in these equa­ might cause
the employment and unemployment
tions are not of primary concern they were in­ data to exhibit
somewhat different patterns
cluded on a priori grounds that they influenced than in earlier years.
The coefficients of these
the labor force behavior of teenagers, so exami­ dummies, particularly for
some of the employ­
nation of their performance is worthwhile.
ment
equations,
indicated
something was
The population variable behaves fairly well at work other than just a that
change in the ques­
in accord with expectations. If the population of tionnaire. A comparison of results obtained
teenagers rises relative to the population of during the year 1966 with the old and new ques­
adults, increasing difficulty in maintaining a tionnaire confirmed this impression that other
given employment ratio for the younger group influences were present.
The paper by Cohen8 estimated that almost
may be expected. Six of the coefficients in the
400,000
young people, 16-21 years of age, were
eight employment equations support this prem­
ise. In five of the eight groups there is also an covered by Federal Manpower Programs in
indication of a drop in the labor force participa­ 1967 and would be counted as “employed”
tion rates. Overall, the effects are somewhat under the definitions of the labor force ques­
tionnaire. There is question, therefore, as to
mixed.
The school enrollment rates play a generally whether these youths should not have been
similar role. As enrollment rates rise, most em­ picked up in some way by the regression equa­
ployment and unemployment ratios fall. Seven tions. Cohen estimated that the bulk of these
They eventually concluded that the source of
the apparent contradiction with economic
theory was in the use of the measured labor
force as the labor supply, a conclusion which is
consistent with the results and material pre­
sented in this chapter.
Some additional results are given on the ef­
fects of an increase in minimum wages on the
unemployment rates. As already noted, only
three of the eight unemployment ratios rise if
the minimum wage is increased. On the other
hand, five of the eight unemployment rates rise
under the same conditions. Specifically, under
the assumption of a 25-percent increase in the
minimum wage, the following is found:




41

employed young people would have been unem­
ployed in the absence of these programs. Quant­
ities of these magnitudes should clearly affect
the regression equations for the years since
1965. The four dummy variables were therefore
designed to try to measure the effects of these
manpower programs as well as any other influ­
ences present. Cohen does not consider the ef­
fects of other manpower programs, such as the
Job Corps, whose enrollees are classified as
being out of the labor force or any other influ­
ence which also affect our estimates of the
dummy variables.
The effects of these dummy variables are
measured in percentage points of the civilian
noninstitutional population. When they are
multiplied by the corresponding population fig­
ures and then aggregated across age-sex-color
groups, we get the following results:
Category

Employment effects of dummy
variable (16-19 year olds) ...
Cohen estimates of Manpower
Program effects
(16-21 year olds) .................. ...

1965

1966
1967
1968
(N um bers in thousands)

3

240

426

544

143

309

372

t1)

1 Not available.

The bulk of those employed were in the
Neighborhood Youth Corps. James Tucker9
shows that three times as many 16-17 year olds
were enrolled in NYC as 18-19 year olds. For
the 8 years combined, 1966-68, the employment
increments in the dummy variables show a fiveto-one ratio between the 16-17 and 18-19 year
olds, a not unreasonable correspondence.
Despite the fact that some individual dum­
mies (seven out of 32) had negative signs, the
aggregate estimates for all teenagers, are not
much different from the independent estimates
of Cohen, although one must make allowances
for his broader age coverage (16-21 years).
A similar comparison between Cohen’s esti­
mates and those based on the regression equa­
tion dummies may be made for unemployment
effects. This comparison is contained in the tab­
ulation :
Category

Unemployment effects of dummy
variable (16-19 year o ld s)
Cohen estimates of Manpower
Program effects
(16-21 year olds) .......................
1 Not available.




1965
1966
1967
1968
(N um bers in thousands)

—1

—97

—50

—191

5

—237

—17

0)

The differences between these two independ­
ent estimates are large, compared with those
for the employment effects. The estimates of the
unemployment effects from the regression equa­
tions are consistent with the idea developed ear­
lier that shifts in and out of employment are
associated with shifts in and out of unemploy­
ment, and also in and out of the “not in labor
force” category. The Cohen estimates provide
for no labor force adjustment mechanism of
this kind, as exhibited through our measure­
ment procedures.
The parallel between the finding in this study
and for the minimum wage variable is of some
interest. Both the dummies and the minimum
wage variable pick up employment effects, but
no particular unemployment effects. These find­
ings plus the evidence presented throughout
this chapter support the hypothesis that a labor
force adjustment mechanism is at work which
tends to limit the impact on unemployment lev­
els of various factors. However, the employ­
ment effects are associated with low DurbinWatson coefficients, affecting their significance.
The danger in this as well as in other ana­
lyses in passing subtly from speculation, proba­
bility, and tentative evaluation to a discussion
of apparently objective and uncontested facts.
The material presented in this chapter has
many tentative aspects, and more than the usual
number of caveats are discussed. The sta­
tistical result contain many plausible elements.
However, some objective facts are present.
FLSA changes took effect in February 1967 and
in February 1968. At the same time, Federal
Manpower Programs were operating in high
gear. Clearly the two phenomena were working
somewhat at odds, with the increase in mini­
mum wage rate and coverage operating, to some
extent, to depress job opportunities for the
young, while the manpower programs were
working to increase them. Since the manpower
programs were quite substantial and covered
hundreds of thousands of youngsters, if the an­
alyses had ignored these programs, they would
have improperly underestimated the influence
of the f l s a changes.

42

8. In the preceding analysis eight separate
age-sex-color groups were analyzed in order to
detect any differential patterns among them,
with some limited success. In the process of
fragmenting the data, the Bureau ran the risk
of increased errors in the variables, and de­
creased significance of results. Also effectively
ignored were any substitution effects among
these groups. Some added perspectives can be
attained by fitting the same equations to all
eight groups combined. This has been done both
with and without the four dummy variables,
with the results indicated in table 2.8.
These equations again indicate a negative co­
efficient for the minimum wage variable in the
employment coefficient when the dummies are
included, but a positive coefficient when the
dummies are excluded. The problem is clearly
pinpointed in the patterns of the variables in
the last several years, particularly 1967-68. As
indicated earlier, a reasonable assumption is
that positive employment effects are being
picked up from the manpower programs in
these years. The employment effects as meas­
ured through this single equation are greater
than from the eight separate equations. Another
hypothesis must be considered as well with re­
spect to the single equation.
The adult male unemployment rate for the
last 4 years were: 1965, 3.2; 1966, 2.5; 1967,
2.3; 1968, 2.2.
As labor market conditions tighten, the adult
unemployment rate falls. It is reasonable to as­
sume that it is harder to bring this rate down
Table 2.8.

from 3.0 to 2.0 than it was from 4.0 to 3.0, and
so on. As the rate falls, it approaches some fric­
tional limit with increasing difficulty, and labor
market pressures are increasingly transmitted
to other groups with higher proportions of mar­
ginal workers, such as women and teenagers.
The equations are expressed in linear form.
Can they be transformed so that they will rec­
ognize this nonlinearity effect in very tight
labor market conditions ?
The simplest way is to transform the equa­
tions given earlier into logarithmic form, ex­
cept for the dummy variables. This has been
done, and the results have been converted into
employment and unemployment effects with the
results shown in table 2.9.
The logarithmic results are taken as better
representations of the manpower program ef­
fects. These estimates may be compared with
those derived earlier for the eight separate cat­
egories of teenagers. The latter estimates have
picked up some of the presumed nonlinearity
through the separate equations and are thus
closer to those based on the logarithmic form.
The peculiar decline in the unemployment ef­
fects for 1967-68 undoubtedly reflect the effects
of the change in the questionnaire in 1967
which reduced measured teenage unemploy­
ment.
These summary equations are not otherwise
analyzed here, since they are generally consist­
ent with the equations discussed earlier. The
unemployment equations have negative coeffi­
cients for the minimum wage variable in both
the linear and logarithmic forms, whether or
not the dummy variables are included.

Equations for all 16-19 year olds combined
Employment ratio equations

Unemployment ratio equations

Table 2.9.
effects

Nonlinear employment and unemployment

Variable
Coef­
ficient

Tratio

Coef­
ficient

Tratio

Coef­
ficient

Tratio

Coef­
ficient

[Numbers in thousands]

Tratio
Effects

Constant______
AF__________
A_____ ______
UR__________
P___________
S___________
WW__________
D,___________
D2___________
D3.............. .
D4___________
R2___________

87.084
.096
-.5 3 0
-1.303
.359
-.6 5 2
-1.654
.102
2.431
4.298
5.427
.856




1.4
.6
5.6
.3
3.8
2.3
.1
2.2
4.9
5.9

51.690
.110
1.357
-1.303
2.051
-.5 7 8
.677

.730

1.4
1.2
4.3
1.5
3.3
1.1

.728
.056
-.3 1 2
.557
.702
-.0 2 8
-.4 2 4
-.5 1 4
-1.226
-.5 5 5
-.3 9 2
.739

1.8
.7
5.4
1.3
.4
1.3
1.4
2.5
1.4

1.0

1.415
.028
-.3 6 2
.622
-.0 1 3
.070
-.1 8 8

.723

1.0

.9
6.1
.03
1.2
.9

1965

1966

1967

+331
+311

+579
+420

+744
+457

1968

Employment:
Linear equation___________ ____ ___
Logarithmic equation,,, _____ ______
Difference reflecting labor market tight-

+13
+5
+8

+20

+ 159

+287

Unemployment:
Linear equation________
_________
Logarithmic equation____ __________
Difference reflecting labor market tight-

-6 6
-3 1

-167
-8 8

-7 5
-3 2

-3 4
-6

-3 5

-7 9

-4 3

-2 8

43
Annual data, 1948-6810

An analysis of annual data for 1948 to 1968
was conducted separately from the analysis of
quarterly data for 1954 to 1968. Data for var­
ious age-sex-color groups among teenagers are
generally not available for the longer time pe­
riod ; hence, the analysis of annual data is lim­
ited in that it deals only with the 16 to 19-year
age group as a whole.
The annual data however, do, allow determi­
nation of whether the relationships found in
the shorter time period hold true for the post­
war era as a whole. Second, since no attempt
was made to use precisely the same variables in
both the analysis of quarterly and of annual
data, some evaluation could be made of the ef­
fects of slightly different measures of a phe­
nomenon or the exclusion or inclusion of differ­
ent variables.
T h e V a r i a b l e s . Regressions were run using as
alternative, dependent variables the employ­
ment, unemployment, and labor force ratios
(i.e., dividing by population) and also the un­
employment rates (dividing by labor force) for
all 16-19 year olds.
The independent variables used differed from
those in the analysis of quarterly data primar­
ily in detail, rather than concept. Among the
independent variables used (with differences
from the analysis of quarterly data given in
parenthesis) were:
UA = unemployment rate of persons age 25 and
over (quarterly: adult male unemployment
rate)
P 1625 = ratio of teenage population to that of adults
age 25 and over (quarterly: adults 20 years
and over)
Af = ratio of armed forces under age 20 to male
population age 18 to 19 (quarterly: male armed
forces 16-19 years old, to male population
16-19 years old)
S = ratio of school enrollment to population, 16-19
years old (quarterly: same for appropriate
age category)

In addition, the analysis of annual data used
two different measures of minimum wage ef­
fects. The first—labeled WW—as in the analy­
sis of quarterly data, was the minimum wage as
a percent of average hourly earnings in the in­




dustry division weighted by the proportion of
workers in the industry covered by the applica­
ble minimums and the proportion of all teenag­
ers employed in that industry division (see
table 1.6 in chapter 1). An alternative proce­
dure was to use two variables: one a measure of
the basic minimum wage as a percent of aver­
age hourly earnings in the private nonfarm
economy (M /A H E); and the other, the percent
of nonsupervisory workers in the private non­
farm economy covered by the Federal minimum
wage law. The relationship between the two dif­
ferent measures of minimum wage effect is, of
course, quite strong (R2 = .978).
Unlike the analysis of quarterly data, the
ratio of agriculture employment to population
was not used, nor were dummy variables used
for particular years.
T h e E q u a t i o n s . The results of regressing the
included independent variables on the teenage
ratios and the unemployment rate for the pe­
riod 1948 to 1968 are given in table 2.10. Only
the adult unemployment rate clearly bears the
expected relationships with the dependent var­
iables; that is, the employment and unemploy­
ment of teenagers is affected by general busi­
ness conditions as measured by the adult unem­
ployment rate.
The minimum wage variables, as in the anal­
ysis of quarterly data, do not fare especially
well. The single measure of minimum wage
level and coverage (WW) has the expected sign
Table 2.10.
De­
pendent
variable

R2 Constant

L /P____ .839
E/P____ .908
U/P____ .928
U/L......... .940
L /P____
E /P.........
U /P .._ „
U/L.........

Teenage regressions annual data, 1948-68

.841
.915
.924
.941

57.3
62.0
-4 .5
-9 .9
64.6
68.2
-3 .7
-1 0 .3

U

P16 23

Af

S

- .3 6
(1 .1 )
-1 .4 1
(4 .3 )
1.04
(10.5)
2.17
(9 .6 )
- .3 8
(1 .2 )
-1 .4 0
(4 .4 )
1.01
(9.9)
2.11
(9.5)

1.03
(1 .7 )
.44
(0 .7 )
.59
(3 .1 )
.83
(1.9)
.68
(1 .6 )
.27
(0.6)
.40
(3.0)
.56
(1.9)

.18
(1 .8 )
.14
(1 .4 )
.04
(1.2)
.001
(0.01)
.14
(1 .7 )
.13
(1.4)
.02
(0 .6 )
- .03
(0 .5 )

- .4 9
(5 .1 )
- .4 9
(4 .9 )
- .0 0 4
(0.1)
.13
(1.9)
- .4 5
(6 .2 )
- .4 7
(6.5)
.03
(1.1)
.18
(3 .5 )

M / Cover­
AHE age WW
.08
(1 .5 )
.06
(1 .0 )
.02
(1 .4 )
.02
(0.6)

.06
(1 .0 )
.08
(1 .1 )
-.0 1
(0 .7 )
-.0 5
(1 .0 )
.12
(1 .9 )
.12
(1.8)
.002
(0.1)
-.0 3
(0.7)

44
Table 2.11. Regressions on teenage unemployment rate
annual data, 1948-68
Equa­
tion
num ­
ber

R2

Con­
stant

U

2
3
4
5
6

.547
.702
.925
.895
.929
.940

-1 .6
- 1 5 .1
-9 .4
-8 .9
- 1 3 .3
-9 .9

7
8
9
10

.758
.898
.899
.941

-2 .3
-8 .6
- 1 2 .5
- 1 0 .3

1.96
(4 .7 )
2.55
(6 .6 )
2.25
(11.5)
2.36
(11.5)
2.38
(11 .4)
2 17
(9.6)
2.55
(7 .7 )
2.45
(11.4)
2.56
(10.7)
2.11
(9 .5 )

1

P 16

15

1.29
(7 .2 )
1.24
(9.1)
1.53
(6.4)
.83
(1.9)
1.05
(5.1)
1.26
(4 .4 )
.56
(1.9)

Af

.08
(1 .4 )
.0007
(0.01)

.08
(1 .1 )
- .03
(0 .5 )

S

.13
(1.9)

.18
(3.5)

M/
AHE

Cover­
age

.15
(2 .3 )
.08
(1.5)
.08
(3.0)

.22
(3 .2 )
- .0 6
(1 .1 )

.08
(3.0)
.02
(0.6)

- .0 6
(1.3)
- .05
(1 .0 )

WW

.25
(5.1)
.06
(1.2)
.05
(1 .1 )
- .0 3
(0.7)

only in the regression on the unemployment
ratio ( H ). In no case is it statistically signifi­
cant. In the alternative measures of minimum
wage effect, the measure of the relative level of
the minimum wage (M/AHE) has the correct
sign in the case of the regression on unemploy­
ment rates and ratio, but is not statistically sig­
nificant. The measure of coverage has the
wrong sign and, in each case, is not significant.
Some further understanding of these result
can be seen in the additional regressions on the
teenage unemployment rate—some omitting
certain of the variables in the first set of regres­
sions—presented in table 2.11. A study which
would include only the adult unemployment rate
and the relative level of the minimum wage
(M/AHE) would find, as in equation 1, that
both are significant variables. However, in com­
paring equations 1 and 2, the fit of the regres­
sion is materially improved by adding a mea­
sure of coverage. (The variable WW in equa­
tion 7 makes the results of that equation most
nearly comparable to equation 2.) Not only is
the fit of the equation worse when coverage is
omitted, but there is good reason to believe that
the omission of a measure of coverage brings
about an overstatement of the effect of the rela­
tive level of the minimum wage. The size of the
regression coefficient on M/AHE is cut in half
when a coverage variable is added.
When the relative size of the teenage popula­
tion is added to the regressions (equations 3




and 8), certain striking changes occur. The cov­
erage variable is no longer significant and, in
fact, reverses signs. The joint effect of mini­
mum wage level and coverage is drastically re­
duced and no longer statistically significant.
This certainly raises the legitimate question
of whether or not the population and the cover­
age factors should be included in the same re­
gression. There are two purely statistical tests
of relative unimportance. When both variables
are included in the same regression (equation
3), the population variable clearly dominates
the result. If as an alternative test, comparison
is made between the regressions using the adult
unemployment rate and the minimum wage var­
iables—but not population— (equations 2 and
7) and the regression using the adult unemploy­
ment rate and the population variable—but not
minimum wages— (equation 4), the latter does
a much better job of explaining variation in the
teenage unemployment rate.
On statistical grounds, therefore, there is lit­
tle reason to exclude the population variable in
deference to the minimum wage coverage fac­
tor. While this may seem to downgrade the im­
portance of minimum wage coverage, it rather
reflects the fact that only two major changes in
minimum wage coverage have been made since
the law was originally passed. This limited ex­
perience is too meager to adequately separate
out the effects of coverage changes from other
developments, especially changes that have oc­
curred in the teenage population.
The addition of a school enrollment variable
(equations 6 and 10) materially reduces the
level and significance of the minimum wage
level measure (M/AHE) and causes the joint
effect of level and coverage (WW) to have the
wrong sign. Changes in the regression coeffi­
cients of the other independent variables in
those equations indicate that multicollinearity
within the independent variable set compounds
problems of appropriately separating out the
effects of each independent variable.
Conclusions

The most important—and at the same time
discouraging—conclusion to emerge from avail-

45
able analyses is that they do not permit confi­
dent conclusions about the effect of minimum
wage laws upon the employment experience of
teenagers.
Apparently any measure of the effects of
minimum wage laws upon teenage employment
or unemployment is highly sensitive to the vari­
ables included in the analysis, the measure of
minimum wage used, and the specification of
the equation. When all variables that have a
legitimate claim to consideration are included,
the measures of minimum wage not infre­
quently have the wrong sign and/or are not
statistically significant at conventional levels.
This is generally true whether one looks at
quarterly or annual data, at data for the entire
postwar period or more limited time segments,
or at data for teenagers as a whole, or teenag­
ers compartmentalized into various sex-colorage groups.
From all this, it should not be concluded that
minimum wage laws have no effect. Rather, the
fact is that time series analysis does not permit
an adequate separation of various, nominally
independent, factors affecting teenage employ­
ment problems.
While confident conclusions cannot be drawn,
the data and equations do suggest certain addi­
tional, if highly tentative, conclusions:
There is some basis for the conclusion that
the extensions of coverage of the minimum
wage law in the 1960’s have had more of an
effect upon changes in the teenage unemploy­
ment rate than changes in the relative level of
the minimum wage. The close historic relation­
ship that did exist between the changes in

coverage and the growth in the relative size of
the teenage population prevent any firm state­
ment.
There is some basis for the inference that the
affect of Federal manpower programs and the
Federal minimum wage have tended to offset
each other. The analysis of quarterly data indi­
cates that increases in employment attributed
to the manpower programs have been offset to
some degree, by decreases in employment at­
tributed to the minimum wage. These results
were not found uniformly, however, among all
sex-color-age groups within the teenage popula­
tion.
Some evidence supports the hypothesis that
minimum wages have had greater adverse ef­
fects upon 16 to 17 year olds than upon 18 to
19 year olds. The regressions summarized in
table 2.7 indicate, for example, that the adverse
effect on employment for white males 16 to 17
years old is greater than for white males 18 to
19. The pattern of relative disadvantage holds
true in six of the eight cases. However, the
quality of the evidence does not meet high
standards.
In general, the most important factor ex­
plaining changes in teenage employment and
unemployment has been general business condi­
tions as measured by the adult unemployment
rate. The role of other variables remains
clouded by the interrelationships among them.
Although hints of adverse effects of minimum
wages show up in available data, no firm state­
ment can be made about the magnitude of such
effects.

-F O O T N O T E S1 This section was written by Thomas W. Gavett,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Yale Brozen, “ The Effect of Statutory Minimum
Wage Increases on Teen-Age Employment,” Jou rn a l of
L a w and E conom ics (April 1969), pp. 109-122. Arthur
F. Burns, The M an ag em en t of P ro sp e rity (Columbia
University Press, 1966), pp. 45-48. Hugh Folk, “ The
Problem of Youth Unemployment,” in The T ra n sitio n
fro m School to W ork (Princeton University, 1968), pp.
76-107, Lester C. Thurow, “ The Determinants of the
Occupational Distribution of Negroes,” in Gerald
Somers, ed. E d u ca tio n an d T ra in in g o f D isa d v a n ta g ed




M in o rities (Wisconsin University Press, 1969) pp. 187205.
Peter S. Barth, “The Minimum Wage and Teenage
Unemployment” (Ohio State University, 1969) un­
published manuscript. James E. Easley and Robert M.
Fearn, “Minimum Wages and Unemployment of Teen­
agers” (North Carolina State University, 1969) un­
published manuscript. Marvin Rosters and Finis Welch,
“The Distributional Incidence of Cyclical Fluctuations
and the Minimum Wage” (Council of Economic Ad­
visors and NBER, 1970).
Thomas G. Moore, “The Effect of Minimum Wages on

46
Employment” (Council of Economic Advisers). Gerald
W. Scully, “ The Impact of Minimum Wages on the
Unemployment Rates of Minority Group Labor” (Ohio
University).
Edward Kalachek, “Determinants of Teenage Em­
ployment,” J ou rn a l o f H u m an R esou rces (Winter 1968),
pp. 3-21. Arnold Katz, “ State Minimum Wage Laws
and Male Teenage Workers, 1960.” (University of
Pittsburgh, 1970), a report prepared for the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Since Thurow used stepwise regression methods, the
sign of rejected variables is, of course, unknown. It
should be noted that Thurow’s investigation was not
primarily concerned with the issue of minimum wages.

3

4

Malcolm Cohen, “The Direct Effects of Federal Man­
power Programs in Reducing Unemployment,” Jou rn a l
of H u m an R esou rces (Fall 1969), pp. 491-507.
Includes other minorities.
See the appendix on characteristics of the labor
force for further discussion of these points.
Bowen and Finegan, op. cit., p. 432.
Op. cit.
“The First 50,000 NYC Enrollees,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R evie w (December 1965), p. 1442.
This section was written by Thomas W. Gavett,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

5
6
7
8
9

10

APPENDIX A

Characteristics of the Labor Force Data

The basic data in this analysis have been drawn from the labor force
survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the last 25 years. The
sample used for this survey is a rather complicated one; several features
are of interest in the present study.
1. Population estimates of various age-sex-color groups which are
used for control purposes in the estimating procedure are independently
made by aging the corresponding groups in the most recent decennial
census. They necessarily reflect imperfections in the Census data. The
most important of these, for purposes of this discussion, is the differential
undercount of the population, which most severely affects the population
estimates for young Negro males. At the time of the 1960 decennial
census, 15-19 year-old Negro males were estimated to be subject to an
undercount of 13 percent. Five years after the date of the census,, the
15-19 year-olds are those who had been 10-14 years old at the time of
the census. This group is subject to an undercount, of about 5 percent
in the census. The official population estimates for the 15-19 year-old
category therefore show a somewhat higher rate of increase during
intercensal years than was believed actually took place. The greatest
divergence between “actual” and measured rates of growth for this
group take place in the early years of the decade. From then on these
two rates of increase converge. Since all of the regression equations
contain variables based on the population estimates of the various cate­
gories of teenagers, these variables, particularly for Negro males, are
necessarily somewhat defective. Improved time series of population data
adjusted for these estimated undercounts are not yet available in the kind
of age detail needed.




47

2. Estimates of all of the variables in the regression equations are sub­
ject to errors, but the labor force data in particular are subject to known
amounts and kinds of sampling error. This has several implications for
estimation methods.
a. The quarterly unemployment ratios used for the dependent varia­
bles currently have sampling errors of about 10 percent for each of the
detailed eight age-sex-color groups we have examined. This is part of
the basic “noise” of the equations which exist separately from the errors
in fitting these equations. The employment ratios have sampling errors
about half this size.
b. Among the independent variables, similar sampling errors exist
in the adult male unemployment rate and the school enrollment rate. The
latter, which are based on data for a single month, have somewhat larger
sampling errors. The presence of errors in the independent variables
vitiates the results derived from the use of ordinary least squares in
fitting the equations. They do not affect the forecasting power of these
equations, since forecasting by use of error-free independent variables
cannot be done, but errors affect the tests of significance and bias the
estimates of the coefficients of the variables.
c. A particular problem exists with respect to the dependent varia­
bles, the employment and unemployment ratios. The labor force sample
has three-fourths of the households in common between adjacent months,
one-half in common between 2 months with 1 month between, and onefourth in common between 2 months with 2 months between them.
For individuals with stable characteristics, these patterns are reflected
in serial correlation of sampling errors with an unusual and hitherto un­
studied pattern, as far as regression estimation methods are concerned.
The employment ratios represent somewhat stable characteristics and
the equations with these variables we should have, therefore, low
Durbin-Watson coefficients. As already seen, this is the case for every one
of the eight groups. The unemployment ratios represent far less stable
characteristics and the Durbin-Watson coefficient for these equations
should fall within some respectable region (somewhere near 2.0), and
they do.
These characteristics of labor force data are worth noting since they
suggest that basic work needs to be done in developing appropriate estima­
tion techniques for equations which include them. The ordinary type of
correction for serial correlation is inappropriate in this study.
d. One final comment must be made about the nature of the sampling
errors, particularly in the dependent variables in the equations. Over the
postwar years the labor force sample has been improved on a number of
occasions. This has been accomplished in more obvious ways by several
increases in the size of the sample itself. Less obvious improvements were
made in the internal estimation techniques and in ways of updating the
universe of households. The net effect of the various changes which have
taken place has been to reduce gradually the sampling error in the data.
The data for the earlier years are therefore subject to higher sampling
error than are those for the later years. This should be, and often is,
reflected in diminishing disturbance values over time in the equations.
This in turn suggest a weighted estimation procedure be used in fitting




48

these equations. Unfortunately, the appropriate values of the weights
could not be developed in time for tlvs analysis so a standard procedure
was used which gave equal weights to all of the observations.
3. This section on the quality of the labor force data must note
another source of indeterminacy. Sample households are contacted for
successive months of data and then dropped. They re-enter the sample
eight months later for another four-months period. Labor force analysts
directly concerned with the current population survey have long noted
that households first interviewed tend to have higher unemployment levels
than those which had also been interviewed in earlier months. The reason
for this consistent pattern has never been fully understood, although it
has been explored. Possibly, second and subsequent visits may introduce
a “learning” effect. In any case, a slight change in the interview situation,
or in the treatment of the data affects the results.1
In 1967 a modified questionnaire was introduced for the current popula­
tion survey. During the preceding year, data were collected for two
independent household samples using both the old and the new ques­
tionnaires. These data indicated that unemployment rates for teenagers
were reduced slightly in the next questionnaire and had developed a new
seasonal pattern. Employment ratios for teenagers were slightly higher
although this was not a statistically substantial result.
An unusual problem arose in this connection. The basic analysis was
carried on with seasonally adjusted data. Because unemployment data
for 1967 and 1968 have seasonal patterns which differ markedly from
those in earlier years for young people, ordinary computer techniques of
seasonal adjustment based on continuity of patterns for a number of
years could not be used. The method which was used (not described here)
necessarily gave much weight to the patterns evident in 1967 and 1968
for seasonally adjusting these two years. Coincidently, basic changes took
place in the minimum wage in February 1967 and February 1968. If the
changes in the minimum wage affected the unemployment levels for
teenagers after the two Februaries, these effects may be partly erased
through reliance largely on the data for these two years to develop appro­
priate adjustments for seasonality. However, to the extent that the effects
of minimum wages are always present (as our basic models posit) then
the equations should pick up something in 1967 and 1968 as a whole, if
there is something to be discerned.
The indeterminacies attached to labor force data, particularly for young
people, and which are not given by sampling error measures, have come
to light recently in comparisons with a new source of data, a National
Longitudinal Study of the educational and labor market experience of
male youth 14-24 years of age by an Ohio State University group, under
the direction of Herbert S. Parnes.2
More detailed comparisons are made in the report cited, but they con­
tain many puzzling elements. One important ingredient must be con­
sidered. In the CPS, data for all members of the household over 16 years
of age are obtained from a single responsible household respondent. After
the first interview, many of the subsequent contacts are made by tele­
phone. In the LGS, all contacts are made with the individual who is in




49
Table 2.12.

Ratio of LGS to CPS estimates October 1966
Sex and age
WHITE MALES:
16-17___________________________________________________________
18-19___________________________________________________________
ALL OTHER MALES:
16-17___________________________________________________________
18-19___________________________________________________________

Labor force
participation

Employment
ratio

1.42
1.24
1.84
1.31

1.39
1.24
1.83
1.31

Unemployment Unemployment
rate
ratio

1.67
1.29
1.87
1.39

1.19
1.04
1.01
1.06

the sample. Parnes does not conclude that the LGS data are more accurate
than the CPS, but that they are definitely different from each other.
The important point for our purposes is that the teenagers, many of
whom have marginal attachment in the labor force, will have their
responses affected significantly by the structure of the survey instrument
and procedures. To what extent a different approach, such as that of
Parnes, would have yielded times series with significantly different
characteristics than the CPS, and a different set of conclusions about the
effects of minimum wage must remain an unanswered question. But labor
force measures reflect the real world through a glass somewhat im­
perfectly.
Measured unemployment vs. potential

A study of the possible effects of minimum wage rates on the unem­
ployment rates of youth must be viewed within a broad context. As
already noted, this study primarily considers the employment and labor
force ratios of youth. The lack of employment opportunities for youth is
not solely reflected in unemployment but also in withdrawal from the labor
force. Hence, reduction of employment opportunities for youth may be
only imperfectly transmitted to increases in unemployment.
The complexity of the picture is partly indicated by the following
material. In 1968 the average number of male unemployed, 16-19 years
old, was 427,000. At the same time, the average number of males of the
same ages who were neither working nor seeking work was 3,002,000.
Although some of this group did not seek work because of more attrac­
tive alternative ways of spending their time, as many as 569,000 of them
would have taken jobs. This number is larger than the number who,
through some overt expression of seeking work, had been counted among
the unemployed.
Some 42,000 of the 569,000 did not seek work because they thought
they could not find it. Most of the 569,000 did not seek work because
they were attending school, and the kind of work they could engage in
would have to be available during the off school hours. However, they did
not test the labor market and we do not know whether jobs were available
on their term. Consequently, though some jobs may not have been avail­
able for teenagers because employers would have had to offer them higher
wage rates than they were prepared to pay, others were not available
because employers could not or chose not to restructure their jobs to fit
the hours desired. On the other hand, if they could have attracted prospec-




50
Table 2.13.

Average Labor Force Status of 11-19-Year-Old Males and Females in 1969

[In thousands]
Status

Males

Females

Total noninstitutional civilian population..........................................................
Civilian labor force...................................................................................................................
Employed............................................................................................................................
Unemployed.......................................................................................................................

6,703
3,681
3,254
427

7,243
2,938
2,526
412

Want
jobs
Not in labor force:
Total..................................................................................................................................
In sch ool............................................................................................................................
Ill health, disability_____________ ____________ ________________ _________
Home responsibilities__________________________________________________
Think cannot get work
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Want no job at present _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
All other reasons_____ ______ __________________________________________

569
475
9
1
42
42

Do not
want jobs
2,453
2,038
25
15
354

Want
jobs
652
425
16
79
67
65

Do not
want jobs
3,653
2,325
26
678
397

Source: Special Labor Force Report No. 110, Monthly Labor Review, July 1969.

tive employees with the use of lower wage rates, they might have been
willing to do some of the necessary job restructuring.
The background data for 16-19 year old males and females are sum­
marized in table 2.13. The questions on reasons for not in labor force
have only been asked since 1967; therefore, such data for other years in
the postwar period are unfortunately, not available.
Nevertheless, a number of other analyses of postwar patterns of varia­
tions in labor force status for various age-sex-color groups show that
reductions in employment flow both to unemployment and out of the labor
force. In the same way employment increases draw upon the pool of
unemployed and those out of the labor force. Some people who evidence
no work-seeking behavior when disemployed during less prosperous times,
and therefore are counted among those not in the labor force, have been
labeled the “disguised” or “hidden” unemployed.3 These analyses, which
are necessarily indirect in nature, are supported by the new evidence of
the last two years on reasons for not being in the labor force.
Clearly, although work with the established categories of labor force
status is necessary, we must also bear in mind that our measured un­
employment does not represent the dimensions of need and desire for a
job. This will be discussed again below in another connection.
Effects of prosperity and affluence and changing social climate

In another way the present analysis, as well as those of previous
researchers, is deficient. The labor market for youth is thought of in an
oversimplified way. There are counts of the number of young who are
employed or unemployed, but no corresponding counts of the number of
job vacancies for young workers which remain unfilled for one reason or
another. From the statements, both voluntary and solicited, of individual
employers and others, such jobs exist, are known to exist. During the
post-World II years, for which labor force data are available, this country




51
has steadily maintained its economic progress and both individuals and
households have increased their standards of living. At the same time, and
at least partly fueled by these trends, as many see it, a pattern of rising
expectations has developed, particularly for the young.4 Many jobs, such
as bootblacks, messenger, stockboy, etc., which had been filled largely
from the ranks of young workers in the past, have moved down in relative
status, even though some of them may offer wage rates at or above the
legal minimum.
Apart from the various analyses of the effects of minimum wages on
labor force participation, other studies have been made in recent years
on the effects of welfare payments on incentives to participate in the
labor force. The results of these studies, as in the case of minimum wage
analyses, have been mixed. However, they have at least raised the pos­
sibility that the presence of increased earned or unearned incomes has a
dampening effect on labor force participation. For the purpose of this
chapter this hypothesis can be modified to cover the case of teenagers:
Does the amount of income of other family members, whether earned or
unearned, have a negative impact on the labor force participation rate
of teenagers? This can be manifested through both reduced employment
and unemployment as a result of reduced job search. Real family income
is not explicitly included among the variables in the present analysis,
but its effects are present. Since the influence of this omitted factor on
employment and unemployment is sometimes in the same and sometimes
in an opposite direction to that for the minimum wage variable, analysis
of the behavior of both the employment and unemployment ratios may
therefore be somewhat inconclusive. However, school enrollment rates
which have been included in the analysis, and which have risen steadily
throughout the period under study, may act as a partial proxy for family
income effects.
As in the previous section, some new information casts light on this
problem in data which have been collected since 1967. These are sum­
marized in table 2.14.
About 10 percent of the unemployment of each sex-color group consists
of those who said they left their job. Another 20 percent of males and 10
percent of females (white and others) lost their jobs, while the balance of
70 percent males and 80 percent females were looking for a job but had
previously been out of the labor force, whether or not they had ever
worked at an earlier time. In other words, some indication exists of volunTable 2.14.
Color

Reasons for Unemployment, 1968 Averages 16-19 Year Olds, by Sex and

[Thousands]
White

Reasons for Unemployment
Male
Job Leavers______________________ _____________________________ ___________________
Job Losers_____________________________________ ______ ______________________________
Entrants and Reentrants______________________________ •____________ _________________
Total_______ ____________________ ____________________ _________________________




41
71
229
341

Negro

Female
34
36
238
308

W alt
12
22
69
103

Female
9
12
76
97

52

tary disemployment among the young, which may well be related to the
economic status of the family.
--------- FOOTNOTES--------1 Robert Pearl and Joseph Waksberg, “Effects of Repeated Household Interviews
in the Current Population Survey,” paper presented before the 47th National Con­
ference of the American Marketing Association, June 17, 1964.
2 In appendix E of their report, “Career Thresholds: A longitudinal study of the
educational and labor market experienced of male youth, 14-24 years of age” Volume
I Center for Human Resource Research (The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
1969). They compare their data (LGS) with CPS data and find that for the white
and Negro male groups, 16-17 and 18-19 years of age, their survey (also conducted
by the Bureau of the Census) uncovers both higher unemployment and employment
ratios than does the CPS. On the other hand, the unemployment rates are very
sim ilar. There are some small differences in tim ing between the two surveys, but the
differences in results are larger than can be accounted for by known factors including
sampling error. Table 2.12 summarizes some of this information.
* Thomas Demberg and Kenneth Strand, “Hidden Unemployment 1953-62: A
Quantitative Analysis by Age and Sex,” American Economic Review (March 1966),
pp. 71-95; Alfred Telia, “Labor Force Sensitivity to Employment by Age, Sex,”
Industrial Relations (February 1965), pp. 69-83; Sophia Cooper and Denis Johnston,
“Labor Force Projections for 1970-80,” (BLS Special Labor Force Report No. 49,
1965).
4 W illiam G. Bowen and T. Aldridge Finegan in their mammoth book, The Economics
of Labor Force Participation (Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 460, discuss a
byproduct phenomenon—the “hippie” movement and its impact on labor force behavior
for which they could not find any isolated effects in the data available through 1966.

APPENDIX B

Single Equation Biases in Findings

The equations in this analysis are of the form:
aD + aiAF + a*A + a s U R -f a«P + a5S + a«WW + other variables
= b<> +biA F + baA + b»UR -f bd? + b5S + b6WW + other variables

E =
U

and
L = c 0 + CiAF + CaA -f- caUR + cj? + c5S + c«WW + other variables.

In these single equation formulations, the assumption is that the inde­
pendent variables are independent in economic terms, but that any
covariation among them is taken care of in the statistical derivation of
the coefficients as “net” coefficients; in other words, each coefficient
represents the influence of that variable if all other variables are held
constant.
This analytical framework has yielded coefficients for the minimum
wage variable which are not in accord with economic theory, without




53

further qualifications. One source of the apparent contradiction has been
identified tentatively as the deficiency in our process of measuring un­
employment.
The present discussion is concerned with the possibility that the mini­
mum wage coefficients may be biased because they are derived from
single equations, although they should have been estimated within the
framework of a simultaneous equation model, with the appropriate inter­
dependencies among the variables explicitly exhibited.
In the absence of such a simultaneous model, a limited examination
was made of some implicit internal relationships among selected variables,
based on our earlier findings. Through this exploration we can see whether
the minimum wage relationships are more in accord with simple economic
theory even through the exploration does not obviate the problem of
simultaneity bias in the estimation.
This analysis was confined to the equation results for all teenagers
combined. First, let us specify that the adult male unemployment rate is
affected by the minimum wage variable in accord with economic theory.
As the minimum wage rises, the supply of adult male labor rises, but the
demand falls. It may be shown that the adult male unemployment rate will
thereby rise. In fact we find that
UR' = (1 - UR) n s -n d)
WW

where UR' is the derivative of UR with respect to WW, ns and nd are the
supply and demand elasticities. UR is less than one, WW is positive,
ns is positive, and nd is negative, so that UR' is positive.
The derivative of the teenage unemployment rate with respect to the
minimum wage variable is

(

d(

U

\/d

VL )

WW = (LU' - U L')/L2 = _1_

L

where U' and 1/ are partial derivatives with respect to WW.
From our single equations we find that
U' = be + bsUR'
L ' — Ce -f* C s U R '

By combining these expressions and using the coefficients from our
equations plus 1968 values for the variables in these expressions, we find
that the adult unemployment rate elasticity with respect to minimum
wages would have to be about one third in order to lift the corresponding
teenage unemployment rate elasticity just over zero.1 Moreover, the
teenage elasticity will always be less than the adult elasticity in the
positive range, a finding contrary to expectation. Consequently, this
exploration has not provided a wholly satisfactory answer to our original
puzzle. It must be emphasized, however, that there results are not defini­
tive, since they are still based on single equation ordinary least squares
estimates which are subject to simultaneity bias.
In this analysis we have ignored the possibility that other “inde­
pendent” variables may be affected by the minimum wage. Let us con­
sider that school enrollment may be so affected. I am inclined to think




54




that the elasticity with respect to the minimum wage variable should
be positive, although an argument can be made for a negative elasticity.
If an increase in the minimum shrinks the number of jobs held by teen­
agers and increases the number looking for work, there should be more
incentive for teens to stay in school, since there is less likelihood of their
finding a job. In any event we can investigate the relationship between
this elasticity and that for the teenage unemployment rate without
prejudicing our case.
Here we find U' = b6 + bsS', and L' = c6 + c6S'.
Our computations yield the following result:
nu = —.1044 + .6593 n, where
and n, are elasticities.
no

l

l

This equation implies that if school enrollment has a negative elasticity,
the teenage unemployment elasticity will also be negative. On the other
hand, when ns is about .15, the teenage unemployment elasticity is zero,
and as n8 increases in the positive direction, the teenage unemployment
rate elasticity also increases, but is never more than two thirds the
former.
Again, this result is difficult to accept. It would appear reasonable to
expect a small elasticity for the school variable than for the teenage
unemployment rate variable, but we find the opposite.
These two investigations have confined themselves to the relation­
ships of single variables to the minimum wage. Not only should other
variables such as AF and A be included, but they should be all con­
sidered within a simultaneous framework which brings us back to a
simultaneous equation model. At any rate while our original problem has
not been easily resolved in the terms of this further analysis, the analysis
does suggest that single equation bias may exist. This is not the only
technical problem which we must face in additional research on minimum
wages. All of these problems should offer a stimulus and a challenge to
the students in this field.
-FOOTNOTES1 The equation is nu

l

=

.1044 + .3188nuB.

CHAPTER III

Changes in the Federal Minimum Wage and the
Employment of Young Men, 1966-67
The 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor
Standards Act increased Federal statutory min­
imum wage rates effective February 1,1967, for
some 32.3 million workers previously covered,
and extended protection to an additional 9.1
million employees for the first time. The U.S.
Department of Labor estimates that when the
amendments became effective in 1967, almost
3.7 million employees covered prior to that time
were earning less than the new minimum of
$1.40 an hour. An additional 953,000 workers,
or one-tenth of the newly covered, were earning
less than $1, the new minimum for this latter
group. Extension of the act affected workers in
certain industries much more than in others.
Hospitals, nursing homes, laundries, and estab­
lishments in retail trade employed nearly half
of the newly covered and about three-tenths of
those earning less than $1 an hour.1
Prompted by the predictions of economic
theory that statutory wage minimums will, at
This chapter was prepared by Karl Egge, Andrew I.
Kohen, John R. Shea, and Frederick A. Zeller, of the
Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State
University. This preliminary report was prepared under
a contract with the Manpower Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, under the authority of the Man­
power Development and Training Act. Researchers
undertaking such projects are encouraged to express
their own judgment. Interpretations or viewpoints
stated in this document, therefore, do not necessarily
represent the official position or policy of the Depart­
ment of Labor.
Footnotes begin on p. 62, tables on p. 63.




least temporarily, affect the amount of labor de­
manded, a number of attempts have been made
to gage the effect of increases in minimum
wages on employment opportunities. Because
jobless rates among Negroes and others and
white teenagers have remained high or have in­
creased in recent years despite low and declin­
ing overall unemployment rates, recent studies
have sometimes focused specifically on the effect
of minimum wages on teenage employment.
That is, attempts have been made to test the
assertion that statutory wage minimums price
teenagers out of the labor market, causing ei­
ther high unemployment rates or abnormally
low participation rates.
This chapter examines the labor force expe­
rience of a national sample of young men inter­
viewed in the fall of 1966 and again one year
later to test the assertion. These youth consti­
tute one of the four population samples consti­
tuting the National Longitudinal Studies being
carried out by The Ohio State University Cen­
ter for Human Resource Research in coopera­
tion with the U.S. Bureau of the Census, under
contracts with the Manpower Administration
of the U.S. Department of Labor. A representa­
tive sample of slightly more than 5,000 male
youth 14-24 2 years of age in the noninstitutional civilian population was interviewed for
the first time in October and November 1966
with a far more ambitious aim than that under
55

56
consideration here: To study the labor market
adjustment of young men over a 5-year period.3
Fortuitously, the first of the six scheduled an­
nual interviews was conducted shortly before
the 1967 minimum wage increase went into ef­
fect and the second about nine months after the
effective date.

Our objective is more modest, that is, to ascer­
tain whether young men whose wages in 1966
were below the new minimums were more likely
than those already earning at least that much to
suffer a deterioration (or a lesser expansion) in
employment opportunities between 1966 and
1967. In the light of some of the assertions that
have been made about the connection between
the minimum wage law and the recent behavior
Research question
of teenage unemployment rates, this seems to
In recent years a significant expansion in the be an important question in its own right.
number of young people in the labor force has
Basically, the method of analysis in this re­
been witnessed, stemming from the “baby port involves comparing the 1966-67 employ­
boom” of the late forties and fifties. Despite low ment experience of young men who had differ­
overall unemployment rates, joblessness among ent wage rates levels in 1966; less than $1,
white and Negro and other youth had remained $1-1.39, $1.40 and more. The limits of these
high—with unemployment rates experienced by wage categories were selected in the light of the
them in each age group being about double provisions of the 1966 Amendments to the Fair
those for whites. Furthermore, as measured by Labor Standards Act. The lowest category in­
the current population survey, between October cludes all of those young men whose wage rate
1966 and October 1967, unemployment rates prior to February 1, 1967, was below the mini­
rose substantially for male youth enrolled in mum established for those persons newly
school and slightly for those not enrolled (table brought under the coverage of the act at that
3.1).
time. Although we cannot be certain that all the
High rates of unemployment among young youth in this category were directly affected by
people have added to the controversy over the the law, we do know that none of the directly
wisdom of statutory wage minimums. It is affected male youth within the age limits of the
argued by some that young people tend to be study are outside the category. Similarly, all
inexperienced and that many may be priced out employed youth whose wage rates prior to Feb­
of the market. Their potential contribution to ruary 1, 1967, were directly affected by the in­
the economy (marginal productivity) may be crease in the minimum rate from $1.25 to $1.40,
less than the minimum wage. To the extent that are included in the middle category. However,
this is true, some young people may remain there also may be some in that category in types
openly unemployed or may withdraw from the of work not previously covered by the law and
labor force through frustration and end up thus unaffected by the increase. Finally, no one
among the “disguised unemployed.”
in the top category was directly affected by the
We do not propose to make a definitive test of amendments since all of them were already re­
conventional wage theory. For one thing, the ceiving more than the new minimum.
ceteris p a rib u s assumptions of the theory make
Our strategy is to compare the 1966-67 em­
a definitive test extremely difficult, if not impos­ ployment
experience of those who were poten­
sible, to design. The theory makes no unambi­ tially affected
by the law (those earning less
guous prediction about the effects of an increase
than
$1
and
between
$1 and $1.39 in 1966),
in the minimum wage on the employment op­
with
that
of
the
group
that
could not have been
portunities for p a rtic u la r groups of persons
directly
affected
(those
earning
more than
(for example, teenage males). At least theoreti­
cally, there are opportunities for complex sub­ $1.40). If the change between 1966 and 1967
stitutions of various types of workers for others was more unfavorable for the lower wage group
so that an increase in the minimum wage for than for the higher wage groups, this would be
some workers might reflect itself in adverse em­ consistent with (although not proof of) an ad­
ployment effects on other groups of workers. verse employment effect of the minimum wage




57

changes. If not, it would make claims of serious
adverse effects of the minimum wage on em­
ployment opportunities for youth more difficult
to support.
Three different types of measures were used
to compare the relationship between the 1966
and 1967 employment experience of the youth:
1. The labor force participation rate and the un­
employment rate during the survey week4 of
1966 compared with those prevailing during the
survey week of 1967.
2. For those em p lo yed in 1966, the rate of dis­
employment—that is, movement into unem­
ployment and/or out of the labor force—between
the survey week of 1966 and the survey week
of 1967.
3. Change in mean number of weeks unemployed
and mean number of weeks out of the labor
force between the 12-month period preceding
the 1966 interview and the 12-month period pre­
ceding the 1967 interview.

Limitations of the data and the analysis

The interview schedules used in 1966 and
1967 were not designed specifically for a special
study of the effect of minimum wage standards.
Had the longitudinal study been addressed spe­
cifically to the minimum wage issue, different
variables and questions doubtlessly would have
been included in the interview schedules and,
ultimately, in the analysis. Nonetheless, the two
surveys have produced types of data for a na­
tional sample of male youth that, to the best of
our knowledge, are unique in that they permit
employment experience prior and subsequent to
a change in the minimum wage to be related to
the wages that the employed youth earned prior
to the change. Moreover, additional data permit
the youth to be classified according to color, age,
educational attainment, industry, occupation,
extent of labor market knowledge, unemploy­
ment level in the local area, and region. These
characteristics are important since it is conceiv­
able that adverse employment effects, even if
not generally discernible, will be manifested
among certain groups that have special labor
market disadvantages.
Although the data afford a basis for some
unique analysis, their limitations must be kept
in mind in interpreting the findings. First, our
wage data are not in all instances wage rates,




but are frequently average hourly earnings.6
Moreover, for large numbers of students—espe­
cially those who reported their earnings on a
daily basis—it was impossible to calculate an
hourly rate, and these are excluded from the
analysis.
Second, since the analysis uses wage rate as a
major control, it is confined to those youth who
have at some time worked for pay. Any effect of
a minimum wage in limiting employment op­
portunities for youth entering the labor market
for the first time would not be reflected in the
data. Although the tabulated wage rate reflects
the wage as of the autumn of 1966 for those
respondents who were employed at the time of
the first survey, for others with work experi­
ence it reflects the earnings of their most recent
job.
Third, there has been some attrition in our
sample between the 1966 and 1967 surveys, al­
though it has been remarkably small, especially
in view of the age-sex characteristics of the
group. Of those interviewed in 1966, 5.3 percent
had entered the Armed Forces by the following
year and an additional 3 percent were not inter­
viewed for other reasons, making an attrition
rate of slightly over 8 percent. Tabulations that
would permit an analysis of the characteristics
of the nonrespondents are not yet available.
Fourth, although the timing of the surveys
relative to the date of the effective change in
the minimum wage was fortunate for purposes
of this study, it was by no means perfect. The
12-month period prior to the 1967 interviews,
which is being used to represent the situation
after the increase in minimum wages, actually
includes at least two months, and possibly
three, prior to the effective date of the
amendments.6
Finally, and probably most important, our
sample is really too small to permit reliable esti­
mates to be made for many of the categories of
youth, once all of the necessary controls are in­
troduced. For instance, in comparing employ­
ment experience in 1966 with that of 1967, it
does not make much sense to combine persons
who have been in school both years with those
who have been out of school both years or with
those whose enrollment status has changed be-

58
tween the two years. Consequently, in most of
the analysis we examine only two groups:
Those who were enrolled in school both years
and those enrolled neither year. Even within
these relatively large groups, however, when we
have controlled for color, age, and educational
attainment, we are frequently reduced to pain­
fully small cell sizes. As an arbitrary rule, we
have decided not to use any percentages based
on fewer than 25 sample cases.
The incidence of low wages

Before examining the relation between 1966
wage rate level and comparative labor market
experience in 1966 and 1967, the characteristics
of youth in three wage categories will be com­
pared. Table 3.2 shows that there is a pro­
nounced positive association between hourly
rate of pay and age. Although 62 percent of the
youth earning less than $1 an hour were 15-17
years of age, only 8 percent of those earning
$1.40 or more were within that age bracket.
The relationship is more consistent among those
enrolled in school in both 1966 and 1967 than
among those out of school both years. Neverthe­
less, even in the latter case, the age differences
among the wage groups are quite striking. For
example, 20 percent of those earning less than
$1 an hour were under 20 years of age, while
the comparable proportion of those earning
$1.40 an hour or more was 12 percent.
Sample size is too small to explore color dif­
ferences in wage rates for all age-school enroll­
ment categories. Table 3.3, however, shows the
relationship for the two groups on which most
of the subsequent analysis in this report will
focus: 15-17 year olds who were enrolled in
school both years and 20-25 year olds who were
out of school both years. As would have been
anticipated, there are clear differences in the
color distributions of the three wage-rate
groups among the out-of-school youth. Whites,
who constitute 85 precent of all of the youth in
this category, make up only 58 percent of those
earning under $1 an hour, 71 percent of those
with wage rates of $1-$1.39 an hour, but 88
percent of those earning over $1.40 an hour.
In contrast, no such difference prevails
among those in school. The proportions of




whites and blacks within each wage category
are virtually identical with their proportions in
the total group. If the large number of cases for
which no wage information is available (about
30 percent of the white and 28 percent of the
Negroes and others) are distributed similarly
for the two color groups—and there is no rea­
son to suppose that they are not—this means
that at least among 15-17-year-olds enrolled in
school both before and after the increase in the
minimum wage, Negroes and others were no
more likely than whites to be directly affected
by the new rate.
A positive relationship between wage and ed­
ucational attainment is pronounced among
youth in their early twenties who are out of
school and is discernible even among the rela­
tively narrow age range of young students
(table 3.4). Among the latter, the proportion of
the high-wage group who had attained at least
a high school diploma was three times the pro­
portion of the low-wage group (22 percent ver­
sus 7 percent). In the case of the out-of-school
group, those with less than a high school educa­
tion constituted two-thirds of the lowest wage
group; three-fifths of those earning between $1
and $1.39 an hour; but only one-third of those
earning $1.40 an hour or more. Young men with
some college made up one-fifth of those earning
$1.40 an hour or more and much smaller pro­
portions of those earning less. We are per­
plexed that there should be as many as 8 per­
cent of those earning between $1 and $1.39 who
have had some college work. The very small
numbers with 16 years or more of school may
well be in various kinds of internship programs,
but we have not been able to think of an equally
plausible explanation for those with 13-15
years of schooling.
Analysis of results

Of the more than 9.5 million young men rep­
resented by our sample who were between the
ages of 15 and 25 in 1967 and for whom we
have wage data, 36 percent had hourly rates of
pay under $1.40, including about 10 percent
whose rates were under $1. However, those
earning under $1.40 were quite unevenly rep-

59

resented among youth with different demo­
graphic characteristics. They constituted 58
percent of those enrolled in school in both 1966
and 1967 but only 16 percent of those out of
school both years. They were 79 percent of the
15-17 year olds but only 43 percent of the 18
and 19 year olds, and 16 percent of the 20-25
year olds. Finally, they constituted 28 percent
of the whites but 35 percent of the Negroes and
others.
The groups whose wage rates in 1966 were
below the minimums that became effective in
1967 included large numbers of individuals with
above-average susceptibility to unemployment
and above-average rates of movement into and
out of the labor force under any circumstances
—students, the youngest group of teenagers,
those with the least education, and Negroes and
others. This has important implications for por­
tions of the analysis that follows. When we con­
sider disemployment rates—that is, proportions
of employed youth in the survey week of 1966
who were unemployed or out of the labor force
in 1967—we shall have to keep in mind that
low-wage workers would be expected, irrespec­
tive of the changes in the minimum wage law,
to show higher disemployment rates than
higher-wage workers for the reasons that have
been discussed above.
A counteracting influence obtains not only
the analysis of disemployment rates but also
with respect to other measures of labor market
experience. This is because the total sample has
aged a year between 1966 and 1967. Since an
additional year of age probably has a greater
effect on the employability of the younger than
of the older members of the sample, and since
the younger are disproportionately represented
among the low-wage workers, this factor tends
to impart a bias against finding an adverse em­
ployment effect of the minimum wage.
Relation between 1966 wage rate and
comparative 1966—67 employment experience
A l l y o u t h w i t h w o r k e x p e r i e n c e . Table 3.5
classifies all youth with work experience accord­
ing to the wage rate of the job they held at the
time of the 1966 survey or, if not working then,
their last job before the 1966 survey week.7 For




each wage-rate category several measures are
presented, each of which is designed to compare
an aspect of labor market experience prior to
and following the effective date of the changes
in the minimum wage law.8 Column II shows
the algebraic change in the average number of
weeks of unemployment during the 12-month
period preceding the 1967 survey from the
average number of weeks in the comparable pe­
riod prior to the 1966 survey. A negative sign,
in other words, means a decline in number of
weeks unemployed between 1966 and 1967. Col­
umn III presents the analogous measure for
number of weeks out of the labor force.
Column V shows the number of individuals
who were employed at the time of the 1966 sur­
vey. The disemployment rate, shown in Column
VI, is the percent of the number employed at
the time of the 1966 survey who were not em­
ployed at the time of the 1967 survey (those
unemployed or out of the labor force). Column
VII presents a component of Column VI—the
percent of those employed in the 1966 survey
week who were unemployed in the 1967 survey
week. Column IV is included to aid in the inter­
pretation of the disemployment rates. It shows
the proportion of the total number of persons
with work experience who were not working at
the time of the survey in 1966. The fact that
this proportion is higher for low-wage than for
high-wage workers suggests that the disemploy­
ment rate for those employed in 1966 should be
expected to be higher for low-wage than for
high-wage workers, even in the absence of a
change ini the minimum wage law.
In interpreting table 3.5 and subsequent ones
similar to it, our purpose is to ascertain
whether the low-wage groups had a relatively
less favorable experience after the minimum
wage changes became effective than the highwage groups; if so, we would regard this as
evidence consistent with an adverse employ­
ment effect of the change in the law.
The criterion for deciding whether the com­
parative changes in average number of weeks
unemployed (or out of the labor force) indicate
an unfavorable experience for the low-wage
group relative to the high-wage group is quite
straightforward: If the algebraic differences

60

show a greater increase (smaller decrease) for
the low-wage group, then the inference is that
its experience was unfavorable. Because of the
ambiguities in the disemployment rates, we use
a somewhat more complicated criterion for
drawing the analogous inference on the basis of
these rates. If the comparison of the following
two ratios indicates that the disemployment
ratio is significantly greater than the nonem­
ployment ratio, we conclude that the low-wage
group did suffer in relation to their better-paid
counterparts:
(1)

(2)

disemployment rate of low-wage group
disemployment rate of high-wage group
= disemployment ratio
1966 nonemployment rate of low-wage group
1966 nonemploymnet rate of high-wage group
= 1966 nonemployment ratio

It is clear from the data in table 3.5 that the
mean number of weeks of unemployment and
mean number of weeks out of the labor force
decreased between 1965-66 and 1966-67 ir­
respective of 1966 wage level. Moreover, con­
trary to what one would expect if the change in
the minimum wage law had an adverse employ­
ment effect, decreases for those who earned less
than $1.40 an hour are actually greater than for
those who earned $1.40 an hour or more.
On the other hand, the data that focus only
on those who were em p lo yed in the 1966 survey
week point in the opposite direction. As table
3.7 indicates, low-wage workers who were em­
ployed in the 1966 survey week were more
likely than their higher-wage counterparts to be
unemployed or out of the labor force by the
time of the 1967 survey. This would be expected
for reasons that have previously been ex­
plained; but it is also true that the disemploy­
ment rates relative to the 1966 nonemployment
rates are generally more unfavorable for the
low-wage than the high-wage workers.
No ready explanation for the seemingly con­
flicting trends produced by the two measures is
available. Each measure has certain advan­
tages. Those based on weeks of unemployment
and weeks out of the labor force have the merit
of covering a longer time span and of taking
into account all of the youth with work experi­
ence, while the “disemployment rates” consider




only those who were employed in 1966 and are
based on comparisons involving only two indi­
vidual weeks. On the other hand, because the
current labor force and employment status of
respondents is based on a series of questions
asked about activity during the week preceding
the interview, while the year’s work experience
data are based on the recall of the respondent
and do not involve careful probes for each of
the 52 weeks under consideration, the survey
week data probably have greater validity.
Youth classified by school enrollment status

In any case, the categories shown in table 3.5
are probably too gross for meaningful analysis.
In an attempt to focus on reasonably homoge­
neous subgroups of young men, we have di­
rected our attention to two groups: (1) Those
15-17 years of age in 1967 who were attending
school in both 1966 and 1967; and (2) those
20-25 years of age in 1967 who were not en­
rolled in school in either year. The size of the
sample has made it impossible to study other
groups.
Table 3.8 presents the labor force participa­
tion rates and unemployment rates in the 1966
and 1967, survey weeks for each of these two
groups. The unemployment rates are generally
higher in 1967 than in 1966 for the student
group, and the labor force participation rates
are lower. These facts in and of themselves
might be construed to be evidence of an adverse
employment effect of the minimum wage
change. It might be argued, for example, that
the higher minimum wages for these low-pro­
ductivity students curtailed employment oppor­
tunities for them during a period when the gen­
eral demand for labor was rising, resulting in
higher unemployment for this group of teenag­
ers and the withdrawal of some of them from
the labor force.
However, the increases in unemployment and
the decreases in labor force participation are
generally at least as large for high-wage as for
low-wage workers. We find only two instances
in table 3.8 in which a low-wage group suffered
relative to a high-wage group. Among Negro
and other teenagers who were students in 1966

61
and 1967, the unemployment rate of the lowest
wage category rose by 11.9 percentage points
while unemployment of those in the middle
wage group actually decreased by 1.2 percen­
tage points. Among young white men 20-25
years of age who were out of school both years,
the unemployment rate of those in the $1-$1.39
wage bracket rose, while the corresponding rate
for their counterparts earning $1.40 or more
fell. The latter comparison is somewhat atten­
uated by the observation that the labor force
participation rate of the high-wage group fell
and that of the low-wage group was constant.
In other words the reduced unemployment rate
of the high-wage group may be partly attribut­
able to the less employable members of the
group leaving the labor force.
Table 3.9 contains the same kinds of data for
the 15- to 17-year-old students and those 20-25
years old not enrolled in either year that have
already been examined in table 3.5 for the total
age cohort.9
Using the four measures of comparative
labor force and employment experience among
teenage students, there is no instance in which
they consistently point to a low-wage group suf­
fering relative to a high-wage group. Among
Negroes and others, those earning less than $1
an hour in 1966 had a smaller decrease in aver­
age number of weeks out of the labor force and
experienced relatively (and absolutely) higher
disemployment rates than those earning be­
tween $1 and $1.39 an hour (table 3.9). How­
ever, the former group also had a slightly
larger decline in average number of weeks un­
employed. Among the out-of-school youth 20-25
years of age, the implications of our measures
are similarly inconsistent, with one exception.
That is, the comparison between Negroes and
others in the middle wage group and the high­
est wage group indicates that the former suf­
fered relative to the latter.10 Those in the
$1-$1.39 wage category experienced a greater
increase (by 2.4 weeks) in mean number of
weeks unemployed; an increase (as compared to
a decrease for those earning $1.40 or more) in
mean weeks out of the labor force; and a sub­
stantially higher (more than twice) rate of dis­
employment.




