Her Real Sphere? Married Women's Labor Force Participation in the United States, 1860-1940

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY

Evan Warwick Roberts

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Steven Ruggles, Advisor

June 2007

It is a reflection of my life that the joke "someone should write a thesis/article/dissertation/book about that" has been perennial. I think of that joke right now in respect of the acknowledgements sections of lengthy academic works. Acknowledgements appear first and are universally understood. They might be the most commonly read part of any dissertation. But has anyone really studied them?

I have been lucky enough to share versions of that joke with many people in the past four years, not the least of whom has been my advisor Steve Ruggles. Steve would be sure to steer anyone away from actually researching dissertation acknowledgements, and encouraged me to ask large and meaningful questions. I hope that this dissertation lives up to that imperative. Through his leadership of the Minnesota Population Center and success in obtaining funding to make census data available to the world, Steve has provided me with many opportunities to be distracted from my dissertation. Working with Steve and others on the North Atlantic Population Project has been the most professionally rewarding distraction imaginable, and I thank Steve for that opportunity.

This dissertation has also been shaped by the advice and teaching of my other committee members. In my first semester of graduate school David Good's comparative economic history class helped me begin melding my separate undergraduate study of history and economics into thinking like an economic historian. Sara Evans supervised a research essay in my first semester of graduate school where I made the transition to writing about American women's work from primary sources, not just the foreign historiography it had been from New Zealand. Steve, David and Sara all supported numerous grant applications with reference letters. While I know that in theory the marginal cost of being a referee drops significantly after the first composition, my thanks to them is based on the assumption that they must have composed a new letter every time.

While I was not able to take a class with Dennis Ahlburg, his comment that economists always have to worry about the selection problems of observational data has productively worried me. It also sent me off to take Paul Glewwe's econometrics class, from which I learned a great deal. George Green served on my preliminary examination committee, and discussions with him on-campus, and out-of-town at meetings of the Business History Conference have been very useful.

Over my seven years of graduate school, and four years of researching and writing this dissertation I have been generously supported by numerous organizations. The support of Fulbright New Zealand comes first chronologically, and I believe that being a Fulbright scholar has helped me obtain many other fellowships. But per Dennis' comment in the previous paragraph there is no way to test that. The Minnesota Population Center and the Department of History have provided employment through most of my years of graduate school. In 2000/1 I was supported by the Schoonover Fellowship for first year graduate students in History, and in 2005/6 a dissertation fellowship from the University

i of Minnesota Graduate School allowed me to finish my archival research and make progress on the writing. The Economic History Association generously funded archival research in 2003, and gave me a dissertation fellowship in 2005/6 that allowed me to collect data that I have unfortunately not been able to work into the dissertation. It awaits me as a research project in my new job. Travel to archives was also funded by Harvard Business School Alfred D. Chandler Traveling Fellowship, Hagley Museum & Library Grant-in-Aid, and the American Historical Association Beveridge Grant. Travel to conferences to present earlier versions of chapters has most often been funded by the Minnesota Population Center, but also by travel grants from the Business History Conference and Social Science History Association.

While traveling to archives I was generously hosted by Aisha Bierma and Dave Strandness (Washington, D.C.), Jack Nagel (Philadelphia) and Cas Lucas and Andy Miller (Chicago). Special thanks go to my great aunt and uncle in Cambridge (MA), Bobbie and Norman Selverstone, who hosted me on several trips to the Baker Library at the Harvard Business School.

In my archival research I had the assistance of many librarians and archivists. In particular, I want to thank Tim Mahoney and Laura Linard at the Baker Library Historical Collections, Lynn Catanese and Marjorie McNeish at the Hagley Museum & Library, and Tab Lewis at National Archives II, College Park. Librarians and archivists at the following institutions were also very helpful: Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina; Special Collections, Duke University; Archives and Manuscripts Department, North Carolina; University of Pennsylvania Archives; University of Pittsburgh Archives of Industrial Society; Newberry Library; Marshall Fields. Finally, the interlibrary loan, Wilson Library Annex, and Minnesota Library Access Center staff at Minnesota retrieved a lot of material for me.

In writing the dissertation I have been assisted by many people who read early versions, and pointed out the most glaring faults, and offered suggestions for improvement. Chapter 2 has benefited from feedback from Pamela Nickless, Elyce Rotella, Martha Bailey, Kris Inwood and Peter Baskerville. Comments from participants at Social Science History Association conferences between 2002 and 2005, and Jenny Wahl's comments at the Population Association of America meetings in 2003 were valuable for Chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 benefited from comments at the Organization of American Historians meetings in 2006, and the Business History Conference in 2005, and discussion with Walter Friedman while visiting the Baker Library.

More generally, I must thank the other members of my dissertation writing group who have read versions of every chapter: Nikki Berg, Nicole Phelps, Brie Swenson- Arnold, Masako Nakamura, and Lisong Liu. Discussions with Leah Platt Boustan, Matthew Woollard, Chad Ronnander, and Peter Meyer have helped with ideas across the whole dissertation.

I met Matthew Woollard and Chad Ronnander through the North Atlantic Population Project. Our joint work on historical occupational classification with Lisa

ii Dillon and Gunnar Thorvaldsen has been very beneficial for my dissertation research. I have enjoyed the support and encouragement of the other NAPP collaborators throughout this dissertation, and must also thank Chad Gaffield, Ólöf Garðarsðottir, Kevin Schürer, Jan Oldervoll and Marianne Jarnæs Erikstad. Along with Ron Goeken, Ruyan Liao, and Sula Sarkar at the Minnesota Population Center, they have given me the flexibility to work on my dissertation and NAPP in such a way that everything got done … eventually. I have learned a lot about census data and scholarship from other colleagues at the MPC, including Trent Alexander, Dave Hacker, Patt Kelly, Nathan Lauster, and Matt Sobek.

Throughout graduate school I have enjoyed weekly lunch and laughter at the "Chicken Poodle". Mike Lansing, Matt Lungerhausen, Ken Mitchell, Brad Jarvis, Cassandra Lucas and Cathy Fitch have been great lunch company over the years. As each of them finished their history PhDs, I had my enthusiasm for my own refreshed. Less frequently, I have been refreshed by discussing Bob Dylan and Marshall Fields with Paul Brinkman. On road and trail Chad Austin and Jason Digman have been the best of company at the best of distractions. Jason's academic advice interspersed with discussion of training and racing has also been valuable. A shared interest in running history has pervaded a lot of those runs. Truly, I cannot even run from history.

More distant friends and colleagues have provided encouragement along the way. In no particular order, I thank Venkat Dhulipala, Melanie Nolan, Madeleleine Rashbrooke, Paul Thomas, Jackie Cumming, Kathy Nelson, and Sarah Danielsson for showing that it can get done, and encouraging me to do so.

Penultimately, I give thanks to my family, both natal and nuptial. My parents, Heather and Nigel Roberts, have encouraged me at every step of this journey. They missed my first day of school, and will probably miss my last, but have given their support for the duration. I ended up in history, because it was midway between the literature and political science they teach, and the end product reflects that creative tension. My parents-in-law, Tess and John Fitch, my brother-in-law Tom Fitch, and my sisters-in-law Jen and Becky Fitch, have been supportive of this whole endeavor, all the while knowing that its completion would speed Cathy's departure from Minneapolis.

The last five-and-a-half years have been immeasurably enriched by meeting and marrying Cathy Fitch. As I have read, thought and written about bargaining and legal power affecting family labor supply, I have been lucky to know that marriage is more than a legal and economic abstraction even when it involves money and work. As a historian and eagle-eyed editor she has contributed to the intellectual work of this dissertation. As a partner she has been supportive in labor, leisure, and love. I look forward to many more joint decisions about marriage, work and fun with her in the years to come.

iii Abstract Married women's participation in paid work in the United States increased substantially during the twentieth century. This change captured the attention of academic researchers, policy makers and the media. Changing family decisions about labor supply have implications for, and roots in, the family and the workplace. The centrality of family and work to people's lives means married women's changing behavior has affected their families and colleagues too. While modern changes in wives' labor force participation are well understood, their decisions about work before 1940 have received less attention. I use census microdata from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) to re- evaluate married women's labor force participation decisions between 1860 and 1940.

The first chapter provides an overview of married women's labor force participation from the eighteenth century to the present, setting the 1860-1940 period in context.

Variation in census enumeration makes it difficult to obtain consistent estimates of labor force participation rates. It is likely that labor force participation rates declined slowly after 1850, reaching a nadir between 1900 and 1920, and then rising to approximately their original level by 1940.

While labor force participation rates did not change substantially, the form of married women's market work did change. Chapters 2 through 5 analyze the influence of government, business and demographic factors on how families made decisions about married women's work. Reforms to married women's property laws had little immediate effect on participation, but increased investment in girls' education. The cohorts affected by these changes increased their market work in later life, in the 1920s and 1930s. The influence of husbands' economic circumstances on married women's participation

iv decisions declined steadily during the same period. Married women became more likely to be employed in wage-work distinct from their husband's employment. The combination of independent decisions and separate employment contributed to a more equal economic relationship between spouses. While there was opposition to married women's increased labor force participation, I use interviews with ordinary workers to show that previous analyses have overstated the intensity of opposition which is best characterized as broad and shallow.

v Table of contents

Acknowledgements i

Abstract iv

List of Tables vii

List of Figures ix

Introduction 1

1. Married women at home and work, 1860-1940 12

2. Women's rights and women's labor: Married women's property law 99 reform and labor force participation, 1870-1900

3. The changing added worker effect, 1890-1940 204

4. "Gone to the business of home-making": Public opinion about married 276 women's employment

5. "Give the single girls a chance!": Rank-and-file opinion about married 352 women's work at the Western Electric company

Conclusion 390

Appendix A. Detailed occupations and industries of employed married 402 women, 1880 and 1940

Bibliography 421

vi List of Tables

1.1 Enumerator instructions affecting enumeration of married women's 30 work 1.2 Commonly reported domestic occupations of married women, 1880 41 1.3 Number of boarders per household, 1880-1940 42 1.4 Keeping boarders and boarding-house keepers, 1880-1940 43 1.5 Keeping boarders and husband's class-of-worker status 44 1.6 Married women's labor force participation by region 83 1.7 Occupations of black and white working wives, 1860-1940 97 1.8 Industries of black and white working wives, 1860-1940 98 2.1 Passage of married women's property laws 164 2.2 Proportion of women covered by property acts, 1850-1900 166 2.3 Married women's labor force participation and legislation in effect: 167 Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) 2.4 Married women's labor force participation and legislation in effect: 168 Dates of passage according to Hoff (1991) 2.5 Changes in earnings laws and changes in labor force participation, 169 1860-1900: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) 2.6 Changes in earnings laws and changes in labor force participation, 170 1860-1900: Dates of passage according to Hoff (1991) 2.7 Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in earnings 171 laws, 1870-1880: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) 2.8 Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in earnings 173 laws, 1880-1900 Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) 2.9 Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in property 175 laws, 1870-1880: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) 2.10 Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in property 177 laws, 1880-1900: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) 2.11 Effect of boarders on labor force participation measures 179 2.12 Difference in differences estimates of effects of changes in earnings 180 laws, 1880-1900, with wives keeping boarders included in labor force: Dates according to Khan (1996) 2.13 Difference in differences estimates of effects of changes in property 182 laws, 1880-1900, with wives keeping boarders included in labor force: Dates according to Khan (1996) 2.14 Determinants of married women in labor force being sole traders, 184 1910-1920 2.15 Determinants of a married woman's probability of being a sole 185 trader, 1870-1880 2.16 Determinants of a white married woman's probability of being a sole 186 trader, 1870-1880 2.17 Determinants of a married woman's probability of being a sole 187 trader, 1880-1900

vii 2.18 Determinants of a white married woman's probability of being a sole 188 trader, 1880-1900 2.19 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage 189 propensities after earnings laws reform, 1870-1880: Dates according to Khan (1996) 2.20 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage 191 propensities after earnings laws reform, 1880-1900: Dates according to Khan (1996) 2.21 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage 193 propensities after property law reform, 1870-1880: Dates according to Khan (1996) 2.22 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage 195 propensities after property law reform, 1880-1900: Dates according to Khan (1996) 2.23 School attendance in the late nineteenth century 197 2.24 Impact of earnings laws on school attendance, 1870-1900: Dates 198 from Hoff (1991) 2.25 Impact of property laws on school attendance, 1870-1900: Dates 201 from Hoff (1991) 3.1 Full-year employment of men, and their wives labor force 221 participation 3.2 Previous research on determinants of married women's labor force 245 participation 3.3 Distribution of husband’s occupations, 1890-1940 250 3.4 Distribution of husband’s industry, 1890-1940 251 3.5 Regional distribution of families, 1890-1940 252 3.6 Labor force participation of married women, 1890-1940 261 3.7 Means of independent and dependent variables 265 3.8 Changes in wives labor force participation rates in response to 10 267 percent wage cuts 3.9 Change in married women's labor force participation, 1917-1940 270 3.10 Determinants of married women's labor force participation, 1917- 271 1940 5.1 Public opinion polls on married women's employment 355 5.2 Characteristics of interviewed workers in sample 385 5.3 Residence, family and work of young women, 1920-1930 389 A.1 Detailed occupational statistics for married women, 1880 and 1940 402 A.2 Detailed industrial statistics for married women, 1880 and 1940 413

viii List of Figures

0.1 Proportion of white women ever married, 1880-1940 4 0.2 Proportion of black women ever married, 1880-1940 5 1.1 Trends in married women's labor force participation, 13 1860-2005 1.2 Labor force participation of smaller ethnic groups 23 1.3 Racial composition of married women, 1870-1940 24 1.4 Labor force participation including boarders, 1880- 46 2000 1.5 Marriage to farmers, farm laborers and employers, 51 1850-1940 1.6 Labor force participation by race and husband's 52 employment 1.7 Black labor force participation by marital status and 69 sex 1860-2005 1.8 White labor force participation by marital status and 70 sex, 1860-2005 1.9 Life course labor force participation of white wives 78 1.10 Age specific labor force participation rates of white 79 wives 1.11 Life course labor force participation of black wives 80 1.12 Age specific labor force participation rates of black 81 wives 1.13 Industrial composition of American labor force, 1850- 90 2000 2.1 Examples of notifications of intention to take 155 advantage of sole-trader acts 2.2 Illustration of difference-in-differences method 156 2.3 Coverage of property acts for women aged 20-30 157 2.4 Proportion of 20-30 year old women ever married, 158 1850-1920 2.5 Young women’s marriage behavior and earnings law 159 reform 2.6 Young women’s marriage behavior and property law 160 reform 2.7 Young women’s marriage behavior and sole trade law 161 reform 2.8 Schooling and labor force participation by cohort for 162 whites 2.9 Schooling and labor force participation for blacks 163 3.1 Husbands and wives labor force participation, 1860- 223 1940

ix 3.2 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force 226 participation, 1880-1900 3.3 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force 227 participation, 1910-1940 3.4 Children and white wives labor force participation, 233 1880-1940 3.5 Children and black wives labor force participation, 234 1880-1940 3.6 Children under six, and white wives labor force 235 participation, 1880-1940 3.7 Children under six, and black wives labor force 236 participation, 1880-1940 3.8 Working children and white wives labor force 237 participation 3.9 Working children and black wives labor force 238 participation 4.1 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, all 302 husbands 4.2 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, husbands 303 with co-resident children

Color versions of graphs available in PDF version only

0.1 Proportion of white women ever married, 1880-1940 460 0.2 Proportion of black women ever married, 1880-1940 461 1.1 Trends in married women's labor force participation, 462 1860-2005 1.2 Labor force participation of smaller ethnic groups 463 1.3 Racial composition of married women, 1870-1940 464 1.4 Labor force participation including boarders, 1880- 465 2000 1.5 Marriage to farmers, farm laborers and employers, 466 1850-1940 1.6 Labor force participation by race and husband's 467 employment 1.7 Black labor force participation by marital status and 468 sex 1860-2005 1.8 White labor force participation by marital status and 469 sex, 1860-2005 1.9 Life course labor force participation of white wives 470 1.10 Age specific labor force participation rates of white 471 wives 1.11 Life course labor force participation of black wives 472 1.12 Age specific labor force participation rates of black 473 wives

x 1.13 Industrial composition of American labor force, 1850- 474 2000 2.2 Illustration of difference-in-differences method 475 2.3 Coverage of property acts for women aged 20-30 476 2.4 Proportion of 20-30 year old women ever married, 477 1850-1920 2.5 Young women’s marriage behavior and earnings law 478 reform 2.6 Young women’s marriage behavior and property law 479 reform 2.7 Young women’s marriage behavior and sole trade law 480 reform 2.8 Schooling and labor force participation by cohort for 481 whites 2.9 Schooling and labor force participation for blacks 482 3.1 Husbands and wives labor force participation, 1860- 483 1940 3.2 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force 484 participation, 1880-1900 3.3 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force 485 participation, 1910-1940 3.4 Children and white wives labor force participation, 486 1880-1940 3.5 Children and black wives labor force participation, 487 1880-1940 3.6 Children under six, and white wives labor force 488 participation, 1880-1940 3.7 Children under six, and black wives labor force 489 participation, 1880-1940 3.8 Working children and white wives labor force 490 participation 3.9 Working children and black wives labor force 491 participation 4.1 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, all 492 husbands 4.2 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, husbands 493 with co-resident children

xi Introduction

It is to be regretted that no authoritative statistics on an extended scale exist relative to the employment of married women in factories, and the train of bad results which follows such employment. The employment of married women it seems to me is the very worst feature of factory employment, but the facts relating to it are most meager. I have been able, however, to gather some information.1

Increased participation by married women in the paid labor market was the most significant change in the lives of American women in the twentieth century, and the largest change in the nation's labor market in the same period. At the turn of the twentieth

century, just four per cent of American married women were recorded by the census as having worked regularly for pay outside their home, a figure that had barely changed in the forty years since 1860.2 Forty years later again, in 1940, 14 per cent of American

wives worked outside the home. Yet another forty years later, in 1980, half of all

American married women were employed outside the home, and at the turn of the twenty

first century, more than 60 per cent of wives were employed. Slow change in the late

nineteenth century gave way to increasing growth in married women's labor force

participation before World War II, very rapid change between World War II and 1990, and a slowing growth of married women's labor force participation in the past two decades.

1 Carroll Davidson Wright. Report on the Factory System of the United States. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. 1884): 20. 2 Specifically, 4.13% of married women between the ages of 16 and 64 had a gainful occupation as recorded by the 1900 census. This is calculated using the IPUMS LABFORCE variable. I discuss the issues of using the census for measuring married women's work in Chapter 1. 1 Contemporary observers have rightly paid a lot of attention to understanding the extraordinary shifts in married women's labor force participation between 1940 and 1980, and debating the slowing changes in women's roles recently.3 Relatively less attention has

been paid to the period before World War II. Yet married women's work between 1860

and 1940 is hardly uncharted ground for economists or historians. The contours of the

change in married women's roles described above have been well mapped. Both

historians and economists have written canonical monographs that describe and explain

the century-long changes in married women's roles.4 Why return to a well-plowed field of

enquiry, to examine a time when relatively few married women worked anyway?

Although married women's labor force participation was, by any standard, very

low at the turn of the century, the question as to whether or not wives worked affected more people than participation rates alone can show. Evidence from the early nineteenth century shows that married women had been more likely to work outside the home in the first three decades of the nineteenth century than they were in the last three.5 Low rates of

labor force participation by married women were not an historical constant, but part of an evolutionary change in the relationship between paid work, family relationships, and the organization of firms that has been observed in many economies over time.6 Specifically,

3 Eduardo Porter, “Mother’s Flight From Job Force Questioned,” New York Times. 2 December 2005. Linda R. Hirshman, Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World (New York: Viking, 2006). Joan Williams, Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 4 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). 5 Claudia Goldin and Kenneth Sokoloff, "Women, Children, and Industrialization in the Early Republic Evidence from the Manufacturing Censuses," Journal of Economic History 42, no. 4 (1982). 6 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, Kristin Mammen and Christina Paxson, "Women's Work and Economic Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2000), William Rau and Robert Wazienski, "Industrialization, Female Labor Force Participation, and the Modern Division of Labor by Sex," Industrial Relations 38, no. 4 (1999): 504-21. 2 in the early stages of industrialization married women's work outside the home declines.

After a period of stability where few married women work outside the home, married

women's labor force participation climbs as opportunities to work in manufacturing and

services increase, and fertility declines as the chance for wives to earn wages becomes

more valuable to families than additional children. Even when few married women chose

to enter the labor force, other wives were still considering whether to work or not,

although ultimately rejecting the choice.

All families had to make a decision about whether wives worked, or not, and re-

evaluate that decision as their circumstances changed. The history of married women's

labor force participation is not just the history of women who made the decision to work,

it is simultaneously the history of women who chose not to work. Although the history of

women's employment and women's labor force participation overlap, they are not the

same. It is impossible to quantify how many women ever considered working, since all

we can observe are the records of who worked, and who did not.

Changes in the economic opportunities open to married women affected all

American women. Marriage is a very important social institution in the United States,

shaped from below by the individuals within the marital family, and from above by the

state's legal regimes surrounding marriage.7 The vast majority of people in pre-World

War II America were born into a family organized around a married couple, and ended their lives as part of a married couple. By their late 30s, more than ninety percent of

7 Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), Hendrik Hartog, Man and Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), Stephanie McCurry, "Review of Basch, Framing American Divorce; Lewis Bredbenner, a Nationality of Her Own; Cott, Public Vows; Hartog, Man and Wife in America; Kerber; No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies," Signs 30, no. 2 (2005). 3 American women were married (see Figures 0.1 and 0.2). The decisions made within those marriages affected married women themselves and the approximately five out of six Americans who lived with at least one member of their immediate family.8 The significance and relevance of changing labor supply decisions within families is their effect on the vast majority of the population.

Figure 0.1 Proportion of white women ever married, 1880-1940

8 Specifically, never less than 87% of Americans were living with at least one of their spouse, parents or children between 1850 and 1940. 4 Figure 0.2 Proportion of black women ever married, 1880-1940

Outline

The dissertation is comprised of five chapters. In Chapter 1 I give an overview of changes in the level of married women’s labor force participation between 1860 and

1940, using microdata samples from the 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930 and

1940 censuses. I show how race and ethnicity affected wives' work decisions, showing convergence between black and white women in their work behavior. The measured

increase in married women's labor force participation rates between 1880 and 1940 was

largely due to participation among white women catching up with black women.

I use the new complete-count dataset of the 1880 census to examine married

women’s participation and occupations for smaller ethnic groups, who are not adequately

5 represented in samples from the census.9 This source provides a complete transcription of

responses to census inquiries about occupation. There has been controversy over the

enumeration and tabulation of 19th century women’s occupations.10 By returning to the

original source material and tabulating occupations and participation in 1880 from the

complete returns, this chapter advances our knowledge of the extent and form of

American women’s work in 1880.

In Chapter 2 I examine whether changes in married women's property laws

affected changes in married women’s labor force participation. I use microdata from the

1870 through 1900 censuses to estimate (1) the effect of state legal changes on married

women’s overall level of participation in the labor market, and (2) conditional on market participation, the effect of state legal changes on married women’s involvement in business ownership. The effects of legal change are measured in two ways; the first—a

“difference in differences” estimate—compares the change in labor market participation of married women over two time periods (1870-1880, 1880-1900), between states that did and did not introduce married women’s property acts.

Using individual level census data enables me to control for individual and household level factors that will also influence married women’s decisions to enter the labor market, and own businesses. I also control for state characteristics apart from legal

reform, such as the level of manufacturing employment and urbanization in the state, and

region. To examine whether legal changes had different effects on different groups, I also

9 Evan Roberts et al., "The North Atlantic Population Project: An Overview," Historical Methods 36, no. 2 (2003), Evan Roberts et al., "Occupational Classification in the the North Atlantic Population Project," Historical Methods 36, no. 2 (2003). 10 Susan B. Carter and Richard Sutch, "Fixing the Facts: Editing of the 1880 U.S. Census of Occupations with Implications for Long-Term Labor-Force Trends and the Sociology of Official Statistics," Historical Methods 29, no. 1 (1996). 6 make separate estimates for urban and rural residents and the black population. The immediate effect on married women's labor force participation was minimal, yet there was a significant increase in girls' schooling following the passage of property acts. The cohorts of girls who entered schools after the property acts were passed had small but significant increases in labor force participation in later life compared to earlier cohorts.

While there was little immediate effect of the property acts, in the long run they did increase married women's labor force participation. Although most of the property acts were passed in the late nineteenth century, their effects were still being felt in the 1920s.

Thus in chapter 3 I examine long-term changes in how married women and their families made labor force participation decisions, with particular attention on the 1917-

1940 period. I focus on the changing impact of husband's economic status on wives’ labor supply. Because the census lacks income information before 1940, I use cost of living surveys from 1890, 1917/19 and 1935/36 to examine the earlier period. Women's decisions were substantially influenced by their husband's income and employment in

1890, but had a minimal effect by 1940. In some respects, women's participation decisions had become more independent, challenging prevailing public opinion that women's labor force decisions should take their husband's employment into account.

In chapters 4 and 5 I analyze changing public opinion towards married women’s work focusing on the views of rank-and-file workers. Previous analyses of opinions about married women’s work have focused on public political debates and views expressed in newspapers.11 The opposition to married women's work has been exaggerated by these

11 Nancy Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), Lois Scharf, To Work and to Wed: Female Employment, Feminism, and the Great Depression (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980). 7 sources. I argue that the inter-war era saw the beginnings of a conditional acceptance of

married women's work. By looking inside the workplace, at married women's

relationships with co-workers and employers I conclude that opposition to married

women's work was broad, but shallow. Marriage bar policies were selective in their

application, and were motivated by more than ideological opposition to married women's

employment. Within the workplace, some rank-and-file employees expressed opposition

to married women's work, but their hostility was vague and abstract. Opposition to

married women's work was muted by personal acquaintance with married women

colleagues’ reasons for working.

Attitudes to married women’s work changed quite rapidly in the inter-war years.

At the end of World War I, doubt about women’s capacity to work was frequently

expressed. Although the early 1930s witnessed vituperative public criticism of married

women's employment, this hostility was short-lived, largely ineffective, and motivated by

the severest mass unemployment seen in the United States. By the late 1930s, opposition

to married women’s work was receding and a measure of acceptance established. Indeed,

when married women were needed in the labor force during World War Two, there was

little hostility and a relatively smooth transition to rapid increases in the level of labor

force participation by married women.

The changes in married women's labor force participation from the Civil War to

World War II do not fit easily into historians typical narrative forms. It is straightforward

for historians to compose a narrative of decline or progress. Were this dissertation on the

same topic for a later period the narrative would be straightforward. From 1940 to the present, the increase in married women's labor force participation rates have been nearly

8 continuous. A narrative of sustained rapid increase for half a century (followed by a

plateau) is easy to structure. By contrast, between 1860 and 1940 married women's

participation rate in market work declined slowly to an early twentieth century nadir, and

rose slowly to around its original level. Married women's labor force participation fell

and rose. Historians rarely tell the story of a "fall and rise", but are well practiced in

narrating a "rise and fall." The comprehensive library catalog WorldCat reports 2,645

books related to history including "rise and fall," in their title, and just 97 with "fall and

rise."12

As it fell and rose, the composition and form of married women's participation in

market work changed. In 1860 much of white married women's market work was

somewhat hidden, and was not always directly compensated. The majority of black wives

were compelled under slavery to labor for no reward. Forty years later in 1900 both black and white wives work was still largely tied to family businesses or domestic service.

Although there were nine times as many white wives as black wives, blacks outnumbered whites in the labor force. The vast majority of black and white wives who worked were in jobs with little advancement in skills and wages over time. While women often stayed in

the workforce for several years, before and after marriage, few women had careers. By

1920 white women were the majority of the married female labor force, and more likely

to be working outside the home. Out at work they were more likely to earn a wage that

was independent of their husbands' work. Twenty years later on the eve of World War II

five of six married women in the labor force were white. Married women workers

continued to move out of the home, off the farm, and into independent wage-earning.

12 Google Books reports 2,452 with "rise and fall," and 18 with "fall and rise." The ratio is lower for articles, where 2,270 articles include "rise and fall," and 165 include "fall and rise." 9 The narrative of married women's labor force participation from 1860 to 1940 is not a fall and rise, but a reshaping of its place within the American family. With previous scholars having reconciled the inconsistent measurement of women's work through this period, there is little intellectual return in trying to explain why wives labor force participation rates varied between 14% and 17%. The questions left open by previous research coincide with the opportunities opened by newly available microdata samples from the census that let us look at families' changing decisions. The move from unpaid market labor in family businesses to independent wage work contributed to a reshaping of American family life. The opportunity for married women to earn money outside the home, and then exercise greater legal control over their earnings shifted the legal foundations of husbands and wives relationships.

Changes in spousal relationships were wrought by the married women's property acts passed in the late nineteenth century, but some of their effects were delayed until the

1920s. The short-term effects of the property acts on married women's economic status were limited. Increasing investment in girls education in the early twentieth century, combined with growing demand for women workers after World War I, and more liberal interpretation of the property acts gave women greater legal and economic power within marriage. Change was most rapid and immediate for the youngest cohorts, coming of age and forming their marriages in this new environment, but affected older cohorts too.

While married women's labor force participation would not rise rapidly until after 1940, the familial foundations for the shift were laid in the inter-war period. The most important changes in married women's labor force participation before World War II are not relatively minor fluctuations in the rate of participation, but rather the emergence of

10 new relationships between spouses over economic decisions that became the new norm in

American family life.

Chapter 1 Married women at home and work, 1860-1940

Introduction

Married women were a significant minority of the female labor force until 1960,

when they became the majority of employed women. In the last decades of the nineteenth

century one in ten female workers was married. Between 1900 and 1940 married

women's participation climbed faster than single women's, and by the eve of World War

II, one in five women workers was married. The story of married women’s work cannot be entirely untangled from the broader story of women’s entry into the labor market.

Many of the important junctures and points of visibility, such as World War I, were the same for married and single women’s work. Beliefs and regulations that affected what occupations women could do affected both married and single women, but skepticism about women’s capabilities to perform certain jobs was probably stronger for married women. For example, social concern about married women working was particularly intense about white mothers working in manufacturing jobs.1 Once married women were in the labor force and had found work, the jobs they performed and their experiences of work were similar to single women's.

1 See for example Katharine Anthony, Mothers Who Must Earn (New York: Survey Associates, 1914), Gwendolyn Hughes, Mothers in Industry (New York: The New Republic, 1925).

Figure 1.1 Trends in married women's labor force participation, 1860-2005

In the work force, gender was more important than marital status. Within the

family, marital status and gender worked together in contributing to decisions about paid

and unpaid work. The focus of this dissertation is not the specific paid work that married

women did, but their labor force participation. A decision to participate in the labor force

is required before an individual can become employed at a particular job. The focus on

labor force participation rather than employment can also be seen as a focus on the family

rather than the workplace. Chapters 2, 4 and 5 look at the role that legal change and

business practices had on married women's labor force participation, but my intention is

still to see how law and business influenced family decisions.

The focus on historical family decisions about married women's labor is an original contribution to the historical literature. The historiography of married women's

labor in the United States has largely—but not exclusively—focused on women in work.

There were several monographic surveys by historians of women and work in the 1980s.

Most focused on women who had already entered the labor force, and devoted less attention to family decisions to go to work.2 Historians focused on women already in

work, in part because women in the workplace left more records of their experience than

women who decided to work unpaid in the home. Women in the workplace were more

also visible. The published census statistics described the occupations of those women

who worked outside the home, but they provide less insight into the family background

of those women. Historians who have examined the family context of decisions about

2 Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). Lynn Weiner, From Working Girl to Working Mother: The Female Labor Force in the United States, 1820-1980 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985).

paid work were necessarily limited to studying relatively small numbers of families in

selected cities, who may have been atypical by leaving records of their lives.3

The development of representative samples of the United States population census

records has opened up the possibilities for historians to explore the family context of women's work. Few historians have chosen to use these newly developed sources, leaving historical studies of family and labor to economists and sociologists.4 Yet there

remain open questions about families and wives' joint labor force participation decisions

in the era when the decision to go out to work was uncommon. The following chapters of

this dissertation address some of these questions. In this introductory chapter I provide

the context for the subsequent chapters. I begin by introducing the census data used in the

analyses, and discuss its advantages and limitations for analyzing married women's labor

force participation. Then, I discuss the concept of labor force participation, and its relationship to earlier methods of measuring paid work. I also provide an overview of the changes in women’s labor force participation between 1860 and 2000 to set the 1860-

1940 period in greater historical context, and compare married women's labor supply to

the labor supply of single men and women, and married men. Finally, I discuss the

changes in married women's occupations between 1880 and 1940.

3 Historical studies which look at women workers in a family context include Winifred D. Wandersee, Women's Work and Family Values, 1920-1940 (1980). Leslie Woodcock Tentler, Wage Earning Women: Industrial Work and Family in the United States, 1900-1930 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979). 4 Exceptions among historians include S. J. Kleinberg, "Children's and Mothers' Wage Labor in Three Eastern U.S. Cities, 1880-1920," Social Science History 29, no. 1 (2005). and Matthew Sobek, "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880- 1990" (PhD, University of Minnesota, 1997)..

1. United States census data for studying women's work

The most important primary source for this dissertation is representative samples

of the United States population census. This chapter and the following chapter on the

effect of married women's property laws rely almost entirely on data from the population

census. Censuses prior to 1940 did not enumerate income from work, so chapter 3 relies

principally on cost of living surveys and the 1940 census. These surveys are described in

detail in chapter 3. Because the census data are so central to the bulk of the dissertation, this section gives an introduction to the historical censuses of the United States.5 Scholars

are able to use the original census returns for research, because the manuscript records of the enumeration have been preserved. Privacy concerns restrict public access to the

census for 72 years after it has been carried out. After this time, the microfilm copies of

the schedules from censuses prior to 1940 are available for use by researchers.

A census of population has been conducted in the United States every ten years

since 1790. The Constitution of 1787 required that an "actual Enumeration shall be made

within three Years ... and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as

they shall by Law direct." The primary purpose of the enumeration was to determine the

geographical location of individuals, so that boundaries could be drawn for the districts in

the House of Representatives ensuring that all districts contained approximately the same

number of people. While the census is useful for scholarly research, it is at root social

measurement in the service of the state. Politics shaped what was possible and necessary

5 This section draws variously on the following: Margo J. Anderson, The American Census: A Social History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), Jason G. Gauthier and U.S. Census Bureau., Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000, Rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), Diana Magnuson and Miriam King, "Enumeration Procedures," Historical Methods 28, no. 1 (1995), Diana Lynn Magnuson, "The Making of a Modern Census: The United States Census of Population, 1790-1940" (PhD, University of Minnesota, 1995).

to ask. Even when that political process was a bureaucratic ratification and replication of

previous censuses the process was still political.6

Since 1790, the census has enumerated more than the basic information necessary

to meet their constitutional mandate. Slaves— referred to obliquely as "all other

Persons"—were to count as three-fifths of a person. Otherwise electoral districts were to be divided by total population—not voters—making the "three-fifths" clause the only constitutional requirement that the census inquire into the composition of the population.

To fulfill its minimum constitutional mandate the census had to inquire after slave or free status. Yet the first census asked slightly more than the minimum questions required to divide the population for electoral purposes. The number of free white men over 16 was enumerated to measure the "industrial and military potential" of the new nation.7 The content of the census expanded gradually over the next fifty years. These first decennial censuses from 1790 until 1840 enumerated the characteristics of the population by households. While the total population was counted, figures on the ages, occupations, and other traits of the population were only counted for each household. In 1850, while still identifying households, for the first time the census recorded the characteristics of each individual separately.

6 Inter alia Alain Desrosieres, The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning, trans. Camille Naish (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), Philip M. Hauser, "Statistics and Society," Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, no. 301 (1963): 6-9, Kevin M. Schultz, "Religion as Identity in Postwar America: The Last Serious Attempt to Put a Question on Religion in the United States Census," Journal of American History 93, no. 2 (2006): 588-604, Stuart Woolf, "Statistics and the Modern State," Comparative Studies in Society and History 31, no. 3 (1989). Margo Anderson and Stephen E. Feinberg, " The History of the First American Census and the Constitutional Language on Censustaking: Report of a Workshop", Unpublished paper. Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University. February 23 1999. Available: http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/~fienberg/DonnerReports/FirstCensus.ps. Accessed: 2 April 2007. 7 Gauthier and U.S. Census Bureau., Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000, 5.The population figures for women, and free men under or over 16 are summarized in Return of the Whole Number of Persons within the Several Districts of the United States (Philadelphia: 1791): passim.

Each census subsequent to 1850 expanded the topical coverage of the

enumeration, although some questions were discarded and replaced. The core content of

the census, enumerated for every individual, remained largely the same until 1960.

Among these core questions were name, age, sex, race, birthplace and occupation,

although women’s occupations were not enumerated in 1850. In 1880, the census added

questions on the relationship of individuals to the household head, marital status, and

parental birthplaces.8 Until and including 1900 the inquiry into a person’s occupation was

a simple question that did not distinguish the different aspects of employment. Concerned

to separate these attributes of work, in 1910 the census split the occupation inquiry into

separate questions about occupation (what a person did), industry (where they did their

work, or what was produced), and class of worker (their relationship to the owner of the

business). These core census questions underlie much of the analysis in this dissertation.

For many years research using the United States census was based on the

extensive published results from the census. In the decade following each census

thousands of pages of tables, text and maps were published and used by scholars and the

general public. The census both reflected the national image and assisted in its creation.9

Most notably Fredrick Jackson Turner’s landmark 1893 essay “The Significance of the

Frontier in American History,” took evidence from the initial reports of the 1890 census to claim that the frontier was now closed.10 Eventually historians were able to use the

8 In 1980 the less hierarchical term "householder" replaced "head of household." 9 Sarah Elizabeth Igo, The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). 10 Frederick Jackson Turner, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History," in The Frontier in American History, ed. Frederick Jackson Turner (New York: Henry Holt, 1920), 1. Careful readers of Turner's essay may note that the opening quotation from the "recent bulletin of the Superintendent of the Census" on the closing of the frontier is curiously left without a complete citation. The phrase appears on p.xlviii of Department of the Interior, "Progress of the Nation," Compendium of the Eleventh Census: 1890.

nominal censuses to study individuals, families and communities who were known to live

in specific geographic locations. Social scientists, however, remained largely reliant on

ecological studies that compared average measures across multiple geographic areas,

such as states, counties, or cities.11 For example, Paul Douglas’ pioneering inter-war research on wages in the United States relied on aggregate statistics of population, labor supply, and earnings from the population and manufacturing censuses.12 Improvements in

processing census returns that began with the Hollerith tabulating machine in the 1890s

enabled the United States Census Bureau to produce even more substantial tables from

the individual returns.13 For example, the 1940 census publications included an analysis of educational attainment by marital status and economic characteristics. Yet the value of these increasingly complicated tables to researchers was beginning to approach its limits.

Although the number of tables published by the Census expanded, the inferential problems of ecological analyses and the inability of the Census Bureau to predict the infinite number of cross-tabulations researchers might need prompted the release of an electronic public use sample after the 1960 census.14 The 1960 census was the first

census for which the Census Bureau was able to store data on tape, rather than punch

Part I.—Population. (Washington, D.C.: 1892). For discussion, see Deborah Epstein Popper, Robert E. Lang, and Frank J. Popper, "From Maps to Myth: The Census, Turner, and the Idea of the Frontier," Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 23, no. 1 (2000). 11 W.S. Robinson's significant 1950 article on the problems of using ecological correlations for individual inference used as its primary example the correlation between "color" and illiteracy in the 1930 census. See W.S. Robinson, "Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals," American Sociological Review 15, no. 3 (1950): 351-57.. Responses to the article also used aggregate census data. For example Otis Dudley Duncan and Beverly Davis used as their example the relationship between "color" and female employment in domestic service in Chicago at the 1940 census. Otis Dudley Duncan and Beverly Davis, "An Alternative to Ecological Correlation," American Sociological Review 18, no. 6 (1953): 665-66. 12 Paul H. Douglas, Real Wages in the United States, 1890-1926 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930), Paul H. Douglas, The Theory of Wages (New York: Macmillan, 1934). 13 Herman Hollerith, "The Electrical Tabulating Machine," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 57, no. 4 (1894). 14 Steven Ruggles, "Comparability of the Public Use Files of the U.S. Census of Population, 1880-1980," Social Science History 15, no. 1 (1991): 123-24.

cards. Although the initial 1960 sample was too small for addressing many questions, it was welcomed by sociologists and economists who began to use it immediately for research. The success of this public use sample encouraged the Census Bureau to release a larger sample of the 1970 census and increase the size of the 1960 sample. Continued

rapid advances in computing technology and simultaneous decreases in cost, have

allowed larger and larger samples of the modern censuses to be used by more and more

researchers.15

The popularity of the modern census samples and the preservation of the historical manuscripts from the earlier censuses moved researchers to create similar samples from the earlier censuses.16 Researchers have created representative samples of at least 1% of the population for all of the individual-level population censuses (except

the 1890 census for which the manuscripts were destroyed in a fire). Analyzing the data

for multiple years simultaneously is straightforward, as the data is distributed in a

common format through the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS).17

15 The Census Bureau's use of the Hollerith machine was important in the demand for, and development of computing technology in the late 19th century. But it is likely that modern changes in the demand and supply of computing technology are not driven by the U.S. Census Bureau and social science researchers. Thus, it is probably appropriate to say that overall advances in computing technology and declines in cost are exogenous to social scientists' demands. 16 The United States decision to preserve the manuscript census was not universal. The United Kingdom, Canada, Argentina, and the Scandinavian countries have also preserved historical manuscript census records. See the inventory of historical censuses in Patricia Kelly Hall, Robert McCaa, and Gunnar Thorvaldsen, eds., A Handbook of International Historical Microdata for Population Research (Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center, 2000). Historical censuses from Peru and Mexico also survive in part:Rodney D. Anderson and Tamara Spike, "Making History Count: The Guadalajara Census Project (1791-1930)," Hispanic American Historical Review 87, no. 2 (2007): 327-52, Vincent Peloso, "The Anonymous Lima Census of 1860," Hispanic American Historical Review 87, no. 2 (1860): 353-62. Other countries destroyed the manuscript census. See the discussion about the Australian census in Rebecca Kippen and David Lucas, "Sources for Australian Historical Demography," (Department of Demography, Australian National University, 2004), Stephen Mutch, "Public Policy Revolt: Saving the 2001 Australian Census," Archives and Manuscripts 30, no. 2 (2002). 17 Steven Ruggles et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 ([Machine-readable database] Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor], 2004), Steven Ruggles et al., "Ipums Redesign," Historical Methods 36, no. 1 (2003): 9-19.

Currently all the historical samples—before 1960—in the IPUMS are 1% samples of the

population.18

For the broadest analysis of population sub-groups, the 1% samples are sufficient.

For example, even in 1850 and 1860 there are more than 500 free black wives in the

sample, allowing me to look at the experience of free black women alongside white

women. The 1% samples, however, are limited for looking at more tightly defined

groups. For example, Boston, had a historically important black community before and

after the Civil War.19 Yet the 1870 IPUMS sample includes less than 400 black people in

Massachusetts, with less than 100 living in Boston, and fewer still being married

women—too few for a statistical analysis of how the experience of blacks in Boston

differed from blacks in other cities.

The small sample sizes for subpopulations have important implications for the

approach I take in this research. First, the analyses are largely national in scope. In almost

all places I distinguish between black and white women. The experience and behavior of

black and white wives was sufficiently different that trends and behavior should be

analyzed separately. A further implication is that because of small sample sizes, I exclude other racial groups from the analysis. Where the data do exist to describe the experience of American Indian, Chinese and Japanese wives, they indicate that the behavior of these groups was not the same as for white wives.20 For 1880 we have a complete population

18 Five percent samples of the 1900 and 1930 censuses will be available by 2010. 19 James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton, Black Bostonians: Family Life and Community Struggle in the Antebellum North, Rev. ed. (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1999), George A. Levesque, Black Boston: African American Life and Culture in Urban America, 1750-1860 (New York: Garland, 1994), Mark Schneider, Boston Confronts Jim Crow, 1890-1920 (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997). 20 See, for example, Teresa Amott and Julie Matthaei, Race, Gender, and Work: A Multi-Cultural Economic History of Women in the United States (Boston: South End Press, 1991), 31-94, 193-256, Xiaolan Bao, Holding up More Than Half the Sky: Chinese Women Garment Workers in New York City,

database.21 Hispanic women's labor force participation rates were similar to white women's, and I do not distinguish them in the analyses that follow. In analyses of the recent period, the Hispanic population is larger, perhaps warranting separate attention on that basis. Most research, however, shows that U.S.-born Hispanic and U.S.-born white

wives have the most similar labor force behavior of major ethnic groups.22

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century one in ten Native American

women reported gainful employment. Although low by modern standards, or in

comparison to black women, their labor force participation was substantially above that

of white women in 1880. Native American women had more occupational diversity than

black women, but less than white women. Of the 1,175 Native American women working

at the 1880 census 25% were working as laborers, 20% as weavers, 17% as laundresses

in private households, 12% as farm laborers, and 9% as domestic servants. While white women's labor force participation—as measured in the census—increased substantially

by 1940, Native American women's labor force participation changed very little over

sixty years.

1948-92, ed. Roger Daniels, The Asian American Experience (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001). 21 Discussed in detail later. 22 Cordelia W. Reimers, "Cultural Differences in Labor Force Participation among Married Women," American Economic Review 75, no. 2 (1985). The influence of being Hispanic on labor supply on married women's annual working hours was small in Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, "Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Women: 1980-2000," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 11230 (2005).

Figure 1.2 Labor force participation of smaller ethnic groups

These racial minorities made up a small proportion of the United States

population, as can be seen below in Figure 1.3. The data I use to examine these smaller

groups is a dataset of the entire population of the United States at the 1880 census,

containing the records of just over 50 million people including nearly nine million

married women. The records from the 1880 census are available in the same format as the

IPUMS samples, but with somewhat more detail about occupations.23 I use the data from

the complete 1880 census in the last section of this chapter to examine the occupations of

married women in 1880. Although this complete population database allows for the

analysis of small communities and sub-groups without any concerns for sample size or

sampling error, I summarize the results from the 1880 census at a national level, just as I

do for other census years.

Figure 1.3 Racial composition of married women, 1870-1940

23 Ron Goeken et al., "The 1880 U.S. Population Database," Historical Methods 36, no. 1 (2003), Evan Roberts et al., "The North Atlantic Population Project: An Overview," Historical Methods 36, no. 2 (2003), Evan Roberts et al., "Occupational Classification in the North Atlantic Population Project," Historical Methods 36, no. 2 (2003).

The use of representative samples from the census tells the history of millions of

married women and their families. As noted earlier, this dissertation seeks to analyze

married women’s labor force participation within a family context. The census

enumerated individuals within households, and the census samples retain this structure

identifying people within households. Because the analyses in the following chapters rely

heavily on the features of the IPUMS data that allow people to be related to their co-

resident family members, I describe this aspect of the data here.

It is critical to studying relationships among family members that the United

States census was a de jure enumeration. People were to be enumerated at their

permanent abode. Thus, if a husband was out of town for his work on the census date, he

was still enumerated at his home, with his information being supplied by other members

of the household. This means that when a person is not enumerated as living with their

spouse—a category identified as “married, spouse absent” in the IPUMS—we infer that

the couple is probably separated permanently. In all the analyses in this dissertation I

restrict the sample to married women residing with their husbands. Women who were married with their spouse absent had a significantly higher rate of labor force

participation than married women residing with their spouses. In 1880, 25% of white wives without husbands worked, rising to 40% by 1940, compared to 2% and 12% among wives living with husbands. Although the history of separated and divorced women and how they supported themselves has significant gaps I do not tackle it here.24

24 Mothers’ pensions were one response to failed marriages. See Joanne L Goodwin, "Employable Mothers" and "Suitable Work": A Re-Evaluation of Welfare and Wage-Earning for Women in the Twentieth-Century United States," Journal of Social History 29, no. 2 (1995), Joanne L. Goodwin, Gender and the Politics of Welfare Reform: Mothers' Pensions in Chicago, 1911-1929, Women in Culture and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), Carolyn M. Moehling, "The American Welfare

Another aspect of the enumeration that bears on the reporting of women's work

deserves mention. Until 1950, the census was taken by enumerators who visited

households and recorded the information about each individual on a separate line. The

census taker met at least one individual from the household who provided information about the entire household. This procedure has several implications for the accuracy of the enumeration, introducing a level of error into what was recorded. In a country with a significant minority illiterate in written English, this was the most feasible procedure. The first source of error was that the census taker was recording spoken information.25

Uncommon names and spellings are especially likely to be recorded inaccurately. A further source of error was that the person reporting to the enumerator might not know exact information about the other residents of the household, this would particularly be the case for unrelated individuals. Neither of these two sources of error should greatly affect the enumeration of married women's work. Indeed, if married women were working in the household they would be more likely to meet the enumerator and be able to provide information on their own paid work.26

The census has included explicit information on the relationship between each

household member and the household head since 1880. In the 1850, 1860 and 1870

censuses, relationship was not enumerated, but census takers followed standard

procedures for listing household members. The regularity of these procedures allowed the

System and Family Structure: An Historical Perspective," Journal of Human Resources 42, no. 1 (2007), Carolyn M. Moehling, "Family Structure, School Attendance, and Child Labor in the American South in 1900 and 1910," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 33, no. 2 (2002). 25 By contrast, the British censuses were conducted by enumerators leaving paper forms to be filled out by the household, which the enumerator would then compile onto larger sheets of paper, similar to the United States census, to be returned to the central statistical office. 26 In 1940 when the census identified who in the household answered the question more wives than husbands answered.

creators of the IPUMS to identify spouses, children and parents with a great deal of

confidence.27 A typical household listing in the pre-1880 censuses began with a man,

followed by his wife, children in descending age order, other relatives—sometimes including parents of the household head—and finally non-relatives such as boarders,

lodgers, and employees. In institutions, such as hospitals, hotels, schools, and penal

facilities, a similar procedure was followed. The head of the institution was often listed

first, followed by his (less commonly, her) family, employees of the institution, and then

inmates.28

It is useful for this study that married couples are relatively straightforward to

identify because of the convention that spouses share the same name. By contrast,

without explicit enumeration it is difficult to determine whether a non-related individual

is a boarder or an employee. In family groups not related to the head, there is also

potentially more room for error in identifying spouses. Although it is necessary to

acknowledge this potential for error, 95% of the inferred relationships were accurate

when tested in 1880 against true relationship. Among people related to the head of

household, there was 99% accuracy. The potential errors go both ways—people can be

incorrectly linked to a person who is not their spouse, or fail to be linked to their correct

spouse. Since the pre-1880 censuses did not enumerate marital status, a widowed man

living with an unmarried sister of similar age might appear to be living with his wife.

Knowing the explicit enumerated relationships between individuals and the

household head, along with other systematic patterns that suggest relationships between

27 Steven Ruggles, "Family Interrelationships," Historical Methods 28, no. 1 (1995). 28 Steven Ruggles and Susan Brower, "The Measurement of Household and Family Composition in the United States, 1850-2000," Population and Development Review 29, no. 1 (2003).

the other household members, it is possible to identify the location of a person’s parents

or spouse if they are present in the household. Using the information on parental location

in reverse, it is possible to identify a person’s co-resident children. The majority of people in censuses since 1880 can be linked to parents or spouse through the explicit relationship information. For other people, such as boarders, the information is based on systematic and consistent rules. For example, if three individuals listed “boarders” share a surname, and they are a married male aged 27, a married female aged 25 and an unmarried male aged 2, it is highly likely that these boarders are a married couple with a

child. In families unrelated to the head of household, such as a family of boarders,

spouses will not be linked if their age difference is too large. The relative frequency of

misidentification errors will principally affect these married women not related to the

head of household. Married women not related to the head of household were less than

3% of the population of wives for both blacks and whites between 1870 and 1940, so the

effect of any errors will be small.

The availability of information about co-resident parents, children, and spouses

makes it straightforward to examine married women’s work in a family context. The

characteristics of children and husbands can be manipulated and attached to the married

woman of interest for analysis. For example, while the census did not have a column on

its enumeration forms for recording the number of working children over age 13, the

census enumerated occupation and age. Using the variables identifying a person’s

children, I have attached to each mother the characteristics of her children, such as the

number of her children who are both 13 or older and working. Having dealt with the

enumeration of family in the historical censuses, I now turn to the enumeration of work.