Selected categories of “disadvantaged” youth

Even though the evidence presented thus far
points to no generally adverse effect of the 1967
changes in Federal minimum wages on the em­
ployment opportunities of young men, is it pos­
sible that particular categories of youth, who
may be presumed to suffer special competitive
disadvantages in the labor market, were unfa­
vorably affected? In an attempt to answer this
question, we examined the record for groups of
young men within the age categories referred to
above who might, on a priori grounds, be most
vulnerable to the impact of a minimum wage:
Those with 11 or fewer years of education;
those with no formal occupational training;
those exhibiting the least knowledge of the
labor market;11 those residing in the South;
those residing in Primary Sampling Units
where the 1967 unemployment rate was greater
than 5.1 percent; those in the industries of
wholesale and retail trade, and five service in­
dustries (medical, health, education, entertain­
ment and recreation, and personal) ; and those
in the occupation groups of clerical/sales, oper­
ative, nonfarm labor, service.
The rationale for having selected these par­
ticular subgroups is, in most cases, self-evident.
The industry and occupation categories were
chosen on the basis of their relatively greater
likelihood of having been affected by the ex­
tended coverage of the minimum wage law. Res­
idents of the South were chosen because of our
belief that young men in this region, on the
average, have lower productivity than their
counterparts in other regions—largely as a re­
sult of their lower average educational attain­
ment.
For each of the aforementioned categories,
tabulations were prepared identical to those
shown in table 3.8. In many of these tables, cell
sizes are so small for particular categories of
youth as to preclude any analysis; and in vir­
tually none of them were numbers large enough
to permit confident conclusions. Nevertheless,
each was studied carefully for any evidence,
however slight, of adverse employment effects
using the same criteria that have been applied
in all the preceding analyses. The following

62
comparisons controlling for color and the afore­
mentioned characteristics were made: (1)
Those earning less than $1 versus those earning
$1-$1.39; (2) those earning $1-$1.39 versus
those earning $1.40 or more; and (3) those
earning less than $1 verus those earning $1.40
or more. The only groups within which the data
were to any degree consistent with an adverse
employment effect are those shown in tables
3.10 and 3.11. As will be noted, even here the
record is in most cases by no means clear.
Among students 15-17 years of age, the
groups for whom the several measures most
consistently point to the possibility of an unfa­
vorable employment affect of the minimum
wage changes are (1) blacks exhibiting the
least amount of labor market information; and
(2) youth employed as service workers, ir­
respective of color. For the former, the ratio of
the disemployment rates as between low-wage
and high-wage workers is more than twice the
ratio of their 1966 nonemployment rates; and
the changes in the average-weeks measures also
indicate a less favorable experience for those
earning less than $1 than for those in the
higher-wage category (table 3.10).
Among young men in their early twenties, we
are unable to single out any groups of whites
for whom the size of the sample permits state­
ments about the lower-wage category and for
whom the measures are consistent. However,
among Negroes and others, the following char­
acteristics seem to be associated with an ad­
verse impact of the minimum wage changes:
Absence of occupational training; employment
as an operative; employment in the whoelsale/
retail trade industry; little knowledge of the
world of work; and resident in the South (table
3.11). Obviously, these characteristics are not
mutually exclusive, and interaction among them
probably serves to increase the likelihood of an
individual having been adversely affected by the
new minimum wage level.

Conclusion

Given the limitations of our data and the in­
herent difficulties in testing the wage-employ­
ment relationship empirically, it is hardly sur­
prising that we are unable to state a completely
confident and definitive conclusion about what
effects, if any, the changes in the Fair Labor
Standards Act that became effective February
1, 1967, had on employment opportunities for
male youth.
Despite the limitations of the data, however,
they have the very real advantage of permitting
the “before and after” experience of the youth
to be related to the wage they were earning
before the new minimums became effective. We
have been able to ask* therefore, whether those
youth whose marginal productivity (as mea­
sured by their rate of pay) was lower than the
newly established minimum had relatively less
favorable employment experiences after the
minimum wage changes than those whose
wages already had been above the minimums.
One would expect these low productivity
youngsters to be among the first to feel what­
ever restriction of employment opportunities
the minimum wage created.
The fact that we have been unable to find in
our data any general tendency for the foregoing
relationship, leads to the conclusion that if the
minimum wage increases did indeed create un­
employment among youth, the effect was not a
pronounced one. Even when the analysis was
focused on those subgroups of young men who
might, on a priori grounds, be expected to be
most vulnerable to the impact of the minimum
wage, only a small number of such subgroups
showed any evidence of adversity. In stating
even this cautious conclusion, however, we must
acknowledge that our data are confined to youth
who have had some work experience; they tell
us nothing about those entering the labor mar­
ket for the first time.

,FOOTNOTES-

1

Jack I. Karlin, “ Economic Effects of the 1966
Changes in the FLSA ,” M on th ly L a b o r R evie w (June
1967), p. 21. The present report deals exclusively with
the impact of the increases which went into effect in
February 1967.




2

The age criterion for inclusion in the sample was
an attained age of 14-24 as of April 1966. Since this
study deals with comparisons of labor force behavior
between the 1966 and 1967 interview dates, we will use
the 1967 ages of the sample (15-25) hereafter in this

63

7

report, except those for table 3.1, which are based on
U.S. Department of Labor data.
Results of the initial survey and the methodology
employed in collecting the data are presented by Herbert
S. Parnes, Robert C. Miljus, Ruth S. Spitz, and Asso­
ciates in C a reer T h resh o ld s: A L o n g itu d in a l S tu d y of

Similar tabulations for 15-19-year-olds are pre­
sented in table 3.6.

3

8

th e E d u ca tio n a l an d L a b o r M a rk et E x p erien ce of M ale
Y o u th , 1U-%U Y e a rs o f A g e f Volume I (Columbus, Ohio:

Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State
University, February 1969) appendix B.
By “survey week” we refer to activity in the
calendar week preceding the time of the interview.
Hourly rate of pay was computed in the following
manner: Employed respondents were asked, “How much
do you usually earn at this job before deductions?”
Responses in terms of an hourly rate were coded as
received. Responses in terms of a weekly figure were di­
vided by the number of hours usually worked per week
in the past 12 months in the case of those who had
been out of school for at least 12 months and by number
of hours worked during the survey week in the case of
those who had been students during the past 12 months.
Responses in terms of biweekly, semimonthly, monthly,
or annual figures were converted first to weekly data
by dividing by the appropriate factor for example, 2.2
for semimonthly and 52 for annual) and then treated
the same as a weekly wage.
Interviewing for the 1967 survey began during the
week of October 23 and was completed by the end of
November.

4
6

8




In no cases were any tests of significance attempted
with respect to the data presented in this report. Thus,
we do not know if any of the differences which are
reported are statistically significant. However, the dif­
ferences which are reported in the remainder of this
report are at least large enough to be of some interest.

9

The only difference is that for the 20 to 25-year-old
age group only one disemployment rate is shown, viz.,
the proportion of those employed in the 1966 survey
week who were u n em ployed in the 1967 survey week.
The reason for the different treatment of the two age
groups in this respect is that we believe that the
stimuli which induce movement out of the labor force
and movement into unemployment are quite similar for
young students, but that different sets of factors are
operative in the two types of movement in the case of
the older nonstudents. In other words we are more
willing to conceive of discouraged workers and dis­
guised unemployment among teenage students than
among men in their early twenties who are out of
school.

10

Although analogous inferences can be drawn from
the data on the total age cohort, it is clear from
examining the data for whites that the inferences apply
only to Negroes and others.

11

For a complete description and explanation of this
measure, see Herbert S. Parnes, et. al., op. cit., pp.

120- 121.

Table 3.1. Civilian Labor force Participation Rates and
Unemployment Rates, October 1966 and October 1967:
Men 14-24 Years of Age, by School Enrollment Status

School enrollment
status and age

Labor force
participation
rate

Unemploy­
ment
rate

1967

1966

1967

1966

10,471
3,738
3,235
1,636
1,862
5,889
66
323
1,272
4,228

31.9
16.6
38.5
37.5
46.7
93.7

33.8
17.2
40.9
40.1
49.5
92.6

7.1
6 .6
9 .2
8.1
3 .2
5 .2

11.1
13.5
14.2
11.3
4 .9
6 .2

73.5
88.6
97.7

75.5
87.9
96.3

19.4
8 .4
3 .3

20.5
10.7
4 .0

16,360
3,804
3,558
2,908
6,090

54.1
16.9
42.0
59.1
82.8

55.0
17.4
44.1
61.0
82.0

5 .9
6 .6
11.0
8 .3
3 .3

8.1
14.0
15.2
10.9
4.1

Population
(thousands)
1966

Enrolled, total.................. ........... 10,278
14-15............................................................. 3,640
3,130
16-17........................................................1 8 - 1 9 - ................... .................................... 1,841
20-24.............................. ............................. 1,667
Not enrolled, total..................... 5,781
47
14-15.............................................................
351
16-17............................................................
18-19............................................................. 1,346
20-24............................................................. 4,037
Enrolled and not enrolled,
total............................................. 16,059
14-15............................................................. 3,687
16-17............................................................. 3,481
18-19............................................................. 3,187
20-24............................................................. 5,704

1967

Sources: U.S. Department ef Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS Special Labor
Force Report 87, 1967) Employment o f Scheot Ape Youth, October 1966. p. A-5 . U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau ef Labor Statistics (BLS Special Labor Force Report 98,
1968) Empieymeftt of Scheel A§e Youth, pp. 36, A -5.

64
Table 3.2.

Age, by school enrollment status and 1966 hourly rate of pay: Men 15-25 years of age with work experience
Enrolled both years
Age
Less
than
$1.00

$1.40
or
more

$1.00
to
$1.39

Not enrolled either year
Less
than
$1.00

Total *
or
average

$1.40
or
more

$1.00
to
$1.39

Total i
Total *
or
average

Less
than
$1.00

$1.00
to
$1.39

$1.40
or
more

Total*
or
average

Total percent____________

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Total number (thousands).

593

1,644

1,611

5,608

230

526

3,896

5,024

918

2,553

6,142

12,168

15-17________________________
18-19________________________
20-25________________________

86
11
2

68
22
10

27
29
44

53
22
25

8
12
79

6
26
68

1
11
88

3
13
84

62
13
25

50
26
24

8
17
74

28
20
52

1 Total includes respondents for whom 1966 hourly rate of pay was not ascertained.
Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal total.

i
Total includes respondents who changed their school enrollment status between
1966 and 1967.

Table 3.4. Highest year of school completed, by 1966
hourly rate of pay: Men 15-17 years of age enrolled in
school in 1966 and 1967 with work experience and men
20-25 years of age not enrolled in school in 1966 and
1967 with work experience

Table 3.3. Color, by 1966 hourly rate of pay: Men 15-17
years of age enrolled in school in 1966 and 1967 with
work experience, and men 20-25 years of age not enrolled
in school in 1966 and 1967 with work experience
15-17 years old, enrolled *

20-25 years old, not enrolled
15-17 years old, enrolled

Color
Less $1.00 $1.40
Less $1.00 $1.40
or
to
or
Total1 than
to
Total1
than
$1.00 $1.39 more
$1.00 $1.39 more
Total percent—

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Total number
(thousands). _

510 1,124

438

2,971

182

358 3,428

4,196

90
10

89
11

58
42

Whites
Negroes and others___

89
11

88
12

71
29

88
12

Highest year of
school completed

85
15

Less $1.00 $1.40 Total i Less $1.00 $1.40 Total *
than
to
or
or
than
or
or
to
$1.00 $1.39 more average $1.00 $1.39 more average

Total percent—

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Total number
(thousands)..

510 1,124

438

2,971

182

358 3,428

4,196

78
21
1
0

89
11
0
0

66
32
0
2

11 or le s s ....................
12__________________
13-15_______________
16 or more__________

i Total includes respondents for whom 1966 hourly rate of pay was not ascertained.

20-25 years old, not enrolled

93
6
1
0

90
10
0
0

60
32
7
1

34
46
12
8

36
46
11
7

1 Total includes respondents for whom 1966 hourly rate of pay was not ascertained

Table 3.5. Change in mean number of weeks unemployed, change in mean number of weeks out of the labor force,
1966 nonemployment rate, and disemployment rates, by 1 966 hourly rate of pay: Men 15-25 years of age with work
experience

Hourly rate of pay (dollars)

Total
number
(thousands)

■
Less than $1.00______ ____ _____________________________
$1.00-$1.39____________________________________________
$1.40 or more__________________________________________
Total or average •_______________________________________

918
2,553
6,142
12,168

Change in
mean weeks
unemployed 1
(weeks)

II

III
-1 .4
-2 .1
-0 .3
-1 .1

1
Mean number of weeks unemployed during the 12 months preceding the 1967
survey minus the mean number of weeks unemployed during the 12 months preceding
the 1966 survey.
* Mean number of weeks out of the labor force during the 12 months preceding the
1967 survey minus the mean number of weeks out the labor force during the 12 months
preceding the 1966 survey.




Change in
mean weeks
out*
(weeks)

-3 .5
-3 .1
-2 .4
-2 .4

1966
Non­
employment
rate *
(percent)

(thousands)

IV

V
25.6
31.9
14.4
28.9

Total
number
employed

683
1,739
5,057
8,653

Dis­
employment
rate 4
(percent)

Disemployment
rate (into
unemployment
only) 8
(percent)

VI

V II
19.6
33.2
8.2
13.2

4.3
7.6
2.5
3.4

* Proportion of all those with work experience not employed during the survey week
in 1966.
4
Proportion of those employed during the 1966 survey week who were either unem­
ployed or out of the labor force during the 1967 survey week.
8
Proportion of those employed during the 1966 survey week who were unemployed
during the 1967 survey week.
•Total includes 2,554 for whom 1966 hourly rate of pay was not ascertained.

65
Table 3.6. Change in mean number of weeks unemployed, change in mean number of weeks out of the labor force,
1966 nonemployment rate, and disemployment rates, by comparative school enrollment status 1966-67 and 1966
hourly rate of pay: Men 15-19 years of age with work experience
Comparative school enrollment status and hourly rate of pay
(dollars)

Total
number
(thousands)

Change in
mean weeks
unemployed 1
(weeks)

Change in
mean weeks
out2
(weeks)

1966
Non­
employment
rate 8
(percent)

Total
number
employed
1966
(thousands)

Dis­
employment
rate 4
(percent)

Disemployment
rate (into
unemployment
only) 5
(percent)

1

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

In school:
1966 and 1967 3...................................................... ...........
Less than $1.00...................................... ............................
$1.00-1.39............................................... ............... ..........
$1.40 or more.....................................................................
Out of school:
1966 and 1967 3.......................... ......................................
Less than $1.00........................... ..................... ..................
$1.00-1.39..................... ............. .............. .........................
$1.40 or more____ ______ _____ ________ ___________
Total or average 2 8.......... .................... ................................ .
Less than $1.00...______________________ _____ ___
$1.00-1.39............................................. .......... ..........
$1.40 or more___________ _____ __________________

4,211
578
1,478
903

-2 .5
-1 .0
-3 .0
-1 .6

-2 .5
-3 .4
-3 .0
-3 .9

50.3
30.7
42.3
39.4

2,092
400
852
548

33.4
26.6
34.9
34.7

827
47
168
468
5,854
688
1,941
1,591

+0.5
+2.6
+2.4
-0 .3
-1 .9
-1 .3
-2 .3
- 1.0

-8 .8
-1 1 .9
-8 .8
-8 .2
-4 .1
-4 .6
-3 .9
-5 .5

14.8
8.8
17.9
4.9
43.4
28.2
37.6
26.8

706
43
140
444
3,311
492
1,210
1,165

12.0
14.9
11.9
11.4
25.8
25.6
28.2
22.5

1 For a definition of these measures, see the footnotes to table 3.5.
3 Includes persons for whom 1966 hourly rate of pay was not ascertained.

Disemployment ratios

Less than $1.00/$1.40 or more______ _____
$1.00 to $1.39/$1.40 or more...........................




To unem­
ployment or
out of
labor force

To unem­
ployment
only

2.39
4.05

1.72
3.04

7.3
7.9
5.8
1.8
6.7
5.5
6.5
5.3
6.5

6.4

8 Totals include young men who were enrolled one year but not the other.

Table 3.7. Disemployment and nonemployment ratios:
Men 15-25 years of age employed during the 1966 survey
week

Hourly rate of pay (dollars)

7.5
6.5

1966 non­
employment
ratios

1.78
2.22

Table 3.8. Survey week labor force participation rates
and unemployment rates by 1967 age and 1966 hourly
rate of pay: Men 15-17 years of age enrolled in school in
1966 and 1967 with work experience and men 20-25
years of age not enrolled in school in 1966 and 1967 with
work experience, by color

Age, school enrollment status,
color, 1966 hourly rate of pay

Age 15-17, enrolled both years:
Whites:
Less than $1.00___.................
$1.00-$1.39________________
$1.40 or more_____________
Negroes:
Less than $1.00____________
$1.00-$) .39_____ __________
$1.40 or more...........................
Age 20-25, not enrolled either year:
Whites:
Less than $1.00____________
$1.0O-$1.39________________
$1.40 or more_____________
Negroes:
Less than $1.00____________
$1.00—$1.39_____ __________
$1.40 or more...........................
1 Of youth with work experience.

Total
number
(thou­
sands)

Labor force
participation
rate 1

Unemployment
rate 1

1966

1966

1967

1967

456
995
394
54
129
44

74.4
68.7
74.0
86.3
56.7
78.2

66.7
64 .0
67.9
68.1
51.6
68.0

6 .7
12.8
7 .8
7 .0
23.1
2 .7

11.3
17.5
12.5
18.9
21.9
20 .9

105
254
3,024
77
104
404

100.0
98.3
99.4
98.5
98.7
95.2

100.0
98 .3
98.9
100.0
98.9
96.1

11.9
0.0
1.3
3.1
7 .4
1 .9

3 .8
0 .7

1.0

3.1
9 .1
5 .3

66
Table 3.9. Change in mean number of weeks unemployed, change in mean number of weeks out of the labor force,
1966 nonemployment rate, and disemployment rates, by 1966 hourly rate of pay: Men 15-17 years of age enrolled in
school in 1966 and 1967 with work experience, and men 20-25 years of age not enrolled in school in 1966 and 1967
with work experience, by color
Age 15-17 enrolled both years

1966 hourly rate of pay

Total
number
(thousands)

Change
in mean
weeks
unem­
ployed 1
(weeks)

Change
in mean
weeks
o u t1
(weeks)

1966
non­
employment
rate 1
(percent)

Total
number
emj)toyed
(thousands)

Dis­
Dis­
employment
employment
rate (into
unem­
rate 1
(percent)
ployment
only)1
(percent)

Whites
Less than $1.00...................................... ......................................................................
$1.00-$1.39.............................. .....................................................................................
$1.40 or more..................... _.........................................................................................

456
995
394

-0 .2
-3 .0
-1 .0

-4 .5
-3 .3
-8 .1

30.5
40.0
31.8

316
596
269

25.7
35.6
35.6

5.7
7.8
9.7

44
57
34

38.6
32.5
29.3

13.0

360
653
303

27.2
35.4
35.0

6.4
7.8
9.9

Negroes
Less than $1.00............................................. ................................................................
$1.00-$1.39........................................................................... ..........................................
$1.40 or more.................................................................................................................

54
129
44

-2 .5
-2 .1
-2 .3

-2 .4
-6 .6
-.8

19.7
56.3
23.9

12.0
8.0

Total
Less than $1.00............ ............. ................................... _.............................................
$1.00-$1.39................... ............................................____.............................................
$1.40 or more......................................... _.....................................................................

510
1,124
438

-0 .4
-2 .9
-1 .2

-4 .3
-3 .6
-7 .4

29.4
41.9
30.8

Age 20-25 not enrolled either year
Whites
Less than $1.00............ ....................... .........................................................................
$1.00-$1.39................................................................................................... .................
$1.40 or more................................................................... .............................................

105
254
3,024

-2 .0
.4
.5

-2 .3
-.5
-.9

11.9
1.7
2.0

93
249
2,964

0.0
.6
1.0

4.5
8.6
6.9

73
95
378

3.2
8.6
3.1

8.8
3.9
2.5

166
344
3,342

1.2
2.6
1.2

Negroes
Less than $1.00.......................................................... ............................................. ..
$1.00-$1.39__________________________ _________________ ______________
$1.40 or more________________________________________________________

77
104
404

.7
3.6

1.2

1.2
.5
— .9
Total

Less than $1.00_____ __________________ ___________ __________ _______
$1.00—$1.39____________________ ____ __________________________ _____
$1.40 or more......................... ................................... ...............................................

1 For a definition of these measures, see the footnote to Table 3.5.




182
358

-0 .8

3,428

.6

1.2

-0 .9

— .3

-.9

67
Table 3.10. Change in mean number of weeks unemployed, change in mean number of weeks out of labor force, 1966
nonemployment rate, and disemployment rates, for selected subgroups by 1966 hourly rate of pay: Men 15-17 years of
age enrolled in school in 1966 and 1967 with work experience

Selected subgroup and 1966 hourly rate of pay

Total
number
(thousands)

Those with 11 years or less of education:
Whites:
Less than $1.00.............................. .............................................
$1.00—$1.39....................................................................................
Blacks:
Less than $1.00............................................................................
$1.00—$1.39.................................................................................
Blacks with little knowledge of world of work:
Less than $1.00....................... ............... ............... .............
$1.00—$1.39...................................................................................
Blacks residing in the South:
Less than $1.00_____________________________________
$1.00—$1.39___________________ _____ ____________ _
Service workers (W hites and Blacks):
Less than $1.00............................................................................
$1.00—$1.39................................................................................

Change in
mean weeks
unemployed 1
(w eeks)

421
875
53
122
31
71
38

Change in
mean weeks
out of
labor force 1
(w eeks)

1966
employment
rate 1
(percent)

-5 .4
-3 .9
-3 .4
-6 .9
-3 .4
-7 .4
-1 .2

31.3
38.9
18.9
55.4
18.9
50.4
10.3
61.1
39.5
44.3

+ 0 .3
-3 .0
-2 .6
-2 .3
0 .0
-4 .4
-3 .9
-1 .4
-2 .9
-4 .7

68

118
191

-2 .2

-3 .7
-7 .5

Total
number
employed
1966
(thousands)

289
534
43
55
25
35
34
26
72
106

Dis­
employment
rate 1
(percent)

25.4
34.4
39.5
33.6
36.3
33.5
40.3
35.4
17.9
27.3

Dis­
employment
rate (into
unemployment
only) 1
(percent)

4 .9

7.7

20.3
8 .2
17.7
10.1
12.0
8 .9
6.9
3.5

1 For a definition of these measures, see the footnote to Table 3.5.

Table 3.11. Change in mean number of weeks unemployed, change in mean number of weeks out of labor force, 1966
nonemployment rate, and disemployment rate, by selected characteristics and 1966 hourly rate of pay: Negro men
20-25 years of age not enrolled in school in 1966 and 1967 with work experience

Selected characteristic and 1966 hourly rate of pay

Those with no training:
$1.00—$1.39..............................................................................
$1.40 or more............................. ...................... .....................
Operatives:
$1.00—$1.39.................................................................. ..........
$1.40 or more__________________________ __________
Wholesale and retail trade employees:
$1.00—$1.39__________ _________________________
$1.40 or more______________________________________
Those with little knowledge of the world of work:
Less than $1.00______ ______________ ____ ______ ____
$1.00—$1.39________ _____ ________ _____ _____ ______
$1.40 or more_______________ ___________ ___________
Those residing in the South:
$1.00-$1.39_________________ ____ _________________
$1.40 or more_________ ________________ ___________
1 For a definition of these measures, see footnote to Table 3.5.




Total
number
(thousands)

Change in
mean weeks
unemployed 1
(weeks)

Change in
mean weeks
out of
labor force 1
(weeks)

1966
nonemployment
rate *
(percent)

Total
number
employed
in 1966
(thousands)

Disemployment
rate (into
unemployment
only) 1
(percent)

81
217

+3.4
+1.2

-0 .2
+0.4

9.6
8.3

73
199

7.7
3.6

42
159

+3.2
+1.2

-0 .2
+1.2

6.2
6.9

39
142

7.9
2.8

30
79

+3.7
+1.5

0.0
-5 .5

10.0
10.1

27
71

14.8
4.2

43
62
158

-0 .2
+3.2
+1.4

+2.8
-0 .7
+2.2

0.0
6.5
7.8

43
57
145

5.4
2.1
0.8

90
192

+2.4
+0.3

+2.4
+0.3

6.8
5.6

83
182

6.2
2.9

CHAPTER IV

Survey of Hiring Requirements and
Youth Employment
The establishment of an absolute minimum
wage rate by an exogenous source changes ex­
isting conditions in the labor market. In terms
of the demand for labor (a summation of the
demand of individual establishments), shifts
can be expected depending on the degree to
which the minimum wage affects costs to the
employer and the degree to which employers
can adjust their labor and capital inputs to
offset cost increases. One of the probable ad­
justments is to increase the quality of labor
commensurate with the increase in costs, that
is, to obtain more productive employees by rais­
ing hiring standards. A special survey was de­
signed to examine this aspect of minimum wage
effects, particularly as it influences the employ­
ment of teenagers. Those under 20 years of age
usually vie for beginning or entry level jobs
and the existence of hiring qualifications (many
of them necessary) have a restrictive influence
on the labor market. Any raising of hiring re­
quirements further restricts job opportunities
for teenagers.
The survey was conducted in 10 metropolitan
areas selected to meet several criteria: Large
and small areas; high and low teenage unem­
ployment rates relative to total unemployment;
low and high wage areas; and the presence or
absence of State minimum wage laws. Two of
This chapter was prepared by Norman J. Samuels,
Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Text tables begin on p. 75.
68




the areas, Atlanta and Detroit, were selected
because of the availability of pertinent eco­
nomic data from the Urban Employment sur­
veys. The other four large areas were Baltimore
and Cleveland (in which the average 1968 un­
employment rates for teenagers were among
the highest relative to total unemployment in
the area), and Milwaukee and Los Angeles (in
which relative teenage unemployment rates
were among the lowest). The four small areas
were selected on the basis of wage level (for
manufacturing) and State minimum wage law,
as follows:
State minimum
No State minimum
Low wage_____________ ________ Lewiston-Auburn, Maine............. El Paso, Tex.
High wage_____________________ Battle Creek, Mich......................... Galveston, Tex.

The distribution of the cities chosen also pro­
vided wide regional representation.
The survey was conducted by mail question­
naire with telephone followups to nonrespon­
dents following two mail requests, and to estab­
lishments for clarification of responses. Ap­
proximately 8,000 establishments were included
in the sample of which about 5,000 provided
data. The total universe of establishments in
the 10 cities approximated 240,000. Larger
samples were taken of small retail establish­
ments to prepare separate estimates for those
with sales of $200,000 to $300,000 that were
covered and not covered by the Fair Labor
Standards Act sales size test.
The survey focused on what the lowest age
and education qualifications for a beginning job

69
were; whether these qualifications had been
changed since 1966 (the last major revision of
the Fair Labor Standards A ct); and the rea­
son (s) for such change (among which was
whether the minimum wage was a reason for
raising qualifications). Additionally, the survey
inquired into the number of teenagers employed
and whether that number was different from
the number employed in 1966; the attitudes of
employers with respect to teenagers as employ­
ees compared with other workers in similar
jobs; the relative importance of various factors
as influences on employers’ decisions to hire
teenagers; and, finally, the lowest wage rates
currently paid to teenage employees.
Because so many teenagers are employed on a
part-time basis (outside of school hours and
other limiting factors), data were collected sep­
arately for full- and part-time employment. The
data were further divided between office and
nonoffice jobs because these are jobs often with
different qualifications and, to some extent,
probably represent differences by sex.
In the text and tables that follow, certain
shorthand terms have been used for conveni­
ence. These are (1) type of work—office or non­
office; work schedule—full-time or part-time;
and, coverage—status under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Major findings

1. The majority of establishments had no age
or education qualifications for beginning jobs.
2. Few employers raised either age or educa­
tion qualifications between 1966 and 1969.
The highest proportion was 7.7 percent in El
Paso for full-time nonoffice jobs. Even for those
employers who now had an age qualification of
20 years or more, fewer than 10 percent in most
cases had raised age qualifications.
3. Among the establishments that raised
standards, the most common reason given was
the increased costs of training and hiring. The
minimum wage was cited as the second most
common reason although fewer than half the
establishments did so in eight of the ten cities
for full-time and part-time officer workers; in
six cities for full-time nonoffice workers; and in
five cities for part-time office workers. Except




for part-time employees in Detroit, all the re­
maining instances of majority reporting came
from the four small cities.
4. Of the factors affecting employers’ deci­
sions to hire teenagers, the following were most
frequently given: (a) legal restrictions on hir­
ing youth for hazardous jobs, (b) the military
draft, and (c) undependability and lack of
training.
5. Among the small retail stores where, pre­
sumably, the only differentiating factor was
coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the employment of teenagers in the spring of
1969 did not appear to be significantly affected
by the law. In 4 of the 6 cities a larger propor­
tion of covered stores employed youth than non­
covered stores. Considering the small numbers
involved (particularly in the small cities), the
findings did not provide a consistency to war­
rant a positive conclusion of difference.
6. The number of teenagers employed in the
small retail stores was about the same in 1969
as in 1966 for the vast majority of the stores.
Some covered stores in seven of the ten cities
reported higher youth employment as did some
noncovered stores in eight cities. Lower employ­
ment was reported by some covered stores in
three cities and by noncovered stores in five ci­
ties.
Minimum age and education requirements for
beginning jobs

Although the majority of establishments had
no age or education requirements for a begin­
ning job, employers in more instances had some
such requirement for full-time nonoffice jobs
than for full- or part-time office jobs. To some
extent these differences were due to State laws
barring anyone under 21 years of age from em­
ployment where liquor is sold; there are usually
a large number of such establishments in our
cities. In most cities a larger proportion of es­
tablishments covered than those not covered
had some age or education requirement.
The survey results summarized in table 4.1
indicate widely varying proportions of estab­
lishments without age or education require-

70

ments among the cities. Yet, there is also a mea­
sure of consistency:
1. In a majority of establishments in Detroit,
Cleveland, Auburn, and Galveston, youth seek­
ing full-time office jobs in covered establish­
ments faced no age or education requirements
for employment, whereas they did in the other
six cities. Among the noncovered establish­
ments, only in Atlanta did the majority have
some requirement for a beginning job.
2. For part-time office work, the majority of
establishments in all cities had no age or educa­
tion requirements, regardless of coverage.
3. Teenagers seeking nonoffice jobs were
likely to find some age or education requirement
for employment in a majority of covered estab­
lishments in all cities except Cleveland and in
noncovered establishments) in half the cities.
4. For part-time nonoffice jobs, requirements
were less likely to be found: A majority of cov­
ered establishments in 7 of the 10 cities not
having any requirements and a majority of
noncovered establishments in 6 of the 10 cities.
In virtually all cities, minimum education re­
quirements were more frequently required for
office workers than for nonoffice workers,
whereas minimum age requirements were less
frequently required. These findings were fairly
consistent with respect to coverage or work
schedule. Table 4.2 indicates these differences
for full-time workers in covered establishments.
On the other hand, minimum age requirements
were more frequently found than minimum ed­
ucation requirements for either type of,job.
Where minimum education requirements ex­
isted, high school was usually the qualification
noted. In the covered sector, about 50 percent
more establishments reported high school as the
minimum qualification for office workers than
for Uonoffice. (However, as indicated above,
more establishments had education require­
ments for office than for nonoffice workers.) In
the noncovered sector, high school was reported
as the minimum qualification by approximately
the same proportion of establishments for office
and nonoffice full-time workers, but by half as
many part-time office workers as for part-time
nonoffice workers (table 4.3).




Lowest hourly rates currently paid for a
beginning job

Establishments employing part-time nonoffice
workers under 18 years of age reported the low­
est average minimum hourly rates of pay. In
covered establishments the lowest minimum
ranged from an average of $1.51 in El Paso to
$1.79 in Los Angeles. In the noncovered estab­
lishments the range was from $1.12 in El Paso
to $1.71 in Baltimore (table 4.4). The median
difference in city averages between covered and
noncovered lowest minimum rates paid was
18.5 cents.
For those under 18 years of age, a full-time
nonoffice job generally paid more for a begin­
ning than the part-time jobs. In fact, the differ­
ences in covered establishments ranged from 6
cents an hour in El Paso to 63 cents an hour in
Detroit. (It must be noted in attempting to
evaluate these data that differences are due not
only to the varying industrial composition
among cities but also to the degree establish­
ments were actually employing teenagers under
18 years old at the time of the survey.) The
median city average minimum rate was $1.92
for those under 18 and $2.08 for those 18 and 19
years old in covered establishments. In noncov­
ered work places the respective medians were
$1.67 and $1.72.
Among the small areas (Battle Creek, Lewis­
ton-Auburn, Galveston, and El Paso), the aver­
age minimums for full-time nonoffice workers
in covered establishments were higher in the
higher wage areas than in the lower wage areas
(tables 4.5 and 4.6). Among the noncovered es­
tablishments, the differences were between ci­
ties in States with and without State minimum
wage laws.
The average minimum hourly rate paid for
full-time office workers in all cities except At­
lanta and El Paso was lower than the city aver­
age for full-time nonoffice workers in covered
establishments. In noncovered employment the
opposite was true, only in Baltimore did office
workers average less than nonoffice workers
(the difference was one cent). (See table 4.7.)
The proportion of establishments in which
the lowest minimum wage paid was less than
$1.60 an hour varied widely among cities, but

71

even more widely within cities for type of work
and work schedule, and between covered and
noncovered establishments. Generally, a larger
proportion of establishments paid less than
$1.60 for nonoffice than for office work, and for
part-time than for full-time work. The largest
differences appeared to reflect the presence or
absence of FLSA coverage. Los Angeles was the
only city where nonoffice workers in uncovered
employment earning less than $1.60 were in a
small minority of establishments. Yet even in
that city, 21 percent of those establishments
paid part-time workers $1.60 an hour. The next
lowest percentage of such establishments was
Atlanta with 41 percent and in all other cities
these were the majority of establishments. In
the covered sector the largest proportion of es­
tablishments in which the rate was below $1.60
for part-time nonoffice work was 47 percent in
Battle Creek (table 4.8). There did not appear
to be any pattern associated with the high or
low wage classification of a city—similar per­
centages being reported for different types of
work and work schedules for cities with differ­
ent general wage levels.
Raising hiring standards between 1966 and 1969

The Federal minimum wage was raised and
coverage extended between 1966 and 1969. If
we assume that employers will adjust to in­
creased wage costs by increasing the value of
output per unit of labor input, one of the possi­
ble methods is to improve the quality of labor
by raising hiring standards for entry into em­
ployment. Age and education are assumed to
have a direct relationship to ability to learn and
perform efficiently. The survey asked employers
whether their minimum age or education re­
quirements had been raised since 1966. The re­
sults are summarized in table 4.9 below.
The largest percent of establishments in any
city that raised hiring standards was 7.7 per­
cent in El Paso for nonoffice workers. Taking
the largest proportion of establishments that
raised standards for any group of workers in
each city, the proportion of establishments that
did not raise standards ranged between 92.3
percent in El Paso and 97.3 percent in Milwau­
kee.




A few establishments in each city reported
lower standards in 1969 than in 1966.
It was earlier established that the majority of
establishments had no age or education require­
ments in 1969. To put the data about raising
standards in better perspective, table 4.10 indi­
cates the proportion of establishments which
raised their age requirements since 1966 and
whose age requirement is now 20 years or more
for a full-time job. These are the establishments
which now would exclude all teenagers.
No pattern of a consistent relationship exists
between raising these standards and coverage
under FLSA. Neither is there a pattern asso­
ciated with city characteristics.
Reasons for raising minimum hiring standards

Whenever an employer reported in the survey
that he raised age or education standards for
any group, he was requested to indicate from a
list of reasons which one(s) was important to
that action. The most common reason given for
raising hiring standards was increased costs of
training and hiring. The second most common
reason was the minimum wage.
Those who raised standards citing the mini­
mum wage as a reason (whether the only rea­
son or one of several), represented fewer than 1
percent of the establishments in 3 out of every 5
cases (there are 40 possible cases—10 cities and
4 employee groups). The largest percentage
(4.2) of employers citing the minimum wage
was in El Paso raising standards for full­
time nonoffice employees (table 4.11).
The data indicate that in the aggregate few
employers raised minimum qualifications be­
cause of statutory minimum wages. Perhaps
more analytically significant is the proportion
of those who actually raised standards that
cited the minimum wage as a reason. Table 4.12
provides that compilation.
The influence of the minimum wage in chang­
ing hiring standards is relevant to the situa­
tions in which decisions were made by employ­
ers to change standards. The minimum wage
did not influence large numbers to revise their
hiring standards but for those that did, large
proportions cited the minimum wage as a rea-

72

son for doing so. From table 4.12 there emerges
a difference between the large and small cities
although some exceptions can be seen. Again,
some caution must be used in interpretation due
to the very small numbers involved in the
smaller cities.

legal restrictions on hiring for hazardous work.
The minimum wage was nearly always the
weakest factor; in all but two cities (and only
for those under 18 years of age), the majority
of employers who considered the minimum
wage very important did in fact employ teen­
agers (table 4.14).

Factors affecting decisions to hire teenagers

Whether an employer does or does not have
established qualifications for entry level jobs,
his decisions to actually hire is influenced by a
number of factors real or assumed. The survey
listed nine specific factors and asked employers
to indicate for each whether the factor was very
important, important, or unimportant in affect­
ing his decision to hire teenagers. The factors
listed were (1) Believe teenagers not as depend­
able as other workers; (2) Believe not as well
trained as other workers; (3) Can hire adults
for the same wage; (4) Legal minimum wage;
(5) Military draft; (6) Paper work to get work
permits; (7) Legal restrictions on hiring youth
for hazardous jobs; (8) Legal restrictions on
hours of work, and (9) Insurance costs and
availability of insurance.
In no city except El Paso did the majority of
employers consider any one of the factors im­
portant in their hiring decisions.
Where employers did indicate that these fac­
tors were influential, the most important factor
in all cities affecting employer’s decisions to
hire teenagers under 18 years old was legal re­
strictions on hiring youth for hazardous jobs.
In El Paso and Detroit, training deficiencies
were also cited as very important.
For 18- and 19-year-olds, some employers in
half the cities reported the military draft, and
in the other five cities they cited undependabil­
ity and lack of training as the very important
factors in their hiring decisions.
In no city did as many as one-third of the
employers consider the minimum wage as a
very important factor for hiring those under or
over 18 years of age. (See table 4.13.)
Apparently, insurance costs and availability
was the strongest factor; those employers who
indicated that it was very important actually
employed the fewest teenagers. The other most
effective factors were training deficiencies and




Change in teenage employment, 1966-69

Between 1966 and 1969, relatively few estab­
lishments reported a change in teenage employ­
ment. The largest proportion of establishments
reporting such a change was 21 percent in De­
troit, nearly equally divided between the num­
ber that had higher teenage employment and
the number that had lower teenage employment
in 1969. In all but two cities, teenage employ­
ment was higher in a larger proportion of es­
tablishments than lower.
In each city, at least half the establishments
that reported lower teenage employment did not
notw employ any teenagers. (See table 4.15.)
Employers’ comparison of teenagers with other
workers

Employers’ attitudes about teenagers as em­
ployees were explored in the survey by a ques­
tion which asked, “Have you found that.teen­
agers generally are about as good as other work­
ers in similar jobs?” They could respond by
checking (1) better, (2) worse, (3) about the
same, or (4) don’t know. All employers did not
have experience with the employment of teen­
agers so that a fairly large proportion of “don’t
know” responses were received. The answers
were, perhaps not surprisingly, fairly consist­
ent among the cities studied. On the average
about 4 percent thought teenagers were better,
17 percent thought they were worse, 42 percent
about the same, and 37 percent didn’t know.
(See table 4.16.)
Those that had lower teenage employment
were more likely to think teenagers were worse
employees than those that had higher employ­
ment. About one-third of the employers who
had lower teenage employment thought teen­
agers worse employees than others. The propor­
tion varied from 22 percent in Detroit to 56

73

percent in Lewiston-Auburn. Among those that
had higher teenage employment than in 1966,
the proportion of employers who thought teen­
agers were worse employees ranged from 7 per­
cent in El Paso to 34 percent in Detroit.
Small retail trade establishment

Among the problems associated with evaluat­
ing the foregoing data, particularly with re­
spect to differences due to FLSA coverage, the
major one is the different industrial structures
of cities and of the minimum wage coverage
within cities. To offset these problems, special
samples were selected of small retail trade es­
tablishments, and data for those with sales of
between $200,000 and $300,000 were tabulated
separately. These establishments were further
divided between those with sales under
$250,000 and $250,000 or more. Thus, examina­
tion of a very homogenous group of employers
was possible with coverage under FLSA as the
only (major) differentiating factor.
Although there were variations within cities,
overall the proportion of small retail establish­
ments that employed teenagers was not differ­
ent from all establishments. (See table 4.17.)
In five of the cities, a larger proportion of small
retailers employed teenagers; in one city an
equal proportion; and in four cities a smaller
proportion.
Among the small retail stores, a larger pro­
portion of covered stores employed teenagers in

four cities and a smaller proportion in six cities.
The number of teenagers employed was about
the same as in 1966 for the vast majority of
small retail stores (as it was for all establish­
ments) . Some covered stores in 7 of the 10 cities
(ranging from 2 percent in Baltimore to 25 per­
cent in Detroit) reported higher teenage em­
ployment in 1969 than in 1966; in three of the
same cities smaller proportions also reported
lower teenage employment. Among the noncovered stores, some in 8 of the cities (all but
Cleveland and El Paso) reported higher teenage
employment, and in half the cities some re­
ported lower employment. (See table 4.18.)
Employers’ attitudes about teenagers as
workers have a real influence on their willing­
ness to hire and probably on the wages they are
willing to pay. When the data for the small re­
tail stores were tabulated for these attitudes,
interesting differences were revealed between
covered and noncovered stores. In all but 3
cities, none of the covered stores reported they
thought teenagers were better workers; among
the noncovered stores, in only 3 cities was this
true. Conversely, in 6 of the 10 cities, a larger
proportion of covered stores than noncovered
thought teenagers were worse employees than
others in similar work. Among the employers
who thought teenagers worse, only in Detroit
did any who were covered by FLSA report
lower employment since 1966, and only in De­
troit, Los Angeles, and El Paso did any noncov­
ered employers report lower employment.

NOTE

For each of the ten areas covered in the survey of employer hiring
requirements (Atlanta, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Los
Angeles, Battle Creek, Auburn, Galveston, El Paso), the following
tabulations are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on request.
Table 1. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Age and
Education Qualifications for Full- and Part-Time Office and Nonoffice
Employees, Spring 1969
Table 2. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Lowest
Hourly Wage Rate Paid for a Beginning Job by Age Qualification for
Full- and Part-Time Office and Nonoffice Employees, Spring 1969




74

Table 3. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Lowest
Hourly Rate Paid for a Beginning Job by Educational Qualification for
Full- and Part-Time Office and Nonoffice Employees, Spring 1969
Table 4. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Changes
in Age Qualifications Since 1966 and Current Age Qualification by Fulland Part-Time Office and Nonoffice Employees, Spring 1969
Table 5. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Change
in Education Qualification Since 1966 and Current Qualification for Fulland Part-Time Employees, Spring 1969
Table 6. Number of Covered and Noncovered Establishments Which
Raised Either Age or Education Qualifications Since 1966 by Reason for
Change and Relative Importance for Full- and Part-Time Office and Non­
office Employees, Spring 1969
Table 7. Number of Covered and Noncovered Establishments Which
L o w ere d Either Age or Education Qualifications Since 1966 by Reason
for Change and Relative Importance for Full- and Part-Time Office and
Nonoffice Employees, Spring 1969
Table 8. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Factors
Affecting Employment of Teenagers and Their Relative Importance for
Selected Age Groups, Spring 1969
Table 9. Percent of Covered and Noncovered Establishments by Factors
Affecting Employment of Teenagers Considered Very Important and
the Proportion of Teenagers Employed in These Establishments for
Selected Age Groups, Spring 1969
Table 10. Percent of Covered and Uncovered Small Retail Establish­
ments 1 by the Percent of Full- and Part-Time Employees of Selected Age
Groups in These Establishments, Spring 1969
Table 11. Percent of Establishments by the Change in Teenage Employ­
ment Between 1966 and 1969 and the Percent Employed in 1969, Spring
1969
Table 12. Percent of Establishments by Change in Teenage Employment
Between 1966 and 1969 and Evaluation of Teenagers Compared with
Other Employees in Similar Jobs, Spring 1969




75
Table 4.1. Proportion of establishments with no age or
education requirements for beginning jobs, by city, type
of job, work schedule, and FLSA coverage

Table 4.3. Percent of covered and noncovered establish­
ments reporting high school as the minimum education
qualification, by city, type of work, and work schedule

[In percent]
Office
Office

City
City

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Full-time

Atlanta..............
Detroit_______
Cleveland_____
Baltimore_____
Milwaukee........
Los Angeles___
Battle Creek___
Auburn_______
Galveston_____
El Paso..............

Not Covered Not Covered Not Covered Not
covered
covered
covered
covered

35
55
55
34
49
38
40
51
52
45

48
74

59
71

74
87

78
58

73
64

89
71

41
41
51
30
46
33
25
37
45
38

66
68
86
65
58
79
70
67
81
64
53
70
60
70
86
84
62
86

52
37
51
40
51
39
38
52
56
38

58
59
64
51
58
46
41
47
61
52

Atlanta.......... .
Detroit....... .......
Cleveland..........
Baltimore_____
Milwaukee........
Los Angeles___
Battle Creek___
Auburn_______
Galveston_____
El Paso_______

69
49
52
50
50
40
46
48
70
55

Table 4.2. Percent of covered establishments with mini­
mum education and minimum age requirements, by city
for full-time office and nonoffice jobs
Education

Atlanta............... .................
Detroit.................................
Cleveland.................... .........
Baltimore............................
Milwaukee_______ ______
Los Angeles________ ____
Battle Creek____ ____ ___
Auburn..................... ..........
Galveston............................
El Paso.................................

57
43
45
60
41
51
50
38
39
48

Part-time

Office

30
33
39
47
34
32
39
32
24
41

20 2126 1713
101610 282829 3622
201819
15
28
29
24
29
22 22
24
1219 20 1188 273219 231616 20
33
30
22 26 19 3217
12

32

23
23
23
23
19

19

29
24
25
35
27
33
29
26

City
Nonoffice

64
46
45

66

61
61
49
48
55

Covered

Atlanta____ ____________________________
Detroit_________________ _____ __________
Cleveland___ _ ___ .......................................
Baltimore________ _________ _____ _______
Milwaukee__________ ____ ______ ______
_______
Los Angeles___________________
Battle Creek___________ ________________
Auburn_______ ________________________
Galveston,__
_________ ____ _________
El Paso_______________ _____ ________

60
60
48
70
55

66
51

15
25
17
32
26
26
26
14

228

Table 4.4. Average hourly minimum rate paid in estab­
lishments employing those under 18 years old for
part-time nonoffice jobs, by coverage

Age

Nonoffice

Full-time

Not Covered Not Covered Not Covered Not
covered
covered
covered
covered

49
40
43
54
39
47
44
35
37
43

City
Office

Part-time

Part-time
Covered

Covered

Nonoffice

Nonoffice

76
65
55
63

Not covered

$1.64
1.72
1.78
1.65

$1.54
1.53
1.40
1.71
1.36
1.64
1.35
1.42
1.61

1.68

1.79
1.61
1.60
1.74
1.51

1.12

Table 4.5. Average minimum hourly rates paid for full-time nonoffice jobs in four small cites, by city general wage
level, State minimum wages, age, and coverage
Without State minimum

With ta 3 minimum
City

Under 18
Battle Creek (high wage)..............................................................
Lewiston (low wage) _ _
Galveston (high wage).________________________________
El Paso (low wage)......................................................................




$1.91
1.79

18-19

1.88

$2.10

Under 18

1.66

$1.51

Not covered

Covered

Not covered

Covered

18-19

Under 18

18-19

$1.79
1.59
$1.93
1.57

$1.97
1.67

Under 18

$1.34
1.31

18-19

$1.4
1.3

76
Table 4.6. Ratio of average minimum hourly rates paid
for full-time nonoffice jobs in noncovered establishments
to covered establishments, by city general wage level and
State minimum wage

Table 4.9. Percent of establishments that raised hiring
standards between 1966 and 1969, by city, type of work,
and work schedule
Office

[Inpercent]

Nonoffice

City
Full-time

With State minimum Without State minimum
City

Ratio of noncovered
to covered
Under 18

18-19

79
93

Battle Creek (H ig h w age)
Lew iston (L o w w age)
Galveston (H ig h w a g e )
...

Ratio of noncovered
to covered
Under 18

16-19

85
85
69
83

.

El Paso (Low wage)_______________

71
83

Table 4.7. Average minimum hourly rate paid for
full-time work, by city and coverage
Covered establishments

Noncovered establishments

City
Office
Atlanta. __ _____________
Detroit__ ______ _ __
Cleveland_______________
Baltimore___ _ _______
Milwaukee.. ___________
Los Angeles._ __________
Battle Creek_____________
Auburn____________ __ . . .
Galveston. _ ____________
El Paso__________________

Nonoffice

$2.02
2.10
1.99
1.85
2.09
2.13
1.85
1.71
1.77
1.66

Office

$1.85
2.40
2.30
1.90
2.26
2.20
2.14
1.82
1.95
1.63

2.9
2.0
3.0
4.6
2.0
3.7
1.7
3.7
3.2
6.1

$1.77
1.89
1.78
1.81
1.76
1.99
1.66
1.65
1.38
1.38

Table 4.8. Percent of establishments in which the mini­
mum hourly rate paid was less than $1.60 an hour, by
city, type of work, work schedule, and coverage

1.2
1.4
1.2
2.3

1.0

2.3
0.7

1.0
1.0
3.3

Office

Office
Covered

Atlanta__________________
Detroit___________________
Cleveland
Baltimore
Milwaukee
Los Angeles______________
Battle Creek______________
Auburn__________________
Galveston
El Paso

Full­
time

Part-

Full­
time

Parttime

Full­
time

Parttime

Full­
time

Not
covered

1
4
11
9
7
9
1
6
5
13

Full-time

Parttime

Atlanta__________________
Detroit___________________
Clevelan d _

Atlanta______
Detroit________
Cleveland____
Baltimore_____
Milwaukee____
Los Angeles___
Battle Creek___
Auburn___ ___
Galveston_____
El Paso_______

3
10
13
10
5
1
11
5
9
11




4
21
13
9
13
3
19
8
11
12

10
13
10
8
7
3
21
9
19
20

15
25
18
16
28
9
47
22
32
26

1
10
3
20
16
1
26
10
19
29

10
36
25
22
36
10
31
12
37
31

24
37
26
41
46
4
49
21
57
49

41
51
65
56
59
21
71
62
61
71

1.8
2.0
2.5
2.9
2.7
2.0
3.5
2.8
2.6
3.7

Nonoffice

7
11
1
6
9
12
0
33
21
8

Office

Nonoffice

Office

5.7
3.0
3.6
4.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
4.9
3.0
7.7

Covered

Not
covered

29
3
7
11
10
4
2
4
0
14

3
4
7
5
9
4
0
0
8
7

Table 4.11. Percent of all establishments citing the
minimum wage as a reason for raising age or education
requirements, by city, type of work, and work schedule

Not covered
Nonoffice

Part-time

City

Nonoffice

City
City

Full-time

Table 4.10. Percent of establishments with minimum
age qualifications of 20 years or more for full-time work
that raised age qualifications since 1966, by city, type of
work, and coverage

Nonoffice

$1.95
2.00
2.06
1.80
1.95
2.15
1.78
1.74
1.73
1.59

Covered

Atlanta__________________
Detroit___________________
Cleveland________________
Baltimore________________
Milwaukee_______________
Los Angeles______________
Battle Creek______________
Auburn__________________
Galveston________________
El Paso__________________

Part-time

Baltimore________________
Milwaukee _ _ _
Los Angeles______________
Battle Creek______________
Auburn__________________
Galveston________________
El Paso__________________
1 Less than .05 percent.

Part-time

0.5
.1

0.3
.8

1.0

(i)

1.0

O)

.9
.6

.6
1.7
1.3

.9
.4
.2

1.0

.2
1.6

Full-time
0.5
.8
.6
1.4
.8
.9
1.8
3.1
2.3
4.2

Part-time
0.5
1.2
.7
.9
.1
.4
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.2

77
Table 4.12. Percent of establishments that raised age
or education requirements which cited the minimum wage
as a reason, by city, type of work, and work schedule
Office

Table 4.15. Percent of establishments by change in
teenage employment, 1966-69, by city
Change in teenage employment

City

Nonoffice

City

Higher
Full-time

Atlanta________ _______ _
Detroit........ .........................
Cleveland_______________
Baltimore_____ _________
Milwaukee______________
Los Angeles_____________
Battle Creek____________
Auburn_________________
Galveston______________
El Paso................................

Part-time

8
26

25
57

17
5

6
6
28
75
20
48

2145
16
58
16
53

21

27
60
28
31
37

16
35
40
30
51
63
76
54

39
40

Lower

Part-time

Full-time

20
51
57
69
59

Atlanta____________________________
Detroit______________ ______________
Cleveland..
Baltimore____ ___________________ __
Milwaukee_______________ _____ ____
Los Angeles________________________
Battle Creek_______________ ____ ____
Auburn____ ___ ___________________
Galveston_____ _____ _______________
El Paso_______ ___________ ________

10.9
10.5
7.2
9.1
16.1
7.6

11.8
6.6
3.7
5.0

Same

6.1
8.0
5.2

83.0
78.6
87.3
82.9
78.7
87.5
80.2
87.8
90.1
90.6

10.9
5.5

5.9
7.6
5.6

6.2

4.4

Table 4.16. Percent of establishments by attitude about
teenagers as employees, by city
Table, 4.13. Proportion of covered establishments re­
porting the minimum wage as a factor in decision to hire
teenagers, by city, and age group
18 and 19

Under 18
City

Very
Important
Not
Very
Not
Important
important
important important
important

Atlanta....................
Detroit__________
Cleveland................
Baltimore________
Milwaukee..............
Los Angeles............
Battle Creek...........
Auburn............ .......
Galveston________
El Paso....................

14
16

1010
118
23
20
19
31

21
24
201716
14
23
28
24
25

65
60
73
70
73
78
54
52
57
44

119
896
13
9

13
13
25

18
18
16
18

1111
19
31
20
28

73
71
75
73
81
83
67
56
67
47

City

Better

Worse

2
63
2
4

Atlanta_________________
Detroit_________________
Cleveland_______________
Baltimore_______________
Milwaukee________ _____
Los Angeles.......................
Battle Creek_______ _____
Auburn________________
Galveston_______________
El Paso_________________

4

Same
18

1216
16
15
20
19
22
20
15

4
4
7

5

Percent of teenagers employed
Under 18 years

Atlanta___________________ ____________________
Detroit_________ _______________________________
Cleveland________ ____ ______ _____________ ___
Baltimore_____________________ ________________
Milwaukee_____________________________________
Los Angeles______ _______________ __
Battle Creek____________________ ______________
Auburn________ _____ __________________________
Galveston............................................ ...............................
El Paso.......................................................................... ..




49
61
70
60
62
48
85
79
51
52

36
36
43
39
41
40
35
30
31
39

Small retail trade establishments

All estab­
lishments

All

City

43
46
42
41
37
35
43
47
46
42

Table 4.17. Percent of establishments employing teen­
agers, small retail stores by FLSA coverage, and all
establishments, by city
City

Table 4.14. Covered establishments reporting the mini­
mum wage as a very important factor and the proportion
of teenagers employed, by age

Do not know

Atlanta............... ..................
Detroit______ ___________
Cleveland_______________
Baltimore........... ..................
Milwaukee______________
Los Angeles__________ _
Battle Creek__ _________
Auburn.. _ ___________
Galveston_______________
El Paso_______ ____ ____

52
48
47
47
55
44
49
56
40
43

Covered
44
61
47
65
39
48
54
59
37
38

Not covered

37
75
33
67
42
43
44
50
32
46

46
57
54
64
37
52
54
71
39
34

18 and 19 years
51
50
73
61
63
50
68
66
53
55

Table 4.18. Percent of small retail trade establishments
reporting higher and lower teenage employment, by
coverage and city
Higher

Lower

City
Covered

Atlanta.................................
Detroit..................................
Cleveland.............................
Baltimore.............................
Milwaukee............................
Los Angeles..........................
Battle Creek.........................
Auburn........... .....................
Galveston............... ..............
1Paso

Not
covered

25
7

2
17
1019
4

33
4
3
26

114

13
4

Covered

10
10
8

Not
covered

28

89
2

14

CHAPTER V

Employment Service Local Office Experience
in Serving Teenagers During June 1969
During June 1969, the Office of Technical
Support (OTS), U.S. Training and Employ­
ment Service, Manpower Administration, con­
ducted a survey of Employment Service
(ES) local office experience in serving teenag­
ers as part of the overall study of the relation­
ship between teenage employment and mini­
mum wages. Responses to many questions were
based on the judgment of the local office man­
ager and his staff as a result of their experience
and knowledge acquired in helping teenagers
find jobs. In some areas, replies to some ques­
tions were supplied by only the Youth Oppor­
tunity Center offices.
The data obtained on local office activity re­
lated to the June 1969 reporting period while
other information is based on recollections and
experience of local office staff for longer periods
of time such as fiscal year 1969. The areas cov­
ered by this study consist of 22 SMSAs 1 and
the Battle Creek, Mich., labor area. Ten of the
areas were those in which the BLS conducted
its employer surveys; 13 additional SMSAs
were selected in such a manner that different
size areas would be represented from all regions
of the United States.
This chapter was prepared by Irvin F.O. Wingeard,
Office of Technical Support. The author would like to
express his appreciation to Julia Mash, Robert Ains­
worth, and Philip Goldstein for their aid in the de­
velopment of this study.
Text footnotes begin on p. 86.
78




Summary

Not one of the local offices of the Employment
Service (ES) cited the recent hike in the mini­
mum wage or the extension of coverage under
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as re­
sponsible for the change between June 1966 and
June 1969 in the total number of nonfarm job
openings available to teenagers, or which speci­
fied a minimum age of 16-19 years of age or 20
years old and over. Only about one-fourth of the
104 ES local offices in the 19 areas responding
to this question reported that since June 1966
there had been a decrease in the proportion of
openings which were available to teenagers or
which specified a minimum age of 16-19 years
of age, or that there had been an increase in the
share of openings which specified a minimum
age of 20 years old and over.
The most important reasons given by the ES
local offices reporting such changes were of an
administrative nature, for example, phasing out
Youth Employment Service locations, transfer
of youth job orders to Youth Opportunity Cen­
ters, installation of Job Bank operations, Com­
munity Action Agencies assuming responsibil­
ity for youth placement, and inception of
NAB-JOBS and government training and hir­
ing programs.
The reasons rated as most prominent among
the difficulties encountered by ES local offices in

79

placing teenagers were (a) “legal restrictions
on hours of work, hazardous work, or other
working conditions” and “employers' hiring
specifications with respect to age exclude teen­
agers” 16-17 year olds on full-time and parttime jobs, (b) “uncertainty over the draft
makes employers reluctant to hire teenagers”
18-19-year-old males for full-time jobs; (c)
“high labor turnover among teenagers,” “em­
ployers believe teenagers are not reliable,” and
“hiring specifications of employers with respect
to education and experience are so high that
most teenagers are excluded” for full-time and
part-time jobs for both 16-17 and 18-19 yearolds; and (d) “Unwillingness of teenagers to
accept wages usually offered for jobs they are
qualified to take” for 18-19 year-olds for both
full-time and* part-time jobs.
The level of the minimum wage was not rated
as an important reason for ES local office diffi­
culty in placing teenagers in either full-time or
part-time year-round jobs during fiscal year
1969. However, this reason was somewhat more
important for part-time work than it was for
full-time jobs. This reason ranked near the low­
est in importance for 16-19 year-olds for full­
time jobs and about midway in order of import­
ance for part-time jobs.
It was mentioned in only two areas (Balti­
more and Nashville) as one of the reasons given
by employers for not wanting to hire teenagers
for full-time and part-time year-round jobs. A
third area (Atlanta) also cited this as one em­
ployer reason for reluctance to hire teenagers
for part-time year-round jobs. In all three
areas, however, this reason ranked no higher
than third or fourth in importance.
Teenagers received better than one-fourth of
the 71,000 nonfarm placements made in the 23
surveyed areas during June 1969—about the
same proportion that teenagers represented in
the active file of applicants at the end of June.
The industrial, service (excluding domestic),
and clerical categories were the three occupa­
tional groups in which teenagers were most fre­
quently placed in full-time and part-time yearround work during fiscal year 1969.
In the areas reporting on the reasons given
by employers for not wanting to hire teenagers
for full-time year-round jobs, the consensus of




the ES local offices was that the following three
reasons were the most important:
a. Teenagers lack appropriate training, experience,
and/or education for the jobs available.
b. Legal restrictions on the hours of work, hazard­
ous work, or other working conditions for teen­
agers.
c. Teenagers are not reliable and/or are iWnature.

These reasons also were cited as the most im­
portant for part-time year-round jobs but the
rank order of importance was reversed.
Uncertainty over the draft was the fourth
most important reason for not hiring teenagers
for full-time work, whereas the inability to
work hours needed by employers because of
school or other reasons was the fourth most im­
portant reason teenagers could not get parttime jobs.
About 43 percent of the ES offices were of the
opinion that employers would hire appreciably
more 16-17-year-olds if it were legally possible
to pay such youngsters a wage below the Fed­
eral minimum. However, only 25 percent of the
offices believed this to be true for 18-19-yearold youth.
Among the offices which thought employers
would hire appreciably more teenagers under a
lower minimum wage, 90 percent believed that
a reduction of less than 40 cents in the mini­
mum wage would be necessary to achieve this
end. Moreover, these offices were about equally
divided between 20-39 cents and less than 20
cents as the required reduction. These offices
also believed that employment of teenagers
would most likely increase in the service (ex­
cluding domestic service), sales, clerical, and in­
dustrial occupational groups in the order of im­
portance given, and that the retail trade; serv­
ice (excluding private households) ; wholesale
trade; and finance, insurance, and real estate
industries would be most important in the order
given, as sources of additional teenage employ­
ment.
About two-fifths of the ES offices were of the
opinion that lowering the Federal minimum
wage for teenagers would have an appreciably
adverse effect on the hiring of other groups of
workers for full-time and part-time jobs in the
retail trade and service (excluding private

80

households) industries. Concerning the other
five industry groups, the offices were over­
whelmingly of the opinion that the lowering of
the minimum wage for teenagers would not
have an appreciably adverse effect on the hiring
of other workers.
The offices which indicated that the lowering
of the minimum wage for teenagers would have
an adverse effect on the hiring of other workers
believed that the service (excluding domestic
service), sales, industrial, and clerical occupa­
tional groups would be most likely affected.
These offices also were of the opinion that the
following groups of workers would be most ad­
versely affected in the order given: Negro
women, 40-64 years old; Negro men, 40-64
years old; white men 40-64 years old; white
women, 40-64 years old; and Negro men, 20-24
years old. Minorities other than Negroes were
cited in a few areas as likely to be adversely
affected.
Job openings received during month of June 1969

Over 100,000 nonagricultural job openings
were received in June 1969 by local offices of the
Employment Service in the 23 areas surveyed.
About 60 percent of those openings had no min­
imum age specified while nearly 40 percent did.
Of those openings with a minimum age specifi­
cation, 45 percent precluded the referral of
teenagers since the minimum age designated
was 20 years old or older.
Of the total nonagricultural openings re­
ceived, 55 percent were available to teenagers.
These openings consisted of those jobs which
specified an age minimum within the 16- to 19year-old age interval plus 55 percent openings
which had no minimum age specification but
were considered by the local offices to be availa­
ble to teenagers. The percent of openings avail­
able to teenagers varied widely from area to
area, ranging from 7 percent in Baltimore to 99
percent in Wichita. The variation depends, in
part on the legal prohibitions against employ­
ment of teenagers on some jobs or work shifts,
or the nature of the industry and occupational
mix of the openings in the area. It is likely, for
example, that an area abounding in extractive
and primary industries would receive more or­




ders stipulating a minimum age of 20 years old
or more.
In 4 of the 23 areas reporting, the sum of
the total openings available to teenagers was 25
percent or less of the total openings received; in
three areas it ranged from 25-50 percent; in 10
areas, from 50-75 percent; and in the remain­
ing six areas, 75 percent or more of all openings
received during the month of June 1969 were
available to teenagers.
Job openings unfilled at the end of June 1969

Of the 63,400 nonagricultural job openings
remaining unfilled at the end of June 1969, in
20 areas, 53 percent had no minimum age desig­
nation. Of the 47 percent which did have a
minimum age specified, nearly 60 percent were
unavailable to teenagers because the minimum
acceptable age specified was 20 years old or
older. Over 40 percent of all of the unfilled non­
agricultural job openings were available to
teenagers, including all those for which appli­
cants in the 16- to 19-age group were acceptable
plus those with no minimum age specification
which were considered by the local offices as
available to teenagers.
Twenty areas reported unfilled openings at
the end of June. In four areas the openings
available to teenagers did not exceed 25 percent
of the total unfilled openings fin six areas they
ranged from 25-50 percent; in seven areas,
from 50-75 percent; and in three areas, from
75-100 percent.
Change in the share of job openings available to
teenagers since June 1966

About one-fourth of the 104 ES offices in 19
areas reported that the proportion of nonagri­
cultural openings received by the offices which
specified a minimum age of 20 years old or older
had increased since June 1966. This was prior
to the recent increase and coverage extension in
the Federal minimum wage. More than twothirds of the offices reported no change in the
share of such openings and less than one-tenth
reported a decrease. Correspondingly, about
one-fourth of the local offices indicated that
since June 1966 there had been a decrease in the
proportion of openings received which were
available to teenagers, as well as in the share of

81
such openings which specified a minimum age crease in the percent of openings specifying a
within the 16- to 19-year-old age interval. One- minimum age of 20 years or older were changes
sixth of the offices stated that an increase had of an administrative nature, for example, phas­
occurred in the share of such openings since ing out of Youth Employment Service locations
June 1966 and nearly three-fifths reported no since 1966, referral of youth job orders to
change.
Youth Opportunity Centers (YOC’s), the Job
In only two of the 19 areas reporting were Bank Operation, and an upward surge in the
the local offices unanimous in indicating an in­ economy which caused an increase in hiring of
crease in the proportion of openings with a older college youths. Other reasons mentioned
minimum age specification of 20 years old or were Job Opportunities in the Business Sector
older since June 1966. In only one area was —National Alliance of Businessmen (JOBSthere unanimity that there had been a decrease NAB) operations, apprehension about insur­
in the share of openings available to teenagers ance risks with regard to hazardous jobs caus­
and in the fraction of openings designating a ing employers to demand older workers, and
minimum age within the 16- to 19-year-old age government training and hiring programs.
In the opinion of the local offices, the most
interval.
On the other hand, in 10 areas the offices important reasons for a decrease in the percent
were unanimous in reporting that a decrease or of openings for teenagers were discontinuance
no change had occurred since June 1966 in the of Youth Employment Service outstations and
share of the openings specifying an age mini­ direct referrals to YOC’s. Other frequently
mum of 20 years old or more. Moreover, in mentioned reasons were community agencies
seven areas there was corresponding unanimity assuming placement services for youth, employ­
among the officers to the effect that there was ers’ beliefs that young workers are unstable,
either no change or an increase in the percent teenagers getting their own jobs through ave­
of openings available to teenagers, and in the nues other than the employment service,
proportion of openings specifying a minimum younger teenagers lack adequate transporta­
acceptable age within the 16- to 19-age interval. tion, and decline in demand for seasonal nonIn the remaining areas there were mixed agricultural workers.
views among the offices concerning the changes
which occurred since June 1966 in the shares of Nonagricultural placements made during June
the job openings which fell into the three cate­ 1969
gories referred to above. In such areas, how­
ever, only about one-third of the offices indi­
Around 71,000 nonagricultural placements
cated an increase in the proportion of openings were made during June 1969 by the ES offices
restricted to applicants 20 years of age or older,
the 23 surveyed areas. This is 14 percent of
and a like fraction of the offices reported a de­ in
the nonagricultural placements made during
crease in the share of openings available to
month by all ES offices throughout the
teenagers and in the percent of openings speci­ that
country.
fying a minimum age within the 16- to 19-age
Teenagers got more than one-fourth of the
interval.
nonagricultural
made in the sur­
Of the offices experiencing a change in total veyed areas. Thisplacements
is about the same proportion
job openings specifying ages 16-19, total open­ of teenage applicants in the active file. Slightly
ings available to teenagers, or openings for the more than three-fifths of the teenage place­
20 years of age or older groups, not one cited ments were received by 18- to 19-year-old
the increase in the minimum wage under the youths which is in line with their proportion in
FLSA since 1966 as responsible for the change. the active file. Male teenagers fared much bet­
The reasons given by the local offices for the ter than female teenagers since they received
changes in the openings for the above men­ about three-fifths of the placements but only
constituted slightly more than half of the teen­
tioned groups were somewhat general.
The most important reasons cited for the in­ age applicants.




82

Ltis Angeles made about 25 percent of the
total nonagricultural placements in the 23 sur­
veyed areas, but only 18 percent of its place­
ments were received by teenagers. The propor­
tion of placements going to teenagers ranged
from about 20 percent in the six areas of Buf­
falo, Hartford, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New
Orleans, and Salt Lake City to 50 percent in
Cleveland. In eight areas the teenage proportion
of placements exceeded 30 percent. (See table
5.2.)
Most important occupational groups in which
teenagers were placed

The local offices were asked to rank in order
of importance the three most important occupa­
tional groups in which teenagers were placed.
The rank order for both full-time and part-time
work was as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Industrial
Service, excluding domestic
Clerical
Sales
Domestic service
Farming, fishery, forestry, and related occupa­
tions
7. Professional, technical, managerial

Of the 109 offices responding in 21 areas, 70
percent ranked the industrial occupations as
most important for the placement of youngsters
in full-time jobs. In nine of the areas, local
offices were unanimous in their opinion. These
areas were Lewiston-Auburn, Detroit, Battle
Creek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Milwaukee, Wich­
ita, El Paso, Galveston-Texas City, and Seattle.
With the exception of one area, at least one of­
fice in all areas indicated industrial occupations
as most important. Salt Lake City was the dis­
senting area with its one responding office nam­
ing domestic service occupations as most im­
portant. (See table 5.3.)
Of the 69 offices responding in 19 areas, 48
percent ranked the industrial occupations as the
most important for placement of youngsters in
part-time jobs during fiscal year 1969. In five of
the areas local offices were unanimous in their
opinion. The five areas were Lewiston-Auburn,
Detroit, Wichita, El Paso, and Galveston-Texas
City. (See table 5.4.)




Most frequent reasons given by employers for not
wanting to hire teenagers as reported by em­
ployment service local offices
F u l l -t im e y ea r -round j o b s . The consensus of
local offices in 16 areas reporting on the reasons
given by employers for not wanting to hire
teenagers 16-19 years of age in year-round
full-time employment was that “teenagers lack
appropriate training, experience, and/or educa­
tion for the jobs available.” (See table 5.5.)
The minimum wage was cited by only two
areas, Baltimore and Nashville. This reason
was the fourth most important mentioned in
Nashville along with “teenagers are not reliable
and/or are immature/’ “high labor turnover
for teenagers,” “union contract provisions,”
and the “unwillingness of teenagers to accept
wages for jobs they are qualified to take.”
Although Baltimore reported the minimum
wage as being one reason for not hiring 16-19
year-old youngsters, it was considered the least
important reason in that area along with “State
laws require too much paperwork.” Overall,
however, the “unwillingness of teenagers to
accept wages usually offered for jobs which are
open to them” received a higher ranking than
the minimum wage.
The second most frequently mentioned reason
was “legal restrictions on the hours of work,
hazardous work, or other working conditions of
teenagers.” Third, and of nearly equal import­
ance, was “teenagers are not reliable and/or are
immature.” “Uncertainty over the draft” was
the fourth most important reason—this, of
course, was only relevant to boys. No impedi­
ment to employment was frequently mentioned
in specific reference to girls although two areas,
Buffalo and Seattle, cited “impending mar­
riages, including pregnancy” as important. This
reason, however, was not considered of prime
importance in these two areas.
Some other less frequently mentioned reasons
for not hiring teenagers included: “high labor
turnover among teenagers;” “insurance prob­
lem s including increased cost of insurance or
employers unable to obtain insurance covering
teenage employment;” “the high cost of hiring
and training teenagers;” “employers prefer

83

more experienced, mature, and/or older per­ reasons listed on a questionnaire as very impor­
sons ;” and “the inability of teenagers to work tant ; important; or unimportant, irrelevant, or
not true. The consensus was that the level of the
regular! hours because of school.”
minimum wage has not been an important rea­
son for the difficulty in placing teenagers in
P art -t im e y ea r -round jo b s . The reasons
given by employers in 14 areas for not wanting either full-time or part-time jobs. However, the
to hire teenagers for part-time year-round level of the minimum wage was considered a
jobs were, in declining order of importance, more important deterrent for hiring teenagers
“teenagers are not reliable and/or are im­ in full-time jobs than in part-time. (See tables
mature;” “legal restrictions on hours or type of 5.7 to 5.10.)
Overall, when compared to the relative im­
work;” and “teenagers lack training, experi­
ence, and/or education.” These reasons are the portance given other reasons, the “level of the
same as those cited as impediments to full-time minimum wage has caused employers to seek
employment except that their rank order of im­ older, more experienced workers for jobs” rea­
portance is reversed. “The inability to work son ranked near the bottom for both the 16-17
hours needed by employers because of school or and 18-19-year-olds for full-time jobs and
other reasons” was found to be the fourth most about mid-way for part-time jobs. Not one area
was of the unanimous opinion that this reason
frequently listed reason. (See table 5.6.)
As was reported with respect to full-time was very important as a deterrent in placing
year-round employment, only a few areas—At­ 18- to 19-year-old youngsters on full-time or
lanta, Baltimore, and Nashville—indicated that part-time jobs. For the 16-17 year-olds, the one
the minimum wage was a barrier to employ­ office reporting in the Salt Lake City area and
ment. Baltimore and Nashville stated the mini­ both offices reporting in the Galveston-Texas
mum wage was important although Baltimore City area were of the opinion that the level of
placed it in fifth place. As with full-time work, the minimum wage was very important for
“teenage unwillingness to accept current wages full-time placements; only the two offices in the
for jobs they are qualified to take” received a Galveston-Texas City area were of this opinion
much higher ranking overall for part-time than for part-time jobs.
did “minimum wage impediments” to their em­
There was general agreement that for yearployment.
round full-time and part-time jobs, two reasons
Six areas—Atlanta, Birmingham, Cleveland, rated high in importance for both age groups:
Galveston, Oklahoma City, and Seattle—said “employers believe teenagers are not reliable”
that the most frequent barrier to teenage em­ and “high labor turnover among teenagers.”
ployment is that they are not reliable and/or However, the most important reason cited for
are immature. “Legal restrictions” were given the
olds was “legal restrictions on
as most important for five areas—Battle Creek, hours16-17-year
of
work,
hazardous
work, or other work­
Buffalo, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Nashville. ing conditions for teenagers”—this
was true
Two areas, El Paso and Milwaukee, mentioned for both full-time and part-time work.
For
as most important “teenagers' lack of training,
those
18-19
years
of
age,
“uncertainty
over
the
experience, and/or education.” The remaining
draft
makes
employers
reluctant
to
hire
teenag­
area, Baltimore, indicated the leading impedi­
ment was “teenagers' inability to work hours ers” was the most important reason cited for
needed by employers because of school or other full-time jobs; whereas for part-time jobs the
reasons.”
most important reason was “high labor turn­
over. . . .”
Other reasons given a high rating in import­
Local office reasons for difficulty in placing
ance for the 16-17 year-olds for both full-time
teenagers on jobs
and part-time jobs were: “employers' hiring
specifications
with respect to age exclude teen­
Based on their experience during fiscal year
1969, local offices were asked to rate each of 12 agers,” and “hiring specifications of employers




84

with respect to education and experience are so
high that most teenagers are excluded/’ For the
18-19 year-olds, “unwillingness of teenagers to
accept wages usually offered for jobs they are
qualified to take” and “hiring specifications of
employers with respect to education and experi­
ence . . . ” were other reasons rated high for
both full-time and part-time work.
Only a few reasons were mentioned by the
local offices that did not appear on the question­
naire. For both the 16-17 and 18-19 year-olds,
one office in the Atlanta area was of the opinion
that “transportation” was very important and
one office in the Cleveland area mentioned “ina­
bility to pass company tests” as a very impor­
tant reason for the difficulty in placing teenag­
ers in both full-time and part-time jobs. Two
offices in the Oklahoma City area cited “poor
appearance” as very important for both full­
time and part-time placement, and one office was
of the opinion that “immaturity” was very im­
portant for both age groups but only for full­
time jobs. In the Los Angeles area, four offices
were of the opinion that “lack of child care” and
“transportation” were very important for only
the 16-17-year-olds for both full-time and parttime jobs. One office in the Buffalo area named
“baby-sitting problems” as very important for
only the 18-19-year-olds for both full-time and
part-time jobs.
Effect on employment of lowering minimum wage
for teenagers

Of 91 offices in 21 areas, 43 percent were of
the opinion that employers would hire apprecia­
bly more 16- to 17 year-old boys and girls if
payment of a wage below the Federal minimum
were legally possible ($1.60 an hour in most
industries and $1.30 an hour in newly covered
retail and service industries). However, only 26
percent of the offices believed this to be true for
18- and 19-year-old youths of either sex. (See
table 5.11.)
In five of the 21 areas local offices (21) were
unanimous in their opinion that employers
would hire appreciably more 16- to 17-year-old
boys and girls under the given circumstances.
The five areas were Charlotte, Detroit, Galve­
ston, New Orleans, and Wichita. Although the




offices in four of these five areas persisted in
this view regarding the 18- to 19-year-old boys
and girls, the 12 offices in the Detroit area took
a contrary stand with respect to the older teen­
agers.
The 7 of the 21 areas, local offices (21) were
unanimous in their view that a lowering of the
Federal minimum wage would not result in the
hiring of appreciably more teenagers of either
sex or of either age group. These seven areas
were Battle Creek, Cleveland, Denver, El Paso,
Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Nash­
ville.
Among the offices which thought employers
would hire appreciably more teenagers under a
lower minimum wage, 90 percent believed that
a reduction of less than 40 cents in the mini­
mum wage would be necessary to achieve this
end. Moreover, those offices were about equally
divided between 20-39 cents and less than 20
cents as the required reduction. This finding
was applicable to 18- to 19-year-old youths, as
well as the 16- to 17 year-olds, and was held
irrespective of whether the Federal minimum
was $1.60 or $1.30 an hour.
Within the group of offices which held the
view that employers would hire appreciably
more teenagers at a lower minimum wage, it
was believed that employment of 16-17 yearolds would most likely increase in the following
occupational groups which are ranked in order
of importance: service (excluding domestic
service) sales, clerical, and industrial occupa­
tions. For the 18-19-year-olds, the offices be­
lieved that increased employment opportunities
would occur most likely in the same four occu­
pational groups, but there was little distinction
in the order of importance of these groups. The
other occupational groups, although mentioned
by a few offices, were relatively unimportant as
a source of increased jobs for either the 16-17
or 18-19 age groups.
Offices which believed an appreciable increase
in teenage employment would accompany a
lowering of the minimum wage, thought that
re ta il trade would be the most important indus­
try as a source of additional teenage employ­
ment followed closely by the service industry,
excluding private households. Wholesale trade

85

and finance, insurance, and real estate was the
third most important industry group in this re­
spect. The manufacturing, construction, all
other and government industry groups were
mentioned as possibilities by some few local
offices but were relatively unimportant as po­
tential job sources for Teenagers. Government
was the least important of all. There was little
difference in this industrial pattern between
the 16-17 and 18- to 19-year-old age groups.
Adverse effects of lowering Federal minimum
wage for teenagers on other groups of workers

The local offices were asked to respond either
“yes” or “no” as to whether or not lowering of
the Federal minimum wage for teenagers would
in their judgment have an appreciable adverse
effect on the hiring of other groups of workers
in each of the following seven industry groups:
M anufacturing
Wholesale trade; finance, insurance, and real estate
Retail trade
Construction
Government
Services, except private households
All other industries

In 5 of the 7 groups, the local offices re­
sponding were overwhelmingly of the opinion
that there would be no appreciable adverse ef­
fects. Local office opinion was closely divided
over two of the seven industrial groups. Of 91
offices responding in 21 areas, 46 percent indi­
cated that other groups of workers would be
adversely affected for full-time hiring in retail
trade; 42 percent gave the same response for
part-time workers in retail trade. Forty-three
percent of the offices indicated that other
groups of workers would be adversely affected
for full-time hiring in services, excluding pri­
vate households; 38 percent of the offices gave
the same response for part-time hiring in serv­
ices. (See tables 5.12 and 5.13.)
Those offices indicating that lowering the
minimum wage would have an adverse effect on
full-time hiring of nonteenage persons, indi­
cated that the occupational groups most likely
to be affected would be service (excluding do­
mestic) and sales, both ranked about equal in
importance. Next important, and about equally




so, would be the industrial and clerical groups.
The hiring of workers in the domestic service,
farm, and professional groups would be rela­
tively unaffected, professional the least affected
of all. For part-time hiring, the relative import­
ance of the other occupational groups affected
would be about the same as that for full-time
with one exception—farm was ranked last in
importance below the professional group. (See
tables 5.14 and 5.15.)
Local officers indicated that hiring of some
groups of individuals, other than teenagers,
possessing certain demographic characteristics
would likely be more adversely affected than
would other groups. The group ranked highest
in order of importance of being affected by a
lowering of the Federal minimum wage for
teenagers was female Negroes 45-64 years of
age. Next in importance were Negro men 45-64
years of age, followed in descending order of
rank importance by white males 45-64 years of
age, white females 45-64 years of age, and
Negro males 20-64 years of age. (See table
5.16.) Only a few offices responded that groups
other than Negroes and whites would be af­
fected. These groups were: male and female
Mexican-Americans under 65 years of age in
the Los Angeles area; Puerto Rican men 25-44
years of age in Hartford, Conn, area, and
male and female Cubans 45-64 years of age in
the New Orleans area.
New applications for work filed during June 1969

About 183,000 applicants filed new applica­
tions for work during June 1969 at the ES local
offices in the 23 areas covered in the survey.
This was about 15 percent of 1,237,000 new
work applications received during that month
at all ES local offices in the United States.
Owing to the usual influx of youths into the
labor market at this time of the year, teenagers
filed about 40 percent, or 71,000, of the new
work applications in the 23 surveyed areas dur­
ing June. Almost 60 percent of these teenager
applications were filed by 18- to 19-year-old
youths, with the remaining 40 percent being

86

About 404,000 active applications for work
were on file at the end of June 1969 in the ES
local offices in the 23 surveyed areas. This
amounted to about 15 percent of the more than
3 million active work applications on file at the

same time in all Employment Service local
offices in the Nation.
Teenagers constituted about 25 percent, or
103,000, of the applicants with active applica­
tions on file at the end of June in the 20 re­
sponding areas. As customary during June, this
was considerably smaller than the 40 percent
teenage share of the new applications filed dur­
ing that month. In all other respects, however,
the distribution of teenager active applications
on file by sex and age was virtually identical to
that for the new applications filed by teenagers.
Los Angeles, however, had an even larger
share of the active applications on file than it
had new applications filed—32 percent versus
about 25 percent. As in the case of new applica­
tions filed, however, Los Angeles fell about 10
percentage points under the average for all
areas in the proportion of teenagers in the ac­
tive file. The proportion of teenagers in the ac­
tive file varied from 15 percent in Los Angles to
53 percent in Minneapolis-St. Paul, but in 13 of
the 20 areas reporting this information it was
at least 25 percent. (See table 5.18.)

1 The SMSA’s included Los Angeles, Calif.; LewistonAuburn, Maine; Hartford, Conn.; Buffalo, N.Y.; New­
ark, N .J.; Baltimore, Md.; Atlanta, Ga.; Birmingham,
Ala.; Charlotte, N.C.;. Nashville, Tenn.; Cleveland,
Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; Milwaukee, Wis.; MinneapolisSt. Paul, Minn.; El Paso, Tex.; Galveston-Texas City,
Tex.; New Orleans, La.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Wichita,
Kans.; Denver, Colo.; Salt Lake City, Utah; and
Seattle, Wash.

The 23 areas surveyed included close to 14.3 million
persons, or about 17 percent of the national labor force
in June 1969. The average unemployment rate in the
23 areas was 4.0 percent (577,000). This was very close
to the national rate of unemployment of 4.1 percent at
the time (not seasonally adjusted). A wide variations
in the rate of unemployment existed among the areas. It
ranged from 2.4 percent in Cleveland to 5.8 percent in
New Orleans. (See table 5.1.)

filed by 16-17-year olds. Among the male teen­
agers, however, a slightly greater proportion
(45 percent) of the new applications were from
16-17-year olds than from the female teenagers
(40 percent). Slightly more than one-half of the
teenager applications were filed by males.
About 25 percent of all the new applications
filed in the 23 surveyed areas, combined, were
filed in Los Angles, the largest area surveyed.
In that area, however, only 30 percent of the
new applications were filed by teenagers. The
proportion of new applications filed by teen­
agers ranged from 27 percent in Seattle to 52
percent in El Paso, but in 15 of the 23 areas it
was above 40 percent. (See table 5.17.)
Active applications for work on file at the end of
June 1969




87
Table 5.1. Estimated work force and unemployment in
surveyed areas mid-June 1969
[In thousands]
Unemployment

Region and Area 1

Work
force
Number

Region 1:
Hartford, Conn.................... ..........................
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine 2________ ______
Region II:
Buffalo, N.Y....................................................
Newark, N.J...................................................
Region III:
Baltimore, Md.2......... ............ ......................
Region IV:
Atlanta, Ga.2___............... ........... ........... .
Birmingham, Ala____________ ___ ____
Charlotte, N.C________ ________________
Nashville, Tenn_______________________
Region V:
Battle Creek, Mich.2...................... .............. .
Cleveland, Ohio 2...........................................
Detroit, Mich.2________________________
Milwaukee, Wis.2_________ ______ ______
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.............. ............
Region V I:
El Paso, Tex.2_________________________
Galveston-Texas City, Tex.2...........................
New Orleans, La______ ______ ________
Oklahoma City, Okla....................................
Region VII:
Wichita, Kans________________________ _
Region VIII:
Denver, Colo____________ ___________
Salt Lake City, Utah___________ ________
Region IX:
Los Angeles, Calif.2......... .............................
Region X :
Seattle, Wash............... .................................

Rate

358.7
33.6

13.3
1.9

3.7
5.7

573.2
913.4

21.9
38.7

3.8
4.2

908.3

21.8
13.8

29.7

3.3

8.9
8.3

3.3
4.6
4.3
3.2

69.9
968.5
1,715.7
640.2
863.9

3.4
23.6
82.0
22.5

4.9
2.4
4.8
3.5

123.3
61.6
436.5
291.4

5.9
3.2
25.4
11.5

4.8
5.2
5.8
3.9

171.5
529.1
217.6

22.2
11.1

4.2
5.1

3,346.5

150.7

4.5

674.5

25.8

3.8

669.2
302.8
205.8
258.0

22.6

2.6

4.9

8.4

1
2

The Roman numerals I through X designate the regional subdivisions of the country
through which the Department of Labor administers its programs.
Areas also covered by BLS employer study.

Table 5.2.

Nonagricultural placements made during June 1969, by employment service local offices in selected areas
Total nonagricultural placements

Female

Both sexes
Region and Area

1.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

VI.
VII.

VIII.
IX .
X.

Hartford, Conn.............................................. ...................................... .................... ...............
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine............................................................. ...................... ................
Buffalo, N.Y..................................................................................................... .........................
Newark, N.J..................................... ............. ............................... ......................................
Baltimore, Md________________ ______ ____ ______ ______ ___________________
Atlanta, Ga____________ ______ _____________ ______________________________
Birmingham, Ala....................................................................................................................
Charlotte, N.C............................................... .................... ......................................................
Nashville, Tenn________________ ___________________________________________
Battle Creek, Mich______ _________________________________________________
Cleveland, Ohio.......................................... ............................. ..........................................
Detroit, Mich______________________ _____ ______ _____ _____________ ________
Milwaukee, Wis_____________ _____ ____ _____ _______________________________
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_____ _____________ ____ ______ __________ ______
El Paso, Tex________________________________________ ______________ _______
Galveston-Texas City, Tex_____ ______________________ ______ ____________ _
New Orleans, La......................................................................................................... ...........
Oklahoma City, Okla_____ _________________________________________________
Wichita, Kans_______________________________________________ ______________
Denver, Colo_____ _____ _________________________________________ ______
Salt Lake City, Utah_______ ________________________________________________
Los Angeles, Calif__________ ______________________ ________________________
Seattle, Wash.............................................. ............... .............................................................
Total, all areas..................................................................................... ......................

i Information not available.




Total
All ages

Teenagers

1,143
295
2,800
3,906
3,686
3,709
1,752
925
1,543
271
3,239
5,531
1,284
3,961
2,353
816
2,480
4,022
1,369
5,188
1,486
18,278
1,078
71,115

202
100
531
907
1,359
1,427
589
331
392
118
1,618
1,268
226
1,657
661
177
459
1,175
316
1,501
268
3,249
250
18,781

16-17
years
54
28
146
254
413
675
162
144
124
47
866
189
76
714
349
43
57
652
O)
522
0)
1,047
68
6,630

18-19
years
148
72
385
653
946
752
427
187
268
71
752
1,079
150
943
312
134
402
523
0)
979
0)
2,202
182
11,567

Total
All ages

Teenagers

422
106
1,528
2,327
1,672
1,802
795
413
518
121
1,197
2,399
486
1,729
1,310
325
972
1,355
361
1,411
408
7,166
372
2 28,834

83
44
186
415
595
602
194
134
169
48
711
429
86
858
233
45
164
533
0)
408
73
1,263
87
7,360

16-17
years
26
11
48
115
182
263
51
59
45
15
383
66
32
369
97
9
30
300
0)
142
0)
457
18
2,718

18-19
years
57
33
138
300
413
339
143
75
124
33
328
363
54
489
136
36
134
233
72
266
0)
806
69

4,641

2To preserve comparability with female "Teenagers" column, "Total, all ages"
does not include figures for the Wichita area for which teenager data were not reported.

88
Table 5.3. Rank importance of the\ occupational group in which teenagers were placed in full-time year-round jobs
most frequently during fiscal year 1969, by employment service local offices
[Rating scale: Most important = 3; second most important = 2; third most important = 1 ]1

Table 5.4. Rank importance of the occupational group in which teenagers were placed in part-time year-round jobs
most frequently during fiscal year 1969, by employment service local offices




[Rating scale: Most important = 3; second most important =

2 ; third

most important = 1]

89
Table 5.5. Rank importance of most frequent reasons given by employers for not hiring teenagers in full-time yearround jobs as reported by employment service local offices
[Ranking scale: First rank = 3; second rank = 2; third rank = 1]

V.

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11..
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21
22..




0.00

1.10 0.73
0.10 0.00
0.18 0.00
1.08
0.34

1.36
0.18

0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30 2.73
0.03 0.00
0.00
0.0.0011 0.00
0.04 0.00
0.05 0.27
0.0.0401 0.18
0.00
0.15 0.00
0.13 0.00
0.06 0.00
0.05 0.00
0.07
0.16
0.08

Battle Creek, Mich.

Nashville, Tenn.

Birmingham, Ala.

0.40

2.00 0.00 1.00
0.14 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00
0.29 0.20 0.00 1.50 3.00
0.00 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.00
0.57 0.60 0.50 0.00 0.00
1.43 2.00 2.00 0.50 2.00
0.71 0.60 0.00 0.50 0.00
0.14 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00
0.57 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00
1.29 1.20 1.50 1.00 0.00
0.00
0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.20
0.20 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

0.92

1.33

0.33

3.00

0.00 0.00 0.00
1.33 2.25 2.00
0.33 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 0.00
1.67 0.33 1.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.17 0.00 0.00
0.33 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.33 2.00 0.67
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.33 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.67
0.00 0.00 0.33
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00

0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.67
0.67

0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.33

0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00

Los Angles, Calif.

0.04

0.86

X.

Oklahoma City, Okla.

El Paso, Tex.

0.73

Atlanta, Ga.

0.93

Baltimore, Md.

reluctant to hire teenagers.................. ..........
Level of the minimum wage has caused em­
ployers to seek older, more experienced
workers for jobs_______________________
Legal restrictions on hours of work, hazard­
ous work, or other working conditions, for
teenagers__________ __________________
Unwillingness of teenagers to accept wages
usually offered for jobs they are qualified
to take______________________________
Employer fear of higher cost of workmen’s
compensation, other insurance, or insurance
not covering teenagers____________ _____
Employers believe teenagers are not reliable
and/or are im m ature._______ _________
High labor turnover among teenagers........ .
State laws require too much paper work such
as work permits_______________________
High cost of hiring and training teenagers...
Union contract provisions....... ............ ..........
Teenagers lack training, experience, and/or
education______________________ _____ _
Teenagers lack transportation to jobs______
Unwillingness of teenagers to accept jobs
within their skill range__________________
Physical requirements____ _____________
Teenagers are more subject to injury on the
job__________________________ _____
Impending marriages, including pregnancy..
Teenagers show lack of initiative_________
Teenagers have too much absenteeism____
Employers prefer more experienced, mature,
or older persons_______________________
Teenager's inability to work hours needed for
jobs because of school or other reasons____
Inappropriate teenage dress........ .......... .......
Productivity vs. cost____________________

^ Buffalo, N.Y.

Average, all areas

1. Uncertainty over the draft makes employers

2.

IX.

New Orleans, La.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

0.50

Reason

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

Milwaukee, Wis.

VI.

Detroit, Mich.

IV.

III.

Cleveland, Ohio

II.

Seattle, Wash.

Region and area

1.25

0.60

0.75

0.00 0.00
2.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.40
0.25 3.00
0.25 1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
1.50 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25 0.00
0.00
0.80

1.25

0.00 0.00
0.50

0.75

0.25

0.00
0.00

0.38
0.75

1.75
0.50

0.63

0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00

0.25

0.25

0.50
0.63
0.75

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00

90
Table 5.6. Rank importance of most frequent reasons given by employers for not hiring teenagers in part-time yearround jobs as reported by employment service local offices
[Ranking scale: First rank = 3; second rank = 2; third rank = 1]
Region and area

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
89..
10
.
11
.
12
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21
22..
23.

teenagers_________________________________________
Level of the minimum wage has caused employers to seek
older, more experienced workers for jobs........................ .
Legal restrictions on hours of work, hazardous work, or
other working conditions for teenagers_________________
Unwillingness of teenagers to accept wages usually offered
for jobs they are qualified to take_____________________
Employers hiring specifications with respect to age exclude
teenagers_________________________________________
Employer fear of higher cost of workmen's compensation,
other insurance, or insurance not covering teenagers...........
Employers believe teenagers are not reliable and/or are
immature_________________________________________
High labor turnover among teenagers________ __________
State laws require too much paper work such as work
permits__________________________________________
High cost of hiring and training teenagers_______________
Union contract provisions___ ____ ____________________
Teenagers lack training, experience, and/or education____
Teenagers lack transportation to jobs-----------------------------------Unwillingness of teenagers to accept jobs within their skill
range____________________________________________
Physical requirements______________________________
Impending marriages, including pregnancy______________
Teenagers show lack of initiative_______________ ______
Teenagers have too much absenteeism_________________
Employers prefer more experienced, mature, or older
persons__________________________________________
Teenagers’ inability to work hours needed for jobs because
of school or other reasons__________________ ________ _
Inappropriate teenage dress____________________ ______

Productivity vs. cost________________________________
Minimum wage has caused employers to hire older youth in
preference to 16-18 year olds________________________
24. Available supply of older, part-time workers____________
25. Scarcity of part-time jobs___________________ ____ ___




0.28
0.06

1.12

0.26
0.08
0.26
1.62
0.26
0.15
0.17
0.06
0.70
0.08

0.0.0011
0.02
0.05
0.04

0.07
0.53
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.05

0.02

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.60
0.40
1.80
0.40

0.00
0.00
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.60

0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00 0.00
0.50 0.00
1.50 3.00
0.50 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.50 2.00
0.50 0.00
0.25 0.00
0.75 0.00
0.50 0.00
1.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00

El Paso, Tex.

Milwaukee, Wis.

Detroit, Mich.

Cleveland, Ohio

Battle Creek, Mich.

Nashville, Tenn.

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.33
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33

Birmingham, Ala.

0.22
0.00
1.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
1.11
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00

Atlanta, Ga.

Baltimore, Md.

1. Uncertainty over the draft makes employers reluctant to hire

Buffalo, N.Y.

Average, all areas

Reason

2.

IX.

VI.

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.25 2.00 1.33 0.00 2.00
0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.25 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00
1.75 1.67 1.00 0.00 3.00
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.67
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50 0.17 2.00 3.00 0.00
0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.67
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
1.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00

0.40

0.50

X.

Seattle, Wash.

V.

Los Angeles, Calif.

IV.

Oklahoma City, Okla.

III.

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

II.

0.70

0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.13 0.75
0.00 0.75 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.40 0.25
0.00
3.00 0.63
2.00
1.20 0.75 0.50
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.50
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.38 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.25

91
Table 5.7. Rank importance of reasons for difficulty in placing teenagers 16-17 years of age on full-time year-round
jobs based on local office experience during fiscal year 1969
[Rating scale: Very important = 3; important = 2; unimportant, irrelevant, or not true = 1]
Region and area

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12

makes employers reluctant
to hire teenagers__________
Level of the minimum wage
has caused employers to
seek older, mere experienced
workers for jobs.......... ..........
Legal restrictions on hours
of work, hazardous work, or
other working conditions for
teenagers________________
Unwillingness of teenagers
to accept wages usually
offered for jobs they are
qualified to take___________
Hiring specifications of em­
ployers with respect to edu­
cation and experience are so
high that most teenagers are
excluded_________________
Employers' hiring specifica­
tions with respect to age
exclude teenagers_________
Employer fear of higher cost
of workmen’s compensation
and other insurance when
teenagers are employed____
Employers believe teenagers
are not reliable__________
High labor turnover among
teenagers________________
State laws require too much
paper work such as work
permits___________ . . .
High cost of hiring and train­
ing teenagers_______ _____
Union contract provisions___




IX.

Salt Lake City, Utah

VIII.

Denver, Colo.

Wichita, Kans.

Detroit, Mich.

2.50

Cleveland, Ohio

1.80

Battle Creek, Mich.

1.25

Nashville, Tenn.

1.40

1

Baltimore, Md.

Newark, N.J.

Birmingham, Ala.

2.

Atlanta, Ga.

1. Uncertainty over the draft

Buffalo, N.Y.

| Average, all areas

Reason

VII.

| Oklahoma City, Okla.

VI.

El Paso, Tex.

V.

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

IV.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

III.

II.

X.

i t
I
3

i

1.77

1.20 1.00 1.29
1.80 2.00 2.00

2.75

2.90

3.00

2.14

2.80

2.50

1.79

1.50

1.00

1.71

1.80

1.50

1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.20 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.75 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.40 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.62
1.00
3.00 3.00 3.00 2.83 2.67 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.87
2.80
1.75 1.00 2.20 2.25 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.80 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.50
2.20

2.75

2.00

1.32

2.19

2.20 3.00 1.86 2.20
2.21 2.00 2.00 2.60
2.00 1.00 2.14 1.60

2.54

2.40

3.00

2.29

2.60

2.50

2.31

2.30

3.00

2.29

2.40

1.75

2.28
2.44

1.85
1.65
1.63

2.20 2.00 1.29 1.80
1.80 1.00 2.00 2.40
1.20 1.00 1.43 2.20

2.50

2.50

1.50
1.75
1.50

2.00
2.20

2.00 2.00 1.00 2.40 3.00
2.75 3.00
3.00 2.67 2.00 2.00 1.80 3.00
2.75 3.00 1.80 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.40 3.00
2.25 1.00 3.00 2.25 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.60 3.00
2.25 1.00 2.80 2.17 1.33 3.00 2.00 2.60 2.00
1.50 2.00 1.80 2.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 2.00
1.75 1.00 2.20 1.00 1.33 2.00 1.00 1.60 2.00
1.00 1.00 1.60 1.58 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.40 3.00
3.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

2.37

3.00

3.00

2.25

2.20
2.00

1.00 2.00

2.50

1.80

3.00

3.00

2.37

2.40

3.00

3.00

2.37

2.40

2.00 2.00
1.00 2.00
3.06 1.00

1.87
1.87
2.37

2.20
2.00
2.00

92
Table 5.8. Rank importance of reasons for difficulty in placing teenagers 18-19 years of age on full-time year-round
jobs based on local office experience during fiscal year 1969
[Rating scale: Very important = 3; important = 2; unimportant, irrelevant, or not true = 1]

IV.

VI.

Nashville, Tenn.

Battle Creek, Mich.

Cleveland, Ohio

Detroit, Mich.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

El Paso, Tex.

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

Wichita, Kans.

Denver, Colo.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Los Angeles, Calif.

1.00

2.43

2.20

3.00

2.50

2.00

2.80

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.60

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.25

2.40

1.54

1.36

1.00

1.29

1.60

2.00

2.25

1.00

1.80

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.40

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.75

1.20

1.41

1.73

2.00

1.29

1.20

1.50

2.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.33

1.00

1.00

1.40

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.62

1.40

2.10

1.91

1.00

2.00

2.20

1.50

2.25

2.00

2.60

2.25

2.33

2.00

3.00

2.20

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.25

2.40

1.95

2.09

3.00

1.57

1.80

1.00

2.00

1.00

2.20

1.83

1.67

2.00

2.00

2.40

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.12

1.40

1.56

1.82

1.00

1.14

1.20

1.25

1.75

2.00

1.80

1.75

1.33

2.00

1.00

1.20

2.00

1.50

2.00

1.50

1.80

| Oklahoma City, Okla.
1

Birmingham, Ala.

X.

Atlanta, Ga.

IX.

2.54

! Average, all areas




VIII.

2.44

Reason

1. Uncertainty over the draft
makes employers reluctant
to hire teenagers.. _____
2. Level of the minimum wage
has caused employers to
seek older, more experienced
workers for jobs___________
3. Legal restrictions on hours
of work, hazardous work, or
other working conditions for
teenagers________________
4. Unwillingness of teenagers
to accept wages usually
offered for jobs they are
qualified to take________ _
5. Hiring specifications of em­
ployers with respect to edu­
cation and experience are so
high that most teenagers are
excluded_________ ____
6. Employers' hiring specifica­
tions with respect to age
exclude teenagers_________
7. Employer fear of higher cost
of workmen's compensation
and other insurance when
teenagers are employed____
8. Employers believe teenagers
are not reliable. __ _______
9. High labor turnover among
teenagers________________
10. State laws require too much
paper work such as work
permits___ ____________
11. High cost of hiring and train­
ing teenagers ____________
12. Union contract provisions___

VII.

Baltimore, Md.

V.

Newark, N.J.

III.

Buffalo, N.Y.

II.

Seattle, Wash.

Region and area

1.59

1.45

1.00

1.29

1.20

2.25

1.75

1.00

1.80

1.17

1.33

2.00

1.00

1.80

3.00

3.00

1.00

1.62

1.00

2.10

2.09

3.00

1.86

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.80

1.00

1.33

2.00

2.00

2.80

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.12

1.80

2.14

2.27

3.00

2.00

2.00

1.75

2.00

1.00

2.60

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.60

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.12

2.20

1.07

1.09

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.20

1.00

1.33

1.00

1.00

1.20

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.25

1.20

1.58
1.40

2.00
1.36

1.00
1.00

1.57
1.14

1.40
1.20

1.50
1.25

1.75
1.00

1.00
1.00

2.20
1.40

1.00
1.25

1.33
1.33

2.00
1.00

1.00
2.00

1.80
1.00

2.00
2.00

2.50
3.00

1.00
1.00

2.00
1.62

1.40
1.60

93
Table 5.9. Rank importance of reasons for difficulty in placing teenagers 16-17 years of age on part-time year-round
jobs based on local office experience during fiscal year 1969
[Rating scale: Very important = 3; important =

2; unimportant, irrelevant, or not true = 1]

IV.




Birmingham, Ala.

Nashville, Tenn.

Battle Creek, Mich.

Cleveland, Ohio

Detroit, Mich.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

El Paso, Tex.

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

Oklahoma City, Okla.

Wichita, Kans.

Denver, Colo.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Los Angeles, Calif.

X.

Atlanta, Ga.

IX.

Baltimore, Md.

VIII.

1.25

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.66

2.12

1.00

2.00

1.60

1.75

2.00

2.00

1.75

1.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

1.40

2.00

1.50

2.00

2.75

1.00

2.71

3.00

2.00

2.67

2.80

2.50

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.75

2.67

3.00

2.00

2.80

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.87

2.80

1.64

1.25

1.00

1.33

1.80

1.50

1.33

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.60

2.00

3.00

1.00

1.50

2.20

1.96

1.50

3.00

1.33

1.80

2.25

2.33

3.00

1.75

3.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.40

3.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.23

2.50

2.00

1.67

2.60

2.25

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.33

2.00

2.00

1.80

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.09

1.75

1.00

2.33

1.60

2.25

2.67

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.67

2.00

1.00

2.40

3.00

1.00

2.00

2.50

1.40

2.30

2.25

3.00

2.00

2.60

2.25

1.67

1.00

2.75

2.17

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.40

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.12

2.20

2.22

2.12

3.00

2.00

2.20

1.75

1.67

1.00

2.75

2.17

1.33

3.00

2.00

2.40

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.25

2.40

1.59

2.00

2.00

1.33

1.80

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.75

2.83

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.20

2.00

1.00

2.00

1.75

2.00

1.57
1.72

1.37
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.67
1.67

2.20
1.80

1.50
1.50

1.67
1.00

1.00
1.00

2.25
1.25

1.00
1.58

1.33
1.00

2.00
1.00

1.00
3.00

1.60
1.40

2.00
3.00

1.00
3.00

2.00
O)

1.87
2.12

1.80
2.00

i

1
i Data not reported.

VII.

1.18

Reason

1. Uncertainty over the draft
makes employers reluctant
to hire teenagers__________
2. Level of the minimum wage
has caused employers to
seek older, more experienced
workers for jobs.................
3. Legal restrictions on hours
of work, hazardous work, or
other working conditions for
teenagers_____ ___________
4. Unwillingness of teenagers
to accept wages usually
offered for jobs they are
qualified to take___ _______
5. Hiring specifications of em­
ployers with respect to edu­
cation and experience are so
high that most teenagers are
excluded_________________
6. Employers’ hiring specifica­
tions with respect to age
exclude teenagers_________
7. Employer fear of higher cost
of workmen's compensation
and other insurance when
teenagers are employed____
8. Employers believe teenagers
are not reliable..................... .
9. High labor turnover among
teenagers,..............................
10. State laws require too much
paper work such as work
permits. ____ ___________
11. High cost of hiring and train­
ing teenagers...... ............ .......
12. Union contract provisions___

VI.

Newark, N.J.

V.

Buffalo, N.Y.

III.

Average, all areas

II.

Seattle, Wash.

Region and area

94
Table 5.10. Rank importance of reasons for difficulty in placing teenagers 18-19 years of age on part-time year-round
jobs based on local office experience during fiscal year 1969
[Rating scale: Very important — 3; important = 2; unimportant, irrelevant, or not true = 1]

II.

V.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

Oklahoma City, Okla.

Wichita, Kans.

^ Denver, Colo.

^ Salt Lake City, Utah

Los Angeles, Calif.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Data not reported.




! Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

Detroit, Mich.

1.00

1.67

1.40

1.00

1.33

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.33

3.00

1.00

1.40

2.00

1.50

1.00

1.50

1.00

1.52

1.33

1.00

1.33

1.40

1.25

2.67

1.00

1.75

1.00

1.33

1.00

2.00

1.40

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.75

1.20

1.45

1.89

2.00

1.33

1.20

1.25

3.00

1.00

2.25

1.00

1.33

1.00

1.00

1.20

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.25

1.40

1.87

1.56

1.00

1.67

2.20

1.75

1.67

2.00

2.50

2.00

1.33

2.00

2.00

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.87

2.40

1.54

1.44

3.00

1.33

1.60

1.00

2.33

1.00

2.00

1.75

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.40

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.75

1.20

1.47

1.67

1.00

1.00

1.20

1.00

2.67

2.00

1.75

1.75

1.33

1.00

1.00

1.20

2.00

1.00

2.00

1.37

1.60

El Paso, Tex.

Cleveland, Ohio

1.56

^ Battle Creek, Mich.
i

Nashville, Tenn.

2.

Uncertainty over the draft
makes employers reluctant
to hire teenagers__________
Level of the minimum wage
has caused employers to
seek older, more experienced
workers for jobs___________
Legal restrictions on hours
of work, hazardous work, or
other working conditions for
teenagers________________
Unwillingness of teenagers
to accept wages usually
offered for jobs they are
qualified to take___________
Hiring specifications of em­
ployers with respect to edu­
cation and experience are so
high that most teenagers are
excluded_________________
Employers' hiring specifica­
tions with respect to age
exclude teenagers________
Employer fear of higher cost
of workmen’s compensation
and other insurance when
teenagers are employed____
Employers believe teenagers
are not reliable___________
High labor turnover among
teenagers______ __________
State laws require too much
paper work such as work
permits_________________
High cost of hiring and train­
ing teenagers_____________
Union contract provisions___

Atlanta, Ga.

' Birmingham, Ala.

1.

* Baltimore, Md.
|

Newark, N.J.

1.48

' Average, all areas

Buffalo, N.Y.

Reason

* Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

|

III.

Seattle, Wash.

Region and area

1.48

1.44

1.00

1.33

1.20

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

1.25

1.33

2.00

1.00

1.60

3.00

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.50

1.95

2.00

3.00

1.67

2.00

2.00

1.67

1.00

2.75

1.00

1.33

1.00

2.00

2.40

3.00

3.00

2.00

1.75

1.60

2.01

2.00

3.00

1.67

1.80

1.75

1.33

1.00

2.75

2.00

1.33

2.00

2.00

2.40

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.20

1.05

1.11

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.33

1.00

1.00

1.20

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.25

1.00

1.41
1.38

1.67
1.22

1.00
1.00

1.33
1.67

1.20
1.20

1.25
1.25

2.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

2.25
1.25

1.00
1.25

1.33
1.33

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.60
1.00

2.00
2.00

0.50
3.00

2.00
O)

2.00
1.75

1.20
1.60

95
Table 5.11. Employment service local offices expressing
the view that employers in their areas would hire appre­
ciably 1 more teenagers than they now do if it were legally
possible to pay teenagers a wage below the Federal
minimum wage
Number of local offices responding
Expressing view thaU
employers would hirtr
appreciably more teenagers
Total
18-19
years old

16-17
years old

Male Female Male Female
Total, all areas..............................

91

39

39

24

1. Hartford, Conn.........................................
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine.................... .
II. Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................
Newark, N J .............................................
III. Baltimore, Md..........................................
IV. Atlanta, Ga...............................................
Birmingham, Ala......................................
Charlotte, N.C..........................................
Nashville, Tenn........................................
V. Battle Creek, Mich...................................
Cleveland, Ohio....... ...............................
Detroit, Mich............................................
Milwaukee, Wis........................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.....................
VI. El Paso, Tex.............................................
Galveston-Texas City, Tex.......................
New Orleans, La.....................................
Oklahoma City, Okla________________
VII. Wichita, Kans................... .......................
VIII. Denver, Colo........................................
Salt Lake City, Utah................................
IX. Los Angeles, Calif....................................
X. Seattle, Wash...........................................

5

1

1

1

1

5

6

5

6

2
2
2
2

2
2
1
2

1
2

1
2

<2)
10
<2)
7

4
4
2
4
1
5
12
3
3
3
2
4
5
1
2
1
8
5

0
0
0
12
0
0
0

0
0
0
12
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

2
4
2
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
4
2
1

2

2
4
1
1

2
4
2
1

0
0
3
0

0

1
3

3
1

3
1

23

0

1Appreciably was defined as meaning an increase of more than 3 percent in the num­
ber of teenagers hired during the past year.
2 Information not available.

Table 5.12. Number of employment service local offices indicating that a lower Federal minimum wage would have
an appreciably adverse effect on the full-time hiring of other groups of workers, by industrial groups
Number of local offices indicating adverse effect by industry
Region and area

Total, all areas_____________
1. Hartford, Conn.............. ......................
II. Buffalo, N.Y_________ ____________
Newark, N.J___ _____ ____________
III. Baltimore, Md_______ ____________
IV. Atlanta, G a ..........................................
Birmingham, Ala...................................
Charlotte, N.C.......................................
Nashville, Tenn.....................................
V. Battle Creek, Mich................................
Cleveland, Ohio.....................................
Detroit, Mich.........................................
Milwaukee, Wis.....................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.................
VI. El Paso, Tex..........................................
Galveston-Texas City, Tex....................
Oklahoma City, Okla.............................
VII. Wichita, Kans........................................
VIII. Denver, Colo.........................................
Salt Lake City, Utah.............................
IX. Los Angeles, Calif.................................
X. Seattle, Wash........................................
1 Failed to respond.




Total number
of local offices
responding

91
4
11
2
7
6
4
2
4
1
5
12
3
3
3
2
5
1
2
1
8
5

Wholesale
Manufacturing trade; finance,
insurance and
real estate
11
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0

20
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

Retail trade

42
3
8
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
2
5
1
0
1
5
1

Construction

6
(i)

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0

Government

17
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

Services
except
private
households
39
3
7
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
5
1

All other
industries

€
1
C
C

cc
c
1
cc
cc(
(
(
(
]
1
(
(
(

96
Table 5.13. Number of employment service local offices indicating that a lower Federal minimum wage would have
an appreciably adverse effect on the part-time hiring of other groups of workers, by industrial groups
Number of local offices indicating adverse effect by industry
Region and area

Total number
of local offices
responding

Total, all areas........................... •
1. Hartford, Conn...................................... W
II. Buffalo, N.Y..........................................
Newark, N J ..........................................
III. Baltimore, Md.......................................
IV. Atlanta, Ga............................................
Birmingham, Ala..................................
Charlotte, N.C.......................................
Nashville, Tenn.....................................
V. Battle Creek, Mich................................
Cleveland, Ohio.....................................
Detroit, Mich.........................................
Milwaukee, Wis.................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.................
VI. El Paso, Tex............... ...........................
Galveston-Texas City, Tex................
Oklahoma City, Okla______________
VII. Wichita, Kans____________________
VIII. Denver, Colo____ ________ _______ _
Salt Lake City, Utah_______________
IX. Los Angeles, Calif________________
X. Seattle, Wash____________________

Wholesale
Manufacturing trade; finance,
insurance and
real estate

91
4
11
2
7
6
4
2
4
1
5
12
3
3
3
2
5
1
2
1
8
5

9
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0

Retail trade

20
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0

Construction

38
3
5
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
2
5
1
1
0
5
1

6
0)

Services
except
private
households

Government

16
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0

All other
industries

35
3
4
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
5
1

9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
0

1 Failed to respond.

Table 5.14. Rank importance of the occupational groups in which hiring of other groups of workers for full-time yearround jobs would be adversely affected by lowering minimu m wage for teenagers as reported by employment service
local offices
[Ranking scale: First rank = 3; second rank = 2; third rank = 1]
Region and area
IV




VIII

Newark, N J.

Birmingham, Ala.

Charlotte, N.C.

Detroit, Mich.

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

New Orleans, La.

Wichita, Kans.

Denver, Colo.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Los Angeles, Calif.

IX

Buffalo, N.Y.