2. Labor force participation: concepts and data

The concept of labor force participation has a long history in social science. The

modern definition of labor force participation is straightforward, though in practice a

person's labor force status is adduced through multiple questions in censuses and

surveys.29 Since 1940 in the United States, people over 16 years old are defined as participating in the labor force if during a reference week—typically the week preceding the survey—the person did at least one of the following activities:

• Operated a business, whether alone or employing others • Worked for pay for someone else for at least one hour • Worked unpaid in a family business for at least 15 hours • Actively looked for work, if they did none of the following activities

Anyone who does not report doing any of the foregoing activities is reported, by default,

as being out of the labor force. Prior to 1940, the United States census used a "gainful

worker" concept to enumerate the working population. The instructions to enumerators

changed over the years and had a variety of implications for the measurement of women's

work.30 In this section, I review the efforts of other scholars to connect the "gainful worker" and labor force participation measure, and discuss the implications of the conceptual differences for analyses of married women's work that straddle both periods.

At best, the gainful worker measures can be adjusted to match labor force

participation measures in the aggregate only. While there is scholarly consensus that the

gainful worker enumeration understated labor force participation of married women by 5-

29 It might be noted that the modern definition of labor force participation was constructed during the Great Depression, and that the United States definition is, by historical design, similar to that used in other western countries. See, for example, Clarence D. Long, The Labor Force under Changing Income and Employment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 42-48. 30 Inter alia: Philip M. Hauser, "The Labor Force and Gainful Workers-Concept, Measurement, and Comparability," The American Journal of Sociology 54, no. 4 (1949): 338-55.

10 percent between 1880 and 1940, this aggregate gap cannot be applied to individuals in census microdata samples. Analysis using the census samples must rely on the values reported under the concepts prevailing at the time. The following table highlights the elements of the census enumeration instructions which were particularly likely to have affected the enumeration of women's work.

Table 1.1 Enumerator instructions affecting enumeration of married women's work Year Instructions

1930 A "gainful occupation" in census usage is an occupation by which the person who pursues it earns money or a money equivalent, or in which he assists in the production of marketable goods. The term "gainful worker," as interpreted for census purposes, does not include women doing housework in their own homes, without wages, and having no other employment (see par. 194), nor children working at home, merely on general household work, on chores, or at odd times on other work.

Occasionally there will be doubt as to whether an occupation should be returned for a person who works only a small part of the time at the occupation. In such cases the rule may generally be followed that, unless the person spends at least the equivalent of one day per week at the occupation, he or she should not be returned as a gainful worker- that is, the entry in column 25 should be none.31

1920 A "gainful occupation" in census usage is an occupation by which the person who pursues it earns money or a money equivalent, or in which he assists in the production of marketable goods. The term "gainful worker," as interpreted for census purposes, does not include women doing housework in their own homes, without wages, and having no other employment (see par. 194), nor children working at home, merely on general household work, on chores, or at odd times on other work.

31 1930 Census: Enumerator Instructions. http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1930.shtml

Year Instructions

the occupation, he or she should not be returned as a gainful worker- that is, the entry in column 25 should be none.

If a person has two occupations, return only the more important one— that is, the one from which he gets the more money. If you can not learn that, return the one at which he spends the more time. For example: Return a man as farmer if he gets more of his income from farming, although he may also follow the occupation of a clergyman or preacher; but return him as a clergyman if he gets more of his income from that occupation.32

1910 An entry should be made in this column for every person enumerated. The occupation, if any, followed by a child, of any age, or by a woman is just as important, for census purposes, as the occupation followed by a man. Therefore if must never be taken for granted, without inquiry, that a woman, or child, has no occupation.

Women doing housework.—In the case of a woman doing housework in her own home, without salary or wages, and having no other employment, the entry in column 18 should be none. But a woman working at housework for wages should be returned in column 18 as housekeeper, servant, cook, or chambermaid, as the case may be; and the entry in column 19 should state the kind of place where she works, as private family, hotel, or boarding house. Or, if a woman, in addition to doing housework in her own home, regularly earns money by some other occupation, whether pursued in her own home or outside, that occupation should be returned in columns 18 and 19. For instance, a woman who regularly takes in washing should be reported as laundress or washerwoman, followed in column 19 by at home.

Women doing farm work.—For a woman who works only occasionally, or only a short time each day at outdoor farm or garden work, or in the dairy, or in caring for live stock or poultry, the return should be none; but for a woman who works regularly and most of the time at such work, the return should be farm laborer—home farm; farm laborer—working out; laborer—garden; laborer—dairy farm; laborer—stock farm; or laborer—poultry yard as the case may be. Of course, a woman who herself operates or runs a farm or plantation should be reported as a farmer and not as a "farm laborer."

Keeping boarders.—Keeping boarders or lodgers should be returned as an occupation if the person engaged in it relies upon it as his (or

32 1920 Census: Enumerator Instructions. http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1920.shtml

Year Instructions

her) principal means of support or principal source of income. In that case the return should be keeper—boarding house or keeper—lodging house. If, however, a family keeps a few boarders or roomers merely as a means of supplementing or eking out the earnings or income obtained from other occupations or from other sources, no one in the family should be returned as a boarding or lodging house keeper. 33

1900 If a married woman has a gainful occupation, return the occupation accordingly, whether she does the work at her home or goes regularly to a place of employment, and whether she is regularly or only occasionally so employed. For example, "milliner," "dressmaker," "nurse," etc.

In farming sections, where a farm is found that is under the management or supervision of a woman as owner or tenant, return the occupation of such woman as "farmer" in all cases.34

1880 The organization of domestic service has not proceeded so far in this country as to render it worth while to make distinctions in the character of work. Report all as "domestic servants."

Cooks, waiters, etc., in hotels and restaurants will be reported separately from domestic servants, as "cook in hotel," etc.

The term "housekeeper" will be reserved for such persons as receive distinct wages or salary for the service. Women keeping house for their own families or for themselves, without any other gainful occupation, will be entered as "keeping house." Grown daughters assisting them will be reported without occupation.35

The consensus in the scholarly literature is that the net effect of the gainful worker concept was to undercount women's participation in work. Because the census was never taken using both the gainful employment and labor force participation questions, the precise implications of their differences for measurement of economic activity will never

33 1910 Census: Enumerator Instructions. http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1910.shtml 34 1900 Census: Enumerator Instructions. http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1900.shtml 35 1880 Census: Enumerator Instructions. http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1880.shtml

be known.36 The following sections describe some of the key comparability problems: time period of work, defining market and household work, and unpaid labor in family firms.

Time period of work

The most important difference between the modern labor force participation and

gainful worker concepts is that the gainful worker concept did not reference an explicit

time period in which the respondent had worked. Scholars have argued that this resulted

in a "social identity" definition of occupation, and that "a man might describe himself as

having an occupation even if he is unemployed, retired, or working only intermittently."37

It is likely that the "social identity" interpretation of the gainful employment question

inaccurately added men as active workers. Yet the absence of any explicit reference

period means that women and men who worked intermittently in the market may also

have been recorded as workers, when the modern labor force participation question

referring to a previous week might not record them as participating.

Other historical sources—including the family budget studies discussed further in

Chapter 3—show that the gainful worker concept recorded fewer women engaged in

market work than the modern labor force participation questions. Applying the modern

labor force participation concept backwards, Claudia Goldin estimated that in 1890

36 This discussion may leave the reader with the impression that the labor force participation measure is unproblematic in concept and operation. This is not the case. At the boundary between unemployment and withdrawal from the labor market apparently minor changes in questions can have significant implications for the measured level of participation. See Erich Battistin, Enrico Rettore, and Ugo Trivellato, "Choosing between Alternative Classification Criteria to Measure the Labour Force State," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 170, no. 2 (2007): 5-27. John Bound, Charles Brown, and Nancy Mathiowetz, "Measurement Error in Survey Data," in Handbook of Econometrics, ed. E.E. Learner and J.J. Heckman (New York: North Holland, 2001), 3705-843. 37 Nancy Folbre and M. Abel, "Women's Work and Women's Households: Gender Bias in the U.S. Census," Social Research 56 (1989): 548. See also "A Methodology for Revising Estimates"

14.5% of married women were in the labor force, when the gainful worker concept

enumerated 4.6% of married women with an occupation.38 Applying the same

methodology back to 1880 and forward to 1920, Matthew Sobek found participation

varied from 15.7% in 1880 to 14.4% in 1900 and back up to 15.4% in 1920.39 In short,

adjusting the gainful employment data on married women's employment shows that the

rise in married women's market work before 1940 was negligible. Married women's labor

force participation was basically flat throughout this period, even though contemporaries

saw in the census data a story of dramatic social change.40 The contemporary view was

not entirely wrong—the location and organization of married women's work was

changing. Married women were going "out to work," and they were working for firms

rather than their family.

Married women's paid work outside the home or family firm was enumerated

relatively accurately before 1940.41 Work inside the home or family business that would

be counted by the modern labor force participation questions was not enumerated under

the gainful employment questions. The changing enumeration instructions in the census

reveal an awareness of these issues that culminated in the development of the labor force

participation concept. As noted earlier, the gainful worker concept did not include an

explicit time period during which the respondent had to have worked. One of the first

38 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 43-44, 219-27. 39 Christine E. Bose, Women in 1900: Gateway to the Political Economy of the 20th Century, Women in the Political Economy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), 22-55, Sobek, "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990", 100. 40 Henry Hazlitt, "The America That is Enduring: Mr. Strunsky Examines the Unchanging Aspects of Our National Life." Review of Simeon Strunsky, The Living Tradition: Change and America (New York: 1939) in New York Times Book Review, 19 November 1939, p.BR2. 41 Bose, Women in 1900: Gateway to the Political Economy of the 20th Century, Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, 220.

scholars to wrestle with the changing labor force definitions, John Durand, argued that the gainful worker estimates were likely to be above the labor force estimates because of part-year workers tendency to report themselves as being employed.42 Conversely, women’s historians have tended to argue that part-year wage work was overlooked, and thus under-counted, by the census.43 Using data on employed women, however, Goldin demonstrated that part-year employment was relatively uncommon, and was probably the smallest source of discrepancies between the gainful worker and labor force participation measures.

Market and household work

Both the gainful worker and labor force participation concepts were concerned to separate market from household production. Despite this concern, the gainful employment question in the census was not always successful at distinguishing between household production and paid labor. Household production is work producing something that will be consumed by members of the immediate household.44 Margaret

42 John D. Durand, "The Development of the Labor Force Concept 1930-1940," in Labor Force Definition and Measurement, ed. Louis J. Ducoff and Margaret Jarman Hagood (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1947), 30-40, John D. Durand, The Labor Force in the United States (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1948), 191-218. 43 Nancy F. Cott, No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 377, Lisa Eldersveld-Murphy, "Journeywoman Milliner: Emily Austin, Migration, and Women’s Work in the Nineteenth-Century Midwest," in Midwestern Women: Work, Community, and Leadership at the Crossroads, ed. Lisa Eldersveld-Murphy and Wendy Hamand Venet (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), 39, Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: Wage-Earning Women in the United States, 122-23, S. J. Kleinberg, Women in the United States, 1830-1945 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1999), 107. 44 The economic analysis of market and household labor can best be traced to Margaret Reid, Economics of Household Production (New York: John Wiley, 1934)., working within the "home economics" tradition. S. Grossbard-Shechtman, "The New Home Economics at Columbia and Chicago," Feminist Economics 7, no. 3 (2001): 103-30, Kelvin J. Lancaster, "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," The Journal of Political Economy 74, no. 2 (1966). Gary S Becker, "A Theory of Marriage: Part Ii," Journal of Political Economy 82 (1974), Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), Gary S. Becker, "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973),

Reid's pioneering economic analysis of the subject defined household production as

"unpaid activities which are carried on, by and for the members, which activities might

be replaced by market goods, or paid services, if circumstances such as income, market conditions, and personal inclinations permit the service being delegated to someone outside the household group."45 For example, at the turn of the twentieth century families

could choose to purchase bread, or make it themselves. It traditionally fell to wives to

undertake these household production tasks.46 For example, in a study of New York

wage-earner's families in 1907, Louise Boland More noted the diversity in family

decisions about buying or making bread.47 "Household production" also includes time spent on child-care, which might be thought of more generally as the production of services. Market work was work that was consumed by members outside the immediate household, and for which the woman received some pay. The important distinction between market and household work is who the work is being done for. The literal, physical work itself does not determine whether an activity is market or household production.48 Nor does the location of the work determine whether work is for the market

or the household.

Gary S. Becker, "A Theory of the Allocation of Time," The Economic Journal 75, no. 299 (1965), Gary Stanley Becker, A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), Reuben Gronau, "The Effect of Children on the Housewife's Value of Time," The Journal of Political Economy 81, no. 2 (1973). 45 E. Forget, "Margaret Gilpin Reid: A Manitoba Home Economist Goes to Chicago 1," Feminist Economics 2, no. 3 (1996), Reid, Economics of Household Production, 11. 46 Nancy Folbre, "The Unproductive Housewife: Her Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Economic Thought," Signs 16, no. 3 (1991), Glenna Matthews, "Just a Housewife": The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), Annegret S. Ogden, The Great American Housewife (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1986). 47 Louise Bolard More, Wage-Earners' Budgets; a Study of Standards and Cost of Living in New York City (New York: H. Holt and company, 1907), 173-233. 48 An interesting contemporary discussion of this is found in Flora M. Thompson, "Work of Wives," Outlook No. 91 April 24 1909, p.994-96.

In the remainder of the dissertation I use terms to distinguish these activities in the

following way. Household production refers to goods and services produced for the

household's immediate consumption. Market work or market labor refers to activities that

earned money from people outside the family. Market work might not be remunerated

explicitly, as when a woman works in a family business and does not get paid a wage by

her husband. Market work might also be physically located in the household, if it

involves servicing boarders or lodgers, or doing "home-work," such as sewing. Finally,

market work includes work for wages or salary, which is nearly exclusively undertaken at

a separate location from the individual's home. This type of work is referred to as wage

work because many women before 1940 worked in jobs where they were paid by the hour

or day, or for the amount they produced (piece rates). Relatively few married women

worked in occupations where they would have been receiving salaries, or professions

where they might have received payment for contracted services. For simplicity I refer to

all work outside the home as "wage work," even though it includes salaried workers.

Domestic work was performed for both market and household purposes before

1940. Accurately determining how much of that work was in the market is important in developing long-term accounts of economic inputs and outputs. If female market labor is undercounted, then it appears that total output is being produced with less labor than was actually required to produce it, with important implications for estimates of the

productivity of the economy. 49 The census attempted to make an accurate distinction

49 Nancy Folbre and Barnet Wagman, "Counting Housework: New Estimates of Real Product in the United States, 1800-1860," Journal of Economic History 53, no. 2 (1993): 275-88, Claudia Goldin, "The Female Labor Force and American Economic Growth," in Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 557-604, J. Madrick, "Why Mainstream Economists Should Take Heed," Feminist Economics 3, no. 1 (1997): 143-49.

between domestic work done unpaid for the family, and domestic work undertaken for

pay for other people. Unfortunately, the census instructions placed the burden of

measuring this important economic distinction on the semantic distinction between

"housekeepers," and women "keeping house."50

The census instructions in 1880 were clear, as can be seen in Table 1.1. Women

doing domestic work for others for pay—market work—should be returned as

"housekeepers," while women working in their own homes on domestic activity should

be returned as "keeping house." In practice the distinction was not carried over into the

data (See Table 1.2).51 Just over 9 million people were enumerated in 1880 with an occupation indicating domestic work; 6.6 million were returned as "keeping house," and

another 1 million as "keeps house." Although any of these 9 million women might have

been mixing household production with market work—an issue discussed in the

following section—it is likely that the majority of them were not spending most of their

time in paid employment. In the context of the census instructions, we might assume that

the 450,000 women returned as "Housekeeper" were getting paid for their work. Thus,

the majority of the 9 million people doing domestic work in 1880—more than 8

million—were returned with as little ambiguity as possible, given the census enumerator

instructions. There were, however, nearly half a million women—most of them

married—who returned ambiguous responses. Most prominently, "housekeeping" was

50 http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1880.shtml 51 The enumeration of the American census was of a lower standard than censuses taken in comparable countries, because of the weakness of the American federal government. See Magnuson and King, "Enumeration Procedures." on the American census. For a discussion of other international censuses from the time period, see Hall, McCaa, and Thorvaldsen, eds., A Handbook of International Historical Microdata for Population Research, Roberts et al., "The North Atlantic Population Project: An Overview.", G. Thorvaldsen, "Away on Census Day. Enumerating the Temporarily Present or Absent," Historical Methods 39, no. 2 (2006): 82-96.

reported by 335,000 women—257,370 of them married. "House work" was reported by

another 85,000 women, but just 17,448 of them were married. Just under 500,000 married

women reported non-domestic occupations in 1880 (discussed in the concluding section

of the chapter).

The economic impact of how one interprets the single word "housekeeping"—

whether these women should have been returned as a "housekeeper" or "keeping

house"—determines whether one finds 5% or 10% of wives in paid labor. The

interpretation of this single ambiguous word bears on the historiographical controversy

over the original tabulation of the 1880 census. Susan Carter and Richard Sutch have

argued that the returns were deliberately edited to conform to social conventions about

the appropriateness of market work by women and children.52 Carter and Sutch relied on

the 1% sample of the 1880 census to reach this conclusion. With access to the complete

returns of the 1880 census it is clear that the Census Bureau determined that

“housekeeping” was not a paid occupation. It is not possible to divine what

"housekeeping" meant for the individual women who returned that occupation. An

important economic distinction rested on a weakly administered corps of enumerators

remembering that similar sounding phrases had distinct and separate meanings.

Despite the inability to distinguish between household and market work in the

1880 census, the returns do establish that these women were engaged in domestic

activities. Census instructions improved and by 1910 the instructions were reasonably

52 Susan B. Carter and Richard Sutch, "Fixing the Facts: Editing of the 1880 U.S. Census of Occupations with Implications for Long-Term Labor-Force Trends and the Sociology of Official Statistics," Historical Methods 29, no. 1 (1996): 5-24, M. A. Conk, "Accuracy, Efficiency, and Bias: The Interpretation of Women's Work in the Us Census of Occupations, 1890-1940," Historical Methods 14, no. 1 (1981): 65-72, Margo Anderson Conk, "Occupational Classification in the United States Census: 1870-1940," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9, no. 1 (1978): 111-30.

clear. As was mentioned earlier, household production often involved the joint

production of different goods and services for the household. A woman could bake bread at the same time as she was caring for children. Joint production of this form does not pose any conceptual challenges for the distinction between household and market work.

Somewhat more of a conceptual problem is that household goods could be consumed by the immediate family, but also sold in the market. Producing basic commodities— principally food, clothing and small household implements—for cash sale was a common activity for women before the American Revolution and in the antebellum period

(discussed further in the next section on long-term change). There is little representative evidence on the long-term extent of joint production for the household and the market, but historians who have gone looking for the qualitative evidence of the survival of joint production for the market and household have typically found it.53

53 Christina Gessler, "'I Have Mended Up My Old Waterproof Dress': The Hidden Household Economy in Rural Nineteenth-Century New England," 99th Organization of American Historians conference, Washington, D.C., April 20 2006. See also Christina Gessler, "Harvests of the Heart: Themes from the Diaries of Nineteenth-Century New England Farm Women" (PhD, American University, 2002).

Table 1.2 Commonly reported domestic occupations of married women, 1880 Occupation Frequency Percent of Percent of married Cumulative all married women reporting percent women domestic occupation

Keeping House 6,957,511 79.56 91.70 91.70 Housekeeper 297,409 3.40 3.92 95.61 Housekeeping 257,370 2.94 3.39 99.01 House Work 17,448 0.19 0.23 99.24 Keeping H. 14,305 0.16 0.19 99.43 Housewife 11,256 0.12 0.15 99.57 Housekeep. 5,805 0.06 0.08 99.65 H. Keeper 3,232 0.03 0.04 99.69 Keeping Home 3,143 0.03 0.04 99.73 H.K. 1,881 0.02 0.02 99.76 Works In House 1,559 0.01 0.02 99.78 Does House Work 1,538 0.01 0.02 99.80 H. Keeping 1,181 0.01 0.02 99.82 Keeper Of House 1,175 0.01 0.02 99.83 Notes: Occupational titles were standardized for minor spelling variations, without losing substantive distinctions. Thus "Keping House" is standardized to "Keeping House" but "Keeping H." is not, because the "H" could potentially stand for other entities such as "Home" or "Hotel." Source: Own calculations from the United States 1880 census. North Atlantic Population Project and Minnesota Population Center. NAPP: Complete Count Microdata. NAPP Version 1.0 [computer files] Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [distributor], 2006. [http://www.nappdata.org]

The production of household goods could also earn income if a family kept

boarders. Boarding was common in the United States between 1880 and 1920.54 The census was unsure how to deal with this form of joint domestic and market work. In 1910 the census enumerator instructions encouraged a distinction between individuals keeping boarders as "his (or her) principal means of support," and families that kept "a few

54 Nancy Folbre, "Womens Informal Market Work in Massachusetts, 1875-1920," Social Science History 17, no. 1 (1993), Wendy Gamber, The Boardinghouse in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007), Wendy Gamber, "Tarnished Labor: The Home, the Market, and the Boardinghouse in Antebellum America," Journal of the Early Republic 22, no. 2 (2002), John Modell and Tamara K. Hareven, "Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families," Journal of Marriage and the Family 35, no. 3 (1973): 467-79.

boarders or roomers merely as a means of supplementing or eking out the earning or

income obtained from another occupation." (emphasis added) Family budget studies from

the period indicate that income from boarders was not a "principal means of support" for

many families.55

Table 1.3 Number of boarders per household, 1880-1940 Number of 1880 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 boarders

Zero 9,345,684 14,457,639 18,307,883 22,239,994 27,065,536 32,285,553 93.35 89.93 90.69 91.74 91.24 93.44 One 467,409 1,098,060 1,190,966 1,282,162 1,776,322 1,550,408 4.67 6.83 5.90 5.29 5.99 4.49 Two 132,647 328,606 412,048 449,324 527,368 458,360 1.32 2.04 2.04 1.85 1.78 1.33 Three 46,371 132,121 179,310 180,631 201,077 177,133 0.46 0.82 0.89 0.75 0.68 0.51 Four 19,849 60,043 96,162 91,127 94,302 82,265 0.20 0.37 0.48 0.38 0.32 0.24 Five 0 202 621 0 201 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Households 10,011,960 16,076,671 20,186,990 24,243,238 29,664,806 34,553,719

Note: IPUMS, 1880-1940. Non-group quarters only.

Although 7 to 10 percent of married women lived in households with boarders, only a small fraction of them were returned as boarding-house keepers. Married women who were boarders themselves would not have been earning money from being in a household with boarders. Therefore we can restrict our attention to women married to the

head of household who would be most likely to be earning money from any boarders in

the house. From 1880 to 1940 more than 90% of married women were married to the

55 Claudia Goldin, "Family Strategies and the Family Economy in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Role of Secondary Workers," in Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century—Essays toward an Interdisciplinary History of the City, ed. Theodore Hershberg (New York: 1981), Claudia Goldin, "Household and Market Production of Families in a Late Nineteenth Century American City," Explorations in Economic History 16 (1979), Michael R. Haines, "Industrial Work and the Family Life Cycle, 1889-1890," Research in Economic History 4 (1979), John Modell, "Patterns of Consumption, Acculturation, and Family Income Strategies in Late-Nineteenth Century America," in Family and Population in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Tamara F. Hareven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).

head of the household they lived in. White wives were more likely to be returned as

boarding house keepers—except in 1930—even though black wives were slightly more

likely to be keeping boarders after 1900. Indeed, the number of black women returned as boarding house keepers is so small that reliable estimates for the numbers of boarders they kept are not possible to calculate from the census samples.

Table 1.4 Keeping boarders and boarding-house keepers, 1880-1940

Percent of wives Percent of women White women only keeping boarders keeping boarders returned Mean (s.d) number of boarders as boarding house keepers If a household had boarders

Year White Black White Black Not a Boarding boarding house keeper house keeper

1880 7.18 5.85 0.86 - 1.40 (0.73) 2.09 (1.11) 1900 9.93 10.02 0.70 0.31 1.44 (0.77) 2.74 (1.00) 1910 9.02 9.24 2.20 0.92 1.53 (0.84) 2.39 (1.14) 1920 7.53 9.22 1.50 0.75 1.50 (0.80) 2.68 (1.05) 1930 7.11 11.61 2.40 2.44 1.40 (0.73) 2.55 (1.16) 1940 4.62 9.70 0.54 0.10 1.39 (0.73) 2.29 (1.04) Note: IPUMS data, 1880-1940. Only tabulated for wives married to the head of household, or head themselves.

Even though black wives were more likely to keep boarders—and kept about the same

number of boarders if they did have boarders—they were less likely to be returned as boarding house keepers. Black women, as will be discussed later, were also more likely to report other occupations. This suggests that women were returned as boarding house keepers when they did not report another occupation, and kept enough boarders to meet some varying threshold of keeping "enough" boarders to be regarded as full-time boarding house keepers.

Keeping boarders was also associated with whether a husband was self-employed or not. Wives whose husbands were self-employed or employers were significantly less likely to have boarders, although the difference declined over time (see Table 1.5).

Table 1.5 Keeping boarders and husband's class-of-worker status

Percent of husbands self-employed by boarding status and race White Black Year No boarders Has boarders No boarders Has boarders 1910 44.71 31.34 49.67 27.29 1920 39.59 24.76 48.62 19.14 1930 31.57 28.97 40.44 19.25 1940 26.61 25.49 31.70 18.57

Percent keeping boarders by husband's class-of-worker status and race White Black Year Wage-worker Self-employed Wage-worker Self-employed 1910 10.96 6.50 12.83 5.30 1920 9.21 4.84 13.79 3.85 1930 7.36 6.56 15.12 5.89 1940 4.69 4.44 11.35 5.92 Note: IPUMS data, 1880-1940. Only tabulated for women married to the head of household, or head themselves.

The observed differences in the proportion of wives of self-employed men and wives of waged men keeping boarders are not entirely eliminated by controlling for other family economic circumstances, including the number of children working, whether the household was a farm, and the wife's employment in other occupations than boardinghouse keeping. Indeed, wives who reported paid employment were more likely to keep boarders, while having children working reduced the chance of keeping boarders. In other words, before the 1930s, if a husband had a business his wife was significantly less likely to keep boarders. Qualitative evidence suggests that where a husband owned his own business—whether employing others or not—wives were likely to assist in that business without receiving direct monetary compensation. Earning money from keeping boarders

and working for a family business were both under-enumerated forms of paid labor. Yet

the effect of each kind of work on the relationship within a family was likely to have

been quite different. Because keeping boarders was more likely to rely on a wife's

domestic labor, her claim to the income received would have been stronger.

The impact on married women's market labor of keeping boarders was significant.

As an upper bound estimate, I’ve added the unidentified board house keepers (wives of the household head in a household with boarders) to the paid labor force. Figure 1.4 presents this adjusted labor force participation measure and the usual measure by race.

Under the modern labor force participation concept, not all wives looking after boarders would be in the labor force.56 Nevertheless, the upper-bound shows that keeping boarders

would have raised the labor force participation of white wives substantially until the

1930s. Yet even this upper-bound is well below post-1940 levels of labor force

participation. Even by the most generous standards for counting wives in market work,

there has been a significant increase in participation. The other noteworthy trend revealed

by the measure including boarders is the persistence of keeping boarders among black families until the 1960s. Indeed, blacks are now more likely than whites to live in complex households, including non-related individuals such as boarders.57

56 See the discussion in Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, 223-25. 57 Frances K. Goldscheider and Regina M. Bures, "The Racial Crossover in Family Complexity in the United States," Demography 40, no. 3 (2003): 569-87.

Figure 1.4 Labor force participation including boarders, 1880-2000

Keeping boarders was a potential source of independent income for wives, potentially complementary with the household production expected of married women in late nineteenth century America. Conversely, laboring within her husband's business reflected legal expectations that husbands had first claim on their wife's labor. This legal expectation was known as "marital service" and is discussed further in chapter 2.

Legal changes giving wives greater legal control over the income they earned and their labor supply was important in the movement of married women into paid work outside the home. The "hidden" market work that the census did not capture had different forms which had different implications for relationships within the family and a woman’s control of income. Even if a wife's time was equally valuable to the family taking care of boarders—a more independent income stream for a wife—or working for her husband's

firm, it mattered for relationships within the family what she chose to do. Modern

research shows that the division of earnings among spouses affects the decisions couples

make. The spouse with relatively higher earnings gets more leisure time, for example.58

Historical evidence on this point is mostly anecdotal, but a recent article by Carolyn

Moehling shows that children's bargaining power in the family increased when they brought in greater income.59 While the evidence does not pertain directly to wives, the

important finding is that who earned the money did matter to family decision making in

the past.

Unpaid labor in family firms

While the simplest economic theory often distinguishes between "families" and

"firms," as independent entities, historically families and firms have overlapped.60 An outpouring of research in European and American history in the past thirty years has shown that women's contributions to family firms was substantial.61 This historical

research has developed a new consensus about women's labor in the past. While it is

difficult to determine historically if wives' work passed the modern threshold of 15 hours

unpaid work that determines labor force participation, the qualitative evidence indicates

58 For a review, see Michael Bittman et al., "When Does Gender Trump Money? Bargaining and Time in Household Work," American Journal of Sociology 109, no. 2 (2003), Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak, "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, no. 4 (1996), Shelly Lundberg, Robert Pollak, and Terry Wales, "Do Husbands and Wives Pool Resources? Evidence from the Uk Child Benefit," Journal of Human Resources 32, no. 3 (1997), Robert A. Pollak, "Bargaining Power in Marriage: Earnings, Wage Rates and Household Production," (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005). 59 Carolyn M. Moehling, "‘She Has Suddenly Become Powerful’: Youth Employment and Household Decision-Making in the Early Twentieth Century," Journal of Economic History 65, no. 2 (2005): 414-38. 60 R. Church, "The Family Firm in Industrial Capitalism: International Perspectives on Hypotheses and History," Business History 35 (1993): 17-43. 61 Sheilagh C. Ogilvie, A Bitter Living: Women, Markets, and Social Capital in Early Modern Germany (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).For the United States, see the articles in "Women's Economies in North America before 1820", a special issue of Early American Studies 4(2) 2006.

that many women worked in non-domestic labor. Before the nineteenth century, firms

often overlapped with families because most firms were small in size. As firms grew

larger, restricting ownership and management to family members solved a variety of trust

problems that might arise in admitting strangers to the firm.62 In the United States family

control of large firms has not persisted as much as in Britain or Germany, but family

control has continued to be the predominant form of organization for small business.63

Yet while family control of firms remains important in the population of firms, family control of firms decreased in importance for families.64 Fewer wives had the opportunity

to work unpaid in their husband's firms, because fewer husbands were self-employed.

Critics of the gainful worker statistics have argued that a great deal of market

labor by wives was hidden within family firms, and argue for a large revision upwards in

the historical labor force participation measures.65 To revise the historical labor force

participation estimates significantly requires the maximal assumption that every woman

married to a self-employed man should be regarded as participating in the market. Sobek

and Goldin rely on later time-use data from the 1920s that suggests only a minority of

62 Andrea Colli, The History of Family Business, 1850-2000, New Studies in Economic and Social History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 11-12. 63 R Dore, W Lazonick, and M O'Sullivan, "Varieties of Capitalism in the Twentieth Century," Oxford Review of Economic Policy 15, no. 4 (1999), Peter Dobkin Hall, "A Historical Overview of Family Firms in the United States," Family Business Review 1, no. 1 (1988). 64 Joel M. Guttman and Nira Yacouel, "On the Expansion of the Market and the Decline of the Family," Review of Economics of the Household 5, no. 1 (2007). 65 Penelope. Ciancanelli, "Women's Transition to Wage Labor: A Critique of Labor Force Statistics and Reestimation of the Labor Force Participation of Married Women in the United States 1900 to 1930" (New School for Social Research, 1984). Christine E. Bose, "Household Resources and U.S. Women's Work: Factors Affecting Gainful Employment at the Turn of the Century," American Sociological Review 49, no. 4 (1984), Bose, Women in 1900: Gateway to the Political Economy of the 20th Century, Lisa Geib- Gunderson, Uncovering the Hidden Work of Women in Family Businesses: A History of Census Undernumeration, Garland Studies in the History of American Labor (New York: Garland, 1998).

women married to self-employed men spent enough hours in the family business to be

counted as labor force participants.66

The most important type of family firm was the family farm. The growth in labor

productivity in agriculture in the early twentieth century saw the proportion of the labor

force in agriculture decline rapidly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.67

With a smaller proportion of the male labor force working as farmers, the opportunity for wives to work unpaid in family businesses declined in the early twentieth century.68 In

1850 half of all white wives were married to farmers (See Figure 1.5). By 1940 just over

10% of white women were married to farmers. The vast majority—more than 95%—of male farmers were self-employed, making it difficult to disentangle the effects of husband's self-employment or occupation on wives' work in farm families. Outside of agriculture, the proportion of married women whose husbands were self-employed fell slightly. In 1910, when "class of worker" was first enumerated 16% of white women were married to self-employed husbands, dropping to 12% by 1940. Black women outside farming were less likely to be married to self-employed men, but the pattern was the same, husbands were less likely to be self-employed by 1940.

For both black and white women, it appears that a husband's self-employment status did not greatly affect whether she reported a gainful occupation (see Figure 1.6).

White wives of farm laborers were always more likely to report an occupation than wives

66 Sobek, "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990", 103-10. 67 Claudia Goldin, "Labor Markets in the Twentieth Century," in Cambridge Economic History of the United States, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 549-624, R. A. Margo, "The Labor Force in the Nineteenth Century," in The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 207-43. 68 Jane Adams, The Transformation of Rural Life: Southern Illinois, 1890-1990 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994).

of farmers, yet this is likely due to age and earnings differences between farmers and

farm laborers, rather than farmers being self-employed. For black women, the pattern was

similar except in 1910 when the census instructions were changed, and "regular" unpaid

family members were included in the labor force. With the reversion in census

enumeration instructions in 1920, the historical pattern re-asserted itself. Outside of

agriculture, data on self-employment is only available from 1910 onwards. From 1910

until 1930, the labor force participation of wives married to wage-workers and self-

employed men was nearly identical. In 1940, when unpaid family workers are included in the labor force, wives of self-employed men were somewhat more likely to be in the labor force. Data from 1940 also reveal that less than five percent of women married to

self-employed men reported being unpaid workers in a family firm. The census data show

that wives married to self-employed husbands, including farmers, did contribute labor to

the family business, but that for the vast majority of women this labor was substantially

less than full-time.

Figure 1.5 Marriage to farmers, farm laborers and employers, 1850- 1940

Figure 1.6 Labor force participation by race and husband's employment

3. Long term trends in married women's work

The need for families to make decisions about how they spend their time—

working for pay, working in the home, or playing—is a long-term historical constant. The

outcome of that decision varies over time within a family, and varies on average across

different subpopulations and across time. In this section I review the historiography of

married women's work over the long run in the United States and discuss interpretations

of the long-term patterns to provide long-term context for the 1860-1940 period. The

eighty years covered by this dissertation may well represent the low-point of married

women's involvement in market work over several centuries.

Married women's work in early-modern Europe and America

Large scale migration to the United States began in the seventeenth century. High

mortality in the southern and mid-Atlantic colonies required a large flow of migrants to

achieve population growth. Only in New England did the population manage to achieve

sustained natural population growth through an excess of births over deaths.69 Moving

south through the colonies the sex ratio increased, women's age at marriage decreased,

and the reliance on coerced labor increased. These demographic constraints contributed

to different patterns among the colonies for organizing work within families. In New

England, with larger numbers of infants surviving to late childhood and adulthood, there were more children who could contribute labor to the family enterprise. Marriage was also somewhat later than in the southern colonies, so that New England women typically

69 Henry A. Gemery, "The White Population of the Colonial United States, 1607-1790," in A Population History of North America, ed. Michael R. Haines and Richard H. Steckel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 143-90.

entered marriage with more education and more work experience.70 Industrial structure also varied among the colonies, with the small farm and village market economy of New

England more conducive to women's intermittent and part-time work than the development of plantation agriculture in the southern colonies.71 Differing demographic regimes and industrial structure go most of the way to explaining the differences in women's work experience, as the cultural ideas about women’s roles that were brought to

America did not differ significantly among the colonies.

European migrants to the United States before the American Revolution brought with them the behavior and expectations of early-modern Europe. The role of women in the early-modern economy has received renewed attention in the last two decades. As recently as 1988 it was lamented that Alice Clark’s 1919 book Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century was still a standard reference on women’s work in England before the Industrial Revolution.72 In a largely pre-statistical era it is difficult to make any economy-wide generalizations about women’s work. Jan de Vries has hypothesized that before there was an Industrial Revolution there was an Industrious Revolution that saw the labor supply of women and children expand significantly in the century before

70 Gloria L Main, Peoples of a Spacious Land: Families and Cultures in Colonial New England (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), Russell R Menard, "The Re-Peopling of British America, 1600-1790," in A Century of European Migratios, ed. R.J. Vecoli and S.M. Sinke (Urbana: 1991), Daniel Scott Smith, "The Demographic History of Colonial New England," Journal of Economic History 32, no. 1 (1972), Robert V Wells, "The Population of England's Colonies in America: Old English or New Americans?" Population Studies 46, no. 1 (1992). 71 John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), Russell R Menard, "Economic and Social Development of the South," in The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), Daniel Vickers, "The Northern Colonies: Economy and Society, 1600-1775," in The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 72 Diane Willen, "Review of Susan Cahn, Industry of Devotion," Gender and Society 4, no. 2 (1990): 268.

1750.73 Economic historians, however, have not reached any real consensus on trends in women’s work over several centuries because of the paucity of generalizable data.74 For example, farm records survive which provide information on women’s wage work in agriculture, but it is not clear whether these farms are representative. In addition, women’s patterns of employment in agriculture do not necessarily generalize to urban settings with artisnal production.75 Despite the data limitations, research suggests that

perhaps 30 to 40 percent of women were in the labor market, though the marital status of

these women is not clear. In-depth studies of particular occupations and trades reveal the

involvement of wives in the early modern economy more clearly. At a minimum, a

significant minority of married women were involved in artisnal production. As the scale

of artisnal production grew—a process referred to as proto-industrialization by some

scholars—wives remained involved.76 Although married women’s opportunity to

participate in work for the market were not as great as men's opportunities, the

ideological strictures against women’s work were in some ways less strong than later in

the Victorian era. Married women were also a significant minority of agricultural

workers, both on farms owned by their own families, and working for others.77

73 Jan De Vries, "The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution," Journal of Economic History 54, no. 2 (1994). 74 Gregory Clark and Ysbrand van der Werf, "Work in Progress. The Industrious Revolution?" Journal of Economic History 58, no. 3 (1998), Hans-Joachim Voth, Time and Work in England 1750-1830, Oxford Historical Monographs (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 2000). 75 J. Burnette, "Labourers at the Oakes: Changes in the Demand for Female Day-Laborers at a Farm near Sheffield During the Agricultural Revolution," Journal of Economic History 59, no. 1 (1999): 41-67, Joyce Burnette, "The Wages and Employment of Female Day-Labourers in English Agriculture, 1740-1850," Economic History Review 57, no. 4 (2004): 664-90. 76 Peter Kriedte, "The Origins, the Agrarian Context and the Conditions in the World Market," in Industrialization before Industrialization, ed. Peter Kriedte, Hans Medick, and Jürgen Schlumbohm (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 77 Pamela Sharpe, "Continuity and Change: Women's History and Economic History in Britain," Economic History Review New Series, 48, no. 2 (1995): 353-69.

Women’s participation was wide rather than intensive. A relatively high

proportion of women had some participation in market work, but few women worked

full-time year round. Women divided their activities between household and market

work. The combination of weaker opposition to married women’s work and probably greater participation has contributed to a debate among women’s historians about whether the early modern era was a “golden age” for women’s work.78 Golden age or not,

the weight of scholarship suggests that there was slightly greater participation in the

market in the early modern period than in the nineteenth century.79 This history of women mixing their activities between home and market activities was what European migrants brought with them to America.

European attitudes to work met a new economic environment in America. The unique resource endowments in the American colonies and a relatively smaller labor force gave families a different set of constraints and opportunities to make decisions within compared to Europe. Nevertheless the limited literature on women’s work in the colonial era suggests that at least in New England and the Middle Atlantic colonies a

similar qualitative pattern prevailed as in early-modern Europe. As in early-modern

Europe, there is general agreement among historians of colonial American women that

farms and small manufacturing firms based around the household gave wives the

flexibility to mix household and market production.

78 Amanda Vickery, "Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women's History," Historical Journal 36, no. 2 (2007): 383-414. 79 Barbara Hanawalt, "Women and the Household Economy in the Preindustrial Period: An Assessment of Women, Work, and Family," Journal of Women's History 11, no. 3 (1999): 10-16, Sara Horrell and Jane Humphries, "Women's Labour Force Participation and the Transition to the Male-Breadwinner Family, 1790-1865," Economic History Review 48, no. 1 (1995).

The paucity of data means that definitive conclusion about trends in women's

work are hard to come by in the colonial era. In a recent article, colonial women's

historian Gloria Main argued that "historians of colonial women … tend to ignore

economic issues when debating trends in women's status and conditions."80 Colonial

historians, in general, have increasingly moved away from economic history. Menard has attributed this shift from economic and demographic history to two factors.81 The

available sources are not easy for the economic or colonial historian, and do not appear to

yield their secrets as readily as later sources for economic history, or contemporary

sources for other topics. A further factor in the relative decline of colonial economic

history, according to Menard, was the sense that the 1985 publication of The Economy of

British North America had definitively answered most questions.

Despite the lack of comprehensive statistical data, Main suggests that distinct eras

of women's market work can be identified in the colonial period. Her periodization of the

trends has won acceptance from colonial women's historians.82 In the earliest settlements

men and women worked outside together on farms, with relatively little market work.

Households were relatively self-sufficient and made few market transactions. Towards

the ends of the seventeenth century greater market involvement by households saw

women specialize in more domestic pursuits. The third stage, which Main identifies as

80 Gloria Main, "Gender, Work, and Wages in Colonial New England," William & Mary Quarterly 3rd Series 51, no. 1 (1994): 41. Main, Peoples of a Spacious Land: Families and Cultures in Colonial New England. 81 Lance Davis and Stanley Engerman, "The Economy of British North America: Miles Traveled, Miles Still to Go," William & Mary Quarterly 3rd Ser., 56, no. 1 (1999): 9-22, Russell R Menard, "Whatever Happened to Early American Population History?" William and Mary Quarterly 50, no. 2 (1993). 82 Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, "Wheels, Looms, and the Gender Division of Labor in Eighteenth-Century New England," William and Mary Quarterly 3rd Ser., 55, no. 1 (1998): 5-6.

dating from about 1715, saw rising demand for skilled labor and both men and women shifted labor away from farm-based work. After 1739 rising real wages drew even more women into the paid labor force. In New England girls, as well as boys, were quite well

educated preparing them for diverse occupations and wage labor.

Several related strands of recent work in colonial American history provide

further evidence about women's work, including the work of married women. The

colonial history literature on the "transition to capitalism" and consumption is one area.

For example, Alan Kulikoff's recent monograph From British Peasants to Colonial

American Farmers describes women bringing household produced goods to trade. If women proved particularly proficient at production, they sometimes expanded to producing more for cash and less for barter.83 Echoing de Vries, Timothy Breen argues

that the desire of American households for consumer goods spurred them to reallocate

wives and children's time to market labor, so they could earn money to pay for goods.84

Similarly, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's study of wives in colonial New England shows a consistent involvement by women in producing and trading goods in the market.85

Women's work in the market fell on a continuum, like the involvement of farms and households themselves in the market.86 Market work did not occupy most of their

time, and varied seasonally, but accounted for a significant minority of their time. Indeed,

the book that propelled Ulrich's work to recognition among historians—even the general

83 Allan Kulikoff, From British Peasants to Colonial American Farmers (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 221. 84 T. H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 189. 85 Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Goodwives (New York: Vintage Books, 1982). 86 Richard Lyman Bushman, "Markets and Composite Farms in Early America," William & Mary Quarterly 3rd Ser. 55, no. 3 (1998): 361-62.

public—was the diary of a woman, Martha Ballard, who worked as a midwife.87 Work outside the home was important in the lives of colonial women. While the existence and survival of the diary was unusual, other sources suggest that lifetime involvement in earning money was not unusual. Ballard's midwifery was also indicative of shifts in the occupations open to women over the eighteenth century. Surveying a range of recent studies of women's work in the colonial era, Marla Miller argues that women's increasing concentration in textile work was a consequence of their displacement from other occupations. Brewing beer and cheese-making, for example, were women's work in the early eighteenth century, but gradually became dominated by men.88

Without representative statistics across time and region a precise accounting of

married women's work in colonial America is not possible. The evidence from a range of

studies is that in the early colonial period married women's work was not unusual and did

not evoke hostility. Wives of wealthier men were unlikely to work, whether on farms or

in towns. Over time it appears that women's occupational outcomes narrowed somewhat,

but that they did not withdraw completely from the market.

Married women's work in the early national and antebellum era

The patterns of married women's work in the early American republic and the

years leading up to the Civil War were largely continuous with the colonial era. The real

break in married women's work comes not with the American Revolution, but with the

87 Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard Based on Her Diary 1785-1812, Based on Her Diary (1991), 70, 88-89. The book was turned into a PBS film: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/midwife/ 88 Sally McMurry, "Women's Work in Agriculture: Divergent Trends in England and America, 1800-1930," Comparative Studies in Society and History 34 (1992), Marla R. Miller, The Needle's Eye: Women and Work in the Age of Revolution (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006), 189-92.

Civil War. The coercive labor system of the slave south required that nearly all slave

wives work.89 Although a significant minority of black wives continued to work after emancipation, they almost certainly worked less than under slavery. In free society, a

significant minority of white wives worked part-time for the market, but their work was

often hidden from official or systematic records, as it continued to be after 1860. Few

married women in free society worked for wages in factories or other businesses.

Quantitative evidence on women's economic role before 1860 is scarce. Yet in a

literate and highly political culture, there is substantial evidence on opinions about

women's work. This has contributed to a vigorous debate among historians about whether

the "status" of women's work improved in the late eighteenth century and first half of the

nineteenth century. What systematic evidence there is suggests that married women's role

did not change substantially or quickly in the first half of the nineteenth century. The

debate about married women's status in the early national period can be traced to the

pioneering scholarship of Edith Abbott and Elizabeth Dexter, whose research has been

re-discovered in recent decades by historians of women's involvement in business.90

Dexter argued that the range of occupational opportunities for women were greater in the colonial era and narrowed significantly in the early national period. Dexter's arguments about the decline of women's status over time were revived by Gerda Lerner in the late

89 Jacqueline Jones, Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present (1985).. In a recent synthesis comments on the neglect of black women's labor history. See Annelise Orleck, "Wage-Earning Women," in A Companion to American Women's History, ed. Nancy Hewitt (Malden: Blackwell, 2002), 252. 90 Edith Abbott, Women in Industry, a Study in American Economic History (New York: D. Appleton, 1910), Elisabeth Williams Anthony Dexter, Career Women of America, 1776-1840 (Francestown, N. H.: M. Jones Co., 1950), Elisabeth Williams Anthony Dexter, Colonial Women of Affairs; a Study of Women in Business and the Professions in America before 1776 (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1924), Wendy Gamber, "A Gendered Enterprise: Placing Nineteenth-Century Businesswomen in History," Business History Review 72, no. 2 (1998), Angel Kwolek-Folland, Incorporating Women: A History of Women and Business in the United States (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1998).

1960s.91 As noted above in the discussion of Marla Miller's work, this interpretation has proved influential among women's historians. 92

American society in the antebellum period was riven by questions about market

labor—slavery was a form of labor supply and a moral question—and the relationship of

the family to the market.93 Thus, historians have found lively debate about the role of

women in the young republic, and their work inside or outside the home.94 The early

nineteenth century saw widespread rhetorical support for the ideological notion that home

and work should be separate, and that married women's role was domestic. "Sphere"

suggested that the division between men's and women's roles was both natural and

complete. Cultural influences are important in shaping the way that people perceive their

choices and constraints. There is some evidence that the veneration of the home as a

separate sphere for women, distinct from the public, market sphere of men had

contemporary impact. For example, Mary Ryan's study of Oneida County, New York in

the antebellum era found that the ideal of feminine domesticity was widespread.95 Yet the

rhetoric of domesticity co-existed with intermittent work that brought money into the home. A range of authors have argued that if rhetoric and reality coincided it was really

only in the cities.

91 Gerda Lerner, "The Lady and the Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of Women in the Age of Jackson," Midcontinent American Studies Journal 10, no. 1 (1969): 5,7. 92 Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work (New York: Oxford, 1990), Jeanne Boydston, "The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States," Journal of the Early Republic 16, no. 2 (1996). 93 Carole Shammas, A History of Household Government in America (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2002). 94 Nancy Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 63-100, Linda Kerber, "Separate Sphere, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History," Journal of American History 76 (1988): 9-39. 95 Mary P. Ryan, Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790-1865 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 191-99. Ogden, The Great American Housewife, 33-64.

In the first half of the nineteenth century the majority of white Americans, especially in the Northeast and Midwest, still lived on farms, where women continued to mix household and market work.96 In the slave South, white wives on large plantations did less work for the market. On smaller slaveholdings, white wives of the plantation owner typically contributed more labor to the business.97 Most white women in the South were not married to the owners of large plantations, a fact sometimes obscured by the more prolific records left by women from the larger plantations. White wives on smaller farms mixed market and household production in a similar manner to women on northern farms.98

The 1850 and 1860 censuses provide some glimpse into how this might have affected labor force participation. A substantial component of Goldin and Sobek's revisions to the pre-1940 series for married women's labor force participation comes from including one in five farm wives in the labor force.99 Because the early censuses do not

96 Jeremy Atack, F. Bateman, and William N. Parker, "The Farm, the Farmer, and the Market"," in The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 263-5, Christopher Clark, The Roots of Rural Capitalism: Western Massachusetts, 1780-1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), Joan M. Jensen, "Cloth, Butter and Boarders: Women's Household Production for the Market," Review of Radical Political Economics 12, no. 2 (1980), Joan M. Jensen, Loosening the Bonds: Mid-Atlantic Farm Women, 1750-1850 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), Nancy Grey Osterud, Bonds of Community: The Lives of Farm Women in Nineteenth-Century New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 1-18. 97 Cynthia A. Kierner, Beyond the Household: Women's Place in the Early South, 1700-1835. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), Helena M. Wall, " Notes on Life since a Little Commonwealth: Family and Gender History since 1970," William & Mary Quarterly New Ser. 57, no. 4 (1997): 809-25, Marli Frances Weiner, Mistresses and Slaves: Plantation Women in South Carolina, 1830-80, Women in American History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997). 98 Susanna Delfino and Michele Gillespie, Neither Lady nor Slave: Working Women of the Old South (University of North Carolina Press, 2002 [cited); available from http://www.netLibrary.com/summary.asp?id=99929 Access for University of Minnesota, Crookston https://webapps.d.umn.edu:2443/login?url=http://www.netLibrary.com/summary.asp?id=99929 Access for University of Minnesota Duluth Library. 99 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, 44, Sobek, "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990", 115.

enumerate relationship to the head of household it is difficult to apply their methodology

back to 1850 to include women keeping boarders. Without information on women's

occupations in 1850 and relationship in any of the 1850-1870 censuses, it is not possible

to reliably distinguish employees in a household from boarders or lodgers.100 This

distinction is important, because boarders contributed to the income of the family who

owned the household, employees were a cost. Nevertheless, the statistics for white farm

wives can be readily calculated.101 In 1850 just over 50 percent of white wives had a

spouse who was a farmer, a figure declining to 45% in 1860 and 42% in 1870 and 1880.

Thus, in 1850 around 10% of white women would have contributed enough unpaid labor

to farms that they should be counted in the labor force. The falling share of the

population resident on farms reduced this to 8% by 1870. Calculations for the late

nineteenth century by Goldin, and then by Sobek suggest that between 1880 and 1900 the

fall in unpaid agricultural labor by married women was not offset by wives moving into

urban, wage work. Thus, it seems likely that married women's market work was higher at

mid-century than in 1900.