VII

0.03
0.81
1.85
0.34
1.86
0.08
0.87

0.00
1.42
2.50
0.00
1.75
0.33
0.00

0.00
1.50
2.00
0.60
0.90
0.00
1.00

0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00

0.00
1.00
3.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00

0.33
1.17
1.00
0.67
1.50
0.67
0.67

0.00
1.00
3.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
3.00

0.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
2.50

0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
1.00

0.00
0.40
2.50
0.20
1.50
0.00
0.20

Occupational group

Professional, technical, managerial______________________________
Clerical____________________________________ _____________
Sales__________________________ _____ ___________
________
Domestic service___________________ __________________________
Service, excluding domestic___________________________________
Farming, fishery, forestry, and related occupations_________________
Industrial___________________________________________________

VI

Hartford, Conn.

V

Average, all areas

II

X

Seattle, Wash.

1

0.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
0.00
0.00

97
Table 5.15. Rank importance of the occupational groups in which hiring of other groups of workers for part-time
year-round jobs would be adversely affected by lowering minimum wage for teenagers as reported by employment service
local offices
[Ranking scale: First rank = 3; second rank = 2; third rank = 1]
Region and area
IX

Newark, N J.

Charlotte, N.C.

Detroit, Mich.

Galveston-Texas City, Tex.

Wichita, Hans.

Denver, Colo.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Los Angeles, Calif.

VIII

Buffalo, N.Y.

VII

0.21
0.55
1.69
0.36
2.02
0.09
0.89

0.00
1.42
2.50
0.00
1.75
0.33
0.00

0.00
0.87
1.87
1.00
1.37
0.00
0.87

0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00

2.29
0.14
1.00
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64

0.00
1.00
3.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
2.50

0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
2.00

0.00
0.67
2.25
0.33
2.00
0.00
0.75

Occupational group

Professional, technical, managerial_______ _____ _______________ _________ ____
Clerical________________________________________________ ____ ___________
Sales____ __________________ ___________________ _______ ______________
Domestic service__________________ ________________________ _________
Service, excluding domestic_______ _____________ _______ __________________
Farming, fishery, forestry, and related occupations______________________________
Industrial_______ ____________________________________________ ______

VI

Hartford, Conn.

V

X

Seattle, Wash.

IV

II

Average, all areas

1

0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00

Table 5.16. Rank importance of the sex, age, and race combinations of other workers who would be most adversely
affected by lowering minimum wage for teenagers as reported by employment service local offices
[Rating scale: First rank = 3; second rank = 2; third rank = 1]
Males

Average, all areas_____________________
1. Hartford, Conn_____________________________
II. Buffalo, N .Y.___ __________________________
Newark, N J ___________ _______ ________
IV. Atlanta, Ga_____ ____________________
___
Birmingham, Ala_____ ______________________
V. Detroit, Mich___________________ ________
VI Galveston-Texas City, Tex____________________
Oklahoma City, Okla________________________
VIII. Denver, Colo_____ _______________________
Salt Lake City, Utah_________________________
IX. Los Angeles, Calif__________________________
X. Seattle, Wash______________________________




White, by age group

Negro, by age group

White, by age group

Negro, by age group

20-24 25-44 45-64 65+

20-24 25-44 45-64 65+

20-24 25-44 45-64 65+

20-24 25-44 45-64 65+

0.10
0.60
0.20
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00

0.56
1.20
0.50
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.83
0.00

0.13
0.60
0.60

0.09
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.69
0.60
0.50
2.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
2.00
0.00
0.00

0.02
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.21
0.67
0.30
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00

0.85
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.75
2.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
0.17
0.00

0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00

1.02

0.06

0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.06

0.66

0.41

0.45

0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00

2.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
0.40 1.10 0.60 0.40
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

3.00
1.50

2.00

0.18

0.00 0.25 0.00
0.80 0.20
0.00
0.00 3.00 0.00
0.33 0.75
0.75
0.00 3.00 0.00
0.00 2.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00

;§§§:

Region and area

Females

0.
0.
0.

0.00
0.00

98
Table 5.17.

New applications for work filed during June IM S at employment service local offices in selected areas
New

appMntttews

Both sexes

Female

Region and area
Total
16-17
years
All ages
Total, all areas____ ________ _______________
1. Hartford, Conn__ _______________________________
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine_________________________
II. Buffalo, N.Y____________________ _____ __________
Newark, N.J_______________ ____ ______________
III. Baltimore, Md_________________________________
IV. Atlanta, Ga____________________________________
Birmingham, Ala_____________________________
Charlotte, N.C__________________________________
Nashville, Tenn_________________________________
V. Battle Creek, Mich___ _ _ _____________ _______
Cleveland, Ohio________________________________
Detroit, Mich___________________________________
Milwaukee, Wis_________________________________
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn________________________
VI. El Paso, Texas_______ __ _ ___ ____________ ___
Galveston-Texas City, Tex___ _ ________ _ _______
New Orleans, La.. _____________________________
Oklahoma City, Okla_______ _______ __________
VII. Wichita, Kans___________________________________
VIII. Denver, Colo____________________________________
Salt Lake City, Utah______________________________
IX. Los Angeles, Calif__________ _____________________
X. Seattle, Wash__________________________________

Teenagers

182,87$
5,117
657
6,737
9,777
13,862
6,471
2,441
2,968
914
6,161
26,423
5,*6
12,144
3,721
2,076
5,292
4,713
2,488
16,232
3,533
42,278
6,772

16-17
years
AM ages

78,982
2,496
321
3,663
2,806
8,838
2,614
2,788
982
1,476

%,m

Total

11-19
years

3,546
6,138
2,393
5,118
1,132

29,786
1,559
221
1,408
1,294
3,715
1,158
1,296
489
817
138
1,702
1,577
1,351
1,874
1,065

1.630
2,243
1,913
4,692
l,32l
13,677
1,849

1,291
(o
1,079
(O
6,711
588

m

m

m
m

38,909
848
100
1,654
1,601
3,115
1,464
1,488
‘ 413
659
264
1,844
5,361
1,042
3,935
177
477
1,424
912
(0
3,613
0)
6,367
1,288

18-19
years

Teenagers
33,640
1,20$
153
1,553
1,444
3,631
1,506
1,296
433
660
185
1,709
3,449
1,138
2,526
777
393
972
1,237
319
1,942
<9
6,182
946

86,981
2,787
317
3,238
4,788
16,564
3,771
3,138
1,237
1,486
3*8
3,214
9,202
2,430
4,812
1,544
815
2,744
2,334
1,062
4,234
1,614
18,548
2,888

14,016
771
98
695
636
1,860
686
547
225
330
45
803
799
645
808
388
171
129
522
0)
446
(0
3,135
277

19,698
435
55
858
808
1,771
820
749
208
330
140
906
2,641
485
1,718
389
222
833
715
(0
1,496
403
3,047
669

1 Information not available.

Table 5.18. Active applications f*r work en file at the eiHl ef Jwie 1SSI at eiffeyiMwt service lecal offices in
selected areas
Art* Mi

Beth 9**M

Region and area

Female

Total
AM ages
Total, all areas____________________________
i.
ii.
m i.

IV.

v.

VI.

VII.
V III.

IX.
X.

Hartford, Conn_________ ______________ ______
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine___________
_ _______
Buffalo, N.Y____________________________________
Newark, N.J________ __ _ ___ _ ___ ________ _
Baltimore, Md____________ ____________________
Atlanta, Ga_________________ __________________
Birmingham, Ala________________________ ________
Charlotte, N.C____________ _____ ______ __________
Nashville, Tenn_____________ _____ _____ _________
Battle Creek, Mich_________ _______ ________ _____
Cleveland, Ohio... _______________ _____________
Detroit, Mich______________ _____________________
Milwaukee, Wis_________________ ______________
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_______________________
El Paso, Tex______________
__________________
Galveston-Texas City, Tex.. _ _ ________________
New Orleans, La .________
____________________
Oklahoma City, Okla____ _
_______ ______
Wichita, Kans_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Denver, Colo_________ _____ ________ _________
Salt Lake City, Utah______ __ _______ _______ _
Los Angeles, Calif_______________________ ______
Seattle, Wash___
_______ __________________

Teenagers

Tetsl

18-11
years
AM ag»s

Teenagers

16-17
years

18-19
years

2404,380

188,448

44,186

57,«4

2 181,763

56,649

21,474

28,375

10,284
2,948
16,819
36,217
31,421
13,759
18,929
5,589
4,771
1,978
16,491
38,149
18,542
16,932
9,565
6,068
11,721
9,211
6,422
17,181
6,170
131,192
18,084

1,849
1,298
6,g o

0)
437
3,49*
3,581
e>
1,1*3
2 ,i*
602
944
359
1,884
2,671
4,27*
5,629
2,148
832
173
1.957

V)
853
3,2*4
4,OH
0)
2,955
3,961
685
378
272
3,284
7,096
2,486
3,386
2,181
977
1,872
1,337
0)
8,841

4,232
1,136
9,128
19,884
15,717
1,288
is, m
3,008
2,568
817
7,763
23,486
7,281
7,047
3,813
2,200
5,603
4,963
2,805
6,331
3,210
56,886
7,838

800
696
3,883
4,084
(i)
2,454
3,143
865
$49

(i)
230
2,070
1,805
(!)
1,198
1,297
383
341
184
841
1,321
2,469
2,684
809
294
100
804
)
666
(i)
3,713
265

(i)
466
1,813
2,289
(i)
1,256
1,846
482
308
125
1,556
3,790
1,009
1,687
1,015
467
1,181
784

i,m

0>
4,418
e ,g ?
1,87

m

831
5,168
9,687
6,742
9,815
4,329
1,898
2,845
3,294
)
7,844
)
19,277
3,106

1 Information not available.
2To preserve comparability with “ Teenagers" column, “ Total aH ages" does net




16-17
years

0
0

&
0

)
8,368
638

l1
}
19,921
2,476

2,397
5,111
3,478
4,371
1,824
761
1,281
1,588

r%

(l)
8,606
1,436

0

(0

2,237
(!)
4,893
1,171

ineMe figures far Baltimore, Salt Lake City, and Wichita areas for which teenager
Beta were net reported.

CHAPTER VI

Wage Expectations
the same age-sex-color group, with comparable
school status, educational attainment, and abili­
ties ; located in the same area; and looking for
or holding comparable jobs in the same indus­
try. Available tabulations permit only more lim­
ited comparisons.*
Wages received by employed young men, the
wage required by those unemployed to accept
employment, and the wage required to induce
persons outside the labor force to enter are
National Longitudinal Studies
given in table 6.1. Although these comparisons
Tabulations from the Longitudinal Studies 1 control for age and color alone, a few interest­
provide data for young men as of the October ing facts emerge.
1967 survey week. At the time, the minimum
Both wages earned and wage expectations in­
wage of $1.40 for previously covered workers crease with age for both racial groups and are
and $1 for newly covered workers had been in higher for white# than for other races. Con­
effect about 9 months.
trary to the hypothesis of unreasonable expec­
The test of “realism” that can be imposed is tations, the average wage expected by unem­
based upon a comparison of wage expectations ployed young men is, within any age-color
of persons unemployed or out of the labor force group, lower than that for the employed. How­
with wages actually received by those who are ever, the proportion of unemployed teenage
employed. If expectations are realistic, the rate males willing to accept employment at a wage
of pay an unemployed person would require to below $1.40 an hour was less than the propor­
accept employment should be no more than that tion of employed teenagers actually receiving
received by comparable individuals who are em­ less than $1.40, except among Negroes and
ployed.
other races 16-17 years old. The tendency for
Ideally, comparisons should be exact. That is, wage
for most unemployed teenage
comparisons should be made among persons in groupsexpectations
to fall in the $1.40-$1.99 range to a
greater extent than is true of wages received by
This chapter was prepared by Harley R. Hamel and
employed teenagers suggests the possibility that
Melvin Goldberg, of the Office of Manpower and Em­
expectations may be affected by the level of the
ployment, and Thomas W. Gavett of the Office of
minimum wage.
Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics. The second based on the national longitudinal
We can refine the analysis by restricting the
materials was written by Gavett and the section on the
comparison
to those teenagers enrolled in
UES data by Hamel and Goldberg.
school.3
See
table
6.2. Among the 15- to 17Footnotes begin on p. 101, tables on p. 101.

Do teenagers have unrealistic expectations
about how much they can earn ? Is the problem
of teenage unemployment attributable to the
unwillingness of teenagers to accept available
employment at prevailing wages? Some evi­
dence relevant to those questions is available
from the National Longitudinal Studies and the
Urban Employment Surveys.




99

100

year-old group, wage expectations and wage
levels received are about the same. Among the
18- to 19-year-old group, however, wage expec­
tations among unemployed whites are above the
wage levels received by those employed. For Ne­
groes and other races in that age group, aver­
age expectations and wages received are almost
the same. Both white and other 18-19-year-olds
who are unemployed are less willing to take low
wage jobs. Whether this group, which includes
males finishing high school or in college, has
unreasonable expectations or whether there are
other factors that explain this peculiar result is
unknown.
More surprising than the differences between
the employed and unemployed teenagers is the
fact that teenagers outside the labor force could
be drawn into employment at a lower wage, on
the average, than that which employed teenag­
ers receive or that which unemployed teenagers
expect. One might speculate that other consid­
erations are included—those out of the labor
force are more likely to be students and poten­
tially interested in a part-time job at a conven­
ient location—but available tabulations do not
permit any finer comparisons.
What conclusions can be drawn ?4 The com­
parisons made are limited since some relevant
factors could not be held constant. It seems,
however, that the average wage expected by the
unemployed teenager is below that received by
those employed. The unemployed teenager ap­
pears, however, slightly disinclined to accept
the lowest wage jobs compared, at least, with
his employed counterpart. However, there are
large numbers of teenagers, both unemployed
and out of the labor force, who did indicate a
willingness to accept low-wage employment—at
least if the right job came along.
The data on expected and actual earnings
refer to the 12-month period July 1968-June
1969. Information on wage expectations was
collected from employed and unemployed teen­
agers (16-19 years old) in each area who looked
for work at any time during the year. Those
who did look for work were asked the following
question, “The last time you looked for a job,
what was the lowest pay you would have
accepted ?”




The majority of the teenage residents of all
six CEP areas are Negro and other races. The
proportions are as follows: Chicago, 98 per­
cent; Detroit, 83 percent; Atlanta, 82 percent;
New York City, 69 percent; Houston, 60 per­
cent; and Los Angeles, 52 percent. Nearly half
the teenage residents of the Los Angeles area
and about one-fifth of the Houston area popula­
tion are of Mexican descent and nearly one-fifth
of the New York City teenagers are Puerto
Rican.
Urban Employment Surveys

The data from the National Longitudinal
Studies refer to young males throughout the
country in 1967. Some insight into wage expec­
tations of male and female teenagers in differ­
ent areas of the country, especially those lo­
cated in poverty areas, is available from the
Urban Employment Survey, a survey of resi­
dents of Concentrated Employment Program
areas in six large cities.5 Findings from the
CEP areas of all six cities suggest that wage
demands of both currently unemployed teenag­
ers and employed teenagers (when they last
sought work)6 are not generally unreasonable
relative to actual wage rates. However, the data
also suggest that the wage expectations of a
small proportion of unemployed male teenagers
in the New York and Chicago areas were un­
realistic in terms of the actual wages being paid
to employed teens. A detailed look at two of the
six cities, showing somewhat different results,
follows.
Chicago

Data from the UES for the Chicago poverty
area (covering the period July 1968-June 1969)
show that the median wage expected by both
jobless teenage boys and girls was not unrealis­
tic. Jobless teens were seeking about the same
level of hourly earnings ($1.70) as the actual
wages earned by employed teenagers in the area
($1.77). However, the proportion of all cur­
rently jobless teens (25 percent) who were will­
ing to accept less than $1.60 an hour was
smaller than the proportion of employed teen­
agers (41 percent) who were actually earning

101
these low wage rates. Thus about 16 percent of
all unemployed teenagers appeared to be seek­
ing wages higher than employed teens were ac­
tually receiving.
Teenage girls generally set lower sights in
their wage expectations than teenage boys. The
average wage expectation of unemployed girls
was $1.66 compared with $1.81 for unemployed
boys. Neither of these averages were substan­
tially different from the average wages actually
being earned by employed teens.
One out of every three unemployed teenage
girls was willing to accept less than $1.60,
somewhat less than the proportion of teenage
girls (46 percent) who were actually earning
that amount. There was little difference be­
tween the wage expectations of currently unem­
ployed girls and that of employed girls when
they last sought work; one out of every three in
each group was willing to accept less than
$1.60.
Teenage boys appeared to be less realistic
about their wage expectations than girls. Only
about 14 percent of the unemployed youth were
expecting less than $1.60, whereas about 36 per­
cent of the employed youth were actually earn­
ing that amount. Thus, about 25 percent of the
unemployed boys were apparently seeking
wages higher than the going wage.
This does not mean that jobless teenagers,
especially boys, were expecting high wage rates.
Only one-fourth of the jobless boys and onetenth of the jobless girls expected to earn $2.00
an hour or more; a significantly greater propor­
tion of the employed teens were actually earn­
ing those wage rates—nearly one-half of the
boys and nearly one-third of the girls.

Atlanta

Atlanta UES results more consistently indi­
cate that wage expectations of teenagers were
not unrealistic in terms of prevailing wages.
Unemployed teenagers in Atlanta were actually
willing to accept the same or lower wages than
their employed counterparts were already re­
ceiving. One out of every three unemployed
teenage boys and two out of every three teenage
girls expected to receive less than $1.60 an
hour; roughly the same proportion of boys and
even fewer of the girls (55 percent) actually
earned that wage during the July 1968-June
1969 period. For both boys and girls, the pro­
portion of unemployed teenagers willing to ac­
cept jobs at under $1.60 was greater than the
proportion of employed teenagers who had been
willing to accept such wages the last time they
looked for work.
The fact that there is little difference between
the wage expectations of most jobless youth and
the wages actually being paid to employed teen­
agers suggests that wage demands of most teen­
agers were not unreasonable in these poverty
areas. Rather, it appears that wage expecta­
tions of most teenagers are heavily influenced
by current wage rates. Although many other
factors such as job skills, experience, and edu­
cational background have to be taken into ac­
count to draw definitive conclusions, it nonethe­
less appears that only a very small proportion
of the teenagers in these areas had high wage
demands. Evidently, the majority of poverty
areas teens, like most new and inexperienced
workers, realistically adjust their wage expec­
tations during their search for employment.

-FOOTNOTES1The longitudinal studies are briefly described in
chapter 3 of this study. The wage data are not always
strictly wage rates; note the comments on page 57
of chapter 3. The basic tabulations for this section
were prepared by the Ohio State University group.
They are not responsible, however, for the analysis or
conclusions in this section.
2Even if the universe of teenagers were covered by
a survey, the number of factors which should be held




constant, including interaction terms, would be almost
impossible.
3Data do not permit a comparison of those not
enrolled in school.
4The study of “ Out-of-School Youth,” BLS Special
Labor Force Report 47, 1964, should be mentioned. It
indicates that in February 1963, earnings expectations
among the unemployed were lower than earnings re­
ceived by employed youth. The study controlled for

102
sex and school status and provides data for those 16-21
—no finer age breaks are available. This sheds no
light, however, on the expectations of persons out of
the labor force.
5 The cities are Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston,
Los Angeles, and New York City. CEP refers to target
areas in which the Department of Labor has combined

separate manpower programs to concentrate the impact
of these programs in specific neighborhoods.
6 For purposes of simplicity in the remainder of this
section, wage expectations of employed teenagers when
they last sought work will generally be described simply
as “the expected wage of employed teenagers.” See
previous note.

Table 6.1. Rate of pay required to accept employment,
those unemployed in 1967, rate of pay required to enter
labor force, those out of labor force in 1967, 1967 hourly
rate of pay, those employed in 1967, by age: men 15-25
years of age, by color

Table 6.2. Rate of pay required to accept employment,
those unemployed in 1967, 1967 hourly rate of pay, those
employed in 1967, by age and color: men 15-19 years of
age enrolled in school
Hourly pay requirements

liourly pay requirements
Age and 1967
labor force status

Total
number
(thou­
sands)

Less
than
$1.40

$1.40
to
$1.99

$2.00
to
$2.99

$3.00
or
more

Mean
pay
required
or
earned

Age and 1967
labor force status

Total
number
(thou­
sands)

Less
than
$1.40

$1.40
to
$1.99

$2.00
to
$2.99

$3.00
or
more

Mean
pay
required
or
earned

Whites
Whites
Age 15-17:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed__________
Age 18-19:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed____ _____
Age 20-25:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed____ _____

808
400
1,968

51.1
43.0
47.5

44.5
50.9
37.9

3.9
4.8
9.9

196
141
1,493

13.8
18.0
25.2

57.2
46.1
33.6

23.0
29.7
30.9

.0
6.0
6.2
10.3

23.6
13.3
5.4

30.9
38.0
15.8

19.2
21.7
42.0

26.2
27.1
36.8

140
121

4,848

0.5

4.7

$1.32
1.35
1.59

2.08
2.25
2.78

1

161
99
297

64.8
58.8
51.6

30.5
33.5
35.6

42
212

O)

O)

O)

26
41
670

21.5
15.7
14.0

48.9
36.3
33.4

29.6
43.9
37.7

19

28.8
37.6

48.1
29.8

3.3
7.7
9.4
20.5
22.3

1.30
.0 $1.30
1.53
O)
O)
2.6 1.61
10.3
1.75
.0
1.89
4.1
2.2.14
01
14.9
1.3

3.4

Not available.
Note: Percent distributions exclude respondents willing to accept any wage offered.
Totals for “out of the labor force" exclude persons who were unwilling to accept a job
regardless of wage.




0.0

353
1,655

47.5
51.1

51.1
37.7

1.4
7.1

4.1

23.8
37.9

46.6
37.4

21.4
19.6

5.0

612

111

1.69
1.76
1.93

All others
Age 15-17:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed....................
Age 18-19:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed....................
Age 20-25:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed__________

Age 15-17:
Unemployed.......... .
Employed
...................
Age 18-19:
Unemployed_______
Employed__________

$1.32
1.55

1.73
8.2 1.68

All others
Age 15-17:
Unemployed._____
Employed
.......... .......
Age 18-19:
Unemployed________
Employed__________

0.0

79
207

62.8
59.7

32.0
31.2

5.2
6.3

2.9

$1.23
1.40

25
62

39.2
60.1

52.5
13.5

4.1
21.3

4.1
5.1

1.49
1.50

103
Table 6.3.

Expected and actual wages of employed and unemployed 16-19 year-olds in CEP areas, July 1968-June
1969 period accumulated
Atlanta
Wage level

Both sexes..................... .
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60.
$1.60-1.99.........
$2.00 and over.
Median wage...........
Boys...............................
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60.
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage..........
Girls________________
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60.
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage...........

Expected
wage of
unemployed

600

100:0

50.0
50.0

$1.45
300
100.0
33.3
66.7
$1.68
300
100.
0
66.7
33.3
$1.23

Actual wage
of employed

Chicago
Expected wage
of employed
when they last
sought work

2,100.1000
42.9

1,600

33.3
23.8
$1.69

56.3
6.3
$1.63

40.0
30.0
$1.75

1,100.1000
54.5

900
100.
0
22.2
66.7
11.1
$1.69
700
100.0
57.1

27.3
18.2
$1.53

$1.53

1,100.0000
30.0

100.
0
37.5

42.9

Expected
wage of
unemployed

1,600
100.0
25.0
56.3
18.8
$1.70
700
100.0
14.3
57.1
28.6
$1.81
900
100.0
33.3
55.5
11.1
$1.66

Detroit
Both sexes___________
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60.
$1.60-1.99........
$2.00 and over.
Median wage...........
Boys________________
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60.
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage..........
Girls________________
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60.
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage..........

100.
0
47.1

100.0
38.7

100.0
36.8

3,100

1,900

35.3
17.6
$1.64

19.4
41.9
$1.81

26.3
36.8
$1.72

33.3
33.3
$1.79

100.0
33.3
11.1
55.6

1,800

$2.25

800
100.0
62.5

1,300
100.0
46.2

37.5

30.8
23.1
$1.68

$1.53

1,100.0
000
20.0
30.0
50.0
$2.00
900
100.
0
55.6
22.2
22.2
$1.53

1,100.0
100
72.7
27.3
$1.24
400
100.0
50.0
50.0
$1.60
700
100.0
85.7
14.3
$1.17

New York City
Both sexes____ ______
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage_____
Percent distribution.
Less than $1.60
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage..........
Girls________________
Percent distribution
Less than $1.60
$1.60-1.99____
$2.00 and over.
Median wage..........
Note: Medians based on detailed wage rate intervals, not shown.




100.0
33.3
44.4
22.2
$1.76
2,100.2000
27.3

3,600

50.0
22.7
$1.79

100.
0
42.9

100.0
33.0

100.
0
36.8

5,700

23.9
43.1
$1.81

43.9
19.3
$1.70

100.0
40.0

5,900

3,000

25.4
37.3
$1.74

43.3
16.7
$1.69

100.0
28.0
22.0
50.0

1,400

5,000

35.7
21.4
$1.68

$2.00

100.0
30.4

4,900

2,300

20.4
38.8
$1.77

39.1
30.4
$1.73

2,500

100.0
36.0

1,200
100.0
25.0

16.0
48.0
$1.88

25.0
50.0
$2.00

2,400

100.0
45.8

1,100
100.0
36.4

25.0
29.2
$1.68

54.5
9.1
$1.66

100.0
53.6

2,000
100.0
60.0

25.0
21.4
$1.55

$1.45

2,800

40.0

100.0
47.4

1,200
100.0
50.0

26.3
26.3
$1.62

$1.60

1,900

900
100.0
66.7
22.2
11.1
$1.38

50.0
800
100.0
75.0
25.0
$1.30

Los Angeles

10,900

100.
0
37.3

100.0
40.8

Expected wage
of employed
when they last
sought work

Houston

1.700

900
100.0
33.3

Actual wage
of employed

100.0
33.3
44.4
22.2
$1.71

2,700

2,100.0
000
30.0

500
100.0
80.0
20.0
$1.69
300
100.0

25.0
45.0
$1.83

44.4
$1.86

1,700

600
100.0

66.7
33.3
$1.71

100.0
25.0

25.0
50.0
$2.00

33.3
66.7
$2.08

800
100.
0
37.5

300
100.0
33.3

25.0
37.5
$1.75

$1.68

200
100.0
100.0

$1.68

900
100.0
11.1
44.4

66.7

CHAPTER VII

Teenage Earnings and Family Income
How much do teenagers earn? Are they
major contributors to family income? Retabula­
tion of materials from the February and March
1967 supplements to the Current Population
Survey provide some pertinent data.1
In 1966, about 40 percent of all 16-19-yearolds had no wage and salary income, either be­
cause they were not employed or because their
only employment was as unpaid family work­
ers or in self-employment (table 7.1). Of those
who were employed sometime during the year,
73 percent earned less than $1,000 a year. Less
than 10 percent of all teenagers were members
of poor families—those with incomes below
$3,000 a year. Almost 38 percent were members
of families with incomes of $5,000 to $10,000 a
year, and about 41 percent were in families
with incomes of $10,000 or more.
As might be expected, the teenager's contri­
bution to family income was directly propor­
tional to his total wage and salary income.
Among teenagers earning $500-$l,000, for ex­
ample, the median teenager's earnings as a per­
cent of total family income was 7.5 percent
(using the midpoint of reported ranges). The
median percentage contribution rose to 22.5
percent among those teenagers earning $2,000
to $3,000, and to 35 percent among those earn­
ing over $4,000 a year (table 7.2).
This chanter was prepared by Thomas W. Gavett,
Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The basic tabulations for this chapter
were prepared by Robert L. Stein, assisted by Rowena
Lipscomb, in the Office of the Chief Economist.
Footnoes appear on p. 105, tables on p. 106.
104




More relevant is the difference in percent
contributions of teenager's earnings to family
income among families at various income
levels.2 As shown in table 7.3, the relative im­
portance of teenager's earnings is inversely
proportionate to family income. Among families
with an income of less than $3,000 a year, about
65 percent of the teenagers contributed less
than 5 percent to family income, either because
the teenagers had no earnings or insignificant
earnings relative to family income (the latter
was more likely to be true among higher income
families). The proportion of teenagers contrib­
uting little to family income rose to about 69
percent among families with incomes of
$10,000-$15,000 and to 77 percent among fami­
lies with income of $15,000 or more a year.
Conversely, among families with incomes of less
than $3,000 a year, 13 percent of the teenagers
contributed 25 percent or more of family income
compared with 4 percent of the teenagers in
families with incomes of $10,000 or more.
A larger proportion of male than female
teenagers were major contributors to family in­
come among both poor and prosperous families.
The proportion of male teenagers contributing
25 percent or more of family income was about
twice as large among families with incomes of
less than $3,000 (about 17 percent of the men
and 8 percent of the women). Among families
with incomes of $10,000 or more, 4 percent of the
male but only 3 percent of the female teenagers
contributed 25 percent of family income. It is
also consistently true that a larger proportion
of female teenagers are minor (less than 5 per­
cent) contributors to family income. Even if

105

minor contributors are excluded, male teenag­
ers are more frequently major contributors to
family income.
Younger teenagers (16-17 year-olds) contri­
bute much less to family income than those 1819 years old. Only 9 percent of the younger
teenagers in low-income families contributed 25
percent or more of family income compared
with 26 percent of the older teenagers. In fam­
ilies receiving $10,000 or more, less than 1 per­
cent contributed 25 percent of family income
compared with 11 percent for the older teen­
agers. Similarly, the proportion of minor con­
tributors (less than 5 percent of family in­
come) was about 40 percent greater among 16to 17 year-olds in poor families and 63 percent
greater in families receiving $10,000 or more.
Teenagers are more likely to be major contri­
butors to families headed by a woman than to
husband-wife families. Although 13 percent of
all 16-19 year-olds in families with incomes
below $3,000 contributed 25 percent or more of
family income, the proportion was 15 percent
among families headed by a woman and less
than 10 percent among husband-wife families.
The differences are more striking among fami­
lies receiving $10,000 or more. For all teenag­
ers, 4 percent were major contributors 3 per­
cent in husband-wife families, and 16 percent in
the relatively small number of families headed
by women receiving $10,000 or more in income.
Only 4 percent of all 16-19 year-olds worked

full-time year-round.3 About 40 percent of all
such teenagers contributed 25 percent or more
of total family income. Apparently, most of the
teenagers in this small group are 18-19 years
old and members of families with annual in­
comes of $10,000 or more.
The information collected in the FebruaryMarch 1967 supplements to the Current Popula­
tion Survey did not permit calculation of an
hourly wage rate. Hence, we do not know
whether teenagers' annual wage and salary
earnings were low primarily due to short hours
and few weeks of work or also to low wage
rates. The number of full-time year-round teen­
agers is too few to draw meaningful infer­
ences about wage rates from these statistics.
The few general conclusions are obvious.
Over 90 percent of all teenagers are not mem­
bers of poor families. Over 80 percent earned
little (less than $1,000) or nothing and conse­
quently contributed less than 10 percent to fam­
ily income. Less than 6 percent of all teenagers
contributed a significant share (25 percent or
more) to family income. When working, about
75 percent usually work part time, and ex­
tremely few work full-time year-round.
Except in a minority of cases (but these are
important), it is difficult to argue that the earn­
ings of teenagers are important to the family.
More likely, the teenager's earnings provide
some financial independence from the family—
earnings gained while learning about the world
of work.4

1The February supplement provided information on
the number of weeks worked in 1966 and whether the
individual usually worked full or part time. The March
supplement provided information on wage and salary
and on other forms of income for each individual and, by
aggregation, all individuals in the family. Data for this
study were derived from the person-family tape in the
BLS microtape library.
2The tabulations relate each teenager’s earnings to
family income. Tabulations are not available to cover

cases where two teenagers or more contributed to the
same family’s income.
3Year-round means 50-52 weeks, and full-time means
the individual usually worked 35 hours a week or more
when he worked. The data include unpaid family
workers and the self-employed.
4See also “ Unemployment in the American Family,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1968 (Special Labor
Force Report No. 99), which was based on the same
supplements to the Current Population Survey.




106
Table 7.1. Distribution of 16-19 year-olds, by wage and
salary income and total family income, 1966
[In thousands]
Total family income
Wage and salary Total
income

Less $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,000 $10,000 $15,000
or
than
to
to
to
to
to
$2,000 $2,999 $4,999 $6,999 $9,999 $14,999 more
571
545
285

189

227

154

87

143

91

188

66
66

64

80

46

13
14

41
31

29
38

2,816

3,214

1,800

346
226
33

267
188
54

620
456
155

812
519
216

1,137
830
391

7

19

55

109

27

44

46

Totals... 12,105

614

1
1
0
00

211

9

6 31
0 10 11
00 01 60
543

1,355

1,763

1,189702
505

N one.,,............ 4,855
$1 to $499......... 3,661
$500 to $999___ 1,639
$1,000 to
$1,499............
760
$1,500 to
$1,999............
377
$2,000 to
$2,999............
429
$3,000 to
$3,999............
$4,000 to
90
$4,999............
83
$5,000 or more..

Table 7.2. Distribution of 16-19 year-olds, by wage and salary earnings and percent of total family income contributed
by the teenager
Percent of family income
Wage and salary income

Total
Less
than 5

N o n e ..................................... ...................................... .......................
$1 to $499_________ _____________________ ____ — _________
$500 to $999_________________________________________ ____ _
$1,000 to $1,499___ ___________________________ _______ _____
$1,500 to $1,999_____________________________ _____ _________
$2,000 to $2,999_____________________ ______ „ _____ _________
$3,000 to $3,999_____________________ ____ — _______________
$4,000 to $4,999___ ________________ ____ ___________________
$5,000 or more__________________________ _____ ________ _
Totals____ ____ _________ _______ _____ _______________

100.
0 100.
0
100.0
81.1
100.
0
27.1
100.
00 3.4.3
100.
100.
0
100.
00 .0..02
100.
100.0 .0
100.0 68.5

1014.9to 1519.9to
0.0 0.0
0.0
3.0
1.3
12.7
46.9
13.5
5.6
29.7
15.6
35.8
11.2
29.5
27.4
3.1
1.0.0 14.1
1.0.0 27.0
11.1
1.2
.0 .0 6.7
6.0 4.2
12.9

5 to
9.9

2024.9to 2529.9to 3039.9to 4049.9to 5074.9to
0.0.7 0.0.3 0.0.4 0.0.1 0.0.3
3.0
1.3
1.0 1.8.5 1.5.7
6.6
3.6
1.8
13.6
5.1
6.4
3.2
1.9
19.0
11.7
11.0 13.0
6.8
5.6
21.6
13.5
28.8
5.8
14.6
16.9
31.5
14.6
11.2
3.7
9.9
25.9
28.4
25.9
2.6 1.4 2.0 1.1 0.9

75 or
more

0.0.2
4
.3
1.6
1.4
4.3
4.5
4.9
0.4

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

Table 7.3. Distribution of 16-19 year-olds, by total family income and percent of total family income contributed by
the teenager
Percent of fam ily income
Total family income

$0 to $1,999.......... ...........................................................................................................
$2,000 to $2,999____________ _______ ________________________________
$3,000 to $4,999_________ _______ ________ ____________________________
$5,000 to $6,999___________________ ______ — .................... .............................
$7,000 to $9,999____ _____________ ___________ _________________________
$10,000 to $14,999........... ......................................................- _________________
$15,000 or more................................................................................................ ...........
Totals_______ ______ ____________ ___________ ___________ _______

Total

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

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




Less
than 5
64.7
64.9
64.5
66.8
67.6
68.5
77.0
68.5

5 to
9 .9
6.1
8.2
12.2
14.4
13.8
13.8
12.8
12.9

10 to
14.9
4.6
8 .2
7 .0
5.5
7.3
5 .8
3 .9
6 .0

15 to
19.9
5.1
6.1
3 .8
5 .2
3.5
5.1
2 .0
4 .2

20 to
24.9
4.3
2 .8
3 .5
2 .8
2.3
2 .6
1 .8
2 .6

25 to
29.9

30 to
39.9

40 to
49.9

50 to
74.9

1.9
1.9
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.3

3.8
1.9
2 .8
2 .0
2.2
1.8

1.7
2 .2
1.8
1.3
1.1
.7

4 .4
2 .2
1.9
.8
.6
.3

3 .4
1 .7
.9
.1
.1
.0

1.4

2 .0

1.1

0 .9

0 .4

1.1

.9

.4

.0

75 or
more

.0

CHAPTER VIII

Study of Full-time Student and Learner
Certification Programs Under the
Fair Labor Standards Act
This chapter provides information on a sur­
vey of establishments which applied for and re­
ceived certificates to employ learners and full­
time students at subminimum rates under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The analysis is in­
tended to help determined whether submini­
mum wage rates encourage the employment of
teenagers, and the extent to which employers
used or failed to use certificates. A discussion of
the scope and method of the survey and a list
of reference tables appear in the appendix.
Highlights of the study

Authorization to employ full-time students at
subminimum rates was underutilized. Only 42
percent of the 36 million man-hours authorized
at 85 percent of the satutory minimum wage
were used. One-fifth of the 4,615 establishments
did not use their authorizations. All but 2 per­
cent of the full-time student man-hours were
used to employ teenagers.
This chapter was prepared by Clara F. Schloss,
formerly of the Office of Research and Legislative
Analysis, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divi­
sions. Peyton K. Elder was responsible for the analysis,
Maurice Berk for the tabulations, and William L. Cato
for the data processing.
Footnotes and tables begin on p. 112.




Establishments in the South used a smaller
proportion of their man-hours than did estab­
lishments in the rest of the Nation. The wage
incentive to employ full-time students at mini­
mum rates is less in the South where prevailing
wages tend to cluster around the minimum
wage.
Of the 15 million man-hours used to employ
full-time students at subminimum rates, almost
a fourth were by establishments of the
S.S.Kresge Co. (over 2 million) and the
G.C.Murphy and Morgan Lindsey Co. (almost
1.4 million). Establishments in 11 enterprises,
including the Kresge and Murphy chains, used
half of all man-hours.
The most frequently cited reason given for
not using or not fully utilizing the certificates
was that the establishments were completely
staffed. Other reasons more commonly cited in
order of importance were: Recordkeeping was
too burdensome, full-time students were not
willing to work at subminimum wages, limita­
tions spelled out in the certificates, and full­
time students were unsatisfactory workers.
Only one-third of the 264,000 man-months
which had been authorized for the employment
of learners were used. Of the over 84,000 manmonths used to employ learners, almost onethird were used to employ teenagers. Almost all
107

108

schools and colleges that employ students in
school-operated shops to assist then in defray­
ing their college expenses.
The 1961 Amendments to the Fair Labor
Learner and full-time student subminimum wage
Standards Act covered large numbers of work­
provisions and regulations
ers who had been traditionally outside the scope
of the act. The newly covered employees were
Section 14 of the Fair Labor Standards Act primarily in large retail and service enter­
as originally enacted in 1938 authorized the em­ prises. The 1961 amendments expanded section
ployment of learners at minimum wages less 14 to include provisions for the employment of
than those required for regular workers. In en­ full-time students at subminimum wages in the
acting this provision, Congress intended to pro­ newly covered retail trade and service establish­
tect the welfare of experienced workers while ments in occupations in which they ordinarily
encouraging the employment of untrained and were employed under certificates granted pur­
inexperienced persons.
suant to regulations of the Administrator of the
In October 1938, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions.
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions The regulations issued to implement this provi­
issued regulations governing the issuance of sion established age limits of 14 through 18, a
certificates to employers whose employees were full-time student minimum rate of 85 percent of
subject to the minimum wage provisions of the statutory minimum wage rate, and proce­
FLSA. Congress intended to use subminimum dures to determine the maximum number of
rates to employ learners in occupations involv­ full-time student man-hours an establishment
ing enough skill to necessitate an appreciable could use. The hours authorized were based on
training period. A certificate would limit the the number of full-time student man-hours
number of learners to replacements and those which an establishment or similar establish­
needed to expand production. Certificates which ment used during designated periods before the
would lower or depress the working standards 1961 amendments.
of experienced workers could not be issued.
The 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor
These regulations have remained largely un­ Standards Act extended minimum wage protec­
changed since 1938 except that subminimum tion to employees previously outside the scope
rates have been raised from time to time as the of the act, including a large number in retail
minimum wage has increased. During the May trade, service enterprises, and for the first time
1, 1968 to April 30, 1969 survey, the statutory extended coverage to employees on large farms.
minimum wage was $1.60 an hour while the The amendments also incorporated, in large
part, the regulations applicable to full-time stu­
learner rates ranged from $1.45 to $1,575.
Regulations were adopted in August 1940 dents, which had been issued after the 1961
governing the issuance of special certificates for amendments, except that the upper age limit
the employment of student-learners at submini­ was specifically excluded. The provisions of the
mum rates if it could be shown that the stu­ revised section 14 also applied to newly covered
dents were engaged in a bona fide vocational farm workers. For employees in retail trade
training program. The student-learner certifi­ and service activities subject to the minimum
cation program was designed to encourage wage before the 1966 amendments, the full-time
part-time vocational training programs by ac­ student subminimum rate applicable during the
survey period was $1.36 an hour, or 85 percent
credited institutions.
Regulations were adopted later providing for of the $1.60 an hour minimum wage otherwise
the issuance of special certificates to employ applicable. The subminimum rate for full-time
student workers at subminimum wages. These students in the three newly covered areas was
certificates are issued primarily to Seventh Day 85 percent of $1.15, or $.978 an hour, from the
Adventist schools and to other denominational beginning of the survey period in May 1, 1968,

of the 799 establishments holding learner cer­
tificates expressed a willingness to employ teen­
agers.




109

until January 31, 1969, and 85 percent of $1.30
or $1,105 an hour thereafter.
History of the certification programs
L e a r n e r s . The number of learner certifi­
cates in effect and the estimated number of
learners authorized has varied. During the first
5 years after enactment of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, employers requested and were
granted substantial numbers of certificates. For
example, 3,790 learner certificates were in effect
and 50,152 learners were authorized at the end
of fiscal year 1942. As the $.40 an hour mini­
mum wage, which was fully applicable to cov­
ered workers in 1944, became less meaningful,
fewer employers requested certificates. At the
end of fiscal year 1949, only 20 learner certifi­
cates were in effect. At the end of fiscal 1950,
shortly after the minimum wage was increased
to $.75 an hour, the program reached a peak in
certificates granted and learners authorized.
Over 4,900 certificates were in effect and an es­
timate 73,351 learners were authorized. Since
then, the overall trend in the volume of certifi­
cates has been downward. Temporary increases
in the number of certificates and learners au­
thorized have occurred at the end of the fiscal
years coincident with the effective dates of in­
creases in the minimum wage to $1 in 1956,
$1.15 in 1961, and $1.25 in 1963. No similar
spurts occurred in 1967 and 1968 following the
$1.40 and $1.60 rates. At the end of the 1969
fiscal year only 889 certificates were in effect
and an estimated 20,726 learners were author­
ized.
S t u d e n t -l e a r n e r s . The student-learner certi­
fication program also expanded after the
statutory minimum wage was increased in
1950, 1956, and 1961. Unlike the learner pro­
gram, however, during the 1960’s the studentlearner certification program has expanded
from 4,577 student learners authorized in fiscal
year 1962 to 9,460 in fiscal year 1968, and 9,686
in the first three quarters of fiscal year 1969.
S t u d e n t -w o r k e r s . The student-worker certi­
fication program has followed a different
pattern. The number of student-worker certifi­




cates and the number of student-workers au­
thorized increases slightly through the 1940’s
and 1950’s until 1960, a year before the enact­
ment of the 1961 amendments to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, when 38 certificates were
granted and 1,412 student-workers were au­
thorized. Since 1960 the number of certificates
declined to 19 in the first three quarters of
1969. The number of student-workers author­
ized declined to 1,146 in fiscal 1968 but in­
creased to 1,374 in the first three quarters of
fiscal 1969.
F u l l -t im e s t u d e n t s . Since the full-time
student certification program was implemented
in 1962, the long-term trend has been an overall
increase; a significant expansion occurred in
the number of certificates applied for and in
effect following the 1966 amendments when the
extent of coverage of the statutory minimum
wage to which the full-time student minimum
wages apply was broadly extended. At the end
of the first fiscal year after the implementation
of the 1961 amendments, 2, 344 full-time certif­
icates were in effect. At the end of the fiscal
year just before the implementation of the 1966
amendments, 2,579 certificates were in effect
while 4,147 certificates were in effect a year
later following these amendments. By June 30,
1969, the number of full-time student certifi­
cates in effect had increased to 5,028.
S u m m a r y . Trend data on certification activi­
ties, particularly as they relate to learners and
full-time students, do not necessarily reflect
trends in usage. Over the years, several studies
have been made to determine the extent to
which learner certificates actually have been
used. These studies and the present study indi­
cate that use is not determined by the request­
ing and obtaining of learner and full-time cer­
tificates.
Full-time student certificates

A number of measures
designed to show the extent to which the full­
time student certification program is used indi­
cates marked underutilization. For example, 21

E st a b l is h m e n t s .

110

percent of the 4,615 establishments did not use
them during the May 1, 1968 to April 30, 1969
survey period. Of the remaining establishments
which used at least part of the authorization,
one-tenth percent used it as much as 95 percent.
Regions varied in their use of full-time stu­
dent certificates. In the South, about 25 percent
of the establishments made no use of the certifi­
cates though 45 percent of the total had been
granted to them. Outside the South, only about
17 percent of the establishments made no use of
the certificates though 55 percent of the total
had been granted to them. Certificates were
used fully in only 10 percent of the southern
establishment compared with 14 percent outside
the South.
Establishments using full-time students cer­
tificates varied by type of business. Variety and
department stores constituted three-fifths of the
establishments with certificates but one-fourth
did not use their authorizations. About onethird of the apparel stores, which had been au­
thorized almost a tenth of the certificates, did
not use their certificates. However, among food
stores, which constituted a fourth of all estab­
lishments with certificates, less than a tenth of
the establishments did not use the authoriza­
tions. The remaining types of businesses, which
made up about 7 percent of all establishments
with certificates, included 60 hospitals and
nursing homes, all of which used at least some
of their authorization, 60 restaurants, about
half of which did not use their authorization, 68
drug stores, a tenth of which did not use their
authorization, and 93 farms, about a sixth of
which did not use their authorization.
M a n - h o u r s . The extent of underutilization is
further confirmed by comparing the full-time
student man-hours authorized with the num­
ber of man-hours used. During the survey pe­
riod, certificates authorizing almost 36 million
man-hours of full-time student employment
were available to employers. Of these, 21 per­
cent or 7.4 million full-time student man-hours
were authorized to be used by establishments
which made no use of the certificates. About 72
percent of the man-hours were authorized to be
used by establishments which used some but not
all of the hours authorized. Only 7 percent of




the man-hours were allocated to establishments
which fully utilized their authorized man-hours.
Overall, only 42 percent of the full-time stu­
dent man-hours authorized were used. By re­
gion—Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Di­
visions jurisdictions—the proportion ranged
from 32 percent in the Atlanta region to 61
percent in New York region (table 8.2).
Regions varied in the extent of utilization of
full-time student man-hours at subminimum
wages. The South, with two-fifths of the 36 mil­
lion man-hours were authorized, used only onethird. In the remainder of the United States,
almost half were used. One explanation for the
lower rate of utilization in the South may be
that the smaller differential between the wage
authorized for full-time students—85 percent of
the minimum wage—and prevailing wages. In
the South there appears to be less incentive for
employers to use full-time students at submini­
mum rates if more mature workers are availa­
ble.
Two of the 11 types of businesses for which
data were tabulated separately had almost 90
percent of the 36 million full-time student
man-hours authorized—variety and department
stores made up 62 percent and food stores 26
percent. Together these stores also had about 90
percent of the 15 million full-time student
man-hours used. Although variety and depart­
ment stores were the largest users of full-time
student man-hours, food stores used 51 percent
of man-hours authorized, compared with 38
percent for variety and department stores
(table 8.3). Only 8 percent of the full-time student man­
hours authorized for use by food stores were
allocated to establishments which did not use
any of them compared with 26 percent in vari­
ety and department stores.
More significant than the regional or type of
business data are special tabulations of man­
hours authorized and used by specific enter­
prises and establishments. Two large variety
store chains made significant use of the full­
time student program. Establishments of the
S.S. Kresge Co. were granted 19 percent of the
36 million man-hours authorized for the em­
ployment of students at subminimum wages. Of

Ill

the 15 million man-hours actually utilized dur­
ing the year, the Kresge stores used 14 percent.
Establishments of another major retail store
chain, G. C. Murphy and Morgan Lindsey were
granted 8 percent of the authorized man-hours
and used 9 percent of all man-hours utilized.
Together, these two chains used 23 percent of
all man-hours utilized. Furthermore, 11 enter­
prises, including the Kresge and Murphy
chains, used 49 percent of the man-hours uti­
lized by all establishments which were granted
certificates. Also, of the 21 million full-time stu­
dent man-hours authorized but not used, the
Kresge and Murphy enterprises constituted 30
percent.
Although the Kresge chain was the biggest
user of authorized full-time student man-hours,
179 establishments or 27 percent of the 671
Kresge stores which were granted certificates
did not use their authorization. One hundred
and five of these nonusers were K-Mark dis­
count stores. Overall, Kresge stores used only
30 percent of their 6.8 million authorized man­
hours.
The Murphy chain, although using fewer
man-hours than Kresge, was more likely to use
the man-hours it was authorized. Almost half of
the 2.8 million authorized man-hours were used
to employ full-time students at subminimum
wage rates by stores in the Murphy chain and
only 35 stores or about 10 percent of Murphy’s
363 establishments with certificates did not use
any of the man-hours authorized. (See table
8.4.)
Reasons for less than full utilization of the
4,163 establishments which did not utilize or
did not fully utilize their certificates 27 percent
of the over 8,000 responses indicated that the
establishments were fully staffed or were not in
a position to add workers.
Among the other reasons given, four were of
almost equal significance. About 11 percent of
the reasons found teenagers unwilling to work
at subminimum wages. A special tabulation indi­
cates that about 300 of these 868 establishments
which cited this reason went ahead and em­
ployed the teenagers at the regular minimum
wage. Almost as many of the responses blamed
underutilization on the unsatisfactory work




performance of teenagers, burdensome record­
keeping and restrictions in the certificates.
Regional variations for underutilization were
not particularly marked. However, establish­
ments in the South tended to cite fully staffed
and burdensome recordkeeping more frequently
than did establishments outside the South,
while other sections found students unwilling to
work at subminimum wages more frequently
than did establishments in the South.
When the reasons for not utilizing or not
fully utilizing full-time certificates are classified
by type of business, sharp differences show up.
For example, food stores, hospitals, nursing
homes, and “other retail” stores were far more
likely than other businesses to cite “fully
staffed” as a reason for underutilization. Res­
taurants and drug stores were more likely to
blame the unwillingness of full-time students to
work at subminimum wages. Apparel stores
were more likely to state that underutilization
was due to burdensome recordkeeping, certifi­
cates restrictions, and delays in the verification
of employees’ student status by their schools.
Tabulations designed to compare the relative
importance of the reasons by degree of utiliza­
tion provide some observable results. As ex­
pected, establishments with higher rates of uti­
lization more frequently cited fully staffed as a
reason for less than full utilization. Not ex­
pected was that these establishments more fre­
quently reported that full-time students were
unsatisfactory. Establishments with no utiliza­
tion for less than 20 percent of their authorized
man-hours used were more likely to cite burden­
some recordkeeping and company policy to pay
the regular minimum wage.
U t il iz a t io n o f f u l l -t i m e s t u d e n t c e r t if i ­
c a t e s to e m p l o y t e e n a g e r s .

Special tabula­
tions by age group showed that full-time stu­
dent certificates were used almost exclusively to
employ teenagers. Before the 1966 amendments,
full-time student regulations limited the use of
the certificates to teenagers 14 to 19 years of
age. The 1966 amendments specifically removed
the upper limit but workers 20 years of age and
over still constituted only 2 percent of all full­
time student man-hours used.

112
Learners1

Of the 863 learner certifi­
cates granted to 799 establishments 2 in the 50
States, only 6 percent were not used at all dur­
ing the survey period. The proportion not used
was consistently low whether on a regional or
on an industry basis. Although 94 percent of
the certificates were used, three-quarters either
were not used or used to less than half of their
potential.
E st a b l is h m e n t s .

Even though most certificates
were used to some extent, overall, only 32 per­
cent of the almost 264,000 man-months which
were authorized for the employment of learners
at subminimum wages in the 50 States actually
were used. Regions varied but were not particu­
larly marked; establishments in the South used
a larger proportion of the authorized manmonths than did those outside the South. How­
ever, since 73 percent of the man-months au­
thorized were allocated to the South, that re­
gion used about 64,000 or 76 percent of the total
learner man-hours at subminimum wages. (See
table 8.7.)
Reasons for less than full utilization of the
790 establishments in the 50 States which did
not use or did not use fully their learner au­
thorization, 28 percent of 1,462 responses give
as their reason that establishments were fully
staffed and did not require additional workers,
also, that experienced workers were available.
M a n -m o n t h s .

The certificates state that employers may not
hire learners at subminimum wages if experi­
enced workers are available.
One-fifth of the establishments said that
learners were not willing to work at submini­
mum wages. In addition, temporary operational
problems, the finding that learners were not
satisfactory workers, and that the work was
undesirable each constituted fewer than a tenth
of all responses.
U t iliz a t io n

of l e a r n e r c e r t if ic a t e s to e m ­

Most establishments with
learner certificates used their certificates to em­
ploys teenager, 90-percent of the 765 establish­
ments utilized their certificates to employ teen­
agers and an additional 7 percent, would have
hired teenagers if they had been available.
Despite the expressed willingness of employ­
ers to hire youths 16 to 19 years of age as learn­
ers, teenagers represented only 31 percent of all
the learner man-months utilized. Establish­
ments in the South utilized a lower proportion
of teenagers than did establishments outside the
South.
ploy

teen a g ers.

------- F O O T N O T E S ------1Although student-worker and student-learner certi­
ficates are authorized under the learner provision of
section 14, they were not included in the survey because
of the small number of teenagers involved.
2Some establishments were granted both normal labor
turnover certificates and plant expansion certificates.

Table 8.1. Percent distribution of establishments with certificates authorizing the employment of full-time students
at wages below the statutory minimum, by degree of utilization and industry
[Data relate to certificates in effect on Aprif 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1, 1968 to April 30, 1969]

Degree of utilization

Absolute number..........................

0

Total..................................
................... .........................
1-9____________________
10-19...............................
20-29................................... .
30-39.....................................
40-49
____
50-59______________ ____
60-69 ........................ ...........
70-79
___
80-89 ........ .........................
90-99.......................... ..........
.........................................

100

United
States

4,615

100
215
67
88
8
897
6
7

Variety and
department Food stores
stores
2,843

100
24
5
886
8
7
88
7
5
4

1,142

1009
4
4
7

1011
10
10
108
89

Apparel
stores . Drug stores Restaurant

307

100
33
119
7
7
7
5

63
5
3
5

68
10010
643
1
4

100
55
82

3
18
4
9
3
34

2

60

3
3
3
3

3
17

Other
retail
stores
34

1003
123
3
6
69
15
9
9
26

Hotels
and
motels

2
10050

Hospitals

34

100

26

100

3

50

669
6
3
26
6
15
129

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Degree of utilization is the relationship of man-hours utilized to man-hours authorized.




Nursing
homes

4
4

124
88
23
4
15
19

Other serv­
ice estab­ Agriculture
lishments

6
100

93

10016

33

3
4
5

17
17

13

17
17

08
8
9
10
16

113
Table 8.2. Numerical distribution of man-hours for which
the employment of full-time students was authorized at
rates below the statutory minimum and the number and
percent of full-time student man-hours utilized, by region

Table 8.3. Numerical distribution of man-hours for which
the employment of full-time students was authorized at
rates below the statutory minimum and the number and
percent of full-time student man-hours utilized, by industry

[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30, 1969, and reflect utilization during
the survey May 1, 1968 to.April 30,1969]

[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30, 1969, and reflect utilization during
the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]

Number of
man-hours
authorized

Number of
man-hours
utilized

United States................................... 35,787,183
Atlanta.................................... ................... 4,661,058
Birmingham........ ......................................
1,857,650
Boston........................................ ...............
950,250
Chicago........ ....................... ..................
8,573,793
Dallas......................................................... 5,633,198
Kansas City......... ....................................... 5,337,218
Nashville.... .......................................... .
2,668,002
New York City................................ ..........
1,049,698
Philadelphia________ _______________
3,263,080
San Francisco............................. ............... 1,793,236

15,014,347
1,485,175
691,847
411,394
3,845,362
2,125,573
2,683,483
878,694
636,784
1,429,877
826,158

Region

Number o f
man-hours
authorized

Number of
man-hours
utilized

United States_______ _____ _________ 35,787,183
Variety and department stores........................ 22,350,953
Food stores_______________________________ 9,308,993
Apparel stores____________________________ 1,653,830
Drug stores_______________________________
338,196
Restaurants_______________________________
502,677
Other retail stores________ ______ ______
234,521
Hotels and m otels___________________ _____
9,864
Hospitals__________________•_______________
378,850
Nursing hom es_________________ __________
97,436
Other service establishm ents........._.............
31,229
Agriculture............... ...............................................
880,634

15,014,347
8,484,506
4,742,669
475,708
180,149
227,099
105,137
6,000
234,849
67,424
22,004
468,802

Percent of
utilization

42
32
37
43
45
38
50
33
61
44
46

Note: Regions refer to WHPC jurisdictions. (S ee Technical notes for definition.)

Industry

Percent of
utilization
42
38
51
29
53
45
45
61
62
69
70
53

Table 8.4. Multiunit enterprises with 10 establishments or more: Number of establishments, and number and percent
of full-time student man-hours authorized and utilized, ranked by number of man-hours used
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]
Enterprise name

Number of
establishmemts

Hours
authorized

Hours used

Percent of
utilization
in firm

Cumulative
percent of
hours used

Percent of
total hours
used

Total, all enterprises......... ..................................... ................................

4,615

35,787,183

15,014,347

42

100

100

S. S. Kresge Co....................................................................................................
G. C. Murphy and Morgan Lindsey...................... ............. ......... ....................
W. T. Grant..____________________ _______ ______________ _______ _
McCrory- McLellan-G reen............................................................... .....................
T G & Y Stores........................ ....................................... ................... ..............
F. W. Woolworth........................................................................... ......................
Handy-Andy................................................. ................... ................ ............ .
Rose's................ ..................................................................................................
J. S. Dillon & Sons..................................
................................................
H & B___________ ___________________
___________________________
____________________
Lerner Shops_____________ _______________ _
J. J. Newberry Co________
__
____ __________________________
____ _____________________
Neisner Brothers Inc____ _
Pigglv Wiggly . . .
___________________ . . .
Minyard Food______________________ ______________________________
Younker Bros____ _____________ _____ ______________________________
Arden-Mayfair......................................................................................................
Bishop-Stoddard Cafeteria_____________________ __ _ ____ _______
Buckwalls_______________________________________________________
S. H. Kress____ _____________ _______ _____ _______________________
Scott Stores_____ ______ ______ _______________ ____________ _____
Sterling Stores_______________________________ ______ _____ ________
Big Bear..____ _____________ ____ ___________ ___________ ______ _
Edwards Inc_______ ______________________________________________
Boogaart Supermarket Inc__________________________________________
Raylass Department Stores, Inc______________________________________
A. J. Bayless Markets______ _____________________ _____ ______ _____
Minimax_________________________________________________________
____ _ _____
Tom Thumb Stores
City Market________ ______________ _____________ ______________
Herbergers___________________________________________ ____ ___________
Basha's_________________________________________________________
Sure Way Food Stores_________ ______ ______ ______ _________________
Eagle Food Centers, May Drugs
_ _____________________________
Meyer Inc
_
_
____________________________
Red River Co., Piggly Wiggly.. _
_ _ __________________________
Spurgeon___ ________________________________ _____ ____________
Gold blatt Bros____ ______ _________________________________________
Byrd Foods______________________________________________________
Shaner’s Food________________________________________ ____________
Crest Stores____________ _____________ ________________ ___________
Autry-Greer & Sons______________ _____________ ____________ ___
Eagle Stores_____________________________________________________
Furrs Super Market__________ _____________ _______________ ________
Dixieland Food-Piggly Wiggly______ _________________ ____ ___ _____ _
Kuhn's Variety........................ ............................................................................
Mason's Stores......................... ...........................................................................
Eat'n Park Restaurant— ............. ............................. ........................................

671
363
187
313
219
220
37
144
59
114
231
69
92
51
20
21
26
10
46
111
45
28
17
16
20
26
48
16
32
10
10
14
11
30
22
18
35
20
10
17
10
13
10
42
18
14
15
32

6,843,757
2,804,148
1,502,514
1,679,831
1,496,525
1,350,382
892,258
1,720,002
596,940
614,993
1,122,452
406,545
689,185
345,011
309,574
251,056
407,462
138,869
210,575
595,002
160,063
156,153
118,676
143,903
174,594
115,483
595,112
91,239
202,351
76,612
53,649
74,234
108,347
52,610
417,525
82,555
53,382
500,287
58,869
84,099
65,394
47,390
32,878
360,421
50,283
42,631
87,880
114,489

2,078,242
1,377,761
631,644
609,835
564,858
526,938
504,866
368,502
327,673
257,060
218,361
212,580
190,807
189,422
167,154
182,531
161,253
131,737
112,123
103,956
93,025
69,709
69,484
69,413
65,608
54,325
53,978
53,247
51,490
48,632
45,942
45,648
37,066
35,084
33,996
31,232
30,562
29,250
28,755
28,565
26,992
20,602
20,055
15,216
13,299
12,162
95
0

30
49
42
36
40
39
57
21
58
42
19
52
28
55
54
65
40
95
53
17
58
45
59
48
38
47
9
58
25
63

14
9
4
4

14
23
27
31
35
39
42
45
47
48
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
59
60
61
61
61
62
62
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
65

1 Less than 0.5 percent.




86
8
38
57
6
49
61
34
67

34
41
43
61
4

(i)
(O

26
29

4

(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)

4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

( 1)

( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
(0

(i)
(i)
( 1)
(i)
O)
( 1)
(i)
O)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

66
66
66
66
66
66
67
0

67
67
67
67

Note: The enterprise name shown is the one which appeared on the application for
a certificate.

114
Table 8.5. Numerical distribution of establishments not utilizing or not fully utilizing full-time student certificates by
degree of utilization and reasons for less than full utilization of certificates
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]
Reasons for not utilizing or not fully utilizing certificates
Number
of estab­
Number lishments
of estab­ not uti­
lishments lizing or
with cer­ not fully Fully
tificates utilizing staffed
certifi­
cates

Degree of utilization

Certifi­
cate
restric­
tions

Full-time
students
unwilling
Record to work
keeping at submini­
mum
wages

Full-time
students
unsatis­
factoryworkers

Prefer
to hire
regular
workers

Company
Tem­
Delay in
policy
Legal
porary
Selfschool
Union
to pay restric­ opera­ imposed verifica­ restric­
mini­
tions
tional restric­ tion of
tions
mum
problems tions student
wages
status

Other
reasons

Total...............................

4,615

4,163

2,168

799

881

868

788

600

504

396

356

332

223

120

39

Less than 20 percent...............
20 percent to 49 percent...
50 percent or more............

1,484
1,085
2,046

1,484
1,085
1,594

564
641
963

321
198
280

425
212
244

339
211
318

199
236
353

243
151
206

282
98
124

111
114
171

189
82
85

49
78
205

136
50
37

80
36
4

14
12
13

Table 8.6. Percent distribution of certificates authorizing the employment of learners at wages below the statutory
minimum, by degree of utilization and industry
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]

Certificates classified
according to degree
of utilization

Percent of certificates authorized
U.S.
Total

Single
pants

Women's
apparel

Sportswear

Absolute number............................
Total.....................................

863
100

452
100

238
100

35
100

0.............................................
1-9.........................................
10-19........................................
20-29.......................................
30-39........................................
40-49........................................
50-59........................................
60-69.......................................
70-79.......................................
80-89.......................................
90-99.......................................
100...........................................

6
11
16
17
14
12
8
6
4
3
2
1

5
12
17
19
13
14
8
5
3
2
2

6
13
16
15
16
11
8
4
3
3
3
2

20
26
29
9
9
3
3

(i)

Other
apparel

Knitted
wear

4
100

Hosiery

24
100

47
100

7
2
14
22
8
10
14
10
7
2
5

4
4
21
13
17
17
4
8
8
4

2
4
13
4
17
11
11
19
11
4
2
2

25
25

3
25
25




Table 8.7. Numerical distribution of man-months for
which the employment of learners was authorized at rates
below the statutory minimum and the number and percent
of learner man-months utilized, by region
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30, 1969, and reflect utilization during
the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]

All regions except Caribbean_____

Number of
man-hours
authorized

Cigar

59
100

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

Region

Glove

Number of
man-hours
utilized

Percent of
utilization

263,661

84,427

32

Atlanta.........................................................
Birmingham................................................
Boston.........................................................
Chicago........................................................
Dallas..........................................................
Kansas City.................................................
Nashville.....................................................
New York City.............................................
Philadelphia
_ __ _____ ____ _
San Francisco..............................................

76,270
51,407
4,653
11,975
10,928
11,594
54,919
606
39,451
1,858

23,633
18,285
1,295
4,743
5,500
3,875
17,053
106
9,102
835

31
36
28
40
50
33
31
17
23
45

Caribbean.........................................

15,348

3,867

25

Note: Regions refer to WHPC jurisdictions (see Technical notes for definition).

Industries In
Caribbean

4
100

50
50

69
100
9
9
26
19
12
7
12
3
3
1

115
Table 8.8. Numerical distribution of establishments not utilizing or not fully utilizing learner certificates by degree
of utilization and reasons for less than full utilization of certificates
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]
Number
of estab­
Number lishments
Degree of of estab­ not uti­
utilization lishments lizing or Total
with cer­ not fully (dupli­
tificates utilizing cated)
certifi­
cates
Total. _
Under 20
percent..
20 percent
to 49
percent..
50 percent
and over.

Reasons for not utilizing or not ful ly utilizing learner certificates

Fully
staffed

Learners
not
willing
to work
at spe­
cial rates

Tem­ Learners
Company
Experi­ porary
Work
No pro­
Selfpolicy Certifi­
not
satis­ undesir­ Season­ motional imposed to pay
enced opera­
cate
oppor­ restric­
workers tional
factory
able
mini­
restric­
ality
available problems workers
tunities tions
mum
tions
wage

Legal
restric­
tions

Union
restric­
tions

Other
reasons

856

847

1,594

453

292

332

155

111

110

34

25

23

14

13

6

4

22

290

290

536

135

115

118

49

35

44

4

7

5

7

4

1

1

11

383

383

732

219

120

146

76

50

50

20

13

13

6

5

4

2

8

183

174

326

99

57

68

30

26

16

10

5

5

1

4

1

1

3

APPENDIX A.

Technical Notes
Scope and method

The study includes information for all establishments holding full­
time student or learner certificates on April 30, 1969, which had been in
effect at least three months, or which had been in effect for less than
three months if the firm had had a certificate at any time subsequent to
April 30, 1968.
Data for each certificated establishment were collected by the regional
staff of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions. Approxi­
mately 3,600 of the more than 4,600 establishments holding full-time stu­
dent certificates are parts of large multi unit enterprises. For many of
these enterprises, survey data were obtained from records maintained in
the central or regional offices of the enterprises. Where central office rec­
ords were not available or were incomplete, the data were obtained from
the individual establishments.
Full-time student man-hours and learner man-months authorized and
utilized are based on survey findings. For purposes of this survey, full
utilization of full-time student or learner certificates is defined as
utilization of 95 percent or more of the man-hours or man-months author­
ized by the certificates. Degree of utilization is the ratio of man-hours or
man-months utilized to man-hours or man-months authorized.
A number of establishments furnished more than one reason for not
utilizing or not fully utilizing the man-hours or man-months allowed by
the certificates. As all of the reasons given were tabulated, the number
of reasons exceeds the total count of establishments with certificates.




116
F u l l -t im e s t u d e n t s . A total of 1,246 establishments which held full-time
student certificates at some time between May 1, 1968, and April 30, 1969,
were not within the scope of this survey for the following reasons:
693 certificates expired during the survey period and renewal of the certificates
was not requested:
441 original certificates which became effective after January 31, 1969, were ex­
cluded because of insufficient experience under the certificate;
73 establishments holding certificates were found to be exempt from the FLSA
under section 13(a) (2);
36 establishments holding certificates went out of business during the survey
period, and;
3 certificates expired and renewal was denied.

Learners. A total of 245 establishments which held 253 learner certifi­
cates at some time between May 1,1968, and April 30,1969, were excluded
from the survey for the following reasons:
169 certificates expired during the survey period and renewal of the certificates
was not requested;
17 original certificates which became effective after January 31, 1969, were ex­
cluded because of insufficient experience under the certificate;
13 certificates were held by plants which went out of business during the survey
period;
50 certificates expired and renewal was denied because of lack of utilization; and
4 certificates expired and renewal was denied for other reasons.

Tabulations

Data have been tabulated by industry, type of certificate, degree of
utilization and by Wage and Hour and Public Contracts region (RO)
and district office ( do) area. The jurisdictional areas are defined as
follows:




Atlanta RO: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
Birmingham RO: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi
Boston RO: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont
Chicago RO:
Cleveland DO-Ohio
Detroit DO-Michigan
Chicago-Other-Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin
Dallas RO:
Dallas DO-North Texas
Houston DO-South Texas
Oklahoma City DO-New Mexico and Oklahoma
Kansas City RO: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Nashville RO: Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia
New York City RO: New Jersey and New York

Philadelphia RO:
Philadelphia DO-East Pennsylvania, Delaware, District of Columbia, and
Maryland
Pittsburgh DO-Central and West Pennsylvania
San Francisco RO:
Los Angeles DO-Arizona and South California
San Francisco DO-Alaska, North California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,
and Washington
Caribbean Office: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Panama Canal Zone

References

The technical terms used in this report are defined in the appropriate
parts of Title 29 of The Code of Federal Regulations: (1) Part 519—
Employment of Full-Time Students at Special Minimum Wages; (2)
Part 520—Employment of Student Learners; (3) Part 522—Employment
of Learners; and (4) Part 527—Employment of Student Workers.

APPENDIX B.

The following supplementary tables from the study of full-time students
and learner certification programs are available from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics on request.
List of tables:




Full-Time Students
Numerical distribution of man-hours for which the employment
of full-time students was authorized at wages below the
statutory minimum, by extent of utilization of certificates and
by:
1. Area
2. Industry
3. Type of certificate
Percent distribution of man-hours for which the employment of
full-time students was authorized at wages below the statutory
minimum, by extent of utilization of certificates and by:
4. Area
5. Industry
6. Type of certificate
Numerical distribution of establishments with certificates au­
thorizing the employment of full-time students at wages below
the statutory minimum, by extent of utilization and by:
7. Area
8. Industry
9. Type of certificate

118
APPENDIX B.— continued
List of tables—continued




Percent distribution of establishments with certificates author­
izing the employment of full-time students at wages below the
statutory minimum, by extent of utilization and by:
10. Area
11. Industry
12. Type of certificate
Numerical distribution of man-hours for which the employment
of full-time students was authorized at wages below the sta­
tutory minimum, by degree of utilization and by:
13. Industry
Percent distribution of man-hours for which the employment
of full-time students was authorized at wages below the
statutory minimum, by degree of utilization and by:
14. Industry
Numerical distribution of establishments with certificates au­
thorizing the employment of full-time students at wages below
the statutory minimum, by degree of utilization and by:
15. Industry
Percent distribution of establishments with certificates author­
izing the employment of full-time students at wages below the
statutory minimum, by degree of utilization and by:
16. Industry
Numerical distribution of establishments utilizing certificates to
employ full-time students, by degree of utilization and by:
17. Industry and age
Percent distribution of establishments utilizing certificates to
employ full-time students, by degree of utilization and by:
18. Industry and age
Numerical distribution of establishments not utilizing or not
fully utilizing full-time student certificates by reasons for less
than full utilization of certificates and by:
19. Area
20. Industry
21. Degree of utilization
Percent distribution of establishments not utilizing or not fully
utilizing full-time student certificates, by reasons for less than
full utilization of certificates and by:
22. Area
23. Industry
24. Degree of utilization
Learners
Numerical distribution of man-months for which the employ-

119
APPENDIX B. — continued
List of tables—continued




ment of learners was authorized at wages below the statutory
minimum, by extent of utilization of certificates and by:
25. Area
26. Industry
27. Type of certificate
Percent distribution of man-months for which the employment
of learners was authorized at wages below the statutory
minimum, by extent of utilization of certificates and by:
28. Area
29. Industry
30. Type of certificate
Numerical distribution of certificates authorizing the employ­
ment of learners at wages below the statutory minimum, by
extent of utilization of certificates and by:
31. Area
32. Industry
33. Type of certificate
Percent distribution of certificates authorizing the employment
of learners at wages below the statutory minimum, by extent
of utilization of certificates and by:
34. Area
35. Industry
36. Type of certificate
Numerical distribution of man-months for which the employ­
ment of learners was authorized at wages below the statutory
minimum, by degree of utilization and by:
37. Industry
Percent distribution of man-months for which the employment
of learners was authorized at wages below the statutory min­
imum, by degree of utilization and by:
38. Industry
Numerical distribution of certificates authorizing the employ­
ment of learners at wages below the statutory minimum, by
degree of utilization and by:
39. Industry
Percent distribution of certificates authorizing the employment
of learners at wages below the statutory minimum, by degree
of utilization and by:
40. Industry
Numerical distribution of man-months utilized to employ learn­
ers at wages below the statutory minimum, classified by per­
cent of man-months utilized in the employment of teenagers
and by:
41. Industry

120
APPENDIX B. — continued
List of tables-continued




Percent distribution of man-months utilized to employ learners
at wages below the statutory minimum, classified by percent
of man-months utilized in the employment of teenagers and
by:
42. Industry
Numerical distribution of establishments not utilizing or not
fully utilizing learner certificates, by reasons for less than full
utilization of certificates and by:
43. Area
44. Industry
45. Degree of utilization
Percent distribution of establishments not utilizing or not fully
utilizing learner certificates by reasons for less than full
utilization of certificates and by:
46. Area
47. Industry
48. Degree of utilization
Numerical distribution of establishments which utilized learner
certificates but did not utilize teenage learners, by reasons for
not employing teenage learners and by:
49. Area
50. Industry
51. Degree of utilization
Percent distribution of establishments which utilized learner
certificates but did not utilize teenage learners, by reasons for
not employing teenage learners and by:
52. Area
53. Industry
54. Degree of utilization

CHAPTER IX

State Experience With Minimum Wage
Differential Rates for Youth and Their
Effect on Youth Employment
This study of State experience with minimum
wage differential rates for youth was under­
taken as part of the response to the Secretary
of Labor's request for an evaluation of the ef­
fect of minimum wage legislation on youth em­
ployment in 1969. In their minimum wage laws,
a number of States have provided for lower
rates for minors than are required for adults,
and State experience with the effect of these
differentials might offer some clues to the desir­
ability of providing differentials based on age in
Federal minimum wage legislation.1
As defined for the overall study, “youth"
consists of persons 16 to 19 years old. However,
those State minimum wage laws which have an
age differential ordinarily use 18 years of age
as the cutoff point after which youth differen­
tials do not apply. Therefore, investigation for
this report tended to concentrate on the age
group under 18 years of age, usually the 16 and
17 year olds, extended in some instances to
cover the employment situation of 14 and 15
year olds. Thus, emphasis was placed on en­
trance into the labor market rather than on the
employment experience of the older teenager
over a period of time.
This chapter was prepared by Juliet F. Kidney, Of­
fice of the Chief Economist, Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics. William Barron of the same Office made substan­
tial contributions to the development of materials for
this section.
Footnotes appear on p. 131.




Very little “hard data” are available. This
lack concerns all aspects of the problem, includ­
ing wages actually paid to youth; the number
and percent covered by the State minimum
wage; where youth are employed; and area dif­
ferences in employment and wages within a
State. As a consequence, most of the following
discussion is based upon individual experience,
impressions, and opinions—gained, however,
from persons closely involved with many
aspects of youth employment.
Information on actual experience with mini­
mum wage differential rates was obtained
mostly by the Regional Offices of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in interviews with knowledgea­
ble persons in selected States in June 1969. Per­
sons interviewed included State officials con­
cerned with the administration of minimum
wage and child labor legislation, representa­
tives of State Employment Services, staff mem­
bers of Federal employment programs, repre­
sentatives of vocational training and coopera­
tive-work programs of the schools, academi­
cians, officials of labor unions and employer as­
sociations, and personnel officers of those indus­
tries in which youth are chiefly employed (de­
partment stores, drug and grocery stores, banks
and insurance companies, and other services).
Time and resources did not allow careful study
of each State, but each type of differential (age,
121

122

student, learner) was given some attention; one
State, Illinois where the minimum wage law is
inoperative, also was included. Although it
might have been desirable to look at each State
experience in relation to its economic and social
climate, such information was not available.
Within this framework, the study shows sub­
stantial agreement across the country on the
effect of State minimum wage laws and various
types of differential rates on youth employment.
Information on other factors which affect em­
ployment of teenagers, used interchangeably in
this report with youth, was developed as a by­
product and is included.
Summary

All but 13 States established minimum rates
for adults. This total does not include Texas
which has enacted minimum wage legislation
effective February 1970. Most of these States
also establish a differential rate for youth on
the basis of age, education, or work experience,
or exempt them entirely. The amount of the dif­
ferential may be as little as 5 cents or as high as
$l!05. Somewhat more than half of the provi­
sions establishing a differential for youth pro­
vide for a rate which is from 75 to 85 percent of
the corresponding adult minimum.
On the basis of State experience, lower mini­
mum wage rates for youth than for adults do
not resolve the paradox of high youth unem­
ployment in an inflationary economy character­
ized by high wages and tight labor markets. A
major reason has been that, except for a few
rural, agricultural, and resort areas, the differ­
ential wage rates for minors, students, and
learners are sufficiently below the prevailing
wage level as to present little inducement to
youth growing up in an affluent society to work
for minimum wages. For a number of young
people, particularly those in ghetto areas, who
are looking primarily for full-time jobs, wage
and status expectations are not satisfied by an
unskilled job, even that which pays the Federal
minimum rate of $1.60 an hour. This attitude
may be less prevalent among students in search
of part-time and temporary jobs, but the opin­
ion was expressed that the Federal minimum




wage establishes a psychological “floor” for
wage aspirations of youth.
In most States the high unemployment rate
for those under 18 is attributed to safety and
hour restrictions imposed by child labor laws,
the youth attitudes toward work described
above, and the lack of vocational training and
preparation for entrance into the world of
work. Other factors, such as “red tape” in get­
ting work certificates and employer assump­
tions as to lack of responsibility and dependa­
bility of young people, were important.
There was also some feeling that employers
often assume that it is illegal to hire youth
under 18. In some cases, this attitude is consi­
dered to be a smokescreen to hide prejudice
against hiring young people, particularly from
the ghetto areas.
State minimum wage legislation

As of August 1969, 38 jurisdictions (36
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico) have laws which establish minimum wage
rates. In addition, in May 1969, Texas passed a
minimum wage law which became effective Feb­
ruary 1, 1970. Three States, Illinois, Kansas,
and Louisiana, have laws which are inoperative,
and 10 States have no legislation on this sub­
ject. Of the 38 jurisdictions which have active
minimum wage legislation, 10 use an industry
wage board procedure exclusively to set rates
for specific industries, 18 have statutory mini­
mum rates, and the remaining 10 jurisdictions
have both types. (See appendix A.) The last
group consists of States where the industry
wage board procedure was used for many years
and was retained when the jurisdictions
adopted statutory minimums. Thus, under some
of the laws, wage boards have the power to es­
tablish a minimum wage for categories of work­
ers not covered by the statutory rates.
In February 1969, an estimated 3.5 million
workers2 were covered by State minimum wage
laws only, compared with the 44.6 million em­
ployees covered by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). An estimated 8.2 million nonsupervisory employees in the private sector
were not covered by either the FLSA or State
laws.3

123
Most of these exempt employees are engaged
in executive, administrative or professional oc­
cupations, domestic service, or agriculture, or
are government employees, outside salesmen, or
taxicab operators. Some States exempt the
small employer from minimum wage coverage;
the most common exemption are that of employ­
ers who hire fewer than four persons. In seven
States the legislation covers only women and
minors (usuallyunder 18).
In States which use the wage order procedure
exclusively, coverage is most frequently ex­
tended to workers in beauty service occupa­
tions, laundry, dry cleaning and dyeing, manu­
facturing, public housekeeping, (ordinarily in­
cluding restaurants and hotels) and retail
trade. Some States also cover agriculture, proc­
essing of agriculture products, and amusement
and recreation activities.
Youth differentials and exemptions

Three major criteria—age, education, and ex­
perience—are used to establish differential min­
imum wages affecting youth in State minimum
wage laws. The most obvious method of differ­
entiating is by a specific rate (s), lower than the
adult rate, for persons under a certain age. Dif­
ferentials, including exemption, also may be
specified for “students” and for “learners” or
apprentices, with or without age specifications.
In most States, “learners,” in actual usage,
seems to apply primarily to those under 18.
Other types of differentials occur in the form of
exemptions. A State specifically may exempt all
persons under a specified age, or certain occupa­
tions, such as domestic service, agricultural
jobs, babysitting, golf caddying, etc., in which
large numbers of youth ordinarily are em­
ployed.
Differentials based on age

The laws of 11 jurisdictions specifically pro­
vide for differential wage rates for youth less
than 18 years of age across the board or in at
least one industry: (1) California, (2) Connec­
ticut, (3) District of Columbia, (4) Minnesota,
(5) Nevada, (6) New Hampshire, (7) New
Jersey, (8) New York, (9) Oregon, (10) Wash­
ington, and, (11) Wisconsin.




California and New York limit to 10 percent
of the total number of employees the number of
youth who may be employed at the differential
rate in any one establishment. In Connecticut, a
differential rate for minors is established for
the first 200 hours of employment “to prevent
curtailment of employment opportunities . . .”
and “to provide a reasonable period during
which training for adjustment to employment
conditions may be accomplished.” The District
of Columbia established a differential rate in
the retail trade industry effective July 6, 1969,
and also has a wage differential for part-time
workers less than 16 years of age in all wage
orders except retail trade. The youth differen­
tial provision in Minnesota relates solely to the
amusement industry. Nevada establishes a 15cent differential for minors. New Hampshire
stipulates that minors can be paid 75 percent of
the applicable minimum. In New Jersey, Ore­
gon, and Washington, youth under 18 are ex­
empt from the prevailing statutory rate for
adults but in certain industries are covered by
wage orders which provide differential pay
rates. Wisconsin establishes a 20-cent differen­
tial for minors in covered industries.
In addition, Texas has adopted minimum
wage legislation effective February 1, 1970,
which will exempt dropouts under 20 from ei­
ther school or vocational training.4
Differentials based an educational status

The minimum wage laws of almost half of
the jurisdictions (22) make specific provision
for students.5 Some of these provisions are lim­
ited to young persons, but others apply to stu­
dents of any age.
Seven States exempt students wherever they
are working:
Arizona—students under 21.
Maryland—regularly enrolled students working not
more than 20 hours a week.
Nebraska—those regularly enrolled in primary or
secondary school, who work after school or dur­
ing vacation.
New Mexico—those in primary or secondary
schools; colleges and universities.
Texas—students less than 20 years old.®
Vermont—all students.
West Virginia—students of any recognized school
or college.

124

In Ohio students working part time are ex­
empt from the minimum rates set by the State’s
Retail Trade Wage Order.
In Rhode Island, students are exempt, except
in the instance of four wage orders covering
specific services and retail trade, which provide
for differential rates.
Fourteen jurisdictions provide lower rates
for students either in the statute or upon appli­
cation by the employer. Most cases have an age
cutoff. They are: (1) Arkansas, (2) California,
(3) Colorado, (4) Delaware, (5) District of
Columbia, (6) Hawaii, (7) Maine, (8) New
Jersey, (9) New York, (10) Oklahoma, (11)
Oregon, (12) Pennsylvania, (13) Rhode Island,
and (14) Utah.
Differentials based on experience

All States except Indiana, Texas, West Vir­
ginia, and Wyoming permit the payment of
lower rates to learners or apprentices. Although
these provisions relate to inexperienced persons
regardless of age, most State officials who ad­
minister State laws see learner provisions as
having special importance for youth, many
of whom lack experience and job training.
More than half of the State laws which have
provisions for learners and apprentices stipu­
late a differential rate in the law or wage order.
(See appendix A.) The remaining States stipu­
late that special rates can be obtained by apply­
ing to the appropriate State agency. In many
cases, lower rates for learners result from de­
liberations between State, employer, and em­
ployee representatives.
Most States specify, or reserve the right to
establish, the proportion of learners to the total
number of employees, who can be hired by an
establishment at the differential rate and the
length of time for which the differential is in
effect. This varies from 1 month to almost a
year; the normal learning period is from 1 to 3
months.
Exemptions

The following jurisdictions exclude minors
under a certain age from minimum wage cover­
age:




Alaska—persons under 18 who are working part
time (less than 30 hours).
Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Wyoming—persons
under 18.
South Dakota—persons under 17.

Many State laws exempt industries and occu­
pations in which young people are likely to be
employed, such as newsboys, shoeshine boys,
caddies, carhops, ushers, and babysitters. Em­
ployees of summer camps and resort institu­
tions frequently are exempt.
Not included among the 22 States mentioned
above are the States such as Indiana and Wash­
ington, which exempt students who work at
school, and those States which have special
provisions which affect students, such as Wyo­
ming’s exemption of part-time workers from
minimum wage coverage.
Level of minimums and differentials

The basic minimum wage rates currently in
effect for adults range from 52 cents an hour in
the Laundry and Dry Cleaning Industry Wage
Order promulgated by Arizona in 1948 to $2.10
per hour in Alaska. More than half of the
States which establish minimum wage rates
have adult rates which are 30 cents or more
below the Federal minimum of $1.60.
Among the 11 States which specify differen­
tial rates for minors under 18, the amount of
the differential is usually between 20 and 40
cents an hour. The minimum rate for youth
ranges from 48 percent (Oregon) 94 percent
(Minnesota) of the adult rate. (See appendix
B.)
For learners, most of the specified differen­
tials are between 15 and 40 cents. Rates for
learners range from 52 percent (Oregon) to 95
percent (Minnesota) of basic adult minimum
rates.
Only one student differential is as little as 15
cents; more than half the student differentials
range between 30 and 60 cents less than the
adult minimum. Student rates as a percent of
basic adult rates range from 34 percent (Rhode
Island) to 91 percent (District of Columbia).
In summary, more than half of the provi­
sions establishing a differential for youth pro­
vide for a rate which is from 75 to 85 percent of

125

the corresponding adult minimum. However, as
a percentage of basic adult minimum wage
rates, wage rates applicable to youth range
from 34 percent stipulated in the Rhode Island
Public Housekeeping Wage Order to 95 percent
in the Minnesota Personal Service and Public
Housekeeping Wage Orders.

youth (and adults as well). A representative of
an employer association believed that the “con­
stant raising” of the minimum wage forecloses
the labor market to a larger and larger number
of marginal workers. He maintained that even
though inflation has decreased the impact of the
minimum rates set by statute in 1968, these still
deter employment of youth, and that the 30-cent
differential for youth in the wage orders is eco­
State experience with factors affecting youth
nomically important to the employer, especially
employment
the marginal firm. A representative of the
Although attention was centered originally Coastal Area Farm Placement Office in Califor­
on the 11 jurisdictions which provide for pay­ nia stated that the minimum, which applies in
ment of lower minimum wages to youth, defined California only to women ($1.65) and minors
as persons under 18 years of age, reports on the ($1.35), resulted in such large increases in
experience of States with other forms of differ­ wage payments that apricots are now sent to
ential treatment indicate that in 1969 the type commercial drying yards for the slicing, pit ex­
of differential makes little impact on youth em­ traction, and drying formerly done on the
ployment. Consequently, the description of farms; thus several hundred women and teen­
State experience is not confined to types of dif­ agers are cut out of summer employment. In
this case, the youth differential appears to have
ferential rates in the State laws.
been of no value for retaining younger workers.
A representative of the Retail Clerks Interna­
Impact of minimum wage differentials
tional Association said about the February 1,
In nearly all of the States covered by the 1968 wage orders, “every nickel or dime for box
study, differential minimum wage rates applica­ boys decreases the number of them and the
ble to youth, including exemptions, appear to closer you get to the journeymen rate the more
have little impact on the employment of youth likely the employer is to hire an adult.”
In Maine, where students working part time
in 1969. The report on Massachusetts states,
with regard to learners that “The minimum must be paid 75 percent ($1.12) of the adult
wage was not considered a relevant factor by minimum rate ($1.50), State officials “believe
anyone interviewed . . . Employers in all areas there would be considerable teenage unemploy­
report that they would not expect any teenage ment without this reduced rate.” However,
applicants if they offered starting wages less since 1967 when students were brought under
than the minimum wage.” Similar consensus oc­ the minimum wage law and employers said they
curred in most of the other 25 jurisdictions in would not be able to hire them, student employ­
which investigation was made. In Colorado, ment
increased.
Michigan, North Carolina, and Oregon, how­
In
Nevada,
there is a $.15 youth dif­
ever, there was some indication that without ferential underwhere
the
adult
rate of $1.30 and a
exemption or differentials for youth under 18, total of 37.5 cents differential
for girls under 18
youth unemployment might be higher in small for a 3-month probationary period,
the Labor
towns, rural, and tourist areas.
Commissioner
believes
that
more
youngsters,
In three States it was stated or implied, that
the State minimum wage law has some adverse particularly in the smaller communities, are
effects on youth employment—or would have hired because of these differentials. The report
without differentials—but even in these States also stated that “some employers claim they are
other factors were given equal or greater unwilling to hire youth because of the high min­
weight. California seemed to produce the imum rates, even with the youth differential,
strongest and most numerous opinions—the ef­ but there appears to be no concrete evidence of
fect of minimum wage on the employment of this.”




126
Several States indicated that the Federal
minimum wage of $1.60 inhibits youth employ­
ment, whereas the lower State rate, even with­
out significant youth differentials, as in Idaho
and Nebraska, does not have this effect.
In those States which claim that differential
rates for youth have little or no effect on youth
employment, what evidence supports this
assertion? How can the high youth unemploy­
ment rates, especially in the ghetto areas of the
inner cities, be explained ?
The argument has several sides. First, in
most places, particularly in urban areas, a tight
labor market and an inflationary economy have
pushed the entry wage rate up to or beyond the
Federal minimum of $1.60 per hour and thus
well above most State minimums for adults, to
say nothing of lower youth differential rates.
As a result, there are few or no “takers” for
those jobs which offer entry rates below the
“going rate;” the lower wages have no mean­
ing. Secondly a number of other factors such as
employer and youth attitudes, legislation, etc.,
directly inhibit employment of youth, especially
those under 18 years of age. Another reason for
lack of effectiveness of the differentials, is, of
course, the exemption in a number of States of
certain occupations and of smaller establish­
ments from coverage by the minimum wage
law; thus many teenagers automatically are
eliminated from coverage. However, freedom
from the requirement of paying a minimum
wage does not automatically cause the employer
to hire a teenager—“other factors” conspire to
prevent employment.
Determination of actual wages paid to youth
and the extent to which they surpass the mini­
mums is almost impossible without surveys giv­
ing a frequency distribution of wages. Lacking
these, reliance was placed on the opinions of
those concerned with the placement of teenag­
ers in jobs. Most major industrial States in the
East and Middle West reported situations simi­
lar to the following: In New Jersey, entry rates
for both full- and part-time, summer, and per­
manent jobs for teenagers were at or above
$1.60, the Federal minimum rate. One large de­
partment store in Newark paid $1.56 to teenag­
ers, 16 to 18 years old, for clerical, stock, and
material movement jobs, and stated “that peo­




ple doing the same job should be paid the same
rate regardless of age.” f Insurance companies
hired students for summer employment at
“starting rates well in excess of Federal and
State minimums.” Small department stores of­
fering jobs at the learner rate of $.90 an hour
were unable to find workers. In summary,
“youth differential rates, which are allowable in
mercantile, beauty culture, and laundry, clean­
ing and dyeing occupations, ($.85 to $1.35 per
hour) were described as being of little signifi­
cance in terms of impact on wages received by
youth.”
In Colorado, which has rates ranging from
$.65 to $1 for students and learners (the adult
rate is $1.25), inexperienced young workers in
Denver were receiving $1.35 in hospitals, $1.55
in wholesale trade, and $1.15 to $1.30 in res­
taurants and “drive-ins.” For part-time work
after school, boys were receiving $1.25 to $2 an
hour. Rates were lower in the mountain and
farming areas but still above the allowable min­
imums.
In Ohio, a tabulation of wages paid by 54
food service and lodging establishments not
covered by the FLSA showed that “few estab­
lishment minimums [for different occupations]
were concentrated near the State minimums;
thirty-six, in fact, had minimum rates of $1 to
$1.24; 14 of $1.25 or more.” State minimums
range from $.55 to $.75 per hour ($.80 per hour
for 30 hours or less a week for women and mi­
nors, with a $.15 differential to each rate for
learners.
A corollary indication of the effectiveness of
youth differential rates is found in the extent to
which employers apply for permission to use
these rates. A survey was made by the New
York State Department of Labor in May 1968
of the utilization of youth rate certificates, one
year after the youth rate ($1.35; adult rate of
$1.60) was enacted. Of the establishments with
certificates (77 percent were retail stores and
11 percent were restaurants), only 55 percent
used them. Of these, 20 percent paid the youth
rate to only “some” of the eligible youths.
“Some increased the youth rate to the regular
minimum shortly after the hiring date.” Thir­
ty-seven percent of all the establishments re-

127
ceiving certificates did not use them; they paid
no one less than $1.50 because “they could not
find youths willing to work for $1.25 an hour.”
In New England, where, in every State,
learners' certificates may be granted to employ­
ers on application, the BLS Regional Office re­
ported,
there appears to be little use made of the reduced
rate [since] there would be great difficulty getting
people to work at wages lower than the minimum
State rate . . . With the general exception of
Maine, the entry wage of all inexperienced workers
into most occupations is usually $1.60 to $1.80 per
hour . . . Too many jobs are available at higher
wages, and even the opportunity for some training
does not seem to provide much incentive . . .

In New Hampshire, where an employer can pay
anyone under 18 years of age 75 percent of the
minimum wage, State officials believe that most
youth seekings work “find employment at wages
around the adult minimum ($1.60).” Except for
Maine, this same situation appeared to prevail
throughout New England for students doing
part-time work.
In Hawaii, the use of differential rates for
students has been limited—only 27 certificates
issued to retail trade employers, although it was
suggested that the increase in the adult mini­
mum from $1.25 to $1.60 on July 1, 1969, might
cause increased recourse to this rate. In Idaho,
only 85 learner permits were in effect at the
time of the survey. Similar situations for utili­
zation of learner and student rates prevailed in
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Washing­
ton, Oregon, and others. In the District, the re­
cently promulgated wage order for retail trade
set an adult minimum hourly rate at $1.80 and
a youth (under 18) rate at $1.60; both rates are
to increase on July 1, 1970, to $2 and $1.80.
Although there has been considerable outcry by
District merchants, particularly department
stores, to the extent of taking the increase into
court, it is too soon to evaluate experience
under this order. Some department store execu­
tives have stated that:
The increase will add to inflationary pressures
already existent in the community, strike a harsh
blow to the competitive stance of D.C. retailers
who are already struggling with a decline in busi­




ness, reduce service to D.C. residents through re­
duced shopping hours, reduce employment oppor­
tunities for youth, hard-core unemployed, and the
handicapped, discourage new businesses from com­
ing into the city, and drive small retailers out of
business.

Nevertheless, when asked if the 20-cent differ­
ential might not encourage employment of teen­
agers, the same persons indicated that they
would not hire them because of lack of skill,
work attitudes, and so fourth.
On the other hand, the personnel director of a
leading drug chain indicated that:
In view of the high cost of living and the attitudes
of young people toward wages and work, the in­
crease in the minimum wage would not affect their
employment. Our experience indicates that * lower
rate would only increase job dissatisfaction and
job turnover, and this chain will therefore not take
advantage of the differential.

Only token use has been made of a provision
in all District of Columbia wage orders (other
than retail trade) which allows payment of
$1.45 per hour to workers under 16 who work
less than 36 hours a week.
Most of the learner provisions establish time
limits to the training period at the reduced
wage in a particular establishment or in an oc­
cupation. When this period is relatively Short,
employers tend to ignore the differential. For
example, in Connecticut where the time limit is
200 hours (5 weeks) and the differential is $.35
or a savings of $84 for the period, the personnel
director of a major department store said the
savings were outweighted by the expense of re­
programming the automated recordkeeping and
payroll system at the end of the training period
(assuming youth would accept the lower wage).
In Washington, many employers do not
“bother” filling out the form for the special per­
mit to hire at a lower rate for 480 hours because
the savings of $120 over the full period and the
lesser amounts for shorter periods are not suf­
ficiently great to warrant the bother.
The Commissioner of Labor in Utah did not
believe the learner/student differentials have
increased youth employment but instead dis­
courage young workers who complain of dis­
crimination by these rates. Staff of the State
Employment Service concurred but believed
“wages received by youngsters would be lower
without the State minimum.”

128
Other factors affecting the employment of youth

Without exception, factors other than mini­
mum wage legislation were cited as of signifi­
cantly greater importance in the inhibition of
youth employment. The principal ones are:
Child labor laws, attitudes and conduct of
youth, their lack of training and experience,
employer attitudes, and economic conditions.
Other causes include “red tape” involved in get­
ting differential rates or work certificates,
union restrictions, and problems of transporta­
tion.
labor l a w .7 All the major industrial
States and some of the more rural, agricultural
States included in the study cited various as­
pects of child labor laws as major restrictions
on the employment of persons under 18 years of
age and particularly of those under 16 years.
Every State has a child labor law. These laws
generally establish a minimum age at which a
child may legally take a job, either for full-time
work if he is legally out of school or for work
outside school hours and during the vacation
periods. Almost half the States set a minimum
age of 16 for work in manufacturing establish­
ments. Most of the States set a minimum age of
14 for nonmanufacturing and nonhazardous
employment ' vtside school hours. All but 5
States require an employer to get an employ­
ment certificate before employing a worker
under 16. About half the States require such
certificates for minors of 16 and 17 as well.
Additional legislative safeguards for children
are found in the limitation of daily and weekly
hours for young workers and the restriction of
employment during certain night hours. Most
State laws allow a maximum 8-hour day and a
48-hour week or less for minors under 16; in
fewer States, for those under 18. When children
under 16 attend school and work outside school
hours, almost half the States limit the number
of hours such children may work or specify a
maximum for the total number of daily hours
spent in school and work. Thirty States and the
District of Columbia prohibit night work after
6 p.m. or 7 p.m. for children of both sexes under
16 in all or most occupations.

C h ild




Limitations on hours worked appear to affect
employment of minors under 18 in restaurants
and “drive-ins,” theaters and other places of
amusement and recreation, and retail trade es­
tablishments, particularly in suburban shop­
ping centers. The employment of minors under
18 on swing shifts in manufacturing establish­
ments also is inhibited. Employers who said
they would otherwise hire minors find that the
limit on the number of hours they can work
creates problems because of the necessity to
make exceptions. In the District of Columbia
where girls under 18 years and boys under 16
cannot work after 7 p.m., retail trade employers
stated that this was an important factor re­
stricting the hiring of youth, particularly part
time. Twenty-four States have no night work
prohibition for minors 16 and 17 years old, and
in several of these States hours limitations may
be used as an excuse when the employer does
not want to cite other reasons.
Fifty-one jurisdictions prohibit the employ­
ment of minors under 18, or under 16, in cer­
tain hazardous occupations and over two-thirds
of these jurisdictions have given authority to
the administrative agencies to declare other oc­
cupations hazardous. Many laws prohibit work
in or about mines or quarries, on power-driven
machinery, and the cleaning of machinery in
motion. The Fair Labor Standards Act also pro­
hibits employment of children under 18 in cer­
tain hazardous occupations. These are incorpo­
rated in many State laws.
Safety regulations on employment in hazard­
ous occupations although cited most frequently
as preventing employment in manufacturing
and construction, also affect service stations,
department stores, and agriculture. In some
States, the regulation that a youth under 16 or
under 18 may not operate a gas pump prevents,
in effect, the employment of young men in any
capacity in service stations. The personnel man­
ager of a large department store in New Jersey
stated that his company prefers not to hire mi­
nors under 18, partly because management is
unable to keep a tight control over them to en­
sure that child labor laws are being obeyed. One

129
regulation keeps minors from riding in freight
elevators; the regulation is widely posted, but
enforcement is difficult and the store has been
fined on numerous occasions. In Illinois, it is
claimed that many manufacturers will not hire
those under 18 even though they could legally
do many jobs. Thus, they eliminate possible
legal liabilities arising from unwitting exposure
of minors to hazardous machinery. For exam­
ple, a transfer by a foreman, of a 17 year old
from a bakery shipping department (nonhazardous) to a clean-up job in the mixing depart­
ment, would violate the FLSA. Related to safety
is the question of insurance. In some States,
liability insurance rates are double for youth
under 18 years of age and employers are unwill­
ing to pay the higher premiums. However, a
number of times the insurance risk was not
greater for the younger group and employers
have used safety restrictions and hours limita­
tions as an excuse, for not hiring teenagers.
Although most States appear cognizant of the
necessity for some regulation of working condi­
tions, they also indicate a real need to over-haul
these long-standing provisions in the light of
technological changes, advances in safety mea­
sures, and developments in the operation of re­
tail, restaurant, and service establishments.8
Y outh a t t it u d e s . In almost every State in
which interviews were held, the attitude of the
young worker was cited as a significant factor
contributing to his unemployment. His wage ex­
pectations are unduly high and his concern
about status eliminates many jobs from his con­
sideration. Many teenagers will not accept even
the Federal minimum of $1.60 an hour for un­
skilled work; they prefer no work to acceptance
of a “demeaning” wage for “menial” work.
In the State of Washington, the teenager is
concerned about losing prestige with his peers
by working for a “low wage;” unemployment
has more status. In Boston, Mass., despite con­
sistently high rates of youth unemployment,
“there is an abundance of unfilled jobs for
which almost any youth could qualify. These
jobs pay $1.60 an hour but even the $2 jobs are
unfilled.” In Detroit, “many will not take less
than $1.60—many kids may have unrealistic




ideas as to what their labor is worth to an em­
ployer.” In Minnesota, “a reduced wage
wouldn’t excite kids looking for full-time work.
Many expect $2 an hour, and a few feel $2.50 is
the magic number.” The New Jersey report
states that minimum wage jobs do not appear to
provide sufficient motivation for many young­
sters to leave the ranks of the unemployed.
In States scattered across the country, except
for several mid-Western agricultural States,
various officials are concerned about the lack of
job orientation or motivation among unem­
ployed youth, particularly school dropouts who
ask first about the wage and then about the type
of work. This situation seems to be most acute
with the ghetto youth, especially the Negro
teenagers who have the highest rate of unem­
ployment. In Boston, as elsewhere, “the Negro
youngster is seeking new identity and self­
pride. If a job does not pay $2.50 to $3 an hour,
at least it should call for wearing a shirt and
tie.”
In major cities this study, the majority of
youth who apply to the Youth Employment Op­
portunity Centers are dropouts or youth over 18
looking for full-time work. A high proportion
are Negro. A good share of the jobs available
through the Centers are in the service occupa­
tions (messengers, porters, etc.) or domestic
work, which require little or no experience or
education. However, these jobs are looked on as
menial and low-paying. In urban New Jersey
and New York City, domestic work pays $2 an
hour or more plus carfare and meals, but the
young Negro girl considers such a job as “slave
status” and prefers a factory or clerical job
even though it may pay less.
Some students looking for part-time jobs
after school and summer employment are less
insistent on high wages; they are not willing,
however, in the urban and suburban areas to
accept a wage below the Federal minimum of
$1.60 an hour. Lower wages are more accepta­
ble in rural, small-town and resort areas.
E m p lo y e r a t t it u d e s . These attitudes of unem­
ployed teenagers have little appeal for the aver­
age employer. A number said flatly that they
will not hire anyone under 18, ostensibly in

130
many instances, because of the safety and hours
restrictions of the child labor laws. However,
these reasons would be less important if the em­
ployer “could get a kid who is willing to work.”
States labor and employment service officials,
personnel directors, and employers in nearly
every State cited the following as reasons for
not hiring the younger teenager and, in some
cases, those over 18, as well:
“ Absenteeism is high and so is labor turnover”
“Difficult to get kids to stick to the job”
“ Stay only a few days”
“ Don’t even show after referral”
“Long hair”
“Less dependable than adult”
“Lack sense of responsibility”
L ack

of e d u c a t io n , t r a in in g , an d e x p e r ie n c e .

An almost universal reason given by employers,
and others, for not hiring teenagers looking for
full-time jobs was the general lack of education
and training. Experience seemed to be second­
ary at least for the under 18 age group. Em­
ployers in the District of Columbia cited lack of
skills and lack of “knowledge of the world of
work” as the greatest factors affecting the em­
ployment of young people. “The majority are
ill-equipped in both education and the psycho­
logical sense to enter the labor force in a mean­
ingful and rewarding fashion.” In North Da­
kota, most jobs require some skill, and the “kids
don’t have it.” In a number of States, employ­
ment blamed the school system, as in California
where an employer association representative
summed it up, as follows:
Today’s youth are dumped on the labor market
without any orientation. Kids don’t know how to
look for a job. Youth are less productive, less pre­
pared in reading and arithmetic. High school grad­
uation is no longer any guarantee of ability to
read and write.

Employers also complain of extensive misrepre­
sentation of qualifications and work experience.
A few voices suggested that employers might
use these arguments—irresponsibility and lack
of training—to disguise a general unwillingness
to hire teenagers, and particularly the Negro
ghetto resident.
Most of these complaints, as well as those
listed in the preceding section, were directed
against applicants for full-time work; more fa­




vorable attitudes were voiced toward students
as part-time workers and those in vocational
training and cooperative work programs.
Ot h e r fa c to r s . Several other factors were
cited as having an unfavorable impact on the
employment of youth. In about half the States
covered by the survey, the complexities, or “red
tape,” involved in getting work certificates for
young people, or employer permits to hire stu­
dents and learners at reduced rates, were suf­
ficiently frustrating to cause some employers
not to hire anyone under 18 (especially when
the learner period is short) and some teenagers
not to apply. For example, in North Carolina
the BLS Regional office reported.
The young jobseeker often feels it is too much
trouble going through all the red tape . . . a trip
to secure the forms, then trips for the health ex­
amination, school record, employment and birth
certificates, and return trips to the issuing agency
to secure a worker’s permit. Quite frequently, the
youth are frustrated to the extent that they aban­
don the idea of employment. The overall feeling,
however, is that procedures for securing a work
permit should be made simpler for both the em­
ployer and the minor.

In Pennsylvania
There is a great deal of red tape involved before
an employer can get permission to hire youth at the
differential rate. Employers must apply in writing
for permission to hire at $1 an hour. They must
also submit a training program which is subject
to inspection by the Bureau of Labor Standards.
In addition, all minors under 18 years of age must
have an employment certificate signed by the par­
ent or guardian, the minor, and the employer. This
certificate must also designate the job for which
the minor is being hired and the employer must
obtain a new certificate every time the minor
changes jobs.

In about an equal number of States, employers
found no problems with the relatively simple
systems in effect. Some went further, as in Ore­
gon where one employer said the “work permit
procedure was a help in his operations, reliev­
ing the company of a lot of investigative work
by providing such information as proof of age
and authority to work in his type of establish­
ment.”

131
For the teenager living in the “inner city,”
the cost of transportation to suburban concen­
trations of industry may make the holding of a
job an economic impossibility. This was cited as
an unemployment factor in most of the large
metropolitan areas.
Union barriers to employment of youth under
18 appear to be significant, primarily for retail
grocery trade and construction. However, in
these industries, the limitations on night work
and the ban on hazardous occupations, respec­
tively, seem to be of greater importance. In a
few States, it was suggested that elimination of
Social Security and Unemployment Insurance
payments for part time and summer employees
would encourage employers to hire more teen­
agers.
Conclusions

The report for the State of Pennsylvania
sums up youth unemployment in the following
terms:
In general, there seems to be some sort of stand­
off. The youth in the labor force are unwilling to
accept work at either the State or Federal mini­
mum wage levels and hardly anyone can be per­
suaded to work at the State youth differential
wage. The employer is also unwilling to pay more
than the minimum wage or differential unless he
can hire someone who is skilled or at least had

some type of vocational training. All people inter­
viewed agreed that there is growing pressure on
the employer to hire at more than the minimum
wage. However, they also agreed that the employer
is reluctant to do so because of the quality of the
workers he is receiving.

and in New England
In most of New England, employers did not usually
find young people the ideal employee in terms of
turnover, absenteeism, and motivation. Neverthe­
less, they seemed willing to employ all they could
get. The high statistics rate of unemployment of
teenagers seems paradoxical to many employers
and employment agents as the job vacancies, par­
ticularly in the metropolitan areas, exceed the
number of applicants. The jobs that go unfilled
usually pay the minimum wage, require no skill,
and perhaps appear to be dead-end to the young­
sters. Experience with ghetto youths further ac­
cented the fact that the youngsters were often
seeking wages higher than the minimum wage,
particularly when the job was not appealing. . . .
The general conclusion of this brief study then is
that unemployment among youth in the New Eng­
land region cannot be considered in the traditional
sense of a simple unemployment model. The youth
labor supply function seems to include variables
at least as significant as the wage. Hinted at were
such elements as the affluence of society, the exist­
ing welfare system, the moribund Protestant ethic,
and the vastly different frame of reference with
which many youngsters view work as part of their
life.

-F O O T N O T E S1 The Fair Labor Standards Act allows differential
rates to be paid to learners, apprentices, messengers,
handicapped workers, and full-time students employed
in retail or service establishments or in agriculture if
special certificates first are obtained from the U.S. De­
partment of Labor.
2Estimates of employees covered by State minimum
wage laws only are for those States having minimum
wage laws or orders enacted or revised from 1962 to
December 1, 1968. For further information, see U.S.
Department of Labor, M in im u m W age and M axim u m

H ou rs S ta n d a rd s U n der th e F a ir L abor S ta n d a rd s A c t
— su b m itte d to the C on gress —1969.

3Data on coverage in Puerto Rico and Texas are not
included.
4This exemption does not apply to youth employed in
agriculture who are paid on a piece rate basis.




5Provisions relating to cooperative education pro­
grams are not included. For information on States
which have such programs, see appendix B.
6Law effective February 1, 1970. See footnote 4 page
266.
7 For a detailed description of child labor laws in the
States, see Bureau of Labor Standards Bulletin 158
(revised), S ta te C h ild L a b o r S ta n d a rd s , U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor, 1965.
8 Some States are taking another look at their safety
regulations. In Oregon, the laws were revised recently
to allow minors to operate farm tractors and to act as
helpers on trucks, thus creating additional jobs for
youth. Officials in Connecticut have looked more closely
at the occupations and industries presumed to be dan­
gerous and found that a considerable number could be
eliminated from the prohibited list.

132
APPENDIX A
Type of differential provisions in States minimum wage laws, 1969
Type of law
establishing
rate

State

Type of differential
Comments

Minors (under 18
unless otherwise specified)

Learners

Students

Alabama___________ None_________
Alaska......................... Statute............... Exempts part time workers._____
Arizona____________ Wage order........

Exempt.......................

Arkansas___ _______
California............... .

Lower rate by application 12___
Specific rate

Statute_______
Wage order____

Specific rate

Colorado.....................

Wage order____

Connecticut____ ____

Statute....... ....... Specific rate
Wage order____ Specific rate
Statute............
Wage order____ Specific rate

_ . ____ _____

Specific rate

Delaware___________
District of Columbia.. .
Florida....... ............ .
Georgia____________ None___ _____
Hawaii_____________ Statute_______
Idaho....... ............ ....... Statute_______
Illinois___ _________ Wage boards—
inoperative.
Indiana...... ................. Statute_______ Exempt.
Iowa_____ _________ None.................
Kansas_____________ Wage boards—
inoperative.
Kentucky____ ______ Wage order____
Louisiana___________ Wage boards—
inoperative.
Maine______ _______ Statute ..
Maryland..................... Statute_______
Massachusetts_______ Statute
( 4)
Wage order . ._
Michigan_____ _____ Statute. _ . . Exempt..........
_
Minnesota__________ Wage order. . . Specific rate..

_ __
___
_____

Statute
_ __
Statute
Wage order __
New Jersey___ _____ St ,tute_______
Wage order___
New Mexico________ Statute
_ __
New York__________ Statute _ ___
Wage order___
North Carolina....... .
Statute
___
North Dakota_______ Wage order
Ohio___ ___________ Wage order . . .

No minimum rates have
been specified.
__

No minimum rates have
been specified.

Specific rate 2 . _
Exempt.......... .......
)

0

Exempt . . .

Exempt................
Specific rate.

West Virginia_____ ..

...........
___

Specific rate.
_______
Specific rate
_______
Exempts those under 16, over 65..

_____
__ _

Lower rate by application
Specific rate
Exempt
Specific rate
Specific rate

0)

Lower rate by application.
o
<2> _
Specific
rate. ______
Specific rate 2_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Exempt___
Specific rate........... . . . _____

"Otherwise provided by law” __

Lower rate by application_____
Specific rate________________
"Otherwise provided by law” __
Specific rate________________
Specific rate________________
Lower rate by application_____
Specific rate___ ____________
Specific rate.. ____________
Lower rate by application____
Specific rate...................... .........
Specific rate__________ _____
Lower rate by application...........

No provisions have been
made for learners.

Minors covered by wage
orders only.

Law applies to women and
minors only.
Minors covered by wage
order only.

Lower rate by application....... .
Lower rate by application_____

Exempt 5.
Specific rate................. ............

Specific rate__________ _____

Effective January 1, 1970.
Law applies to women and
minors only.

Exempt...................................... Lower rate by application...........
Exempt................................... . Specific rate________________

Statute
___
Wage order___
Statute___ _
Exempt
Wage order___ -Specific rate
Statute

_

__ ____
_ ..

Wisconsin. ________

Wage order____ Specific rate _ ________ ____ _
Statute

Minors covered by wage
orders only.
Persons engaged in on-thejob training are exempt.
Lower rate by application........... Law applies to women and
minors only.

Lower rate by application_____
<2)
Specific rate________________
Exempt___ ______ __________ Exempt____________________

0)

Exempt

permits or exemptions for those in co-operative education programs.
3*1Special
Students working for the school or college they are attending are exempt.
Indiana exempts trainees in embalming.




No minimum rates have
been specified.
Lower rate by application_____
Specific rate________________
Lower rate by application .
Specific rate........................... .
Lower rate by application____
Specific rate____ ____________ Law applies to women and
minors only. Specific
rates for minors in
amusement and recrea­
tion only.

Specific rate_______________
Specific rate______________

Exempt12

Wyoming

_____

. . .

..........
...

1

Vermont___________

_ _

_ _______
_____

Statute............ Exempt___
Statute
__ Exempt
Specific rate
Wage order
Pennsylvania________ Statute
Puerto Rico______ . . Statute
. ..
Wage order
Rhode Island........ ....... Statute
_ ..
Wage order___
South Carolina............. N one................
South Dakota_______ Statute
___ Exempts those under 17
ennessee..................
Texas__________ . . . Statute
___ Exempt if a “dropout” 5
Utah______________ Wage order____

Virginia____________
Washington..................

( s)

( 2)

Specific rate___________ ____

Specific rate. .
Specific rate

Oklahoma__________
Oregon____________

Lower rate by application_____
Lower rate by application____

Specific rate 1

Mississippi...................
Missouri___________
Montana______
None....... ..........
Nebraska___________ Statute _ ___
Nevada. _ ______ _
New Hampshire ___

(0

Lower rate by application
Specific rate _ _

Lower rate by application
Specific r a t e . . - . ...... ................ Law applies to women and
minors only.
Lower rate by application
Specific rate. ._ __
_ __ Law applies to women and
minors only.
Specificrate..
Law appl ies to women and
minors only.
Lower rate by application
Specific rate__ ___ _
_____
Lower rate by application....... .
Specific rate..................... ........

4 Massachusetts exempts those under 17 employed in agriculture.
5 If not employed in agriculture and paid on a piece rate basis.

133
APPENDIX B
Basic adult minimum wage rates and specified1 differential rates by State, June 1969
Basic adult minimum wage

Differential

State
Rate per hour

Legal authority 2

_

__

General
_
General. . .
._

Florida
___
Georgia
_ ____
Hawaii _ _________

General

_____

Illinois

General___ _ _
Kansas
Kentucky
|onisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts

General. __

_____ ______
_

__

_____

___ General.......... ... _ ...... .......... .
_ __ General.......... ...
. . . ___
General
Agriculture
_ _
Wage order:
Mercantile_________ ________
Others........................
_ _ __
Michigan
General
Minnesota_____ _____ Wage order:
Amusement................ ..........
Personal service
Public housekeeping
Retail________. . .
Laundry
Others
Mississippi
_ __
Montana
Nebraska
General
General___ ____ ____
Nevada_____
New Hampshire____ _ General.........................
New lersey
General

_ __

Mercantile .

New York

________

_

_ _

90
90
91

Learners.................... Effective 9/10/54
Learners...............
Effective 9/12/48
Learners................... Effective 8/10/54

1.65

1.35

.30

82

Minors; students;
learners.

1.1.6010

1.00-.60
.90
1.25

.25-.40

..3520

80-60
82
78

.20
.15

89
91

1.25
1.80
1.60

1.60
1.45

None
None
$1.40

1.10—.95

.65-.55
1.125
1.04

1.60
1.60
1.25

.90
.85

« .85, .80, .75
. 00-.90
‘ 1.00-.80
s.85-.70
e.85-.70
1.15

.75
.95-.85
.95-.75
.70-.60

61

6
1.1.3000
1.05
1.60
1.50

1.1..850200

_

Wage order:
Hotel............................... ..........

1.60




1.15

1..925
20
< 1.35-1.25
1.25

1.60
1.30
1.60

See footnotes at end of table.

1.00

1.25
None
1.25
None
None
* .75-.65
None
1.50
1.30
1.60
1.50

General
_
__ _ _ __
Agriculture, service employees___
General______________________

North Carolina
General .
______
North Dakota______ _ Wage order:
Dry cleaning__________ _____
Laundry............. ..................... .
Manufacturing___ _______ _
Mercantile_________________
Professional, technical, clerical_
Public housekeeping:
Chambermaid..._______
Waiter; kitchen help______
Telephone..................................

Comments»

$.06
.05
.05

Wage order:
Beauty culture.
.
_____
Laundry, dry cleaning, dyeing

New Mexico

Applicable to

$.54
.47
.50

*1.25-1.00

____________ _______

General______________________

Youth minimum
rate as a
percent of
adult minimum

.60
.52
.55

1.00

_____
__ _ _____

Colorado____________ Wage order:
Beauty service
___________
Others........ .......................... .
Connecticut_________ General___
__ . . . _______
___
Delaware
_ __ General
District of Columbia___ Wage order:
Retail trade........................ .........
Others __ _ . . . ____ _____

Amount of
differential

None
$2.10

_ __
Alabama__
Alaska_____ ___ ____ General...........................................
Arizona................ ......... Wage order:
Dry cleaning
__ _
Laundry
_ _
Arkansas.„
California

Rate
per hour

1.25

1..9000
1.25
1.1.4500
1..9000

1.25-1.00

1.20
1.35
1.20

1.35

.90
.80
1.15
.75
1.30
.75
.65
1.00-.75

Learners............ .......
Students; learners.._
Minors;learners___
Minors;learners___
Students............ .......