Even in urban areas, the rhetoric of separate spheres was not the reality for all

wives. Women married to artisans and small business owners contributed labor to their

husbands' businesses.102 Thus, the ideology of separate spheres is best understood as an

ideal set up by the urban middle class in the Northeast.103 Moreover, the effects of these

100 Ronald Allen Goeken, "Unmarried Adults and Residential Autonomy: Living Arrangements in the United States, 1880-1990" (PhD, University of Minnesota, 1999). 101 Own calculations from IPUMS data. White married women, aged 16-65. 102 Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860, 1789-1860 (1986). 103 Jacqueline Jones, American Work: Four Centuries of Black and White Labor (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998), 434, Elaine Tyler May, "Myths and Realities of the American Family," in A History of Private Life: Riddles of Identity in Modern Times, ed. Philippe Ariës and Georges Duby (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 541-43.

ideas probably had their greatest influence in the late nineteenth century, not at their

formation, by influencing the expectations about home and work of succeeding

generations of women.

Quantitative analyses of American women's work in the first half of the

nineteenth century show less dramatic change than the rhetoric of domesticity and

separate spheres used at the time suggested. From 1800 the federal census provides

limited statistics on female employment.104 Unfortunately the census data from the first

half of the nineteenth century do not distinguish married from unmarried women.

Overall—among the free population—female labor force participation rates inched upwards from seven percent of women over age 15 in 1800 to 10 percent in 1850.105 The most visible sign of this slight increase in participation was the entry of single women into large-scale mechanized textile production in the northeast. Most of the women in textile manufacturing were not married, but married women were not barred from the factory. Women who migrated to work in the Lowell Mills tended to delay marriage by several years. Wage work and marriage were not yet compatible, but young women made different choices about marriage when wage work was an option.106 Female labor was

important to emerging industrial enterprises, but it was not yet common, varying significantly across counties.107 In the northeast, where there were large factories, female—and child—labor was important, and labor force participation among single

104 Susan Carter, "Labor" in Historical Statistics of the United States. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 105 T. Weiss, "Estimates of White and Nonwhite Gainful Workers in the United States by Age Group, Race, and Sex - Decennial Census Years, 1800-1900," Historical Methods 32, no. 1 (1999): 23. 106 Thomas Dublin, The Transformation of Women's Work (1994), Thomas Dublin, "Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826-1860" (Thesis, Columbia University., 1975), 30-32, 50-54. 107 Claudia Goldin and Kenneth Sokoloff, "Women, Children, and Industrialization in the Early Republic Evidence from the Manufacturing Censuses," Journal of Economic History 42, no. 4 (1982).

women was high. In counties with smaller factories and workshops and more agriculture,

female labor force participation was not as high. By delaying marriage for single women,

wage work began to reshape the relationship between marriage, family and work. By

working outside the home for several years before marriage, these women potentially

brought more independent wealth into their marriages. They also gained experience in

wage work that gave them the option to re-enter factory employment in later life.

Married women's paid work remained mostly hidden to the census, yet is visible

in other settings. Using census data on household heads and city directories from pre-

Civil War Philadelphia, Claudia Goldin examined the evolution of occupations for women who headed households, and finds relatively little change over time. By 1860,

women who reported an occupation were more likely to work outside the home than in

1800. The occupations reported by women did not change substantially over the first half

of the nineteenth century. However, widows became less likely to report atypical

occupations that they might have inherited from their husbands. With industrial development leading to a greater separation of home and work, the opportunity for wives to learn their husband's trade and contribute to the business decreased.108 Goldin's

conclusions are supported by research on women's occupations using early nineteenth-

century newspapers. The economic opportunities for women around the time of the

American Revolution were atypical, precisely because of the Revolution.109 Thus, the late

108 C. Goldin, "The Economic Status of Women in the Early Republic: Quantitative Evidence," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 16, no. 3 (1986). 109 Martin Schultz, "Occupational Pursuits of Free American Women: An Analysis of Newspaper Ads, 1800-1849," Sociological Forum 7, no. 4 (1992): 587-607, Martin Schultz and Herman R. Lantz, "Occupational Pursuits of Free Women in Early America: An Examination of Eighteenth-Century Newspapers," Sociological Forum 3, no. 1 (1988): 89-109.

eighteenth century is the wrong era to use as a benchmark for later changes in women's

work.

Married women's work between the American Revolution and the onset of the

Civil War evolved gradually, and differed by region, class, and whether women lived in

rural or urban settings. On small farms, operated by a single family, married women along with other family members, split their time between production for the household and the market. As many American women resided on small farms in the early nineteenth

century, their involvement in market labor was likely to have been significant. Married

women's market work was not continuous or full-time, yet it was an integral part of the

family economy. In urban areas, married women's opportunities to contribute to small

family businesses declined with a gradual separation of households and workplaces.

Married women were also much less likely than single women to take up employment in

emerging industrial wage work. Overall, the antebellum era saw married women's

involvement in market labor fall slightly as the American population became somewhat

more industrial and urban.

Married women's work from 1860 to the present

1860 was a significant year in the history of married women's labor force

participation for two reasons. First, it is the first year for which we can measure married

women's work separately from other female employment because the census enumerated

women’s occupations. 110 Second, the election of 1860 led to the onset of the Civil War in

110 The manufacturing and population censuses had collected data on women's employment. See Goldin and Sokoloff, "Women, Children, and Industrialization in the Early Republic Evidence from the Manufacturing Censuses." and Goldin, "The Economic Status of Women in the Early Republic: Quantitative Evidence."

April 1861, and the fall of slave labor. After 1865 all black wives were also able to

allocate their labor freely. Before emancipation, the majority of black families living in

the South faced quite different opportunities and constraints than white families in the

South, and free black families elsewhere.

The long run trend in labor force participation has been convergence across

demographic groups defined by race, sex and marital status (See Figures 1.7 and 1.8). In

1860, nearly all free married men worked. After emancipation nearly all free black

husbands worked. Near-universal participation for prime-aged married men persisted

until the 1930s. Among both black and white husbands, labor force participation has

declined to about 80%. The causes of this decline include earlier retirement and greater provision for disabled and sick workers to exit the labor force.111 Until 1910, more than

five in every six single men worked. With the expansion of secondary and higher

education over the twentieth century, labor force participation by single men over the age

of 16 has declined.112

Over the same time period, the labor force participation of single black women

declined steadily until the 1960s and has since risen in concert with participation by

single black men. White single women's labor force participation has risen

111 There is an extensive literature on this transition in men's work. See, for example John Bound and Timothy Waidmann, "Disability Transfers, Self-Reported Health, and the Labor Force Attachment of Older Men: Evidence from the Historical Record," Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, no. 4 (1992): 1393-419, Dora L. Costa, The Evolution of Retirement: An American Economic History, 1880-1990, Nber Series on Long-Term Factors in Economic Development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), Dora L. Costa, "Health and Labor Force Participation of Older Men, 1900-1991," Journal of Economic History 56, no. 1 (1996): 62-89. 112 C. Goldin and L. F. Katz, "The Shaping of Higher Education: The Formative Years in the United States, 1890 to 1940," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 13, no. 1 (1999): 37-62, Claudia Goldin, "America's Graduation from High School: The Evolution and Spread of Secondary Schooling in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Economic History 58, no. 2 (1998): 345-74.Claudia Goldin, "Education" in Historical Statistics of the United States. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

intermittently—remaining flat from 1920 to 1960—yet their low initial rate of labor force

participation has meant a significant rise in participation since 1880. As with black

singles, the labor force participation trends for white men and women have moved

together since 1970, suggesting that transitions to adulthood are becoming more similar

for young men and women.113 Although the timing and speed of change differed for black and white wives, the story for both is of convergence with married men and singles.

The convergence has been greatest for blacks, with black husbands' participation rates

exceeding black wives' by less than 10% in 2005. Indeed, black wives' participation rates

are now above the labor force participation rates of black singles, both male and female.

For whites, the gap in labor force participation between men and women remains

substantial; married men's participation is about a third higher than married women's.

This story of incomplete, yet substantial, convergence has taken nearly 150 years.

In the eighty years covered by this dissertation, convergence in labor force participation

rates was slight. The most rapid change was yet to come. Contemporaries were apt to see

greater revolution in women's work in the early twentieth century than we observe in

hindsight. The most significant convergence in labor force participation rates before 1940

was between black and white wives. Because white women were 90% of all wives, the

narrowing of the racial gap contributed to an overall increase in labor force participation

measured by the census, and a tentative acceptance of married women's work among the

white population—a shift in public opinion discussed further in chapters 4 and 5. The

113 Jordan Stranger-Ross, Christina Collins, and Mark J. Stern, "Falling Far from the Tree: Transitions to Adulthood and the Social History of Twentieth Century America," Social Science History 29, no. 4 (2005).

early twentieth century was an evolutionary phase in married women's work, with the

revolution yet to arrive.114

Figure 1.7 Black labor force participation by marital status and sex 1860-2005

114 Claudia Goldin, "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family," American Economic Review 96, no. 2 (2006): 1-21.

Figure 1.8 White labor force participation by marital status and sex, 1860-2005

Historiography of change

The historiography of change in married women's labor force participation is dominated by the rapid rise after World War II. In any long-term assessment of post-Civil

War changes in women's work, this emphasis is correct. There is less consensus among scholars on the extent and significance of change before 1940. Historians’ interest in married women’s work was part of the interest in women’s and social history that flourished between the 1960s and late 1980s. Many of the significant works by historians on women's work and the family were published in this era. Since the 1980s historians'

research in the history of the family and the material conditions of people's lives has waned.115

Historians have emphasized the role of the state in structuring the work opportunities and labor force decisions of married women.116 Historians studying women in the labor force have been particularly drawn to studying the history of organized women workers in unions.117 The less-organized private history of women's market work, including work in the home, has received less sustained attention from historians of the modern United States.118 The historiography of married women's work before World

War II has been dominated by scholars privileging state action which emphasizes changing public constraints over changing private decisions.119 In the post-World War II period historians have given more attention to changes in private decisions.120 The emphasis on women's changing decisions in the post-war period is partly due to the

115 Stephanie Coontz, "Historical Perspectives on Family Studies," Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, no. 2 (2000): 283-97, Nara Milanich, "Whither Family History? A Road Map from Latin America," American Historical Review 112, no. 2 (2007): 439-58. 116 Inter alia Anna R. Igra, Wives without Husbands: Marriage, Desertion and Welfare in New York, 1900- 1935 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), Alice Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 117 Inter alia Jo Ann E. Argersinger, Making the Amalgamated: Gender, Ethnicity, and Class in the Baltimore Clothing Industry, 1899-1939 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), Dorothy Sue Cobble, The Other Women's Movement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), Ruth (ed) Milkman, Women, Work and Protest: A Century of U.S. Women's Labor History (1985). 118 Though cf. Susan Porter Benson, "Gender, Generation and Consumption in the United States: Working Class Families in the Interwar Period," in Getting and Spending: European and American Consumer Societies in the Twentieth Century, ed. Susan Strasser, Charles McGovern, and Matthias Judt (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 223-41, Susan Porter Benson, "Living on the Margin: Working-Class Marriage and Family Survival Strategies in the U.S., 1919-1941," in The Sex of Things: Essays on Gender and Consumption, ed. Victoria de Grazia and Ellen Furlough (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), Kleinberg, "Children's and Mothers' Wage Labor in Three Eastern U.S. Cities, 1880-1920.", S. J. Kleinberg, The Shadow of the Mills: Working-Class Families in Pittsburgh, 1870-1907, Pittsburgh Series in Social and Labor History (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989). 119 Eileen Boris and Carolyn Herbst Lewis, "Caregiving and Wage-Earning: A Historical Perspective on Work and Family," in The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches, ed. Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Ellen Ernst Kossek, and Stephen A. Sweet (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006), 79-91. 120Jessica Weiss, To Have and to Hold: Marriage, the Baby Boom, and Social Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

continuing influence of Betty Friedan's 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique.121 While not dismissing the importance of government action in improving women's economic status,

Friedan particularly emphasized the role of mass culture in shaping married women's mindset and choices.122 Evaluated as a whole, the historiography of married women's

work in the United States pivots from an emphasis on state and union action constraining

women's choices before World War II to attitudinal and cultural change being the main

force behind rising participation in the post-war period.

The emphasis on the influence of mass culture shapes the historical debate about

the role of World War II in bringing married women into the workforce. William Chafe's influential 1972 monograph on the history of American women emphasized the role of

World War II in the rise of married women's work—an interpretation maintained in later

work, and popular in general historical accounts.123 Following in Chafe's wake, historians

have tried to reconcile the break in married women's labor force trends that does occur at

World War II, with the more modest impact suggested by detailed studies of women's

experiences during and after the war.

The most influential historical interpretation of the impact of World War II on

married women's work argue that the war did not propel wives permanently into the labor

force. The experience of work during the war was a positive shock to women's views of

121 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1963). 122 Joanne Meyerowitz, "Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946- 1958," Journal of American History 79, no. 4 (1993): 1455-82. 123 William H. Chafe, The American Woman: Her Changing Social, Economic, and Political Role, 1920- 1970 (1972), William H. Chafe, The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th Century (New York: 1991).

their capabilities, that contributed to later labor force participation.124 More recent

scholarship shows that the long-term impact of World War II on the labor supply of women who worked during the war was small. The indirect impact on later cohorts—the children of women who worked in World War II—was greater than the direct impact on participating women. A study of labor mobility in the 1950s found that half the women still working in 1950 had been working in 1940. More than half the women who entered the labor force during the 1940s, started work after 1944.125 It is well documented that at the conclusion of World War II, as with World War I, women were displaced from industrial jobs.126 The impact on the children of women who worked during the war was

long-term and sizable. Women marrying men whose mothers had worked during the war were substantially more likely to work than women married to men whose mothers had not worked.127 Men had to change their minds as well for married women's labor force

participation to change. The long-term shift in married women's labor force behavior has

been sustained because spouses have brought different attitudes and expectations about

work to marriage. Goldin has demonstrated that girls expectations about work after the

life cycle do not determine labor force participation in later life, but are influential.

124 Sherna Berger Gluck, Rosie the Riveter Revisited: Women, the War, and Social Change (Boston: Twayne, 1987), Maureen Honey, Creating Rosie the Riveter: Class, Gender, and Propaganda During World War Ii (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984). 125 Claudia D. Goldin, "The Role of World War Ii in the Rise of Women's Employment," American Economic Review 81, no. 4 (1991): 741-56. 126 Karen Anderson, "Last Hired, First Fired: Black Women Workers During World War Ii," Journal of American History 69, no. 1 (1982): 82-97, Sherrie A. Kossoudji and Laura J. Dresser, "The End of a Riveting Experience: Occupational Shifts at Ford after World War Ii," American Economic Review 82, no. 2 (1992): 519-25, Sherrie A. Kossoudji and Laura J. Dresser, "Working Class Rosies: Women Industrial Workers During World War Ii," Journal of Economic History 52, no. 2 (1992): 431-46, Ruth Milkman, Gender at Work: The Dynamics of Job Segregation by Sex During World War Ii, The Working Class in American History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), Mary M. Schweitzer, "World War Ii and Female Labor Force Participation Rates," Journal of Economic History 40, no. 1 (1980): 89-95. 127 R. Fernandez, A. Fogli, and C. Olivetti, "Mothers and Sons: Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics," Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 4 (2004): 1249-99.

Women's expectations about how much they will work are not unreasonably formed by looking at their mothers' experience and projecting forward.128 Fernandez et al show that

men probably form their expectations about the division of labor between spouses in a

similar way—as boys looking at their own parents. This process supports a model where

private behavior changes before public attitudes. Historians looking at long-term changes

in women's work have tended to support the view that attitudes lag behavior.129

The natural way to summarize these unfolding changes is to look at the labor force participation profiles of cohorts over time, and compare with participation profiles by age at points in time.130 Because the experience of white and black women was so different I present the results separately. The data comes from the IPUMS samples, and uses the basic census labor force participation measures. Augmenting the labor force participation measures by including women keeping boarders in the labor force raises the participation of women later in their life, between their 30s and 50s. At these points of their life, families cannot always draw on the paid labor of teenage and adult children.

With formal childcare largely unavailable at this point in American history, women with

128 Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, no. 596 (2004): 20-35, Claudia Goldin, " The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family," American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006): 1-21, Claudia Goldin, "The Rising (and Then Declining) Significance of Gender," in The Declining Significance of Gender? ed. Francine D. Blau, Mary C. Brinton, and David B. Grusky (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006), 67-101. Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer, "Women's Rising Employment and the Future of the Family in Industrial Societies," Population and Development Review 20, no. 2 (1994), Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer, Work and the Family: A Study in Social Demography (New York: Academic Press, 1982), Valerie Kincade. Oppenheimer, "Demographic Influence on Female Employment and the Status of Women," American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 4 (1973). 129 Julia Kirk Blackwelder, Now Hiring: The Feminization of Work in the United States, 1900-1995, 1st ed. (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1997), W. Elliot Brownlee, Jr., "Household Values, Women's Work, and Economic Growth, 1800-1930," Journal of Economic History 39, no. 1 (1979): 199- 209, Robert W. Smuts, Women and Work in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 145. 130 Claudia Goldin, "The Changing Economic Role of Women: A Quantitative Approach," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14, no. 4 (1983): 707-33, Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women.

children who had not started school were more likely to be out of the labor force

(discussed further in Chapter 3). Only cohorts entering up to 1950 are included in these figures. For black women the 1910 census data is excluded, because of its inconsistency with surrounding enumerations.

For white women, life cycle participation in gainful employment shows little change for the cohorts born between 1835-1844 and 1875-1884. At no point in the life cycle is participation higher than 5%. As expected, the peak years for labor force participation in these cohorts is later in life after child-bearing and children. Women in these cohorts were not yet staying in jobs after marriage. The first cohort to experience change in life cycle participation was the cohort of women born between 1885 and 1894.

By 1940 their participation between ages 46 and 55 was just under 10%, higher than any previous cohort had experienced at any point in its life. Although the traditional pattern was that labor force participation peaked later in life, the three later cohorts in the labor force—born between 1895 and 1924—had even higher labor force participation rates than the 1885-94 cohort. The cohort of women that were in or finishing school, born from

1925-34, entered marriage with 25% still working. Their "mothers" twenty year earlier were less than half as likely to be in the labor force at the same age. Without doing a formal cohort model it is possible to see that there were both cohort and period effects at play. Except for the oldest cohort—women at the end of their working lives—the labor force participation rates of almost all cohorts of white women were rising in the 1920s and 1930s. The change was most pronounced for the group of women entering adulthood in this era. In the remaining chapters of the dissertation I advance some explanations for why the inter-war period saw both cohort and period effects on married women's labor

force participation. The pattern of unfolding change across generations can also be seen

in the age profile of labor force participation at each cross-sectional census (Figure 1.11).

This figures highlights inter-censal change across generations, rather than change in the

lives of individual women over time. At each successive census white wives' labor force

participation rose early in their marriages. It is notable that by 1940 the labor force participation rates were flat between ages 21 and 26. Particularly in large cities some

women were choosing to stay in jobs after marriage until they had children. Formal bars

to women's employment after marriage, discussed further in Chapters 4 and 5, did not

apply in all sectors.

The life cycle profile of labor force participation was different for black women.

Before the 1920s and 1930s black wives participation peaked earlier in life, and then

declined slowly over their 50s and 60s (Figure 1.11). Early in married life black wives

participation was steady between 20% and 30% for several decades.131 The same cohorts

formed the break-out generation for black women. Cohorts born after 1905 had

substantially greater labor force participation later in life than their mothers and

grandmothers. The life cycle profiles of these cohorts of black women was higher than

for white women, but not by nearly as much. As seen in Figures 1.7 and 1.8 there was

growing racial convergence in labor force behavior. The stability of black women's labor

force participation across time and age can also be seen in Figure 1.12. At each census

black wives participation between the ages of 16 and 56 fell in the range of 0.2 to 0.3

Their participation declined in their 60s, but was still well above white women's

131 Herbert Gutman, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925 (New York: Vintage Books, 1976), Jones, Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present, Bart Landry, Black Working Wives: Pioneers of the American Family Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

participation. While it is not conventional to give labor force statistics for women up to

the age of 75, the figures for black wives are revealing. In 1880, for example, more than

20% of black women in their early 70s were in the labor force. Even in 1940 10% of

black women in their early 70s were in the labor force. These patterns of work over the

life cycle were influenced by the concentration of black families in agricultural work and

domestic service. Neither sector was covered by the newly passed Social Security Act.132

The patterns of black and white wives labor force participation observed in the late nineteenth century changed gradually. The cohorts of women that came to adulthood in the inter-war era behaved quite unlike the generations that had preceded them. White and black wives began to converge in their behavior during this period, although by 1940 they were still working in different sectors of the economy. Black women's earnings were also substantially lower than white women's until the 1940s.133 The pattern of change in married women's labor force participation suggested by these figures is of stability until the early twentieth century, with change beginning to accelerate in the 1920s and 1930s.

The changes that occurred for these generations were the foundation of later more rapid increases in labor force participation after World War II.

132 Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th- Century America, Suzanne Mettler, Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), Phyllis Palmer, "Outside the Law: Agricultural and Domestic Workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act," Journal of Policy History 7, no. 4 (1995). 133 Martha Bailey and William J. Collins, "The Wage Gains of African-American Women in the 1940s," Journal of Economic History 66, no. 4 (2006).

Figure 1.9 Life course labor force participation of white wives

Figure 1.10 Age specific labor force participation rates of white wives

Figure 1.11 Life course labor force participation of black wives

Figure 1.12 Age specific labor force participation rates of black wives

The U-shaped pattern of women's work over time

The long-run historical evidence for the United States suggests that women’s labor force participation followed a ∪-shaped pattern over time.134 The behavioral reasons behind the ∪-shaped pattern have been developed most fully for married women.

Because most women in pre-1940 United States eventually married, married women’s labor force behavior had a strong impact on aggregate trends in female labor force participation. Comparisons with contemporary developing countries, while not a reliable guide to history, also suggest that the initial impact of industrialization and rising household incomes is the withdrawal of some married women from the labor market.

In the context of this stylized model of women’s labor force participation over time, the 1860-1940 period in the United States can be interpreted as follows. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—through to about 1920—the United States was on the left side and bottom of the ∪ curve, with participation declining gradually and reaching a nadir sometime between 1890 and 1920. After 1920, women’s participation began to climb again, with dramatic rises after 1950. The limitations of the census enumeration, and the selective samples of alternative data sources make it difficult to precisely date the low point of married women’s labor force participation. Even given the limitations of the census measures for capturing women's market work, it should be noted that white women’s labor force participation—enumerated by the gainful worker measure in the census—dropped from 4% in 1860 to around 2% in the next three censuses, a trend observed across all regions of the country, as can be seen in Table 1.6. Similarly, black

134 The literature on this issue refers to a ∪, but might be better characterized as a J.

women's labor force participation dropped from 27% in 1880 to 21% in 1900. These trends in the gainful worker figures support the argument that the late nineteenth century was the last phase of decline in American married women’s labor force participation.

Table 1.6 Married women's labor force participation by region White women Labor force participation rate Year Northeast MidwestSouth West Total

1860 0.03 0.030.07 0.05 0.04 1870 0.02 0.010.01 0.02 0.01 1880 0.03 0.010.02 0.02 0.02 1900 0.03 0.020.02 0.02 0.02 1910 0.06 0.040.07 0.05 0.05 1920 0.07 0.050.05 0.06 0.06 1930 0.08 0.080.07 0.12 0.08 1940 0.14 0.110.12 0.14 0.13

Black women Labor force participation rate Year Northeast MidwestSouth West Total

1860 0.13 0.050.16 - 0.13 1870 0.09 0.070.27 - 0.25 1880 0.18 0.110.31 0.14 0.29 1900 0.15 0.090.22 - 0.21 1910 0.36 0.250.49 0.23 0.46 1920 0.29 0.250.3 0.28 0.29 1930 0.33 0.260.29 0.22 0.29 1940 0.27 0.210.28 0.31 0.27

Source: IPUMS, 1860-1940 except black women in 1880 from NAPP. Married women aged 16-65 with co-resident husbands. "-" denotes fewer than 100 observations. There were 2,200 black wives living in the West in 1880. Definition of regions follows U.S. Census Bureau conventions. See documentation for the variable REGION at IPUMS.

Because married women's labor force participation declined slowly, and the census statistics are imperfect for measuring trends consistently, the ∪-shaped

interpretation of married women's labor force participation over time is one of three

competing hypotheses on the general relationship between industrialization and women's labor force participation. The other competing hypotheses are the "emancipation" and

"constancy" hypotheses.135 The emancipation hypothesis has been most clearly stated in

the historical literature by Edward Shorter, who applied it to Europe.136 Contemporary

commentators and popular histories seeking to find immediate meaning in the early years

of universal suffrage advanced variants of the emancipation hypothesis in the United

States.137 Popular histories have also been sympathetic to the emancipation hypothesis, conflating suffrage and industrial change in a popular Whiggish story of American progress.138 However, it has not found widespread acceptance with scholars.139

The more significant challenge to the ∪-shaped hypothesis is that women's labor

force participation has been constant over time. Advocates of the constancy hypothesis

argue that the ∪-shaped pattern of women's work is an artifact of under-enumeration.

Scholars in other countries have shown that nineteenth century census enumerations did

not record women's labor in part-time or intermittent work or work in family firms. The

political underpinnings of the constancy hypothesis are a belief that work normally done

by women is devalued by conventional labor force and national income statistics.140

135 William Rau and Robert Wazienski, "Industrialization, Female Labor Force Participation, and the Modern Division of Labor by Sex," Industrial Relations 38, no. 4 (1999): 504-23. 136 Edward Shorter, "Female Emancipation, Birth Control, and Fertility in European History," American Historical Review 78, no. 3 (1973): 605-40. 137 Examples are given in Chafe, The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th Century, 63-65, Estelle B. Freedman, "The New Woman: Changing Views of Women in the 1920s," Journal of American History 61, no. 2 (1974): 385-87. 138 Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1951 (1931)). 139 William Edward Leuchtenburg, The Perils of Prosperity, 1914-32 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 160. advances a version of the emancipation hypothesis for the United States. 140 Christine E. Bose, "Devaluing Women's Work: The Undercount of Women's Work in 1900 and 1980," in Hidden Aspects of Women's Work, ed. Christine E. Bose, Roslyn Feldberg, and Natalie J. Sokoloff (New

Studies using time-diary data have shown that the hours women devoted to household

production were substantial in the early twentieth century, and did not begin to drop until

the 1960s. With market labor mostly replacing household production, employed mothers

have only three hours per week more leisure than farmwives of the 1920s.141 Thus, the

constancy hypothesis might be more accurately applied to women's total hours in

household and market production. The ∪-shaped pattern can be seen as applying to women's market work. This reconciliation of the two hypotheses leaves open the important questions of explaining historical changes in the allocation of time between market and household production, and the allocation between production and leisure given changes in wages.142

The ∪ hypothesis has been posed and supported by researchers from several

disciplines. Indeed, the hypothesis has been proposed in two distinct ways. Modern

scholars of development observe a ∪-shaped relationship between per-capita income and

women's labor force participation across countries at the same point in time. It should be

noted that this version of theory is not necessarily meant to apply over time. However,

scholars studying modern cross sections assert the ∪ is also a hypothesis about temporal

York, NY: Praeger, 1987), 95-115, Bose, "Household Resources and U.S. Women's Work: Factors Affecting Gainful Employment at the Turn of the Century," 474-90, Margo Conk, "Labor Statistics in the American and English Census: Making Some Invidious Comparisons," Journal of Social History 16, no. 4 (1983): 83-102, Desley Deacon, "Political Arithmetic: The Nineteenth-Century Australian Census and the Construction of the Dependent Woman," Signs 11, no. 1 (1985), Marilyn Waring, Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women Are Worth, 2nd ed. (Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1999), Marilyn Waring, If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). 141 Valerie A. Ramey and Neville Francis, "A Century of Work and Leisure," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 12264 (2006), Joann Vanek, "Time Spent in Housework," Scientific American, November 1974. 142 Mark Aguiar and Erik Hurst, "Measuring Leisure: Evidence from Five Decades of Time Use Surveys," Quarterly Journal of Economics (2007 forthcoming).

change within individual places.143 Historically oriented scholars have motivated the hypothesis from the experience of a small number of countries over time, and generalized to other countries.144 In a series of articles culminating in a monograph, Joan Scott and

Louise Tilly advanced a version of the ∪-shaped hypothesis that has been widely praised

by historians.145 They labeled the stages of the ∪ as a family economy, family wage

economy, and family consumer economy, corresponding with the decline, stasis and rise

of women's participation in market work. Scott and Tilly developed their version of the

∪-shaped theory for England and France, but it also has been supported by United States

historians.146 The process outlined by Scott and Tilly begins with most production in pre-

industrial societies occurring in the home, allowing women to combine household and

market production. As farms became more specialized and mechanized, the importance

of women's labor was reduced. At the same time, industrial production moved away from

the home, reducing women's access to industrial jobs. When service sector and "post-

industrial" jobs began to expand women's labor force participation increased again.

Goldin also emphasizes the emergence of clerical work in the rise of women's labor force

participation.147 Clerical work had less stigma than manufacturing employment in the

United States, and the same valuation of clerical and manufacturing employment has

143 Kristin Mammen and Christina Paxson, "Women's Work and Economic Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2000): 141-64, George Psacharopoulos and Zafiris Tzannatos, "Female Labor Force Participation: An International Perspective," World Bank Research Observer 4, no. 2 (1989): 187-201. 144 Claudia Goldin, "The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function in Economic Development and Economic History," in Investment in Women's Human Capital, ed. T. Paul Schultz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 61-90. 145 Louise A. Tilly and Joan W. Scott, Women, Work and Family (New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1978). 146 Dublin, The Transformation of Women's Work, Thomas Dublin, "Women, Work, and Family: The View from the United States," Journal of Women's History 11 (1999): 17-26. 147 Goldin, "The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function in Economic Development and Economic History," 67-68.

been observed in modern African countries.148 In short, changes in occupational and

industrial structure contribute to the ∪-shaped pattern over time, as well as changes in income and wages.

The ∪-shaped pattern of married women’s labor force participation over time results from shifting relationships between family income, women’s wages, fertility, occupational opportunities, and labor supply. In the declining part of the ∪, when family

income is lower, women work because of shortfalls in family income. On this side of the

∪, married women's labor force participation is more sensitive to their husband's income

than their own wages. If women's wages fall relative to men's during the early phase of

industrialization, then the opportunity cost of their time in having and caring for children

is low, so that fertility does not fall with the onset of industrial development. On the other

side of the ∪, women's wages rise and the opportunity cost of bearing children also

rises.149 Women become more responsive to their own wages than their husband's

income, with the influence of husband's income on women's work choices diminishing. I

explore these relationships further in Chapter 3.

Married women's occupations

The ∪-shaped pattern is observed for women's wage work in the United States

between 1860 and 1940. At the first census to enumerate women's work, 4% of white wives worked, falling to about 2% in 1880 and 1900, and then climbing relatively rapidly to more than 13% in 1940. The American economy changed significantly in these eighty

148 Ester Boserup, Woman's Role in Economic Development (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1970). 149 Oded Galor and David N. Weil, "The Gender Gap, Fertility, and Growth," American Economic Review 86, no. 3 (1996): 374-87.

years, from a primarily rural, agricultural economy to a largely urban economy with a

significant manufacturing and service sector (see Figure 1.13).150 Part of the mechanism

through which the ∪-shaped pattern is demonstrated is changing industrial and

occupational opportunities. As agricultural employment falls and industrial production

moves away from households and into factories, women are less likely to move into

factory work than men. Men move first into manufacturing jobs and were more likely to

become supervisors. With men controlling who got hired, the initial male advantage in

particular occupations contributed to persistent sex segregation in occupations.151 This does not imply that married women's occupations did not change, rather that the way in which industries and jobs evolved had consequences for women's labor supply. The occupations that married women were employed in outside the home shifted, the principal change being a move from domestic work and agriculture to clerical work and manufacturing employment. To document these changes more fully, I tabulate the occupations of white and black married women in 1880 and 1940 (Appendix tables A.1 and A.2). The figures for 1880 are derived from the complete count census data described earlier.152 This is the first publication of these new data on married women's occupations.

The figures for 1940 are estimated from the 1% IPUMS sample.

150 Goldin, "Labor Markets in the Twentieth Century." 151 Abbott, Women in Industry, a Study in American Economic History, Alfred D. Chandler, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1977), Philip N. Cohen, "The Gender Division of Labor "Keeping House" and Occupational Segregation in the United States," Gender and Society 18, no. 2 (2004): 239-52, Edward Gross, "Plus Ca Change.? The Sexual Structure of Occupations over Time," Social Problems 16, no. 3 (1968), K. A. Weeden, "Revisiting Occupational Sex Segregation in the United States, 1910-1990: Results from a Log-Linear Approach," Demography 35, no. 4 (1998). 152 The 1880 data include two enumerations of the city of St. Louis (MO). I use the first enumeration. On repeated enumeration of American cities in the nineteenth century census, see Miriam L. King and Diana L. Magnuson, "Perspectives on Historical U.S. Census Undercounts," Social Science History 19, no. 4 (1995),

Figure 1.13 Industrial composition of American labor force, 1850-2000

Both the 1880 and 1940 censuses have the occupational returns classified into the

coding scheme the United States Census Bureau used in 1950.153 The 1950 coding scheme is a functional classification of occupations, that largely—but not exclusively— defines and describes occupations in terms of their relationship to other parts of the production process. Functional grouping of occupations is more stable over time than definitions that rely on literal physical descriptions of what people do, as the description is not hostage to technological change.

For example, trained hospital nurses in the late nineteenth century work with quite different technology than modern hospital nurses. A literal description of the work of

late-nineteenth century nurses might include the substantial time they spent washing patients and administering poultices. Modern descriptions of nurses' work would have no

poultices, but significant time providing and monitoring drugs.154 Technology changed

substantially, but the organization of nursing labor has changed only slightly. Functional

classifications also allow continued separation of occupations that might converge

through the adoption of similar technology. For example, desktop computing means that

people in many occupations spend a significant proportion of their time typing, reading, and organizing information. Yet lawyers and professors are still distinct jobs.

153 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Alphabetical Index of Occupations and Industries: 1950. (Washington, D.C.: 1950): v-xxiv. Roberts et al., "Occupational Classification in the the North Atlantic Population Project," 89-96, Chad Ronnander, "The Classification of Work: Applying 1950 Census Occupation and Industry Codes to 1920 Responses," Historical Methods 32, no. 3 (1999), M. Sobek, "New Statistics on the Us Labor Force, 1850-1990," Historical Methods 34, no. 2 (2001), Matthew Sobek and Lisa Dillon, "Interpreting Work: Classifying Occupations in the Public Use Microdata Samples," Historical Methods 28, no. 1 (1995): 70-73. 154 Barbara Melosh, "the Physician's Hand" — Work Culture and Conflict in American Nursing (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982), Susan Reverby, Ordered to Care: The Dilemma of American Nursing, ed. Charles Webster and Charles Rosenberg, Cambridge History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Every occupational classification must make trade-offs, collapsing the multi-

dimensional attributes of a job into a smaller number of dimensions. The conventional

dimensions for describing occupations today are what the person does (occupation), the

immediate product of the firm they work for (industry), and the individual's relationship

to ownership of the firm, called "class of worker" in the American census. As mentioned

above, the United States census did not distinguish these dimensions of occupations until

1910, with the earlier enumerations confusing the concept of occupation and industry.

Thus, in the 1860-1900 censuses occupation and industry cannot always be distinguished.

In many cases occupation and industry are highly correlated, with certain occupations being found in a small set of industries, even a single industry. For example, there are no farmers classified outside the agricultural industry. Conversely, accountants, bookkeepers or clerks can be found in nearly all industries.155

The correlation between occupation and industry is related to the division or

grouping of similar occupations and industries into separate classes. For example, the

1950 scheme distinguishes only between "agriculture," "forestry," and "fisheries" in

primary industry, and divides extractive industry into just four groups. Retail trade has

more divisions than wholesale trade. Among occupations, there is only one code for all

types of farmers, but telephone operators are distinguished from telegraph operators.

More generally, similar occupations can be grouped together. By virtue of being

functional, the 1950 occupational classification scheme is also hierarchical. Occupations

that are similar receive numeric codes that are close in value, allowing the divisions to be

collapsed into a smaller number of major groups. For example, the professional major

155 Though rarely in agriculture in the early American censuses.

group includes every job from accountants to veterinarians. Trends over time and

comparisons between different groups in the industrial and occupational composition of

the workforce are most easily conveyed at this level, with approximately ten groups of occupations and industries.

Between 1860 and 1940 white wives' occupational outcomes widened, while black wives remained concentrated in agriculture and domestic service after

emancipation. In 1860, most white wives in the labor force were working as service workers—a category including domestic servants (Table 1.7). This concentration in

personal service work is also evident in the table that describes the industries that

employed married women. White wives moved into manufacturing work in the 1860s. A

third of white wives were employed as operatives or trades-people in 1870, and although

that proportion dropped, the raw numbers rose steadily. On the eve of World War II,

nearly a million white wives were working as operatives or trades-people. Clerical work

also rapidly became a common occupation of white wives, despite the existence of formal

bars to women's employment in this sector. The professions, mainly teaching and

nursing, were also common occupations for white wives. For black wives, the history of

occupational and industrial change after emancipation was simple—there was little

diversification in the types of occupations and industry, only changes in the distribution.

As agricultural work declined in importance, service work took its place. The opportunity

for black wives to work in even unskilled trades, retail, or clerical work would not come

until the second half of the twentieth century.156

156 Amott and Matthaei, Race, Gender, and Work: A Multi-Cultural Economic History of Women in the United States, 172-92, J. S. Cunningham and N. Zalokar, "The Economic Progress of Black Women, 1940- 1980: Occupational Distribution and Relative Wages," 45, no. 3 (1992): 540-55, Y. D. Newsome and F.

The detailed occupational and industrial statistics—in Appendix A—reveal the

concentration of married women workers in small numbers of occupations in greater

detail. Eleven occupations account for more than 9 out of every 10 married women in the

labor force in 1880. More than 25% of working wives in 1880 were farm laborers with

laborers, domestic servants, laundresses, manufacturing workers, dressmakers, farmers,

managers, milliners, and teachers making up the remainder of these eleven occupations.

Agriculture employed nearly a third of married women workers in 1880. Another 20%—

mostly laborers and women who reported their occupation as "keeping"—were recorded

in the labor force, but the industry could not be identified. In the case of the laborers,

most were probably working in agriculture, as the census office noted at the time.157

Private households employed another 20% of married women.

The figures for 1940 are generated from the sample data, and occupations with very small numbers of married women are missing. For example, in 1880 there were three married women accountants in the United States. While there were a small number of married women working as accountants in 1940, the one percent sample did not capture them.158

Despite the diversification of white women's occupational outcomes by 1940, the

majority of white wives worked in a limited range of occupations. Women still faced a

decision between career or marriage. It was not possible for most women to combine

Dodoo, "Reversal of Fortune: Explaining the Decline in Black Women's Earnings," 16, no. 4 (2002): 442- 64.. 157 Bureau of the Census, Statistics of the Population of the United States at the Tenth Census (Washington, D.C.: 1881): 703-4. 158 Rebecca Sue Scruggs Legge, "A History of Women Certified Public Accountants in the United States " (PhD, University of Mississippi, 1989).

both.159 The detailed occupational statistics reported in Appendix A show that the allegation by Carter and Sutch of deliberate editing of women's occupations by the census officials may have some validity. The tabulations reveal married women in occupations that the published tables show no women in. Some of these may be errors of sex and

relationship recording, creating a married woman where there was really a man. Yet

others provide clear evidence that the Census Bureau edited occupation and reveal

married women working in occupations the published volumes did not show. For

example, the published tables from 1880 record no female veterinarians. Yet Mary

Moody of Ottawa Township in La Salle County, Illinois was working as a vet, and

"keeping house." The census reveals no female butchers, yet in San Francisco's

Chinatown Coo Sue was working as a butcher, and in Chicago Mrs. Emma Mader was as well. In total, there are over a thousand married women recorded in occupations that the

published volumes report no women in at all. The quality of the 1880 transcription means

we cannot accept these values definitively.160 Each individual woman will need to be

checked against the microfilm, yet this initial tabulations suggests there was editing of

unusual occupations held by women.

In the aggregate the effect of this editing of unusual occupations is minor, and

will not affect the overall understanding of the trends in married women's work. Yet it

hints at the cultural presumptions in 1880 against married women's work that existed in

the Census Bureau. The impact of cultural norms on individual women and their families

is difficult to measure. Diffuse social influences on individuals and their families such as

159 Claudia Goldin, "Exploring the "Present through the Past": Career and Family across the Last Century," American Economic Review 87, no. 2 (1997): 396-99, Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," 20-35. 160 Goeken et al., "The 1880 U.S. Population Database," 27-34.

culture and law cannot be easily distinguished at the individual level. In the following chapter, I use the variation between states in married women's property laws to examine the influence of legal change on married women's work, and ask whether otherwise similar women behaved differently in different situations.

Table 1.7 Occupations of black and white working wives, 1860-1940

White married women 1860 1870 1880 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Occupational group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Professional, technical and 6,325 3.5 5,525 7.1 12,183 6.8 19,899 8.0 50,085 6.3 85,278 8.5 220,237 12.1 306,761 10.0 kindred workers Farmers and farm managers 19,875 10.8 2,612 3.3 10,467 5.8 13,978 5.6 19,312 2.4 18,974 1.9 14,913 0.8 15,317 0.5 Managers, officials and 5,215 2.8 4,322 5.5 12,546 7.0 14,890 6.0 42,720 5.4 60,251 6.0 104,581 5.8 190,719 6.2 proprietors, except farm Clerical and kindred workers 100 0.1 300 0.4 946 0.5 5,423 2.2 24,457 3.1 108,187 10.8 348,015 19.2 631,735 20.6 Sales workers 1,204 0.7 1,006 1.3 3,378 1.9 7,548 3.0 38,215 4.8 84,659 8.4 202,728 11.2 313,693 10.2 Craftsmen, foremen, and 8,627 4.7 3,919 5.0 8,354 4.7 9,148 3.7 14,082 1.8 30,169 3.0 35,864 2.0 60,708 2.0 kindred workers Operatives and kindred 33,217 18.1 27,541 35.2 68,120 37.9 95,199 38.3 216,990 27.3 310,535 31.0 434,854 23.9 947,078 30.8 workers Service workers 99,661 54.4 28,138 35.9 48,676 27.1 52,489 21.1 194,904 24.5 189,730 18.9 353,467 19.5 510,571 16.6 Farm laborers and foremen 3,816 2.1 3,812 4.9 7,150 4.0 20,340 8.2 176,177 22.2 77,714 7.8 60,460 3.3 54,123 1.8 Laborers, except farm and 5,224 2.9 1,108 1.4 7,701 4.3 9,585 3.9 17,021 2.1 37,246 3.7 41,902 2.3 42,909 1.4 mine

Black married women 1860 1870 1880 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Occupational group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Professional, technical and - 0.0 201 0.1 749 0.3 3,409 1.2 6,498 0.9 8,277 1.5 17,725 2.9 25,765 4.3 kindred workers Farmers and farm managers 100 1.3 3,618 2.0 8,375 2.8 8,741 3.1 13,868 1.8 10,183 1.9 8,062 1.3 7,196 1.2 Managers, officials and 100 1.3 - 0.0 421 0.1 1,106 0.4 3,220 0.4 3,533 0.6 4,834 0.8 4,957 0.8 proprietors, except farm Clerical and kindred workers - 0.0 - 0.0 10 0.0 302 0.1 777 0.1 2,219 0.4 3,022 0.5 5,533 0.9 Sales workers - 0.0 202 0.1 252 0.1 604 0.2 1,178 0.2 1,414 0.3 2,616 0.4 4,748 0.8 Craftsmen, foremen, and - 0.0 - 0.0 219 0.1 401 0.1 313 0.0 1,212 0.2 1,612 0.3 2,000 0.3 kindred workers Operatives and kindred 1,306 16.5 2,511 1.4 5,400 1.8 10,651 3.8 26,733 3.5 33,100 6.0 42,309 7.0 42,842 7.2 workers Service workers 5,114 64.5 43,819 23.8 79,719 26.7 105,029 37.6 253,315 33.3 248,954 45.3 360,084 59.6 393,808 65.8 Farm laborers and foremen 401 5.1 124,504 67.7 126,241 42.2 132,332 47.3 441,354 58.0 227,171 41.3 151,333 25.0 104,038 17.4 Laborers, except farm and 903 11.4 9,054 4.9 77,483 25.9 17,091 6.1 13,191 1.7 13,520 2.5 12,901 2.1 7,228 1.2 mine

Source: Estimates from IPUMS 1860-70 and 1900-1940. Exact counts from NAPP 1880. Married women aged 16 and over. Free black women only in 1860

Table 1.8 Industries of black and white working wives, 1860-1940 White married women 1860 1870 1880 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Industrial group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Not available, occupational 1,404 0.8 101 0.1 27 0.0 202 0.1 72 0.0 504 0.1 9,618 0.3 information only Agriculture, forestry and 23,892 13.0 6,525 8.3 17,842 10.6 33,312 14.5 199,582 25.2 97,496 9.7 77,388 4.3 77,137 2.5 fisheries Mining and construction 805 0.4 806 1.0 996 0.6 2,419 1.1 5,423 0.7 6,054 0.6 13,099 0.7 21,256 0.7 Manufacturing, durable goods 2,715 1.5 1,108 1.4 2,778 1.7 5,022 2.2 15,025 1.9 57,822 5.8 102,562 5.7 195,826 6.4

Manufacturing, non-durable 11,347 6.2 13,167 16.8 31,482 18.7 49,450 21.6 115,552 14.6 244,847 24.4 360,669 19.9 794,096 26.0 goods Transportation, 1,206 0.7 904 1.2 1,601 1.0 1,909 0.8 9,703 1.2 30,883 3.1 71,337 3.9 102,202 3.3 communication, utilities Wholesale and retail trade 14,443 7.9 12,464 15.9 28,196 16.8 30,283 13.2 104,467 13.2 189,518 18.9 428,444 23.6 790,862 25.9 Financial and business 3,211 1.8 303 0.4 163 0.1 1,911 0.8 8,565 1.1 19,583 2.0 80,596 4.4 119,322 3.9 services Personal, recreational and 124,241 67.8 42,604 54.4 84,557 50.3 103,412 45.1 326,508 41.2 340,095 33.9 650,890 35.9 838,542 27.5 professional services Public administration 301 0.4 611 0.4 1,507 0.7 7,600 1.0 15,941 1.6 28,813 1.6 103,262 3.4

Black married women 1860 1870 1880 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Industrial group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Not available, occupational 201 2.5 504 0.3 1 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 604 0.1 2,459 0.4 information only Agriculture, forestry and 501 6.3 129,932 70.7 134,736 65.3 137,857 57.6 459,037 60.8 237,455 43.2 160,604 26.6 113,093 18.9 fisheries Mining and construction - 0.0 1,511 0.8 124 0.1 200 0.1 636 0.1 1,412 0.3 1,007 0.2 1,178 0.2 Manufacturing, durable goods 301 3.8 101 0.1 177 0.1 402 0.2 1,043 0.1 4,241 0.8 3,429 0.6 2,946 0.5

Manufacturing, non-durable 1,004 12.7 401 0.2 1,192 0.6 1,612 0.7 5,863 0.8 19,472 3.5 21,157 3.5 21,694 3.6 goods Transportation, 100 1.3 603 0.3 174 0.1 603 0.3 1,292 0.2 1,717 0.3 2,825 0.5 1,600 0.3 communication, utilities Wholesale and retail trade - 0.0 1,310 0.7 786 0.4 1,912 0.8 7,718 1.0 14,836 2.7 20,949 3.5 27,358 4.6 Financial and business 100 1.3 - 0.0 8 0.0 101 0.0 1,399 0.2 1,109 0.2 4,435 0.7 4,728 0.8 services Personal, recreational and 5,717 72.1 49,547 26.9 68,979 33.5 96,374 40.3 277,763 36.8 267,020 48.6 386,870 64.1 420,785 70.2 professional services Public administration - 0.0 27 0.0 100 0.0 447 0.1 1,717 0.3 2,215 0.4 3,263 0.5

Source: Estimates from IPUMS 1860-70 and 1900-1940. Exact counts from NAPP 1880. Married women aged 16 and over. Free black women only in 1860

Chapter 2 Women's rights and women's labor: Married women’s property law reform and labor force participation, 1870-1900

Introduction

In the five decades after the Civil War, American wives’ rights to own property,

retain their own earnings, and do business on their own account separate from their husbands, were extended throughout most of the American states. The flurry of changes in property rights after the Civil War were part of a century-long sequence of legal changes increasing married women's control over assets and income. At the time, and subsequently, though passed in different states at different times, they have been seen as part of the same trend and known as "married women's property acts." There has been

substantial research since the 1970s into the campaign and passage for the property acts,

and their legal consequences. A limited, and more recent, literature examines the

economic consequences of the acts, and finds that women were responsive to the change

in incentives for different forms of economic behavior, such as making wills and

patenting. However, there is no published research on the broader economic

consequences of the acts—how labor force participation, education, and marriage

behavior were affected by the acts.

In this chapter I use data from the IPUMS samples of the American census to

estimate the effects of changes in married women’s property laws on the extent of

married women's involvement in gainful employment. Individual-level census data

allows me to control for individual and family factors affecting wives’ decisions to work.

After controlling for individual and family factors in women’s work, education and

marriage decisions, differences in the timing of legal change between states permits

independent identification of the effects of passing married women’s property laws.

The absolute effects of changes in property rights were small. Between 1860 and

1900—when the majority of laws were passed—the overall level of married women’s

labor force participation, among the free population, fluctuated from 4.2% to 4.6% in

1880, and back down to 4.1% in 1900. Although married women’s labor force

participation varied little over time, participation varied by family circumstances and

across states and regions. For example, within individual states or territories, the largest

absolute increase in married women’s labor force participation was in the District of

Columbia, where labor force participation for married women advanced from 15.5% in

1860 to 28.6% in 1900. Outside the south, the largest increase over forty years was in the

Dakota Territory where just one in sixty married women in the new territory had a gainful occupation in 1870, but by 1900 one in twelve did; an increase of approximately eight percentage points in thirty years. But wives in the Dakotas were somewhat different from women in other states—they were younger, lived in rural areas or small towns, and were more likely to be immigrants from northern Europe—all factors that influenced observed levels of market work by wives.

Given that we observe different levels of labor force participation in states with different laws, it is possible these differences are due to the laws. It is also possible that the level of married women's labor force participation varied because women had different opportunities to work in different states. For example, states with more

100

industrial employment and greater urbanization typically had greater level of married

women's labor force participation for white women, as recorded by the census. Women

who were more likely to combine paid employment with marriage may have moved to

these states, independent of the passage of property laws. Thus, it is important to try and

eliminate the influence of state and individual factors that are independent of the laws.

More formally, I ask what was the effect of the married women’s property acts on women’s behavior, after controlling for individual and family circumstances, and states’

social and economic characteristics other than legal change.

Despite variation in married women’s work behavior across states, and among

women with different circumstances, passage of the married women’s property acts did

not have a strong influence on labor force participation. Economic theory—and

intuition—suggests that giving women stronger title to their own earnings from work

would lead to women working more. This is borne out by the estimates. Theory also

predicts that property acts, by transferring wealth to women would lead to a decrease in

married women’s labor force participation as measured in the census. This is also

confirmed by the analysis. However, most of the estimates are insignificantly different

from zero at standard levels of statistical significance, and this finding is robust to

alternative models of other factors influencing women’s work decisions. My findings are

also not altered by disagreement among scholars about exactly when particular states

passed property laws. In short, there was little or no immediate effect on women’s work

behavior from the passage of married women's property acts. The wealth effects of the property acts were cancelled out by the own-wage effects of earnings acts.

101

The organization of the chapter is as follows; I first summarize the history of

married women's property law reform in the United States, and the recent literature by

historians and economists that examines the consequences of property law reform. After

introducing the data that I use in the remainder of the paper, I summarize the changes in

women’s labor force participation conditioned only on the passage of property law

reform in the preceding decade. My analysis is divided into three main sections. First, I

look at the effect of property, earnings and sole-trade laws on married women’s labor

force participation, as measured by the census’ gainful employment measure of market work. Finding little effect of the laws, the second stage of the analysis is to expand the

measure of women’s market work to include taking in boarders and lodgers. The third

and final section of the analysis looks at the effect of the property laws on other measures

of young women’s behavior, including investment in education, work by single women,

and age at marriage.

My analytic strategy in estimating the effects of the property acts on labor force

participation, education, and marriage behavior is a "difference-in-differences" approach.

This compares the change over time in women’s behavior between states that did, or did

not, enact new married women’s property legislation in the previous decade. I distinguish

between the effects of three different kinds of married women's property law reform;

1. Title to assets and estates, referred to as “property laws”

2. Title to earnings from labor and capital, referred to as "earnings laws"

3. Ability to own and operate businesses without the legal requirement of a

husband’s permission or oversight, referred to as “sole trader laws”

102

After holding individual and state-specific factors constant, the effects of change in married women's property and earnings legislation on married women's labor force participation was trivially small for white women. Apparently large effects of the introduction of earnings laws on black women's labor force participation are spurious, and due to the low number of black women in some states shortly before passage of earnings law reform. Reform of property laws was not sufficient for increasing married women's labor supply in the late nineteenth century. Finding little effect of property, earnings, and sole-trade laws on women’s labor force participation, I then look at whether broader measures of women’s participation in work were affected by the passage of the property laws. Specifically, the census provides information on whether a family had taken in boarders and lodgers. Qualitative evidence from the late nineteenth-century makes it clear that taking in boarders and lodgers was a strategy used by a significant minority of families to increase their income, and that wives were often responsible for the extra household work when there more people living in the household.1 Augmenting measures of wives’ work by an indicator of taking in boarders and lodgers has become standard in the examination of women’s work before 1940.2

In the final section of the analysis I examine investments in education—measured in the census by literacy—and whether young women delayed marriage and worked longer in response to the passage of the property acts. I find that the property acts had consistent and statistically significant effects on investments in education for children,

1 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 44-45, 224-25, John Modell and Tamara K. Hareven, "Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families," Journal of Marriage and the Family 35, no. 3 (1973). 2 Carolyn M. Moehling, "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment," Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001): 926-49.

103

and delays in marriage for women in their 20s. Women in their 20s who lived in a state

that had passed a property or earnings act were more likely to be unmarried—and

because they were unmarried, more likely to be working. These decisions by cohorts of

young women in the late nineteenth century to increase their human capital in response to changes in married women’s property rights may have influenced the early-twentieth century expansion in married women's labor force participation. I also find that school attendance for children increased after the passage of property acts. Given the importance of education to later increases in women’s work, this finding is significant.

Background: Coverture and marital service

Laws determining title to property within marriage are the responsibility of state

legislatures and courts in the United States. With the exception of states in the south and west—most of which inherited their civil law traditions from French or Spanish colonial control—the laws of property within marriage in the United States were largely derived from the English common law tradition of coverture.3 The civil law states—Arizona,

California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Washington—had a

community property system.4 In practice, however, the operation and reform of the

married women's property laws was not substantially different in community property

and common law states, according to authors who have studied the acts across the

3 A concise summary of the English common law tradition as it existed in the eighteenth century can be found in Joanne Bailey, "Favoured or Oppressed? Married Women, Property and 'Coverture' in England, 1660-1800," Continuity and Change 17, no. 3 (2002): 351-72. 4 Donna Clare Schuele, "`a Robbery to the Wife': Culture, Gender and Marital Property in California Law and Politics, 1850-1890" (PhD, University of California Berkeley, 1999), 447.

104

different states.5 The doctrine of coverture provided that in marriage a woman’s property

became the property of her husband. The influential legal theorist, William Blackstone in

his Commentaries on the Laws of England explained that during coverture

those chattels, which belonged formerly to the wife, are by act of law vested in the hufband, with the same degree of property and with the same powers, as the wife, when sole, had over them. This depends entirely on the notion of an unity of person between the husband and wife; it being held that they are one person in law … the very being and existence of the woman is suspended during the coverture, or entirely merged and incorporated in that of the husband. And hence if follows, that whatever personal property belonged to the wife, before marriage, is by marriage absolutely vested in the husband.6

The laws of England regarding coverture were largely inherited by many of the

American colonies. The pre-eminent American legal theorist of the nineteenth century,

Tapping Reeve, writing in 1846 before the wave of married women's property law reform

The husband by marriage, acquires an absolute title to all the personal property of the wife, which she had in possession at the time of the marriage; such as money, goods or chattels personal of any kind. These, by the marriage, become his property as completely as the property which he purchases with his money; and such property can never again belong to the wife, upon the happening of any event, unless it be given to her by his will; and in the case of the death of the husband, this property does not return to the wife, but vests in his executors.7

5 Kathleen Elizabeth Lazarou, "Concealed under Petticoats: Married Women's Property and the Law of Texas, 1840-1913" (PhD, Rice University, 1980), 9. Sara L. Zeigler, "Uniformity and Conformity: Regionalism and the Adjudication of the Married Women's Property Acts," Polity 28, no. 4 (1996): 467-95. 6 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (London, 1765-1779), Book II, Chapter 29, “Of Title by Succession, Marriage, and Judgment.” Available: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk2ch29.htm. [Accessed: 2 May 2006]. 7 Tapping Reeve, The Law of Baron and Femme, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, and of the Powers of Courts of Chancery, 2nd ed. (Burlington: Chauncey Goodrich, 1846), 2. On Reeve’s influence on American law, see Gregory S. Alexander, Commodity & Propriety: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776-1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 163, 423.

105

In both England and the United States all personal property brought by a woman

to the marriage was both owned and controlled by the husband under coverture. It should

be noted that under English common law, which the United States inherited, single

women had unusual freedom, compared with women elsewhere in Western Europe.8

Moreover, while coverture was illiberal and restricted women's full participation in the market, it did not entirely prevent women from using or controlling property. Research on the operation of coverture in England shows that some wives were able to leave property in their wills.9 While coverture imposed transaction costs on maintaining

separate property in a woman's name, the financial and legal instruments to do were

available across England. Indeed, Erickson has argued that the liberal rights granted to

single women—before and after marriage—in combination with the development of

instruments to bypass coverture made a positive contribution to the development of the

English economy. Single women were free to invest their wealth, while coverture

promoted the development of financial instruments that had application in other

transactions. Moreover, at least in England, these instruments to bypass coverture became

commodified. Documents establishing trusts, for example, did not have to be written

from scratch for every family, reducing the costs involved. The uneven inheritance of the

English common law in the American colonies meant that coverture bore more heavily

on American women. Equity courts, for example, were not available in all the colonies.10

Research by Marylynn Salmon suggests that the market for trusts and other instruments

8 Amy Louise Erickson, "Coverture and Capitalism," History Workshop Journal, no. 59 (2005): 1-16. 9 Maxine Berg, "Women's Property and the Industrial Revolution," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24, no. 2 (1993): 240-41, Amy Louise Erickson, "Common Law Versus Common Practice: The Use of Marriage Settlements in Early Modern England," Economic History Review New Series 43, no. 1 (1990): 21-39. 10 Charles Chauncey Savage, "Some points of comparison between English and American legislation, as to married women's property," American Law Register, 31 no.12 (1883): 762.

106

to bypass coverture was thinner in the United States.11 Contemporaries believed that the earlier pressure to reform property laws in the United States, compared with Britain, was because "the English custom of marriage settlements … never prevailed here to so great an extent."12

Coverture was modified in practice by the parallel tradition of dower that

guaranteed wives a one-third share of their husband’s property upon his death.13

Women’s property could also be held in trust to shelter it from passing to the husband under coverture upon marriage. The purpose of dower and trusts was not to provide women with opportunities for equal control of property, but to insure them against financial catastrophe if their husband died or could not fulfill financial obligations to creditors.14 Trusts were generally operated to permit married women continuing

ownership of property that had bequeathed to them before marriage. Thus, as well as

protecting a married woman’s limited rights in her property, trusts were also a way of

protecting the property of a woman’s patrilineal family from the mismanagement of her

husband. The crucial distinction here is between ownership and control. Trusts protected

a married woman’s ownership of her property, but generally permitted her husband to

control that property. Moreover, both common and statute law gave the husband rights to

11 Marylynn Salmon, Women and the Law of Property in Early America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986). 12 Frank Gaylord Cook, "The Law's Partiality to Married Women," The Atlantic, (September 1886): 312. 13 On the history of dower, see Florence Griswold Buckstaff, "Married Women's Property in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Law and the Origin of the Common-Law Dower," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 4 (1893): 33-64. A more recent summary is Ariela R. Dubler, "In the Shadow of Marriage: Single Women and the Legal Construction of the Family and the State," Yale Law Journal 112 (2003): 1660-68. 14 Kermit Hall, The Magic Mirror: Law in American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 157-59. On the long history of dower, see Buckstaff, "Married Women's Property in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Law and the Origin of the Common-Law Dower," 33-64.

107

the earnings—rents, interest, and dividends, for example—that accrued from a wife’s property.

This distinction between ownership and control persisted through the nineteenth

century reforms to married women’s property rights. Some acts purported to give wives ownership or title, but not management or control of assets. It is a distinction that may appear odd to economists, in particular, as an operating assumption of many economic analyses is that ownership of assets implies control over their use and sale. In the legal

realm the distinction was advocated as a way of giving wives title to assets, but without

interfering unduly with her husband’s day-to-day authority over the household. More

concretely, laws which attempted to separate ownership from control restricted husbands’

ability to sell property. Wives had the final say in the continued ownership of assets.

However, on a day-to-day basis a husband was presumed to be in charge of managing the asset. Land—a particularly important form of wealth in nineteenth century America— could not be sold by the husband, but he could decide what was planted on it, or whether to rent the property, and how much rent would be charged. In the service of maintaining the legal doctrine of the indivisible household husbands had substantial power to affect the value of property that titularly belonged to their wife.

The extent of women’s legal disabilities under coverture has been the subject of a sixty year debate, since the 1946 publication of Mary Beard’s Women as Force in

History.15 Beard argued that nineteenth century feminists overstated the strength of

coverture, by reading Blackstone too literally. In so doing, early feminists created a

politically useful myth of subjugation that did not reflect the more complicated reality of

15 Mary Ritter Beard, Woman as Force in History (New York: Macmillan, 1946).

108

women's property rights in antebellum America. Equity courts complicated the common

law of coverture, and at least in theory, ameliorated some of the harshest aspects of the

common law as it applied to married women. Because of its canonical status in the

history of American women, the arguments advanced by Beard in Women as Force were scrutinized by some of the first large cohort of women’s historians in the 1960s and

1970s.

Studies of the application of equity law in the colonial and antebellum eras concluded that Beard’s claims were overstated. In practice, equity law was utilized only by wealthy women with substantial inheritance to protect. Poor women were left with the restrictions of the common law.16 In effect the common law of coverture specified a standard contract for the ownership of property within marriage. Seeking a variation on this standard contract was costly—requiring a woman to invest her own time in the process, as well as possibly paying a lawyer to represent her. Moreover, the outcome was uncertain, and potentially complicated the social and emotional relationships involved in the marriage. One of the uncertainties was that the application of equity law varied from state to state. Marylynn Salmon finds that equity was not uniformly practiced in England, and varied among the American colonies. Pennsylvania and New England strayed the most from English traditions, and adopted legal codes that placed a high priority on family unity. Southern colonies, by contrast, adapted the common law more rapidly.17

Under these conditions we would expect that only women who expected to gain from going to equity court to avail themselves of its proceedings. The potential gains from

16 Elizabeth Bowles Warbasse, The Changing Legal Rights of Married Women, 1800-1861 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1987), 29-48. 17 Robert A. Pollak, "A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households," Journal of Economic Literature 23, no. 2 (1985): 581-608.

109

using equity law had to exceed the monetary costs of going to court, and the risks of

upsetting the marriage.

Coverture prescribed a default set of property rights for men and women within

marriage which it was costly to deviate from.18 Economic analysis of coverture has used

a transaction cost approach.19 If bargaining about property rights within marriage was

costless, and husbands and wives could be sure their spouse was not going to renege on

the marriage contract, then the default law of coverture would not have affected women’s

incentives to work outside the home. These conditions for coverture to not affect

women’s work within marriage are the conditions given by the Coase theorem for an

initial allocation of property rights not to affect economic efficiency.20 However, as

bargaining was costly, and there were incentives for people to seek alternative arrangements than coverture, pressure developed in the early nineteenth century for

changes in married women's property rights. Geddes and Lueck argue that increases in

women’s property rights were directly related to general increases in wealth and wages,

as well as changes that affected women’s incentives to work outside the home.

Specifically, they predict that as the wages earned by educated women increased, and

women had the opportunity to work in highly skilled and “non-routine jobs,” that

18 For contemporary commentary on this problem, see Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Married Women under the Statutes of the Several States, and at Common Law and in Equity (Boston: Little, Brown, 1873), microform. 19 R. H. Coase, "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960): 1-44. 20 Rick Geddes and Dean Lueck, "The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights," in John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper (Palo Alto: Stanford Law School, 2000), Rick Geddes and Dean Lueck, "The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights," American Economic Review 92, no. 4 (2002): 1082.

110

coverture would become less attractive.21 Geddes and Lueck's empirical analysis focuses on the late nineteenth century introduction of earnings and sole trader laws. Their hypothesis that overall levels of wealth and market activity made coverture less attractive finds support in a recent dissertation that examines the state-level influences on reform of married women's property rights in the mid-nineteenth century.22 Gignesi uses Sellars' concept of the "market revolution," as the foundation of her analysis, and argues that the more commercialized a state's economy was, the more likely that state was to reform married women's property laws.23 Historian Carole Shammas has also argued that the opening of western lands, and growing opportunities for non-agricultural employment, weakened the benefits of coverture in the early Republic, and led to pressure for reform.24

Until quite recently, historians of coverture in the United States emphasized its restrictions on women's title to and control of assets. Recently more attention has been paid to further, and separate disincentives for women to undertake paid labor outside the home that prevailed under coverture. Until 1857 no states gave women explicit title to their earnings from labor or business. Contemporary observers, such as the lawyer Joel

Bishop were aware of the disincentives this gave to women. Under the heading "Evils of the Common Law Rule," Bishop wrote:

Among some very rude and barbarous tribes of people, the chiefs are in the habit of appropriating to themselves whatever earnings of their subjects they take a fancy to. The result is, that all such people are thereby made lazy. The

21 Amy Lydia Gignesi, "Relinquishing Control: The Married Women's Property Acts in Mid-Nineteenth Century America" (PhD, American University, 2005). 22 Reva B. Siegel, "Home as Work: The First Woman's Rights Claims Concerning Wives' Household Labor, 1850-1880," Yale Law Journal 103, no. 5 (1994). 23 Charles Sellars, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America 1815-1846 (1991). 24 Carole Shammas, "Anglo-American Household Government in Comparative Perspective," William & Mary Quarterly 3rd Ser. 52, no. 1 (1995): 104-44, Carole Shammas, A History of Household Government in America (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2002)..

111

proper stimulant for exertion is taken away. In like manner, the common law of married women in so far as it is practically carried out, tends to make wives lazy.25

If women had few opportunities to do work separately from their husbands, then the

appropriation of their earnings by him would have little effect on what wives would do. If

a husband and wife worked together, for example on a family farm, then coverture had

little effect on women's work choices, or a family's well-being.26 But under some

conditions coverture, by reducing wives' incentives to earn money, reduced a family's

well-being. On the face of it, coverture benefited men since it gave them greater power

within marriage. Yet if coverture reduced a woman's incentives to choose paid work over

household labor or leisure, it also potentially reduced husband's standards of living.

For example, consider a married couple where the wife has time to undertake

some market work, perhaps through sewing or taking in boarders.27 Under coverture, her

incentives to work are limited since she has no legal claim to the additional earnings she

brings into the family. Her claim on the addition to family income she has made is dependent on her bargaining power with her husband. Assuming she has title to her own

earnings, but earns less than her husband, she will be likely to share at least some of the

earnings with her husband. Even if she didn't share any earnings with her husband, the husband's obligation to provide his wife with independent spending money may be

25 Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Married Women under the Statutes of the Several States, and at Common Law and in Equity. 26 On the strong links between the household and work in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, see Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work (New York: Oxford, 1990), Jeanne Boydston, "The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States," Journal of the Early Republic 16, no. 2 (1996): 183-206. 27 I use this example to abstract from the problem that going out to work may have some social stigma. See Claudia Goldin, "A Pollution Theory of Discrimination: Male and Female Differences in Occupations and Earnings," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 8985 (2002), Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women.

112

reduced. By increasing wives' incentives to substitute paid work for leisure, giving wives

title to their own earnings was likely to, at least minimally, increase a husband's standard

of living since the family's income would be greater without him having to work more.

The potential benefits to husbands from giving wives title to their own earnings are worth

emphasizing, because otherwise the political economy of the married women's property

acts appears anomalous. While there were benefits to women from passing property acts,

and early women's rights political activity included reform of married women's property

laws in their purview, the property acts were passed by male legislators, elected by male voters, well before women's suffrage was achieved. It is unlikely that the property law

reforms would have been passed if they did not also benefit men.28

While reforms to coverture promised potential benefits for both spouses, the

common law doctrine of marital service was not reformed in any state until well into the

twentieth century, and likely acted to retard married women's entry into market work.

The doctrine of marital service—upheld by courts and not reformed by legislation—

specified that in marriage a woman's first obligation was to provide domestic labor for

her husband.29 When a wife worked outside the home, courts generally found that if the

work was being done on her "sole and separate account," and if the state had an earnings

act in place, that she was entitled to controlling the income she received from labor or

business, providing that she kept the money in some form of separate account. These

conditions placed some barriers between married women and their earnings. The work

had to be clearly unrelated to her husband's work, clearly not an extension of her

28 Warbasse, The Changing Legal Rights of Married Women, 1800-1861, 272. 29 A concise introduction to the topic is Katharine Silbaugh, "Turning Labor into Love: Housework and the Law," Northwestern University Law Review 91, no. 1 (1996): 28-30.

113

domestic labor, and the wife had to ensure that the earnings received were not mingled with other family accounts. If she contributed even some of her earnings to the family budget, courts then presumed the money was in the husbands control as the legal head of the household.30 The law became somewhat murkier when wives earned money through activities undertaken within the family home, or provided labor for their husband's business.31 Legal historian Reva Siegel reviews the adjudication of the earnings statutes in the late nineteenth century, and finds that no states weakened wives obligations to first labor for their husband.32 A corollary of the doctrine of marital service was that any commitments by a husband to pay his wife explicitly for her domestic labor was not legally enforceable.33 Furthermore, if a married woman was injured by a third party, she could only claim for pain and suffering, while their husbands could claim for the lost value of household labor. Indeed, husbands whose wives were injured, and unable to recover to do housework were able to claim monetary damages sufficient to employ a servant to replace lost household labor.34

30 Helen Z.M. Rogers, "Married Women's Earnings," Albany Law Journal 64 (1902): 384-386. 31 Amy Dru Stanley, "Conjugal Bonds and Wage Labor: Rights of Contract in the Age of Emancipation," Journal of American History 75, no. 2 (1988): 495-97. 32 Reva B. Siegel, "The Modernization of Marital Status Law: Adjudicating Wives' Rights to Earnings, 1860-1930," Georgetown Law Journal 82 (1994): 2168-97. See also Sara L. Zeigler, "Family Service: Labor, the Family and Legal Reform in the United States" (PhD, University of California Los Angeles, 1996), 206-08, Zeigler, "Uniformity and Conformity: Regionalism and the Adjudication of the Married Women's Property Acts," 467-95. Zeigler also argues that the doctrine of marital service was upheld uniformly across the country. 33 Siegel, "Home as Work: The First Woman's Rights Claims Concerning Wives' Household Labor, 1850- 1880," 1082-86. 34 For a contemporary report, see e.g. “Married Women. Damages for Impaired Capacity to Labor,” Harvard Law Review, 9, no. 7 (1896): 473-4 ; Barbara Young Welke, Recasting American Liberty: Gender, Race, Law, and the Railroad Revolution, 1865-1920, Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 133. B. Zorina Khan, "Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790- 1895," Journal of Economic History 56, no. 2 (1996): 362. Amy Dru Stanley, From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 199-217. Compare with the situation faced by women whose husbands were injured: John Fabian Witt, "From Loss of Services to Loss of Support: The Wrongful Death Statutes,

114

The courts recognized that there was a tension between the doctrine of marital

service, and the principle of spouses independently deciding how to allocate their time

implied by the earnings acts. Marital service presumed that a woman would first spend

her time maintaining the household at the direction of her husband. Earnings acts implied

that "[h]er right to employ her time for the earning of money on her own account is as

complete as his …" Yet because comparatively few married women worked outside the

home, determining a value for the potential earnings she lost if injured was difficult

without an extensive earnings history that showed her value in the marketplace.35 The tension between service and potential for earnings was not resolved quickly. By contrast the value of domestic labor could be determined with reference to the competitive market for domestic servants. Suing to test the limits of the property acts and the marital service doctrine was, almost by definition, an exceptional circumstance that may appear to be at some remove from families' everyday labor supply decisions. Yet the findings expressed in these cases illustrate the legal constraints under which wives made their choices, or not, about labor.

It is somewhat ironic that contemporaneous with courts finding husbands economically damaged when they lost their wife’s labor, that the prevailing ideology of marriage and labor valorized wives’ domestic work as an expression of love, its value beyond monetary compare. As an extensive historical literature has shown, housework and child-rearing were viewed as a wife’s responsibility, motivated by a woman’s

the Origins of Modern Tort Law, and the Making of the Nineteenth-Century Family," Law and Social Inquiry 25, no. 3 (2000): 717-55. 35 "Married Woman—Personal Injuries—Damages—Capacity for Labor: Harmon V. Old Colony R. R. Co." Virginia Law Register 2, no.1 (1896): 11. See also "Recovery by a Married Woman for the Impairment of Her Earning Capacity," Harvard Law Review, 14 no. 1 (1900): 61-62.

115

affection for her family.36 Leaving aside the question of whether it was economically

rational for women to work in the home versus seeking work in the market, the veneration of domestic labor as an expression of love, and not work, was a neat

ideological construction. It suggested that housework was a wife’s choice—contrary to

legal doctrine—and elevated the actual work in comparison with paid labor in the factory

or field. Wives who chose to work out were seen to be giving up on an intrinsically more

enjoyable way to spend one’s day. The moral elevation of housework, suggesting that

domestic and market labor were incomparable was a political cover for the legal

inequalities within marriage.

Married women's title to assets and income did not mean that they were legally

equal to their husbands. Marriage imposed a set of rights and responsibilities on men and

women that were unequal and hierarchical, within the household. The decision of the

Iowa Supreme Court in 1888 summarized marital service as "the duty of the wife, as a

helpmeet, to attend without compensation all ordinary household duties, and labor

faithfully to advance her husband's interests."37 Husbands retained the right to direct

what their wives did with their time, but were correspondingly obligated to support their

wives.38 Although much of the historiography of the doctrine of marital service focuses

on the second half of the nineteenth century, it continued to be applied through the first

36 Nancy Folbre, "The Unproductive Housewife: Her Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Economic Thought," Signs 16, no. 3 (1991): 463. Boydston, Home and Work. The historiographical debate goes back to Barbara Welter, "The Cult of True Womanhood," American Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1966). 37 Quoted in W.W. Thornton, "Personal Services Rendered by Wife to Husband under Contract," Central Law Journal 50, no. 1 (1900): 184. 38 Sara L. Zeigler, "Wifely Duties: Marriage, Labor and the Common Law in Nineteenth-Century America," Social Science History 20, no. 1 (1996): 63-96. Hendrik Hartog, Man and Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 156. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 12.

116

half of the twentieth century.39 A review of married women's legal status in 1929 still noted that “their labor, beyond the domestic duties required by the marital relation, belongs to themselves.”40 Indeed, as recently as 1993 a majority decision of the

California Supreme Court has held that marital service obligations still apply in some respects, finding that promises to compensate a spouse for domestic labor are not enforceable.41 The doctrine of marital service is convenient for modeling wives labor supply. It provides a foundation for using a unitary model of the household, that assumes decisions are made as if the family has just one decision maker, and largely ignores the division of power within the household and how spouses might bargain about work.42

While a unitary model likely does not reflect modern marriage, it has a close approximation to the legal theory of marriage in Victorian era America.

In summary, over the course of the nineteenth century a succession of legal reforms enacted in most states granted American married women stronger title over assets and income, yet did not grant wives complete equality within marriage. The doctrine of marital service left husbands ultimately in charge of the household and decisions about family labor supply. If husbands allowed their wives to work property

39 Joseph Warren, "Husband's Right to Wife's Services I," Harvard Law Review 38, no. 4 (1925): 421-46, Joseph Warren, "Husband's Right to Wife's Services Iii," Harvard Law Review 38, no. 5 (1925): 622-50. Although the second article listed here is given as the third in the series, this appears to be a misprint. The footnotes in III continue sequentially from I, and the articles appear in subsequent issues. See also M. Cecile Matheson, "Married Women and Their Work," Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 8, no. 1 (1926): 50-54. 40 Mary Phlegar Smith, "Legal and Administrative Restrictions Affecting the Rights of Married Women to Work," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1929): 255. See in the popular press: "Women disclose inequality in law," New York Times, 18 September 1922, p.20. 41 Joan Williams, "Do Wives Own Half? Winning for Wives after Wendt," Connecticut Law Review 32 (2000): 256-58. See also Joan Williams, Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 119-20. 42 Richard Blundell and Thomas Macurdy, "Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches," in Handbook of Labor Economics, ed. Orley Ashenfelter and David Card (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999), 1657- 72. Compare with the analysis in Elissa Braunstein and Nancy Folbre, "To Honor and Obey: Efficiency, Inequality, and Patriarchal Property Rights," Feminist Economics 7, no. 1 (2001): 25-44.

117

law reform gave wives increasing control of earnings and assets. The residual doctrine of marital service meant that in marriage women did not have full control of their own time.

Even the title of Reeve’s legal treatise suggests this. Wives stood to husbands like children to parents, wards to guardians, or servants to masters. Spouses were not equal.

Married women's property law reform in the United States

The course of married women’s property law reform in the United States can be neatly traversed by examining the multiple reprintings of Tapping Reeve’s 1816 treatise on “domestic relations.” Reeve died in 1823, and the revisions were undertaken by others to place under Reeve’s more saleable name.43 The 1846 summary of marital property law—that the husband acquired “absolute title” to his wife’s property was not terribly inaccurate, as few states had passed any form of married women's property law at this date. At each following reprinting the footnote explaining to the reader that Reeve’s original summary was contradicted by statute grew longer and longer. In 1862 the footnote merely noted that the common law right of the husband to his wife’s property “is annulled in New York and most of the other states by statute.”44 By 1888 the archaic title,

Baron and Femme had been changed to Husband and Wife, and the clause in the title about the books consideration of the chancery courts—where equity cases were adjudicated—was removed. Yet the connection of "husband and wife" with manifestly hierarchical relationships: parent and child, guardian and ward, master and servant, is suggestive in itself. Nor was this connection unique to Tapping Reeve. Other legal

43 There is no monographic work on Reeve’s life. The closest work is a history of his involvement with the Litchfield Law School: Marian C. McKenna, Tapping Reeve and the Litchfield Law School (New York: Oceana, 1986). 44 Tapping Reeve, The Law of Baron and Femme, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, and of the Powers of Courts of Chancery, 3rd ed. (Albany: William Gould, 1862), 46.

118

treatises of the time, such as James Schouler's had very similar titles.45 The original text

of the husband acquiring absolute title remained, yet the footnote contradicting Reeve’s

original summary took up more space than the original text:

The great and sweeping changes made, both in this country and England, in respect to the property rights and liabilities of married women, by what may be termed the married women’s legislation of the last half century, are too well known to extended reference in this connection. In nearly all, if not all of the states of the Union … property of a married woman belonging to her at the time of marriage, or acquired subsequently thereto, becomes and remains her separate estate, free from the interference of her husband and not liable for his debts …. This is the statement of a general rule which is subject to some slight qualifications when applied to the statutes of particular states.46

In 72 years the laws had changed so much that Reeve’s summary was nearly

entirely contradicted. As Reeve’s 1888 interlocutor, James W. Eaton, noted the general

statement that coverture had been largely abolished manifested itself in different ways in

different states. Reform of married women's property laws took three main forms.47 The initial wave of reforms granted married women control over their separate estates and property, with the first of these laws being passed in Mississippi in 1839.48 Some of the

initial acts were stimulated by the financial panic of 1837.49 In the remainder of this

45 James Schouler, Law of the Domestic Relations (Boston: Little Brown, 1905). 46 Tapping Reeve, The Law of Husband and Wife, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, 4th ed. (Albany: William Gould, 1888), 44. 47 Joan Hoff, Law, Gender and Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women (New York: New York University Press, 1991), 128. 48 Sandra Moncrief, "The Mississippi Married Women's Property Act of 1839," Journal of Mississippi History 47, no. 2 (1985): 110-25. Elizabeth Gaspar Brown, "Husband and Wife: Memorandum on the Mississippi Women's Law of 1839," Michigan Law Review 42, no. June (1944): 1110-21. 49 Richard Chused, "Late Nineteenth Century Married Women's Property Law: Reception of the Early Married Women's Property Acts by Courts and Legislatures," American Journal of Legal History 29, no. 1 (1985): 4.

119

paper, I refer to these acts as the "property acts," as they dealt with the control and ownership of assets. A second phase of reform—beginning in Maine in 1857—allowed

married women to exercise some control over their earnings in the labor market. In a

third aspect of reforms, states allowed married women to operate as sole traders,

independent of their husbands.

Scholars disagree about the effective date of passage of the married women’s

property laws. For example, Joan Hoff’s 1991 book Law, Gender and Injustice traces

some acts as far back as an 1811 Ohio law permitting wives to be sole traders,

contradicting the textbook women’s history narrative that grants Mississippi’s 1839 law

first place.50 Conversely, Khan’s research ignores these earlier laws, and indicates that

Maine’s 1844 combined sole trade and property legislation was the first effective married

women's property act. Geddes and Lueck’s recent work on the state-level determinants of

property law reform proposes yet another set of dates.51 The disagreement stems not from

a failure of basic research in historical legislation identifying when laws were passed, but

division over when effective laws were passed. For example, some sole trade legislation

required that a woman place an advertisement in a newspaper stating her intention to take

advantage of the legislation (See Figure 2.1).52 This was a barrier to married women’s

50 For attribution of the first act to Mississippi, see inter alia Christine A. Lunardini and Catherine Clinton, The Columbia Guide to American Women in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 63. Laura Edwards, Scarlett Doesn't Live Here Anymore: Southern Women in the Civil War Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 29. For evidence that Arkansas Territory passed an act in 1835, four years before Mississippi, see Richard Chused, "Married Women's Property Law: 1800-1850," Georgetown Law Journal 71 (1983): 1398-400. On the Arkansas act, see Michael B. Dougan, "The Arkansas Married Woman's Property Law," Arkansas Historical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (1987). 51 See the Appendix to Geddes and Lueck, "The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights." Working paper version: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=236012. [Accessed: 18 September 2005]. 52 Smith, "Legal and Administrative Restrictions Affecting the Rights of Married Women to Work," 260. This article noted that in some states wives had to receive a judge's permission to be a soletrader. In

120

independent trading, reinforcing the control of husbands over wives labor. Legal details mattered, as they imposed transaction costs on wives who wanted to deviate from the default presumption of a husband’s control of his wife’s labor.

The passage from coverture to constrained choice in married women's property rights took over a century. In the vast majority of states legislation about different types of property passed separately, and was then revised. For example, Hoff identifies only three states that passed all their acts in the same year (Colorado, Montana, and Utah).

Compared to Khan, Hoff is more likely to cite the earliest version of an act, whereas

Khan cites the dates of passage of laws that gave women some level of substantive control over property. Despite this, Khan only identifies 12 states which passed all their laws in the same year ( California, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi,

Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming).

Married women’s property law reform was repeatedly reformed and clarified in most states in the course of the nineteenth century.

Laws about title and control of assets were revised the most frequently, with different aspects of ownership being reformed separately. According to Hoff acts dealing purely with ownership of property can be further sub-divided into four different classes:

• Debt-free estates • Separate estates • Wills • Personal estate access.53

Wisconsin the wife had to prove to a judge that her husband was unable to support her by reason of drunkenness, disability, or otherwise before she could be a soletrader. 53 Hoff, Law, Gender and Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women, 129, 377-82, Zeigler, "Wifely Duties: Marriage, Labor and the Common Law in Nineteenth-Century America," 64, 72-3.

121

The laws which—following Khan—I refer to as "property acts” are the acts Hoff

distinguishes as dealing with debt-free estates and separate estates. Respectively, these

pieces of legislation enabled women to inherit property unencumbered by any debts their

husbands might have had, and to hold separate title to property. While these property acts

gave women title to their estates within marriage, some legislation did not give women

control over the property.54 Legislation reforming married women's ability to will

property generally made the change from a regime where women could not will property

without their husband's consent to a regime where married women could will their

separate property without their husband's involvement. Personal estate access acts gave

widows greater access to proceeds from their husbands estate before creditors could use

the estate to meet any debts the husband had.

Historiography

The early historiography of the property acts largely focused on the property and

estate acts.55 Recent scholarship has begun to show that the most potentially significant

legislation were the earnings acts.56 This is borne out by the mid-nineteenth-century

census enumeration of wealth. In 1850, just one third of one percent of white married

54 Lazarou, "Concealed under Petticoats: Married Women's Property and the Law of Texas, 1840-1913", 13. 55 Norma Basch, "The Emerging Legal History of Women in the United States: Property, Divorce, and the Constitution," Signs 12 (1986): 97-117. Chused, "Late Nineteenth Century Married Women's Property Law: Reception of the Early Married Women's Property Acts by Courts and Legislatures," 129-51, Marylynn Salmon, "The Legal Status of Women in Early America: A Reappraisal," Law and History Review 1, no. 1 (1983). 56 Beginning with Amy Dru Stanley’s work, and continuing into the work be legal historians Siegel and Sillbaugh: Siegel, "Home as Work: The First Woman's Rights Claims Concerning Wives' Household Labor, 1850-1880.", Siegel, "The Modernization of Marital Status Law: Adjudicating Wives' Rights to Earnings, 1860-1930.", Reva B. Siegel, "Valuing Housework - Nineteenth-Century Anxieties About the Commodification of Domestic Labor," American Behavioral Scientist 41, no. 10 (1998), Silbaugh, "Turning Labor into Love: Housework and the Law."

122

women reported any real estate wealth. While this figure advanced to 0.77 percent in

1860, and 1.45 percent in 1870, the proportion of white married women reporting wealth

was small. In 1860 and 1870, a broader measure of wealth—personal property—was also

enumerated. White married women's wealth holding on this measure advanced from 0.92

percent in 1860 to 1.58 percent in 1870. By contrast, even in 1860 and 1870 at least 4

percent of married women were working outside the home—more than twice the

proportion of women who said they held even a little property. It is likely that this

comparison understates the difference between wealth holding by women and labor force

participation. On the one side, it is nearly universally agreed that the nineteenth century

American census under-counted women's work.57 Conversely, census estimates of wealth

were quite accurate, or somewhat overstated.58 It is unsurprising that the census would report few women holding real or other wealth with reforms to property laws only recently enacted, or not enacted at all by 1870. From 1850 to 1870 just over a quarter of white married men reported owning real property, while two in every five white husbands reported having some form of wealth in 1860 and 1870. Reform of property laws had the potential to affect the intra-family claim on wealth for a significant minority of American families.

The motivation of male legislators for introducing the married women's property acts was not to strike a blow for female equality. While reform of property law was an

57 Folbre, "The Unproductive Housewife: Her Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Economic Thought.", Lisa Geib-Gunderson, Uncovering the Hidden Work of Women in Family Businesses: A History of Census Undernumeration, Garland Studies in the History of American Labor (New York: Garland, 1998). Susan B. Carter and Richard Sutch, "Fixing the Facts: Editing of the 1880 U.S. Census of Occupations with Implications for Long-Term Labor-Force Trends and the Sociology of Official Statistics," Historical Methods 29, no. 1 (1996). 58 Joshua L. Rosenbloom and Gregory W. Stutes. "Reexamining the distribution of wealth in 1870" University of Kansas. Working papers series in theoretical and applied economics. Number 200501. January 25, 2005.

123

object of nineteenth-century feminists, in general their lobbying efforts were not the

primary reason for the passage of laws. The initial wave of reforms—the property laws

that gave married women title to their separate property and estates—were motivated in

part by the periodic financial crises of the nineteenth-century American economy. By

securing married women's continuing title to assets they brought with them into a

marriage, married women had some possibility of financial fallback if their husband were

to die, desert or divorce them. The public interest in protecting married women's property

from the claims of their husband's creditor was to minimize calls by widows on public

assistance. In short, married women's property reform was a form of welfare policy.59

Another motivation for married women's property law reform was attracting families to western territories. Legal historian Richard Chused analyzed the mid- nineteenth century Congressional debates on the Oregon donation acts, and found that

Congress wanted to attract women to the Oregon territory by granting married men twice the land of single men, with half the couple’s land held by the wife. The Donation Acts provided that women could use and transfer the property without their husband’s consent, and the land was immune to the claims of her husband’s creditors if he died encumbered with debts.60 The Oregon Donation Act was a rare piece of federal legislation expanding

married women’s property rights. Most legislation and litigation regarding married

women's property rights took place at the state level. The limited examples of federal

action on married women’s property rights were all relatively liberal. Congress passed a

married woman’s property act for the District of Columbia in 1869 that was described by

59 Lazarou, "Concealed under Petticoats: Married Women's Property and the Law of Texas, 1840-1913". 60 Richard Chused, "The Oregon Donation Act of 1850 and Nineteenth Century Federal Married Women's Property Law," Law and History Review 2, no. 1 (1985): 44-78. See also U.S. House of Representatives, The Public Domain: Its History, With Statistics, (Washington D.C., 1881): 296.

124

a contemporary scholar as “one of the most radical on this subject …. [granting] a married woman … all the legal rights and powers of a single woman.”61

Whereas the British Married Women's Property acts of 1870 and 1882 occasioned a great deal of interested comment in the press, pamphlets and broadsides of the time, a striking aspect of the American reforms was a lack of interest by the press and contemporary commentators. One index of greater public awareness of the British Acts may be Oscar Wilde's reference to the Acts in An Ideal Husband, where Mrs Allonby argues that "All men are married women’s property. That is the only true definition of what married women's property really is. But we don’t belong to any one."62 When legislation appears in the theater it is almost certainly well known.

By contrast, the American press barely covered the numerous reforms to married women's property acts in the various states. The New York Times, for example, scarcely covered the passage of the New York state earnings act in 1860, reprinting the text of the act but providing no report of the debate, commentary, or letters.63 While historians view the New York earnings act of 1860 as a model for later acts in other states, it was not regarded as an important piece of legislation by contemporaries. Indeed, writing in 1891 the American feminists Annie Meyer and Julia Howe commented about the reform of property law that "the emancipation of married women has been gradually, silently, successfully accomplished."64

61 Henry Hitchcock, "Modern Legislation Touching Marital Property Rights," Journal of Social Science, no. 13 (1881): 29. 62 Oscar Wilde, An Ideal Husband: A Woman of No Importance, (Boni & Liveright, New York, 1919): 153. 63 "Rights of Married Women: An Act Concerning the Rights and Liabilities of Husband and Wife," New York Times. March 21 1860, p.5. 64 Emphasis added. Annie Nathan Meyer and Julia Ward Howe, Woman's Work in America (New York: Henry Holt, 1891), 447.

125

Historiography of consequences

Despite the relative silence of contemporaries, historians since the 1970s have

taken with enthusiasm to studying the nineteenth century married women's property acts

in both the United States and Great Britain. The literature has grown sufficiently to

encompass both synthesis and challenge to the synthesis.65 The first wave of

historiography in the 1970s and 1980s largely looked at the campaigns to achieve

property law reform, and evaluated their impact as instruments and objects of women’s

political organization.66 As the acts had been passed, despite women’s lack of political

rights, perforce they were some sort of success. The first historical assessments of the

consequences of the acts concluded that their impact was selective and limited.67 The only women who benefited were women with property, and change occurred only slowly even for them. For example, Norma Basch writes that "the married women's property acts failed to make … a significant alteration [in the patriarchal family] One reason for the failure of the statutes was the common law doctrine of marital unity."68 Basch is not

alone in emphasizing that while the text of the acts could have been construed liberally,

they were largely interpreted in the most conservative manner possible. Sandra

vanBurkleo argues that it took sixty years—until 1908—for the New York Court to

acknowledge that the legislature may actually have intended to give married women

65 Shammas, "Re-assessing the Married Women's Property Acts." Zeigler, "Uniformity and Conformity: Regionalism and the Adjudication of the Married Women's Property Acts," 467-95. 66 e.g; Basch In the Eyes of the Law. 67 Richard Chused, "Married Women's Property and Inheritance by Widows in Massachusetts: A Study of Wills Probated between 1800 and 1850," Berkeley Women's Law Journal (1986): 42-88, Michael Dahlin, Carole Shammas, and Marylynn Salmon, Inheritance in America from Colonial Times to the Present (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). Norma Basch, "Invisible Women: The Legal Fiction of Marital Unity in Nineteenth-Century America," Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 346-47. Carole Shammas, "Re- Assessing the Married Women's Property Acts," Journal of Women's History 6, no. 1 (1994): 16-21. 68 Basch, "Invisible Women: The Legal Fiction of Marital Unity in Nineteenth-Century America," 346-47.

126

control over property and earnings. In the interim, they ruled that married women " may elect to labor on her own account and thereby entitle herself to her earnings, but in the absence of such an election …. the husband’s common law rights to her earnings remains unaffected." In other words, if a woman did not explicitly state that she would retain

control of her earnings, it was presumed that her husband did. In 1895, the New York

court hardened this view into the notion that by getting married a woman assented to her

husband's claim on her labor, and gave up her title to earnings. 69 What was true for New

York was also true in other jurisdictions. Zeigler has argued that the jurisprudence of the

married women's property acts was remarkably uniform across the United States, and that

the doctrine of marital service retarded the property acts from having any immediate

effect on women’s situation.70 While Zeigler blames the courts for using marital service

obligations to undermine the liberalizing intentions of property law statutes, Kathleen

Sullivan argues that legislatures did not intend to transform the hierarchical family.

Judges adherence to marital service doctrine was a way to preserve the unity of the

family when the property acts gave both spouses an individual legal identity.71

By contrast with the early historiography, more recent quantitative assessments

show that married women did benefit from the passage of the acts. After reviewing

historians’ pessimism about the acts’ consequences, Shammas uses studies of

probating—property willed at death—to show that women’s share of probated wealth,

and the proportion of women among people leaving wealth, rose rapidly between 1860

69 Sandra F. Vanburkleo. Belonging to the World. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001): 134-135. 70 Zeigler, "Wifely Duties: Marriage, Labor and the Common Law in Nineteenth-Century America." 71 Kathleen Sullivan, "Liberalism's Domesticity: The Common-Law Domestic Relations as Liberal Social Ordering" (PhD, University of Texas, 2002).

127

and 1900, soon after acts were passed.72 Similarly, economic historian B. Zorina Khan argues that the property acts had a substantial act on women's inventive activity. Khan argues that women did respond to the changes in incentives provided by the acts. She finds that states that reformed married women's property acts saw more rapid increases in women's filing of patents, and had a higher absolute level of patenting by women even after controlling for state characteristics such as the level of industrialization and urbanization.73

While Khan's paper is the only scholarly work on the economic consequences of the nineteenth-century American property acts, similar acts were passed in Britain and

Canada.74 Research on women's wealth holding and business ownership after the British and Canadian acts suggests that the acts did have some effect on women's economic behavior and status. In Britain, Mary Beth Combs finds that “women shifted the majority of their wealth-holding into forms of property that they could legally control during

marriage.”75 Combs uses a research design that exploits the differential treatment of

72 Shammas, "Re-Assessing the Married Women's Property Acts." 16-21. 73 Khan, "Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790-1895." 74 Constance B. Backhouse, "Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth-Century Canada," Law and History Review 6, no. 2 (1988): 211-57. Much of the research has concentrated on Ontario. See, for example: Anne Lorene Chambers, Married Women and Property Law in Victorian Ontario (Toronto: Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and University of Toronto Press, 1997), Lee Holcombe, Wives and Property: Reform of the Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth Century England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983). remains the standard work on the politics of the British acts. Acts in the Australian colonies and New Zealand were, as in Canada, more directly and admittedly influenced by British practice than in the American states. See Bettina Bradbury, "From Civil Death to Separate Property: Changes in the Legal Rights of Married Women in Nineteenth-Century New Zealand," New Zealand Journal of History [New Zealand] 29, no. 1 (1995), Hilary Golde and Diane Kirkby, "Mrs. Mayne and Her Boxing Kangaroo: A Married Woman Tests Her Property Rights in Colonial New South Wales," Law and History Review 21, no. 3 (2003). 75 M. B. Combs, "Cui Bono? The 1870 British Married Women's Property Act, Bargaining Power, and the Distribution of Resources within Marriage," Feminist Economics 12, no. 1 (2006), Mary Beth Combs, "A Measure of Legal Independence": The 1870 Married Women's Property Act and the Portfolio Allocations of British Wives," Journal of Economic History 65, no. 4 (2005), Mary Beth Combs, "Wives and

128

already-married and newly-married women under the British laws, allowing her to attribute the change in behavior between groups to the effects of the property law

reforms. In Canada, Inwood finds that property ownership by women in Guelph (Ontario)

grew more rapidly after the passage of married women's property legislation.76 Peter

Baskerville compares women's investments in Victoria (British Columbia) and Hamilton

(Ontario), and also finds that after property law reform, married women's investments grew more rapidly than before.77 Both Inwood and Baskerville acknowledge that the

design of their research is not ideal for attributing causality to the property acts, yet the

rapid growth in property ownership following the acts is suggestive of some effect. In

summary, on some specific measures of economic activity there is clear evidence that

married women's property law reform had an impact on women's economic behavior, yet

it is still not clear how widely those changes rippled through American society.

New evidence on the consequences of reform

I extend the existing literature on the effects of the property in three ways. First I

estimate the effect of property and earnings law reform on married women's chances of

having a gainful occupation recorded in the census. Second, for women who are already

in the labor market, I examine whether the passage of sole-trader acts increased their

chances of being sole-traders. Finally, I look at the consequences of the property acts for

Household Wealth: The Impact of the 1870 British Married Women's Property Act on Wealth-Holding and Share of Household Resources," Continuity and Change 19, no. 1 (2004). 76 Susan Ingram and Kris Inwood, "Property Ownership by Married Women in Victorian Ontario," Dalhousie Law Journal 23 (2000): 405-49, Kris Inwood and Sarah VanSligtenhorst, "The Social Consequences of Legal Reform: Women and Property in a Canadian Community," Continuity and Change 19, no. 1 (2004): 165-97. 77 Peter Baskerville, "Women and Investment in Late-Nineteenth-Century Urban Canada: Victoria and Hamilton, 1880-1901," Canadian Historical Review [Canada] 80, no. 2 (1999).

129

young women's education and marriage behavior, and the long-term effects of those decisions in the early twentieth century. To investigate these issues, I use data from the decennial censuses of the United States from 1870-1900, available in the IPUMS.78

Women's occupations were not enumerated by the American census until 1860, making it impossible to estimate the effect of changes in laws during the 1850s. Only a small number of states passed acts in the 1860s, making it statistically difficult to estimate the impact of acts in this decade.79 Thus, I focus on changes from 1870 to 1880, and 1880 to

1900.

For consistency with previous research in economic history, I use Khan's list of

legal changes, and the dating of the legislation by Joan Hoff that is more widely cited by

scholars in gender and legal history. Although Hoff and Khan disagree on the dates of

passage of legislation in some states, the substantive results I obtain are not sensitive to

the assignment of particular states to particular decades. This serves as some form of

check on the robustness of the underlying results. The extent of Hoff and Khan's

disagreement on when states passed effective legislation can be seen in Table 2.1. Note,

however, that for the estimation of the impact of the laws from census data, it only matter

that they agree on the decade of passage, or for the 1880s and 1890s on the effective act

being passed in that twenty year period. In summary, they agree on the dates of passage

of sole trader acts in just 20 states; on the passage of earnings acts in 29 states, and on the passage of property acts in 25 states. Further disagreement on the dating of the property acts can be seen in Geddes and Lueck's 2002 AER article on the state-level determinants

78 Steven Ruggles et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 ([Machine-readable database] Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor], 2004). 79 Technically, there is collinearity between the dummy variables for passing acts in particular decades and the dummy variables identifying the second year in the sample.

130

of the dates of passage of married women's property law reform.80 The disagreement

among scholars about the effective dates of passage is in some ways illustrative of the

convoluted process of property law reform.

Legal change and labor force participation

Reform of the married women's property laws was a national trend, yet certain

regional patterns are evident. States in the Northeast, Midwest, and West were more

likely to have passed legislation at a given date than were states in the south. Midwestern

and Western states that came into the union during the nineteenth century sometimes

incorporated protection for married women's property rights in their state constitutions.81

While states in the South were less likely to have passed married women reforms, overall

married women's labor force participation rates in the South were somewhat higher. This

is entirely attributable to the greater proportion of black women in the Southern

population and labor force, since white women's participation in the South was lower

than in other regions of the country. To disentangle the effects of race and legal reform, I

estimate the changes in labor force participation conditional on legal reform separately

for black and white women.

The dates of passage of married women's property laws give a somewhat

optimistic picture of the number of married women affected by the legislation. Many of

the Midwestern and Western states that were in the vanguard of legal reform had small

populations, and the Eastern and Southern states that lagged somewhat behind in passing

80 Geddes and Lueck 81 See, for example: Report of the debates and proceedings of the Convention for the revision of the constitution of the state of Indiana. 1850. (Indianapolis, (IN). A. H. Brown, printer to the Convention, 1850-51). Available at Making of America. http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/. [Accessed 23 April 2006]

131

legal reforms had more married women living there (Table 2.2). The critical decade for the earnings acts, in particular, was the 1870s when the proportion of women covered by earnings acts more than doubled. Many of these acts were passed in conjunction with, or influenced by, the efforts of radical Republicans during Reconstruction.82

Examining how labor force participation varied by the laws in effect at the decennial census dates shows the influence of the racial composition of the labor force.

Labor force participation was higher in states that did not have earnings or property laws

(Table 2.3 and 2.4). When we examine white married women alone, the differences between legal regimes narrow significantly; reflecting the overall low level of white women's labor force participation. No consistent conclusion on the influence of legislation can be taken from this table. Turning to simple comparisons of changes in labor force participation and changes in earnings legislation, there is again no clear impact of the legislation for whites. The overall level of labor force participation is low, and the differences between states are small. Black labor force participation was somewhat higher in the south, where there was less likely to be married women's property law reform, giving the impression that legislation actually had a negative effect on black women's participation in paid work (Table 2.5 and 2.6).

Difference-in-differences estimates: earnings and property laws

To make sense of these conflicting influences on married women's labor force participation I estimate a probit model of women's labor force participation that controls

82 Lebsock.

132

for individual and household factors affecting a woman's decision to work, state legal

reform measures, and the extent of urbanization and manufacturing within a state to

reflect both the possibilities for women's work outside the home, and the influence of the

urbanization and industry on legal reform itself.83 The analyses include all married

women between the ages of 16 and 70 whose spouses were present in the household. The

models are estimated for all women, and then separately for white women and black

women. Because of the small population size of other racial groups I do not estimate

models separately for Asian or Native American groups.

Setting other variables equal to their mean, I then estimate the probability for

different years (1870, 1880, 1900) and different legal regimes (no earnings law, earnings

law in effect in both time periods, and earnings law introduced). Using these predicted

probabilities I then compute the difference over time in married women's labor force participation between states that had no earnings laws, and states that introduced earnings

laws. This is the "difference in differences" estimate.

The intuition and assumptions behind the difference in differences approach are

straightforward.84 Differences-in-differences estimation has become a common strategy

for applied research in labor economics in the United States. The existence of fifty states

making varying policy choices over time allows the effect of policy on behavior to be

empirically tested. For example, several recent articles examine the consequences of

divorce law changes on women's labor supply. The move to no-fault divorce law is

83 See Geddes and Lueck, "The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights." and Gignesi, "Relinquishing Control: The Married Women's Property Acts in Mid-Nineteenth Century America". 84 Meyer (1995) and Blundell and Costas Dias (2001) are concise introductions to differences in differences.