Students...............

Part-time workers
under 16.
Lower rate for under
16 years.

.30-.45

79-68

.25

80

.10

87-85

.375
.26

75
80

Students__________ Under 19 years.
Learners...................

.70
.75

56
53

Learners............ .......
Learners...................

.10, .05, .00
.05
.05
.15-.10

88-94
95-94
95-94
82-86

Minors................ .
Learners__________
Learners__ _______
Learners.................

.15
.125
.40

8888

75

Learners____ _____

Learners...................

Effective 2/17/57
Effective 4/22/61
Effective 7/8/59
Effective 1/14/57
Effective 1/14/57

Minors___________
Learners............ ....... Girls 18 and under.
Minors__________
Minors exempt from
statute; covered
by wage order s
only.

.15-.25
.25
.30
.50
.65

90-83
83
80
67
57

Minors___________
Minors __________
Learners__________
Minors
_____
Students; learners...

.25
.40

84
75

Minors . _ ______
Learners__________

.25
.40

84
75

Minors __________
Students____ _____

.15

90
89
92
75
90

Learners _ ___ _
Learners __ __ _
Learners
_ _
Learners.. ____ _
Learners__________

.25
.25
.25

75
72
80-75

...111000
.25

As of 1961 and 1962.

Learners
Learners__________ Effective 6/28/66
Learners._ _____

134

APPENDIX B
Basic adult minimum wage rates and specified1 differential rates by State, June 1969— Continued
Differential

Basic adult minimum wage
State
Legal authority 2

Ohio..............................

Oklahoma___ _______
Oregon_____________

Wage order:
Cleaning, dyeing
__ _
Food and 1edging
Laundry____w__r____________
Retail trade________________
General___________ ____ _____
General_______ ________ ____

Wage order:
Amusement, recreation
Beauty shops____
Canning, freezing, processing,._
Homes for the aged, child care
agencies.
Hospitals, nursing homes

Pennsylvania________
Rhode Island________

1.1.2500
1.1.2500

1
1.25
1.2$

1.25
.2$
1.25

1.25
1.25
1.25

Minors...................... ................

11.2$
.2$
1.25

Office........ ............................ .
Personal service_____ _____ _
Preparing poultry, etc____ . . .
Public housekeeping_________
Telephone and telegraph______
General.
_ ........................ ...
General.
_
........................
Wage order:
Laundry, dry cleaning________
Public housekeeping______ . .
Restaurant and hotel_________
Retai 1trade________________

General.......... ...
_ __
Wage order:
Hotel, motel, tourist place,
restaurant.
Other... __________________

Virginia____ ________
Washington_________ General...........................................

Wage order:
General amusement, recreation..
Health care______________ ._
Laundry, dry cleaning_______
Manufacturing______________
Mercantile_________________
Public housekeeping_________
Theatrical, amusement_______
West Virginia________
Wisconsin___________
Wyoming___________

$
.91
' 4.75-.S§

Laundry, cleaning, and dyeing..
Manufacturing_______ ____ _
Mercantile_____________ ____

South Carolina............ .
South Dakota................ General
Tennessee...... .......... .
Texas____ __________ General. _
Utah.......... .................. General. .
Vermont____________

Rate per hour

Others______________________
General. _. _________________
General______ ______ ____ _ __
General_____ ____ ______ ___

Rate

per hour

$
.75
*.60-.40
.85

1.00

1

66
41.40-.06
1.40
M
1.00

.60
1.15

1..8500
6.7S-.65
1.00
6.0$-.75
.80
1.00
l.oe
.85
.66
1..7500

.15
.15
.15
.25

83
80- 73
85
80

Applicable to

Comments 1

Learners__
____ Effective 1/2/63
Learners__________ Effective 2/1/65
Learners.................
Learners...................

.10
.65

.25
.40
.50-.60
.25
.40-.50
.45
.25
.25
.40
.6$

48
92
80
08
60-52
80
68-60
64
80
80

68
48

80
60
60

Minors___________
Minors......................
Minors __ ...........
Minors__ __ ____
Learners.......... .........
Minors................ .....
Learners....................
Minors___________
Minors___________
M m ors.._____. . .
Students; learners...
Minors
_
. . All industries not
otherwise covered.
Learners . __ _.
Minors...... ............ .
Minors___________
Minors................. .
Minors___________
Students;learners...

.75
.85
.75

1.00

.25
.59
.50
.40
.50
.30

60
77

1.30
.55
.77-.57
.95-,85

.30
1.05
.83-1.03
.65-.75

81
34
48-36
59-53

Students___
Students........
Students___
Students___ _

.13-.78
1.0S-.9Q

..1202

81-78
91-90

Students
Learners_______ _

1.15-.75

.25-.10

82-88

Learners........ ..........

1.25

.1$

89

Learners___ _____

68

(without meals).

om

1.00
1.00
1.1.06
1.0000
1.60
1.00
1.1.6060
1.30
1.30

1 Rates for students and learners may also be set upon application by employer.
(S ee appendix A.)
2 Legislation (statute, wage order, or combination thereof) establishes same basic
rate; wage orders are specified by name only where provisions vary among them;
only those wage orders are included which establish differential rates.




$

Youth minimum
rate as a
percent of
adult minimum

Minors exempt from
statute; covered
by wage orders
only.

1.25
1.25
1.30
i.ee
1.60
.S0
1.60
1.60
Hone
1.06
Hen#
1.25
1.15-1.00
1.15-1.06
1.06

Amount of
differential

Minors exempt from
statute; covered
by wage orders
only.

1.1.0200
1.25
1.25

1.25
1.25
1.90
1.25

1.00
1.25
1.1.2500
1.10

..3500

..3500
.60
.35
..3566

78
63
75
78
78
78
63
78
63
78
63
78

Minors.......................
Learners 7.................
Minors 7
Minors._
Minors._
Minors.. _
Learners 7__.............
Minors. _
Learners 7 _______
Minors
Learners 7________
Minors

.29

85

Minors

.40
.35
.35
.36

3 Effctive date given for laws which establish an adult minimum of less than $1.00.
4 Rate varies by occupation or industry.
8 Rate varies by zone.
6 Rate varies by degree ef experience.
7 Applies to minors during first 48 hours of employment.

CHAPTER X

Youth Wage Rate Schemes in Western Europe
and Canada and Their Effect on
Youth Unemployment
Modern industrialized countries have had
varying degrees of success in coping with youth
unemployment. Some such as the United King­
dom, Japan, Germany and The Netherlands
have been quite successful. Others have more or
less serious problems. A study of the relative
successes and failures in this area is difficult be­
cause statistics are often deficient and not many
useful studies have been made about the princi­
pal causes of unemployment among young peo­
ple. The most successful countries, in terms of
maintaining low unemployment rates for teen­
agers, have not bothered to analyze the cause of
their success.
John W. Piercey, management consultant, prepared
this chapter under contract for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Officials of governments, trade unions, em­
ployer organizations and foundations were interviewed
in Canada (also the provinces of Quebec and Ontario),
the United Kingdom, France and The Netherlands.
Materials and views also were solicited by letter and
telephone from people in seven provinces in Canada
and from various individuals in the United Kingdom
and France. The U.S. Labor Attaches and their staffs
were most helpful in the countries visited. Appreciation
is also due the foreign labor attaches assigned to Wash­
ington from the above countries and to various U.S.
Department of Labor officials. Views expressed in this
study are solely the responsibility of the author.
Footnotes begin on p. 148, tables on p. 149.




This study reviews unemployment among
youth1 in three countries—the United Kingdom,
France, and Canada. Shorter evaluations of the
subject are made for West Germany and The
Netherlands. Government, labor, and employer
representatives were interviewed in all but
West Germany. An attempt has been made to
evaluate the status of youth employment, the
factors contributing to the levels of unemploy­
ment, and in particular, the effect of the
schemes of lower wage rates for young people.
The general situation for each country can be
briefly described as follows:
In the United Kingdom, unemployment of
both youth and adults is around 2 to 2.5 percent
(table 10.1). There are good counselling and
placement services and a large apprenticeship
program. Youth enter employment at about 80
percent of adult earnings and, by steps, reach
adult wages commonly at age 21 for men and 18
for girls.
Unemployment data in France are not cur­
rent but adult unemployment is low and youth
unemployment high—probably about 10 percent
in early 1968. Counselling and placement serv­
ices are widely criticized as inadequate, and
participation in apprenticeship programs is
about half that of the United Kingdom. Youth
135

136
enter employment at about 70 percent of adult
earnings at age 16 and reach the adult rate at
18.
In Canada, adult unemployment was under 5
percent and youth unemployment just under 11
percent in 1968. There are the usual employ­
ment services available to youth but no special­
ized services except for students. The appren­
ticeship program is proportionally larger than
that of the United States, but much smaller
than most European programs. The rates for
youth are not much below the minimums set for
adults and have a brief duration. There is com­
pulsory schooling to age 16 and adult rates are
effective at 17 or 18.
The German and Dutch scenes are similar to
the British—low unemployment for both adults
and youth; good counselling and placement
services, large apprenticeship systems and
heavy abatements from adults rates, though
smaller abatements in the German case.
Canada, France, and The Netherlands—
have statutory minimum wages. In Canada
and France the minimum wage laws provide
lower rates for youth. In all of the five countries
but Canada, collective bargaining, in effect, also
sets minimum wages by branch of industry. In
these four European countries a system of
lower minimum rates are included in the collec­
tive bargaining contracts. Thus youth rate
schemes are in two structures: in statutory
minimum wage laws and in collective bargain­
ing. Of the five countries only France has youth
rate schemes both in collective bargaining and
in the statutory minimum wage law. The
United Kingdom has a type of quasi-collective
bargaining in Wage Councils for the unorgan­
ized trades, which also set minimum rates for
youth.
The apprenticeship programs—which are a
system of lower rates in themselves—have spe­
cial relevance to our study for (1) where they
are large they provide employment security to a
good portion of the young people in the labor
force and(2) they provide for rates substan­
tially under adult wages and thus tend to deter­
mine the youth rate schemes outside of appren­
ticeships. Table 10.2 shows that the United
Kingdom has double and Germany three times
the relative number of apprentices as France.




Apparently, where the mass of youth are in­
volved in apprenticeships, unemployment of
youth will be low.
What are the abatements in wages for youth ?
In Canada the reductions are small—perhaps
averaging 20 percent—and the duration for the
individual is only a year or so. The reductions
in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands
are large and extend over about six years. In
France the reductions are only 20 to 30 percent
and, considering the compulsory school age of
16, are in effect about 2 years. The German
youth rates are moderate but the apprentice­
ship program is, in effect, the system of reduced
earnings for youth.
Although there are many other factors—es­
pecially the machinery of assisting youth to find
jobs—certainly the size of the apprenticeship
programs and the extent of the application of
the youth rate schemes have a definite correla­
tion with the rate of employment of youth in
the countries considered.
Youth unemployment levels result from a
combination of factors. The number of youth in
the population is very important. Here again
West Germany and the United Kingdom have
the advantage over the United States, Canada,
and France. The machinery for helping youth
make the transition from school to work is
weak in France and strong in the United King­
dom and Germany.
Indirect evidence exists that systems of lower
rates for youth are essential to the achievement
of full employment for youth. In some Canadian
provinces—particularly in Quebec—the Minis­
try of Labour officials were quite positive that
the lower rates were useful in placing youth in
some kinds of employment and in some areas.
In British Columbia the rate system was felt to
be of no value in the present labour market.
Government officials in Canada as well as other
countries believed that the lower rates were nec­
essary and useful.
Fearing that they might depress wages in al­
ready low-paying industries, trade union leaders
in Canada were rather negative about youth
rates. In the United Kingdom, trade unionists
saw some possible abuses but in general thought
the youth rates justified by the various liabili-

137
ties to the employer in youth labor. They felt
that nonapprenticed youth must be paid rates
that were similar to those of apprentices. Youth
wage rates in France, according to a French
trade unionist, are a means of exploiting youth
who often produced more on the job and were
paid much less. French labor-management con­
tracts have interesting examples of exceptions
to youth rates when the youth’s training or
productivity justify higher pay or when the
youth is performing “adult’s” work.
Except for Canada, where some provinces
have recently adopted youth rates, youth rates
have not been consciously considered as a means
of counteracting unemployment among young
people. In Europe, the system simply derived
from a time when boys and girls went to work
before they were physically grown and lacked
skills and experience. It was natural to “pay a
boy a boy’s wage.” Apprenticeships set the pat­
tern.
Has the youth rate system a future in view of
the rapid social and educational changes ?
Youth now enter the labor market at a later age
because of constantly rising compulsory school
age requirements. With better diets they are
healthier and stronger. They are better schooled
and trained than their elders and may enter a
firm now with training more appropriate for
today’s technology than older workers. Added
to these factors are the rising expectations and
ambitions of young people. Do these changes
make a youth differential rate system an
anachronism? Some British respondents, in­
deed, saw the system disappearing in time. In
any case some felt that there was need to rede­
fine “youth” and that the age of 26, 23, or even
21 was no longer a proper boundary between
youth and adult.
To what extent have youth rates, which are
permissive and not manadatory on the em­
ployer, become traditional and universally ap­
plied where they are no longer justified? Can­
ada, where youth rates are rather new, does not
have that problem and the lower rates are ap­
plied only in certain kinds of employment. Data
on earnings of youth in the United Kingdom do
not indicate many exceptions to universal appli­
cation of youth rates. Perhaps a country adopt­
ing a youth rate system for the first time would




not tend to apply lower rates universally simply
because the rate system existed in law.
The experience in the United Kingdom

British experience is especially valuable be­
cause the United Kingdom has been successful
in providing full employment for young people
(table 10.3) and because the system of lower
rates for young workers is widely applied.
The United Kingdom has only occasionally
made labor force surveys; hence, data are based
on administrative statistics such as registration
at employment exchanges. Even if unemploy­
ment is understated, all evidence points to a
very low rate of unemployment for adults as
well as youth.
Labor supply-demand is healthy as shown by
the Monthly Statement on the Employment Sit­
uation for Young Persons issued by the General
Youth Employment Executive of the Depart­
ment of Employment and Productivity which
shows substantially more vacancies than un­
employed 15- to 18-year-old youths (table 10.4).
Some regions varied in supply-demand but
only in the Northern, Wales, and Scotland re­
gions were the number of unemployed and the
vacancies nearly in balance. Girls were in a
more favorable position than boys in all re­
gions.
Those interviewed for this study stated that
youth was much in demand in most communi­
ties and occupations. This demand was attri­
buted to numerous factors: (1) no social secu­
rity taxes for youth under 16, (2) preferen­
tially low rates on boys and girls in the Selec­
tive Employment Tax of 1966; (3) employers
desire to protect their future labor supply; (4)
the lower wage scales for youth both under the
Wage Councils and in regular collective bar­
gaining; (5) the very extensive apprenticeship
schemes with their lower wages; and (6) the
new post-war attitude toward young people
which places a higher priority on their role in
society.
Unlike France, the birthrate after the war
did not put pressures on the labor market.
From 1950 to 1956 there was a lower level of
births—an age group which would now be com­
ing into the labor force.2

138

Extension of the school leaving age has had a
moderate effect on the number of youth en­
tering the labor force. After the war compul­
sory schooling was extended to age 15, but the
planned advance to age 16 has had to be de­
ferred until 1972-73 for budgetary reasons.
Britain thus differs from France and other
modern nations in this regard.
Schooling beyond the compulsory age is lim­
ited to a relatively small percentage of youths.
Although 91 percent of the 11-14 year olds and
57 percent of 15 year olds were enrolled in
school, the proportion dropped to 24 percent at
age 16, 12 percent at age 17, and 4 percent at
age 18.
In 1965-66, 509,000 left school to enter full­
time employment. This included 328,000 who
were 15 years of age, 122,000 who were 16,
35,000 who were 17 and 24,000 who were 18
years of age or over. Most British youth enter
fulltime employment by the age of 16. The po­
tential expansion of education to higher age lev­
els offers Britian a cushion to counteract unem­
ployment of youth in future years.
Although the quantity of youth available to
the labor market is expanding only moderately,
the quality is unquestionably higher due to the
extensive educational reforms underway in the
post-war period. This improvement has two as­
pects: changes in the regular schools, and im­
provement and intensification of education and
training for those at work.
Training for industry has been the domain of
industry, largely implemented through appren­
ticeship. The present apprenticeship system
was organized in the Victorian age after the
Elizabethan apprenticeship code had fallen into
disuse. Unions and employers adopted a com­
pact based on 5 years of apprenticeship before
the youth entered a skill and joined the union.
Concomitantly training courses were developed
in schools and technical colleges. These two sys­
tems had little coordination until recent
changes.3
In the post-war period a number of studies
focused on the inadequacies of the apprentice­
ship system, particularly its content, method,
and organization. Boys and girls not entering
apprenticeship needed training in new technolo­




gies and skills. A 1962 Government white paper
said:
At present, training for industry in this country
is primarily the responsibility of individual firms,
through Government, local education authorities,
and other agencies such as the City and Guilds of
London Institute are helping. A serious weakness
in our present arrangements is that the amount
and quantity of industrial training are left to the
un-coordinated decisions of a large number of in­
dividual firms. The Government has therefore de­
cided that the time has come to strengthen and
improve the existing partnership between industry,
the Government and the educational authorities in
the provision of industrial training.4

As a result of a series of studies, the In­
dustrial Training Act of 1964 was adopted. Its
purposes are: to ensure an adequate supply of
properly trained men and women at all levels of
industry; to improve the quality and efficiency
of industrial training; and to share the cost of
training more evenly among firms. Industrial
training boards have been established for 26
branches of industry covering 15 million work­
ers. A steady expansion of training programs
and released-time attendance at government-op­
erated colleges has been developed for youth not
included in apprenticeships. In 1968, 12 percent
of the boys and 14 percent of the girls entering
employment were in programs providing for
planned training, often for outside school at­
tendance one day a week.5
The apprenticeship program remains a major
channel for employment and training. Of the
256.000 boys who entered employment in 1968,
110.000 or 43 percent obtained apprenticeships.
Only 7.4 percent of the girls were apprenticed.
The Official Handbook for 1969 gives the num­
ber of apprentices as 112,000 for the construc­
tion trades and 800,000 for other employment, a
total of 912,000. A comparable number in the
United States in relation to population would be
about three million. Although U.S. apprentice­
ships are restricted largely to areas such as con­
struction and printing, they are found in almost
every kind of occupation and industry in Brit­
ain including agriculture, basic manufacturing,
distributive trades, and insurance.

139

Though prevalent, the apprenticeship system
has been widely criticized. Gregoire points out
that no real supplementary training was being
given a large proportion of apprentices.6 The
training has often been called obsolete for the
higher technology in today’s industry. Trade
unionists interviewed thought in general that
the training in many industries and occupations
was too long. The trend is toward shorter terms
of apprenticeship but most are still 5 years.
The extent of the apprenticeship system de­
termines the level of young people’s wages. Var­
ious government, labor, and management repre­
sentatives were unanimous in stating that to
pay adult wages to nonapprenticed youth would
be impractical; but to pay standard low rates,
such as 30 percent of adult wages for a 15year-old, to youth in apprenticeship programs
would discourage youth from accepting appren­
ticeships.
One of the principal factors contributing to
high employment of youth in Britian is the ad­
ministrative structure for channeling youth
into jobs. The main structure for aiding youth
seeking employment is the Youth Employment
Service, created under the Employment and
Training Act of 1948. Its functions are: (1) To
inform young people, their parents, and their
schools about employment and careers; (2) to
give vocational guidance to young people in
their later years at school; (3) to help young
people find suitable employment and employers
to find suitable workers; and (4) to follow-up
the progress of young people in employment
and give further help and advice when needed.
Although the Central Youth Executive oper­
ates under the Ministry of Labour, 500 youth
employment offices are established at the local
level by the school authorities.7 (If the school
authorities fail to do so, the Ministry of Labour
establishes the local structure.) This responsi­
bility for the schools is based on the principle
that adequate guidance at the transitional stage
from school to work (needs to be based upon a
thorough knowledge both of the youth and of
the field of employment. Although children
from the more affluent (families do not usually
avail themselves of this service, as many as 85
percent of school leavers get counselling and up




to 40 or 50 percent are placed on their first job
through this service.
System of lower rates for youth

The United Kingdom does not have a uniform
national minimum wage system, although the
Department of Employment and Productivity
has made a study for possible adoption of such
a scheme.8 Minimum wages are, however, estab­
lished by two kinds of agreements: (1) collec­
tive bargaining agreements which cover 14.5
million workers, and (2) agreements negotiated
under the Wages Council System by labor, man­
agement, and public members for unorganized
workers in 57 branches of industry and repre­
senting 3.5 million workers.9
In nearly all cases, both kinds of agreements
provide for a scale of reduced wages for youth.
The agreements set forth step increases by age,
over a span of several years, until the adult
wage is received. Boys and girls usually have
separate schedules. The provisions for the
youth rates vary as to age at which the adult
wage is received, the number of years of step
increases and the rate, or percentage of adult
rate, at each step.
Samples are given of the scale of youth rates
for both the wages council system and regular
labor management contracts in appendix I of
this chapter. Youth rates commonly start at
about 30 percent of adult rates at age 15 and
reach the adult wage at 21 years of age for men
and at 18 for women. This does not mean the
women may surpass the men in earnings for
women may earn only 70 to 90 percent as much
as men. There is some tendency for the age for
achieving adult earnings to be reduced. Re­
cently, for example it was reduced from 24 to
21 for shop assistants.
The extent to which young people (age 20
and under) on lower wages are doing what
might be called “youth” work rather than work
normally assigned to adults is not known. Some
contracts, however, do accept the principle that
all doing adult work should be paid adult wages.
Contracts for the cement and the rubber indus­
tries, for example, provide: “Juveniles em­
ployed on recognized adult work shall be paid

140

as adults.” The contract between the Union of
Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the
Retail Co-Operative Movement gave the follow­
ing scale for skilled butchery assistants, those
having completed their apprenticeships and
having passed the Craftsman’s Certificate Ex­
amination or the Meat Trades Diploma Exam­
ination: (rate pre month in shillings)
A g e ___________
18
Rate __________ 183/6

19
201/6

20
221

21
273/6

In this case, skilled operatives are paid substan­
tially less for no reason except age.
Certainly a large part of the youth receiving
lower wages are doing work equal to that of an
adult. Some are doing boy’s and girl’s work—
such as messenger boys and helpers.
The employer must consider certain liabilities
in hiring youth. Child protection laws limit
overtime, weekly hours, night work, continuous
work, and so forth. A special study commission
recently has recommended some mitigation of
such restrictions both for youth and women, os­
tensibly to improve their earning potentiali­
ties.10
Increasingly youth accept employment under
agreement for a planned training program
under which young people are paid while they
attend college one day a week.
In discussions with various management,
labor, and government officials in Britain, there
was an assumption that boys and girls are not
worth as much on the job as adults. They are
not as strong physically, have less stability, are
more prone to accidents, are less experienced,
and lack the judgement and reliability of adults.
Some saw youth rates as a prolonged “learner’s
rate” for the period when the youth is maturing
and gaining all the physical, emotional, and attitudinal qualities of adulthood.
Most respondents admitted that youth rates
—even though modified gradually—extend to
an age level which no longer can be character­
ized as “youth.” Some saw the system disap­
pearing in a squeeze between a drop in the age
of applying the adult wage and the rise in the
school-leaving age.
Other justifications for youth rates have a
broader context. One is the need of youth for
less income compared with adults. Another,
given by a trade unionist, was that without the




gradual steps to an adult wage youth would
have nothing to look forward to, nothing to
whet his ambitions.
The minimum rates for youth are substan­
tially below those for adults but are they uni­
versally applied in practice or, as some officials
suggested, are youth often paid at rates higher
than these minimums? The half-yearly survey
of earnings made by the Department of Em­
ployment and Productivity would indicate that
youth rates are widely applied.11 In the October
1968 report of hourly earnings in manufactur­
ing industries, men over 21 were making ap­
proximately double the earnings of men under
21, and the same held true in other occupations.
The differences for women and girls were less
pronounced because women have substantially
lower earnings. The disparity is even greater in
weekly earnings as child labor laws limit over­
time earnings. (See appendix II for hourly and
weekly earnings by age.)
Conclusions of British experience

An evaluation of the usefulness of the youth
rate system in counteracting unemployment is
difficult. A number of officials interviewed
thought that youth rates had nothing to do with
the high employment rate. However these
officials conceded that fewer youth would be em­
ployed if they had to be paid at adult rates. One
said that an employer might well say: “This job
is worth so much to me—if I can hire a worker
at that price I will do so—otherwise the job can
remain vacant.” An official of the Transport
and General Workers Union said larger employ­
ers commonly take on far more young workers
than are needed because a young worker at
age 15 can normally be employed for about
one-third the wage of a man. The employer may
take on youth generously as he is building up
and training a future labor supply. Most indus­
tries and areas compete for young people. How­
ever several trade unionists commented about
demoralizing effect on the attitude of young
workers when there was not sufficient work to
keep them usefully employed.
Although it is impossible to evaluate the fac­
tors making for full employment of youth,

141

from 1962 and preliminary data from the 1968
census. Otherwise only administrative statistics
and studies of limited scope are available to es­
timate the rate of unemployment for the 15-19
age group. Such an estimate would place youth
unemployment at about the 10 percent level.
Among factors which affect the level of youth
unemployment is demography. Unlike the
United Kingdom, the postwar baby boom has
boosted the youth segment of French popula­
tion (table 10.6) significantly. This trend
would have been greater without the advance in
the compulsory school attendance age to 16.
Table 10.7 shows the distribution of youth aged
The experience in France
15-24 among various activities. The data in the
last line of that table raises the question as to
The United Kingdom and France are alike in whether unemployment of youth has not been
many ways—size of population, level of in­ seriously understated. Possibly a good part of
dustrial development, and development of edu­ the inactive youth are unemployed by generally
cation. Although both have a low level of adult accepted standards. If half are unemployed, the
unemployment, youth unemployment is low in
of unemployment of this age group would
the United Kingdom and rather high in France. rate
be
over
12 percent.12
France like the United Kingdom has a system
Estimates
of youth unemployment vary
of lower rates for youth. The structure and ap­ widely. One study
by the Social and Economic
plication of these rates are different. France Council (SEC) suggested
that as many as
has a statutory minimum wage—Salaire Mini­
500,000
youth
under
18
were
unemployed. In
mum Inter-professional Garanti (SMIG) —
another
study
the
SEC
said
the
figure might be
which was established in 1950. SMIG probably
anywhere
from
170,000
to
400,000.
Norbert
does not affect more than 10 percent of the
Alise,
head
of
the
youth
section
of
the
French
labor force, primarily those in the unorganized
sectors of the economy such as small textiles Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions
and woodworking manufacturing and retail (CFDT) places the current figure at 350,000.
trade. The rest have minimum rates set under
Officials in France indicate the following
collective bargaining, as do other European other causes of unemployment:
countries; minimums under collective bargain­
Young immigrants—many from Italy—have
ing are also “contracted rates.” Under both a language handicap. They lack general educa­
SMIG and the private sector agreements, there tion and vocational training for modern indus­
is a system of reduced rates for youth under 18.
Rural youth lack general education, voca­
The SMIG system is very simple and provides try.
tional training, and mobility. They are willing
for percentage reductions from adult wages by to
relocate, but are restricted by lack of infor­
steps from 14 to 18 years; no special considera­ mation
jobs, difficulty in finding housing,
tion are made for zones, sex, or occupations. and lackabout
of
government
to facilitate mov­
The provisions in regular collective bargaining ing. Family and friends help
pressure
them to stay
contracts are similar but more consideration is
home;
when
19,
men
enter
the
military
given in applying the abatements to such factors
as seniority, competence, and equal pay for services.13 Employers are reluctant to hire
youth who have not completed their military
equal work.
Because no labor force surveys have been service. For this reason, the draft age may be
published since 1964, France lacks adequate sta­ lowered to 18 years and shortened from 16 to 12
tistics (table 10.5). There are the census figures months.

cheapness of this factor of production appears
to be a major reason for its full utilization.
None of those interviewed thought that in to­
day’s full employment, young people were tak­
ing jobs away from adults to any significant
extent. Obviously this would tend to be the case
if there were considerable unemployment. Nor
was the practice of laying off a youth when he
reaches the age to receive adult wages seen as
more than a very rare occurrence. This practice
too might be different in a recession. Today,
youth often leave an employer when the appren­
ticeship or other planned training is completed.




142
The rapid change in production methods and
technology has caused additional hindrances to
employment. A decline in some trades and an
expansion in others have caused a drop in de­
mand, especially for the poorly trained. Agri­
culture, the source of jobs for rural youth in the
past, needs fewer workers. The metal industry,
a traditional place of youth employment, now
requires less handwork and more experienced
workers. Between 1948 and 1966, youth employ­
ment declined from 3.8 to 2.6 percent of total
employment in metal industries though employ­
ment increased. Textiles and clothing, another
employer of youth, have declined and employed
fewer workers. Transportation, the one bright
exception to employment decline hires youth
without “qualifications” and is not affected by
limitations imposed by child protection laws.
Location has much to do with unemployment.
“In certain departments, the figures on youth
unemployment reach alarming proportions:
30-40 percent in the North, Pas de Calais, la
Loire and la Marne, and 46 percent in Haut
Rhin.”14
Youth’s interests and ambitions are incom­
patible with job opportunities. Thirty percent
of the young people wanted the 3 percent cleri­
cal jobs available; 9 percent wanted the 6 per­
cent commerce jobs available; and 12 percent
wanted the 5 percent metal industry jobs avail­
able. Thus, in the absence of career guidance,
youths base their job goals on circumstances
rather than reality.15
Bureaux de Placement, the employment serv­
ice, employs only 8 officials for each 100,000
population, compared with 37 in the United
Kingdom and 59 in Germany, and places only
one in four young adults who bother to apply. A
study by L’Union Nationale des Associations
Familiales (L’NAF) reported that the 257
young people in the study sought jobs in the
following ways: friends, 13 percent; family, 37
percent; employment service, 12 percent; news­
papers, 30 percent; and other methods, 8 per­
cent. Among employers covered in the study: 61
percent said the employment service would not
refer suitable candidates; 20 percent said work­
ers ignored the service; and 48 percent said the
service was inefficient. The L’NAF study con­




cluded: “It is reasonable to suppose that the
young hesitate to waste time in long and fastid­
ious administrative formalities with so little
chance of success.”16
Alise of the CFDT said that trade unions
have demanded that employment services be im­
proved and that a special youth employment
office be set up to service young people. He indi­
cates the present difficulty lies in a lack of coop­
eration between the schools and employment
service. Because of limited work experience, un­
employment compensation is available to few
youth. Only 4 percent of those under 18 have
drawn such benefits.
France has recognized its educational defi­
ciency in preparing youth for the needs of a
modern economy and has restructured its sys­
tem. Compulsory schooling has been advanced
to age 16; class will be de-emphasized; every
youth will receive the education he needs. All
children finishing the lower school at about age
11 will attend a 4-year secondary school. A vo­
cational course has been designed for those re­
sisting traditional subjects.
Adult evening classes will enable older work­
ers to advance in their jobs. According to the
Ministry of Social Affairs, L’UNEDIC, and
LTNDEC, only 50 percent of the young workers
studied had at least three years of vocational
study; 25 percent had from three to six months;
and 25 percent lacked any training. Forty-five
percent were without a general diploma; 50
percent possessed a Certificat d’Etudes Premier
Cycle du Second Degre (primary school, nor­
mally finished at age 12) ; and 6 percent the
Brevet d’Etudes Premaires Elementaries (sec­
ondary school finished at age 16). Over 70 per­
cent had no technical training.
A number of training programs which were
originated for other groups, such as adults and
Algerians who repatriated, have been used on
an ad hoc basis to train youth, usually after
military service. A new program has been pro­
posed which would place 50,000 young unem­
ployed through established training centers.
Training and evaluation of abilities would be
emphasized rather than placement through
training as is done with the manpower develop­
ment and training programs in the United
States.

143
After the “spring rebellion’’ of 1968, employ­
ers feared the infiltration into their firms of
revolutionists who might disrupt production
and were afraid to hire youth, according to M.
Guillen, an official of the Metal Industry Feder­
ation. Some writers discussing youth unemploy­
ment have indicated that the social measures
promulgated by the government after the re­
volts may have hurt youth employment. To pay
for these measures and to protect the Franc,
economic action was imposed which caused
some retrenchment in all hiring.
By using a formula and taking into account
the number of adults and other factors, CFDT,
the trade union federation, has suggested that
employers be assigned quotas of young people to
employ. Employers might argue that this radi­
cal view is premature because of the serious
deficiencies in education, training, counseling,
and placement.
French system of lower rates for youth

The similarities of the British and French
youth wage schemes are more in form than in
application. The French scheme is less universal
and has less impact in earnings and time re­
quired for a youth to reach the adult wage. In
the United Kingdom, youth start at about onethird of the adult wage; it takes six years to
reach the adult wage level. Although rates are
provided in the French scheme for 14-15 year
olds, school attendance is required to 16. As
adult wages are paid at 18, youth rates are
effectively limited to 16 and 17 year olds.
The statutory minimum wage rates for youth
are set as a percentage of SMIG rates for adults
as follows: 50 percent at age 14, 60 percent at
age 15, 70 percent at age 16 and 80 percent at
age 18.
The wages of far more youth are affected by
labor-management contracts than by SMIG. Ex­
cerpts are given from contracts in a variety of
industries in appendix III. Some industries fol­
low the SMIG pattern quite closely; others have
modifications. Where piece rates are in effect
and youth are assigned to adult jobs, young
workers will be paid as adults (textiles, baby
buggies). Some contracts provide that if youths
have “professional” training they will be paid




as adults. Others indicate that the full reduc­
tions will not be implemented if the young
worker justifies higher pay by his “productiv­
eness.” The drug industry provides that “if
quality and quantity are equal to that of adults,
the pay will be equal.”
In the absence of any comprehensive study,
there is no way of judging the extent to which
individual employers apply, modify or waive re­
ductions. Rate differentials for youths are per­
missive, not required. Comparison of earnings
of youth and adults would be valuable, but data
on earnings are not current. Studies of earnings
from 1964 data give some indication of compar­
ative earnings for youth. A study of low in­
comes by the Institute National de la Statistique gives the percentage of each age group
making less than 5,000 francs annually: all
ages, 16.7 percent; 14-17 age group, 86.7 per­
cent; 18-20 age group, 37.9 percent; and 31-40
age group (which had the highest earnings),
7.7 percent. The same study gives annual earn­
ings for various age groups of workers: less
than age 18, 3,015 francs; 18-20, 5,616; 31-40,
9,405; all ages, 8,208 francs. Earnings in
white-collar occupations were slightly higher
than in “worker” categories but ratios between
age groups remained about the same.17
In another study, Conditions of Life and Em­
ployment of Young Workers,18 average monthly
earnings in 1964 for youth were as follows:
15-19 age group, 419 francs; 20-24 age group,
541; both age groups together, 488 francs. Av­
erage earnings for all ages were 872 francs,
about double that for youth. Youth earn sub­
stantially less than adult workers—undoubtedly
in part due to the abatements in rates under
SMIG and under collective bargaining.
Conclusions of French experience

In the absence of more complete and current
statistics and other pertinent information, an
evaluation of the usefulness of the youth rate
scheme must be based on plausible rather than
completely verifiable facts. Compared with its
adult unemployment rate France ranks rather
high among the nations which have serious
youth unemployment. Contributing causes in-

144
elude: sheer numbers, the backwardness of
youth services—vocational training, counsell­
ing, career guidance, placement—the interfer­
ence of military conscription, attitudes of em­
ployers toward youth, rapid changes in the
structure and distribution of industry, and
changing technology.
If the lower rates for youth did not exist,
youth unemployment would be even more seri­
ous. France demonstrates that more is involved
in achieving full employment than cheapness of
youth labor. The one big difference between
France and Germany, is the apprenticeship
schemes which are several times larger in Ger­
many than in France. In the United Kingdom
and Germany, youth can choose security as ap­
prentices even though these schemes may be de­
ficient to prepare him for modern technology.
France plans an educational reform which may
therefore prepare her youth for modern econ­
omy. But while she is trying to realize these
visions, her youth are suffering burdensome un­
employment and frustration.
The Canadian experience

Many similarities exist between the culture
and economy of Canada and the United States.
Both countries have high standards of living,
unions that are linked closely, and similar edu­
cational systems, labor training and apprentice­
ship programs, labor laws, and unemployment
rates. In recent years Canada has had slightly
more unemployment.
There are differences too. Canada has no ra­
cial or ghetto problem if one excepts the rather
dissimilar and much smaller problem of the In­
dian. Canadian cities are not as large, so urban
decay is not so serious; nor are homes far from
new industries. Canada has no compulsory mili­
tary service to absorb part of its youth man­
power. Finally, in labor and manpower ques­
tions the provinces are far more important in
relation to the Federal Government than our
States are to our Federal Government.
Both countries have a statutory minimum
wage system at both State or Provincial and
Federal levels. In the United States the Federal
minimum wage is predominant; in Canada the
reverse is true. Unlike the United States the




Canadians have adopted at both levels of gov­
ernment a lower schedule of minimum wages
for young people.
Unemployment has been rising in recent
years. Not only is the rate higher, but the ex­
tent of both long-term unemployment and un­
deremployment among youth is more pro­
nounced. The long-term unemployment rate of
the 14-19 age group is approximately double
that of the 25-44 age group.19 Underemploy­
ment is serious too, but exact figures delineating
voluntary from involuntary underemployment
are not available. Female unemployment in
Canada is lower in all age categories.
Although unemployment among young people
is high relative to adults, some Canadians do
not consider the problem urgent. Canadians
think that the present rates indicate the normal
restiveness of young people in finding their
way—slowly and fitfully—into the world of
work. Indicating that necessity and deter­
mination are useful prods to successful job
seeking, one official noted that young workers
who marry early are seldom unemployed.
The Canadians are concerned very much
about student unemployment. This concern is
based upon the particular educational structure
in Canada: (1) Canadian Colleges have a 5month summer vacation, from April to Septem­
ber—thus the students are on the labor market
about half the year, and (2) the fantastic in­
crease in college enrollment, much of the influx
is youth from lower or middle income homes
who must support themselves. In 1958-59 there
were 94,994 college students; in 1967-68 there
were 305,000 or a yearly rate of increase of 12
to 15 percent. A national campaign, similar to
our Youth Opportunity Campaign, financed by
the Federal Government and calling on coopera­
tion of business, is underway. The Canadian
Congress of Labor (CCL) has no youth section
and the labor movement has given little atten­
tion to this problem. The one active and con­
cerned group seems to be the Jeunesse Ouvriere
Catholique (JOC), the youth section of the
Catholic trade union movement.
The system of lower minimum rates for youth

A system of minimum wages under law is in

145

effect in all the provinces and in the Federal
jurisdiction. Under these laws there is in all
cases a schedule of lower rates for young work­
ers, students, learners or for certain categories
such as newsboys and messenger. A summary
of these rates in comparison to adult minimum
rates is given in appendix IV.
Unlike the United States, the proportion of
workers under the Federal jurisdiction, 600,000
or less than 10 percent of the labor force, is
relatively small. In the Federal jurisdiction, the
reductions only apply to those under 17 years of
age and to industries in which child labor laws
restrict participation. Because most people
leave school at age 16, there is in effect only a
one-year application. As a result Federal
officials estimate that not more than 3,000 youth
earn rates paid youth or learners and students.
The differential of only 25 cents (the adult rate
is $1.25, youth $1) would have little impact
in any case. In view of these factors, one can
say that the youth rates under the Federal ju­
risdiction have little significance.
The youth rate systems in the provinces have
a varied history and structure. Some date back
several decades: British Columbia to 1919; oth­
ers, very recent; and Newfoundland to 1968—
too recent to evaluate its effectiveness. The pur­
pose of the youth rates varies but all rationales,
whether verbal or written, have a common
theme. An official of the Saskatchewan Depart­
ment of Labor suggested: “to encourage and
integrate the young person, the student and the
inexperienced into the labor force.”
Unlike most apprenticeship schemes, the
rates in the provinces and in the Federal juris­
diction are given in absolute terms rather than
as percentages of adult rates. There are no
steps by age. The differentials are not large,
usually about 20 cents under the minimum rate
for adults; some instances are as great as 40
cents and one as small as 5 cents. The common
age for attaining the adult rate is 18; in Sas­
katchewan it is 17. Thus youth rates exist
within rather narrow limits—both as to amount
and as to duration. Typically a youth would
work below the adult minimums for about a
year. In some areas and occupations the demand
for labor is such that employers do not offer




youth less than adults. An official of the Minis­
try of Labour of British Columbia in a letter to
the author said: “It should be pointed out that
in affluent times such as are being experienced
at present, minimum wage rates do not have
much effect since employers find they have to
pay more than those rates in order to obtain
employees.”
All provincial officials interviewed indicated
that youth rates are useful in counteracting un­
employment and in introducing young people
into working life. In a letter submitting data
for this study, Laureat Beaulieu, member of the
Canadian Commission for Minimum Wages,
said: “I would rely on the information provided
by our own inspectors to the effect that in the
majority of establishments where youth under
18 were hired, it was mostly due to the differ­
ences in rates.”
None of the Provincial officials could supply
statistical evidence about the effect of the youth
rates. These officials did think the rates were
helpful, except in areas and occupations where
the labor market was tight and where employ­
ers were perfectly willing to pay the full adult
wages, even when these were substantially
above the adult minimums.
In the United States the minimum wage of
$1.60 is about 56 percent of average hourly
earnings; in Canada the differences are greater.
For a 40 hour week, typical weekly earnings in
January 1969 ranged from a low of $60.62 in
personal services to a high of $127.82 in trans­
portation.21 Consequently, employers may hire
far below average earnings without resorting to
youth rates.
Sectors in which youth rates were imple­
mented included: service trades, retail stores,
hotels and restaurants, rural factories such as
those making wooden articles, textiles, and clo­
thing.
Disadvantages and criticisms of Canadian youth
rate system

In this study, government, labor, and man­
agement officials were queried about the possi­
ble unfavorable side-effects of the youth rate
system. Nearly all the government officials—

146

both Federal and Provincial—said they could
observe no abuses or disadvantages, though
some reported criticisms by unionists and oth­
ers. In Quebec and Nova Scotia, the officials
said the lower rates for youth might cause some
displacement of older workers or family heads
in favor of youth. A number remarked that the
youth might be laid off when he reached the
adult wage.
The attitude of trade union leaders range
from negative to passive. In general those inter­
viewed doubted that the youth rates have any
usefulness in introducing youth into working
life. Some mentioned that the lower youth rates
might pull down the general level of pay in un­
organized trades. Officials of the Canadian Con­
gress of Labor (CCL) and of the Ontario Fed­
eration of Labor thought the system would only
assist youth in finding jobs in the service and
marginally profitable industries. The CCL has
passed no resolutions on the subject but officials
interviewed were personally against the
scheme. According to Labor Ministry officials in
Quebec, the Young Catholic Workers (JOC) ap­
proved the adoption of the scheme in that prov­
ince in 1965 but continued to criticize the level
of the youth and adult minimums. When asked
whether youth should receive less pay than an
adult for work of equal value, trade unions and
others usually answer “no.” Most assumed,
however, that in general youth do not perform
wotik of equal value to an adult because youth
lack training, experience, and the disciplines of
working steadily and effectively.
Conclusions of Canadian experience

It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of
the system of youth rates in Canada when no
statistics are available on the number of youth
working under them.
No one in Canada from whom information
was obtained in this study thought that the
youth rate system was vital in counteracting
youth unemployment but many felt it had some
usefulness in particular occupations and labor
markets.
The impact of the youth rates are limited by
the relatively small difference with adult mini­




mums and the rather large difference between
the latter and average earnings. The short span
in which they would apply—between the school
leaving age and the incidence of the adult wage
—further limits their impact.
The schemes for learners, youths, appren­
tices, and students undoubtedly help ease
young people into the labor market. Unless ac­
companied with a general plan affecting educa­
tion, vocational guidance, training, mobility and
other factors, the youth rates, taken alone, do
not play a major role in youth employment in
Canada.
West Germany

Unemployment among young people of West
Germany is so low as to be negligible; all age
groups have low rates of unemployment.
Labor market data for May 31, 1969 showed
the unemployment rate as 0.6 percent—a
total of 123,000 jobless, while there were 800,000 registered job vacancies. This report
showed a total of 4,554 unemployed below the
age of 20, barely 3.7 percent of the total jobless.
Duration of unemployment is not a problem
either. A report from the Federal Employment
Service for September 1968 showed that 65 per­
cent of the male and 61 percent of the female
unemployed under 20 years of age had been un­
employed for less than a month. Consisting al­
most entirely of frictional unemployment or the
unemployables, unemployment in West Ger­
many approaches the irreducible minimum. The
above data are based on registrations rather
than a labor force survey, so it does not account
for hidden unemployment. Officials, however,
believe hidden unemployment is very limited.
Germany has effective machinery for chan­
neling youth into the working life. As in the
United Kingdom, counselling is well provided
for. About 84 percent of all school graduates
were assisted by the government-sponsored
service in 1965-66.
Unquestionably a major factor in the full em­
ployment of youth in West Germany is the ex­
tensive apprenticeship program. About 80 per­
cent of all German youth become apprenticed—
a proportion even higher than in Great Britain

147

—employment is guaranteed as well as train­
ing and opportunity for future employment.
Approximately 1,400,000 youth are apprentices
in West Germany.

that some employers short change apprentices
in their training while exploiting them as cheap
labor. The unions have not been satisfied with
legislation to eliminate these evils.

The youth rate system in West Germany

Conclusions of West German experience

West Germany has no minimum wage legisla­
tion but labor-management agreements have
the practical effect of setting minimum wages.
The negotiations establish regional industry­
wide wages and working conditions. A review
of selected collective agreements in major in­
dustrial sectors shows that as a general rule
“standard rates”—that is adult rates—are paid
at age 21 for blue-collar workers and at 25 for
white-collar workers. Younger workers have re­
duced rates graduated according to age. How­
ever, variations by industry exist; for example,
workers under 16 are paid 60 percent of adult
wages in the metal industry and 70 percent in
the chemical industry. In food processing, youth
wages amount to 80-90 percent of the adult
wage and in retail trade, 75 percent.
According to Federal Labor Ministry
officials, the youth rates were meant to reflect
lower efficiency and productivity of the inexpe­
rienced young workers and the step increases
by age to compensate for their gradual im­
provement in skill and efficiency. The lower
rates for youth are not seen as a tool for coun­
teracting unemployment.
Surveys of earnings of adults and youth show
a remarkable correlation with the rate system.
In a survey by the Federal Statistical Office in
1962, average hourly earnings for male workers
over age 18 were reported to be DM 3.57; for
male workers under 18, DM 2.58—a differ­
ential of 30 percent. Average hourly earnings of
female workers over age 18 were DM 2.62;
those under 18, DM 1.83—also a differential of
30 percent.
A very large part of youth who work for less
than adult rates are in the apprenticeship pro­
gram. Youth are normally apprenticed for 3 to
3.5 years, beginning at about one-third the
adult wage rate. The employer is supposed to
provide training and observe child protective
legislation. The trade unions often have charged

The German system is more moderate than
the British and Dutch systems in the amount of
the abatements in youth earnings and in their
duration. The lower rates seem to be tailored to
compensate for the genuine lower productivity
of youth labor more than the other systems, and
to equalize the attractiveness of adult and youth
labor in the marketplace.
Does the youth rate system serve any
purpose? Probably not with the present heavy
demand for labor. When the demand for labor
was less, the 30 percent differential for youth
labor helped ease young workers into jobs.




The Netherlands

The Netherlands is a good example of a small
nation determined to maintain full employment
for adults and youth. Close labor-management
cooperation made possible a high degree of so­
cial and economic policy coordination. Wage re­
straint, coupled with a high investment rate,
made possible post-war reconstruction and in­
dustrial expansion. The government has fol­
lowed an active labor market policy to stimulate
employment by channeling new industries to
areas of labor surplus and by relocation of
workers to areas of high demand. Standby pub­
lic works absorbed much of the redundant
labor.
These policies have resulted in rather full em­
ployment throughout the post-war period al­
though both youth and adult employment have
been affected somewhat by the business cycle.
At times there has been concern about the level
of youth joblessness. In 1967 and 1968, youth
unemployment, reaching a peak of 4.2 percent
in January 1968, was higher than that for
adults. In recent months youth unemployment
has tended to be lower than that for adults. For
example, in April 1969 adult unemployment
was 1.4 percent; youth unemployment, 0.9 per-

148

cent. At times youth unemployment has been
high in the building trades because wages are
relatively high in that occupation and attract
more youth than can be absorbed.
Youth rate system in the Netherlands

The Netherlands first adopted a minimum
wage system in 1966, but it does not provide for
youth rates. Youth rates are established under
collective bargaining for each branch of indus­
try. Unlike the United Kingdom, these rates are
equal for male and female. As in the United
Kingdom, they tend to follow the rates set for
apprenticeships. The rates normally begin at
about 25 to 30 percent of adult rates at age 14
and reach 100 percent of adult earnings at age
23. At age 16 the rates are usually at about 40
percent and at age 20 about 80 percent of adult
rates. Some contracts pay the adult rate at ages
21 or 22 for some categories of workers, though
officials report no general tendency to lower the
age for the achievement of the adult rate. Be­
cause youths now are required to attend school
to age 16, few youth work below the 40 percent
level.
Although earnings for various age groups are
1 The terms “youth” and “teenagers” are used inter­
changeably and include all 16-19 year olds, unless other­
wise stated.
2 Department of Education and Science. S ta tis tic s of
E d u ca tio n Sch ools (London, HMSO, 1967), p. 77. See
also Joseph S. Zeisel “Comparison of British and U.S.
Unemployment Rates,” M o n th ly L a b o r R evie w (May
1962), pp. 489-501.
8 Roger Gregoire, V o catio n al E du ca tion . Organization
for Economic Co-Operation and Development (Paris,
1967), p. 82.
4 Quoted in ibid., p. 84-85.
5 Ministry of Labour, In d u stria l T ra in in g A c t. (Lon­
don, 1964); Department of Employment and Productiv­
ity, C en tra l T ra in in g Council. T h ird R e p o rt to the S ec­
r e ta r y o f S ta te (London, 1969); The Schools Council,
S o c ie ty an d th e Y ou n g School L e a v e r , Working Paper
No. 11. (London, 1967).
0 Gregoire, op. cit., p. 37.
TMinistry of Labour, Central Youth Employment
Executive, T he Y o u th E m p lo y m en t S ervice (London,
HMSO, 1969).
8 Department of Employment and Productivity. A




not available, those interviewed believe that
the contract rates are followed closely by
employers. Holland has the Germanic tradition
of discipline and control of the young by their
elders, although the strong revolts of urban
youth in recent years may begin to change this
practice. Unquestionably, the justification for
the lower rates for youth is based in part on the
concept of “social need”. As in other countries,
however, youths not only are less skilled and
experienced, but also are covered by protective
child legislation and must be trained.
Conclusions of experience in the Netherlands

Although there are certain inherent liabilities
to hiring youth there is little doubt that the
employer obtains youth labor at bargain rates.
That this experience aids in youths’ introduc­
tion to the world of work is without question.
An official of the Social and Economic Council
indicated there was active competition for
youth labor. The newspapers are full of glamor­
ous ads, and firms carry on active recruitment
campaigns in the schools. Youth are in demand
but the extent to which lower rates are the
magnet is not clear.
W age, A n In q u iry. (London,
HMSO, 1969.)
9 C. W . Guillebaud, The W ages C ouncil S y s te m in
G rea t B rita in . (London, HMSO, 1962) ; and Depart­
ment of Employment and Productivity, W ages C oun­
cils. (London.)
10 Confederation of British Industry, P a y m e n t of
A d u lt R a te o f W age (1969) ; Department of Employ­
ment and Productivity, Employment Productivity
Gazette (April, 1969) ; Department of Productivity,
The F a cto ries A c t o f 1961 (London, HMSO, 1962).
11E m p lo y m en t an d P ro d u c tiv ity G a zette (London,
February 1969), p. 123 and (May 1969), p. 140.
12 Marie-Therese Join-Lambert. “Approche Statistique du Probleme de Vemploi des Jeunes”, Recherche
Sociale (Paris, March-April 1969).
N a tio n a l M in im u m

13E tu d e S u r L e C hom age D es Jeunes A llo ca ta ire s D u
R egim e D ’A ssu ra n ce-C hom age, Bulletin de Liaison,

UNEDIC (Paris, December 1967).
14 Alise of Confederation Francaise Democratique Du
Travail (CFDT), D o ssier S itu a tio n de U E m p lo i D es
Jeunes (Paris, March 1968).
15Join-Lambert, op. c it .

149

18

L'Union Nationale des Associations Familiales.

U E m p lo i D es Jeu n es (Paris, 1967.)

17 Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes
Economiques, Etudes et Conjuncture (July 1966), pp.
14 and 34.
18 Institut National d’Etudes Demographiques. C on­
dition s de V ie e t D 'E m p lo i des Jeu n es T ra veilleu rs

(Presses Universitaires de France, 1968), p. 24.
19 Dominon Bureau Statistics, Unemployment in Can­
ada (Ottawa, 1968), p. 23.
20Letter to the Author.
21 Dominion Bureau of Statistics, E m p lo y m en t an d
A v e ra g e W eek ly W a g es an d S a la rie s (Ottawa, 1969),
p.

Table 10.3.

Unemployment rates in the United Kingdom
Unemployment rate

Date
All ages
April 1961....................................
April 1961....................................
July 1 9 6 6 ..................................
January 1967..........................
July 1967......................................
January 1968..............................
July 1968......................................
January 1969...............................

1.7
1 .3
1.1
2 .2
2 .0
2 .6
2 .2
2 .5

Youth-adult
ratio

25 and over

15-19

1 .6
1 .4
1.1
2.1
2 .0
2 .5
2 .2
2 .5

2 .3
.9
1.1
2 .6
2 .2
2 .6
2 .0
2 .3

1.44
.64
1.00
1.24
1.10
1.04
.91
.92

Source: First line from census data, all others from registrations as employment
service offices.

Table 10.4. Unemployment and vacancies for 15-18 year
old youth, April 1968 and 1969, United Kingdom

8.

Boys

Date

Table 10.1. Unemployment rates and the youth-adult
unemployment ratio for selected countries

Country

Youth
unemployment
rate

Unemployment
rate,
all ages

Youth-adult
unemployment
ratio 1

Total

Girls

Unemployed Vacancies Unemployed Vacancies Unemployed Vacancies
April 1969___
April 1968—

17,955
17,108

43,581
42,357

8,985
10,301

53,679
50,291

26,940
27,409

97,260
92,658

Source: "Monthly Statem ent on the Employment Situation for Young Persons,”
Department of Employment and Productivity, Mid-April 1969.

1960-64 1967-68 1960-64 1967-68 1960-64 1967-68
Germany (1961-67)...............
Canada *(1962-66)...............
Netherlands (I960)...............
United Kingdom.....................
(1961-67)..............................
Sweden (1964-67).................
France (1960)..........................
Belgium (1960).......................
Italy (1961-67)........................
United States (1 9 6 0 -6 8 )...

4 0 .3
6 .9
0 .9
• 1 .3
4 1.7
1.7
2 .1
2 .5
3 .4
5 .5

1.1
4 .0
• 2 .0
2 .6
3 .5
3 .6

4 0 .3
14.4
1 .4
• 0 .9
4 2 .3
3 .9
6 .6
4 .0
9 .3
• 1 4 .7

1.1
9 .7
• 2 .2
6.1
11.4
* 1 2 .7

4 1 .0
2 .4
1 .8
• 0 .6
4 1 .4
2 .6
4 .4
1 .7
4 .9
3 .3

1.0

2 .6

• 1 .1
2 .9

Table 10.2. Number of apprentices and labor force in
five countries

C a n a d a ____________ . ...

France_______________ ______ ______
West Germany________________ ____
United Kingdom....................... ...............
United States........................................

Labor force
(thousands)

Apprentices
(thousands)

8,061
19,995
26,262
24,770
82,270

45
350
1,400
912
240

Source: Labor departments of the various countries.




Unemployment rate

Date

5 .7
5 .5

1
Ratio of Youth unemployment rate to adult unemployment rate for adults 25 and
over. Data from labor force surveys except as noted. Data not strictly comparible
amoung countries.
a Ostry, Sylvia, Unemployment in Canada, 1968, males only, ratio: youth/all ages.
• Labor Ministry data from unemployment insurance records.
4 Census data for 1961.
« Youth unemployment data relate to 16-19 year-olds.

Country

Table 10.5. Unemployment rates in France for selected
age groups and year

Number of
apprentices
per thousand
in labor force
5 .6
17.5
53.3
36.8
2 .9

All ages
October 1960...............................
October 1962...............................
October 1964...............................

2.1
2 .2
2 .0

14-19

25 and over

6 .6
6 .5
6 .3

1 .5
1 .7
1 .4

Youth-adult
ratio 14—1 9 /
25 and over
4 .4 0
3.82
4 .5 0

Table 10.6. Population of 15-24 year olds in France,
selected years
Year
1775.................................................................................................
1886.................................................................................................
1926.................................................................................................
1962.................................................................................................
1965.................................................................................................
1967.................................................................................................
1970 (e st).......................................................................................

Numbers
(m illions)
4 .5
6 .5
6 .8
6 .2
7 .0
7 .7
8 .3

Percentage
of total
population
18.0
17.0
16.9
12.7
14.3
15.5
16.7

Source: P. Clere, “Croissance du chomage chez les Jeunes?" Economic et
Humanisme, January-February, 1969.

150
Table 10.7. Distribution of 15-24 year olds in France by
activity, 1962 and 1968
Classification
In school____________________________________________
Military service_____________________________________
Apprentices_________________________________________
Unemployed________________________________________
Employed___________________________________________
Neither working nor in school_______________________
Source: 1962 and 1968 Census Data.




1962
1.940.000
530.000
360.000
57,000
2.600.000
720.000

1968
2,900,000
300,060
350.000
170.000
3,500,900
740.000

Table 10.1. Unemployment rates— Canada 12 Month
averages in percentages
Age grew#
AH a g e s ................................................... ................
1 4 -1 9 .....................................................................
20-24................... ...................................... ...............

1967

1966
3 .6
8 .2
4 .2

1968
4.1
9 .3
5 .0

4 .8
10.8
6 .3

Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Special Surveys Division, Labor Force
Surveys (Ottawa, 1968).

151
APPENDIX A

Youth rates of pay in the agreement between the National Union of
Railwaymen and the British Railways Board. (March 1969). No rate was
given for nonapprenticed males.
Rates of Pay
The pay structure to recognize the introduction of these features in Stage I is :—
Adult Male Staff
Railway Shopmen Category 1
2607Railway Shopmen Category 2
2707Railway Shopmen Category 3
2807Railway Shopmen Category 4
300/(London Allowance 18/- per week)
Apprentices
Apprentices will continue to receive the percentage of the skilled (Category 4)
rate (300/-) on the basis agreed in R.Sh.N.C. Min. No. 1,270-16.1.58, namely:—
Percentage of
New rate
of pay
Category 4 rate
Age
15
27%
82/6
16
105/35
17
42%
127/6
50
150/18
19
60
180/20
70
210/(London Allowance 97- per week)
Adult Female Staff
A revised pay structure for Adult Female Workshop Staff engaged on work
appropriate to women, will be:—
Railway Shopwoman Category 1 2057Railway Shopwoman Category 2 2157Railway Shopwoman Category 3 225/(London Allowance 18/- per week)
Section VI, page 23 gives the Category definitions and Assimilation Chart.
Junior Female Staff
The rates of pay of Junior Female Workshop Staff will continue to be calculated
on the basis of a percentage of the highest Adult Female rate of pay (225/-),
namely:—
Percentage of
Shopwoman*8
New rate
Category 8
rate of pay
of pay
Age
79/35
15
45
101/6
16
124/17
55
152/67%
18
19
77%
174/6
87%
197/20
(London Allowance 9 /- per week)




152

Example of a Wage Order negotiated in the retail food industry and
approved by the Ministry of Labour. These rates are minimum rates en­
forceable by the Labour Inspectorate.
1967 No. 745.

Wages Councils

Column 1

Column 2
London area
per week
Male

Clerk grade 1, aged 23 years or over.............................................
Clerk grade 1, age under 23 years, clerk grade II, shop
assistant, stockman or orderman, canvasser, van sales­
man, cashier or central warehouse worker:
22 years or over,........................................................................ ..
21 and under 22 years....................................................................
20 and under 21 years.....................................................................
19 and under 20 years....................................................................
18 and under 19 years....................................................................
17 and under 18 years....................................................................
16 and under 17 years...................................................................
under 16 years________ ___________ _____________________
All other workers (other than transport workers).
22 years or over....................... ........................................................
21 and under 22 years...................................................................
20 and under 21 years...............................................................
19 and under 20 years............................................................. ..
18 and under 19 years............................................. ......................
17 and under 18 years....................................................................
16 and under 17 years...................................................................
under 16 y e a r s,........................................ .......................................

Female

Provincial A area
per week

Provincial B area
per week

Male

Male

Female

Female

s. d.
230 0

s. d.
174 6

s. d.
222 6

s. d.
168 0

s. d.
208 6

s. d.
156 6

224
206
171
160
147
121
113
105
218
204
170
159
146
120
112
104

170
157
133
127
120
99
94
88
164
155
132
126
119
98
93
87

216
200
166
155
142
115
107
100
210
198
165
154
141
114
106
99

163
150
126
120
113
92
87
81
157
148
125
119
112
91
86
80

202
186
153
143
130
106
99
93
200
184
152
142
129
105
98
92

152
140
119
113
106
86
80
74
149
138
118
112
105
85
79
73

0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6

0
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
0
6
6
6
0
6
0
0

6
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6

6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
0
6
6
6
0
6
0
0

6
0
6
0
6
6
6
0
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
0

0
6
6
6

0
0
6
6

0

6
6
6
0
0
6
6

Youth rates as shown in the Wage Order negotiated in the Wages
Council in the Aerated Waters Industry, 1968:
FEMALE WORKERS—GENERAL MINIMUM TIME RATES
The general minimum time rates applicable to all female workers (other than
driver-salesmen, delivery workers and mates) are as follows:—
Per week of
42% hours
Age
s. d.
155 0
19 years or o v er____
130 0
18 and under 19 years
115 6
17 and under 18 years
96 6
16 and under 17 years
80 6
under 16 y ears______
MALE WORKERS—GENERAL MINIMUM TIME RATES
The general minimum time rates applicable to all male workers (other than
driver-salesmen, delivery workers and mates) are as follows:—
Per week of
42% hours
Age
s. d.
210
0
21 years or o v er ____
20 and under 21 years
171 6
155 0
19 and under 20 years
136 0
18 and under 19 years
115 6
17 and under 18 years
16 and under 17 years
96 6
80 6
under 16 yea rs______




153

Youth rates as shown in the Wage Order negotiated in the Wages
Council for the shirtmaking industry, 1966:
ALL OTHER MALE WORKERS BEING AGED
Age
21 years or o v er-----20 and under 21 years
19 and under 20 years
18 and under 19 years
17 and tinder 18 years
16 and under 17 years
under 16 y ears______

5
4
3
3
3
2
2

1
3%
11
6K
2te
9%
5

Example of youth rates in 1968 contract between the General Dis­
tributive Workers and the Retail Co-operative Movement. Figures are in
shillings. Above the age of 21 bonuses are given based on average weekly
sales, ranging from 12 to 50 shillings a week. Note the skills required
for butchery assistants, and their abatement in earnings.
Part I.—WEEKLY RATES OF WAGES
Clause (a) MALE SHOP ASSISTANTS—ALL DEPARTMENTS
(except Hairdressers and Cafe Workers) AND WAREHOUSE WORKERS
Age _____________________ 15
17
20
21
16
18
19
Metropolitan ____________ 121/6 132/- 149/6 177/- 194/6 210/6 258/Provincial “A” ___________ 116/- 126/6 144/- 171/6 189/- 205/- 245/6
Provincial “B” ___________ 114/- 124/6 142/- 169/6 187/- 203/- 236/SKILLED BUTCHERY ASSISTANTS
The following rates of wages shall apply to a skilled Butchery Assistant who has
(a) served for three years as an indentured Apprentice in the Retail Meat Trade; or
(b) passed the Craftsman’s Certificate Examination or the Meat Trades Diploma Ex­
amination of the Institute of Meat or an examination of a body of comparable standing
in the same subjects which the National Joint Apprenticeship Council for the Retail
Meat Trade shall consider to be of the same standard. This Council has recognized the
Co-operative Education Department Courses, therefore, these rates will apply to skilled
Butchery Assistants who have succeeded in gaining the Co-operative certificate.
Age ______________________________________________ 18
19
20
21
Metropolitan _____________________________________ 183/6 201/6 221/- 273/6
Provincial “A” ____________________________________ 177/- 195/- 213/6 258/6
Provincial “B’ ____________________________________ 172/6 190/6 2tiQ/- 249/6
Clause

(b) FEMALE SHOP ASSISTANTS—ALL DEPARTMENTS

Age
Metropolitan
Provincial “A”
Provincial “B” .

(except Hairdressers and Cafe Workers)

.

15
102/6
97/95/-

16
114/6
109/107/-

17
127/121/6
119/6

18
144/138/6
136/6

(h) m a l e p a c k e r s , p o r t e r s , c l e a n e r s , l if t
CELLARMEN
15
17
Age ------------16
18
121/6 132/- 149/6 177/Metropolitan
116/- 126/6 144/- 171/6
Provincial “A”
114/- 124/6 142/- 169/6
Provincial “B”
Clause




19
157/151/6
149/6

20
169/163/6
161/6

21
191/181/6
176/6

a tten d a n ts, and

19
194/6
189/187/-

20
240/6
205/203/-

21
252/239/6
23U76

154

(i) FEMALE PACKERS, CLEANERS, LIFT ATTENDANTS, AND
WAREHOUSE WORKERS
17
18
20
21
Age ___________________ 15
16
19
Metropolitan ___________ 102/6
114/6 127/- 144/- 157/- 169/- 185/6
Provincial “A” __________ 97/- 109/- 121/6 138/6 151/6 163/6 176/Provincial “B” __________ 95/- 107/- 119/6 136/6 149/6 161/6 171/Clause

The examples below from the rubber and cement industries provide
youth scales but stipulate that those who do adult’s work will be paid
adult rates. The contract from the rubber industry has the unusual feature
of giving separate scales by age for bonuses for shift and night work.
Rubber Manufacturing Industry, 1968

PERCENTAGE SCALE OF LABOUR RATES FOR YOUTHS
YOUTHS’ LABOUR RATES.
i.e., Percentage of basic hourly
rate for able-bodied adult male
general labourers.
Age
Per Hour
Y ear8
(percent)
1 5 _____________________________________________________
45
1 6 _____________________________________________________
50
1 7 _____________________________________________________
55
1 8 _____________________________________________________
65
1 9 _____________________________________________________
75
2 0 _____________________________________________________
90
1. In ascertaining the actual wages rates for youths, the percentage calculations will
be taken to the nearest l/10th of Id higher.
2. Youths who do adults’ full work will be paid adults’ rates.
3. See rule 8 (v and vi) regarding youths employed on rotating shifts.
Cement Manufacturing Industry, 1968

Clause 3: Minimum Weekly Wages
(a) The minimum basic weekly wages payable to all workers to whom this Agree­
ment applies shall be as follows:—
Men & Youths
Women & Girls
Min. Wkly Wage
Min.Wkly Wage
Age Group
21 years and over_____________________
£13 0 0
£9 15 0
20 y e a r s_______________________________
£11 10 0
£9 0 0
19 y e a r s______________________________
£10 5 0
£8 10 0
18 y e a r s_______________________________
£9 5 0
£7 15 0
17 y e a r s _____________________—________
£7 10 0
£6 15 0
16 y e a r s______________________________
£6 10 0
£6 0 0
15 y e a r s _______________________________
£5 10 0
£5 5 0
Clause 4: Factory Wage Negotiations—
Subject to Clause 3 above, the wage rates and systems of payment for all workers,
including earnings for skill, responsibility and productivity shall be determined at
local level and any increases made shall relate to increases in productivity or efficiency
or to changes in job evaluation or similar assessments.
Juveniles employed on recognized adult work shall be paid as adults.




155
Youth rates and apprentices rates in England and Scotland negotiated
in the National Joint Council for the Building Industry, 1967
(1) Craftsmen and Laborers
z

Rate per Hour
London, Scotland, and
Liverpool District Grade A
Craftsmen__________________________________________ 7s. 9d.__________7s. 7%d.
Labourers---------------------------------------------------------------6s. 7%d.----------- 6s. 6d.

(3) Young M&le Labourers
Percent of
Age
Labourer's rate
1 5 _____________ _ —3 3 %
16 _____________________4 5 _____
1 7 ___________________ 6 6 % ___
18 ___________________ 100
(4) Apprentices
A. England and Wales
Percent of
Age
Craftsman's rate
15 ____________
2 5 ______
16 _________________ 33% ___
17 ___________
5 0 ______
18 _-_____________ 6 2 % ___
10__________________ 7 5 _____
2 0 _______________
87% ___

Rate per hour
London, Scotland, and
Liverpool District Grade A
-2s. 2%d.
2s. 2d.
.3s. 0d.
2s. ll% d.
4s. 5d.
4s. 4d.
6s. 7%d.
6s. 6d.
Rate per hour
London and
Liverpool District Grade A
Is. 11 %d________Is. lid .
2s. 7d___________ 2s. 6%d.
3s. 10 %d________3s. lOd.
4s. 10%d_________ 4s. 9%d.
5s. lOd___________ 5s. 9d.
6s. 9%d_________ 6s. 8%d.

R. Scotland
(a) Apprenticeships entered into prior to 1st June, 1065
Percent
of Craftsman’s
Apprenticeship
year
rate
1st -------------_____ 25______
2d _________
-------- 33%-----3d __________
_____ 50______
4th _________
--------- 66% ------_____ 75______
5th ______—
(6) Apprenticeships entered into on and after 1st Junet 1965.
Percent
Apprenticeship
of Craftsman's
year
rate
1st _
-33%
2d —.
_50—
3d __
- 66 %
4th _
_80—




Rate per hour
— Is. lid .
— 2s. 6%d.
— 3s. lOd.
— 6s. Id.
— 6s. 9d.
Rate per hour
— 2s. 6%d.
— 3s. lOd.
— 6s. Id.
— 6s. l%d.

156

APPENDIX B

Hourly and weekly earnings of youth and adults in the United Kingdom, October 1968

Industry group
(hourly rates)

Men Youths Women (18 years
and
and over)
Girls
(21
years
boys
(under
and
(under
18 years)
over) 21 years) Full-time Part-time

All manufacturing industries................
Mining and quarrying (except coal)___
Construction......... ...............................
Gas, electricity and water.......... ..........
Transport ana communication (except
railways, etc.)___________ ______
Certain miscellaneous services............
Public administration............................

d.
111.4
123.6
127.5
121.4
125.7
144.6
119.6
111.0
107.5
114.7
117.2
115.8
140.0
121.2
123.8
106.5
114.8
113.1
115.2
104.3
95.9

d.
64.4
70.2
70.9
56.7
59.6
66.0
60.7
65.5
62.7
63.3
71.7
58.0
64.6
67.6
62.4
71.7
62.1
62.9

d.
67.4
68.6
70.4
74.0
67.9
82.9
69.3
70.4
66.0
70.6
69.6
77.3
71.4
67 .8
71.1
65.6
61.9
76.6

65.8
50.1
61.5

85.6
59.2
67.7

d.
64.6
64.7
65.0
71.7
56.5
72.6
65.3
66.3
61.6
65.9
64.5
68.4
67 .9
67.1
67 .0
62.7
68.5
67.0
57.1
60.6

All the above, including manufacturing
industries...........................................

118.9

61.4

70.8

66.2

Food, drink and tobacco.......................
Chemicals and allied industries............
Metal manufacture.............................. .
Engineering and electrical goods..........
Shipbuilding and marine engineering..
Vehicles................................................
Metal goods not elsewhere specified__
Textiles........... .................................
Leather, leather goods and fu r...........
Clothing and footwear..........................
Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc___
Timber, furniture, etc________ ____ _
Paper, printing and publishing.............
Other manufacturing industries...........

d.
47 .9
46.9
45.6
47 .6
47.8
44.3
51.4
41 .6
46.5
44.3
44.1
42 .9
46.1
47 .0

39.6

46

Men Youths Women (18 years
and
and over)
Girls
(21
years
boys
(under
(under
and
18 years)
over) 21 years) Full-time Part-time

Industry group
(weekly rates)

Food, drink and tobacco...........................
Chemicals and allied industries______
Metal manufacture___________________
Engineering and electrical goods_____
Shipbuilding and marine engineering.
Vehicles_____ ________________________
Metal goods not elsewhere specified—
Textiles______ _____________ __________
Leather, leather goods and fur_______
Clothing and footwear________________
Bricks, pottery, glass cem ent, etc____
Timber, furniture, etc_____ __________
Paper, printing and publishing..............
Other manufacturing industries______
All manufacturing industries......... .........
Mining and quarrying (except c o a l)...
Construction..............................................
Gas, electricity and water____________
Transport and communication (except
railways, e tc .)_______ _____________
Certain m iscellaneous services________
Public adm inistration...............................
All the above, including manufactur­
ing industries_______ _______________

Source: Employment’and Productivity Gazette, February 1969.
These data were obtained from returns furnished by about 50,000 establishm ents

s.
441
472
487
461
478
528
459
426
408
405
467
443
539
471
472
453
457
413
483
387
349

d.
11
11
8
6
7
11
5
7
4
5
8
1
0
9
4
6
5
11
11
10
5

459 11

s.
229
240
242
193
198
222
209
230
221
213
252
202
228
237
214
266
228
216
240
174
207

d.
0
5
4
4
1
2
9
4
11
9
11
6
5
3
10
11
2
5
7
1
2

214 6

s.
219
220
223
236
215
266
218
223
208
219
216
244
223
217
226
220
201
237
311
192
224

d.
1
1
6
10
1
8
9
5
5
6
11
1
10
6
3
10
1
7
10
0
5

225 11

s.
115
115
114
127
94
127
115
119
116
130
112
121
121
123

d.
8
11
3
4
2
7
4
4
0
1
10
11
8
0
121 2
90" 4
119 4
116 9
101 11
97 0

s. d.
156 10
152 6
145 8
154 0
151 5
141 9
165 4
136 9
149 1
143 8
142 4
141 5
148 2
152 1

118 7

151 4

133 2
134 11
138 0

employing over 6 million manual workers. Administrative, technical, and clerical
workers and salaried persons generally were excluded.

Median Quartiles and Deciles of Composite Hourly Earnings by Age, September 1968

Sex and age

Lowest
decile

Lower
quartile

Median

Upper
quartile

Highest
decile

As percentage of the median
Lowest
decile

Shillings per hour
FULL-TIME MALES
15-17.................................................................................
18-20..................................... ...........................................
21-24................................................................ ...............
25-29...............................................................................
30-39.................................................................................
40-49.............................................................................. 50-59....................... .................................................... 6 0 - 6 4 ..........................................................................65 and over.....................................................................
FULL-TIME FEMALES
15-17.................................................................................
18-20.................................................................................
21-24.................................................................................
25-29................................................................................
30-39................................................................................
40-49................................................................................
50-59.................................................................................
60-64.................................................................................
65 and over....................................................................

2 .4
4 .4
6 .8
7 .2
7 .6
7.5
7 .0
6 .6
4 .9
2 .4
3 .7
4 .7
4 .8
4 .5
4 .5
4 .4
4 .0
3 .8

Source: Department of Employment and Productivity.




2 .8
5 .2
7 .8
8 .5
8 .9
8 .8
8 .2
7 .6
6 .5
2 .8
4 .4
5 .6
5.7
5 .3
5 .2
5 .0
4 .8
4 .4

3 .5
6 .4
9 .2
10.4
11.2
11.0
10.1
9.1
8.1
3 .5
5 .2
6 .7
7.3
6 .9
6 .4
6 .3
6 .2
5 .7

Lower
quartile

Upper
quartile

Highest
decile

Percent
4 .3
7 .7
11.0
13.0
14.7
14.4
13.3
11.7
10.2
4 .3
6.1
8.1
9 .2
9 .2
8 .7
8 .8
9.1
8 .0

5 .3
9 .2
13.1
16.3
19.8
20.7
19.0
16.1
14.0
5 .2
7 .4
10.4
12.6
12.7
12.3
12.9
13.7
10.3

68.1
69.6
73.5
69.5
68.1
67.7
69.9
72.9
60.6
70.0
71.2
70.5
65.4
65.7
70.0
69.7
64.3
66.4

Standard error of
median

Shillings

80.7
81.4
84.3
81.7
79.8
79.5
81.4
83.3
80.3

121.4
121.6
119.7
124.6
131.7
130.9
131.8
128.7
126.2

81.1
84.5
83.7
78.4
77.7
80.8
80.0
77.0
76.7

123.1
117.8
121.2
126.5
134.3
135.3
140.1
145.5
141.0

152.4
144.7
142.8
156.8
177.3
188.4
188.4
177.5
172.2
150.0
142.5
155.5
172.8
185.6
191.7
205.7
220.5
181.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0 .2
0 .2

Percent
0 .9
0 .6
0 .5
0 .5
0 .5
0 .5
0 .5
0 .7
1 .8
0 .8
0 .6
0 .7
1 .2
1.0

0 .8
0 .9
2 .6
3 .5

APPENDIX C

Pay Schemes for Young Workers for Various Industries in France

The pay for those under 18 when productiveness is less than that of
adults is fixed in proportion to the pay rate of the same job category:
Age

Percent

Age

Percent

14 to 15 years_________________________________ 50
15 to 16 years_________________________________ 60
16 to 17 years_________________________________ 70
17 to 18 years_________________________________ 80
However, without regard to age, those over 16 with at least 6 months
in the firm, the percent will be advanced to :
16 to 17 years________________________________ 80
17 to 18 years________________________________ 90
Trucking and materials

Minimum rates of pay for those under 18 are fixed in relation to the
minimum rates of adult employees in the same category and step in
class of the employee, as follows:
Age

Percent

14 to 15 years_________________________________
15 to 16 years_________________________________
16 to 17 years_________________________________
17 to 18 years_________________________________

60
75
85
90

Insurance societies

The minimum pay of young under 18 will be fixed in relation to the pay
of adults in the same job category, as follows:
Age

Percent

14 to 15 years_________________________________ 50
15 to 16 years_________________________________ 60
16 to 17 years_________________________________ 70
17 to 18 years_________________________________ 80
The reductions do not apply to those with a diploma (cerified d’Apti­
tude au Profesoral del’Ensergnemens Secondaire), and those who have
passed the examination of the building trades center.
Construction—Seine region

To take account of effective work and productiveness, the guaranteed
rate for young workers is calculated as a percent of the guaranteed rate
for workers over 18 in the same job category, as follows:
At hiring in: A range of 50 percent to 80 percent for those 14-18.




After 1 year’s experience—a range of 75 percent to 80 percent, for
those 15-18.
After 2 years’ experience—a range of 85 percent to 90 percent for
those 16-18.
After 3 years’ experience—95 percent for those 17-18.
However, by application of the principle “to equal work, equal pay,”
the work of young workers of both sexes ought to be paid by reference
to the adult occupying the same job taking into consideration their work
and their productivity.
Transport sector

When work performed by youths is equivalent in amount and quality
to the work performed by adults, the young worker will be paid according
to their job category, rank, or employment under the same conditions as
adults.
The pay to youth on piece rates when the conditions, quality, and
production are the same will be determined in the same way as pay for
adults.
When the work of youth is not equal in amount and quality, the pay
will be calculated in a percentage of the production of the adult of that
job category, rank and position.
The output will be computed as a fraction of the base. However, the
percentage of pay for the young paid on time rates should correspond,
under the rule of minimum guarantee, to the percentage of work which
they accomplish in comparison to adult workers.
Textile industry

I. The pay for young people for work ordinarily performed by adults
will be set in relation to the work they accomplish compared to that
of adults in quality and quantity.
II. In connection with the above, the minimum pay for those under
18 should not be reduced more than:

Age

Percent

14 to 15 years —
15 to 16 years __
16 to 17 years —
17 to 171/2 years
171/2 to 18 years

50
. 40
. 30
. 20
. 10
Chemical industry

In case of payment by time, the pay of young workers under 18 not
under apprenticeship should have the hourly pay for adults of the same
job category with reductions not greater than:




Age

14 to 15 years________________________________
15 to 16 years________________________________
16 to 17 years________________________________
17 to 18 years______,___ ______________________

Percent
50
60
70
80

159

In all cases where the young worker under 18 is paid by the job, unit
or productivity under conditions where the productivity is equal for work
normally assigned to adults, the young worker is paid on the same rates
as that of adults.
Games and baby carriages

I. The pay provisions for those under 18 doing work normally as­
signed to adults will be set in relation to the work accomplished in quality
and quantity compared to the work of adults. If quality and quantity are
equal to that of adults, the pay will also be equal.
II. In accordance with the above, the pay of those under 18 will be the
minimum for the job category, or employment to which they are
assigned, in accordance with the reduction corresponding to their age
and their seniority in the enterprise.
Pharmaceutical industry

The young workers employed in production and not under apprentice­
ship have the same guarantee of the minimum pay of the job category
where they are assigned in accordance with the reductions corresponding
to their ages and their experience in the firm.
The pay of those under 18 will not be reduced, in relation to adult
pay, more than: under 16 years—at hiring in 30 percent, after 1 year—
20 percent, 16-18 years—at hiring in 20 percent after 1 year—10 percent.
Air transport

After 18 years of age, young professional workers or specialists will be
considered as adults and receive the pay of their category on condition
they show sufficient professional capacity.
However, the young workers who, at the end of their apprenticeship,
have made progress in the firm not sufficient to justify professional
capacity in quality of production to receive an adult salary of their cate­
gory will receive a salary corresponding to their progress and for which
the rates are shown in the annex.
Metal industry

For employees with previous training: (percentage of adult earnings)
1st year—50 percent, 2d year—60 percent, 3d year—80 percent.
And for the employee with professional training:
1st year—80 percent, 2d year—90 percent.
Plastic industry

Source: Information from files of American Labor Attache in Paris.




160
APPENDIX D

Minimum Wage Rates in Canada

(From draft of section of publication Labor Standards in Canada,
Department of Labor, Ottawa, 1968)
The minimum rates set for young workers and for students in the
various provinces are as follows:
Alberta
.Workers under 18:
15 cents less than
adult rate
Students employed part- 55 cents, if under
time:
17
65 cents, if over
17
British Columbia____Bicycle-riders and foot- 50 cents
messengers employed ex­
clusively on delivery (no
age specified) :
Manitoba---------------- Workers under 18:
$1.00
Newfoundland_____ Workers 16-19 years:
70 cents (males)
50 cents
(females)
Nova Scotia________Workers 14-18 years: 1 Zone I
95 cents
(males)
70 cents
(females)
Zone II
80 cents
(males)
55 cents
(females)
Ontario____________ Persons under 18 em- 90 cents
ployed as messengers, de­
livery boys, news vendors,
pin setters, shoe shine
boys, golf caddies or in
the professional shop at a
golf course, in a municipal
public library, or in an
1 Unless the Minimum Wage Board gives express approval, not more than 25 per­
cent of an employer’s total working force may be underage employees (14-18 years).
In a hotel, restaurant, motel or tourist resort from June 15 to September 15, however,
up to 60 percent of the employees may be underage workers.







161
Ontario— (continued) amusement or refresh­
ment booth at a fair or ex­
hibition held by an agri­
cultural association:
Students employed parttime (not more than 28
hours in a week), or em­
ployed from May 15 to
September 15 or during
Christmas or Easter vaca­
tions :
If student required to
work more than 28 hours
in a week in the period
May 15-September 15:
Prince Edward
Island ___________Students (female) who
work a minimum of 28
hours in a week or who
work full-time from May
15 to September 15 or dur­
ing Christmas and Easter
vacations:
Quebec_____________Workers under 18:
General
Hotel trade
establishments
Service establishments

$1.00

90 cents during
first month of
employment
5 cents less than
regular min­
imum rate

Zone I, $1.05
Zone II, 95 cents
Zone I, 95 cents
Zone II, 90 cents
Zone I, 85 cents
Zone II, 80 cents
Students and messengers 80 cents
under 18 employed by mu­
nicipal corporations and
school boards:
Workers under 18 em­ Zone I, 90 cents
Zone II, 85 cents
ployed in sawmills:
Workers under 18 em­ Zone I, 95 cents
ployed in woodworking Zone II, 90 cents
plants:
Saskatchewan ______Workers under 17:
Ten cities—
95 cents
Rest of province
—90 cents

162
Provincial minimum rates for adult workers
Establishment

Province
Factories— shops— offices
Newfoundland.
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia.

New Brunswick.
Quebec.................
Ontario.............
Manitoba..........
Saskatchewan.
Alberta...................
British Columbia.




Workers 19 and over:
850 (wom en)
$1.10 (m en)
Men over 18:
$1.10

Women:
850, increasing to 950 on July 1 ,196 9.
Workers 18 and over:
Men:
$1.15, Zone I
$1.05, Zone II
Women:
900, Zone I
800, Zone II
Workers 18 and over:
$1.25, Zone I..........................................
$1.15, Zone II*.....................................
$1.30.........................................................
Workers 18 and over:
$1.25
Workers 17 and over:
$1.05, 10 cities and 5-mile radius
950, rest of province.
Workers 18 and over:

Hotels— restaurants
Same
Same
Same

Same
$1.05, Zone I
$1, Zone II
$1.15, increasing to $1.30 on October 1,1969.
Same
Same
Same
Same

CHAPTER XI

Youth Employment and Wages in Japan
The relatively high unemployment rates for
youth in the United States have given rise to
speculation concerning the effects of our statu­
tory system of “undifferentiated” minimum
wages on youth unemployment. Theoretical
analysis leads to the conclusion that workers
with low marginal productivity can command
only correspondingly low wages in the labor
market. If employers are forced to pay such
workers wages as high as those received by
more experienced—and presumably more pro­
ductive—workers, employers will bypass the
less productive in favor of the more productive
employees. Since young workers, especially
those who have failed to complete high
school, are likely to be the least experienced
and least productive, theoretically it follows
a minimum wage set above their low levels of
marginal productivity will lead to high rates
of unemployment among youth.
In Japan, high rates of overall employment
and intense demapd for new school graduates
are accompanied by a well publicized system
of employment. Japanese wage rates are set
at relatively low levels for new entrants to
the labor force and rise markedly with sen­
iority. These significant wage differentials
This chapter was prepared by Solomon B. Levine and
Gerald G. Somers, of the University of Wisconsin,
under contract for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Views expressed in this study are solely the responsi­
bility of the authors.
Footnotes and tables begin on p. 177.




arise not from formal minimum wage legisla­
tion, but from the “natural” development of
a dual wage structure and the so-called
n en ko system of permanent employment.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to speculate that
there will be a causal relationship between
youth-age wage differentials and the employ­
ment of young workers in Japan.
The purpose of this paper is to examine
the recent patterns and trends in Japan of
unemployment and wage differentials, with
special emphasis on comparison between the
experience of young workers and the total
work force. Efforts are made to explain the
employment experience of Japanese youth in
the light of labor market institutions and be­
havior, mobility patterns, employment (in­
cluding education and training) practices,
and employer-employee relations as well as
through an analysis of wage differentials and
wage-employment relationships.
The Japanese labor market

The relationship between differentials in
wage and unemployment rates in Japan can
be assessed only against the background of
the traditions and recent labor market devel­
opments. Japan’s labor market structure has
been discussed in detail elsewhere, and is re­
counted here only briefly.1 The most notable
features are dual structure of employment in
large and small enterprises, the lifetime com­
mitment system for permanent employees of
large firms, and the resulting consequences
163

164

for the mobility of labor, hiring practices,
training policies, wages and employment.
The dual structure of employment is seen
in the sharp contrast which exists between
large and small firms. The differences are
most notable in conditions of employment,
wages, bonuses and fringe benefits, and they
are made possible primarily because the large
firms have adopted advanced productive
techniques whereas the small firms are tech­
nically backward. The large firms also enjoy
the advantages of group affiliations, financial
connections, and favorable distributor rela­
tionships. The advantageous status of the large
firms is furthered through their cost-saving
relationship with smaller companies. Fre­
quently, the “master company” has made a
direct investment in a smaller affiliate and
controls its management. In other instances, a
subcontract relationship is established in
which an unaffiliated smaller firm may de­
liver almost all of its output for completion
or distribution by a larger company. In such
cases, the status and success of the larger
enterprises are enhanced by the perpetuation
of low wages and limited welfare benefits in
the dependent smaller firms. The nature of
these differentials as related to age is dis­
cussed in further detail later.
In spite of the prominence given to the role
of large firms and powerful combination of
firms in Japan, about half of all nonagricultural workers in the private sector are still
employed in establishments with less than 30
employees and the relatively large establish­
ments, employing 500 or more workers, have
only one tenth of the total. This breakdown
is shown in table 11.1.
Marked differences exist between large
and small enterprises, arising because of dis­
tinctions in hiring patterns, training, promo­
tion, tenure and wage determination. In the
large firms, these have come to be placed
under the general heading of nenko seid o , the
lifetime commitment system in which wages
and benefits of the employee advance prima­
rily on the basis of years of service. Large
firms compete for the best junior and senior
high school graduates, and these become per­
manent employees to be trained, promoted,




and retained in employment until they retire.
Monetary compensation and other benefits
for those 18 and under began at about half
the rate for these 20-24, with some differen­
tial based on education, and rise steadily and
progressively with age and years of experi­
ence in the establishment. (See below.) The
origins of these paternal relationships and
mutual loyalties are found in the traditions
of family attachments in Japan and other
cultural characteristics; but the nen ko sys­
tem became firmly entrenched only after the
1930's.
The persistence of the lifetime commit­
ment system, in spite of recent pressures of
economic and technological change, can be
explained by its advantages for employers
and employees. Whereas management obtains
a devoted and permanently committed work
force, whose wages rise with experience,
training and skill, the employee finds com­
plete employment security, a status highly
valued in the conditions of labor surplus
under which the system arose.
However the nenko system has distinct
limitations in coverage. The smaller estab­
lishments are unable to compete for the best
middle school and high school graduates, and
they become a refuge for older and other
workers whose productive potential makes
them less attractive to the large companies.
They are given no lifetime commitment, and
their mobility rates are substantially above
those of workers in the large companies.
Their wages were also traditionally well
below those older workers covered by the
nen ko system, although in recent years the
competition for new entrants into the work
force has been such as to raise the beginning
wages in small firms to the level of, and in
some cases even above, similar workers in
major firms. The over-all average compen­
sation in small firms, however, remains sig­
nificantly below that of the large.
Limits to the nenko system even in large
companies should be noted. This sytem must
be supplemented by other arrangements
which permit flexibility in the expansion and

165

contraction of the work force as economic gives to the internal labor market. Because of
and technological conditions require. In many the restricted mobility of young workers,
large establishments a status structure of once they have become permanent employees
employment has emerged. In addition to the of a large firm, the company is able to make
hard core of permanent employees, tempo­ substantial investments in their training and
rary workers are added as required, and development. There is no established occupa­
these workers are hired on the understanding tional structure in most Japanese firms. Inex­
that they have limited tenure. Their wages perienced new entrants, hired at relatively
and welfare payments are considerably below low wages to become permanent workers,
those of the permanent work force. Addi­ simply progress from one task to another as
tional groups, with even lower status and their training, newly acquired skills, and ex­
more casual attachments, are frequently uti­ perience permit. Only in the smaller estab­
lized by large companies. They include day lishments does significant hiring take place
laborers, subcontract workers and part-time at virtually all levels and ages. Temporary
employees. The subcontract workers may be and contract workers, even in the large firms,
provided by an affiliated small company and and employees in smaller establishments ex­
they may work temporarily in the master perience relatively high turnover rates.
company or in home establishments. They are
Rather than disrupt this labor market
employed by the contractor rather than by structure, collective bargaining has accommo­
the establishment in which they work, as in dated itself to it. Unions have focused their
the case of temporary help services in the attention on the permanent employees in
United States. Although these workers large establishments, and most have sought
usually perform relatively unskilled mainte­ to strengthen the tenure-wage relationship
nance work, they are sometimes found in the as a prime objective rather than to reduce
same jobs as the more permanently employed the absolute differentials within the firm or
workers. However, the subcontract workers between firms.
receive substantially lower pay than the com­
Marked labor shortages, resulting from the
panies' own employees and their compensa­ unusual economic growth of the past few
tion is even below that of most temporary years, have joined with substantial technol­
employees. Moreover, employers in the large ogical progress and structural shifts of in­
companies enjoy further savings because the dustry in affecting the nenko s y s te m . Because
subcontract workers do not receive the gener­ of the competition for labor, wage differen­
ous and comprehensive welfare payments en­ tials between large and small firms have nar­
joyed by permanent employees.
Mobility has increased, especially
Thus, the widely herald lifetime commit­ rowed.
among
workers
in small firms and in the
ment system in Japan covers only the perma­ movement from rural
to industrial cen­
nent employees of large firms. Since compa­ ters. Within some largeareas
firms,
there has been
nies with fewer than 100 employees are un­ a growth in the number of workers
who are
likely to have the nenko system, it has been
outside
the
nenko
system,
such
as
temporary
variously estimated that between 30 and 40
percent of the nonagricultural employees in auto workers and subcontract workers in
private enterprise work under the nenko shipbuilding. Employers in large firms have
system.2 Accordingly, wage differentials in talked increasingly of establishing types of
Japan exist not only between large and small job evaluation and merit-rating systems
enterprises but also between permanent em­ which tie compensation directly to occupa­
ployees of large firms and others who work tions and skills rather than to age and length
as temporary or subcontract labor in the of service. Despite these pressures, the basic
structure of the nenko system remains one of
same firms.
One important consequence of the nenko permanent employees in large establish­
system in large firms is the significance it ments.




166
Minimum wage legislation and administration

In light of the longstanding dualism in the
labor markets, the Japanese Government has
approached the fixing of minimum wages
with considerable caution. Prior to the allied
occupation of Japan, there was no legislation
for the setting of wage minimums although
labor controls during World War II moved
toward guaranteeing minimum living stand­
ards for industrial workers based on age.
Adoption of Japan’s new Constitution in
November 1946 (promulgated April 1,
1947) under the guidance of the Occupation,
however, signaled the government’s inten­
tion to develop a minimum wage system as
part of a broad range of labor reforms. Arti­
cle 25 provided that “all people shall have the
right to maintain the minimum standards of
wholesome and cultured living,” and “in all
spheres of life, the State shall use its endeav­
ors for the promotion and extension of social
welfare and security, and of public health.”
Until after the laws was amended in 1968,
the inter-enterprise agreement by far was
the procedure most generally used to set min­
imum wages. By June 1962, of the 870 mini­
mum wages that had been set, 867 derived
from such agreements among employers. For
the most part, the coverage applied to work­
ers in the small enterprises, reaching 1.9 mil­
lion workers in more than 116,000 enter­
prises by November 1962. Ninety-five per­
cent of these workers were covered by inter­
enterprise agreements, with the most numer­
ous groups in textiles, machinery manufac­
turing, food processing, lumber and wood, ce­
ramics, and services—industries noted for
their large numbers of small firms. Minimum
wage coverage rose to more than 2.5 million
workers by August 1963 and to about 3.0 mil­
lion by February 1964 with similar predomi­
nance of inter-enterprise agreements and
concentration in the small enterprise
sectors.3 In general, it appeared that employ­
ers only were fixing minimum wages, proba­
bly with the aim of regulating competition
among themselves for increasingly scarce
labor, especially new school graduates.
There were, however, certain notable ex­




ceptions to the inter-enterprise agreement
procedures. In December 1942, the Minister
of Labor upon the recommendation of the
Central Wage Council set a flat minimum of
16.000 per month4 for all underground coal
miners. This was a rare case of an industry­
wide determination, but was adopted as part
of the overall government policy to stabilize a
rapidly declining industry. Still another
major instance occurred in September 1963
with the setting of a minimum wage based
upon a union-management agreement in the
cotton spinning industry. Here, a minimum
of 346 per day was established for all per­
manently employed 15-year olds and over, ex­
tending the collective bargaining coverage
from 97,000 employees in 103 enterprises to
112.000 employees in 136 enterprises.5
Passage of the Labor Standards Law fol­
lowed almost immediately with its enabling
provision for the fixing of minimum wages.
In the law’s original version, article 1
stated “working conditions must be that
which should meet the need of the worker
who lives life worthy of a human b e i n g a n d
article 2, “the standard of working condition
fixed by this Law is minimum.” The act,
however, did not Specify any minimum wage
rates. Rather, in article 28, it provided that
“when the competent office considers it neces­
sary it can fix minimum wages for the
worker employed in certain enterprises or in
certain occupations,” and in article 29 it
called for the establishment of central and
local wage councils for the purpose of “inves­
tigating matters concerning wages” before a
minimum wage is officially set by the compe­
tent minister.
This procedure was rarely used despite
pressure from organized labor to bring about
the enactment of a uniform nationwide mini­
mum. Actually, not until 1959, after consi­
derable debate and agitation, did the govern­
ment take further legislative steps to estab­
lish minimum wages. One notable exception
occurred in 1956 when a minimum wage in the
packinghouse industry was not based upon
an inter-enterprise agreement among the em­
ployers concerned. This technique became a
model for other employer groups and was

167

adopted as the chief procedural means for tion basis with gradual extensions over increas­
setting wage minimums in the Minimum ingly wider regions. In October 1964, the Coun­
Wages Law enacted April 15, 1959. This law cil announced selection of 88 such industrial
and occupational groups for direct fixing of
remained unamended until 1968.
Enactment of the 1959 law came at the point minimum wages, although it should be noted
of transition from labor surplus to labor shor­ that the proposal envisioned differential mini­
tage in the rapidly growing Japanese economy. mums by area and “level” of enterprise. The
The new act did not specify any minimum rates plan aimed at a broadening of coverage to about
but instead concentrated upon procedures for 5 million workers and a rise in the lowest mini­
setting them. Article 3 stiplated that “minimum mums to above Y360 per day. In February
wages shall be fixed taking into consideration 1966, the Central Council called for rates to be
the cost of living of workers, wages of kindred lifted to between Y410 and Y520 per day.7
During 1966, deliberations over revising the
workers and normal capacity of industries to
pay wages.” Clearly, given the structure of the 1959 law intensified. Increasingly, criticism was
Japanese labor markets, differentials in mini­ leveled at the Japanese law, utilizing inter-en­
mum wages were intended. The Minister of terprise agreements as heavily as it did, that it
Labor or the chief of a prefectural labor stand­ was not in compliance with the tripartite provi­
ards office was authorized to fix minimum sions of Convention 26 of the ILO on the fixing
wages, following one of four methods: Recogni­ of minimum wages. By this time the Japanese
tion of an inter-enterprise agreement among Government had indicated its intention of rati­
employers; extension of such inter-enterprise fying the convention. Moreover, the failure to
agreements to similar workers within a speci­ move toward a uniform nationwide minimum
fied region, extension of a union-management prompted S oh yd, Japan’s largest labor federa­
collective bargaining agreement to similar tion, to withdraw its representatives from the
workers within a specified region; and, direct then proceeding tripartite deliberations over re­
setting for low paid workers in a specific indus­ vising the law. In May 1967, the Central Coun­
try, occupation, or region following investiga­ cil, even with the S oh yd representatives absent,
tion and deliberation of an equally tripartite recommended abolition of the inter-enterprise
minimum wage council (established at the cen­ agreement procedures and the exclusive use of
tral and local levels).
determinations by tripartite wage councils.
Under the procedures of the 1959 law, mini­ Within a few days, the Minister of Labor sub­
mum rates rose slowly and were far from uni­ mitted to the National Diet an amendment bill
form from one wage setting to another. Begin­ to this effect. S oh yd resumed its participation in
ning in 1960-61, the minimums hovered around the deliberations in September 1967.
Y200 per day. By June 1962, they tended to fall
The amendments to the Minimum Wages
in the Y200 to Y300 per day range, and by Feb­ Law
were adopted on June 16, 1968. While the
ruary 1964 had risen to Y300 to Y400 per day. principal
change provided for primary use of
This upward trend has since continued, an occa­ the tripartite
wage councils, inter-enterprise
sional rate reaching as high as Y600 per day.6
The heavy reliance upon inter-enterprise agreements were permitted to continue until
agreements and the lack of uniformity in the June 1970. The Central Council also has contin­
minimums set came under increasing criticism ued its reexamination of the law with the aim
almost from the inception of the 1959 law. In of proposing additional amendments. As yet,
1962, the Minister of Labor and Central Wage however, it is too early to judge what results
Council reported their dissatisfaction with the the 1968 revisions will produce.
Japan’s experience to date with minimum
results, pointing especially to the “unevenness”
of the rates established. In its report of August wage legislation does not indicate that the
1963, the Central Council proposed that by 1966 array of minimum rates which have been estab­
all minimum wages should be set on only an lished have seriously affected wage structures.
industry-by-industry or occupation-by-occupa­ It may be argued indeed that the low rates set




168
and the differentials permitted may have ac­
tually held back the compression of wages gen­
erated by labor market shortages. In turn, it is
dubious that the minimums have had any per­
ceptible effect upon the unemployment level of
the labor force as a whole or any group within
the labor force in particular.
Intra-enterprise employment practices

Youth-age wage differentials and a steady
supply of job opportunities for young workers,
especially those entering the labor force upon
completion of school are sustained under the
n en ko system of permanent employment. Al­
though neglecting the operations of “external”
labor markets in the analysis of wage differen­
tials in Japan is inappropriate, the nenko sys­
tem gives special prominence to the role of “in­
ternal” labor markets, particularly for workers
who become “regular” employees in the largescale enterprises and the government opera­
tions.
The n en ko system is an idealized type of
employment practice. Rarely is lifetime or ca­
reer-long tenure e x p lic itly guaranteed. Labor
analysts have debated the real meaning of
nen ko and are ip disagreement over its origins.
There is wide agreement, however, that the in­
stitution was widely implanted among modern
firms as the result of the strict labor controls
during Japan’s militaristic period of the late
1930’s and early 1940’s, although it can be
traced back to the 1920’s and in some cases
much earlier for white-collar and key manual
workers. The immediate post-surrender years
of near economic chaos and almost universal
insecurity in Japan witnessed the entrenchment
of n enko as the work forces of most large enter­
prises and government agencies formed labor
unions to protect their members against dis­
charges, discrimination, and the ravages of in­
flation.
However, n en k o , is also compatible with tra­
ditional values derived from paternalism, familyism, and reciprocal obligations between su­
perior and subordinate carried over from the
agrarian society of Tokugawa feudalism. On
the other hand, in view of the existence of open
labor markets and independent mobile workers




during the first decades of the Meiji Era, nenko
may also be considered a relatively new social
innovation designed to help advance Japan’s
“forced march” toward economic moderniza­
tion. Whatever the reasons for n en ko , the sys­
tem has long meant a major emphasis in Japan
upon “bringing workers up from the young” in
the modern sectors. At least until recently,
moreover, it had strong attractions for the em­
ployer in paying relatively low wages to young
single workers, in incurring low costs for work­
er migration, housing, and welfare, in securing
workers probably most adaptable to fast­
changing technologies and industrial environ­
ments, in training workers for skills specific to
the enterprise, and in assuring a high degree of
docility in the work force.
In recruiting new labor, especially workers
who are likely to become permanent employees
of an enterprise, employers usually seek new
school graduates as the first priority. In the
large firm, there tends to be little shopping
around for skilled workers from other firms or
in the open labor market, at least until the sup­
ply of new school graduates is virtually ex­
hausted. The increase of compulsory years of
schooling from six to nine years soon after
World II, and the recent trend of increasing
proportions of junior high graduates going on
to high school and of high school graduates en­
tering institutions of higher education, have
made successful recruitment among the age
groups (15-19) increasingly difficult. These
teenagers have been the traditional sources of
new labor for the large firms. At the same time,
on the demand side, the rapid growth in indus­
trialization, complex technical changes, and the
increases in the size of firms have generated
stiff competition among employers to recruit the
younger worker. N en k o thrived best under con­
ditions of ample supplies of young labor, a rela­
tively large agricultural sector, a dual economic
structure, and a less than pervasive adoption of
modern technologies.
In its ideal form, the n enko system provided
a single port of entry for permanent workers:
Unskilled, apprentice-like jobs at the bottom of
an enterprises’ work hierarchy. Likewise, there
was one port of exit: retirement—usually at the
age of 55. The retirement system alone assured

169
a steady supply of job opportunities for the
young, as long as firms maintained the age bal­
ance of their work forces and enjoyed steady or
growing output. In 1965, for example, among
manufacturing firms with 500 employees or
more, workers not previously employed consti­
tuted 70 percent of all new employees. Sixty-two
percent were new school graduates.8
Workers who do become permanent employ­
ees under n enko enjoy a wide variety of benefits
not available in small companies of for the tem­
porary, casual, subcontract, or part-time
worker in the large enterprises. These benefits
also grow with length of service. They include
semi-annual bonuses (in some cases as high as 3
months' pay), membership in enterprise-based
social insurance schemes, company housing at
low rentals, housing loans, medical care, recrea­
tion and bathing facilities, nurseries, company
stores, discounts, dining rooms, cultural pro­
grams, ceremonial gifts, and so forth. Of major
importance are generous lump-sum retirement
allowances and, in a growing number of cases,
monthly pensions. Upon retirement, some work­
ers may be reemployed with the firm or provided
employment with a subsidiary company or sub­
contractor.
There are occasions when enterprises find it
necessary even to reduce their permanent work
forces. In such instances, the usual approach,
after reducing the recruitment of new school
graduates, is to call for “volunteers,” often with
the inducement of extra-large severance pay­
ments. In most cases, those who voluntarily
quit are older workers. For at least a decade
there has been considerable controversy in
Japan over the viability of the nenko system
under conditions of rapid economic growth and
technological and structural change. In histori­
cal perspective, however, nenko has grown to
include manual as well as nonmanual workers.
As small firms get larger, moreover, there ap­
pears to be a tendency for nenko systems to set
in. Modifications through use of job classifica­
tion, job evaluation, merit rating, wage incen­
tives, and other techniques directly related to
worker productiveness have made only minor
inroads into the system so far. Despite the re­
cent narrowing of the age-youth differentials,




remains a tenacious institution that pro­
vides the employer a large degree of flexibility
in utilizing his work force and the wrorker in the
system a large measure of career-long security.
From the employers side, moreover, it is not at
all clear that under present conditions open
labor markets will assure greater productivity
or lower costs. Should Japan develop alterna­
tive means for assuring job security, the insti­
tution might deteriorate far more rapidly than
now seems to be the case.
If nenko raises questions of social equity,
they reside less in the realm of job opportuni­
ties than in the area of income opportunities in
the later stage of the worker's career. Those
who enter non-nenko systems run greater risks
of unemployment and underemployment and
the leveling off or dropping of wage income at
an earlier age than those in the system. Yet,
with Japan's rapid economic growth and rise in
youth wages, the small enterprise sectors offer
attractions to numerous new school graduates.
Small firms with fewer than 100 employees far
outnumber the large, comprising 90 percent of
all firms in manufacturing. These are made up
in large measure of family concerns which
provide considerable inducement to family
members to remain within the household.
Their work settings contrast sharply with the
large enterprises, often offering wide latitude in
the pace and type of work. In the medium-size
category (from 30 to 500 employees), moreover,
there has long been a tradition of worker mobil­
ity and the marketing of skills achieved inde­
pendently on one’s own. While employment in
this sector entails risks, there are also chances
for scoring large successes and achieving a high
degree of personal freedom.9
Thus, it is useful to emphasize that, while the
nenko system has received major attention in
the analysis of Japanese industrial relations
systems, in actuality there is a wide range of
employment practices in Japan. The “mix”
under conditions of rapid economic growth ap­
pears to pose few problems in the hiring of
youth. A major outcome may be to shift em­
ployment and wage problems to older workers
instead.
nenko

170
Youth wages and collective bargaining

As a result of the postwar labor reforms, the
unionization of workers and union-management
bargaining in Japan have become firmly en­
trenched institutions.10 At present, union mem­
bership numbers about 11 million workers dis­
tributed among more than 56,000 “unit” unions
(the closest equivalent to local unions in the
United States).11 About 35 percent of the wage
and salary earners eligible to become union
members are organized. However, unionism is
found primarily in the large public and private
enterprises. About two-thirds of the organized
workers are in enterprises that employ 500
workers or more. In firms with fewer than 30
workers, union membership is less than 1 pecent of the total. Furthermore, close to 90 per­
cent of all the unions are organized on an enter­
prise-basis and usually include all regular em­
ployees, manual and nonmanual, outside of the
managerial personnel. The remaining 10 per­
cent of the unions are made up of industrial,
craft, regional, or miscellaneous groupings.
Except for public workers in central govern­
ment enterprises, seamen, some textile workers,
and a few small other groups, collective bar­
gaining in Japan as in United States, tends to
be decentralized at the enterprise or plan level.
However, the major federations, particularly
S oh yo an d C h u ritsu ro ren , and some of the na­
tional industrial union organizations, attempt
to coordinate the bargaining activities of the
enterprise-level unions. This is most notable in
the case of the “seasonal struggles” over annual
“base ups,” or general wage increases, in the
spring and over the amount of bonus in early
summer and year's end. However, for repre­
sentatives of the central federations or national
industrial union organizations to participate di­
rectly and formally in the enterprise-level nego­
tiations is rare. This is also essentially true of
employer associations. Collective bargaining
coverage extends to about 80 percent of the or­
ganized workers and about two-thirds of all the
unions, the remainder either being excluded as
civil servants by law or having failed to enter
negotiations. It is likely that as many as onehalf the agreements contain no provisions other
than those already stipulated by law.12




Especially at the time of the “Spring Strug­
gle,” youth wages receive close attention in
collective bargaining. April 1 marks the begin­
ning of Japan's fiscal year; March is the month
of school graduation and, thus, for new hiring
commitments to be made. Therefore, in most
instances, spring has also become the time for
bargaining over base-ups, starting rates, and
new collective bargaining agreements.
However, wage minimums or even starting
rates for new school graduates do not tend to
take the center of the collective bargaining
stage. Far more important are the general wage
increases for the enterprise union membership
as an entity. The reason for this is not hard to
find. As previously mentioned, enterprise-level
unions cater to their entire membership and
therefore seek to prevent major upsets in the
wage and benefit structures that apply to their
respective members. Although the national
labor centers have advocated the principle of
equal pay for equal work and higher and uni­
form minimums for all workers, these issues do
not appear to be pursued as immediate demands
in the enterprise-level negotiations. Rather,
since the new starting rates have their greatest
impact in terms of their effect upon the whole
wage curve, a principal focus is to maintain the
“equity” of established wage differentials.
Thus, bargaining over starting rates is essen­
tially an integral part of the negotiations over
general base-ups. While there have been specific
minimum wage agreements between unions and
managements, as for example in the cotton
spinning industry already cited, for the most
part these have been special cases in which the
preponderance of the workers are young and
female.
With the development of the shortage of new
school graduates in recent years, the rise of ed­
ucational levels, and the inculcation of demo­
cratic ideas, young workers in many cases have
exerted pressure upon their unions and man­
agements to grant wage increases based on
their higher abilities and greater skills. This
pressure has been difficult to resist, especially
with the disproportionately large increase of
young workers in the work forces of the large

171
unionized firms. The development of merit rat­
ing, job evaluation, and separate promotion
tracks for ability and for seniority in many
firms has in part been a response to this pres­
sure, and in most cases has not been met by
outright union resistance.
Yet, it is not all that clear that the young
workers 4'want theirs now.” As they gain sen­
iority, they appear increasingly content with
the nenko system and with gradual change in
the enterprise wage structure. If there is dissat­
isfaction among the young workers regarding
their wages managements and unions probably
fear more the dissatisfaction of senior workers
that would be generated by too rapid flattening
of nenko wage curves. Both parties share the
common interest in maintaining a delicate bal­
ance between young and old.
Despite the increase in young members, it
should also be remembered that present-day
union leadership emerged at the time of Japan’s
greatest economic security. Many of the enter­
prise union leaders today gained their positions
by securing employment tenure for workers
who in the 1930’s and World War II were re­
cruited into large companies from small firms
and therefore, were not fully entitled at the
time to the benefits of the nenko system. To
them this accomplishment was an important
measure of egalitarianism within the Japanese
context, although founded paradoxically on
maintaining age and length of service differen­
tials in wages and benefits.
Moreover, in the early years of collective bar­
gaining in postwar Japan, unions were by and
large successful in obtaining agreements from
employers to base wages upon the needs of the
worker and his dependents. This idea has its
antecedents during the war as part of the sys­
tem of war-time labor controls, but its imple­
mentation has been almost entirely in the hands
of government officials and enterprise manage­
ments. Given the dire economic conditions in
the years immediately following surrender, the
new union organizations, especially in the
electrical manufacturing industry, took the
leadership in developing an elaborate formula
for monthly wage rates based on the estimated
living requirements of workers of different ages




with additional assumptions of family size and
responsibilities. After 1950, when the unions
were placed on the defensive largely as the re­
sult of changes in occupation and government
labor policy, these wage formulas were aban­
doned or revised but were readily converted to
place stress upon length of service in an enter­
prise with annual periodical wage advances vir­
tually assured to the permanent workers. In a
sense, the age-based wages were an attempt to
establish a uniform system of differential minimums in Japan. They gave way instead to a
compartmentalized collection of enterprise-cen­
tered wage hierarchies based mainly on length
of service.
The primary concern of the enterprise unions
with the regular work forces of their respective
enterprises probably generates less than enthu­
siastic support for a nationwide system of mini­
mum wage rates. In part, this accounts for the
position of D om ex , Japan’s second largest labor
federation and right socialist rival of the more
radically inclined S oh yo. D o m ei has been will­
ing to go along with the government’s policy of
differential minimums although in general it
protests against the low levels that are set.
Even S o h yo , although more vigorous in its in­
sistence upon a high uniform nationwide mini­
mum, is believed to temper its demands in view
of the lack of strong support from enterprise
union affiliates.
As in the United States, it is an unsettled
question in Japan as to whether unionism on
the whole has affected the general level of
wages other than would be expected from labor
market pressures under conditions of rapid eco­
nomic growth. There is some evidence that
wages in the large unionized enterprises are
higher than they might have been, although
even in this case managements may have sacri­
ficed profits through the device of the nenko
system in order to assure work force stability
and employer-employee harmony over the long
run. If this is so, then it is probably correct to
conclude that youth wages have been no more
affected by collective bargaining than has the
whole wage structure, and, despite the shortage
of new school graduates, possibly even less so.