133

generally agreed to have increased American women's labor supply.85 In other words,

changes in family law do matter for the decisions families make. In the economic history

literature difference-in-differences has been used to show that child labor laws had little

effect on the reduction in child labor supply in the early twentieth century.86

Historians may wonder why go to the trouble of using a more complex method when simpler ones are available. We are interested in finding out what the impact of passing a married women's property law is on married women's propensity to work. A naïve measure of the impact would be to compare the difference in labor force participation within a single state before and after legal change. Inwood's research on the effect of the Ontario acts is an example of this research strategy.87 This method is known

as a "pre-post comparison," and has the virtue of being simple to estimate. The extension

to multiple states requires only that we average the before and after changes across states,

weighting by the numbers of women affected in each time period. This measure requires

the very strong assumptions that there are no differences among states in economic or

demographic characteristics or behavior that would affect either the possibility of legal

change, or labor force participation.

The difference in differences approach requires only the weaker assumption that

there are no factors that affect the time trend in labor force participation differently in

different states. As it happens, many married women's property acts were introduced

85 Katie R. Genadek, Wendy A. Stock, and Christiana Stoddard, "No-Fault Divorce Laws and the Labor Supply of Women with and without Children," Journal of Human Resources 42, no. 1 (2007): 247-74, Jeffrey S. Grey, "Divorce Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married Women's Labor Supply," American Economic Review 88, no. 3 (1998): 628-42. 86 Carolyn M. Moehling, "State Child Labor Laws and the Decline of Child Labor," Explorations in Economic History 36, no. 1 (1999). 87 Ingram and Inwood, "Property Ownership by Married Women in Victorian Ontario.", Inwood and VanSligtenhorst, "The Social Consequences of Legal Reform: Women and Property in a Canadian Community."

134

during Reconstruction when even this weaker assumption may not hold.88 It may be that

married women in southern states were more likely to go out to work during the 1870s

because of economic conditions unrelated to the passage of property laws. Yet we can

test this assumption by estimating the impact of property laws for northern and southern

states separately. It turns out there is little difference for white women in the north and the south.

An illustration of the difference in differences approach can be seen in Figure 2.2.

The dates, states and levels of labor force participation are entirely illustrative. The

concept is perhaps clearer to understand by using neighboring states as examples, since

we can imagine that women living in Danville (IL) and Lafayette (IN), for example, are

part of relatively similar societies, except for the state line between them. Families that

migrated to this area might well have been indifferent between Indiana and Illinois per

se, instead choosing where to live in the area on grounds unrelated to the states. It is also

possible to imagine that the families in this area were relatively similar, and might have

acted in the same way had the laws been the same. The ideal estimate of the effect of a

policy like property law reform would be to see how the same family reacted to different

laws at the same time. Then we could we sure that the only thing changing the family's

behavior was the different law. However, this ideal is impossible as we cannot observe

the same family living parallel lives under two different laws in the same place at one

time. Therefore, in order to estimate the effect of the laws we have to compare similar-

looking families under different laws, and assume that what we do not know about the

88 Lebsock on the south.

135

families does not affect how they behave—that only the difference in the laws affects

what they do.89

In the illustration, the level of labor force participation by married women is

always higher in Indiana than in Illinois, and is 0.4 percentage points higher in 1870 (5

compared to 4.6). Assume that Illinois introduces a married women's property law in

1873. At the next census in 1880, 5.5 per cent of Indiana wives are working, and 5.4 per

cent of Illinois wives. In the decade Illinois wives increased their participation by 0.8

percentage points, and Indiana wives by 0.5 percentage points.

The difference in differences estimate is that introducing a married women's

property law increased labor force participation by 0.3 percentage points. This change of

0.3 percentage points can be expressed in two ways:

(IN1880 – IL1880) – (IN1870 – IL1870)

(5.5 – 5.4) – (5.0 – 4.6) (1)

(IL1880 – IL1870) – (IN1880 – IN1870)

(5.4 – 4.6) – (5.5 – 5.0) (2)

By taking out the initial difference in 1870 we are able to "take care" of any state- specific factors that do not change over time, and by comparing multiple states across the same time period we are able to eliminate any changes over time that affect states uniformly. This leaves us with a purer estimate of the effect of property law reform that will not be affected by other historical changes.

89 This summary of the logic of difference-in-differences is derived from inter alia A. Colin Cameron and Pravin K. Travedi, Microeconometrics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 55-57, 878-79.

136

Results: Earnings and property acts

For both black and white women I find small effects on labor force participation

of the introduction of earnings and property laws. The tables refer to the estimates using the dates used by Khan, which were similar to the results using Hoff's dates. Estimates

for the earnings and property law effects do not change substantially with the inclusion of

state fixed effects. The effect of other demographic and economic controls included in the

models are similar across models. The impact of earnings laws was neither substantively large, nor statistically significant, leaving the conclusion that the impact of the laws on

married women's labor force participation was trivial if there was any effect at all (Tables

2.7 and 2.8). For black women, the magnitude of the effect of legislation appears to be

substantially greater between 1880 and 1900. However, this result is entirely due to the

passage of legislation in four states with tiny black populations—Nebraska, Oregon,

Utah, and Washington.90 While there was an increase in black married women's labor

force participation in those states consistent with the estimated effect, it is not clear that

this result can be generalized to other states. It is quite unlikely that the assumption that

nothing else was affecting labor force participation holds in this case. The small number

of black women who lived in the west were likely to have been different than black

women living elsewhere in the country.91 If we compare states that had laws before

90 In 1880 these states had the following numbers of black married women (16 and over): Nebraska: 706, Oregon: 560, Utah: 303, and Washington: 1289. The total number of black married women in the West or Mountain states was 15,930. (Own calculations from the complete-count United States census). The contemporary tabulations from the 1900 census do not provide sex-marital status-color by state tables. 91 There has been comparatively little research on blacks in the American west before World War II, compared to the other major regions of the United States. See Douglas Flamming, Bound for Freedom: Black Los Angeles in Jim Crow America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), Quintard Taylor, In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 1528-1990 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998).

137

1880 with states that continued to have no laws, the estimated effect for black women is

similar to that for white women: essentially zero.

Despite the disagreement about the dates of passage of the earnings laws, the

difference in difference estimates are substantially similar when using the dates given by

Hoff or the dates given by Khan. Using both sets of dates, there is an apparently large

impact of introducing earnings laws for non-farm black women in the last two decades of

the nineteenth century. However, in both cases the estimate is based on a tiny number of

non-farm black women living in western and mountain states, for which Hoff and Khan

basically agree on the dates legislation was passed. By 1900, while there are somewhat

more non-farm black women in these states, and the estimates of labor force participation

are not subject to huge standard errors, the comparison is still affected by the near total

absence of black women from these states in the first period. Comparing the change in

labor force participation between states that had laws prior to 1880, with the change in

labor force participation in states that had no laws until after 1900—these states having

much larger black populations—the effect of having an earnings law is insignificantly

different from zero.

Results: Keeping boarders as a form of labor force participation

Boarding and lodging was common in the United States in the late nineteenth

century, and there is ample qualitative evidence that the day-to-day responsibility for

looking after boarders was left to wives.92 Census enumerators were instructed not to

92 See, for example, Joan M. Jensen, "Cloth, Butter and Boarders: Women's Household Production for the Market," Review of Radical Political Economics 12, no. 2 (1980), Barbara Laslett, "Women's Work in Late-Nineteenth-Century Los Angeles: Class, Gender and the Culture of New Womanhood," Continuity and Change 5, no. 3 (1990), Modell and Hareven, "Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An

138

record wives who looked after boarders as gainfully employed. The wording of the

instructions in 1920 hint at the contemporary understanding of women's role in the family

economy:

Keeping boarders or lodgers should be returned as an occupation if the person engaged in it relies upon it as his (or her) principal means of support or principal source of income. In that case the return should be keeper—boarding house or keeper—lodging house. If, however, a family keeps a few boarders or roomers merely as a means of supplementing or eking out the earnings or income obtained from other occupations or from other sources, no one in the family should be returned as a boarding or lodging house keeper.93

The placement of "his" before "(or her)" show quite clearly that running a large boarding

house was a gainful occupation, but keeping a few was pin-money for women, and not

really an occupation. Despite this convention about recording occupations, the census samples allow us to determine who kept boarders through information about relationships among household members.

From 1880 the American census asked about the relationship of every respondent to the head of household.94 Census enumerators typically wrote down the occupants of a

household with a primary family listed first: head, wife and children, followed by any

extended family members, and then people unrelated to the head of household, such as

visitors, employees and boarders and lodgers. While it is possible to make an informed

Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families.", Mark Peel, "On the Margins: Lodgers and Boarders in Boston, 1860-1900," Journal of American History 72, no. 4 (1986), Susan L. Richards, "Making Home Pay: Italian and Scottish Boardinghouse Keepers in Barre, 1880-1918," Vermont History 74, no. Winter/Spring (2006), Robert V. Robinson, "Making Ends Meet: Wives and Children in the Family Economy of Indianapolis, 1860-1920of Indianapolis, 1860-1920," Indiana Magazine of History 92, no. 3 (1996). 93 1920 Census, Instructions to Enumerators. Available: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/inst1920.shtml. 94 Steven Ruggles and Susan Brower, "The Measurement of Household and Family Composition in the United States, 1850-2000," Population and Development Review 29, no. 1 (2003).

139

guess about relationships between household members in the earlier censuses (1850-

1870) it is not possible to distinguish between visitors, boarders and employees. Whereas

the presence of boarders in the household suggests that the wife of the head of household

was looking after boarders, visitors and employees do not generate any extra income.95

Therefore, I restrict my analysis to the period from 1880 to 1900. As in the analysis with the original measures of gainful employment, I estimate labor force participation models for married women between the ages of 16 and 70, whose husbands were present. I estimate models for all married women, and then separate models for blacks and whites.

In this section I restrict the sample to women who were married to the head of household

(or, in some rare cases were the head of household), and were not living in group quarters. Women who are not married to the head of household are less likely to be earning money from the boarders living in the house. The restriction to women married to the head of household does not reduce the sample size greatly. In 1880, this sample includes 96% of all married women from 16-70, and in 1900 it includes 95%. However, the women excluded from the sample—often children or children in law of the household head, or boarders themselves—were more likely to be in the labor force than the 95% of women who were married to the household head and lived in regular households. In

1880, 13% of the excluded sample was in gainful employment compared to 4% of the women included, and in 1900 10% of the excluded women had gainful employment compared with 4% of the women included. Although the sample women—married to the head of household, and living in regular households—had lower labor force participation

95 IPUMS Users Guide, Chapter 5: "Family Inter-relationships." Available: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/chapter5/chapter5.shtml

140

rates, they are the most likely wives to have been responsible for the boarders in the

household.

Keeping boarders was common. Augmenting labor force participation rates by an

indicator of whether the family had boarders living with them more than doubles the

labor force participation rate for white married women in both 1880 and 1900. The proportionate increase in black women's labor force participation was smaller, but the

percentage increase was similar in both years (See Table 2.11). Keeping boarders was

more common in urban areas. In 1880, wives in urban areas—towns with a population

greater than 2,500—were twice as likely to have boarders or lodgers in the house. The

gap had narrowed somewhat by 1900, but the proportion of wives keeping boarders was

still about 50% higher in towns than in the country. It should also be noted that the

proportion of wives who kept boarders, and had a gainful occupation was very small.

This is suggestive of keeping boarders being a substitute for other occupations.

Unlike the gainful employment measure of labor force participation, the

proportion of families taking in boarders increased between 1880 and 1900. Augmenting

the measure of labor force participation with the indicator for keeping boarders does not

change the conclusion about the immediate effects of the earnings acts. Married women's labor force participation did not change significantly immediately after the passage of the acts. The pattern of results is very similar to the results without including boarders. White women's labor force participation decreases slightly after the passage of the property acts,

but the estimate is not statistically significant, and increases slightly after the passage of earnings acts (Table 2.12 and Table 2.13). Although the magnitude of the effects are small, the direction of the effect is in the expected direction. Property acts which

141

increased married women's ability to hold and inherit wealth are associated with slight

decreases in participation. Earnings acts which gave women greater legal title to market

labor increased participation. Similar to the estimation without including boarders,

apparently large increases in black women's labor force participation after the earnings acts are due to the small numbers in the states passing earnings laws in these two

decades.

Difference in differences estimates of sole-trader laws

The impact of introducing earnings and property laws on married women's labor force participation was small. Given the limitations of the data—lacking information on family earnings, for example—and the robustness of the results to different estimates of when legislation was passed in particular states, it appears that the most concise preliminary conclusion is that the earnings acts and property had very little effect on married women's labor force participation in nineteenth century America. At first glance, this appears to contradict the conclusions reached by Khan and Combs that women and families were sensitive to legal change; shifting their allocations of assets in response to legislation, and increasing their involvement in patenting in response to the passage of property laws. However, given the otherwise strong cultural and social restrictions on women's entry into the labor market, it is less surprising that the mere passage of these laws was not enough to bring large numbers of married women into the labor market.

What the research by Khan, Combs, and earlier authors has shown is that women and families were responsive to quite specific legal changes. Earnings laws, while plausibly the most likely to affect overall labor force participation by women, were quite general.

The response we could have observed—increased work in the marketplace—was also the

142

most prone to under-enumeration in the nineteenth century American census. There are

material incentives for people to keep accurate probate records, such as those used by

Shammas to show that women received and willed more wealth than before the property

acts.96 If a wife worked somewhat more outside the home than before, but still not full- time, there was no material incentive for her to tell the census enumerator about her extra work. Moreover, it is entirely possible that the wealth effects from the property acts dominated the incentives to enter market work from the earning acts.

It is also plausible that given a woman's existing participation in the labor market that she would adjust her activities at the intensive margin in response to earnings acts, working more hours—which we cannot detect with nineteenth century data—or adjusting occupational or entrepreneurial choices. We cannot detect changes at the intensive margin for working women in the late nineteenth century, because hours or weeks of work were not recorded in any source suitable for answering this question.97

Nevertheless, we can make some estimates about occupational shifts towards or away

from self-employment. It is to this question, of whether married women in states that

introduced sole trader legislation were more likely to become sole traders that I now turn.

Data and methodology

Sole traders cannot be definitively identified in the nineteenth-century American census. The first census to identify whether a worker was an employee, employed workers, or worked on their own account was the 1910 census, which introduced this classification of "class of worker" and has been retained in all subsequent censuses. The

96 Shammas, "Re-Assessing the Married Women's Property Acts." 97 There is

143

correlates of a married woman in the labor force being an employer or working on their own account were very stable in 1910 and 1920. Women reporting an occupation as farmers were more than 70 percentage points more likely to be employers or sole traders than the average married women in the labor force (Table 6) . Women who had an occupation classified as managerial were more than 40 percentage points more likely to be sole traders than the average married woman. 98 Introduction of other covariates

including husband's occupation and industry does not alter these results substantially.

Using the coefficients from 1910 and 1920 I then generate predicted probabilities

for being an employer or working on own account for married women in 1870, 1880 and

1900 (Table 2.14). I then use these predicted probabilities as the dependent variable in a

Heckman model, conditional on women being in the labor force. In the second stage regression I am particularly interested in the coefficients on the dummy variables for the passage of sole trade laws in the state between 1870 and 1880, or between 1880 and

1900. Conditional on being in the labor force, the main influence on being in self- employment was having the occupation "Farmer." The selection equation for labor force participation does not contain dummies for reform of sole trade laws. Using this model, I then simulate the predicted probability a married woman in the labor force will be a sole trader in the different legal regimes—states with a sole trade law before the first period, states passing a law in the period, and states with no sole-trade law until later. As in the previous section I use the dates of passage given by both Khan and Hoff.

98 Managerial occupations are part of major group 2 in the IPUMS OCC1950 classification scheme. http://www.ipums.umn.edu/usa/pwork/occ1950a.html

144

Results

While Hoff and Khan disagree on the dates of passage of effective sole-trader legislation for three-fifths of the states (Table 2.1), the variation in dates of passage has little substantive impact on the results. As with earnings laws, the passage of sole-trader laws had little conclusive effect on married women's predicted propensity to be sole- traders. In the Heckman models, the coefficients on the dummies for passage of soletrade laws are of opposite signs (Table 2.15), or differ by an order of magnitude (Table

2.16) depending on whether the dates of passage used are obtained from Hoff or Khan.

The coefficients translate into minor marginal effects of the laws, with the passage of

sole-trader legislation altering predicted probabilities of participation (with all other

variables set to their mean values) by less than four percentage points, relative to baseline

expected probabilities of being a sole trader around 30 per cent.

Difference-in-differences estimates give more consistent conclusions, despite the

divergent dates of passage for many states. As with the earnings laws, the estimated

impacts of sole-trader legislation are clustered around zero, with estimates of opposite

sign for different decades and different dates of passage. One result consistent across both sets of dates is a small decline in white married women's predicted propensity to be sole- traders between 1880 and 1900 after passage of sole-trade legislation (Table 2.17 and

Table 2.18). Hoff and Khan actually largely agree on which states passed sole trader

legislation for married women in this period—agreeing on Nebraska, Idaho, Washington,

West Virginia, Louisiana, and Utah. Hoff includes the Dakotas in this group, and Khan includes Vermont. It is likely that the explanation for declines in propensity to be sole- traders in this period, if in fact real, are unrelated to the passage of legislation. The most

145

common form of self-employment was farming, and the proportion of the labor force in agriculture was declining over the same time period as legal reform was taking place.

Moreover, as more married women entered the labor market, the marginal woman was

probably less likely than the average woman already in the labor market to become a

sole-trader.

3. Effects of property laws on young women's marriage and education Although married women’s labor force participation was not immediately

influenced by the passage of property acts, economists and historians have shown that

rising educational levels among girls in the late nineteenth century was correlated with

subsequent increases in labor force participation.99 Thus, if the passage of property acts

was immediately—within the decade—associated with declines in propensities to marry,

increasing propensity to be literate, and increasing likelihood of working outside the home while single, we can begin to connect the married women’s property acts with changing outcomes for women.

Young women were covered by the various property acts in much the same proportions as all women (See Figure 2.3). Because young women were slightly more likely to be living in western and Midwestern “frontier” states that were more likely to have passed property law reform, the coverage of the acts for young women was slightly

above the coverage rate for all women. As with overall levels of labor force participation

for women, the variation over time in young women’s propensity to marry was relatively

small. The proportion of young women ever married dropped from 65 per cent to 61 per

99 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women.

146

cent between 1880 and 1900, with estimated median ages at first marriage rising slightly

at the same time.100 Nuptiality varied less by race than labor force participation did, with parallel trends for black and white women after 1870 (cf. Figure 2.4). Comparisons of pre-Civil War marriage behavior for blacks with post-Civil War behavior is problematic.

While there was a census of slaves in 1850 and 1860, it did not collect information that

would allow identification of married couples.101

Because black and white marriage behavior followed the same trends—if not

exact levels—for women in the last three decades of the nineteenth century, I examine

the effect of property law reform on marriage behavior for black and white women

combined. States that had passed property law reform had consistently lower levels of marriage among young women for all three of the main categories of property law

reform—real and financial asset claims, earnings, and sole-trader laws (Figures 2.5-2.7).

The gap in nuptial behavior between states with and without laws is persistent and

substantial, on the order of at least five per cent in every decade. Passage of property law

reform within a state was correlated—if a state passed one law it was likely, but not

certain, to pass another. Thus, it is not clear from these figures whether we are observing

an effect of legal change, or persistent demographic differences between states that is

unrelated to legal change. The persistence of the gap as additional states reform property

laws in the last two decades of the nineteenth century suggests that at least some of the

gap in marriage behavior could be related to the passage of property law reform.

100 Catherine Fitch and Steven Ruggles, "Historical Trends in Marriage Formation," in Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, ed. Linda Waite, et al. (Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000). 101 Russell Menard, Trent Alexander, Jason Digman, and J. David Hacker. Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center, Public Use Microdata Samples of the Slave Population of 1850-1860, University of Minnesota, 2004. http://usa.ipums.org/usa/slavepums. [Accessed: 16 February 2007].

147

To disentangle the effects of persistent state level differences, individual

opportunities for marriage and property law reform I again use a difference-in-differences

approach to assess changes in marriage behavior for young women between 1870 and

1880 and 1880 and 1900. As well as controls for state and local economic characteristics,

I include measures affecting women’s marriage chances such as the local sex ratio,

dummies for individual years of age, nativity, and farm or urban residence.

In both the 1870s, and the 1880s and 1890s, passage of earnings law reform was

associated with declines in young women’s propensity to marry. The marginal effect of

passing an earnings law in the 1870s was to decrease the chances an otherwise average

young woman was married by about 2 percentage points overall. The effect was different

for blacks and whites. Following the passage of an earnings act, young white women were less likely to be married, while young black women were slightly more likely to be married. The increase in marriage chances for black women was not statistically significant. In the 1880s and 1890s, passage of an earnings law was associated with a 6-7 percentage point drop in the chances of being married for white women. The effects were again reversed, and statistically insignificant for black women. In the 1870s, passage of earnings laws was associated with slight declines in the chances a woman would be married in her 20s, and the effect grew in the 1880s (See tables 2.19 and 2.20). Results for property laws that gave married women stronger claims to their own real or financial assets showed less effect on marriage behavior, but passage of property laws was also associated with declines in young women’s propensity to be married (Tables 2.21 and

2.22). The estimate of the effect of passing earnings and property laws is quite robust to the choice of states included as a comparison group. The highlighted line in each table

148

compares states passing an act in the period to states with no act. To compare states that

passed with a new act with states with an existing act we subtract the row above the

highlighted interaction term. In all the estimates this term to be subtracted is close to

zero, establishing that the passage of the new law was the significant event, not the

existence of the law.

How important was a 6-7 percent fall in the chance of chance a young woman was married? For each additional year of age a woman's chance of being married increased between 2% and 9%, with the impact of the marginal year having a mean of about 5-6%. This suggests that the impact of passing earnings laws was similar to remaining unmarried for another year. About a third of white single women participated in the labor market. On average remaining unmarried an additional year gave women 3-6 months more paid work experience before marriage. If a single woman worked for ten years before marriage, an extra 3-6 months is about 5% additional work experience. For young women with a smaller gap between finishing school and getting married, 3-6 months extra work experience was even more valuable. These are back of the envelope calculations, but suggest that the impact of the property laws had an important effect on

single women's work experience in the late nineteenth century.

The passage of earnings and property laws was not associated with any change in literacy for women in their twenties, but was associated with an increase in schooling for school-age children. Women had largely completed their schooling by age 20, so we would not expect to see effects of the property acts on this older group. Results for these estimation are not included, as they were estimated solely to establish that the effects on marriage and school attendance were real. By not picking up an effect on literacy for

149

young adult women, which would be implausible, it is more likely that we are not just estimating the effects of proxy laws. The effect of changes in earnings laws on young women's literacy was statistically insignificant, and small relative to the observed level of literacy. The property and earnings acts did have an immediate and important effect on school attendance, for both boys and girls. Because schooling for black children was of varied quality, I restrict the estimates to white children.102 Schooling for children became slightly more common in the United States in the course of the late nineteenth century

(Table 2.23). Like the property laws, schooling was handled below the national level, but whereas the property laws were a state responsibility, schooling was a local one.

Nevertheless it is possible that the same factors that affected the passage of property laws could have motivated local decisions about schooling. As Geddes and Lueck, and Gignesi have shown the level of wealth in a state influenced the passage of property laws. Wealth was likely to influence schooling as well. There is a natural control group for the effect of the property laws on school attendance: single-parent families. They will be subject to the same educational trends as two-parent families, but might be less affected by the changes in family dynamics caused by the property or earnings laws. This gives us another opportunity to test the robustness of the results by seeing if children of one-parent families were similarly affected, by comparing the change in school attendance differences after the passage of laws between different types of families. School attendance will also be correlated within families. To account for this, I adjust the standard errors using the –cluster– option in Stata, and control for the number of siblings

102 James D. Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), Robert A. Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950: An Economic History, Long-Term Factors in Economic Development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

150

in the family.103 I also include controls for other variables likely to impact parent’s choices to invest in schooling for their children, such as the occupational class of the head of household, the age of the child, nativity and place of residence.104

The property laws had a substantial effect on white children's school attendance, though the difference between single and two parent families was not great. From 1870 to

1880 the proportion of white children aged 5-17 in two-parent families attending school rose from 60% to 63%, before dropping slightly to 62% in 1900 (see Table 2.23). The impact of the earnings and property laws were slightly different. The earnings laws had little effect on school attendance. After controlling for other factors the passage of a new act in the 1870s was associated with a slight decrease in children’s school attendance, though the effect is not statistically significant. In the 1880s there is a weak evidence of a slightly larger positive effect (see Table 2.24). The passage of an earnings act was associated with a rise in school attendance of 4.5 per cent in the 1880s, relative to an overall school attendance rate of around 60%. The effect was somewhat larger and stronger for girls, with the difference being statistically significant. Children living with both their parents received little additional benefit from the passage of earnings acts than children with one parent. Other variables impacting school attendance have the expected effects. The chance of school attendance rises from age 6 to age 11 and then decreases

(the omitted category are five year old children). Children living in households with literate head of households, or households headed by professional or clerical workers were 8-12 per cent more likely to attend school. Children of farmers were 1-2 per cent more likely than the average child to attend school, compared to children in households

103 Stata Corporation, Base Reference Manual K-Q (College Station: 2005). 104 Moehling, "State Child Labor Laws and the Decline of Child Labor."

151

headed by unskilled workers in manufacturing, agriculture or domestic service. Native born children were more likely to attend school, but the impact of having native born parents was slight (2-3%). Children in the south were much less likely to attend school, with the gap narrowing over time. The demographic and economic controls are of the same magnitude in the estimates for the impact of property law reform, suggesting that the equations are not mis-specified.

The impact of the property laws was greater than for earnings laws. In both the

1870-1880 and 1880-1900 periods, the passage of a new property law increased the

chances a child would attend school by 7.5 – 10 percent (see Table 2.25). The estimates

are statistically significant, and the impact is larger for girls. The larger impact for girls is consistent with the property acts increasing the incentives to invest in girls’ education.

States that passed property law reform in the 1870s through 1890s were diverse and located across all four regions of the country. With the exception of Montana and North

and South Dakota there is agreement on the decades these states passed their laws (see

Table 2.1) . They were relatively late to pass property acts, and were not community

property states. The dates of passage of their property laws relative to earnings laws

suggests we are picking up a genuine effect of the property laws on investment in

schooling. The similar magnitude of the effect in two separate time periods, for different groups of states, suggests that we are not merely picking up state fixed effects. In the

1880-1900 regression, the states that had introduced a property law in the 1870s are now

included in the control group of states with a property law. In all cases, the states either

did not pass an earnings act until after 1900, or passed the earnings act at approximately the same time. Inclusion of state fixed effects slightly reduces the significance of the

152

estimates, but not the magnitude. Moreover, the comparison to both groups of control

states—those with existing laws before the period, or states that had yet to pass laws—is similar. In Table 2.25 the time trends for states that had existing property laws are of a small magnitude and not statistically significant. This is again suggestive of a genuine effect of a new property law on investments in education.

The first cohort of white girls affected by this change in property laws—the cohort entering school in the 1870s—did not have substantially greater labor force participation later in life than earlier cohorts. The next cohort, born between 1885 and

1894 did increase their participation later in life, relative to other cohorts. In middle age, nearly ten percent of this cohort participated in the labor force, twice the rate of earlier

cohorts at the same age. The same figure, reproduced for blacks—who did not benefit

from increasing investment in schooling in the late nineteenth century—shows no

increase in labor force participation by cohort in the same periods that white women's

labor force participation increased. This suggests that the later increase in white women's

participation was not a period effect for all women.

Conclusion

Historians have argued that the nineteenth century married women's property acts

had little effect on married women's social status at the time. However, economic

historians have found that in some specific areas of economic behavior married women,

and their husbands, did alter their behavior in response to the passage of legislation. In

this chapter I find some evidence consistent with the claims of historians that the

immediate impact of the married women's property acts on married women’s behavior

was slight. Women's participation in market work did not change substantially with the

153

passage of the property acts. Married women who were already in the labor market did not appear to have substantially altered their choice between sole-trade and employee occupations in response to passage of sole-trader legislation in different states. However, young women did delay marriage in response to the passage of earnings acts. This result is consistent with the property acts increasing the incentives for unmarried women to increase their human capital investments, and obtain stronger bargaining positions within marriage. The passage of property acts was also associated with significant increases in investments in girls education in the late nineteenth century. The cohorts of girls whose education increased after the property acts were the same girls, who as married women in the early twentieth century entered the labor market at an increasing rate. While the property and earnings acts did not affect their mothers work at the time, the long run effects were significant. The married women's property acts did not alter married women’s work choices immediately, but their long run effects were significant.

154

Figure 2.1 Examples of notifications of intention to take advantage of sole-trader acts

Daily Nevada State Journal. Reno (NV), 13 June 1879 (no page numbering). Fresno Weekly Republican. Fresno (CA), 1 January 1896, p.16.

155

Figure 2.2 Illustration of difference-in-differences method

156

Figure 2.3 Coverage of property acts for women aged 20-30

157

Figure 2.4 Proportion of 20-30 year old women ever married, 1850-1920

158

Figure 2.5 Young women’s marriage behavior and earnings law reform

159

Figure 2.6 Young women’s marriage behavior and property law reform

160

Figure 2.7 Young women’s marriage behavior and sole trade law reform

161

Figure 2.8 Schooling and labor force participation by cohort for whites

162

Figure 2.9. Schooling and labor force participation for blacks

163

Table 2.1 Passage of married women's property laws State Property Earnings Soletrade Hoff Khan Hoff Khan Hoff Khan Northeast Connecticut 1849 1856 - 1877 - 1877 Maine 1844 1844 1860 1857 1828 1844 Massachusetts 1845 1845 1855 1874 1846 1860 New Hampshire 1850 1867 - - 1840 1876 New Jersey 1852 1852 1878 1874 - 1874 New York 1848 1845 1860 1860 - 1860 Pennsylvania 1848 1848 1872 1872 - - Rhode Island 1848 1848 - 1874 1841 - Vermont 1867 1881 1866 - 1846 1881 Midwest Illinois 1861 1861 1869 1861 1874 1874 Indiana 1879 1879 1879 1879 - - Iowa - 1873 1870 1870 1840 1873 Kansas 1868 1868 1868 1868 - 1868 Michigan 1855 1855 - - - - Minnesota 1869 1869 - - 1874 1874 Missouri 1849 1879 - 1879 - - Nebraska 1889 1881 - 1881 1882 1881 North Dakota 1899 1877 - 1877 1899 1877 Ohio 1861 1861 1871 1861 1811 - South Dakota 1889 1877 1887 1877 1889 1877 Wisconsin 1850 1850 - 1872 - - South Alabama 1848 1867 - - 1846 - Arkansas 1848 1873 1873 1873 1868 1868 Delaware 1865 1875 1873 1873 - - District of Columbia - 1869 - - - 1869 Florida 1855 - - - - - Georgia 1866 1873 1870 - - - Kentucky - - 1873 1873 1843 1873 Louisiana - - - - 1894 1894

164

State Property Earnings Soletrade Hoff Khan Hoff Khan Hoff Khan South Maryland 1853 1860 1860 1860 - 1860 Mississippi 1873 1871 1871 1871 - 1871 North Carolina 1850 1868 1868 1873 1828 - Oklahoma ------South Carolina 1870 1870 1870 - 1868 1870 Tennessee 1870 1870 - - 1850 - Texas 1845 - - - 1845 - Virginia 1877 1878 - - - - West Virginia 1866 1868 1891 1893 1891 1893 West Arizona - 1871 - - - 1871 California - 1872 - 1872 1874 1872 Colorado 1876 1874 1876 1874 1876 1874 Idaho 1887 1887 - - 1887 1887 Montana 1889 1872 1889 1874 1889 1874 Nevada 1873 1873 - 1873 1867 1873 New Mexico ------Oregon - - 1880 1880 1859 1880 Utah 1895 1895 1895 1895 1895 1895 Washington 1888 1889 1889 1889 1889 1889 Wyoming 1876 1876 - 1876 1882 1876

165

Table 2.2 Proportion of women covered by property acts, 1850-1900 All married women White married women Black married women* Year Earnings Property Soletrade Earnings Property Soletrade Earnings Property Soletrade

Khan (1996) dates 1850 0.000 0.371 0.030 0.000 0.300 0.010 0.000 0.347 0.007 1860 0.024 0.443 0.024 0.024 0.445 0.024 0.008 0.376 0.008 1870 0.308 0.634 0.225 0.340 0.680 0.243 0.066 0.284 0.086 1880 0.717 0.891 0.465 0.762 0.902 0.481 0.378 0.803 0.342 1900 0.737 0.892 0.530 0.779 0.906 0.541 0.382 0.790 0.435

Hoff (1991) dates 1850 0.000 0.457 0.331 0.000 0.390 0.135 0.000 0.380 0.187 1860 0.050 0.579 0.334 0.050 0.579 0.336 0.023 0.612 0.236 1870 0.314 0.750 0.349 0.337 0.783 0.334 0.137 0.498 0.468 1880 0.662 0.879 0.445 0.677 0.881 0.439 0.556 0.870 0.483 1900 0.661 0.882 0.505 0.674 0.887 0.500 0.569 0.870 0.559 * Free black women in 1850 and 1860

166

Table 2.3 Married women's labor force participation and legislation in effect Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) Status of legislation Earnings law No earnings law Property law No property law Soletrade law No soletrade law Year All married women 1860 0.038 0.043 0.031 0.051 0.038 0.043 1870 0.015 0.052 0.025 0.068 0.025 0.045 1880 0.030 0.089 0.045 0.064 0.046 0.047 1900 0.030 0.072 0.039 0.055 0.043 0.039

White married women 1860 0.039 0.041 0.030 0.05 0.039 0.041 1870 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.01 0.019 0.012 1880 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.015 0.021 0.014 1900 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.017 0.024 0.017

Black married women 1860 ------1870 0.074 0.263 0.203 0.269 0.177 0.257 1880 0.219 0.296 0.272 0.244 0.313 0.243 1900 0.184 0.228 0.217 0.191 0.244 0.186

167

Table 2.4 Married women's labor force participation and legislation in effect Dates of passage according to Hoff (1991) Status of legislation Earnings law No earnings law Property law No property law Soletrade law No soletrade law Year All married women 1860 0.022 0.044 0.042 0.043 0.052 0.038 1870 0.020 0.050 0.031 0.070 0.052 0.035 1880 0.045 0.050 0.046 0.050 0.049 0.045 1900 0.039 0.044 0.040 0.047 0.043 0.039

White married women 1860 0.021 0.042 0.040 0.043 0.051 0.036 1870 0.016 0.013 0.015 0.010 0.014 0.013 1880 0.018 0.016 0.018 0.014 0.017 0.018 1900 0.022 0.019 0.022 0.016 0.022 0.020

Black married women 1860 0.077 0.133 0.151 0.103 0.143 0.129 1870 0.101 0.274 0.230 0.270 0.259 0.242 1880 0.291 0.236 0.263 0.292 0.268 0.265 1900 0.220 0.200 0.206 0.247 0.212 0.211

168

Table 2.5 Changes in earnings laws and changes in labor force participation, 1860-1900 Dates of passage according to Khan (1996)

All White Black Non-farm white Non-farm black LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP 1860 18701860 1870 1860 1870 18601870 1860 1870 No law 0.046 0.052 0.044 0.014 0.154 0.261 0.037 0.021 0.158 0.294 New law, 1860-1870 0.030 0.009 0.029 0.008 0.048 0.048 0.024 0.011 0.040 0.055 Law pre-1860 0.041 0.020 0.039 0.018 0.112 0.087 0.034 0.020 0.118 0.080

1870 18801870 1880 1870 1880 18701880 1870 1880 No law 0.086 0.089 0.012 0.017 0.279 0.295 0.020 0.029 0.313 0.337 New law, 1870-1880 0.034 0.037 0.015 0.017 0.227 0.234 0.021 0.025 0.251 0.277 Law pre-1870 0.014 0.021 0.013 0.018 0.073 0.148 0.016 0.025 0.072 0.160

1880 19001880 1900 1880 1900 18801900 1880 1900 No law 0.097 0.072 0.017 0.021 0.297 0.228 0.030 0.029 0.340 0.262 New law, 1880-1900 0.013 0.015 0.011 0.013 0.059 0.121 0.020 0.013 -- 0.125 Law pre-1880 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.021 0.219 0.184 0.025 0.027 0.249 0.193

169

Table 2.6 Changes in earnings laws and changes in labor force participation, 1860-1900 Dates of passage according to Hoff (1991) All White Black Non-farm white Non-farm black LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP 1860 18701860 1870 1860 1870 18601870 1860 1870 No law 0.043 0.050 0.042 0.013 0.125 0.272 0.036 0.019 0.133 0.305 New law, 1860-1870 0.049 0.017 0.047 0.008 0.272 0.106 0.040 0.011 0.230 0.122 Law pre-1860 0.037 0.022 0.036 0.020 0.108 0.091 0.032 0.022 0.115 0.086

1870 18801870 1880 1870 1880 18701880 1870 1880 No law 0.048 0.050 0.014 0.016 0.217 0.236 0.023 0.028 0.243 0.269 New law, 1870-1880 0.032 0.033 0.011 0.012 0.278 0.262 0.015 0.017 0.310 0.300 Law pre-1870 0.042 0.053 0.016 0.022 0.273 0.308 0.020 0.031 0.301 0.347

1880 19001880 1900 1880 1900 18801900 1880 1900 No law 0.053 0.044 0.017 0.019 0.238 0.199 0.029 0.025 0.272 0.225 New law, 1880-1900 0.011 0.018 0.007 0.016 0.060 0.111 0.011 0.017 0.000 0.113 Law pre-1880 0.045 0.040 0.018 0.022 0.291 0.220 0.025 0.027 0.330 0.241

170

Table 2.7: Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in earnings laws, 1870-1880: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Earnings act passed before 1870 -0.0146 -0.00271 -0.00641 -0.0905 -0.123 (-7.93) (-1.79) (-2.64) (-3.82) (-4.73) Earnings act passed, 1870-1880 0.00266 0.000999 0.0000600 0.0111 0.00717 (1.41) (0.60) (0.02) (0.95) (0.51) Earnings act passed before 1870 × year is 1880 0.00252 -0.000158 -0.000373 0.108 0.148 (0.91) (-0.08) (-0.12) (2.89) (3.55) Earnings act passed, 1870-1880 × year is 1880 -0.00432 -0.00279 -0.00463 -0.00648 0.0243 (-2.12) (-1.72) (-1.70) (-0.46) (1.31) Year is 1880 0.00938 0.00539 0.00919 0.0434 0.0308 (5.78) (3.15) (3.01) (5.14) (2.99) Living in urban area 0.00506 0.00488 0.00610 0.0345 0.0388 (3.70) (4.98) (4.52) (3.16) (3.26) Living in group quarters 0.0975 0.0677 0.0888 0.324 0.213 (9.58) (7.78) (7.85) (4.12) (2.09) Age 0.00302 0.00180 0.00341 0.00622 0.0108 (9.13) (7.63) (8.08) (3.39) (4.10) Age squared -0.0000430 -0.0000239 -0.0000444 -0.000101 -0.000161 (-10.39) (-8.37) (-8.52) (-4.53) (-4.83) Spouse's age -0.00176 -0.00134 -0.00152 -0.00419 -0.00381 (-6.16) (-6.14) (-4.13) (-2.47) (-1.73) Spouse's age squared 0.0000159 0.0000121 0.0000146 0.0000354 0.0000294 (5.08) (5.13) (3.60) (1.93) (1.22) Spouse is black 0.0425 0.124 0.134 -0.0413 -0.0340 (3.04) (3.71) (2.96) (-0.95) (-0.58) Spouse is U.S. born -0.0119 -0.00532 -0.00754 -0.0930 -0.0305 (-9.02) (-7.61) (-7.09) (-1.71) (-0.47)

171

Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Spouse in labor force -0.00812 -0.0119 -0.00993 0.112 0.136 (-2.90) (-7.34) (-3.85) (4.45) (4.75) Number of own children in the household -0.00807 -0.00553 -0.00817 -0.0248 -0.0261 (-23.85) (-19.03) (-17.32) (-12.57) (-10.09) Number of boys 13-19 at home -0.00520 0.00156 0.00294 -0.0620 -0.0703 (-3.82) (1.63) (1.89) (-6.89) (-5.80) Number of girls 13-19 at home -0.00824 0.00125 0.00260 -0.0812 -0.0837 (-6.38) (1.43) (1.86) (-9.76) (-7.65) Number of own boys working 0.00981 0.00212 0.00162 0.0609 0.0655 (9.11) (2.52) (1.12) (9.14) (7.11) Number of own girls working 0.0277 0.0122 0.0134 0.119 0.133 (22.33) (10.87) (7.67) (18.89) (15.50) Community property state 0.00468 0.00334 0.00521 -0.00969 -0.000763 (2.20) (1.56) (1.43) (-0.76) (-0.05) Equity laws in effect 0.0260 0.00739 0.00900 0.123 0.146 (13.96) (5.65) (4.51) (10.84) (10.43) % 10+ in manufacturing -0.000620 0 0 -0.173 -0.225 (-0.08) (0.00) (0.00) (-2.02) (-2.28) Percentage of state population in cities over 25,000 0.0000127 0 0 0.00937 0.0125 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.21) (0.25) Sex ratio -0.000205 0 0 -0.0686 -0.0191 (-0.04) (0.00) (0.00) (-0.68) (-0.16) Black 0.0884 (4.32) Living on farm -0.0208 -0.00800 -0.112 (-23.62) (-12.58) (-18.17) Observations 147536 131793 72691 17169 11546 Average partial effects for each variable. t-statistics in parentheses.

172

Table 2.8: Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in earnings laws, 1880-1900 Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Earnings act passed before 1880 -0.0149 -0.00117 -0.00527 0.00507 0.0153 (-10.13) (-0.82) (-2.37) (0.56) (1.23) Earnings act passed, 1880-1900 -0.0229 -0.00185 -0.00390 -0.0824 -0.268 (-6.12) (-0.54) (-0.71) (-1.13) (-71.70) Earnings act passed before 1880 × year is 1900 0.00611 -0.00135 0.00232 0.00322 0.00857 (3.10) (-0.86) (0.87) (0.28) (0.54) Earnings act passed, 1880-1900 × year is 1900 0.0227 -0.00247 -0.00783 0.198 0.730 (2.47) (-0.64) (-1.42) (1.41) (195.36) Year is 1900 -0.000972 0.00423 -0.0000704 0.000623 -0.0190 (-0.68) (2.77) (-0.03) (0.09) (-1.93) Living in urban area 0.00209 0.00257 0.00268 0.0754 0.0812 (1.78) (3.06) (2.44) (8.42) (8.41) Living in group quarters 0.0698 0.0647 0.0781 0.0835 0.0339 (10.05) (9.77) (9.80) (1.30) (0.49) Age 0.00413 0.00228 0.00421 0.00791 0.0130 (14.02) (10.13) (11.30) (5.02) (5.26) Age squared -0.0000561 -0.0000299 -0.0000547 -0.000112 -0.000174 (-15.61) (-11.35) (-12.26) (-6.03) (-5.68) Spouse's age -0.00196 -0.000980 -0.00127 -0.00460 -0.00678 (-7.69) (-4.66) (-3.92) (-3.21) (-3.36) Spouse's age squared 0.0000189 0.00000929 0.0000134 0.0000429 0.0000710 (7.01) (4.24) (3.94) (2.88) (3.32) Spouse is black 0.0650 0.0848 0.0913 0.0328 -0.000149 (3.58) (3.10) (2.63) (0.63) (-0.00) Spouse is U.S. born -0.00483 -0.00353 -0.00552 -0.0404 0.00314 (-4.27) (-5.10) (-5.67) (-1.01) (0.07)

173

Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Spouse in labor force -0.00352 -0.0159 -0.0168 0.0634 0.0768 (-1.65) (-11.85) (-8.64) (3.24) (3.27) Number of own children in the household -0.00867 -0.00574 -0.00866 -0.0214 -0.0232 (-29.02) (-22.43) (-21.70) (-13.06) (-9.51) Number of boys 13-19 at home -0.00235 0.00203 0.00399 -0.0289 -0.0193 (-2.15) (2.56) (3.27) (-4.08) (-1.74) Number of girls 13-19 at home -0.00469 0.00243 0.00510 -0.0480 -0.0397 (-4.49) (3.25) (4.46) (-7.33) (-3.99) Number of own boys working 0.00968 0.00272 0.00303 0.0381 0.0374 (11.00) (4.05) (2.80) (7.14) (4.25) Number of own girls working 0.0292 0.0112 0.0114 0.0965 0.112 (27.97) (12.77) (8.76) (18.56) (12.32) Community property state 0.0187 0.000254 -0.00106 0.0223 0.0226 (10.53) (0.18) (-0.50) (2.17) (1.64) Equity laws in effect 0.0254 0.0112 0.0127 0.108 0.126 (15.45) (9.22) (7.54) (11.47) (9.82) % 10+ in manufacturing 0.00000137 0 0 -0.0884 -0.128 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (-1.41) (-1.66) Percentage of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.0000144 0 0 0.00133 0.00285 (-0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.04) (0.08) Sex ratio 0.00230 0 0 -1.104 -0.386 (1.45) (0.00) (0.00) (-12.48) (-3.28) Black 0.0808 (4.00) Living on farm -0.0166 -0.0104 -0.0744 (-18.60) (-17.32) (-13.23) Observations 228093 194876 116748 23132 12891 Average partial effects for each variable. t-statistics in parentheses.

174

Table 2.9 Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in property laws, 1870-1880: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Property act passed before 1870 -0.00622 -0.00551 -0.00616 0.0118 0.0512 (-2.48) (-2.99) (-1.82) (0.65) (2.24) Property act passed, 1870-1880 -0.00383 -0.00537 -0.00448 0.00466 0.0412 (-1.37) (-2.73) (-1.10) (0.24) (1.64) Property act passed before 1870 × year is 1880 -0.000336 0.00210 -0.00212 0.0158 0.0240 (-0.11) (0.86) (-0.55) (0.80) (0.99) Property act passed, 1870-1880 × year is 1880 0.000495 0.00799 0.00461 0.00295 0.0186 (0.14) (1.77) (0.70) (0.15) (0.74) Year is 1880 0.00881 0.00201 0.00862 0.0378 0.0285 (2.94) (0.88) (1.99) (2.15) (1.37) Living in urban area 0.00500 0.00479 0.00596 0.0360 0.0403 (3.66) (4.91) (4.43) (3.29) (3.38) Living in group quarters 0.0985 0.0679 0.0895 0.325 0.201 (9.60) (7.79) (7.87) (4.11) (1.96) Age 0.00303 0.00180 0.00342 0.00621 0.0109 (9.16) (7.65) (8.10) (3.38) (4.15) Age squared -0.0000431 -0.0000240 -0.0000446 -0.000100 -0.000162 (-10.43) (-8.38) (-8.55) (-4.51) (-4.85) Spouse's age -0.00180 -0.00135 -0.00154 -0.00407 -0.00353 (-6.28) (-6.19) (-4.17) (-2.40) (-1.60) Spouse's age squared 0.0000162 0.0000122 0.0000147 0.0000341 0.0000261 (5.18) (5.17) (3.64) (1.85) (1.08) Spouse is black 0.0430 0.125 0.134 -0.0461 -0.0373 (3.06) (3.73) (2.96) (-1.06) (-0.64) Spouse is U.S. born -0.0116 -0.00535 -0.00761 -0.0941 -0.0304 (-8.79) (-7.65) (-7.14) (-1.72) (-0.46)

175

Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Spouse in labor force -0.00780 -0.0119 -0.00994 0.112 0.136 (-2.78) (-7.32) (-3.86) (4.48) (4.75) Number of own children in the household -0.00803 -0.00551 -0.00815 -0.0248 -0.0260 (-23.75) (-18.99) (-17.29) (-12.55) (-10.05) Number of boys 13-19 at home -0.00517 0.00156 0.00291 -0.0618 -0.0702 (-3.80) (1.63) (1.87) (-6.85) (-5.78) Number of girls 13-19 at home -0.00838 0.00122 0.00253 -0.0810 -0.0840 (-6.48) (1.39) (1.81) (-9.71) (-7.66) Number of own boys working 0.00978 0.00210 0.00162 0.0607 0.0652 (9.08) (2.50) (1.12) (9.09) (7.05) Number of own girls working 0.0281 0.0123 0.0134 0.119 0.133 (22.55) (10.91) (7.70) (18.77) (15.46) Community property state 0.00684 0.00388 0.00649 -0.00472 0.0213 (3.04) (1.79) (1.68) (-0.36) (1.22) Equity laws in effect 0.0239 0.00754 0.00953 0.117 0.122 (13.63) (6.57) (5.46) (9.94) (8.52) % 10+ in manufacturing -0.000541 0 0 -0.191 -0.254 (-0.08) (0.00) (0.00) (-2.29) (-2.61) Percentage of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.0000132 0 0 0.0113 0.0136 (-0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.22) (0.23) Sex ratio -0.000272 0 0 -0.0725 -0.0251 (-0.05) (0.00) (0.00) (-0.77) (-0.22) Black 0.0929 (4.41) Living on farm -0.0207 -0.00801 -0.113 (-23.55) (-12.61) (-18.29) Observations 147536 131793 72691 17169 11546 Average partial effects for each variable. t-statistics in parentheses.

176

Table 2.10 Differences in differences estimates of effects of changes in property laws, 1880-1900: Dates of passage according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Property act passed before 1880 0.0132 -0.00315 -0.00956 0.00576 0.0456 (5.03) (-1.36) (-2.53)(0.39) (2.35) Property act passed, 1880-1900 -0.00670 -0.00383 -0.00872-0.234 -0.265 (-1.17) (-1.11) (-1.75)(-87.64) (-71.08) Property act passed before 1880 × year is 1900 -0.00155 -0.00159 0.000461 0.0253 0.0107 (-0.57) (-0.64) (0.11)(1.82) (0.57) Property act passed, 1880-1900 × year is 1900 0.00805 -0.00463 -0.00683 0.766 0.735 (0.98) (-1.19) (-1.07)(286.99) (197.14) Year is 1900 0.00561 0.00487 0.00162 -0.0195 -0.0273 (2.11) (1.82) (0.38)(-1.63) (-1.66) Living in urban area 0.00152 0.00258 0.00276 0.0753 0.0804 (1.30) (3.07) (2.51)(8.40) (8.32) Living in group quarters 0.0700 0.0653 0.0790 0.0828 0.0320 (10.07) (9.82) (9.86)(1.29) (0.46) Age 0.00412 0.00229 0.004220.00796 0.0131 (13.97) (10.16) (11.34)(5.06) (5.32) Age squared -0.0000559 -0.0000299 -0.0000549 -0.000112 -0.000175 (-15.54) (-11.37) (-12.30)(-6.06) (-5.71) Spouse's age -0.00200 -0.000978 -0.00127 -0.00464 -0.00680 (-7.83) (-4.66) (-3.92)(-3.25) (-3.38) Spouse's age squared 0.0000192 0.00000928 0.0000135 0.0000432 0.0000707 (7.12) (4.24) (3.95)(2.90) (3.31) Spouse is black 0.0652 0.0846 0.0914 0.0347 0.00617 (3.57) (3.10) (2.63)(0.67) (0.10) Spouse is U.S. born -0.00437 -0.00366 -0.00562 -0.0416 -0.00233 (-3.86) (-5.28) (-5.77)(-1.04) (-0.05)

177

Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Spouse in labor force -0.00277 -0.0159 -0.0168 0.0628 0.0751 (-1.30) (-11.83) (-8.66)(3.21) (3.20) Number of own children in the household -0.00865 -0.00576 -0.00867 -0.0214 -0.0231 (-28.93) (-22.46) (-21.73)(-13.08) (-9.51) Number of boys 13-19 at home -0.00235 0.00203 0.00397 -0.0289 -0.0190 (-2.15) (2.56) (3.25)(-4.08) (-1.71) Number of girls 13-19 at home -0.00477 0.00241 0.00506 -0.0480 -0.0397 (-4.56) (3.22) (4.42)(-7.32) (-3.98) Number of own boys working 0.00969 0.00270 0.00300 0.0383 0.0375 (11.00) (4.02) (2.76)(7.18) (4.26) Number of own girls working 0.0292 0.0112 0.0114 0.0963 0.112 (27.93) (12.78) (8.78)(18.52) (12.32) Community property state 0.0328 -0.000844 -0.00307 0.0360 0.0594 (14.48) (-0.57) (-1.43)(2.41) (3.00) Equity laws in effect 0.0316 0.0122 0.0141 0.106 0.121 (19.30) (10.82) (8.93)(11.31) (9.46) % 10+ in manufacturing -0.00000402 0 0 -0.0894 -0.129 (-0.00) (0.00) (0.00)(-1.44) (-1.75) Percentage of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.0000408 0 0 0.00156 0.00225 (-0.01) (0.00) (0.00)(0.05) (0.06) Sex ratio 0.00227 0 0 -1.106 -0.333 (1.25) (0.00) (0.00)(-12.63) (-2.95) Black 0.0843 (4.07) Living on farm -0.0175 -0.0105 -0.0749 (-19.79) (-17.34) (-13.34) Observations 228093 194876 11674823132 12891 Average partial effects for each variable. t-statistics in parentheses.