172
Wage structure

Analysis of the history of wage differentials
in Japan since the early years of the 20th Cen­
tury indicates that until quite recently there has
been little overall narrowing by economic sec­
tor, industry, region, occupation, sex, size of
firm, or age.13 While these differentials have
more or less narrowed and widened with cycli­
cal changes in general economic activity, their
long-run persistence has been attributed largely
to the dualism of the Japanese economy which
only in the 1960’s has shown signs of disappear­
ing. Here, the focus is upon the differentials by
age although they are closely intertwined with
other types of differentials, especially size of
enterprise.
Japan’s wage structure as a whole experi­
enced a widening of differentials by age in the
larger firms and a narrowing in the smaller
firms from 1954 to 1960. After 1961, age differ­
entials have lessened regardless of size. In the
smaller firms, young workers have gained more
rapidly on older workers than in the larger
firms. Tables 11.2 and 11.3 provide data for
male workers in manufacturing which show
these trends. Moreover, until the early 1960’s,
starting wages for new school graduates and
for workers in the 18-19-year-old bracket
tended to be higher in the larger firms com­
pared with the smaller ones, but in the last sev­
eral years they have been evened up or slightly
reversed. Thus, except for the very small enter­
prise (with less than 5 workers), Japan has
developed fairly uniform wage rates for young
workers, even in the absence of specific mini­
mum wage legislation.
The behavior of age differentials since the
early 1950’s reflects the changes, discussed
more fully below, in labor force distribution by
age among the various sectors of the Japanese
economy. The growing demand for young work­
ers relative to their supply appears especially
high in manufacturing and commerce, whereas
shifts by older workers tended to concentrate in
industries such as road transport and construc­
tion. One explanation for the less rapid narrow­
ing of age differentials within the large firms is
that the growing employment of wage and sal­
ary workers flowed increasingly into enter­




prises where the n enko systems are most firmly
entrenched. Employment in Japan rose from 39
to 47 million between 1955 and 1965, but nonagricultural wage and salary workers grew by
more than 11 million in the period, for 46 to 62
percent of the total labor force.14 At the same
time, the proportion of the labor force employed
in firms with fewer than 10 workers dropped
from over 40 percent to barely 30 percent.15
Whereas 55 percent of the new junior high
school graduates and 50 percent of the new sen­
ior high school graduates entered small firms in
the mid-1950’s, these figures had fallen to 30
and 20 percent, respectively, a decade later.15
It is evident from the statistical data that
older workers in the smaller firms have experi­
enced a greater loss in their relative position on
the age scale than older workers in the larger
firms. In 1954, male workers age 18-19 in man­
ufacturing firms with 10-29 employees received
about half the monthly contract wages of the
male workers in the 40- to 50-year-old category.
The fraction for the same year in firms with
1,000 workers, or more was only one-third. By
1966, these proportions were about three-fifths
and almost one-third, respectively. This out­
come supports the contention that in Japan the
incidence of economic hardship has fallen more
heavily upon older than upon the younger work­
ers. Also the disparities by size of firm are
probably even greater in view of the fact that
young workers in firms of all sizes and senior
workers in the small firms receive few of the
money and nonmoney benefits received by the
older employees of the large-scale enterprises.
The compression of the age differentials, es­
pecially in the small firms, probably has been
due not only to the dwindling supplies of new
school leavers but also to an increase in the sup­
ply of older workers from the declining to the
rapid fall of agricultural employment, the re­
duced role of small enterprise, increased longev­
ity, greater availability of retired workers and
housewives for work, and the shift from selfemployment and unpaid family work to wage
and salary employment are the main factors
that appear to account for the increased supply.
Large employers have an increasing number of
employed workers of this type, particularly as
the supply of junior high graduates has fallen,

173

but they are reluctant to place such older work­
ers in the nenko system. Rather, as mentioned,
the status of these employees is likely to be as
temporary, casual, subcontract, or part-time
workers in the enterprise. If they do enter the
nenko escalator (which is occurring with in­
creasing frequency), they usually do so at a
wage level below their age and length of service
counterparts who have initially been hired di­
rectly upon school graduation. Only a small
proportion is likely to “catch up.” Increasing
employment of workers who have this “half
way” status probably has contributed to the
narrowing of the age differentials. As seen from
the statistical data, male workers in the 50-60
age bracket employed in manufacturing firms
with fewer than 500 employees fare worse than
their coworkers in the 40-50 age group and no
better than those in the 30-35 age group. This
has not been the case for firms with 1,000 work­
ers, or more. Once beyond the age of 60, how­
ever, senior workers in any size firm do not do
as well as even the 25-30-year-olds, although
they do better than the 15-24 age group.
The importance of length of service coupled
with age in the same firm until retirement is
seen in table 11.4. Here, in 1954, the indexes for
men in manufacturing show a rise in basic
wages of 5 and a half times between workers
under 18 years of age with 1 year of service and
workers 40-49-year-olds with 30 years or more
of service on the average. By 1966, this differ­
ence had dropped to about 4 times, although it
is of interest to note that whereas, in 1954
workers in the 50-59 age bracket with at least
30 years of service were not earning as much as
those in the 40-49 age group, in 1966 they were
actually ahead. When broken down by firm size,
the length of-service factor plays a far stronger
role the larger the enterprise.
In sum, the evidence suggests that as in the
past, age differentials in Japan have been nar­
rowing under conditions of rapid economic
growth and structural change, they have not
been narrowing so fast as to dissipate still siz­
able differences according to age and length of
service. One may conclude that these two fac­
tors, along with size of firm, far more than oth­
ers remain the major determinants of an indi­
vidual worker’s wage. Beneath the two factors




is a complex of values inherited from the dis­
tant past. These values appear to be changing
only slowly toward rewarding workers directly
for their productive contributions determined
by the external marketplace. In the meantime,
the almost universal result is a relatively low
wage for the young worker, probably below or
no more than the value of his marginal produc­
tivity. No doubt this increases the attractive­
ness for enterprises of recruiting young work­
ers into their work forces, making heavy invest­
ments in their training, and providing induce­
ments for them to remain in their organizations
for the duration of their careers.
Employment and unemployment

Japan’s unparalleled economic expansion
since the mid-1950’s is undoubtedly the major
factor that explains exceptionally low levels of
unemployment not only for the total Labor force
but also for youth. Utilizing concepts, definitions,
and survey techniques similar to those used by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United
States, the Japanese Government has reported
unemployment rates for the total labor force in
the 1960’s of approximately 1 percent—about
half the level of a decade earlier. While the in­
stitutions and practices in the Japanese labor
market tend to protect permanent workers
against unemployment, the high degree of
“full” employment recently observed for Japan
must be explained mainly by economic factors.
Otherwise, one would expect relatively high
rates of unemployment, and considerable under­
in agriculture), close to 6 million were selfemployed, family workers, and subcontract,
temporary, and part-time employees, as well as
those forced to accept work in technologically
backward and often unstable small firms. In
1967, of the 40 million persons employed in nonagricultural work (an additional 10 million are
in agriculture), close to six million were selfemployed and another 3.5 million were family
workers. Of about 30 million nonagricultural
wage and salary earners, 1.6 million are tempo­
rary employees and 1.2 million casual day
laborers.17
As seen in table 11.5, officially reported un­
employment rates since 1961 among young

174
workers (15-19 years old) have been consist­
ently, but moderately, higher than the rates for
the total labor force—of the order of 25 to al­
most 100 percent more. Following revisions in
1967 of the survey techniques and other proce­
dures for estimating employment and unem­
ployment, the Japan Ministry of Labor has in­
dicated that unemployment rates for both the
total labor force and for young workers have
actually been higher than previously estimated.
The revised figures give the overall unemploy­
ment rate since 1963 as between 1.1 and 1.3
percent and for 1967 only the unemployment
rate in the 15-19 year-old group as 2.1
percent.18 Unfortunately, unemployment data
by age categories for earlier and later years
based on the revisions are not available. In the
teenage group, however, there are no significant
differences in unemployment rates by sex.
In addition to the high economic demand for
workers in general, the supply of youth has
been falling. Although the 15-19 year-old pop­
ulation grew from 8.5 million to almost 11.2
million from 1961 to 1967, the rate of increase
tapered off rapidly and it appears that an abso­
lute decline has set in since 1967 reflecting the
sharp drop in Japanese birth rates beginning in
the early 1950’s. The numbers of 15-19 year
olds participating in the labor force fall almost
continuously from 1961 to 1965—from 4.3 mil­
lion to 3.8 million—after which there was a re­
covery in 1967 to 4.5 million. Thus, there has
been slight decline in the 15-19 year old partici­
pation rate—explained mainly by a much
higher proportion of junior high graduates who
go on to high schools and get a higher education
rather than enter the job market. Actually,
there has been a drastic decline in junior high
graduates immediately entering the labor force
at the usual age of 15, but their participation
has been shifted to the high school graduation
level of 18 years of age. The increased quality
of the young workers, as measured by educa­
tion, has assured them of greater starting
wages than new junior high graduates within
the established nenko systems.
No doubt, higher starting wages and a career
on a more elevated nenko wage curve have been
an important inducement for young workers to
continue in school. The postwar reforms of the




educational system, initiated by the Allied Oc­
cupation, opened much wider opportunities
than has existed for young people to go to adv­
anced schooling. Before 1945, the youth were
channeled early, around the age of 10 or 12, into
a multiple track system, each tier of which led
to fairly distinct occupational levels. The re­
forms abolished much of this system, and, while
they substituted stiff examinations for pupils to
advance from compulsory education, to the best
high schools and universities, the reforms
opened the way to a larger array of newly cre­
ated schools at the secondary and higher levels
of education. Regular attendance at school,
rather than performance, appears sufficient to
assure graduation. The schools, moreover, in co­
operation with the public employment offices
and employers, are important in recruitment
and placement of graduates. In March 1963,
there were 2.7 job openings through the public
employment offices for every new school gradu­
ate who filed a job application. By March 1967,
the ratio had risen to 3.2.19
One reason for the higher unemployment
ratio for youth than the total labor force proba­
bly is their greater mobility especially as the
result of voluntary separation. While voluntary
quits have been growing for the labor force as a
whole during the past several years, the rise has
been more marked for the 15-19 year-old group.
Since only about 60 percent of the Japanese
labor force are classed as “employees” rather
than self-employed or family workers (each of
which constitutes 20 percent), underemploy­
ment may be a more serious factor than unem­
ployment among young workers. Unfortunately,
there is no reliable measure of differentials in
underemployment between youths and adults al­
though government officials have expressed con­
cern that many youths are employed in dead­
end or unproductive jobs. One faltering ap­
proach to this question is seen in table 11.6,
based on data gathered in the 1968 triennial
“Employment Status Survey.” In this survey,
workers are asked whether they have a job and,
if so, whether they are seeking an additional or
new job, are relatively dissatisfied with their
current job and, perhaps, are “underemployed.”
Although there are hazards in considering
“dissatisfied” job holders as “underemployed,”

175

the percentage of young workers in this cate­
gory was significantly greater than the percen­
tage in this category in the total work force
(2.8 vs. 1.6). The proportion of the young un­
employed to total unemployment rates are pre­
sented in table 11.5. Young people always show
greater propensities for mobility, and without
some measure of their productivity relative to
wages, the desire to seek other work cannot be
adopted as a definitive measure of their under­
employment. Nonetheless, given their low
wages, the expressed desire for other work, cou­
pled with an actual search, may be viewed as a
useful supplement to the “totally unemployed”
statistics in appraising the relative economic
status of young workers in Japan.
The numbers “without a job but wishing to
work and seeking work” presented in the
triennial survey data of table 11.6, substantially
exceed the “totally unemployed” presented in
the monthly labor force surveys (table 11.5).
Here, too, the proportion of young people (1519 years) in this category (relative to the labor
force 15-19 years of age) is approximately dou­
ble that of the total labor force in this category.
This might be construed as a measure of “dis­
guised unemployment” since it probably reveals
longer-term wishes and job search activity. The
lower levels of unemployment presented in table
11.5 are geared to work and job search activi­
ties in a particular survey week. The data in
table 11.6 include persons wishing and seeking
part-time work as well as full-time work.
The data are indicative of the volatility of
employment that still exists as the Japanese
economy moves rapidly away from its dualistic
structure. In the wake of this development are
probably fast opening (and closing) job oppor­
tunities and still a sizable proportion of under­
employment. In 1966, 8 million of the employed
labor force worked less than 35 hours per week
on the average. At least one-fourth of these
were employed from 1 to 14 hours per week.20
It is seen, then, that unemployment rates
among Japanese youth have been consistently
higher than those for the total work force; and
that there may also be greater underemploy­
ment and disguised unemployment among
workers in the 15-19 age category. Given the




rapid expansion and “full employment” of the
Japanese economy, however, all of these meas­
ures are relatively low.
Conclusions

Each nation in the course of modern eco­
nomic growth will develop its own institutional
and economic patterns that may not be replica­
ble elsewhere. Thus, the attempt to “transfer”
practices or policies from one country to
another is not likely to succeed except in the
roughest outlines.
Yet, the examination and analysis of foreign
patterns are useful in yielding insights not only
about another nation but also about one’s own
nation. The Japanese case appears instructive
in this sense with regard to youth employment
and wages. The following points merit special
emphasis:
First, Japan’s experience with modern indus­
trialization and rapid economic growth has not
avoided problems of underemployment and un­
derdevelopment. A very high growth rate
coupled with major structural shifts in Japan’s
economy has probably been overriding in keep­
ing unemployment rates of virtually all groups
comparatively low. It is not at all certain that
underemployment and dissatisfaction in Japa­
nese labor markets have been dispelled as eas­
ily.
Second, in spite of marked wage differentials
in relation to age, youth unemployment rates
still exceed the average for the total labor force,
and youth probably experience more underem­
ployment and have less productive jobs than
their older counterparts.
Third, youth have been “advantaged” in em­
ployment by several major institutional fac­
tors: The nen ko system, extensive on-the-job
training, based on low-mobility rates, and rap­
idly changing technologies requiring higher lev­
els of training and education. Should the Japa­
nese economy continue to grow at its present
high rate and its structure become increasingly
modernized, Japanese youth are likely to enjoy
more favorable employment prospects than
their parents and grandparents did regardless
of the wage structure.

176
Fourth, the incidence of economic hardship in
Japan—through unemployment, underemploy­
ment, and relatively low income—probably falls
more heavily on older than on younger workers.
Japan has two major groups of senior workers:
the permanent workers in the large enterprises
who enjoy steady advancement until retire­
ment, and the categories of nonpermanent
workers in both the large and small enterprise
sectors and in agriculture. Thus, it is by no
means universal that age and seniority com­
mand rewards in Japan. The outcome depends
on one's organizational attachment, established
early in the worker's career. As a result, em­
ployment and income problems of the older and
retired worker are more important to Japan's
policymakers than the problems of the eco­
nomic status of youth. For example, the oppor­
tunities for attractive employment for Japanese
workers over 55 are relatively few. However, a
fuller examination of this question would re­
quire a detailed analysis of social security pro­
visions, hiring practices of older workers, and
family economic ties.
What is the significance of these results for
American policy? The relatively high rates of
unemployment among American youth have
been too widely discussed to require recounting
here. The gap between youth unemployment
rates and those for the total population is
greater in the U. S. than in Japan; and all un­
employment rates are at much higher levels
here. Wage differentials based on age may con­
tribute to lower youth unemployment rates in
Japan, relative to the U. S., but the persistence
of higher rates of Japanese youth unemploy­
ment and underemployment relative to the total
Japanese work force raises questions concern­
ing the overall significance of the wage impact.
Giving statistical precision to the various fac­
tors which affect employment, unemployment
and underemployment among Japanese youth
has not been possible. On the basis of our exam­
ination, however, it appears reasonable to con­
clude that wage differentials are less important
factors than rapid economic growth, structural
and technological shifts, national full employ­
ment, relatively low mobility rates, and the re­
lative shortage of young workers. A similar




confluence of these factors in the American
economy might well have similar effects on
youth employment regardless of the wage struc­
ture. In the Japanese case, the role of these fac­
tors obscures the importance of the wage dif­
ferentials for employment and unemployment.
In appraising Japanese experience for pur­
poses of American policy, however, it is espe­
cially important to note that wage differentials
for youth in Japan result not from legislative
fiat but from an institutional complex of much
broader dimensions and greater flexibility. The
United States could not expect to adopt one
component of the n enko system without adopt­
ing other components and hope to achieve re­
sults similar to Japan. When wages are as low
as those accepted by new workers in Japan, the
distinctions between employment, underemploy­
ment and unemployment become blurred. Many
American youth would prefer to remain “unem­
ployed" than accept such relatively low wages.
Many of those who accepted this low-income
employment would be in an “underemployed"
status, with consequences for public policy as
serious as those arising from outright unem­
ployment. Even in Japan, wage rates for youth
have been among the most rapidly rising wage
categories in recent years.
Why, then, are entering Japanese workers
still willing to accept a low starting wage, in
many cases an “exploitative" wage, below their
current marginal productivity? They view their
starting wage as part of a total income package,
lasting until age 55, in which low starting
wages are offset by high final wages which
might greatly exceed their productivity at later
stages. In other words, the nenko system pro­
vides a life-time income matching lifetime prod­
uctivity, and it is viewed as such by young Jap­
anese workers. Without the rewards of age, the
“exploitation" of youth would be unacceptable.
This view of wages derives from long-estab­
lished cultural values and social relations as
well as economic forces.
Employers in Japan are willing to accept this
system and make lifetime commitments because
low rates of labor mobility make extensive onthe-job training a sound investment, thereby
permitting a growth of skills to parallel an in-

177
creases in wages. And the “early” retirement
system permits the employer to terminate a
worker at the point at which the system be­
comes excessively costly.
Is the United States prepared to adopt the
other essential components of the Japanese sys­
tem at the same time as it reduces youth wages

relative to the average minimum wage? If not,
youth may not “accept” such a structure of dif­
ferentials. And yet, given mobility rates and
other labor market traditions in the United
States, employers, workers over 55, and public
opinion are not likely to accept the n en ko sys­
tem as a totality.

-F O O T N O T E S1 See, for example, Koji Taira, “The Dynamics of
Japanese Wage Differentials, 1881-1959” (unpublished
Ph. D. Dissertation, Standord University, 1961); and
Solomon B. Levine, “ Labor Markets and Collective Bar­
gaining in Japan,” in W. W. Lockwood (ed.), The S ta te
an d E conom ic E n te rp rise in J a p a n (Princeton, N.J.,
Princeton University Press, 1965).
2 Gerald G. Somers and Masumi Tsuda; “Job Vacan­
cies and Structural Change in Japanese Labor Mar­
kets,” in The M ea su rem en t an d In te rp re ta tio n o f Job
V acan cies. National Bureau of Economic Research,
(New York, 1966), pp. 204-205.
3J a p a n L a b o r B u lletin (Japan Institute of Labor,
Tokyo), September 1962, February 1963, December
1963.
4360 yen = US$1 (had been 4.267=:$! before 1941;
since 1949 360 y = $ l).
5Ibid., February 1963 and November 1963.
6 Ibid., September 1962 and May 1964.
7 Ibid., October 1963, December 1964, and April 1966.
8S u rv e y o f E m p lo y m en t T ren ds fo r 1965, Japan Min­
istry of Labor.
9Hideaki Okamoto, “Enterprises in Japan: A Socio­
logical Prospective,” J a p a n L a b o r B u lletin , July 1967.
10 See Solomon B. Levine, In d u stria l R ela tio n s in
P o stw a r J a p a n U rban a (University of Illinois Press,
1958).
11J a p a n L a b o r B u lletin , March 1969.
12 Y e a r B ook of L abor S ta tis tic s , 1967, Japan Minis­




try of Labor, Tokyo, 1968; Alice H. Cook, Japanese
Trade Unionism (Ithaca Cornell University, 1966),
pp. 53-56.
13 See Taira, op. cit.
14J a p a n S ta tis tic a l Y earboo k, 1966, Office of the
Prime Minister, Tokyo, 1967.
15 Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Prime Minister.
16 Bureau of Employment Security, Japan Ministry
of Labor.
17 Y e a r B ook o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , 1967.
18J a p a n L a b o r B u lletin , J u ly 1969; Y e a r B ook o f

L a b o r S ta tis tic s , 1967.
19 Y e a r B ook o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , 1965 an d 1967.
20 Y e a r B ook o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , 1967, p. 13.

Table 11.1. Size of establishments and workers in
private non-agricultural industry in Japan, June 1966
Size of Establishment
(number of workers)

1

1

2^4
59
10 19
20 29
30 99
100-499
500 999
000 or more
Total (number)

______________ _______
____ __________________
______________ ______
__________________
____________ - ________________
_____________________
_______________
______ ___________
__ _____________ -

Number of
Establishments
1,104,480
1,981,780
609,132
290,936
98,897
123,403
27,741
1,957
1,066
4,239,392

Number of
Employees
1,104,480
5,171,471
3,914,287
3,881,419
2,348,330
6,088,628
5,159,758
1,331,346
2,256,772
31,256,491

i Private establishments only.
,, L
Source: Year Book of Labor Statistics, 1967. Japan Ministry of Labour, pp. 15-18.

178
Table 11.2. Monthly contract cash earnings in Yen for male workers in manufacturing by age and size of enterprise,
selected years 1954-66
[Index: Age Group 20-24=100]

Size: number of
employees

Average
earnings
Y

1954 19,179
1,000or more IL__ _ 1966
1961 26,461
39,700
100-499

____

10-29

____

J

18 and
under

20-24

18-19

35-39

30-34

25-29

50-59

40-49

60 and
over

Years

1954
1961
1966
1954
1961
1966

14,264
19,695
32,500
10,302
17,154
32,200

Index

Y

6,350
8,369
15,600
5,351
8,611
15,600
5,022
9,237
110.7 16,500

150.5
159.7
143.3
126.8
121.4
116.5
114.1

111.8

Index

Y

Index

49.8 9,120
50.4 12,973
56.3
47.6 8,049
53.0 12,245
55.9 20,500
55.6 6,883
60.2 11,874
56.7 21,700

21,100

Y

71.5 12,747
78.2 16,574
76.2 27,700
71.5 11,252
75.4 16,226
73.5 27,900
76.2 9,031
77.3 15,346
74.6 29,100

Index

Y

Index

Y

Index

100.0022,603
17,430 136.7 20,939
136.7 30,203
100.
34,500 124.5 42,000
100.
0
14,866 132.1 17,402
100.
0
21,337 131.6 25,014
100.0034,900
100.
125.1 39,600
124.0 12,999
100.
00 11,197
100.
18,701 121.9 20,223
100.034,800 119.6 37,100

Y

Index

Index

Y

184.4 25,889
210.
1 39,307
179.8 55,200

164.3 23,507
182.0 34,792
151.6 49,800
154.7 18,736
154.3 27,693
141.9 41,600
143.9 13,379
131.7 21,472
127.5 37,100

166.5 19,305
170.8 28,888
149.1 43,200
148.1 13,201
139.9 21,478
127.5 36,900

Y

Index

203.1 25,861
237.0 39,882
199.3 58,600
171.6 17,950
178.1 26,257
154.8 39,600
146.2 12,366
140.0 19,117
126.8 33,800

Y

Index

202.9 13,348
240.5 20,836
29,600
159.5 13,733
161.8 20.066
141.9 30,800
136.9 10,032
128.3 16,093
116.2 29,100

211.6

104.7
126.0
106.9

122.0
123.7
110.4

111.1

104.9
100.0

Source: RODO HAKUSHO (Labor White Paper), 1967. Japan Ministry of Labor, pp. 254-55.

Table 11.3. Monthly contract cash earnings in Yen by
age in Japanese manufacturing enterprises with less than
five employees, selected years, 1958-66
Age

1961

1958

Under 18________ ____ _____________
18-19______________________________
20-24\
25-29/--------------------------------------------------------30-341--------------------------------------------------------35-39/--------------------------------------------------------40-49______________________________
50 and over____ ______ _____ _____

3,615
4,641

Average.,_________________ _________

7,272

Source:
p. 259.

9,584
9,045

/
1
/
\

1966

6,474
7,732
10,317
12,858
13,360
12,384
12,136
11,937

13,546
16,651
21,338
26,289
26,203
23,823
22,155
21,413

11,043

22,651

RODO HAKUSHO (Labor White Paper), 1967. Japan Ministry of Labo

Table 11.4. Wage differential indexes for male workers in Japanese manufacturing by age, length of service, and size
of firm, selected years 1954-661
Age

Under 1 8 ... ________________
Under 18_____________________
1 8 -1 9 ....___________________
20-24________________ ____
25-29______ ____ _____________
30-34________________________
35-39_______________________
40-49________________________
50-59______ _____ ___________
60 or over_____ ___ __________

1

Length of
service
(years

21

3-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-29
30 or over
do.
do.

1,000employees or more

All enterprises
1954
124.3
145.0
190.1
286.6
413.3
515.9
570.6
607.8
586.8
317.7

1961
116.1
129.2
166.9
225.6
306.1
393.4
443.4
556.6
532.2
262.6

1966
109.5
111.7
145.6
199.3
251.1
304.1
358.5
419.7
437.4
257.1

Male elementary and junior high school graduates with less than one year's
service = 100.




1954

121.2

136.5
176.6
265.7
373.9
475.5
561.4
600.0
612.8
383.7

1961
109.2
116.2
168.5
229.5
327.1
413.5
518.4
659.6
641.8
501.6

30-99 employees

1966
106.2
113.1
140.7
186.9
255.9
315.2
375.2
466.9
488.3
228.8

1954
124.8
144.1
198.0
266.9
329.0
412.2
478.5
453.0
389.2
343.0

1961
117.6
132.0
164.4

221.8

283.6
312.0
367.4
365.7
331.0
249.4

1966
114.9
124.3
152.7
209.5
264.9
294.6
295.3
295.3
299.3
267.6

Source: RODO HAKUSHO (Labor White Paper), 1967. Japan Ministry of Labor,
pp. 256-57.

179
Table 11.5. Employment status of total labor force and
youth in Japan, 1961-67

Table 11.6. Youth and total workers seeking additional
or new work in Japan as of July 1, 1968

[In thousands]

In thousands]
Labor force

Employed

Unemployed

Total

15-19 years

Employment status
Year

Total
Total

1961...............
1962...............
1963...............
1964...............
1965.........
1966_______
19671______

45,620
46,140
46,520
47,100
47,870
48,910
49,780

15-19
years

4,250
4,260
4,080
3,820
3,920
4,360
4,510

Total

45,180
45,740
46,130
46,730
47,480
48,470
49,350

15-19
years

4,200
4,200
4,020
3,770
3,860
4,300
4,150

Num­
ber
440
400
400
370
390
440
440

Per­
cent

1.0

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9

Num­
ber

Per­
cent

60
60
60
40
60
60

0.9

1Figures for 1967 are preliminary.
Source: Year Book of Labour Statistics, 1965,1967. Japan Ministry of Labor.




Number Percent Number Percent

15-19 years

1.4
1.4
1.5

1.0

1.5
1.4

With a job........... ........... .................................
Seeking additional job..........................___
Seeking change of job.................... ..........

4,906
459
805

Without a job but wishing to work,................
Seeking work____ __________________
Not seeking........................................ .......

8,018
3,255
4,763

21 100.0
0.6
2.8
100.0
1,278
563
44.1

100.9
0.9

1.6
100.0
40.6

3,895

59.4

715

109

55.9

Source: 1968 Employment Status Survey. Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Prime
Minister, Japan.

CHAPTER XII

Summary and Conclusions
Over the past 20 years, unemployment among
youths age 16-19 has been higher than that for
adults. Since 1948, teenage1 unemployment
rates have varied from a low of 7.6 percent in
the last year of the Korean War (1953) to a
high of 17.2 percent in 1963. By contrast, the
unemployment rate for adults over age 24
ranged from a low of 2.3 percent in 1968 to 5.6
percent in 1958.
As might be expected, there is a similarity
between fluctuations in the unemployment rates
for teenagers and for adults, because general
business conditions affect the employment of all
groups within the population. Yet the unem­
ployment rate of teenagers has, in the 1960’s,
increased relative to the rate for adults.
Although, between the recession of the early
1960’s and the full employment of the last few
years, the unemployment rate for both adults
and teenagers has decreased, the relative dec­
line was much smaller for teenagers than for
adults. The adult rate dropped from almost 5
percent in the first 4 years of the decade to 2.5
percent in the last 3 years; for teenagers, from
about 16 percent to 13 percent. Thus, from 1948
to 1962, the teenage rate was 3 times the adult
rate; but in the last few years it was 5 times as
high (table 12.1 and chart 2).
Many developments of the last 20 years could
have contributed to the persistently high rates
of unemployment for teenagers and the increase
relative to adults in the 1960’s. A substantial
growth in the size of the teenage population re­
lative to adults—from about 9 percent in the
Footnotes appear on p. 189.
180




mid-1950’s to 13 percent in the last few years
—has compounded problems of job placement.
The proportion of teenagers enrolled in school
has increased from 50 to 70 percent. While
school takes some teenagers out of the labor
market, an increasing proportion of those en­
rolled in school are also in the labor market
seeking jobs—jobs that fit in with the require­
ments of school attendance with respect to loca­
tion, hours, and so on.
The movement of families from farm to city
and the decline in farm employment has also
meant that a smaller proportion of teenagers
are employed in agriculture—a decrease from
18 percent in 1948 to 7 percent last year. Many
teenagers had been employed on family farms;
now they must compete in the urban labor
market. Potentially compounding all these de­
velopments has been the effect of the military
draft and its attendant uncertainties.
Another development of major significance to
policymakers is the Federal minimum wage.
According to economic theory, a wage set
higher than the rate normally prevailing in the
market will mean that some workers will not be
able to find jobs. Probably those workers who
are less productive—either because they are un­
trained or inexperienced or have inadequate
tools to work with—will have special employ­
ment problems. A legal minimum wage might,
therefore, help explain the unemployment prob­
lems of some teenagers.
In 1950, the Federal minimum wage under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was 75
cents an hour. In the years following, the mini-

181
Table 12.1.

Teenage unemployment rates and ratios

Unemployment rates, 16- to
19-year-olds

Ratio of unemployment rates,
16 to 19 years, to rate for 25
years and over

Total

Total

Year

1948________
1949________
1950________
1951_______
1952________
1953________
1954________
1955________
1956________
1957________
1958________
1959________
1960________
1961________
1962...... .
1963________
1964________
1965________
1966________
1967________
1968________

9.2
13.4
12.2
8.2
8.5
7.6
12.6
11.0
11.1
11.6
15.9
14.6
14.7
16.8
14.7
17.2
16.2
14.8
12.8
12.8
12.7

White

All others

8.9
13.0
11.8
7.8
8.3
7.5
12.1
10.4
10.1
10.6
14.4
13.1
13.5
15.3
13.3
15.5
14.8
13.4
11.2
11.0
11.0

11.2
16.9
15.3
11.0
10.5
8.8
16.6
15.6
18.1
19.1
27.4
26.1
24.3
27.7
25.3
30.3
27.3
26.5
25.4
26.2
24.9

3.17
2.79
2.77
2.93
3.54
3.17
2.68
3.06
3.36
3.41
2.84
3.32
3.27
3.11
3.34
4.00
4.26
4.63
4.92
4.92
5.52

White
3.30
2.89
2.95
3.00
3.77
3.41
2.88
3.25
3.48
3.42
2.82
3.36
3.46
3.19
3.50
4.08
4.35
4.62
4.87
4.58
5.24

All others
2.49
2.35
1.96
2.44
2.33
2.26
1.91
2.08
2.66
2.98
2.63
3.00
2.89
2.66
2.84
3.70
3.79
4.49
5.18
5.57
6.23

Note: For more detail, see chapter 1.

mum was raised until, at the end of 1969, it
stands at $1.60 for most workers covered by the
law.2 Of course, prevailing market wages have
been increasing at the same time. Relative to
average hourly earnings, the minimum wage in
1968, as indicated in chart 1, was not much dif­
ferent from its relative level in 1950.
Perhaps more significant have been the ex­
pansions of coverage under FLSA into the re­
tail trade and service sectors in the 1960’s.
Trade and service industries employ dispropor­
tionately large numbers of teenagers. Further,
there are many low wage sectors in those two
industry divisions. In 1968, for example, aver­
age hourly earnings were $2.16 in retail trade
compared with $3.01 in manufacturing and
$2.85 for the private nonfarm economy.
In examining past relationships between min­
imum wages and the high unemployment rates
of youth, certain general questions must be in­
vestigated: (1) Have changes in the level of
minimum wages and coverage of minimum
wage laws contributed to the problem of youth
unemployment? (2) Do employers avoid hiring
teenagers because the wage that must be paid
them is not low enough to offset the disadvan­
tages of inexperience or lack of maturity, or are
other reasons more important in inhibiting
their employment? (3) Do teenagers expect
wages so high that minimum wage rates are




irrelevant or are their expectations high due to
the minimum wage ?
In addition to questions concerning past ex­
perience, two others require examination: (4)
Regardless of whether or not the legal mini­
mum wage has significantly contributed to the
problem of youth unemployment, would a dif­
ferential minimum wage for youth reduce that
problem in the future? (5) Would any signifi­
cant problems be caused by a youth differential,
such as reduced family incomes or a shift in the
incidence of unemployment from teenagers to
other groups ?
The evidence from time series

Studies of the relationship between minimum
wages and teenage unemployment rates com­
pleted over the past several years have not ar­
rived at a uniform set of conclusions. The econ­
ometric analysis undertaken for this report
used several approaches to analyze data. Basi­
cally, quarterly data for 1954 through 1968
were examined for different sex-color-age
groups within the teenage population. Varia­
tions in the proportion of teenagers employed
and the proportion unemployed were compared
Chart 1. Coverage of minimum wage law and changes in
minimum rates as a percentage of average hourly wages.

Coverage (in percent)

Minumum wage/AHE

■ **■ ■ ■
S a ili.k

65

90

Minimum wage as percent of
. average hourly earnings

Percent of nonsupervisory
workers in private nonfarm
economy covered by FLSA

1948

56

60
Year

50
1968

■

182
Table 12.2. Proportion of earnings covered by the Fed­
eral minimum wage.
Minimum
Minimum
wages as a
wages as a
percent of
average hourly
percent of
average hourly
earnings
earnings
Total
weighed by
compensa­
weighted by industrty teen­
tion per
industry total
age employ­
man-hour,
employment
ment and
and proportion
private
population of
nonfarm
covered, pri­
total employ­
vate nonfarm
ment covered
private nonfarm

Basic minimum wage
as a percent of
Basic
minimum
Year

1947______ _
1948__________
1949_____ _
1950__________
1951__________
1952__________
1953__________
1954_____
1955____ ______
1956__________
1957__________
1958__________
1959....... .......
1960......
1961__________
1962__________
1963__________
1964.... .......
1965__________
1966__________
1967__________
1968__________

effective
at end
of year

Average
hourly
earnings,
private
nonfarm

$0.40

35.4
32.7
31.4
56.2
51.7
49.3
46.6
45.5
43.4
53.2
52.9
51.3
49.5
47.8
49.1
51.8
51.9
53.0
51.0

.75

1.00

1.15
1.25

48.8
1.40
1.60

53.8
55.6

31.3
27.7
27.9
49.6
45.5
43.1
40.8
39.5
38.1
46.0
43.4
41.9
40.1
38.5
40.9
43.1
42.9
43.3
41.8
39.5
41.5
44.0

20.3
19.1
18.0
32.3
30.1
28.4
26.9
25.8
24.8
30.7
29.8
28.3
27.3
26.2
28.3
32.8
32.5
33.4
32.5
31.5
39.2
42.6

18.2
17.6
21.0
20.2
18.4
18.1
17.8
21.0
27.7
27.1
27.7
27.1
26.7
36.9
40.1

Note: For explanations, see table 1.6 in chapter 1. Dashes indicate data not available

with variations in the minimum wage, control­
ling other relevant variables. These variables
included the adult unemployment rate, the pro­
portion of teenagers employed in agriculture,
the relative size of the teenage population, the
school enrollment rate, and the relative size of
the Armed Forces. A similar analysis of the
employment experience of teenagers as a whole
through a more extended period, 1948 to 1968,
used annual data.
These analyses concluded that it was not pos­
sible to adequately separate out the effects of
minimum wage changes from other develop­
ments. A demonstrable relationship exists be­
tween minimum wages and youth unemploy­
ment rates if other variables are exclu ded from
the analysis, but when other variables such as
population and school enrollment changes are
taken into account, the effect of changes in the
minimum wage upon teenage unemployment be­
comes obscure.
The study indicated that extensions of cover­
age of the minimum wage had more of an effect
than changes in the relative level of the mini­
mum wage; that Federal manpower programs
which produce employment for teenagers may
have offset, to some degree, the disemployment




effects of minimum wage legislation; and that
minimum wage legislation may have had
greater adverse effects upon 16- and 17-year-old
than upon 18- and 19-year-old youth.
The analysis concluded on the cautious note
that, “While there are hints of adverse effects
of minimum wages in available data, no firm
statements can be made about the magnitude of
such effects.”
Another survey undertaken for this report
differs significantly in approach from other re­
cent studies. Its analysis traces the employment
experience of an identical group of young
males, 15 to 25 years of age, during a time when
the Federal minimum wage was increased from
$1.25 in 1966 to $1.40 in 1967 and coverage was
expanded significantly. For the teenagers, as
well as for older groups, the analysis showed
mixed results.
Those teenagers already earning $1.40 or
more in 1966 were not directly affected by the
new minimum. If the minimum wage had any
effects, it would be expected to lead to more
time unemployed or more time spent out of the
labor force by the low wage teenagers. Con­
trary to this expectation, table 12.3 shows that
the average number of weeks low wage teen­
agers were unemployed not only declined beChart 2. Fluctuations in adult and teenage unemploy­
ment rates, 1948—68
GW. . . *

, * MM ' . :

Teenage rate

"i'< „

*

■ * ■

* .5 *

* *

Adult rate

**■

183
Table 12.3. Change in labor force status, 1966-67, men
15-19 years of age with work experience in 1966

Hourly rate of pay
(dollars) in 1966

Total or average 5__
Less than $1.00_________
$1.00-1.39____ ________
$1.40 or more__________

Total
number
with
work
experi­
ence in
1966
(thou­
sands)

Change
in mean
weeks
unem­
ployed 1
(weeks)

5,854

-1 .9

-4 .1

3,311

6.5

19.3

1,591

-1 .3
-2 .3
- 1.0

-4 .6
-3 .9
-5 .5

1,1,165
210

5.3
6.5
6.4

20.3
21.7
16.1

688
1,941

Change Total
in mean number
weeks employ­
ed in
out of
labor
1966
force 2 survey
(weeks) week
(thou­
sands)

492

Disem­ Disem­
ploy­
ploy­
ment
ment
rate
rate
(into
(out of
unem­
labor
force)4
ploy­
ment)3 (per­
(per­
cent)
cent)

1Mean number of weeks unemployed during the 12 months preceding the 1967
survey minus the mean number of weeks unemployed during the 12 months preceding
the 1966 survey.
2Mean number of weeks out of the labor force during the 12 months preceding the
1967 survey minus the mean number of weeks out of the labor force during the 12
months preceding the 1966 survey.
1Proportion of those employed during the 1966 survey week who were unemployed
during the 1967 survey week.
4Proportion of those employed during the 1966 survey week who were out of the
labor force during the 1967 survey week.
6Total includes young men not classified by wage rate.
Note: For further discussion, see chapter 3.

tween 1966 and 1967 but declined more than
among high wage teenagers. On the other hand,
the average number of weeks spent out of the
labor force fell less among low wage than high
wage teenagers, a result that is in line with
expectations.
Looking at only those teenagers who were
employed during the 1966 survey week, a
greater proportion of low wage than high wage
employees were out of the labor force a year
later. However, the proportion of low wage em­
ployees who were unemployed a year later is in
one case ($1 to $1.39) about the same and in
another case (less than $1) below the propor­
tion of high wage employees who were unem­
ployed a year later.3
The analysis is, as the authors note, biased
against finding adverse employment effects be­
cause the sample had “aged” 1 year between
survey periods, thus increasing the employabil­
ity of the group; further, the data tell nothing
about youth entering the labor force for the
first time during this period. There was some
evidence of adverse employment effects among
15- to 17-year-old students who were Negroes
and had limited labor market information and
among those students employed as service
workers. There was, however, no evidence of a
general tendency for the minimum wage in­
crease of 1967 to create relatively more unem­
ployment among low wage young workers. As




the analysis concludes, “If the minimum wage
increases did indeed create unemployment
among youth, the effect was not a pronounced
one.”
The employers’ response

In the survey of employer hiring standards in
10 cities, included in chapter 4, the most fre­
quently cited consideration affecting employer
decisions to employ teenagers under age 18 was
restrictions on employment of teenagers in haz­
ardous occupations. Chapter 9, dealing with ex­
perience under State minimum wage laws, also
stresses hazardous work restrictions as well as
restrictions on hours of work, the cumbersome
machinery of work certificates, union restric­
tions, and problems of transportation as factors
curbing the employment of teenagers. The un­
certainty of the military draft was the reason
most frequently cited by employers in weighing
their decision to hire 18- and 19-year-olds, a
problem underscored in the study of experience
in local public employment offices in 23 areas
(chapter 5). The belief that teenagers are un­
willing to work for low wages is not uncommon
among employers. (See further discussion
below.) The extent to which the legal authority
to pay a wage lower than the minimum would
offset such problems is uncertain.
Among the small number of establishments
which raised age or educational hiring require­
ments between 1966 and 1969 in the 10-cities
survey of hiring standards, the reason most fre­
quently cited by employers for doing so was
higher costs of training and hiring teenagers.
Experience under State laws and experience of
the public employment offices also indicate lack
of education and training to be an important
reason for employers not hiring teenagers for
full-time jobs. Dissatisfaction with teenagers’
absenteeism, unreliability, and performance on
the job is common.
In principle, the lower quality of teenage
labor could be offset, in the employer’s calcula­
tions, by paying them a lower wage. However,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, establish­
ments holding full-time student certificates
have the legal authority to hire youth at 85 per­
cent of the minimum wage. As reported in the

184
Table 12.4. Numerical distribution of establishments not utilizing or not fully utilizing full-time student certificates by
degree of utilization and reasons for less than full utilization of certificates
[Data relate to certificates in effect on April 30,1969, and reflect utilization during the period May 1,1968 to April 30,1969]
Reasons for not utilizing or not fully utilizing certificates

Degree of utilization

Total......... ....................
Less than 20 percent..............
20 percent to 49 percent...
50 percent or more______

Number
of estab­
Number lishments
of estab­ not uti­
lishments lizing or
with cer­ not fully Fully
tificates utilizing staffed
certifi­
cates

4,615

4,163

1,484
1,085
2,046

1,484
1,085
1,594

Full-time
students
unwilling
Record to work
keeping at submini­
mum
wages

Certifi­
cate
restric­
tions

2,168
564'
641
963

868
212
211
244
318

799

881

321
198
280

425

339

study of utilization of that authority (chapter
8), only 10 percent used the certificate author­
ity fully, and 55 percent used less than half of
their authorized man-hours. Seventeen percent
of the establishments holding such certificates
claimed they had not fully used it because stu­
dents were unsatisfactory workers (table 12.4).
Apparently for some employers at least a 15percent “discount” was not enough to offset the
poorer quality of student help.
All this does not mean that wages—and the
legal minimum wage in particular—are ever ir­
relevant. Although local employment service
Table 12.5. Rank importance of reasons for difficulty in
placing teenagers based on local office experience during
fiscal year 1969, average, all areas
[Rating Scale: Very important = 3; Important = 2; Unimportant, irrelevant, or not
true = 1]
Full-time jobs
Reason

1. Level of the minimum wage has caused
employers to seek older, more experi­
enced workers for jobs_____________
2. Unwillingness of teenagers to accept
wages usually offered for jobs they are
qualified to take___________ _______
3. Uncertainty over the draft makes em­
ployers reluctant to hire teenagers____
4. Legal restrictions on hours of work,
hazardous work, or other working con­
ditions for teenagers____ ___________
5. Hiring specifications of employers with
respect to education and experience
are so high that most teenagers are
excluded_________________________
. Employers? hiring specifications with
respect to age exclude teenagers..........
7. Employer fear of higher cost of work­
man’s compensation and other insur­
ance when teenagers are employed___
. Employers believe teenagers are not
reliable______________ ___________
9. High labor turnover among teenagers___
10. State laws require too much paper work,
such as work permits.............. ..............
11. High cost of hiring and training teenagers.
12. Union contract provisions.._____ ______

6

8




16-17
years

18-19

1.77

1.54

Part-time jobs
16-17
years

18-19
years

1.66

1.52

1.79

2.10

1.64

1.87

1.32

2.44

1.18

1.48

2.75

1.41

2.71

1.45

2.28

1.95

1.96

1.54

2.44

1.56

2.23

1.47

2.19

1.59

2.09

1.48

2.54
2.31

2.10
2.30
2.1.9501B
2.14
2.22

1.85
1.65
1.63

1.07
1.58
1.40

1.59
1.57
1.72

1.05
1.41
1.38

Full-time
students
unsatis­
factoryworkers

Prefer
to hire
regular
workers

Company
Tem­
Delay in
porary
Selfschool
Union
Legal
policy
to pay restric­ opera­ imposed verifica­ restric­
mini­
tional restric­ tion of
tions
tions
mum
problems tions student
wages
status

788

600

504

199
236
353

243
151
206

282
98
124

Other
reasons

396

356

332

223

120

39

171

189
82
85

49
78
205

136
50
37

80
36
4

13

111
114

12

14

offices generally said minimum wages were not
an inportant reason for the difficulty in placing
teenagers in full-time jobs, minimum wages
were cited as a problem more frequently in the
case of 16- to 17-year-olds (table 12.5). The mini­
mum wage was the second most common reason
for employers raising hiring standards between
1966 and 1969, though such companies repre­
sented less than 5 percent of all employers in
every city covered and less than 1 percent in
most cities. The relatively tight labor market
for adults in the last 3 years, however, probably
kept most employers from raising their hiring
standards. A minority of employers covered in
the survey of hiring standards did consider the
minimum wage an important factor affecting
their decision to hire teenagers (table 12.6). Em­
ployers located in small towns cited the mini­
mum wage more frequently than employers lo­
cated in large cities and more frequently with
reference to 16- to 17-year-olds than 18- to 19year-olds. Further, employers—as did the pub­
lic employment offices—cited the minimum
wage as an important factor more frequently in
the case of younger teenagers. A modest num­
ber of establishments did apply for full-time
student and learner certificates under the
FLSA, though less than half the authorized
time was actually used.
The evidence suggests, therefore, that some
employers would be willing to hire more teenag­
ers at lower wage rates. However, legal restric­
tions on the employment of youth and appre­
hension over the quality of teenagers as employ­
ees are probably even more important impedi­
ments to the employment of youth.

185
Expectations of youth

Throughout the Nation, a commonplace belief
among employers and others is that young
workers expect unduly high wages and are dis­
inclined to accept low status (frequently
equated to low wage) jobs. Close to 20 percent
of the employers holding full-time student cer­
tificates under FLSA claimed they did not fully
utilize the authority because students were un­
willing to work at subminimum rates. Certainly
there is much anecdotal material on the alleged
unreasonableness of teenagers.
However, a 1967 survey of young men
throughout the Nation indicated that the a v e r­
age wage expected by unemployed teenagers
was less than the average wage actually earned
by those who were employed (table 12.7). Fur­
ther, large numbers of teenagers, both unem­
ployed and out of the labor force, did indicate
they would accept jobs at less than the $1.40
legal minimum in 1967.
Findings from the Urban Employment Sur­
vey (UES), a survey of residents of selected
poverty areas of six large cities, suggest that
average earnings expectations of currently un­
employed teenagers did not exceed average
hourly earnings actually received by employed
teenagers. In the July 1968-June 1969 survey
period, the median wage expected by unem­
ployed teenage boys and girls was less than the
wage actually received by those employed.
Table 12.6. Percentage of establishments covered by
FLSA reporting the minimum wage as a factor in the deci­
sion to hire teenagers, by city and age group
Under 18

18 and 19

City
Impor­
tant
tant
Atlanta..______________
Detroit________ ____ _
Cleveland_____________
Baltimore______ _______
Milwaukee_____________
Los Angeles................. .
Battle Creek__________ _
Auburn____ ___________
Galveston....... ...................
El Paso....... ................... .

6

Unweighted average:
Targe areas______
4 small areas_______

14
16

21
2016

31

14
23
28
24
25

65
60
73
70
73
78
54
52
57
44

11.5
23.2

18.7
25.0

69.8
51.8

1010
118
23
20
19

24
17

Note: For further discussion, see chapter 4.




Not
impor­
tant

Very
impor­
tant

Impor­
tant

Not
tant

13
13
25

1111
19
31
2028

3
7
71
75
73
81
83
67
56
67
47

8.7
16.0

15.3
24.5

76.0
59.3

1199
9
68
13

18
18
16
18

Table 12.7. Rate of pay required to induce youth to ac­
cept employment or to enter labor force, and hourly rate of
pay for those employed, by age and color, 1967
Age and 1967 labor
force status

Total
number
(thousands)

Less $1.40 $2.00 $3.00
than
to
to
or
$1.40 $1.99 $2.99 more

Mean pay
required
or earned

Whites
Age 15-17:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed____ _____
Age 18-19:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed.
___
Employed__________

808
400
1,968

51.1
43.0
47.5

44.5
50.9
37.9

3.9
4.8
9.9

196
141
1,493

13.8
18.0
25.2

57.2
46.1
33.6

23.0
29.7
30.9

.0
6.0
6.2
10.3
0.5

4.7

$1.32
1.35
1.59
1.69
1.76
1.93

All others
Age 15-17:
Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed____ _____

161
99
297

Out of labor force___
Unemployed________
Employed_______ _

21242

A «a IQ IQ.
Age
i<$—i y .

.0

64.8
58.8
51.6

30.5
33.5
35.6

3.3
7.7
9.4

3.4

$1.30
1.30
1.53

28.8
37.6

48.1
29.8

20.5
22.3

10.3

2.6

1.61
1.75

19

1.3

Note: For further discussion, see chapter 6. Dashes indicate data not available.

The reported proportion of unemployed
young men willing to accept employment in
1967 at wages below the Federal minimum was
less, however, than the proportion of teenagers
actually employed at lower wages. The same
was true of teenagers, especially the males, in
the Chicago and New York poverty areas in
1968-69. These bits of evidence lend some sup­
port to the supposition that the unemployment
of some teenagers can be attributed to high
wage expectations.
The average duration of unemployment for
teenagers is short. While this is partially attrib­
utable to their ability to withdraw from the
labor force, it suggests also that high wage or
status expectations of teenagers are not endur­
ing.
The available evidence indicates that teenag­
ers are knowledgeable about prevailing wage
levels and adjust their expectations according
to differences in levels between areas and over­
time. There is some evidence that unemployed
teenagers are disinclined to accept the lower
wage jobs. Minimum wages may be a factor
influencing these expectations. These expecta­
tions contribute, at least in the short run, to
unemployment problems, but do not appear to
be a major obstacle to reducing teenage unem­
ployment.

186
A youth differential

Whether or not the minimum wage has been
a significant factor in causing youth unemploy­
ment, the question of the effects of a youth dif­
ferential is a different issue. There has been
only limited experience with these differentials
in the United States. They currently exist in
Federal minimum wage legislation in the form
of the certification programs under FLSA and
also in a variety of forms in State laws. In other
countries—in Western Europe, Canada, and
Japan (chapters 10 and 11)—youth differen­
tials exist by law, contract, or customs to a
much greater extent than in the United States.
The certification programs cover a limited
number of workers and establishments. Em­
ployer interest in the certification programs has
increased at times of minimum wage law
changes, though trend data on issuance of cer­
tificates do not necessarily measure usage. The
study of these programs points out that the au­
thority to hire young workers at rates below the
minimum does not automatically mean the op­
portunity will or can be fully used by employers
to increase employment of youth; the modest
abatement of rates provided in those programs
was, by itself, inadequate. The full-time student
certification rates were less meaningful in the
South where wage levels are generally low, the
student rate thus providing a smaller incentive
to hire youth.
Table 12.8. Unemployment rates and the youth-adult
unemployment ratio for selected countries

Countries

Unemploy­
ment rate,
all ages

Youth unemploy­
ment rate

Youth-adult
unemployment
ratio 1

1960-64 1967-68 1960-64 1967-68 1960-64 1967-68
Germany (1961-67)______
Canada (1962-66)2 _____
Netherlands (1960)._
United Kingdom (1961-67).
Sweden (1964-67)______
France (1960)__________
Belgium (1960)_________
Italy (1961-67)
___
United States <1960-68)__
Japan (1962)6__________

46.9
0.3
0.3
1.1 414.4
1.1 4 2.4
1.0
4.0
9.7
0.9
1.4
1.8
331.3
2.0
30.9
32.2
1.7
430.6
1.4
2.3
43.9
1.7
6.1
2.6
2.6
4.4
2.2.51
6.6
4.0
1.7
3.4
11.4
3.5
9.3
4.9
5.5
514.7
s 12.7
3.3
3.6
0.9
1.4
1.6
3

1.0
2.6
3 1.1
2.9
5.7
5.5

1Ratio of youth unemployment rate to adult unemployment rate for adults 25 and
over. Data from labor force surveys except as noted. Data not strictly comparable
among countries.
2Ostry, Sylvia, Uuemployment in Canada, 1968, males only, ratio: youth-all ages.
3Labor Ministry data from unemployment insurance records.
^Census data for 1961.
6Youth unemployment data relate to 16- to 19-year-olds.
8Levine and Somers, Youth Employment and Wages in Postwar Japan. Ratio: youthall ages.




Differential rates in State minimum wage
laws—commonly 80 percent of the adult rate—
have had limited effects on unemployment rates.
State laws are not relevant where the Federal
law applies if the State minimum is below the
Federal. In a number of States, small establish­
ments and certain occupations where teenagers
are employed are exempt from State law. Fur­
ther, entry wage rates in some areas are far
above the State minimums.
Over 40 percent of the local employment serv­
ice offices believed employers would hire appre­
ciably more 16- and 17-year-old teenagers if it
were possible to pay less than the Federal mini­
mum, but only 26 percent of the offices believed
this would be true of 18- and 19-year-olds.
About 90 percent of those offices which believed
it would make a difference thought the reduc­
tion in the minimum wage that would be neces­
sary would not exceed 40 cents.
The studies of the certification program,
State experience, and the survey of local em­
ployment offices suggest that if a youth differ­
ential is to be meaningful, it would need to be a
fairly substantial differential—perhaps at least
20 percent below the adult rate—and that the
relationship of the adult minimum to average
wage levels could not be far below the historic
ratio.
The evidence from abroad indicates that low
wages for youth are an inducement to employ­
ers to seek young workers eagerly. The rela­
tively low youth unemployment rates abroad
(table 12.8) are partially a reflection of the fact
of low wages for youth. In the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands, and Japan, young workers
start work at about one-third the adult rate. In
the United States in 1967, 15- to 17-year-old
boys received a wage which averaged about 60
percent of the average wage paid those 20 to 25
years old. Much of this difference reflects a dif­
ferent mix of jobs and job status in the two age
groups.
One element of the Japanese experience—low
wages for youth—cannot be divorced from
other parts of Japanese institutions. For exam­
ple, the nenko system with its virtual lifetime
guarantee of employment within the firm and
high wages in later years offsets low wages in
youth.

187
Low wage rates for youth in Europe cannot
be separated from the extensive apprenticeship
programs in Britain, Germany, and the Nether­
lands. These programs help to channel children
from school to work. Moreover, the nenko sys­
tem in Japan and the apprenticeship system in
Europe are undergoing change, or at least at­
tack, with possible ramifications for youth dif­
ferentials in those countries.
In the Soviet Union, young workers by law
have a shorter workday, a longer annual vaca­
tion, and higher wage rates than adults doing
the same type of work—just the opposite of ex­
perience in western Europe and Japan. The 16and 17-year-old works 7 hours a day and 5 days
a week; 15-year-old apprentices work 5 hours a
day. The young worker gets the same daily or
monthly basic pay that an adult gets for work­
ing 8 hours a day at the same type of work.
There have been reports in the Soviet press that
many managers of establishments have been re­
luctant to hire young workers because of the
extra cost involved. To combat this practice by
employers, a joint party-government decree of
February 2, 1966, established quotas of jobs for
youth, the size of the quotas varying among
branches of the national economy.4
In the United States, the overwhelming pro­
portion of teenagers belong to a part-time,
part-year labor force. Almost three-fourths of
the teenagers are enrolled in school. Experience
in foreign countries having institutions differ­
ent from those in the United States has a lim­
ited application to American teenagers who are
much less likely to be looking for a “perma­
nent” job.
The employment advantage of a youth differ­
ential would be restricted by the fact that many
teenagers are available for only part-time em­
ployment and have a limited geographic mobil­
ity. It would also be restricted by American
wage-setting institutions which emphasize a
wage for a job, not an age-wage relationship,
and further limited by legal restrictions on the
employment of youth.
The effects of differential rates

The analysis of the relationship betwen teen­
age earnings and family income (chapter 7)




points out that very few teenagers contribute a
significant share of family income. Since 73
percent of the teenagers who worked in 1966
earned less than $1,000 per year, their low
earnings are more affected by the number of
hours of work they find than by the wage rate.
Wages paid teenagers are, of course, not solely
dependent on the minimum wage.
Reports from abroad do not indicate that
adult employment has been affected adversely
by lower minimum rates for teenagers. How­
ever, the European countries and Japan have
had very low overall levels of unemployment.
Thus, experience abroad does not provide a
clear test of the effects of introducing a system
of youth differentials. Past experience in the
United States is no sure guide, since differential
rates for youth have been used to only a limited
extent.
Youth differentials are common in most State
laws with no apparent evidence of adverse ef­
fects. State minimum wage levels are not, how­
ever, always meaningful relative to prevailing
wage levels. About 40 percent of the local em­
ployment service offices believed that a lower
Federal minimum wage for teenagers would
have adverse effects on employment of other
groups; this was, however, only an informed
judgment. Available materials do not permit
any firm conclusions about adverse effects of a
youth differential minimum wage.
Conclusions

1. Increases in the level and coverage of the
Federal minimum wage may have contributed
to the employment problems of teenagers, but it
is difficult to disentangle such effects from nu­
merous other influences.
Prior to the 1960% relatively few teenagers
were employed in establishments covered by the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Prior to 1966, agri­
culture (where teenagers are employed as fam­
ily workers) was totally exempt; domestic serv­
ice still is. Services and trade were generally
excluded from the law prior to 1961, and even
now small establishments are exempt. The longrun rise in the unemployment rate of teenag­
ers relative to that of adults—especially marked
since 1962—appears to have been associated

188

with many factors. Compounding problems
have been the increase in the relative size of the
teenage population, the increase in the propor­
tion of youth enrolled in school, and the shift of
employment out of agriculture. Although
neither of the latter two factors may explain
much of the relative rise in teenage unemploy­
ment, they do mean that one easy-access labor
market, namely, the family farm, is available to
a smaller proportion of youth and that the types
of employment sought by teenagers (outside
school hours) cover a restricted range of exist­
ing employment opportunities. The increase in
the number of teenagers in school has, on the
other hand, taken some of them out of the labor
force.
The magnitude of the employment effects of
minimum wage legislation probably has been
small, as the studies included in this report
underline, and, consequently, difficult to meas­
ure precisely. It should be kept in mind, how­
ever, that (1) many teenagers have, until very
recent years, been employed in sectors of the
economy not covered by FLSA, (2) minimum
wage levels have not been markedly high rela­
tive to prevailing wage levels, judging by his­
torical ratios, and (3) the importance of min­
imum wages, in the periods between Congres­
sional action, has been partially offset by in­
creases in money wages, tending to make any
disemployment effects a shortrun phenomenon.
Also, as the econometric study included in this
report points out, adverse employment effects
of the minimum wage may have been, in recent
years, offset by Federal manpower programs.
The high unemployment rates of teenagers
have not brought about a drop in the relative
wage paid teenagers and, hence, an increase in
their employment opportunities. Certainly, a
legal minimum wage, on its face, means wages
are inflexible downward. Because minimum
wages have been periodically increased to main­
tain about the same level of parity with average
earnings, any tendency for the spread between
lower and higher rates to increase has been
offset, except in the short run.
Not all sectors of the economy have been cov­
ered by FLSA; other labor market institutions,
including union contracts, have also affected
wage levels and wage rigidity. Unlike Britain,




France, or Japan, American wage-setting insti­
tutions have generally developed the practice of
setting a wage rate for a job regardless of who
holds the job. In other countries a young clerk,
for example, may receive less than an adult
doing the same work in the same company sim­
ply because he is young, but this has not been
the practice in the United States. Rather,
any wage differences associated with age
are usually attributable to young people
holding different types of jobs than adults.
Longevity or seniority increases are less impor­
tant than occupational wage differentials; fur­
ther, longevity increases are a function of
length of service on a particular job, not chron­
ological age p er sc. A company’s demand for
workers to do a particular job within the com­
pany is limited. Except to the degree that al­
most all persons holding a particular job in a
company are teenagers, the nature of American
wage setting institutions would reduce (but not
eliminate) the possibility of a relative decline in
wages paid teenagers even if there were no
minimum wage legislation.
A cautionary note should be added. If the
minimum wage as a percent of average hourly
earnings was more than the 50-percent range
prevailing in the postwar period or if coverage
was extended to new areas, past experience
would not serve as an accurate guide to future
employment effects.
2. Employer attitudes—as reflected in both
the survey of employers and the response of the
public employment offices—experience under
the certification programs, and experience in
other countries suggest that a substantial dif­
ferential between youth and adult rates would
increase the employment of teenagers. The in­
centive of a large differential would help to
overcome the apprehensions employers have in­
dicated over the quality of teenagers as employ­
ees. The evidence indicates the differential
would especially affect the decisions of employ­
ers to hire 16- and 17-year-old teenagers and
particularly employers located outside the large
urban centers.
The effect of a youth differential would de­
pend on the size of the difference between the
youth and adult minimums, the relation of the
adult minimum to the current average hourly

189
earnings of rank-and-file workers, and the sim­
plicity of the regulations. Even then, the effect
of the difference would be restricted by condi­
tions unique to the American scene.
If a youth differential were instituted in the
1970’s, it would be difficult to evaluate its effects
without better data, especially frequency distri­
butions of wages of workers in the American
economy along with demographic information

on the workers. The effects of a youth differen­
tial must be separated from other develop­
ments. During the coming decade, the teenage
population will increase 12 percent, compared
with 40 percent in the 1960’s. Assuming no
major decline in economic activity, this slower
rate of growth, alone, should help ease problems
of absorbing teenagers into the employed labor
force.

1 Throughout the study, the terms “youth,” “teen­
agers,” and “young people” have been used interchange­
ably. Unless otherwise specified, the terms refer to 16to 19-year-olds.
2 See table 12.2 for some additional detail.
3More sophisticated statements of tests and further

data can be found in chapter 3. If columns 2 and 3 of
table 3 are added, the expected adverse pattern appears.
This is not true, however, when data are controlled by
school enrollment status. See table 3.6 in chapter 3.
4 S o v etsk ie p ro fso y u zy [Soviet Trade Unions], No. 12
(June 1967), p. 47.




☆ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 0 - 3 7 6 - 9 0 0




There is more

under

the cover too
o f the new
MONTHLY LABOR
:•
REVIEW




• Authoritative analysis of prices, labor force trends,
earnings, productivity, unit labor costs, and collective
bargaining developments by the professional staff
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
• Plus articles, book reviews, and other contributions
by outstanding outside contributors. Authors who have
appeared in recent issues of the Review include
David L. Cole, Dudley Dillard, A. Ross Eckler,
William Haber, Theodore W . Kheel, Richard A. Lester,
David A. Morse, and Philip Taft.
To enter your trial subscription to the
Monthly Labor Review, use the coupon below.

FOR USE OF SUPT. DOCS

To: S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts
U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P rin tin g O f f ic e

________ Enclosed_________

W a s h in g to n , D. C . 2 04 0 2

To be moiled later __
_______Subscription

P lease s e n d m e a y e a r o f th e M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w
P a y m e n t e n c lo s e d

Q

$9 d o m e s tic

□

$11.25 fo r e ig n

(M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts )

Nam e

Address

City, State, and ZIP Code

Refund
Coupon refund
Postage

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
B UR EA U O F LAB O R S T A T IS T IC S
W A SHING TO N, D .C .

20212

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
I------------------------------------------

THIRD CLASS MAIL

1

4
t z1n9vn