178

Table 2.11 Effect of boarders on labor force participation measures 1880 1900 N% N % All married women Not in labor force 7,121,838 89.1 10,882,558 87.0 Keeps boarders or lodgers, but not 527,444 6.6 1,157,679 9.3 gainfully employed Gainfully employed, but no boarders 318,552 4.0 407,365 3.3 or lodgers Keeps boarders or lodgers and 24,216 0.3 58,293 0.5 gainfully employed Total 7,992,050 100.0 12,505,895 100.0 Black married women Not in labor force 652,646 69.6 908,743 71.9 Keeps boarders or lodgers, but not 43,971 4.7 99,015 7.8 gainfully employed Gainfully employed, but no boarders 230,596 24.6 230,024 18.2 or lodgers Keeps boarders or lodgers and 10,961 1.2 26,425 2.1 gainfully employed Total 938,174 100.0 1,264,207 100.0 White married women Not in labor force 6,459,617 91.7 9,926,890 88.8 Keeps boarders or lodgers, but not 482,475 6.9 1,053,540 9.4 gainfully employed Gainfully employed, but no boarders 86,060 1.2 168,995 1.5 or lodgers Keeps boarders or lodgers and 13,156 0.2 31,093 0.3 gainfully employed Total 7,041,308 100.0 11,180,518 100.0 Rural married women Not in labor force 5,156,266 90.4 6,742,951 88.5 Keeps boarders or lodgers, but not 295,230 5.2 594,065 7.8 gainfully employed Gainfully employed, but no boarders 238,869 4.2 255,094 3.3 or lodgers Keeps boarders or lodgers and 12,354 0.2 27,438 0.4 gainfully employed Total 5,702,719 100.0 7,619,548 100.0 Urban married women Not in labor force 1,965,572 85.9 4,139,607 84.7 Keeps boarders or lodgers, but not 232,214 10.1 563,614 11.5 gainfully employed Gainfully employed, but no boarders 79,683 3.5 152,271 3.1 or lodgers Keeps boarders or lodgers and 11,862 0.5 30,855 0.6 gainfully employed Total 2,289,331 100.0 4,886,347 100.0 Note: Married women with their spouse present between the ages of 16 and 70 who are spouses or heads of household and not living in group quarters are included in the tables.

179

Table 2.12: Difference in differences estimates of effects of changes in earnings laws, 1880-1900, with wives keeping boarders included in labor force: Dates according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Earnings act passed before 1880 -0.0286 -0.0146 -0.0330 0.00603 0.0177 (-10.29) (-4.67) (-6.87)(0.59) (1.27) Earnings act passed, 1880-1900 -0.0255 -0.00235 -0.0183 -0.0764 -0.200 (-3.65) (-0.32) (-1.61)(-0.99) (-2.61) Year is 1900 0.0140 0.0244 0.0120 0.0119 -0.00967 (4.94) (7.13) (2.29)(1.49) (-0.86) Earnings act passed before 1880 × Year is 1900 0.00957 0.000171 0.00807 0.0168 0.0222 (2.82) (0.05) (1.41)(1.33) (1.27) Earnings act passed, 1880-1900 × Year is 1900 0.00160 -0.0123 -0.000604 0.127 0.309 (0.17) (-1.55) (-0.04) (1.03) (2.11) Living in urban area 0.0262 0.0263 0.0245 0.103 0.106 (12.63) (12.84) (10.51)(10.50) (10.07) Age 0.00700 0.00499 0.008490.00895 0.0160 (13.82) (10.08) (11.08)(5.16) (5.83) Age squared -0.0000915 -0.0000637 -0.000110 -0.000127 -0.000218 (-15.17) (-11.23) (-12.06)(-6.25) (-6.39) Spouse's age 0.000569 0.00196 0.00134 -0.00301 -0.00500 (1.22) (3.96) (1.86)(-1.89) (-2.21) Spouse's age squared -0.00000489 -0.0000184 -0.0000103 0.0000317 0.0000537 (-1.00) (-3.57) (-1.35)(1.92) (2.24) Spouse is black 0.0979 0.108 0.117 0.0325 0.0399 (3.48) (2.77) (2.40)(0.57) (0.53) Spouse is U.S. born -0.0113 -0.00991 -0.0221 0.00937 0.0276 (-6.54) (-6.24) (-10.82)(0.21) (0.55) Spouse in labor force 0.0107 -0.0104 -0.00854 0.0638 0.0785 (2.79) (-2.76) (-1.78)(2.93) (3.02)

180

Dependent variable is married woman's labor force All White White Black Black participation non-farm non-farm Number of own children in the household -0.0136 -0.0106 -0.0141 -0.0239 -0.0290 (-28.69) (-22.02) (-20.31)(-13.41) (-10.90) Number of boys 13-19 at home -0.0103 -0.00701 -0.00605-0.0335 -0.0311 (-6.32) (-4.42) (-2.59)(-4.45) (-2.59) Number of girls 13-19 at home 0.000250 0.00401 0.00588 -0.0434 -0.0355 (0.16) (2.69) (2.68)(-6.30) (-3.33) Number of own boys working 0.0130 0.00518 0.0112 0.0426 0.0505 (9.77) (3.94) (5.56)(7.46) (5.29) Number of own girls working 0.0312 0.0136 0.0117 0.0913 0.114 (17.90) (7.10) (4.52)(16.12) (11.27) Community property state 0.0155 0.0160 0.000459 0.0188 0.0164 (5.55) (4.90) (0.10)(1.69) (1.08) Equity laws in effect 0.0229 0.0121 0.00770 0.101 0.111 (9.98) (5.52) (2.68)(10.16) (8.34) % 10+ in manufacturing 0.000000856 0 0 -0.0476 -0.0770 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)(-0.72) (-0.95) Percentage of state population in cities over 25,000 0 0 0 0.00238 0.00388 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)(0.07) (0.09) Sex ratio 0.000530 0 0 -0.393 -0.542 (0.17) (0.00) (0.00)(-4.25) (-4.31) Black 0.0825 (3.05) Living on farm -0.0255 -0.0176 -0.0894 (-15.24) (-10.22) (-14.00) Observations 216997 185316 11063022206 12289 Average partial effects for each variable. t-statistics in parentheses.

181

Table 2.13: Difference in differences estimates of effects of changes in property laws, 1880-1900, with wives keeping boarders included in labor force: Dates according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is married woman's labor All White White Black Black force participation non-farm non-farm Property act passed before 1880 -0.000333 -0.0167 -0.0212 0.0439 0.0593 (-0.07) (-3.42) (-2.62)(2.65) (2.80) Property act passed, 1880-1900 0.00208 0.00241 -0.0175 -0.290 -0.336 (0.22) (0.27) (-1.30)(-98.50) (-81.22) Year is 1900 0.0245 0.0190 0.00896 0.0145 -0.00987 (5.01) (3.46) (0.99)(1.06) (-0.53) Property act passed before 1880 × Year is 1900 -0.00167 0.00801 0.0135 0.00151 0.00567 (-0.34) (1.44) (1.43)(0.10) (0.27) Property act passed, 1880-1900 × Year is 1900 -0.0200 -0.0142 0.00167 0.709 0.664 (-2.09) (-1.56) (0.10)(240.84) (160.49) Living in urban area 0.0255 0.0261 0.0241 0.102 0.105 (12.34) (12.73) (10.36)(10.44) (9.97) Age 0.00702 0.00501 0.008500.00904 0.0162 (13.85) (10.12) (11.08)(5.21) (5.90) Age squared -0.0000916 -0.0000639 -0.000110 -0.000127 -0.000220 (-15.20) (-11.26) (-12.05)(-6.29) (-6.44) Spouse's age 0.000506 0.00194 0.00133 -0.00298 -0.00499 (1.09) (3.92) (1.83)(-1.88) (-2.21) Spouse's age squared -0.00000424 -0.0000182 -0.0000102 0.0000312 0.0000530 (-0.87) (-3.53) (-1.33)(1.89) (2.21) Spouse is black 0.0985 0.107 0.117 0.0339 0.0479 (3.50) (2.76) (2.40)(0.59) (0.64) Spouse is U.S. born -0.0111 -0.0101 -0.0221 0.00643 0.0232 (-6.42) (-6.37) (-10.82)(0.14) (0.46) Spouse in labor force 0.0116 -0.0102 -0.00828 0.0629 0.0767 (3.01) (-2.73) (-1.73)(2.89) (2.96)

182

Dependent variable is married woman's labor All White White Black Black force participation non-farm non-farm Number of own children in the household -0.0135 -0.0106 -0.0140 -0.0239 -0.0289 (-28.54) (-21.94) (-20.19)(-13.43) (-10.89) Number of boys 13-19 at home -0.0105 -0.00704 -0.00615-0.0334 -0.0310 (-6.41) (-4.44) (-2.63)(-4.44) (-2.58) Number of girls 13-19 at home 0.00000235 0.00391 0.00569 -0.0434 -0.0355 (0.00) (2.63) (2.60)(-6.29) (-3.33) Number of own boys working 0.0131 0.00518 0.0113 0.0426 0.0507 (9.81) (3.94) (5.57)(7.47) (5.31) Number of own girls working 0.0315 0.0136 0.0117 0.0910 0.114 (18.04) (7.12) (4.50)(16.06) (11.26) Community property state 0.0233 0.0158 0.00331 0.0501 0.0579 (7.39) (4.43) (0.69)(3.09) (2.75) Equity laws in effect 0.0319 0.0173 0.0165 0.0958 0.106 (14.35) (8.32) (5.99)(9.76) (7.93) % 10+ in manufacturing 0.000000214 0 0 -0.0535 -0.0839 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)(-0.83) (-1.09) Percentage of state population in cities over -0.00000150 0 0 0.00259 0.00414 25,000 (-0.00) (0.00) (0.00)(0.07) (0.10) Sex ratio 0.000558 0 0 -0.376 -0.149 (0.16) (0.00) (0.00)(-4.13) (-1.26) Black 0.0870 (3.18) Living on farm -0.0263 -0.0179 -0.0901 (-15.75) (-10.38) (-14.13) Observations 216997 185316 11063022206 12289 Average partial effects for each variable. t-statistics in parentheses.

183

Table 2.14 Determinants of married women in labor force being sole traders, 1910-1920 Change in Change in Change in Change in probability s.e probability s.e probability s.e probability s.e Farming occupation 0.718 0.017 0.727 0.017 0.724 0.018 0.724 0.018 Managerial occupation 0.454 0.022 0.453 0.024 0.438 0.024 0.438 0.024 Clerical occupation -0.197 0.006 -0.193 0.006 -0.185 0.007 -0.185 0.007 Sales occupation -0.093 0.013 -0.100 0.013 -0.097 0.013 -0.097 0.013 Craft occupation -0.085 0.018 -0.055 0.022 -0.052 0.022 -0.052 0.022 Operative occupation -0.050 0.012 -0.001 0.014 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.014 Service occupation 0.055 0.013 0.118 0.015 0.099 0.016 0.099 0.016 Agricultural labor occupation -0.139 0.010 -0.137 0.013 -0.132 0.014 -0.132 0.014 Laborer occupation -0.184 0.008 -0.166 0.010 -0.162 0.010 -0.162 0.010 Husband had farming occupation -0.007 0.019 -0.027 0.019 -0.027 0.019 Husband has managerial occupation 0.051 0.021 0.048 0.021 0.048 0.021 Husband has clerical occupation -0.042 0.020 -0.031 0.021 -0.031 0.021 Husband has sales occupation 0.007 0.023 0.013 0.023 0.013 0.023 Husband has craft occupation -0.053 0.016 -0.044 0.016 -0.044 0.016 Husband has operative occupation -0.106 0.013 -0.088 0.014 -0.088 0.014 Husband has service occupation -0.096 0.014 -0.088 0.015 -0.088 0.015 Husband has agricultural labor occupation -0.108 0.014 -0.109 0.014 -0.109 0.014 Husband has laborer occupation -0.088 0.014 -0.077 0.015 -0.077 0.015 Spouse has no occupation -0.028 0.021 -0.048 0.019 -0.048 0.019 Age 0.007 0.001 0.007 0.001 Age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Urban residence -0.021 0.008 -0.021 0.008 Native born 0.039 0.008 0.039 0.008 Number of boys aged 13-19 in family 0.011 0.007 0.011 0.007 Number of girls aged 13-19 in family 0.024 0.006 0.024 0.006 Number of working boys 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.006 Number of working girls -0.021 0.007 -0.021 0.007 Number of non-relatives in household 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 Black 0.015 0.008 0.035 0.054 Spouse is black -0.020 0.052 LR statistic 3185.880 3468.000 3802.080 3802.230 Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Pseudo R2 (N: 21, 752 for all models) 0.136 0.148 0.162 0.162

184

Table 2.15 Determinants of a married woman's probability of being a sole trader, 1870-1880 All married women Khan Hoff Co-efficient s.e. Co-efficient s.e. Sole trade law in effect -0.013 0.009 0.010 0.006 Sole trade law passed, 1870-1880 0.009 0.007 -0.043 0.021 Year is 1880 -0.016 0.005 -0.002 0.005 Sole trade law in effect × Year is 1880 0.010 0.011 -0.026 0.008 Sole trade law passed, 1870-1880 × Year is 1880 0.011 0.010 0.035 0.025 constant -0.009 0.008 -0.009 0.008

Labor force participation Living on farm -0.360 0.016 -0.360 0.016 Urban residence 0.014 0.017 0.014 0.017 Lives in group quarters 0.719 0.057 0.721 0.057 Age 0.027 0.004 0.027 0.004 Age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse's age -0.023 0.004 -0.023 0.004 Spouse's age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse is black 0.685 0.104 0.680 0.104 Spouse is other race 0.592 0.357 0.583 0.357 Spouse is U.S. born -0.140 0.019 -0.141 0.019 Spouse is in labor force -0.051 0.038 -0.053 0.038 Number of children -0.098 0.004 -0.099 0.004 Number of teenage boys -0.070 0.018 -0.070 0.018 Number of teenage girls -0.118 0.017 -0.118 0.017 Number of working boys 0.135 0.014 0.136 0.014 Number of working girls 0.363 0.015 0.364 0.015 Community property state 0.141 0.025 0.146 0.025 Equity court state 0.308 0.018 0.299 0.018 Percent of state labor force in manufacturing -0.834 0.092 -0.833 0.092 Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.283 0.069 -0.246 0.068 Sex ratio -0.459 0.079 -0.512 0.081 Black 0.641 0.105 0.648 0.105 Other race 0.640 0.350 0.664 0.350 Constant -0.918 0.109 -0.867 0.111

/athrho 0.913 0.903 /lnsigma -1.605 -1.608

Wald chi2(5) 25.800 29.960 P > chi2 0.000 0.000 Log likelihood -16615.440 -16613.340

N 149149 149149

185

Table 2.16 Determinants of a white married woman's probability of being a sole trader, 1870-1880 White married women Khan Hoff Co-efficient s.e. Co-efficient s.e. Sole trade law in effect 0.040 0.012 0.004 0.010 Sole trade law passed, 1870-1880 0.029 0.012 -0.023 0.019 Year is 1880 -0.016 0.009 -0.014 0.008 Sole trade law in effect × Year is 1880 0.008 0.013 -0.014 0.012 Sole trade law passed, 1870-1880 × Year is 1880 -0.065 0.015 0.014 0.023 constant -0.619 0.024 -0.587 0.024

Labor force participation Living on farm -0.225 0.017 -0.236 0.017 Urban residence 0.048 0.015 0.047 0.015 Lives in group quarters 0.158 0.053 0.168 0.054 Age 0.013 0.004 0.013 0.004 Age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse's age -0.013 0.004 -0.014 0.004 Spouse's age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse is black 0.525 0.119 0.545 0.120 Spouse is other race -5.115 87684.070 -5.009 58047.560 Spouse is U.S. born -0.042 0.014 -0.039 0.014 Spouse is in labor force -0.121 0.031 -0.124 0.031 Number of children -0.061 0.005 -0.063 0.006 Number of teenage boys 0.010 0.016 0.012 0.016 Number of teenage girls -0.010 0.015 -0.009 0.015 Number of working boys 0.033 0.013 0.034 0.014 Number of working girls 0.183 0.020 0.191 0.020 Community property state 0.071 0.031 0.076 0.031 Equity court state 0.141 0.018 0.106 0.017 Percent of state labor force in manufacturing -0.228 0.071 -0.181 0.073 Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.055 0.060 -0.138 0.061 Sex ratio -0.161 0.053 -0.219 0.055 Black Other race Constant -1.515 0.085 -1.427 0.087

/athrho 2.231 2.193 /lnsigma -0.964 -0.974

Wald chi2(5) 45.130 14.730 P > chi2 0.000 0.012 Log likelihood -9134.030 -9149.093

N 131793 131793

186

Table 2.17 Determinants of a married woman's probability of being a sole trader, 1880-1900 All married women Khan Hoff Co-efficient s.e. Co-efficient s.e. Sole trade law in effect 0.016 0.006 -0.032 0.006 Sole trade law passed, 1880-1900 -0.017 0.011 -0.045 0.011 Year is 1900 0.030 0.006 0.000 0.006 Sole trade law in effect × Year is 1900 -0.031 0.008 0.027 0.008 Sole trade law passed, 1880-1900 × Year is 1900 0.010 0.015 0.036 0.015 constant 0.056 0.008 0.084 0.009

Labor force participation Living on farm -0.292 0.014 -0.291 0.014 Urban residence 0.037 0.014 0.038 0.014 Lives in group quarters 0.660 0.043 0.661 0.043 Age 0.038 0.004 0.038 0.004 Age squared -0.001 0.000 -0.001 0.000 Spouse's age -0.021 0.003 -0.020 0.003 Spouse's age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse is black 0.670 0.123 0.671 0.123 Spouse is other race 0.459 0.200 0.458 0.200 Spouse is U.S. born -0.079 0.015 -0.079 0.015 Spouse is in labor force -0.120 0.028 -0.122 0.028 Number of children -0.097 0.004 -0.097 0.004 Number of teenage boys -0.016 0.014 -0.016 0.014 Number of teenage girls -0.047 0.013 -0.046 0.013 Number of working boys 0.096 0.011 0.096 0.011 Number of working girls 0.306 0.012 0.306 0.012 Community property state 0.056 0.020 0.053 0.020 Equity court state 0.308 0.015 0.306 0.015 Percent of state labor force in manufacturing -0.902 0.079 -0.913 0.079 Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.130 0.046 -0.118 0.046 Sex ratio -0.223 0.060 -0.228 0.060 Black 0.615 0.123 0.615 0.123 Other race 0.732 0.199 0.734 0.199 Constant -1.423 0.088 -1.420 0.088

/athrho 0.515 0.024 0.503 0.024 /lnsigma -1.589 0.009 -1.594 0.009

Wald chi2(5) 36.440 48.680 P > chi2 0.000 0.000 Log likelihood -27537.930 -27531.810

N 217527 217527

187

Table 2.18 Determinants of a white married woman's probability of being a sole trader, 1880-1900 White married women Khan Hoff Co-efficient s.e. Co-efficient s.e. Sole trade law in effect 0.028 0.008 -0.014 0.007 Sole trade law passed, 1880-1900 0.027 0.017 -0.005 0.018 Year is 1900 -0.029 0.007 -0.031 0.006 Sole trade law in effect × Year is 1900 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.009 Sole trade law passed, 1880-1900 × Year is 1900 -0.070 0.021 -0.024 0.022 constant -0.782 0.020 -0.757 0.020

Labor force participation Living on farm -0.134 0.012 -0.136 0.012 Urban residence 0.016 0.010 0.011 0.010 Lives in group quarters 0.132 0.036 0.124 0.036 Age 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.003 Age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse's age -0.004 0.003 -0.004 0.003 Spouse's age squared 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spouse is black 0.328 0.100 0.332 0.101 Spouse is other race -0.060 0.252 -0.023 0.247 Spouse is U.S. born -0.027 0.009 -0.025 0.009 Spouse is in labor force -0.120 0.019 -0.122 0.018 Number of children -0.033 0.003 -0.034 0.003 Number of teenage boys 0.010 0.010 0.012 0.010 Number of teenage girls 0.003 0.009 0.003 0.009 Number of working boys 0.042 0.008 0.042 0.008 Number of working girls 0.092 0.011 0.096 0.011 Community property state 0.046 0.018 0.047 0.018 Equity court state 0.120 0.012 0.084 0.011 Percent of state labor force in manufacturing -0.280 0.050 -0.210 0.049 Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.079 0.032 -0.112 0.033 Sex ratio -0.203 0.042 -0.286 0.042 Black -1.573 0.063 -1.479 0.062 Other race Constant

/athrho 2.592 0.043 2.583 0.044 /lnsigma -0.792 0.018 -0.793 0.018

Wald chi2(5) 86.530 48.390 P > chi2 0.000 0.000 Log likelihood -16496.360 -16516.180

N 193609 193609

188

Table 2.19 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage propensities after earnings laws reform, 1870-1880: Dates according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black Earnings act passed before 1870 -0.286 0.0278 -0.612 (-1.96) (0.90) (-2.23) Earnings act passed, 1870-1880 -0.135 0.0323 -0.0587 (-0.70) (0.72) (-0.18) Year is 1880 0.0151 0.0180 -0.00829 (2.60) (2.55) (-0.57) Earnings act passed before 1870 × Year is 1880 -0.0232 -0.0283 0.0276 (-2.65) (-2.94) (0.85) Earnings act passed, 1870-1880 × Year is 1880 -0.0225 -0.0299 0.0163 (-2.82) (-3.30) (0.88) Age 20 (Omitted age is 30) -0.391 -0.408 -0.303 (-62.97) (-62.30) (-17.37) Age 21 -0.323 -0.336 -0.241 (-46.90) (-46.18) (-11.87) Age 22 -0.262 -0.276 -0.178 (-37.96) (-37.36) (-9.54) Age 23 -0.182 -0.192 -0.122 (-25.14) (-24.70) (-6.39) Age 24 -0.142 -0.150 -0.105 (-19.58) (-19.06) (-5.52) Age 25 -0.106 -0.108 -0.0944 (-15.15) (-13.94) (-5.83) Age 26 -0.0471 -0.0530 -0.0214 (-6.32) (-6.56) (-1.10) Age 27 -0.00212 -0.00407 -0.0129 (-0.28) (-0.49) (-0.63) Age 28 0.00679 0.00521 0.000506

189

Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black (0.93) (0.66) (0.03) Age 29 0.0578 0.0574 0.0234 (7.28) (6.69) (0.97) Living on farm -0.0453 -0.0475 -0.0174 (-12.00) (-11.52) (-1.87) Living in urban area -0.104 -0.0996 -0.132 (-24.35) (-21.71) (-10.40) Living in group quarters -0.341 -0.339 -0.348 (-31.19) (-30.20) (-7.88) Born in the United States -0.0272 -0.0233 -0.0540 (-6.03) (-5.06) (-0.75) Community property state -0.204 -0.00931 -0.559 (-1.39) (-0.06) (-2.14) Equity property state -0.440 -0.292 -0.114 (-3.64) (-1.72) (-0.29) % 10+ in manufacturing -0.00151 - -0.116 0.0000506 (-0.01) (-0.00) (-0.11) Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.00129 -0.00186 0.0104 (-0.01) (-0.01) (0.02) Sex ratio -0.000549 -0.000182 0.342 (-0.01) (-0.00) (0.56) Black 0.0677 (13.97) Other race -0.0721 (-1.79) Observations 89467 76679 12635 Notes: Average partial effects. t-statistics in parentheses. Sample is women 20-30 years old of any marital status. State fixed effects included in estimation. The 1870 census did not enumerate marital status. Ever-married women are defined as currently married women, plus women without a spouse with own children.

190

Table 2.20 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage propensities after earnings laws reform, 1880-1900: Dates according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black Earnings act passed before 1880 -0.119 -0.238 -0.351 (-1.46) (-2.67) (-1.44) Earnings act passed, 1880-1900 0.0510 0.0317 0.0964 (1.10) (0.59) (0.30) Year is 1900 -0.0183 -0.0138 -0.0276 (-2.77) (-1.75) (-1.49) Earnings act passed before 1880 × Year is 1900 0.00434 0.000503 -0.00296 (0.68) (0.07) (-0.21) Earnings act passed, 1880-1900 × Year is 1900 -0.0615 -0.0738 0.0265 (-3.56) (-4.02) (0.28) Age 20 (Omitted age is 30) -0.413 -0.430 -0.346 (-82.83) (-82.72) (-21.67) Age 21 -0.355 -0.367 -0.301 (-64.89) (-63.53) (-17.25) Age 22 -0.286 -0.301 -0.216 (-50.72) (-49.52) (-12.89) Age 23 -0.225 -0.238 -0.166 (-38.10) (-37.18) (-9.62) Age 24 -0.175 -0.187 -0.110 (-29.18) (-28.56) (-6.44) Age 25 -0.132 -0.142 -0.100 (-22.20) (-21.36) (-6.33) Age 26 -0.0775 -0.0857 -0.0439 (-12.41) (-12.40) (-2.51) Age 27 -0.0436 -0.0489 -0.0289 (-6.84) (-6.90) (-1.60) Age 28 -0.0268 -0.0322 0.0116

191

Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black (-4.30) (-4.63) (0.68) Age 29 0.0228 0.0229 -0.00261 (3.50) (3.16) (-0.13) Living on farm -0.0533 -0.0578 -0.0420 (-16.03) (-15.22) (-5.05) Living in urban area -0.131 -0.132 -0.124 (-37.21) (-34.36) (-12.06) Living in group quarters -0.300 -0.298 -0.297 (-36.84) (-34.73) (-8.77) Born in the United States -0.0661 -0.0624 0.00400 (-17.46) (-15.66) (0.07) Community property state 0.0465 -0.0244 0.0894 (0.89) (-0.30) (0.30) Equity property state 0.0391 0.147 0.278 (0.61) (2.34) (1.73) % 10+ in manufacturing 0.00141 0.00109 0.000379 (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.00159 -0.00115 -0.00267 (-0.04) (-0.02) (-0.02) Sex ratio 0.110 0.114 0.0251 (2.91) (2.78) (0.13) Black 0.0511 (12.28) Other race 0.104 (13.12) Observations 134380 110345 16912 Average partial effects. t-statistics in parentheses. Sample is women 20-30 years old of any marital status. State fixed effects included in estimation.

192

Table 2.21 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage propensities after property law reform, 1870-1880: Dates according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black Property act passed before 1870 -0.281 -0.211 0.267 (-1.53) (-1.09) (1.76) Property act passed, 1870-1880 -0.335 -0.252 0.418 (-1.70) (-1.11) (1.92) Year is 1880 -0.00530 -0.0101 -0.0000315 (-0.55) (-0.88) (-0.00) Property act passed before 1870 × Year is 1880 0.00701 0.0102 0.00539 (0.62) (0.80) (0.22) Property act passed, 1870-1880 × Year is 1880 0.0107 0.0123 -0.000618 (0.96) (0.94) (-0.03) Age 20 (Omitted age is 30) -0.391 -0.408 -0.303 (-62.97) (-62.30) (-17.38) Age 21 -0.323 -0.336 -0.241 (-46.90) (-46.19) (-11.87) Age 22 -0.262 -0.276 -0.178 (-37.94) (-37.34) (-9.54) Age 23 -0.182 -0.192 -0.122 (-25.14) (-24.71) (-6.39) Age 24 -0.142 -0.150 -0.106 (-19.57) (-19.05) (-5.52) Age 25 -0.106 -0.108 -0.0943 (-15.15) (-13.95) (-5.83) Age 26 -0.0470 -0.0530 -0.0213 (-6.32) (-6.56) (-1.10) Age 27 -0.00206 -0.00402 -0.0130 (-0.27) (-0.48) (-0.63) Age 28 0.00694 0.00536 0.000449

193

Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black (0.95) (0.68) (0.02) Age 29 0.0579 0.0575 0.0240 (7.29) (6.70) (0.99) Living on farm -0.0451 -0.0474 -0.0176 (-11.97) (-11.50) (-1.89) Living in urban area -0.104 -0.0998 -0.132 (-24.37) (-21.74) (-10.41) Living in group quarters -0.341 -0.339 -0.347 (-31.23) (-30.25) (-7.87) Born in the United States -0.0276 -0.0237 -0.0534 (-6.12) (-5.15) (-0.75) Community property state -0.188 0.0817 -0.263 (-1.28) (0.50) (-0.55) Equity property state -0.0450 -0.109 -0.276 (-0.32) (-0.72) (-0.74) % 10+ in manufacturing -0.00711 -0.00485 -0.0495 (-0.03) (-0.02) (-0.05) Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.00542 -0.00535 0.0112 (-0.04) (-0.04) (0.02) Sex ratio 0.000240 0.00185 0.284 (0.00) (0.03) (0.51) Black 0.0678 (13.99) Other race -0.0727 (-1.81) Observations 89467 76679 12635 Notes: Average partial effects. t-statistics in parentheses. Sample is women 20-30 years old of any marital status. State fixed effects included in estimation. The 1870 census did not enumerate marital status. Ever-married women are defined as currently married women, plus women without a spouse with own children.

194

Table 2.22 Differences in differences estimates of changes in marriage propensities after property law reform, 1880-1900: Dates according to Khan (1996) Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black Property act passed before 1880 0.367 0.453 -0.387 (5.43) (5.65) (-1.50) Property act passed, 1880-1900 -0.0868 -0.107 -0.375 (-2.18) (-2.27) (-1.10) Year is 1900 -0.0161 -0.00934 -0.0303 (-1.78) (-0.86) (-1.53) Property act passed before 1880 × Year is 1900 -0.00161 -0.00768 0.00294 (-0.18) (-0.70) (0.16) Property act passed, 1880-1900 × Year is 1900 -0.0479 -0.0597 -0.714 (-2.18) (-2.54) (-217.04) Age 20 (Omitted age is 30) -0.413 -0.430 -0.346 (-82.82) (-82.70) (-21.66) Age 21 -0.355 -0.367 -0.301 (-64.89) (-63.52) (-17.24) Age 22 -0.286 -0.301 -0.216 (-50.70) (-49.50) (-12.88) Age 23 -0.225 -0.238 -0.166 (-38.09) (-37.17) (-9.62) Age 24 -0.174 -0.187 -0.110 (-29.17) (-28.54) (-6.44) Age 25 -0.132 -0.142 -0.100 (-22.19) (-21.34) (-6.33) Age 26 -0.0775 -0.0856 -0.0439 (-12.41) (-12.39) (-2.50) Age 27 -0.0436 -0.0489 -0.0289 (-6.84) (-6.90) (-1.60) Age 28 -0.0268 -0.0322 0.0115

195

Dependent variable is being ever married All White Black (-4.29) (-4.63) (0.67) Age 29 0.0229 0.0230 -0.00234 (3.52) (3.18) (-0.12) Living on farm -0.0533 -0.0578 -0.0421 (-16.02) (-15.21) (-5.06) Living in urban area -0.131 -0.132 -0.124 (-37.20) (-34.35) (-12.07) Living in group quarters -0.300 -0.298 -0.296 (-36.86) (-34.75) (-8.74) Born in the United States -0.0662 -0.0625 0.00374 (-17.49) (-15.69) (0.07) Community property state 0.322 0.374 0.362 (15.78) (22.69) (7.34) Equity property state 0.303 0.365 0.338 (7.76) (9.23) (5.81) % 10+ in manufacturing 0.00104 0.000988 0.000165 (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) Percent of state population in cities over 25,000 -0.00109 -0.000988 -0.00250 (-0.03) (-0.02) (-0.02) Sex ratio 0.110 0.114 0.0250 (2.90) (2.77) (0.13) Black 0.0511 (12.28) Other race 0.104 (13.07) Observations 134380 110345 16912 Average partial effects. t-statistics in parentheses. Sample is women 20-30 years old of any marital status. State fixed effects included in estimation.

196

Table 2.23 School attendance in the late nineteenth century

1860 1870 1880 1900

All children, 5-17 No, not in school 3,351,864 39.4 5,911,132 49.1 6,716,344 44.6 9,289,332 43.2 Yes, in school 5,157,277 60.6 6,127,372 50.9 8,355,201 55.4 12,233,228 56.8 Total 8,509,141 100.0 12,038,504 100.0 15,071,545 100.0 21,522,560 100.0

All children, 2 parent families No, not in school 2,414,976 36.1 4,202,890 45.4 4,989,683 41.5 7,051,585 40.8 Yes, in school 4,274,991 63.9 5,046,096 54.6 7,031,351 58.5 10,243,937 59.2 Total 6,689,967 100.0 9,248,986 100.0 12,021,034 100.0 17,295,522 100.0

All children, 1 parent families No, not in school 474,680 45.5 959,047 58.2 945,606 50.9 1,316,493 48.4 Yes, in school 568,321 54.5 689,974 41.8 910,588 49.1 1,404,278 51.6 Total 1,043,001 100.0 1,649,021 100.0 1,856,194 100.0 2,720,771 100.0

White children, 2 parent families No, not in school 2,348,357 35.6 3,303,033 40.1 3,842,173 36.7 5,809,083 37.9 Yes, in school 4,253,207 64.4 4,931,864 59.9 6,637,188 63.3 9,502,566 62.1 Total 6,601,564 100.0 8,234,897 100.0 10,479,361 100.0 15,311,649 100.0

White children, 1 parent families No, not in school 442,502 44.1 661,694 49.9 628,882 43.5 918,576 43.1 Yes, in school 561,596 55.9 663,063 50.1 816,418 56.5 1,214,772 56.9 Total 1,004,098 100.0 1,324,757 100.0 1,445,300 100.0 2,133,348 100.0

White boys, 2 parent families No, not in school 1,164,107 34.6 1,671,827 40.0 1,959,102 36.7 3,013,358 38.8 Yes, in school 2,198,283 65.4 2,504,584 60.0 a 63.3 4,747,526 61.2 Total 3,362,390 100.0 4,176,411 100.0 5,334,980 100.0 7,760,884 100.0

White girls, 2 parent families No, not in school 1,184,250 36.6 1,631,206 40.2 1,883,071 36.6 2,795,725 37.0 Yes, in school 2,054,924 63.4 2,427,280 59.8 3,261,310 63.4 4,755,040 63.0 Total 3,239,174 100.0 4,058,486 100.0 5,144,381 100.0 7,550,765 100.0

197

Table 2.24 Impact of earnings laws on school attendance, 1870-1900: Dates from Hoff (1991) 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 Dependent variable is school attendance in past year All All Boys Boys Girls Girls Earnings passed before 1870 0.0329** 0.0145 0.0514** (2.58) (0.90) (3.28) Earnings passed in 1870-1879 period 0.0229 0.00630 0.0390** (1.90) (0.42) (2.65) Earnings passed before 1870 x Year is 1880 -0.0428* -0.0262 -0.0598** (-2.42) (-1.18) (-2.67) Earnings passed in 1870-1879 x Year is 1880 -0.0219 -0.0242 -0.0176 (-1.31) (-1.16) (-0.84) Earnings passed before 1880 0.0156 0.00496 0.0267* (1.57) (0.39) (2.14) Earnings passed in 1880-1899 period 0.0201 0.0193 0.0198 (0.65) (0.49) (0.55) Earnings passed before 1880 x Year is 1900 -0.0376** -0.0228 -0.0522** (-2.95) (-1.42) (-3.21) Earnings passed in 1880-1899 x Year is 1900 0.0463 0.0305 0.0654 (1.32) (0.66) (1.58) Two parents in household 0.0384*** 0.0253*** 0.0226 0.0278*** 0.0541*** 0.0237** (3.65) (3.80) (1.73)(3.31) (4.22)(2.79) Two parents x Earnings passed before 1870 0.0212 0.0356* 0.00656 (1.53) (2.08) (0.38) Two parents x Earnings passed in 1870-1879 period 0.00761 0.0229 -0.00736 (0.58) (1.41) (-0.45) Two parents x Year is 1880 -0.00875 0.0139 0.000673 -0.00198 -0.0176 0.0288* (-0.65) (1.26) (0.04)(-0.14) (-1.06)(2.10) Two parents x Earnings passed before 1870 0.0236 0.0107 0.0365 (1.28) (0.46) (1.60) Two parents x Earnings passed in 1870-1879 x Year is 1880 0.00849 0.0118 0.00320 (0.48) (0.53) (0.14) Two parents x Earnings passed before 1880 0.0262* 0.0379** 0.0140 (2.46) (2.84) (1.05) Two parents x Earnings passed in 1880-1899 period -0.0126 -0.00815 -0.0160 (-0.37) (-0.19) (-0.40) Two parents x Earnings passed before 1880 x Year is 1900 0.00481 -0.0125 0.0219 (0.36) (-0.73) (1.31)

198

1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 Dependent variable is school attendance in past year All All Boys Boys Girls Girls Two parents x Earnings passed in 1880-1899 x Year is 1900 -0.000580 0.00888 -0.0133 (-0.01) (0.18) (-0.27) Year is 1880 0.0672*** 0.0556*** 0.0785*** (5.58) (3.68) (5.30) Year is 1900 0.0206* 0.00121 0.0393** (1.97) (0.09) (2.96) Age is 6 0.206*** 0.214*** 0.205*** 0.219*** 0.206*** 0.210*** (67.73) (89.45) (47.72)(63.99) (47.50)(61.75) Age is 7 0.303*** 0.311*** 0.304*** 0.316*** 0.302*** 0.305*** (138.31) (179.04) (96.69)(126.65) (93.69)(122.00) Age is 8 0.333*** 0.343*** 0.332*** 0.348*** 0.334*** 0.338*** (165.73) (220.01) (116.40) (156.11) (116.05) (153.52) Age is 9 0.351*** 0.360*** 0.351*** 0.364*** 0.352*** 0.355*** (189.49) (249.83) (133.77) (177.71) (132.44) (174.70) Age is 10 0.384*** 0.402*** 0.382*** 0.407*** 0.385*** 0.397*** (237.94) (346.95) (168.14) (252.74) (171.01) (250.51) Age is 11 0.384*** 0.402*** 0.384*** 0.406*** 0.385*** 0.398*** (242.38) (352.13) (174.02) (257.30) (174.31) (258.62) Age is 12 0.377*** 0.397*** 0.376*** 0.401*** 0.379*** 0.393*** (226.91) (335.52) (159.92) (242.23) (162.40) (243.42) Age is 13 0.360*** 0.379*** 0.354*** 0.380*** 0.365*** 0.379*** (195.78) (290.50) (134.26) (202.84) (144.93) (215.16) Age is 14 0.329*** 0.344*** 0.325*** 0.342*** 0.333*** 0.346*** (151.91) (213.13) (105.33) (145.98) (110.71) (159.63) Age is 15 0.283*** 0.293*** 0.283*** 0.290*** 0.283*** 0.296*** (104.61) (142.71) (74.41)(97.16) (74.23)(106.77) Age is 16 0.228*** 0.237*** 0.230*** 0.232*** 0.226*** 0.243*** (69.50) (93.53) (50.17)(62.61) (48.34)(70.48) Age is 17 0.160*** 0.171*** 0.176*** 0.172*** 0.143*** 0.168*** (38.88) (53.10) (31.84)(38.09) (23.48)(37.43) Head's age 0.00989*** 0.00976*** 0.00923*** 0.00988*** 0.0106*** 0.00970*** (10.57) (12.55) (7.80)(9.80) (9.29)(10.03) Head's age squared -0.0001*** -0.00009*** -0.00009*** -0.00009*** -0.0001*** -0.00009*** (-10.23) (-11.84) (-7.54)(-9.35) (-9.04)(-9.42) Head is literate 0.116*** 0.113*** 0.114*** 0.111*** 0.117*** 0.116*** (28.02) (31.33) (22.91)(25.08) (23.06)(25.58)

199

1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 Dependent variable is school attendance in past year All All Boys Boys Girls Girls Head is professional worker 0.0889*** 0.0800*** 0.0936*** 0.0973*** 0.0845*** 0.0623*** (11.14) (12.79) (9.32)(12.45) (8.53)(7.76) Head is clerical worker 0.0420*** 0.0469*** 0.0356* 0.0427*** 0.0481** 0.0508*** (3.40) (5.82) (2.20)(4.08) (3.10)(4.96) Head is farmer 0.0115*** 0.0163*** 0.0149*** 0.0213*** 0.00788* 0.0114*** (3.58) (6.45) (3.76)(6.73) (1.98)(3.56) Head is skilled trades worker 0.0174*** 0.0151*** 0.0154** 0.0160*** 0.0194*** 0.0144*** (4.36) (4.91) (3.03)(4.05) (3.89)(3.64) Head had no occupation -0.00799 -0.00586 -0.0147 -0.0185** -0.00118 0.00680 (-1.32) (-1.21) (-1.91)(-2.95) (-0.16)(1.11) Child is female -0.000769 0.00916*** (-0.41) (5.83) Number of own siblings in household 0.00251*** -0.000293 0.00301*** 0.000687 0.00198* -0.00128 (3.57) (-0.53) (3.47)(1.00) (2.33)(-1.84) Born in the United States 0.141*** 0.152*** 0.143*** 0.148*** 0.139*** 0.157*** (24.12) (31.62) (19.43)(23.85) (18.64)(24.80) Parents are native born 0.0195*** 0.0236*** 0.0202*** 0.0195*** 0.0187*** 0.0278*** (6.41) (9.80) (5.32)(6.37) (4.97)(9.10) Resides in the south -0.267*** -0.173*** -0.273*** -0.179*** -0.261*** -0.167*** (-73.45) (-59.38) (-61.70)(-49.80) (-58.68)(-46.00) Observations 214675 295341 109052 149905 105623 145436 t statistics in parentheses * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

200

Table 2.25 Impact of property laws on school attendance, 1870-1900: Dates from Hoff (1991) 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 Dependent variable is school attendance in past year All All Boys Boys Girls Girls Property passed before 1870 -0.0202 -0.0318 -0.00706 (-1.19) (-1.51) (-0.34) Property passed in 1870-1879 period -0.0855*** -0.0874** -0.0825** (-3.91) (-3.27) (-3.03) Property passed before 1870 x Year is 1880 -0.0165 -0.00239 -0.0320 (-0.74) (-0.09) (-1.15) Property passed in 1870-1879 x Year is 1880 0.0931*** 0.0885** 0.0983** (3.68) (2.82) (3.13) Property passed before 1880 -0.0237 -0.0235 -0.0239 (-1.59) (-1.26) (-1.29) Property passed in 1880-1899 period -0.0538 -0.0552 -0.0540 (-1.29) (-1.05) (-1.06) Property passed before 1880 x Year is 1900 -0.00992 -0.0112 -0.00892 (-0.54) (-0.48) (-0.38) Property passed in 1880-1899 x Year is 1900 0.0778 0.0745 0.0837 (1.90) (1.42) (1.67) Two parents in household 0.0253 0.0386*** 0.00825 0.0384** 0.0441* 0.0390** (1.46) (3.49) (0.38)(2.75) (2.06)(2.74) Two parents x Property passed before 1870 0.0305 0.0467* 0.0130 (1.68) (2.08) (0.58) Two parents x Property passed in 1870-1879 period -0.0105 -0.0128 -0.00908 (-0.46) (-0.46) (-0.32) Two parents x Year is 1880 0.0142 0.0136 0.0335 0.0110 -0.00648 0.0160 (0.64) (0.73) (1.22)(0.47) (-0.23)(0.69) Two parents x Property passed before 1870 -0.0120 -0.0294 0.00688 (-0.50) (-0.98) (0.23) Two parents x Property passed in 1870-1879 x Year is 1880 -0.0174 -0.0133 -0.0218 (-0.56) (-0.35) (-0.56) Two parents x Property passed before 1880 0.00497 0.00220 0.00746 (0.31) (0.11) (0.38) Two parents x Property passed in 1880-1899 period -0.0208 -0.0359 -0.00312 (-0.48) (-0.64) (-0.06) Two parents x Property passed before 1880 x Year is 1900 0.00206 0.00435 0.000653 (0.10) (0.17) (0.03) Two parents x Property passed in 1880-1899 x Year is 1900 -0.0112 0.0119 -0.0390 201

1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 Dependent variable is school attendance in past year All All Boys Boys Girls Girls (-0.23) (0.20) (-0.64) Year is 1880 0.0432* 0.0257 0.0622* (2.11) (1.00) (2.48) Year is 1900 0.00454 0.00493 0.0137 (0.26) (0.23) (0.62) Age is 6 0.206*** 0.214*** 0.205*** 0.219*** 0.206*** 0.210*** (67.88) (89.65) (47.84)(64.07) (47.62)(61.94) Age is 7 0.303*** 0.311*** 0.304*** 0.316*** 0.302*** 0.305*** (138.47) (179.19) (96.92)(126.76) (93.72)(122.08) Age is 8 0.333*** 0.343*** 0.332*** 0.348*** 0.334*** 0.339*** (165.78) (220.11) (116.41) (156.07) (116.07) (153.66) Age is 9 0.352*** 0.360*** 0.351*** 0.364*** 0.352*** 0.355*** (189.92) (250.08) (134.13) (177.86) (132.70) (174.91) Age is 10 0.384*** 0.402*** 0.382*** 0.407*** 0.385*** 0.397*** (237.98) (346.83) (168.09) (252.57) (171.10) (250.45) Age is 11 0.385*** 0.402*** 0.384*** 0.406*** 0.385*** 0.398*** (242.80) (352.18) (174.31) (257.41) (174.72) (258.70) Age is 12 0.378*** 0.397*** 0.376*** 0.401*** 0.379*** 0.393*** (227.23) (335.70) (160.12) (242.28) (162.71) (243.57) Age is 13 0.360*** 0.380*** 0.355*** 0.380*** 0.365*** 0.379*** (196.35) (290.81) (134.61) (203.01) (145.51) (215.48) Age is 14 0.329*** 0.344*** 0.325*** 0.343*** 0.333*** 0.346*** (152.26) (213.60) (105.67) (146.37) (110.93) (159.91) Age is 15 0.283*** 0.294*** 0.283*** 0.290*** 0.283*** 0.297*** (105.11) (143.13) (74.82)(97.42) (74.57)(107.12) Age is 16 0.228*** 0.238*** 0.230*** 0.232*** 0.226*** 0.243*** (69.91) (93.80) (50.51)(62.83) (48.58)(70.65) Age is 17 0.161*** 0.171*** 0.177*** 0.173*** 0.144*** 0.169*** (39.25) (53.32) (32.11)(38.19) (23.75)(37.65) Head's age 0.00997*** 0.00975*** 0.00930*** 0.00988*** 0.0106*** 0.00969*** (10.66) (12.50) (7.83)(9.76) (9.36)(10.00) Head's age squared -0.0001*** -0.0001*** -0.0001*** -0.0001*** -0.0001*** -0.0001*** (-10.28) (-11.81) (-7.54)(-9.31) (-9.09)(-9.41) Head is literate 0.115*** 0.115*** 0.113*** 0.112*** 0.117*** 0.117*** (27.88) (31.58) (22.74)(25.30) (23.01)(25.79) Head is professional worker 0.0873*** 0.0782*** 0.0917*** 0.0950*** 0.0830*** 0.0610***

202

1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 1870-1880 1880-1900 Dependent variable is school attendance in past year All All Boys Boys Girls Girls (10.89) (12.45) (9.11)(12.12) (8.34)(7.58) Head is clerical worker 0.0414*** 0.0459*** 0.0347* 0.0414*** 0.0477** 0.0500*** (3.38) (5.67) (2.17)(3.96) (3.08)(4.87) Head is farmer 0.00857** 0.0139*** 0.0124** 0.0187*** 0.00461 0.00912** (2.67) (5.47) (3.12)(5.91) (1.16)(2.84) Head is skilled trades worker 0.0179*** 0.0156*** 0.0159** 0.0164*** 0.0198*** 0.0148*** (4.49) (5.06) (3.15)(4.18) (3.98)(3.75) Head had no occupation -0.00876 -0.00769 -0.0154* -0.0205** -0.00191 0.00533 (-1.45) (-1.59) (-2.02)(-3.28) (-0.26)(0.87) Child is female -0.000906 0.00900*** (-0.48) (5.72) Number of own siblings in household 0.00239*** -0.000286 0.00290*** 0.000681 0.00186* -0.00126 (3.41) (-0.51) (3.36)(0.99) (2.19)(-1.81) Born in the United States 0.145*** 0.152*** 0.147*** 0.147*** 0.143*** 0.157*** (24.82) (31.67) (20.03)(23.85) (19.18)(24.84) Parents are native born 0.0224*** 0.0259*** 0.0234*** 0.0218*** 0.0214*** 0.0300*** (7.44) (10.79) (6.21)(7.16) (5.72)(9.86) Resides in the south -0.268*** -0.179*** -0.272*** -0.184*** -0.265*** -0.172*** (-72.53) (-61.31) (-60.49)(-51.34) (-58.39)(-47.50) Observations 214675 295341 109052 149905 105623 145436

203 Chapter 3 The changing added worker effect, 1890-1940

The mother's employment outside the home is an increasingly important factor socially; although it as a rule belongs logically under the caption 'Poverty.'1

These reasons for the initial appearance in industry of married women, in order of frequency, are: first, insufficient wage of the husband.2

Introduction

Contemporary observers of married women's work in the United States before

World War I attributed white wives decisions to go out to work as a matter of economic

necessity, motivated by their husband's low earnings from persistent spells without paid

work. Employment outside the home, particularly in factories, was seen as so unattractive

that wives who chose industrial work over domesticity and leisure must have been

compelled by poor circumstances. In the 1920s and 1930s, public opinion shifted rapidly

with changing macroeconomic conditions, and changing behavior by married women

themselves.

The academy and government also debated why wives worked. During the 1930s wives' response to male unemployment was the subject of an important debate amongst economists over the relative size of the added- and discouraged-worker effects. The idea of the added-worker effect is that when unemployment increases, other family members

1 Louise Stevens Bryant, School Feeding; Its History and Practice at Home and Abroad (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott co., 1913), 124. 2 Gwendolyn Hughes, Mothers in Industry (New York: The New Republic, 1925), 22. 204 come into the labor market to look for work. By contrast, the discouraged-worker effect suggests that when unemployment increases, people without jobs withdraw from the labor force and cease looking for work. At the time the research of W.S. Woytinsky appeared to show that the added-worker effect dominated.3 Subsequent research by

Clarence Long in 1958 contradicted Woytinsky. Using a published table from the 1940 census, Long showed that women whose husbands were unemployed had lower labor force participation rates than women whose husbands were employed. Long's research appeared to show that in 1940 the added-worker effect was negative.4 There the debate lay for nearly forty years.5 All of the people who debated whether the Great Depression

added or removed workers to the labor force realized the debate could not really be

resolved with the aggregate census data available to them at the time.6

Once individual and household-level data was available from the census and other sources, it mostly showed that after 1960 married women were not very sensitive to their

3 Herbert G. Heneman Jr., "Measurement of Secondary Unemployment: An Evaluation of Woytinsky's Methods," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 3, no. 4 (1950): 567-74, Don D. Humphrey, "Alleged "Additional Workers" in the Measurement of Unemployment," Journal of Political Economy 48, no. 3 (1940): 412-19, Richard Jensen, "The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19, no. 4 (1989): 553-83 includes a non-technical summary of some of the issues, Clarence D. Long, "The Concept of Unemployment," Quarterly Journal of Economics 57, no. 1 (1942): 1-30, Russell A. Nixon and Paul A. Samuelson, "Estimates of Unemployment in the United States," Review of Economics and Statistics 22, no. 3 (1940): 101-11, W. S. Woytinsky, "Additional Workers on the Labor Market in Depressions: A Reply to Mr. Humphrey," Journal of Political Economy 48, no. 5 (1940): 735-39, W. S. Woytinsky, "Controversial Aspects of Unemployment Estimates in the United States," Review of Economics and Statistics 23, no. 2 (1942): 68-77, W.S. Woytinsky, Additional Workers and the Volume of Unemployment in the Depression (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1940), 1-27, W.S. Woytinsky, Three Aspects of Labor Dynamics (Washington D.C.: 1942). 4 Clarence D. Long, The Labor Force under Changing Income and Employment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 181-201. See W.L. Hansen, 1961, AER. 5 Robert A. Margo, "Labor and Labor Markets in the 1930s," in The Economics of the Great Depression, ed. M. Wheeler (Kalamazoo: Upjohn Institute, 1998), 15. 6 W. Lee Hansen, "The Cyclical Sensitivity of the Labor Supply," American Economic Review 51, no. 3 (1961): 299-309, Heneman Jr., "Measurement of Secondary Unemployment: An Evaluation of Woytinsky's Methods." 205 husband's earnings or unemployment.7 Calculations from aggregate data suggest that before 1940 the added-worker effect was large.8 This chapter revisits the question of the

added-worker effect in the pre-1940 period using microdata. Some of the data I use has

already been used in previous research. However, the contribution of this chapter is to

estimate the added-worker effect for these samples in a consistent manner and provide a

straightforward estimate of the changes in the added-worker effect. I also use data from

the mid-1930s that has never previously been used to study the added-worker effect. I

find that the added worker effect was substantial in the 1880s and 1890s, declined

significantly by World War I, and declined further by 1940. In 1890 if a husband's

earnings dropped 10%—the equivalent of five weeks unemployment in the year—his

wife was 80% more likely to enter the labor force. By 1940 if a husband's annual

earnings dropped 10% his wife was only 6% more likely to enter the labor force.

The outline of this chapter is as follows. I first summarize how contemporaries

viewed wives decisions to work, with changes in public opinion loosely tracking changes

in wives behavior. After a discussion of the data available to investigate this question,

and how it differs over time, I then estimate models of wives' labor supply and calculate

the changing response of women to changes in their husband's earnings and

unemployment spells. I restrict my attention to white women for several reasons. The

early data does not distinguish between black and white families, though given the

7 Shelly J. Lundberg, "The Added-Worker Effect," Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. 1 (1985), Tim Maloney, "Employment Constraints and the Labor Supply of Married Women: A Reexamination of the Added Worker Effect," Journal of Human Resources 22, no. 1 (1987), Tim Maloney, "Unobserved Variables and the Elusive Added Worker Effect," Economica 58, no. 230 (1991). Julie Berry Cullen and Jonathan Gruber, "Does Unemployment Insurance Crowd out Spousal Labor Supply?" Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 3 (2000), Melvin Stephens Jr., "Worker Displacement and the Added Worker Effect," Journal of Labor Economics 20, no. 3 (2002). 8 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 206 industries and locations sampled there are likely to be few black families included.

Estimates of the added-worker effect for black families can only be made after 1917.9

Secondly, public criticism of married women's work before 1940 was largely about white married women working, discussed further in Chapters 4 and 5. In the interests of tightening the connection between public criticism of married women's work, and private decisions to go to work, it is simpler to abstract from the changing gap between races, and focus only on the change over time in white wives behavior.

Contemporary views on wives decisions to work

Much of the published commentary about poverty forcing wives to work referred

to white women, although the decennial tabulation of census results forced a realization

on observers that "Negro" wives were more likely to work than white wives.10

Contemporary commentary about married women's employment often overstated the

scale of the "problem" of wives working. In 1919, for example, Anna Burdick, a special

agent for the federal government specializing in women's industrial education, told a five-

state conference of vocational educators that "One out of every four married women is

forced to work in order to support her family."11 At the time, approximately one of out of

every four woman workers was married—a quite different statistic. Published tabulations

by the U.S. Census Bureau focused attention on the proportion of married women among

9 Extending the analysis to black women for the 1917/19, 1935/36 and 1940 samples is straightforward, and I plan to undertake this in the future. 10 Joseph A. Hill, Statistics of Women at Work: Based on Unpublished Information Derived from the Schedules of the 1900 Census (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907). For example, see "Women at work: Most are Servants or Farm Laborers," Decatur Daily Review, Decatur (IL), May 23, 1907: 5.; "Women as Breadwinners," Fitchburg Daily Sentinel, Fitchburg (MA) June 3, 1907: 5. 11 "Men Cannot Earn Enough For Home." Oakland Tribune. April 10, 1919: 2. The conference was held at the University of California at Berkeley. 207 women in the workforce, which varied from 7% in 1860 to 14% in 1940.12 Because most women married by their mid-twenties, there were many more adult married women who could potentially labor than single women.13 A low rate of labor force participation amongst white married women still led to married women being a substantial minority of the overall female labor force.

Family budget studies and social surveys put the figures correctly, showing that

even amongst the poorest white families less than one in five wives were working, even

in samples selected for husband's low incomes. The language used to describe wives'

choices to work typically displayed a sympathy for the cruel circumstances these women

faced. Contemporary observers of families with working wives concluded that wives

went out to work only as a family's last resort. Children were seen as the first source of

supplementary earnings. It was also observed that wives would first try to earn extra

money through work that could be done at home, especially if their were still young

children in the family.14 In general terms, contemporary observers correctly identified the influences on wives' decisions to work, and were largely correct in concluding that a

12 Even the labor statisticians of the day focused attention on the proportion married amongst women workers. See, for example: Carroll Davidson Wright, Outline of Practical Sociology: With Special Reference to American Conditions (New York: Longmans, Green, 1899), 222-23. 13 On changing trends in marriage for American women, see Catherine Fitch and Steven Ruggles, "Historical Trends in Marriage Formation," in Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, ed. Linda Waite, et al. (Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000), 59-88. 14 Thomas Sewall Adams, Helen L. Sumner, and Richard Theodore Ely, Labor Problems; a Text Book (New York: Macmillan, 1905), 526, George Benjamin Mangold, Child Problems (New York: Macmillan company, 1910), 167, Scott Nearing, Financing the Wage-Earner's Family: A Survey of the Facts Bearing on Income and Expenditures in the Families of American Wage-Earners (New York: Huebsch, 1914), 34, Gordon S. Watkins, An Introduction to the Study of Labor Problems (New York: Thomas Crowell, 1922), 139-40.Irene M. Ashby, "Child-Labor in Southern Cotton Mills," in Walter Hines Page and Arthur Wilson Page (eds), The World's Work (New York: Doubleday, 1901), 1292. Thomas W.B. Craper, "Economic Aspects of Tuberculosis in Milwaukee," Transactions of the Sixth International Congress on Tuberculosis, Vol. 8, 1908, 201. For historical reflection see Greg A. Hoover, "Supplemental Family Income Sources: Ethnic Differences in Nineteenth-Century Industrial America," Social Science History 9, no. 3 (1985): 293- 306. 208 husband's income and unemployment were particularly significant influences on married women's work.15 In contemporary terms husbands who withdrew from the labor market due to disability or other causes would be considered non-employed and out of the labor force. However, before the modern labor force participation concept was introduced in the late 1930s "unemployment" included withdrawal from the labor force. Changes in married women's paid labor, at an individual or aggregate level, were largely seen as shifts in labor supply. Married women who were in the unfortunate position of needing to work were assumed to be able to find a job relatively easily, though location dictated the particular occupations available. Wives were sensitive to their husband’s income, but not to their own wages in deciding whether to go out to work or not.

World War I was the first major event that contemporaries identified as a demand-side shock to the market for married women's labor. Contemporaries saw opportunities opening up for married women in factories, transportation and clerical work. The demand for married women in factories during World War I was largely viewed as married women moving into new jobs in war-related industries.16 Particularly in munitions factories, women were not seen as directly displacing men since the increased demand for munitions was clearly temporary. In ship building and steel industries increased demand and new positions being filled by women, co-existed with

15 Cf. the discussion in Carolyn M. Moehling, "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment," Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001). 16 Maurine Weiner Greenwald, Women, War and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980).. For contemporary discussion of demand for women by firms whose men were in the armed forces, see inter alia T.G. Aston, "Employment of Women in Railway Work," Electric Railway Journal, June 22 1918, Anna L. Burdick, "Training and Upgrading of Women Factory Workers," Proceedings of the National Safety Council 8 (1919), Esther Norton, "Women in War Industries," The New Republic, 15 December 1917 1917, Mary Van Kleeck, "Federal Policies for Women in Industry," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 81 (1919), "Women Help Relieve Labor Scarcity in B.R.T Mechanical Department," Electric Railway Journal, October 12 1918. 209 women filling positions men had left to serve in the military. In utilities and

transportation, and in clerical work, women were viewed as temporary occupants of

men's jobs. While patriotism demanded their employment be positively covered at the

time, it was clear that women would be expected to resign their jobs at the end of the war.17

Contemporary views of why married women chose to work shifted significantly

in the 1920s and 1930s. Married women's work was increasingly seen as a positive

choice made by the women themselves. As women moved into more desirable jobs—

particularly in clerical work and teaching— there was increasing commentary that

married women were, at least indirectly, displacing men and single women from jobs. I

discuss this further in the following two chapters. What is noteworthy for the analysis of

women's decisions to work is the emerging idea that women might want to work, and

were not forced into the labor market by their husband's low earnings. The changes in

public opinion suggest that contemporaries were aware of the transition in the way

families made decisions. They often attributed the changes to a growing independence of

women.

Historical studies of family income and married women's work

In 1885 the Eighth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor and

Industries of New Jersey—for the following paragraphs referred to simply as "the

Bureau"—conducted a cost of living survey of more than six hundred wage workers. In

common with other state labor statistics surveys of the late nineteenth century, the exact

17 Discussed further in Chapter 5. 210 way in which the data was collected was not well explained. Although it was fifty years before the science of statistical survey sampling was first codified, the Bureau appeared concerned to obtain a selection of workers that was in some way representative of the one hundred thousand male manufacturing workers in New Jersey.18 A variety of different

occupations were represented, from a variety of different locations around the state. The

Annual Report tabulated the responses by individual families, and added some pages of

summary means.

This basically unprocessed format was not uncommon in state labor bureau

reports from the late nineteenth century, though the New Jersey Bureau was more likely to print individual returns from individuals, families, and employers, than other states.19

Tables of raw data from hundreds of people must have been scarcely read at the time, yet they have been a boon for scholarly research since the early 1990s.20 It was only possible to print these tables in the state labor reports as the number of respondents was relatively small. The meager analytical and tabulating capacities of state labor bureaus were outrun by these relatively small surveys, while the United States Census Bureau, with its greater resources, was able to tabulate selected results from a complete population census of millions in the decade following the census. While the census was a more complete

18 Martin R. Frankel and Lester R. Frankel, "Fifty Years of Survey Sampling in the United States," Public Opinion Quarterly 51, no. 2 (1987): S127-S38 for a review of the early dissemination of Neyman’s ideas in the United States, Jerzy Neyman, "On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: The Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 97, no. 4 (1934). 19 See the index to state labor bureau reports from 1893 and 1902: United States Commissioner of Labor. Third Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor. Analysis and Index of All Reports Issued by State Bureaus of Labor Statistics in the United States Prior to November 1, 1892. (Washington, D.C.: 1893): 125-148.; Index of All Reports Issued by Bureaus of Labor Statistics in the United States Prior to March 1, 1902. (Washington, D.C.: 1902). The latter report does not group reports by state, but by topic. 20Susan B. Carter, Roger L. Ransom, and Richard Sutch, "The Historical Labor Statistics Project at the University of California," Historical Methods 24, no. 2 (1991): 52-65. 211 enumeration of the population, and the range of topics covered by the census grew

impressively over the years, it was not until 1940 that the American census first included

questions on income and wages.21 The omission is a challenge for economic historians.

Other sources, such as the manufacturing census, allow the calculation of overall national income. There are many pre-1940 surveys of wages in particular industries and occupations. Yet microdata on individual and family earnings is relatively rare before the

1940 census.

To properly understand individual and family economic behavior it is necessary to have some measures of earnings. The census, and by extension the IPUMS samples, are the most representative sources for studying the behavior of ordinary Americans, yet the census lacks this key variable. By contrast, sources that include earnings information are probably somewhat unrepresentative of the population. This trade-off was recognized at the time by the state labor bureaus. The commentary of the New Jersey Bureau in 1885 aptly—if not concisely—summarizes the dilemma:

The decennial censuses, which are year by year becoming more reliable and valuable, show, approximately the wealth of the nation. But these statistics do not pretend to, and, from the nature of the case, can give little insight into the social condition of our people, especially of that large class of bread-winners, the working people, whose families comprise more than ninety in every hundred of the population. Efforts in this direction have not been wanting, even before the day of labor bureaus; yet, until recently, they have resulted only in information, at best incomplete and unsatisfactory, concerning the nominal earnings of the wage-laborer, the extent of woman and child labor, in what kind of dwelling his family is housed, and the like. Such facts do not even exhibit the merest superficial view of the daily life of our

21 Margo J. Anderson, The American Census: A Social History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988). See the 1940 enumeration form at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/voliii/form1940.shtml. 212 workingmen's families. To get at their real condition we must go further and find out in what manner their income is spent—what part is used up in providing for subsistence, for clothing and for shelter, and if anything is left for other purposes than mere physical sustenance—the keeping of the body and soul together. Do they save anything from their earnings? How many are in debt? What portion is propertyless, and have we an American proletariat? How little do we actually know about all this!22 Knowledge about the earnings and expenditure of American families grew rapidly in the following fifty years, advanced by federal and state governments, often working in concert with academics from the nascent sciences of sociology and economics, and social workers.23 Major cost-of-living studies were carried out by the federal government in

1890, 1901, 1918, and 1935. The original schedules for all the surveys, except 1901, have survived. The entry of the federal government into the enterprise of surveying American families about their standard of living contributed to the exit of state governments. After the turn of the century there are few studies of family earnings and spending by state governments. Academics and social workers persisted in smaller scale studies than the

tens of thousands surveyed by the federal government after 1889.24 Many of the academic

22 Bureau of Statistics of Labor and Industries of New Jersey, Eighth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor and Industries of New Jersey. Trenton (NJ), 1885: 141. 23 Martin Bulmer, Kevin Bales, and Kathryn Kish Sklar, The Social Survey in Historical Perspective, 1880- 1940 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), Ellen F. Fitzpatrick, Endless Crusade: Women Social Scientists and Progressive Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), Mary O. Furner, "Knowing Capitalism: Public Investigation and the Labor Question in the Long Progressive Era," in The State and Economic Knowledge, ed. Mary O. Furner and Barry Supple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), Joseph P. Goldberg, William T. Moye, and United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1985), Sarah Elizabeth Igo, The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). 24 A comprehensive list of government and other studies is Faith M. Williams et al., Studies of Family Living in the United States and Other Countries: An Analysis of Material and Method (Washington: [U.S. Govt. print off., 1935). See also Allen H. Eaton and Shelby M. Harrison, A Bibliography of Social Surveys: Reports of Fact-Finding Studies Made as a Basis for Social Action, Arranged by Subjects and Localities: Reports to January 1, 1928 (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1930). 213 surveys were carried out by women working in the field of "home economics."25 A typical study included between 50 and 500 families.26 The studies carried out by the social survey movement were often of a similar size.27

Neither the academic and social work surveys were unique to the United States, with both being part of a trans-Atlantic, and sometimes trans-Pacific, dialog on living standards of the masses and how government policies might improve them.28 The social survey movement in the United States could trace some of its inspiration to examine family budgets from the studies of Booth (London) and Rowntree (York) in Great

Britain.29 Although the academic and social worker surveys were smaller, and likely even

less representative than the federal government's cost of living surveys, the academics and social workers were probably more accurate. The state and federal government

surveys—including those used here—asked respondents to estimate their income and

expenditures over the past year, from recall. While the agents collecting the data were

instructed to ask families to try and reconstruct the information from receipts and records

25S. Grossbard-Shechtman, "The New Home Economics at Columbia and Chicago," Feminist Economics 7, no. 3 (2001): 103-30, Margaret Reid, Economics of Household Production (New York: John Wiley, 1934). 26 See, for example: Robert Coit Chapin, The Standard of Living among Workingmen's Families in New York City (New York: Charities publication committee, 1909), Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, Cost of Living Studies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1928), Leila Houghteling, The Income and Standards of Living of Unskilled Laborers in Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), Louise Bolard More, Wage-Earners' Budgets; a Study of Standards and Cost of Living in New York City (New York: H. Holt and company, 1907). 27 See for example, Carol Aronovici and Newport Survey Committee., The Newport Survey of Social Problems ([Fall River, Mass.: Munroe press, 1912), Carol Aronovici and Seybert institution (Philadelphia Pa.) Bureau for Social Research., The Social Survey (Philadelphia: Harper press, 1916), 62 has example of a form used in the collection of family income data, and extensive bibliography, Russell Sage Foundation, The Pittsburgh District Civic Frontage, Pittsburgh Survey; V. 5 (New York: Survey Associates, 1914), 454, Springfield Survey Committee (Springfield Ill.), Russell Sage Foundation. Dept. of Surveys and Exhibits, and Shelby M. Harrison, The Springfield Survey: A Study of Social Conditions in an American City, 10 vols. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1918), 164. 28 Daniel T. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1998). 29 On the connection to the British social surveys, see Chapin Standard of Living, pp.17-20. Also Economic Club. See also Mary O. Furner and Barry Supple, The State and Economic Knowledge: The American and British Experiences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 214 where possible, it is likely that recall bias is a problem in the cost of living surveys used

in this chapter.30

Modeling married women's labor force participation decisions

Examining the effect of husband’s employment and income on their wives’ work decisions invokes the assumption that there is some form of joint decision making about

who works and how much. This is a relatively standard assumption in the economics

literature, and is a useful simplification.31 This chapter does not peer too deeply inside the household, confining itself to the inferences that can be made by observing changes in behavior in response to changes in measured factors, such as husband’s income, the number of children of particular ages, and other measures of the needs and resources of the family. Concentrating on the effects of income has the advantage of examining a variable that can be quite easily measured over time, and whose meaning does not change.

Increased participation by married women in the labor market occurred because the relationship between characteristics of women and their families, and labor force participation at each point in time changed. At any one point in time, the less a man earned, or the more he was unemployed the less his wife was likely to work. However, over the course of the twentieth century, including the fifty year span examined here,

30 S. Dex and A. McCulloch, "The Reliability of Retrospective Unemployment History Data," Work, Employment and Society 12, no. 3 (2001): 497-509, F.W. Horvath, "Forgotten Unemployment: Recall Bias in Retrospective Data," Monthly Labor Review 150, no. 3 (1982): 40-43, N. A. Mathiowetz and G. J. Duncan, "Out of Work, out of Mind: Response Errors in Retrospective Reports of Unemployment," Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 6, no. 2 (1988): 221-29, Ron Shachar and Zvi Eckstein, "Correcting for Bias in Retrospective Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics 22, no. 3 (2007): 657-75. 31 Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak, "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, no. 4 (1996): 139-54. 215 men’s incomes grew, while the labor force participation of married women continued to grow.32 For example, in 1890 the average man surveyed earned $519 per year, and seven percent of wives worked. Amongst a similar group of men in 1940, average annual

earnings had advanced to around $800 (constant 1890 dollars), yet 12 percent of wives

contributed to family income. This paper focuses on the change in the relationship

between male unemployment (or low earnings) and wives' labor force participation.

Models of married women's labor supply

Understanding married women's labor supply was instrumental in the birth of

modern labor economics.33 As was shown in Chapter 1 married men's labor supply was

near-universal for the century after 1850. Without any variation, there was nothing to

research. Married women—especially after 1950—provided the necessary variety in

outcomes that made researching their choices tractable and important. Standard models of

labor supply take the family as a single decision-making unit, in which the husband and

wife make a single decision about work and expenditures. In effect, the couple is

represented as a single individual with 48 hours in the day, and for each hour they have

two sets of possibilities for using their time. Under certain conditions this pooled decision

making will be the same as if the spouses were behaving as individuals. As was discussed

in Chapter 2, the prevailing legal regime in the pre-World War II United States assumed a

male head-of-household making decisions, with first claim on his wife's labor. Prior to

universal suffrage, the assumption of a unitary couple has the merits of being more

32 Jacob Mincer, "Labor Force Participation of Married Women," in Aspects of Labor Economics, ed. H. Gregg Lewis (Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research and Princeton University Press, 1962), 64. 33 Gronau on Mincer 2003. 216 straightforward to estimate, and conforming with the legal understanding of the

relationship between spouses.

Modern models of household labor supply are more likely to treat spouses as

independent individuals who either bargain their way to a solution, or make a collective

decision given common knowledge about the possible uses of their time. These models

are more complicated to estimate, and applications are only appearing gradually. Despite

the theoretical appeal of bargaining or collective models, the unitary model still

dominates empirical research.34 Bargaining models also provide a foundation for taking

marriage itself as a variable that individuals decide on, and can opt out of. Women in

marriages with a higher risk of divorce are more likely to go out to work to maintain their

earnings potential in the event of a divorce. Unitary models do not capture this richness

of the marriage situation. In any case, we can again appeal to history and note that the

risk (opportunity) of divorce was low before World War II, so ignoring this complexity

should not matter too much.35 A further implication that some analysts draw from the

unitary model is that spouses will specialize in either household or market production.36

However, this conclusion requires the assumption that each spouse can perform the same household tasks, but with varying quality. Thus, the spouse that gets the slightly higher wage offer, or is not quite as good as their spouse at household tasks, will enter the

34 Richard Blundell and Thomas Macurdy, "Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches," in Handbook of Labor Economics, ed. Orley Ashenfelter and David Card (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999), 1670, S. Lundberg, "Men and Islands: Dealing with the Family in Empirical Labor Economics," 12, no. 4 (2005): 591-612.. On collective models, see Pierre-Andre Chiappori, "Collective Labor Supply and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy 100, no. 3 (1992): 437-67, Pierre-Andre Chiappori, "Rational Household Labor Supply," Econometrica 56, no. 1 (1988): 63-90.. H. Couprie, "Time Allocation within the Family: Welfare Implications of Life in a Couple," The Economic Journal 117, no. 516 (2007).. Lundberg and Pollak, "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage.". 35 Steven Ruggles, "The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the United States, 1880-1990," Demography 34, no. 4 (1997): 455-66. 36 Gary Stanley Becker, A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), 32. 217 market and the other spouse will specialize in the household. Altering the model slightly to allow for diverse tasks at which spouses are not uniformly better than the other, means that it will be efficient for both spouses to mix combine market and household production.

Historically there was greater specialization than combination for women. Even the largest plausible estimates of married women's market work before World War II show only one in five married women in the labor force. In the vast majority of

American families, wives contributed nothing to family earnings. Even when they were earning, their contribution was modest. Yet families where the wife worked believed her earnings to be important in maintaining their standard of living. As noted earlier, contemporary observers believed a large—often unspecified—fraction of married women's was due to poverty or unemployment.

The relationship between male unemployment and their wives' increased propensity to work is known as the “added worker effect” from the observation that if men’s time in employment falls their wives will be more likely to enter the labor market.37 Over the twentieth century the added-worker effect has diminished, though recent evidence indicates that in the 1990s there was less change.38 Most modern studies report the elasticity of married women's annual hours of work with respect to income, which are not directly comparable with the effect on participation estimated from historical data.39 The effect of a husband's income on a wife's participation tends to be

37 Maloney, "Unobserved Variables and the Elusive Added Worker Effect." 38 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, 132-33.. 39 Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, "Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Women: 1980-2000," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 11230 (2005), Bradley T. Heim, "The Incredible Shrinking Elasticities: Married Female Labor Supply, 1979-2003," in Working 218 larger than the effect of husband's income on a wife's hours given she is already in

work.40 Modern research on family labor supply also confirms the, perhaps disquieting,

conclusion of this chapter; while income has an effect on wives' labor force participation

decisions at a point in time, the observed relationship cannot be used to explain the long

run trends in labor force participation.41 Since 1960 the wives of high-wage men have

increased their labor supply more than the wives of low-wage men. The same is true looking at 120 years of history, as well as 40 years.

Even when the added-worker effect was large it did not explain the labor force

participation of most women. In other words, the observations of contemporary

observers were only partially accurate. For a minority of individual woman, the husband's

employment was a significant factor in the decision to enter the labor force.

Unemployment does not explain the participation of most married women, because the

majority of working wives were married to men who were not unemployed in the

previous year. Four censuses in the 1880-1940 period asked about the amount of

unemployment in the preceding year. The format of the question was slightly different

every year, changing the metric of unemployment from months to weeks in 1910, and in

1940 reversing the question to weeks of employment in the previous year. From these

questions we can construct a variable indicating whether a husband was fully employed

in the previous year, reporting no unemployment, or 52 weeks of work. In all the

censuses the instructions attempted to measure unemployment only. Sick time, scheduled

Paper (Durham: Economics Department, Duke University, 2004), Chinhui Juhn and Kevin M. Murphy, "Wage Inequality and Family Labor Supply," Journal of Labor Economics 15, no. 1 (1997): 72-97. 40 Blundell and Macurdy, "Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches." 41 This is a point made especially well by Juhn and Murphy, "Wage Inequality and Family Labor Supply," 94. 219 fallow periods of production, and vacation were not meant to be included in

unemployment months (weeks).42 Erroneously including non-work weeks with

unemployment will tend to inflate the number of women with less than fully employed

husbands, and reduce the gap in participation rates truly due to unemployment. From

1880 to 1910 the majority of married women who were working were married to men

who were fully employed in the previous year. In 1940, the proportion of wives married

to fully-employed men drops significantly, reflecting the widespread severity of the

Depression. Women whose husbands were not fully employed were more likely to be in

the labor force. In 1880 and 1900, the ratio of labor force participation rates between

wives of less than fully-employed husbands and wives of fully employed husbands was between 1.5 and 2. For black wives the proportionate increase in labor force participation when a husband was not fully employed was much smaller. It is likely that the higher participation rates amongst black wives of fully-employed men in 1910 reflects the concentration of African-American women on family farms where—relative to previous censuses—their labor force participation was overstated in 1910. The point to take away from Table 3.1 is that while unemployment and low earnings had a significant impact on the labor force participation decisions of women whose husbands were unemployed, most

women who worked were married to fully employed men.

42 J. Atack, F. Bateman, and R. A. Margo, "Part-Year Operation in Nineteenth-Century American Manufacturing: Evidence from the 1870 and 1880 Censuses," The Journal of Economic History 62, no. 3 (2002): 792-809.. For example, the 6th Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor and Industries of New Jersey (Trenton, 1883), p.4, reports that bottle and glass vial blowers did not work in July and August, but that this time was not included in "Time Lost" to unemployment. Atack et al show that workers in these industries received higher wages for their part-year employment. 220 Table 3.1. Full-year employment of men, and their wives labor force participation

Husband reported unemployment last year Husband was employed full year Year and race LFP rate Number of working wives LFP rate Number of working wives Proportion of working wives with fully employed husbands

1880 White 0.029 16,255 0.016 104,421 0.87 Black 0.274 18,260 0.268 238,763 0.93 Total 34,515 343,184 0.91

1900 White 0.030 53,630 0.018 175,258 0.77 Black 0.244 62,702 0.202 211,742 0.77 Total 116,332 387,000 0.77

1910 White 0.068 99,521 0.052 323,773 0.76 Black 0.394 70,725 0.419 277,282 0.80 Total 170,246 601,055 0.78

1940 White 0.145 1,214,410 0.116 1,673,473 0.58 Black 0.282 254,429 0.268 289,955 0.53 Total 1,468,839 1,963,428 0.57

221 Similarly, the labor force participation of women conditioned on their husband's

labor force participation gives little additional information beyond what we know from a woman's own race. Even when a white woman's husband was completely out of the labor force her probability of participating was still less than half the probability that a black

woman with an employed husband would participate (Figure 3.1). Even when black

husbands were out of the labor force their wives labor force participation rates were half

the participation rates of black wives today. Analyzing the difference between black and

white wives behavior in a multivariate framework that allows differences in

characteristics to be accounted for does not eliminate the difference in labor force

participation rates.43 The 1940 census was the best enumerated of all the censuses used in

this dissertation, and the gap in labor force participation rates between black and white

wives was the smallest. Some of the difference in labor force participation rates is

explained by different characteristics of black and white wives. Even after accounting for

unemployment and income of husbands and the presence of children black wives were

still 10 percentage points more likely to be in the labor force. Differences in

characteristics can only explain one-third of the gap in labor force participation rates.

43 Claudia Goldin, "Female Labor Force Participation: The Origin of Black and White Differences, 1870 and 1880," Journal of Economic History 37, no. 1 (1977): 87-108. 222 Figure 3.1 Husbands and wives labor force participation, 1860-1940

Previous research and economic theory suggest that the effect of a husband's unemployment on wives' participation decisions will vary with the length of time a husband is unemployed, and whether a household was expecting unemployment.44 If unemployment is relatively predictable and of short duration households will be able to plan their expenditure anticipating some level of unemployment. Even before the welfare state, families could adjust to short spells of unemployment by drawing on accumulated

44 P. Bingley and I. Walker, "Household Unemployment and the Labour Supply of Married Women," Economica 68, no. 270 (2001): 157-86 is one of the few studies to explicitly analyze how individual variation in the duration of husband's unemployment changes the probability an individual woman will be in the labor market by using hazard models. Most studies of the impact of men's unemployment on married women's work choices use cross-sectional data. The variation between couples in length of unemployment spell is then used to estimate the relationship between unemployment duration and the probability a wife will be working. With longitudinal data, there is extra information from repeated observations of the same couple over time. This means there is less worry that differences between couples, rather than the effect of unemployment itself, account for the relationship between unemployment and wives working. 223 savings, or short-term charitable assistance.45 If a husband is unemployed for longer than

anticipated, the household will have to adjust its expenditures—moving to cheaper

housing, for example—or make up the deficit in family earnings by sending other

members into the labor market. Some evidence on unemployment duration and wives' labor force participation decisions is available from the censuses of 1880, 1900, 1910 and

1940 which included questions on the amount of unemployment a person had in the

previous year.

The figures overleaf are generated by modeling the wife's labor force participation

decision as a function of a husband's annual unemployment time, and the square of

husband's unemployment time to capture any non-linearities in the relationship. In this

simple bivariate presentation no other variables are controlled for, though the estimates

are made separately by race. The central line represents the average probability of

participation for a given length of husband's unemployment, and the other lines represent

95% confidence intervals for the mean. Over a year, wives' probability of participation

rose with each additional month a husband was unemployed from 1880-1910. It should

be noted that even when a husband was unemployed for a full year in 1910, the average

black wife had less than a 50% chance of being in the labor force—less than the observed

participation for all black women in 1980. This emphasizes again that there has been a

secular shift in behavior over the twentieth century. For both black and white women the

45 G. Alter, C. Goldin, and E. Rotella, "The Savings of Ordinary Americans: The Philadelphia Saving Fund Society in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History 54, no. 4 (1994), Michael B. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York: Basic Books, 1997), R. D. Wadhwani, "Citizen Savers: Family Economy, Financial Institutions, and Public Policy in the Nineteenth-Century Northeast," Enterprise and Society 5, no. 4 (2004), R. D. Wadhwani, "Citizen Savers: The Family Economy, Financial Institutions, and Social Policy in the Northeastern United States from the Market Revolution to the Great Depression" (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2002), Rohit Daniel Wadhwani, "Banking from the Bottom Up: The Case of Migrant Savers at the Philadelphia Saving Fund Society During the Late Nineteenth Century," Financial History Review 9, no. 1 (2002). 224 probability of participation has not reached a maximum in the quadratic relationship by the end of the year. In 1940 husbands who were unemployed, and still looking for work, were asked how long they had been unemployed, up to a maximum of 250 weeks employed, approximately five years continuous unemployment. Using this data, we observe that the maximum probability of participation came when a husband had been unemployed for a little over two years. The confidence intervals for these estimates are wide, as there are few individuals unemployed for more than a year who were not on emergency relief work, or had exited the labor market. Women whose spouses were on emergency relief work were excluded from the estimates, because federal rules for accepting emergency relief disqualified some men from accepting relief if their wives were working.46 Even after husbands been unemployed for two years, wives predicted labor force participation rates were less than double the labor force participation rates of women married to men who were not unemployed. While we must account for the

(changing) influence husband's unemployment and income in wives labor force participation decisions, family economic factors did not determine wives behavior.

46 Robert A. Margo, "Interwar Unemployment in the United States: Evidence from the 1940 Census Sample," in Interwar Unemployment in International Perspective, ed. Barry J. Eichengreen and T. J. Hatton (Dordrecht: 1988), 325-52. 225 Figure 3.2 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force participation, 1880-1900

226 Figure 3.3 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force participation, 1910-1940

227 Wives' response to their husband's unemployment was influenced by their relative

productivity in market and household production, and the opportunities other family

members had to replace a husband's income. Household production is typically defined to

include child-care. Unitary models typically take the number of children and their

behavior as given. Even before 1940 this is an incomplete mode of thinking about the

relationship between women's work and fertility. Conscious fertility reduction was

definitely being practiced in the United States by the late nineteenth century.47 Women whose prime reproductive years fell during the Great Depression had fewer children than they had anticipated.48 Children's labor supply is also unlikely to be exogenous to their parent's labor supply decisions.49 While children were somewhat independent, the very

fact they were still living at home shows they were still economically related to their

parents. The unitary model abstracts from this complication too, treating the number and

activities of children as an exogenous influence on the mother's decisions. Nevertheless,

these limitations of the unitary model of married women's labor supply have not stopped

it being the dominant approach in applied work.

Children will affect their mother's labor supply in slightly different ways at

different ages. When children are infants it may be physically more difficult for mothers

to work. A greater proportion of women were working in physically demanding jobs in

agriculture or domestic service in the early twentieth century. In most circumstances

having an infant did not disqualify a woman from working, but reconciling infant care

47 Hacker, 2003. 48 Emeka, 2006. 49 J. D. Angrist, "Children and Their Parents' Labor Supply: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Family Size," American Economic Review 88, no. 3 (1998): 450-77 As yet, there are no historical applications of these techniques. 228 and employment was more difficult before 1940. The needs of mothers nursing infants

were not accommodated in many pre-World War II workplaces in the United States.50

Even once child were no longer being nursed they still required care until they started school. Formal day care was highly unusual in the United States before 1940. Mothers who worked often had to leave their children in the care of neighbors or older children.

Older children could enable or replace their parent's labor. If older children stayed home their mother could work, yet if the older child had greater potential earnings it might be more beneficial for the family if the child worked. Parents who relied, at least partially, on the earnings of their children knew that it was not a permanent solution.51 With

independent earnings children might move out of their parents' home. Conversely, if

children were working it might indicate that the family's income was so low the wife also

had a greater need to work.

These considerations suggest that the influence of children on mother's labor

supply needs to be accounted for in different variables in a model of married women's

labor force participation. Children under 6 who have not yet started school will require

care, and are likely to have a negative influence on their mother's labor supply. Older

children who have the opportunity to work themselves will have an indeterminate effect

on their mother's labor supply, depending on whether they are better substitutes for their

mother's household or market labor. In the multivariate analysis that concludes the

chapter I have a variable for the number of children under 6, and separate variables for

50 Irene Osgood Andrews, "The Protection of Maternity: An Urgent Need," American Labor Legislation Review, 10, no. 1 (1920): 47-50. Some European countries did grant working mothers of infants the time to nurse. See "Legislative Phases of Labor Reconstruction," American Labor Legislation Review, 9, no. 1 (1919): 69. 51 S. J. Kleinberg, "Children's and Mothers' Wage Labor in Three Eastern U.S. Cities, 1880-1920," Social Science History 29, no. 1 (2005): 45-76. 229 the number of boys and girls 13 and older. On the following pages I show the changing

bivariate relationship between the number of co-resident children and married women's

labor force participation for women aged between 16 and 65, with the data drawn from

the census at 20 year intervals. The figures are constructed separately for black and white

women using a probit model with the number of children, children under six, or working

children as the independent variable. The central connected line in each panel of each

figure represents the mean probability of labor force participation for a woman with that

many children. Because the probit model is non-linear the mean predicted probability of

labor force participation is below the observed average rate of labor force participation at

each number of children. The outer lines bound a 95% confidence interval for the

probability of labor force participation.

Amongst white women the impact of children on labor force participation is

uniformly negative. In 1880 and 1900 labor force participation was low for any number of children (Figures 3.4 and 3.5). A shift in behavior is evident by 1920, with a greater

shift by 1940. In 1920, the mean probability of labor force participation for a married

white woman with no children was 0.08. Just twenty years later, a woman with three children had the same probability of being in the labor force. The relationship between children and labor force participation is relatively steep in 1940, with the probability of participation more than halving from 0.19 at zero children to 0.08 at three children. By

contrast in 1920—at a lower overall level of participation—the change in probability

from zero to three children was a nearly exact halving. This relationship is consistent

with the observed evidence that the cohorts of women marrying in the 1920s and 1930s

were more likely to stay in work after marriage. Thus, the group without co-resident

230 children in 1940 includes more young wives, whereas the group without children in earlier years has more older women whose children have left home. The same steep drop-

off is observed for children under 6, with the age-group of interest defined as women

between the ages of 16 and 45 (Figure 3.6 and 3.7). Older women are much less likely to

have any children under the age of six, mixing up the influence of lifecycle change in

participation with the effect of children. For black women the total number of children,

and the number of children under six also have a negative effect on the probability of

participation, but the relationship is flatter than for white women: each additional child

has a smaller proportionate impact on black women. The relationship between children

and labor force participation gets steeper over time. The gap in behavior between white

and black women narrowed, but was not eliminated.

The most significant difference between black and white wives behavior was in

the influence of working children on labor force participation. For these figures, I restrict

the sample to women between the ages of 35 and 65 (Figure 3.8 and 3.9). Younger

women are not at risk for having a working child, which would again conflate life-cycle

changes with the effects of children's labor supply decisions. Black wives' participation

rose with the number of children working until the 1920 census. In 1940 the relationship

reversed itself, so that additional working children made a black mother less likely to

enter the labor force. For white wives, the relationship was consistently negative, and got

steeper over time as the probability of being in the labor force with no working children

rose. The different relationship between working children and labor force participation

231 for blacks and whites, and the reversal for blacks in 1940 highlight the importance of considering other factors unmeasured in these figures.52

52 Marco Manacorda, " Child Labor and the Labor Supply of Other Household Members: Evidence from 1920 America," American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006): 1788-801. 232 Figure 3.4. Children and white wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

233 Figure 3.5 Children and black wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

234 Figure 3.6 Children under six, and white wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

235 Figure 3.7 Children under six, and black wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

236 Figure 3.8 Working children and white wives labor force participation

237 Figure 3.9 Working children and black wives labor force participation

238

Participation as a measure of labor force behavior

Individuals have 24 hours each day to divide amongst leisure, and household and market production. On a single day, their choices can be measured as the hours spent in each activity. Formal employment, particularly in large organizations where people do not have personal relationships with their employer, often requires a worker to commit to a standard number of hours. In other situations, including smaller firms, where people know their employer better; firms owned by a woman or her family; self-employment; or contract piece work, hours are more flexible. For women, conditional on occupation and industry there was little variation in working hours per day, or per week before 1940.53

Once a woman entered wage work she was very likely committed to working at least 40 hours per week. In modern economies, work-time is somewhat more flexible and the variation in how much women work is interesting because it varies.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the interesting variation is in whether a married woman worked or not. It is also possible to recover an indicator of whether someone worked from diverse measures in the historical data. The 1940 census includes measures of weeks worked in the previous year, earnings in the past year, and hours worked in the past week. Unfortunately, the earlier cost-of-living surveys have inconsistent measures of women's work. The 1890 survey includes only annual earnings, with the 1917 survey adding annual weeks, and the 1935/36 survey adding last week's

53 J. Atack and F. Bateman, "How Long Was the Workday in 1880?" 52, no. 1 (1992), Michael Huberman, "Working Hours of the World Unite? New International Evidence of Worktime, 1870-1913," Journal of Economic History 64, no. 4 (2004). Dora L. Costa, "The Wage and the Length of the Work Day: From the 1890s to 1991," Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 1 (2000), Irene J. Graham, "Working Hours of Women in Chicago," Journal of Political Economy 23, no. 8 (1915). 239 hours. From these original variables we can construct a consistent measure, based on

retrospective annual earnings, of whether a woman was working. As some women's work

was intermittent over the year, this measure of labor force participation will be above the modern definition. However, it may correspond more closely with the gainful worker definition used in the pre-1940 censuses. A woman who worked intermittently is more likely to be captured by this retrospective measure than the modern question with its restriction to the immediately passed week.

In the terminology of economics, by focusing on the decision to enter the labor

market or not, we are looking at the extensive margin.54 While this measure of women's

choices is cruder, it is less sensitive to measurement error, recall bias, and other artifacts

of data collection, such as the occupations women end up choosing once in work. By

using a dichotomous variable some information is lost, but the information is less

distorted by heaping at common values, and other forms of recall bias. Labor force

participation is also a somewhat better measure for focusing as much as possible on

changes in family decision making. If we looked at changes in women's annual work

weeks between 1917/19 and 1940, we would also be capturing variation in work

schedules and macroeconomic conditions as well as family decisions. The number of

weeks worked depends on how much labor a person is willing to provide and how much

is demanded by firms. If the only information that is available pertains to individuals or

households, and not to firms it is best to study labor force participation, rather than hours

or weeks worked.55

54 J. J. Heckman, "What Has Been Learned About Labor Supply in the Past Twenty Years?" The American Economic Review 83, no. 2 (1993): 116. 55 See the discussion in Moehling, "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment," 934. 240 Previous historical research on the added worker effect

Apparent contradictions between cross-sectional behavior and changes over time,

as well as concern about the social ramifications of married women’s work stimulated

contemporary investigation into its determinants and effects by economists and

sociologists.56 As the contemporary literature has developed new methods for studying labor market behavior, historians have used these methods to study the not-so-distant past

of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century in ways that were not possible at the

time. Because of this interaction with contemporary research, I briefly trace the development of the literature about the added worker effect, and then examine the

modern economic history.

Contemporary economic research into the determinants of married women’s labor force participation was stimulated by Paul Douglas’ 1934 publication, The Theory of

Wages which used what was then the relatively sophisticated technique of ordinary least

squares regression to examine the determinants of women’s participation in the labor

market.57 The next major step forward in the development of the literature came in 1962

in a paper by Jacob Mincer, who showed that the apparent contradiction between the rise

in husbands’ income contemporaneous with rising participation by wives could be

explained by women responding more to the increased wages available to them, than to

56 inter alia Edith Abbott, Women in Industry, a Study in American Economic History (New York: D. Appleton, 1910), Doris Best, "Employed Wives Increasing," Personnel Journal 17, no. 6 (1939), Virginia MacMakin Collier, Marriage and Careers: A Study of One Hundred Women Who Are Wives, Mothers, Homemakers and Professional Workers (New York: Bureau of Vocational Information, 1926), Annie Marion MacLean, Wage-Earning Women (New York: Macmillan, 1910), C.E. Persons, "Women's Work and Wages in the United States," Quarterly Journal of Economics 29, no. 2 (1915), Charles Zueblin, "The Effect on Woman of Economic Dependence," American Journal of Sociology 14, no. 5 (1909). 57 Paul H. Douglas, The Theory of Wages (New York: Macmillan, 1934), Erika H. Schoenberg and Paul H. Douglas, "Studies in the Supply Curve of Labor: The Relation in 1929 between Average Earnings in American Cities and the Proportions Seeking Employment," Journal of Political Economy 45, no. 1 (1937). 241 the increase in their husbands’ income.58 Mincer’s paper was notable for using individual level data from a 1950 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey, rather than data aggregated by urban areas.

The availability of a sample of microdata from the 1960 census stimulated the next major contributions to research by Glen Cain, and William Bowen and T. Aldrich

Finegan. Like in Mincer’s study these authors regressed an indicator of labor force participation on a vector of individual and household characteristics. However this methodology, called the “linear probability model” produces biased estimates of the determinants of labor supply, because it does not account for the limited range of the variable of interest (0 or 1). The redeeming features of the linear probability model; its computational ease, and directly interpretable parameter estimates, are more than outweighed by its inaccuracies. Within a few years it was superseded by other methods, and examples of its application in historical research are rare.59

The most common approaches to estimating labor force participation rates in current use are logit and probit techniques.60 Both estimate the probability that a woman will be in the labor force conditional on her individual and household circumstances. An important factor in women’s work decisions is the wage available to them. However, a wage will only be observed for women who are actually working. The wages that could be earned by women who choose not to are unobserved. Since the 1970s methods have

58 Mincer, "Labor Force Participation of Married Women," 76-77. 59 Jon Moen, "Essays on the Labor Force and Labor Force Participation Rates: The United States from 1860 through 1950" (PhD, University of Chicago, 1987). 60 A. Colin Cameron and Pravin K. Travedi, Microeconometrics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 242 been developed for imputing potential wages for the women who are not working.61

These methods have not been taken up in the historical literature, largely because some of the data sources available for studying labor supply does not have wage or income information. Only two historical studies of women's work impute wages to women outside the labor force.62 Papers using the 1940 census could support imputing potential

wages to women outside the labor force, yet this has not been done by either of the two

main papers using the 1940 sample.63 Following these scholars, I do not impute wages to

women outside the labor force in the 1940 census sample. It would be difficult to impute

wages in a consistent manner for the earlier samples I use in the paper. As the focus of

the chapter is on consistent estimation of the added-worker effect, I am constrained to the

methods possible using my worst data-set.

Existing studies have used a variety of methods and definitions of labor force

participation to study the impact of husband's earnings and employment on married

women's work (See Table 3.2). For example, Haines' 1979 article uses a linear

probability model, and modifies the definition of husband's income by standardizing

earnings relative to the average in each state. As statistical software has advanced logit,

and then probit models have become standard. Definitions of the dependent variable have

also varied. Research using the cost-of-living surveys defines labor force participation as

61 Blau and Kahn, "Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Women: 1980-2000.", James J. Heckman, "Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture," Journal of Political Economy 109, no. 4 (2001). 62 Goldin, "Female Labor Force Participation: The Origin of Black and White Differences, 1870 and 1880," 87-108, Elizabeth Herr, "Women, Marital Status, and Work Opportunities in 1880 Colorado," Journal of Economic History 55, no. 2 (1995). 63 T.Aldrich Finegan and Robert A. Margo, "Work Relief and the Labor Force Participation of Married Women in 1940," Journal of Economic History 54, no. 1 (1994), William A. Sundstrom, "Discouraging Times: The Labor Force Participation of Married Black Women, 1930-1940," Explorations in Economic History 38, no. 1 (2001). 243 earnings or employment reported by the wife in the previous year. This measure is incompatible with research using the 1940 census labor force participation measures, which define participation for one week only. More women working intermittently will be picked up by a retrospective question on annual earnings than a question on work in the previous week. Thus, one important contribution of this chapter to the literature is to estimate the added-worker effect using a common definition of labor force participation,

and standardizing earnings to constant dollars across all four samples.

244 Table 3.2. Previous research on determinants of married women's labor force participation

Reference Data sources Sample sizes and units of Dependent variable observation Methodology

Haines, Michael R. "Industrial Work Cost of Living of 6427 households in the Wife earned income in previous and the Family Life Cycle, 1889- Industrial Workers in United States year 1890." Research in Economic the United States and Linear probability History 4 (1979): 289-356. Europe, 1888-1890

Martha Norby Fraundorf. "The Eighteenth Annual 31 states with data from State labor force participation Labor Force Participation of Turn- Report of the cities of 25,000 or more rates of-the-Century Married Women." Commissioner of Labor OLS Journal of Economic History 39, no. 2 (1979): 401-418. T.Aldrich Finegan, and Robert A. 1940 Census 121, 824 households with Labor force participation of wife Margo. "Work Relief and the Labor a husband and wife present Logit Force Participation of Married Women in 1940." Journal of Economic History 54, no. 1 (1994): 64-84. Colin Linsley, and David S. Pate. Survey manuscripts for 388 married women with Labor force participation of wife "Black-White Differences in Leila Houghteling. The at least one dependent Logit Married Female Labor Supply: Income and Standards child Estimates from the Houghteling of Living of Unskilled Data of 1925." Eastern Economic Laborers in Chicago. Journal 20, no. 1 (1994): 85-96. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927.

245 Reference Data sources Sample sizes and units of Dependent variable observation Methodology

Herr, Elizabeth. "Women, Marital Sample drawn from 285 households in Labor force participation of wife Status, and Work Opportunities in 1880 census Colorado Logit 1880 Colorado." Journal of manuscripts in Economic History 55, no. 2 (1995): Colorado 339-66.

William A. Sundstrom. 1940 Census 4691 white women Labor force participation of wife "Discouraging Times: The Labor 7078 black women Probit Force Participation of Married Black Women, 1930-1940." Explorations in Economic History 38, no. 1 (2001): 123-146. Carolyn M. Moehling. "Women's Bureau of Labor 11,865 households Labor force participation of wife Work and Men's Unemployment." Statistics Cost of Living Weeks worked by wife in Journal of Economic History 61, no. Survey, 1917-1919 previous year 4 (2001): 926-949. Probit

246 New estimates of the added-worker effects, 1890-1940

To understand this change in behavior I use data from four different sources

across half a century. The data are from three cost of living surveys and the 1940 census.

The population of interest in all the surveys was the white working and middle class

population in urban areas, and the results are representative of this group only. The cost

of living surveys are from 1889/90, 1917/19, and 1935/36. The results from the 1935/36

sample are very similar to those from the 1940 census, and in the discussion and further

analysis I concentrate on the changes between 1917/19 and 1940. The first two cost of

living surveys were conducted before survey sampling became a science, and so the

people it included are not representative of the entire American population. At best, they

are serendipitously representative of families where husbands were employed in

manufacturing. In both 1890 and 1917/19 this was by design. In 1917/19 the target

population was the urban working class, and in 1890 it was narrower still: workers in a

small number of industries affected by the McKinley Tariff.64 The 1935/36 survey was informed by nascent survey sampling methods. I use the urban sample from the dataset to

. Using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) collection of U.S. census samples I pick a similar set of people from the U.S. census of 1940. While inter-censal surveys of the labor market and consumer expenditures are now regular and relatively

64 Michael R. Haines, "Industrial Work and the Family Life Cycle, 1889-1890," Research in Economic History 4 (1979). 247 uncontroversial, the earlier surveys were motivated by the perceived need for statistics to

settle urgent political questions.65

Data

The 1890 survey was motivated most immediately by a need to answer the

question of what were the social and economic effects of the protective tariff, and thus it

surveyed only men employed in industries protected by the tariff. In other words, the

survey was motivated by questions of partisan politics for the tariff was a Republican

policy, and opposition to it a Democratic cause. The standard taken by Republicans was

that the tariff would boost employment, stimulate demand for American products, and

thus indirectly raise earnings for American workers. Democratic opposition to the tariff

was premised on the claim that the tariff would raise prices for the goods that American

workers purchased, and outstrip any increase in wages or employment. Thus the survey

covered both the income and expenditures of workers, and within expenditures asked

about both necessities—food, shelter, clothing—and other categories such as alcohol,

charitable contributions, and newspapers. It surveyed 6809 American families in nine

industries—pig iron, bar iron, steel, bituminous coal, coke, iron ore, cotton textiles, wool

textiles, and glass—and also 1735 European families for comparison.66 The narrow range of industries was mirrored by a relatively narrow range of occupations, with nearly one in

65 Eric Rauchway, "The High Cost of Living in the Progressives' Economy," Journal of American History 88, no. 3 (2001), Thomas A. Stapleford, "‘Housewife Vs. Economist’: Gender, Class, and Domestic Economic Knowledge in Twentieth-Century America," Labor 1, no. 2 (2004). 66 Ninety two households without a wife present have been dropped from the analysis, leaving 6,717 families for analysis. See United States Department of Labor, Seventh Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor (1891) and Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor (1890) for the original report on the survey. The data is from ICPSR: Haines, Michael R. Cost of Living of Industrial Workers in the United States and Europe, 1888-1890 [Computer file]. ICPSR07711-v4. Hamilton, NY: Michael R. Haines, Colgate University [producer], 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-12-07. 248 three men being classified as general operatives. Another twenty percent were classified as general laborers.67 By contrast, in the 1917/19 survey which also targeted manufacturing workers, only 14 percent were general operatives, and six percent laborers. Even amongst manufacturing workers in the 1917/19 survey, only a quarter were general operatives, and seven percent laborers (see Tables 3.3 and 3.4). In short, the

1890 survey surveyed lower skilled workers than the subsequent cost-of-living surveys.68

In 1890, the American families were mostly located in the Northeast (63%), with the South (21%) and Midwest (16%) providing the remaining families. Pennsylvania alone provided 28 percent of the families, New York another 11 percent, and

Massachusetts six percent (see Table 3.5). In comparison to the subsequent surveys, and the representative sample of the 1940 census, the 1890 data over-represents the Northeast substantially.

67 The occupations were coded by matching the occupational descriptions to the IPUMS/NAPP 1850-1900 occupational dictionary which contains 575,000 19th century occupations. Occupations were coded into the Census Bureau’s 1950 occupational classification scheme. 68 This result was not entirely an artifact of the classification scheme. There were numerous skilled occupations listed in the 1890 schedules, but not many people performed them. That said, occupations that by 1950 were classified as general operative work may have been more skilled in 1890. 249 Table 3.3 Distribution of husband’s occupations, 1890-1940 Occupational 1890 1890 1917/19 1920 1935/36 1940 category number proportion COLS Census CPS Census PUMS sample Professional, 2 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.04 technical and kindred workers Farmers and farm 0 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 managers Managers, 16 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.07 officials and proprietors, except farm Clerical and 39 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.07 kindred workers Sales workers 6 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 Craftsmen, 932 0.17 0.39 0.28 0.18 0.21 foremen, and kindred workers Operatives and 3202 0.57 0.28 0.18 0.16 0.23 kindred workers Service workers 94 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.05 Farm laborers and 0 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.04 foremen Laborers, except 1252 0.22 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.13 farm and mine No occupation 53 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.08 Number of 5,596 11,905 71, 628 4,608 128,870 observations

250 Table 3.4 Distribution of husband’s industry, 1890-1940 Industry 1890 1917/19 1920 Census 1935/36 1940 Census COLS COLS PUMS CPS sample Agriculture, forestry 0.00 - 0.02 0.01 0.05 and fisheries Mining and 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.17 construction Manufacturing, durable 0.45 0.26 0.20 0.12 0.17 goods Manufacturing, non- 0.47 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.13 durable goods Transportation, 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.15 0.10 communication, utilities Wholesale and retail 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.12 trade Financial and business 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 services Personal, recreational 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.08 and professional services Public administration 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.05 No industry 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.10 information available Number of 5,596 11,905 71, 628 4,608 128.870 observations

251 Table 3.5 Regional distribution of families, 1890-1940 Region 1890 1917/19 1935/36 1920 Census 1940 Census* COLS COLS CPS East 0.64 0.29 0.22 0.43 0.33 Midwest 0.17 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.32 South 0.19 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.24 West 0.00 0.17 0.22 0.08 0.11 Number of observations 5,596 11,905 4,608 71,628 128,870 * All white families meeting criteria

A similar survey to the 1889/90 one was carried out in 1900, but unfortunately the

schedules to this survey have been lost.69 Understanding of consumer’s wonts and ways

was reshaped around the turn of the twentieth century. Early indices of the cost of living

took a proscriptive approach, pricing items that social scientists thought should belong in

the shopping basket of a working family. A new consensus that price indices should be

based on the items that actual families purchased informed the design of the next major

cost of living survey, carried out during World War I. While I elide over the interesting

data in the surveys on expenditures, it is worth mentioning the change in detail between

the 1890 and 1917/19 surveys. Whereas the 1890 survey has just 100 variables, and asks

about the total expenditure on clothing for all children, the 1917/19 survey has 2000

variables, and asks about the expenditure for each child on specific items of clothing,

such as pants and shirt and socks.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics carried out the 1917/19 Cost of Living Survey

between 1917 and 1919 to construct the original weights for the Consumer Price Index.70

69 John Modell, "Patterns of Consumption, Acculturation, and Family Income Strategies in Late-Nineteenth Century America," in Family and Population in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Tamara F. Hareven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). 70 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cost Of Living in the United States, 1917-1919 [Computer file]. 5th ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1986 252 It contains information on income, expenditure and labor market behavior of 12,817 families, primarily industrial and urban. The urban centers surveyed were large, with 78 having populations over 25,000 in 1920 and 47 having populations over 100,000. To be included in the survey, families had to contain a married couple, at least one child, not be a “slum or charity” family, have no boarders, no more than three lodgers, and be able to document their income and expenditure for the past year. Moreover, families had to be

English-speaking and not have earned more than $2,000 in the previous year. The families were selected through local employers, and this also contributed to the survey over-representing some occupations and under-representing others, even within the broad category of “industrial worker.” However, the 1917/19 survey covered a broader range of industries and occupations than the 1890 survey, while still focusing on workers in manufacturing industry.

The 1935/36 Consumer Purchases study was motivated by the government’s need to understand unemployment, income and expenditure patterns in the Great Depression.71

It covers more of the population than the earlier surveys, with a rural and urban sample included in the design. The development of the science of statistics informed the design of the survey, so that it is more likely representative of the American population than the earlier two cost of living surveys. The survey was designed as a multi-stage sample—but not a probability sample—and intended to be representative of rural and urban areas, and cities of different sizes. A first wave of the surveyed interviewed 700,000 families, with

71 U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Home Economics, et al. Study of Consumer Purchases in the United States, 1935-1936 [Computer file]. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1999. Robert A. Margo, "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives 7, no. 1 (1993), Margo, "Labor and Labor Markets in the 1930s." 253 300,000 selected for more detailed follow-up interviews. As with the earlier surveys, the target population was families that headed their own households, rather than families that roomed with others. By the mid-1930s this excluded a smaller proportion of families than in the earlier surveys. A final wave interviewed approximately 61,000 families in even more detail, with the restriction that at least one wage-earner in the family have a clerical, professional or business job, and a minimum income of $250-500 depending on city size.

In the analysis that follows I use the urban sample, and restrict my attention to families with at least one child for comparability with the earlier surveys. The requirement that families have a child was not a part of the design of the 1935/36 survey, though couples were required to have been married at least a year so that retrospective information on their income and expenditures would encompass only time spent living together as married.

In short, the three cost of living surveys are largely comparable, though the earlier surveys focus on urban, industrial workers. The information on income appears reliable, and the levels of wages are largely consistent with that reported in other contemporary

sources, such as the Census of Manufacturing.72 One problem with the 1890 survey is

that it did not inquire about the extent of unemployment during the previous year.

Employment in the nineteenth century was somewhat less secure than today, with many

men experiencing periodic episodes of unemployment. If unemployment incidence and

duration was uniformly distributed across the population this would be of less import, but

there is considerable evidence that unemployment risk and the length of time unemployed

72 Joshua L. Rosenbloom, "Was There a National Labor Market at the End of the Nineteenth Century? New Evidence on Earnings in Manufacturing," Journal of Economic History 56, no. 3 (1996). 254 varied considerably among late nineteenth century men.73 This is consistent with other

evidence that the manufacturing economy was quite volatile month-to-month in the 19th century, and that firms were not as committed to maintaining employment during recessions in business as they later were.74 The only indicator we have of non- employment in the 1890 survey is the absence of any specified occupation by the husband, or the specific responses “Idle” or “Invalid.” From this limited information we can construct an indicator of non-employment for husbands in the 1890 survey.75 By

contrast the 1917/19 survey asks about total weeks of employment in the past year, allowing a more definitive and continuous measure of time not working.

Measurements of women's work

The 1890 survey has sparser information than the later surveys and the 1940 census about women’s employment and earnings. In 1890 the survey asked about the wife’s employment status, and codes the responses as “work” or “home.” There is no information on what occupations women were doing if they were at work, and no indication of how home production for the market was treated. It is clear from other

73 Susan B. Carter and Elizabeth Savoca, "Labor Mobility and Lengthy Jobs in Nineteenth-Century America," Journal of Economic History 50, no. 1 (1990), Timothy J. Hatton and Jeffrey Williamson, "Unemployment, Employment Contracts, and Compensating Wage Differentials: Michigan in the 1890s," Journal of Economic History 51, no. 3 (1991), Sanford M. Jacoby and Sunil Sharma, "Employment Duration and Industrial Labor Mobility in the United States 1880-1980," Journal of Economic History 52, no. 1 (1992). 74 Jeffrey A. Miron and Christina Romer, "A New Monthly Index of Industrial Production, 1884-1940," Journal of Economic History 50, no. 2 (1990). 75 Non-employment covers both unemployment and time out of the labor force. 255 surveys, including the 1917/19 cost of living survey, that “industrial homework” was an

important part of the family economy throughout the half-century under study here.76

Historians, such as Boris, who have studied industrial homework have tended to dwell on the poor rate of pay per article or per day, the intrusion of the factory into the home, and the pressure that women faced to make enough items to satisfy pressure from factory or family. These views echo the opinions of contemporary opponents, such as the

National Consumers’ League and unions opposed for various reasons to the practice.77

Yet while industrial homework was not pretty, and few probably aspired to make a career of what they were doing, for a significant minority of families it was a way to eke out a little extra money without the time pressures of working a nine- or ten-hour day, plus the time involved in getting to work.78 Historians have also focused on contemporary observations that children helped with industrial homework, and argued that the ability of

children to earn money from homework dragged down their school attendance.79 Yet while the ability of children to help with industrial homework was an incentive for them to attend school less, increased parental earnings also enabled children to stay in school, making the effects of industrial homework on schooling ambiguous.80

The 1890 survey, like the 1917/19 and 1935/36 surveys and the 1940 census, does

include a measure of the wife’s earnings in the past year. Of the 473 wives who reported

earning some labor income in the past year, 462 (98 percent) were classified as being in

76 Eileen Boris, Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Nancy Folbre, "Womens Informal Market Work in Massachusetts, 1875-1920," Social Science History 17, no. 1 (1993). 77 Eileen Boris, "Regulating Industrial Homework: The Triumph of "Sacred Motherhood"," Journal of American History 71, no. 4 (1985). 78 Costa, "The Wage and the Length of the Work Day: From the 1890s to 1991." 79 Boris, Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States. 80 Peggy G. Hargis and Patrick M. Horan, "Bounded by Culture or Culture Bound? Ethnicity, Schooling, and the Interplay of Theory and Evidence," Historical Methods 37, no. 1 (2004). 256 work, suggesting that the 1890 survey measured employment in a comprehensive way that may have included industrial homework. By contrast, in 1917/19 seven percent of wives reported that they had worked in the previous year, but an additional two percent reported earning income without going to work, reporting occupations such as “sewing at home,” “Occasional work – dressmaking,” “washing-odd times,” “Crocheting at home,” and “Beading work done occasionally at home” that are consistent with industrial homework. Interestingly, by 1940 this work in the home appears to be less common.

Whereas 10.7 per cent of women earned some money, 9.9 per cent did so outside the home. The gap between earnings and formal employment was narrowing. One factor that may account for this decline in home work was the rise in school enrolments in the inter- war period.

All the surveys also provide evidence of the income families received from boarders. Taking in boarders was a significant part of urban families economic strategy in pre-World War II America.81 It has been commonly assumed by economic and social historians that if a family took in boarders that the income received was due to the wife’s efforts.82 It is difficult to tell from the data, but narrative evidence suggests that women were often responsible for the extra work involved in hosting boarders. In 1890, 17 percent of the families earned some income from boarders; a figure that had declined to just five percent in 1917/19. However, the 1917/19 survey purposefully excluded families with lodgers, and it is not clear whether the phrase “boarders” in 1890 is meant to cover

81 Wendy Gamber, The Boardinghouse in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007), John Modell and Tamara K. Hareven, "Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families," Journal of Marriage and the Family 35, no. 3 (1973). 82 e.g Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. 257 both sets of non-familial residents. Because of this artifact of the survey design, I do not use the receipt of boarding income as a measure of the wife’s contribution to the household. To sum up, we have two measures of labor force attachment in the cost of living surveys, first, indicators of whether a wife was employed, and second measures of

wives’ labor income. The labor income measure is preferred as it is defined the same way

in both cost of living surveys, and is also available in the 1940 census.

Most people using the 1940 census to study labor force behavior have used the

contemporary measure of labor force participation, which asks whether a person was

working in the same week. Because this variable does not exist in the COLS I use the census information about earnings and weeks worked in 1939 to generate two measures of labor market participation that are analogous to those found in the COLS. The first measure of labor market behavior is a binary indicator of whether a woman worked any weeks for pay during the preceding year; and the second is a binary indicator of whether a woman earned any wage or salary income in the preceding year.

This chapter is restricted to analyzing white families, so as to concentrate on the change over time. The cost of living surveys were largely composed of urban families, but the 1940 census does not offer such fine geographic detail, the best we know about the families in 1940 is the city they lived in and its population if the city was over

100,000 people. To get around this, I present supplementary results restricting the sample in both 1917/19 and 1940 to residents of cities over 100,000; and models restricting the results to families not living on farms, and models restricted to manufacturing workers.83

83 I restrict the 1890 and 1940 samples to white families with at least one child—the 1917 survey required families to have at least one child—where the husband was not an employer or self-employed. The woman must be 18 or over and the husband 21 or over. 258 Married women's labor force participation in survey and census

First, it is important to know just how much white, urban married women actually

worked between 1890 and 1940 (see Table 3.6). Figures published by the U.S. Census

Bureau cannot be directly compared across this half-century, though many authors do

this. For example, a recent paper by Carolyn Moehling quotes Claudia Goldin’s statistic that just under 9% of white, urban married women worked in 1920—a figure calculated

from the published statistics.84 However, as William Sundstrom has pointed out, before

1940 the census tabulations included married people whose spouses were absent.85

Conversely, the census figures in 1920 and 1890 do not break down their tabulations of gainful occupations for married women by the presence or absence of children in the household.

These factors have opposite—if not exactly offsetting effects—on the propensity of married women to work, and their labor force participation. Women whose spouses were not co-resident were much more likely to work before World War II. Essentially women whose spouses were not enumerated in the same household were separated from their husbands, and with limited government provision for single mothers, and sometimes the harsh moral judgments of the community depriving single mothers of charity, employment was common. Conversely, women with children were somewhat less likely

84 Moehling, "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment," 937. 85 Sundstrom, "Discouraging Times: The Labor Force Participation of Married Black Women, 1930-1940," 126. 259 to work, particularly women with infants. In an era of higher fertility, the impact of

fertility on labor force participation was significant.86

These factors have a relatively large effect on estimates of how much married

women were working in 1890 and 1920 (Table 3.6). In 1890, amongst the American

families surveyed, seven percent of wives were employed overall. Amongst families

without children, however, nine percent of wives worked compared to 6.7 percent of wives in families with children.87 Both 6.7 and 9 percent are low rates of labor force

participation, but the crucial point is that participation amongst the childless wives is one-

third higher than amongst those with children. Overall, the rate of labor force

participation recorded in the 1890 cost of living survey is significantly higher than for

white wives in the United States as a whole.88 However, the results are not out of line

with Claudia Goldin’s adjusted estimates of labor force participation in 1890, that

account for unmeasured labor market behavior.89 Moreover, the overall rate of labor force

participation in 1890 includes large numbers of rural families where women were highly

unlikely to be working off the farm.

86 Mary E. Cookingham, " Working after Childbearing in Modern America," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14, no. 4 (1984), F.C. Pampel and H.E. Peters, "The Easterlin Effect," Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1995). 87 A result that is significant at the 5% level. 88 Bureau of the Census, Special Census Report on the Occupations of the Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890, (Washington: 1896): 22. 89 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. 260 Table 3.6 Labor force participation of married women, 1890-1940 Sample Definition of labor force participation Labor force n participation rate

1890 COLS All in sample (including childless families, and spouses outside age threshold) Employment status is “Work” 0.070 6,721 Labor earnings in last year 0.070

Families with children (and meet age threshold) Employment status is “Work” 0.060 5,596 Labor earnings in last year 0.060

1917/19 COLS Any weeks of employment in last year 0.070 11,905 Labor earnings in last year 0.085 Husbands working in manufacturing Any weeks of employment in last year 0.078 4,254 Labor earnings in last year 0.092

Living in city over 100,000 people Any weeks of employment in last year 0.066 7,887 Labor earnings in last year 0.079

1920 census All women in sample 0.073 81,044 (gainful Women with spouse present 0.056 77,189 Employment Women with spouse absent 0.432 3,592 Definition) Women over 18 with spouse present and over 21 0.045 71,628

1935/36 CPS Any weeks of employment in last year 0.108 4,608 Labor earnings in last year 0.099 4,608

1940 census Sample of white families with 1 child

261 Sample Definition of labor force participation Labor force n participation rate Any weeks of employment in last year 0.117 128, 870 Labor earnings in last year 0.096

All married women with spouse present Any weeks of employment in last year 0.176 273,981 Labor earnings in last year 0.132

White wives with children present and spouse absent Any weeks of employment in last year 0.367 6,198 Labor earnings in last year 0.326

White wives with children and spouse present on farms Any weeks of employment in last year 0.120 40,275 Labor earnings in last year 0.034

Husbands working in manufacturing Any weeks of employment in last year 0.150 25,864 Any labor earnings in last year 0.136

Living in city over 100,000 people Any weeks of employment in last year 0.105 39,866 Labor earnings in last year 0.096

262 In 1920, restricting the census tabulations to families with one or more children to

more closely match the families the COLS surveyed the discrepancy is not that the

families surveyed by the COLS worked less than comparable families in the census, but

that they worked more, both before and after standardizing for the different distribution

of occupation and place of residence (Table 3.3-3.5). By 1940 the overall rate of labor

force participation by married women was up by about half, from 9% to 14%. However,

this masks substantial variation in market participation by different groups of married

women. Women living on farms continued to have a much lower rate of market

participation, as measured by earned income, than women not living on farms.

Conversely, black women continued to have much higher rates of labor force

participation than white women. Amongst similar groups in both 1917/19 and 1940, the

50 percent increase in the participation rate can be seen amongst the wives of workers in

manufacturing, and women living in large cities. In that respect, although we are

analyzing a subset of the population, the trends in the inter-war period compare closely to

the overall trends in married women's labor market behavior.

Multivariate models of married women's labor force participation

Turning to the modeling of women's behavior, I first estimated models which

restricted the change in behavior between 1890 and 1940 to a simple additive shift, of

more women entering the labor market. However, in likelihood ratio tests it was clear that

the change between 1890 and 1940 was not just in the observed rates of participation —

it was in behavior. This was true for all women, and the three subsets of women who were not living on farms, living in large cities, or whose husbands worked in

263 manufacturing. Therefore, I use interaction models that allow the parameters to be

different in 1890 and 1940.

The differences in observed behavior between 1890, World War I, and the eve of

World War II were partly due to changes in behavior, and partly to changes in the

characteristics of women. The economic circumstances families faced across this half

century were quite different. In 1889/90 the manufacturing economy was expanding

relatively rapidly, with indices of manufacturing output showing quick growth.90 In 1918 and 1919 the labor market in the United States was very tight; with unemployment below

3% in both years. In 1939, however, the United States had still not emerged from the

Great Depression, and unemployment in 1940 was still 14.6%. This can be seen in the quite different non-employment statistics for the two later samples where this information is available—on average husbands in the 1917/19 COLS had less than two weeks out-of- work in the preceding year; whereas husbands of similar families in 1940 averaged nearly

12 weeks out of employment during 1939 (Table 3.7). Even amongst selected sub- groups, such as manufacturing workers, the differences between 1917/19 and 1939 were large: husbands who were manufacturing workers in 1917/19 averaged two weeks out of work in the previous year; compared to eight weeks amongst similar husbands in 1940.

90 Joseph H. Davis, "An Annual Index of Us Industrial Production, 1790-1915," Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 4 (2004), Joseph H. Davis, "An Improved Annual Chronology of U.S. Business Cycles since the 1790s," Journal of Economic History 66, no. 1 (2006), Miron and Romer, "A New Monthly Index of Industrial Production, 1884-1940." 264 Table 3.7 Means of independent and dependent variables

1890 1917/19 1940 Average s.e Average s.e Average s.e.

Wife had labor earnings in last 0.061 0.239 0.085 0.279 0.096 0.295 year Wife worked in last year 0.060 0.238 0.070 0.255 0.117 0.321 Weeks of husband's non- 1.915 3.980 11.836 17.174 employment Husband's labor income in 1940 955.54 / 547.63 / 1068.57 / 287.45 / 1225.533 1007.239 dollars (adjusted by GDP 826.70 473.80 1257.93 338.39 deflator / CPI)1 Log of family size 1.595 0.354 1.462 0.306 1.465 0.330 Wife's age 35.659 9.643 33.383 7.777 38.760 11.972

Family earned more than $12.73 0.283 0.451 0.344 0.475 0.270 0.444 (1890) or $32.30 (1917/19) or $50 (1940) non-labor income in past year

Number of children less than six 1.056 0.965 0.681 0.466 0.372 0.483 Female greater than 13 in 0.310 0.463 0.144 0.351 0.341 0.474 household (indicator) Male greater than 13 in 0.279 0.449 0.162 0.368 0.314 0.464 household (indicator) Owned home in previous year 0.190 0.453 0.269 0.443 0.412 0.492 Lived in city of over 100,000 0.662 0.473 0.309 0.462 population Lived in Midwest 0.171 0.376 0.313 0.464 0.323 0.468 Lived in South 0.193 0.394 0.229 0.420 0.237 0.425 0.169 0.375 0.106 0.308

Number of observations 5,596 11,905 128, 870

(1) GDP deflator and CPI for 1890 and 1918 from http://eh.net/hmit/compare/

265 A first impression of changes in the added worker effect can be had by simulating

the response to a ten percent cut in wages, on the labor force participation of wives

(Table 3.8). The simulations are done with models estimated separately for each sample.

As mentioned, the 1890 sample does not include a good measure of non-employment or

unemployment during the previous year. There is only the absence of an occupation, or

the few men who specified “Invalid” or “Idle.” Once we have restricted ourselves to the sample of families with children, and where the spouses have plausible ages there are just

53 men idle or without an occupation in the 1890 sample. Thus, the 1890 data understates the effect of unemployment on families; it is highly implausible that even in a boom time that less than one percent of families would have suffered unemployment during the year.

But families that did suffer unemployment would have received a reduced income during the year, and this will be captured in the measure of male earnings. The effect of unemployment on wives’ labor force behavior operates through two channels, both

through the reduction in income, and also through the reduction in employment. A

reduction in earnings by itself—through a wage cut, for example—may not stimulate as

great a labor supply response as a spell of unemployment. If a husband actually lost his

job, the family may conclude that the reduction in earnings was likely to be more permanent. Thus, one would expect—and it can be seen in the 1917/19 data—that wives responded more strongly to declines in employment that had the same effect on annual earnings than they did to wage cuts of the same magnitude. However, we cannot make this distinction in the 1890 data, and the income variable will be picking up both effects, and thus be biased upwards.

266 Table 3.8. Changes in wives labor force participation rates in response to 10 percent wage cuts

CPI adjusted wages GDP deflator adjusted wages Sample Predicted LFP at mean Predicted LFP at mean, Predicted LFP at Predicted LFP at for all values with 10% wage cut mean for all values mean, with 10% wage cut 1890 0.020 0.036 0.020 0.037

1917: Whole sample 0.066 0.077 0.066 0.077 1917: Manufacturing 0.068 0.083 0.069 0.083 workers

1935/36 CPS 0.082 0.087 0.082 0.087

1940: Whole sample 0.083 0.088 0.083 0.088 1940: Manufacturing 0.098 0.104 0.098 0.104 workers

267 Despite that caveat the response to a 10% wage cut at the end of the 19th century

was still relatively large. The simulated probabilities of participation are generally below the observed probabilities at the mean values for all other variables, because the probit model is non-linear. It is likely that even if we did have a measure of unemployment for the 1890 data that the added worker effect would still be relatively large. One way to check this is to estimate the 1917/19 and 1940 models without the controls for non- employment in the previous year, and estimate the effects of a 10% wage again. In both years, and for both the whole sample, and the manufacturing husbands sub-sample, the results are qualitatively similar to those in Table 3.8.

This suggests that the impact of the omitted variables may be quite small. The response by women in 1890 to a fall in their husband’s earnings was strong, with a ten percent fall in earnings labor force participation nearly doubled. A ten percent cut in earnings which is simulated in Table 3.8 is equivalent to the average man being out of work for around five weeks during the year. To give a more direct comparison to 1940,

we can simulate a cut in earnings of 20 percent. This is more nearly the same as the cut in

earnings that unemployed families actually suffered during the Depression of the 1930s.

If a family in 1890 had suffered a fall in husbands’ income of this magnitude, the

proportion of wives in the labor force would have increased from 2 percent (at the sample

means of all other variables) to 5.1 percent. Compare this to the actual situation in 1940,

when around one in six men were unemployed amongst the sample of white families

considered here. Wives’ labor supply barely moved in response to a fall in male earnings

by 1940. Even during World War I, there was still a strong added worker effect. A ten

percent fall in husband’s earnings increased wives’ labor force participation by about 16

268 percent. Although this is a smaller response than in 1890, it is still quite substantial. The effect is stronger again amongst the wives of manufacturing workers, where a ten percent fall in male earnings leads to an increase of about 20 percent in labor force participation.

Because of the absence of unemployment information in the 1890 sample constructing direct counterfactuals between 1890 and the other samples is problematic.

However, we can make direct comparisons of behavior between the wars. The most direct comparisons about how behavior changed between World War I, and the eve of

World War II can be made by simulating two counter-factual situations, (1) how much would women have worked in 1939 if they had the same average characteristics as women in 1917/19, and (2) how much would women have worked in 1939 if they had the same average characteristics but behaved like women in 1917/19 (Table 3.9). The advantage of this technique is that it allows us to in the first instance hold demographic and economic characteristics constant, and let behavior—estimated by coefficients in equations—vary, and in the second instance to hold behavior constant and see how the changing demographic and economic characteristics of the population affect observed labor force participation. The summary of this counterfactual simulation is displayed in

Table 3.9, and the full coefficient estimates from the model in Table 3.10.

269 Table 3.9 Change in married women's labor force participation, 1917-1940

Labor force participation rate All in sample Non-farmers City over Manufacturing 100,000 husband 1917/19 (observed) 0.085 0.085 0.079 0.092

1940 (observed) 0.096 0.100 0.097 0.136

1940: calculated using 1917/19 0.093 0.096 0.095 0.122 average characteristics

1940: calculated using 1917/19 0.132 0.113 0.084 0.141 responses

270 Table 3.10 Determinants of married women's labor force participation, 1917-1940

All in sample Non-farmers City over 100,000 Manufacturing husband Dependent variable is binary indicator Marginal Standard Marginal Standard Marginal Standard Marginal Standard that wife earned labor income in past year effect error effect error effect error effect error Husband's non-employed weeks 0.00267 0.00107 0.002714 0.001093 0.003626 0.001381 0.005815 0.002637 Husband's non-employed weeks squared -0.00013 4.09E-05 -0.00013 4.18E-05 -0.00018 5.79E-05 -0.00034 0.000135 Husband's labor income -0.00039 3.86E-05 -0.00039 3.94E-05 -0.00037 4.79E-05 -0.00048 7.97E-05 Husband's labor income squared 8.36E-08 1.35E-08 8.54E-08 1.38E-08 8.05E-08 1.67E-08 9.46E-08 2.80E-08 Family had some non-labor income 0.022568 0.00594 0.023291 0.006109 0.027677 0.007422 0.021254 0.012158 ln (Family size) 0.017841 0.010746 0.018283 0.010988 0.021332 0.013028 0.038659 0.022074 Children less than six in household -0.05761 0.006352 -0.05846 0.006436 -0.05734 0.00749 -0.07522 0.013594 Wife's age 0.016827 0.002611 0.017173 0.002669 0.015566 0.003137 0.028466 0.005898 Wife's age squared -0.00023 3.47E-05 -0.00024 3.54E-05 -0.00021 4.12E-05 -0.00042 8.15E-05 Male greater than 13 in family -0.01094 0.007811 -0.01103 0.007984 -0.00012 0.009643 -0.00912 0.016165 Female greater than 13 in family 0.00247 0.007941 0.002685 0.00812 -0.00867 0.009187 0.000818 0.016254 Owned home -0.0083 0.006268 -0.0084 0.006402 -0.01677 0.007494 0.004387 0.013394 City over 100,000 population -0.02309 0.005255 -0.0239 0.005469 -0.04029 0.010638 Midwest -0.0281 0.006201 -0.02865 0.006357 -0.01109 0.007685 -0.06126 0.012165 South -0.03105 0.006382 -0.03144 0.006426 -0.00903 0.008955 -0.03792 0.012112 West -0.00677 0.007897 -0.00683 0.008082 0.004913 0.010335 -0.00054 0.017401 In 1940 census sample -0.15973 0.101001 -0.15952 0.101047 -0.04604 0.084842 0.025311 0.097956 Census 1940*Non-employed weeks -0.00288 0.001081 -0.00296 0.001107 -0.00304 0.001409 -0.00625 0.002669 Census 1940*Non-employed weeks sqd. 0.000137 0.000041 0.000136 0.000042 0.000169 5.82E-05 0.000331 0.000135 Census 1940*Huband's labor income 0.000357 3.87E-05 0.00035 3.95E-05 0.00032 4.82E-05 0.000402 8.05E-05 Census 1940*Huband's labor income sqd. -8.46E-08 1.35E-08 -8.38E-08 1.38E-08 -7.69E-08 1.68E-08 -9.75E-08 2.82E-08 Census 1940*Non-labor income -0.06569 0.011078 -0.06525 0.011375 -0.07625 0.013908 -0.11278 0.023087 Census 1940*Wife's age -0.00568 0.002663 -0.00505 0.002731 -0.00469 0.003284 -0.01024 0.006099 Census 1940*Wife's age squared 5.95E-05 3.52E-05 0.00005 3.61E-05 3.17E-05 4.28E-05 0.000124 0.000084 Censu 1940*ln(family size) -0.03367 0.004832 -0.03095 0.005004 -0.03135 0.005977 -0.02942 0.010572 Census 1940*Children less than six 0.005942 0.007396 0.006162 0.007608 0.006979 0.009468 0.011433 0.015548

271 All in sample Non-farmers City over 100,000 Manufacturing husband Census 1940*Male greater than 13 0.014857 0.008776 0.015396 0.009011 0.006734 0.010526 0.018385 0.01832 Census 1940*Female greater than 13 0.006345 0.008324 0.007265 0.008559 0.017551 0.010854 0.024429 0.01836 Census 1940*Owned home 0.006007 0.006659 0.005727 0.006831 0.017513 0.009164 -0.01084 0.013617 Census 1940*Lived in city over 100,000 0.029141 0.006565 0.025214 0.006524 0.020336 0.012691 Census 1940*Midwest 0.01063 0.007362 0.014734 0.007646 0.017841 0.009173 0.022476 0.015264 Census 1940*South 0.03487 0.009196 0.046041 0.009967 0.036318 0.013098 0.067008 0.019975 Census 1940*West 0.0165 0.009732 0.018129 0.010078 0.022526 0.012853 -0.0154 0.017396

Number of obs = 140775 Number of obs = 125823 Number of obs = 47753 Number of obs = 30118 LR chi2(33) =4973.80 LR chi2(17) =4441.85 LR chi2(31) =2042.19 LR chi2(17) =1912.60 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Pseudo R2 = 0.0562 Pseudo R2 = 0.0547 Pseudo R2 = 0.0686 Pseudo R2 = 0.0822 Log likelihood = -41765.1 Log likelihood = -38122.0 Log likelihood = 13866.0 Log likelihood=-10680.2

272

If women in 1940 had the same characteristics as women in 1917/19 they would have worked just slightly less than they actually did. Given that male unemployment was so much higher in 1939 compared with 1917/19, the difference (0.093 predicted, compared to 0.096 observed) is an indication of a secular shift in women's behavior; confirmed by comparing actual participation in 1917/19 (0.085) with the rate predicted if women had behaved like they did in 1939 (0.093). This same pattern of behavior can be seen amongst the sub-groups of non-farmers and manufacturing workers, with the effect somewhat stronger when farmers are excluded.

Balancing this shift in behavior was that women were actually becoming less responsive to falls in their husband's income or employment over time; that is the added worker effect diminished between the wars. It is somewhat of a paradox that in 1940 when there appeared to be so many added workers, the magnitude of the added worker effect had actually declined. This can be seen by comparing the observed labor force participation rates in 1939, with the rates predicted if women in 1939 had behaved like women in 1917/19. If women in 1939 had behaved like women in 1917/19, women would have worked more than they actually did in 1939. This result is due largely, but not entirely, to the differences in how women responded to changes in their husband's employment and income. The effects of changes in husband's income and employment in

1939 were insignificantly different from zero, whereas twenty years earlier they had important effects on women's decisions to work for pay or not.

273 Conclusion

Married women’s responsiveness to changes in their husband’s earnings has fallen over the 20th century. At the end of the 19th century, if a man’s earnings dropped by

10% his wife was nearly twice as likely to go to work compared to an unchanged income.

A fall of twenty percent in a husband’s earnings would lead to wives participation more

than doubling. However, although these changes are dramatic, they take place at a very low level of labor force participation for white wives. If a man’s earnings halved, the

chances his wife would enter the labor market were still only just over ten percent, and if

his income fell to zero only one in three women would enter the labor market. By contrast, black wives at all family income levels averaged around this level of participation. By World War I, paid employment by white wives was slightly more common, but their response to falls in husband’s earnings had diminished substantially.

In the inter-war era, this added-worker effect continued to decline to the point where major changes in a man’s earnings stimulated relatively little change in women’s labor supply. Although it has often been claimed that married women's labor market behavior changed quite rapidly in the inter-war period, this hypothesis has not been tested directly

using individual level data. In this chapter I find that married women's work decisions did

change a lot between World War I and World War II. Despite much higher

unemployment on the eve of World War II, and an overall rise in women's participation

in paid work, married women were actually less sensitive to their husband's economic

circumstances in deciding whether to work or not. Women's decisions to go out to work

were more distinctly their own decisions to go to work, and less a reaction to economic

hardship.

274 This conclusion is somewhat at odds with the standard account of Depression-era behavior which largely records that families clung together, and sent whoever they could to work to maintain a decent income. While families did do that, they did it less than they used to. Circumstances changed more than behavior, but the change in behavior was still there. While family circumstances are the most important influence on individual’s economic decisions, they are also made in a public context. Without reifying the difference between the family and the firm, or the private and the public, wives were making decisions to go out to work. Public opinion, in the broadest sense and in its specific forms in the workplace also influenced women’s decisions. Examining the opinions of rank-and-file workers and managers takes account of the public opinion that matters in taking up and staying in employment.

275

Chapter 4

“Gone to the business of home-making” Public opinion about married women's employment

Introduction

Between 1860 and 1940 Americans were divided about whether married women

should work for pay. Without any public opinion polls on the question until the mid-

1930s it is impossible to measure public feeling in a systematic way. Measures of public

opinion about married women’s work before 1940 are largely based on the published

opinions of elite commentators, and letters written by ordinary Americans to newspapers

and politicians about the matter.1 Both sources of opinion are highly selective, and unlikely to be representative of general public opinion. Individuals motivated enough to

compose commentary and correspondence about an issue are more passionate about an

issue than people who choose not to express themselves. Histories of public opinion

about married women's work that rely on published commentary and letter writers are

likely to have overstated the salience of the issue to the majority of Americans.

To overcome this selection problem, I use a unique set of interviews with Western

Electric company workers from the late 1920s and early 1930s, and show that concern about married women’s work was concentrated among a small number of individuals

highly concerned about the matter. Most workers were not concerned enough about

married women working to express any opinion. The interviews took place at a time

1 Alice Kessler-Harris, A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences (Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 1988). 276

when the company’s management was debating a change in policy about employing

married women, giving the issue visibility in the workplace. People who were concerned

about married women's work often framed their opposition as a concern with equity in

household income and consumption during a time of high unemployment. This

perspective denied individual rights to employment, and was often coupled with support

for traditional family gender roles. Yet by framing the question of married women’s

employment as a question of family welfare—not individual rights—opponents of

married women’s work used the same rhetoric as supporters of married women’s right to

work. The Women’s Bureau of the United States Department of Labor was the most

prolific, but not the only, proponent of the argument that married women’s right to work

was largely grounded in married women’s need to support their families.2

Single women with dependent family members were the most identifiable

opponents of married women’s work. In a workplace where occupations were largely segregated by sex, and women’s occupations had a flatter career trajectory, single women resented married women for holding jobs and not opening up career options for single women. Single women wanted turnover in married women’s employment, so they could

work a little longer before marriage. Yet it was not in the interests of the Western Electric

company to encourage turnover. Many of the jobs at the Hawthorne plant were paid on a

piece rate, and linked directly to individual or group productivity. By contrast, in salaried

jobs with payment not linked to productivity—such as teaching and many clerical jobs—

it was also in the interests of employers to encourage turnover in women employees. Bars

2 A long discussion of the inter-war debate on these issues is found in Nancy Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). 277

on hiring married women, and requirements that women leave their jobs on marriage,

were common in some industries before World War II. Single women’s support for these

policies, and their selective application, show that opposition to married women’s work

was more complex than simple misogyny. Opinions about “married women’s work”

reveal expectations about both “married women” and “work.” For the most part, once

married women were in the workplace they were evaluated as women. There were few

additional biases about their roles or capacity for work, because they were married. The

evolving public debate was not about married women’s impact on the workplace. It was instead about work’s impact on married women, and by extension on the family.

In this chapter, I review the historiography of evolving public opinion about married women’s work, and the current understanding of opinion about married women’s work in the inter-war era and Depression. Having established that the existing literature relies on sources that will overstate the intensity of opposition across the population, I then use a new source that gives a more nuanced impression of public opinion, and suggests that opposition to married women's work in the inter-war was broad, but shallow, and easily overturned. In the following chapter, I introduce the interviews used in analysis of public opinion, and situate them in the context of the existing literature about the Western Electric Hawthorne studies. The majority of the published literature on the Hawthorne studies has used either the statistical data on production responses to experimental variation in stimuli, or the interviews with the intensely observed group of six women in the Relay Assembly Test Room. My analysis relies instead on a sample of in-depth interviews with over 300 workers, both men and women, for whom systematically recorded demographic and workplace data is available. This allows me to

278

examine which groups of people were most concerned about married women’s

employment, and how opinions on married women’s work varied among social groups.

Changing attitudes about married women’s work, 1860-1940

Public opinion about married women's work—an activity undertaken outside the

household—largely reflected views about the impact of work on the family and on the

household. This debate has not been resolved today, though the issues discussed and the

rhetoric used have evolved. In the first decade of the twenty first century, the scholarly

and popular debates assume that both men and women will attempt to combine paid

employment and parenthood. There is little public debate about whether childless married women should work, with the decision seen as a private matter dictated by a couple’s

economic wants and resources. Yet there is a great deal of public debate about how much

paid work is compatible with being a good parent. In particular there is much public and

scholarly discussion about the ways in which employers and employees can organize

work to facilitate parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. Scholars of this issue in

contemporary society often call it the study of “work and family.”3 The implicit

acceptance of most adults combining both activities is suggested by the phrase. By

contrast, in the early twentieth-century public and scholarly discussion referred to

“working wives” or “mothers who must earn,” or “home slackers”—men who could not

provide for their family—ultimately reflecting quite different expectations about work

and family for men and women.

3 Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Ellen Ernst Kossek, and Stephen A. Sweet, eds., The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006). Janet C. Gornick and Marcia Meyers, Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003). 279

It is a debate that has not been resolved even today. Broadly speaking, the

competing positions that make the debate a public discussion about somewhat private

decisions have not changed much. The liberal position that parenthood and employment

decisions—ultimately the question of how individuals allocate their time—are private

and reserved from public discussion has persisted. Yet the continuing public discussion

about private decisions suggests that this liberal position does not have majority support.

Conversely, there are a range of positions supporting the view that family parenting and employment decisions have wider consequences for the community, and that outsiders to the family—neighbors, organized groups, or government—can legitimately comment on, or intervene in family decisions.

For the most part, the view that family labor supply decisions are a matter of

public concern has been associated with greater opposition to married women working, both historically and in the present debate. Recent books by Linda Hirshman and Leslie

Bennett are exceptions, making the argument that married women should be in paid

employment for the greater good.4 Hirshman argues that having paid work and an

independent income is central to a person's power within their family, and to people's

ability to exercise their citizenship fully in public. She also argues that contemporary

women have the opportunity to pursue any career they choose, and to limit their fertility

to achieve this. From these premises, she argues that women's decision to work or not

have public consequences. One woman's decision to not work has little impact on other

women. Yet the aggregate effect of women choosing not to pursue careers is to make it

4 Leslie Bennetts, The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving up Too Much? 1st ed. (New York: Voice/Hyperion, 2007), Linda R. Hirshman, Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World (New York: Viking, 2006). For similar arguments, see Susan J. Douglas and Meredith W. Michaels, The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women (New York: Free Press, 2004). 280

harder for other women to choose careers, or exercise political power. Although

Hirshman ultimately argues that women should limit their fertility and make work a high priority in their lives, the premises and implications of her argument show how little the debate about married women's work has changed in more than a century. The choice of how to allocate time between children and work is fundamental to families, and persistent. Children and work compete for parents’ limited time. Although increasing income allows Americans to spend less time at work than before 1920, the constraint of

24 hours in the day to allocate between home and work means that employment and family time will always appear to be in conflict.5 Public debates about family choices have persisted because the choice always has to be made. Whereas the traditional argument was that women should take their fertility as given and adjust work hours to care for children, Hirshman argues that women should limit their fertility and child care time to pursue careers.

5 On the work time of men and women since 1940 see Mary T. Coleman and John Pencavel, "Changes in Work Hours of Male Employees, 1940-1988," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 46 (1993), Mary T. Coleman and John Pencavel, "Trends in Work Behavior of Women since 1940," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 46 (1993). On average, working hours for people in work declined through to about 1940 and have been stable since. The average hides important changes in the distribution of working hours. In the late nineteenth century hours and wages were negatively correlated: the highest paid worked fewer hours. Now, the reverse is true. See inter alia Dora L. Costa, "The Wage and the Length of the Work Day: From the 1890s to 1991," Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 1 (2000). Ellen R. McGrattan and Richard Rogerson, "Changes in Hours Worked, 1950–2000," Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 28, no. 1 (2004). The contemporary positive correlation between spousal earnings means that families with two high income earning spouses often have both spouses working relatively long hours. See inter alia Maria Cancian and Deborah Reed, "Assessing the Effects of Wives' Earnings on Family Income Inequality," Review of Economics and Statistics 80, no. 1 (1998), Maria Cancian and Deborah Reed, "The Impact of Wives' Earnings on Income Inequality: Issues and Estimates," Demography 36, no. 2 (1999), Dora L. Costa and Matthew E. Khan, "Power Couples: Changes in the Locational Choice of the College Educated, 1940-1990," Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, no. 4 (2000)., See Jerry A. Jacobs and Kathleen Gerson, "Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families? Explaining Trends in Work, Leisure, and Family Time," Work and Occupations 28, no. 1 (2001), Jerry A. Jacobs and Kathleen Gerson, The Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality, The Family and Public Policy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). 281

Historically this same tradeoff between fertility and paid employment was a major

basis for opposition to married women's work. Opponents of married women's work took

the level of fertility as given—a more reasonable assumption in the past, when

controlling fertility through contraception was more costly—and proceeded to argue that

the consequences for children of married women's work necessitated public scrutiny of

family decisions. Children were less powerful than adults, and protecting children's

interests required that family decisions be less than entirely private. Scrutiny of, and

intervention into, family decisions about children and work was, and continues to be,

selective. For example, the possible link between infant mortality and mother's work was

a continuing concern in the United States between the late nineteenth century and the

Great Depression. Because many married women had children, the debate about married

women's work until the Great Depression was broadly about the relationship of work and

fertility, and often specifically about the consequences for children.6 In the Great

Depression, married women’s employment was again framed as a private decision with

enough public consequences that public comment and scrutiny was required. During the

Depression, the public interest in wives’ employment was assumed to be that married

women working contributed to household income inequality.7 The third—and final—

persistent aspect of discussions of married women’s employment in the United States was

the connection between married women’s work and the relationship between spouses.

Before World War I there was some social stigma in white society to wives working, as it

6 Eileen Boris and S. J. Kleinberg, "Mothers and Other Workers: (Re)Conceiving Labor, Maternalism, and the State," Journal of Women's History 15, no. 3 (2003): 100-06 reviews the development of this strand of the historiography. 7 Lois Scharf, To Work and to Wed: Female Employment, Feminism, and the Great Depression (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980). remains the standard reference on this topic. 282

typically signaled that a husband could not provide enough income for “his” family.8 The stigma attached to “working wives” diminished considerably in the 1920s, as women moved into more obviously desirable occupations, especially clerical work.9

Contemporary observers of the family saw the movement of wives into work occurring coincidentally with the rise in companionate marriage—the idea that husbands and wives were primarily united as a family by emotional bonds, and only secondarily by the productive and reproductive possibilities of family life.10 Married women’s work contributed to a growing equality within marriage, which worried some contemporaries.

For the most part, there was little public debate about married women’s role in the workplace itself. Women, whether single or married, were viewed as having different capacities and talents for employment than men. Moreover some workplaces, particularly in heavy industry and transportation, developed very strong workplace cultures that celebrated male labor, and resisted the intrusion of women—any women.11 Married women were rarely more or less of a problem for their male colleagues than single

8 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 134-35 has a concise description of this issue. 9 Among a large literature on women’s entry into clerical work, the following are the most important in the monographic literature:Elyce Rotella, From Home to Office: U.S. Women at Work, 1870-1930 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Research Press, 1981), Sharon Hartman Strom, Beyond the Typewriter: Gender, Class, and the Origins of Modern American Office Work, 1900-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992). Lisa M. Fine, The Souls of the Skyscraper: Female Clerical Workers in Chicago, 1870-1930 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990).. See also Oliver Zunz, Making America Corporate, 1870- 1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990)., Angel Kwolek-Folland, Engendering Business: Men and Women in the Corporate Office (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994). and Cindy Sondik Aron, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service: Middle-Class Workers in Victorian America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). on the development of clerical occupations. 10 Ernest Watson Burgess and Harvey James Locke, The Family (New York: American book company, 1945). For a concise retrospective on century-long transitions in marriage, seeAndrew Cherlin, "The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family 66, no. 4 (2004). 11 Steel, for example, was a heavily male industry with a distinctive male work culture. The literature on the culture of steel workers dates to David Brody, Steelworkers in America; the Nonunion Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), Lizabeth Cohen, "The Legacy of Brody's Steelworkers," Labor History 34, no. 3 (1993).. Another male-dominated industry was the railroad. See inter alia Walter Licht, Working for the Railroad: The Organization of Work in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983). 283

women. There is little evidence of pervasive concerns about married women being unsafe

in the workplace, or that work was a moral danger for wives.12 Pre-World War II

American middle-class society was concerned with respectable behavior, and held out

domesticity as the ideal calling of women. Working wives suggested more of a concern

with husbands who had failed to provide enough to enable domestic respectability than

with the wives who worked to pick up the slack.13 The three persistent elements of public

discussion about married women’s work—its impact on children, the consequences for

the division of employment and earnings among households, and the impact on

marriages—did not determine what views were expressed, but constituted the majority of

the public discussion of married women and paid work in the United States until 1940.

Although there were regularities in the content of public discussion about married

women’s employment, attitudes varied across time, and among different groups and

individuals. It is difficult to be more precise than this about the distribution of attitudes.

With the exception of some surveys in the 1930s addressing the concern du jour of

whether married women whose husbands were employed should work, there is little

systematic evidence about popular opinion on this issue. The sources available to trace

12 See, for example, Janet F. Davidson, ""Now That We Have Girls in the Office": Clerical Work, Masculinity, and the Refashioning of Gender for a Bureaucratic Age," in Boys and Their Toys: Masculinity, Technology, and Class in America, ed. Roger Horowitz (New York: Routledge, 2001), Janet F. Davidson, "Women and the Railroad: The Gendering of Work During the First World War Era, 1917-1920" (PhD, University of Delaware, 1999), 314-18. 13 There was some concern. In the Lynd's classic study of Muncie (IN) in the 1920s, they write that "wives who do not themselves work may grumble that married women … through their free and easy association with men in the factory … encourage divorce." Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (1929), 26-27. Stuart Blumin, "The Social Implications of American Economic Development," in Cambridge Economic History of the United States, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), Stuart M. Blumin, The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Modern History. (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), Mary P. Ryan, Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790-1865 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 284

the history of public opinion about married women’s employment are selective in two ways. Firstly, the sources that reveal public opinion about public opinion’s work are not surveys of the general population. They are instead the letters, commentary in periodical articles and books, and reports of people highly interested in the topic. This selection problem is endemic to historical research, and must guide the conclusions derived from the sources.14 The second selection problem in the historical commentary on married women’s employment is that much of it concerned exceptional, rather than average, circumstances. The relationship between mothers’ work and infant mortality is again instructive about the debate. Both scholarly and popular commentary asserted a link between mother’s working and infant mortality in the early twentieth century, even after that relationship was shown to be weak and other factors primarily responsible for infant mortality.15 Yet even when infant mortality rates were very high, and mothers employment was correlated with infant mortality, a child born to an employed mother still had a better than 80% chance of surviving their first year, compared to 85-90% survival rates for babies born to non-working mothers. The relative risk of infant mortality for infants of working mothers appeared high to contemporaries. The real risks

14 T.G. Ashplant and Adrian Wilson, "Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge," The Historical Journal 31, no. 2 (1988), Adrian Wilson and T.G. Ashplant, "Whig History and Present- Centred History," The Historical Journal 31, no. 1 (1988). 15 Inter alia Earl Barnes, Woman in Modern Society (New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1912), 144, George Benjamin Mangold, Child Problems (New York: Macmillan company, 1910), 90, Harry Frederick Ward, The Gospel for a Working World (New York: Missionary Education Movement of the United States and Canada, 1918), 44. Gertrude Foster Brown, Your Vote, and How to Use It (New York: Harper & brothers, 1918), Microform. There were relatively few independent investigations of this topic, and the conclusion that mothers’ employment, by itself, was the cause of infant mortality persisted long after it was shown to be, at best, an incomplete reason for infant mortality. See Henry Horace Hibbs, Jr., "The Influence of Economic and Industrial Conditions on Infant Mortality," Quarterly Journal of Economics 30, no. 1 (1915): 127-29. and Edward Bunnell Phelps, Infant Mortality and Its Relation to the Employment of Mothers (Washington D.C.: Department of Labor, 1912). Concern in the United States was lower than in Western Europe. See, for example: Richard A. Meckel, "Save the Babies": American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1850-1929 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 98- 99, 176-83. 285

came not from the mother's employment, but the unhealthy environment of early twentieth century industrial cities. Yet for a long time the relationship between mothers’ employment and infant mortality received much more attention than risk factors among non-working mothers, or more proximate causes of infant death that were correlated with maternal employment.16 Similarly, family encounters with the charity system of early

twentieth-century America can also illustrate public opinion about married women’s

work.17 Yet recourse to charity was less the rule, than the exception.

Race and married women's work

Perhaps the greatest exception of all in the discussion of married women’s work

in pre-World War II America was a racial one. Disapproval of married women’s work

was largely a disapproval of white married women working. Between 1870 and 1940,

between 20 and 30 percent of black wives were working at every census. In 1870, this

was 18 times the rate of white wives in the labor force. By 1940, black wives were still

twice as likely as white wives to work. Until 1910 black wives, who primarily worked in

agriculture or domestic service, were the majority of married women in the labor force,

even though non-black wives made up about ninety per cent of the population of married

women.18

16 Robert M. Woodbury, "Infant Mortality Studies of the Children's Bureau," Publications of the American Statistical Association 16, no. 122 (1918): 41. 17 Anna R. Igra, Wives without Husbands: Marriage, Desertion and Welfare in New York, 1900-1935 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), Michael Willrich, City of Courts: Socializing Justice in Progressive Era Chicago, Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society. (Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 18 Own calculations from IPUMS data using married women from the age of 16 onwards. These averages are not adjusted for other characteristics. Specifically, 88.6% of married women were white in 1870, rising to 92% in 1940. 286

Despite this, most discussion of married women’s work was about white wives,

and their employment in factories or “industry.” For example, Edith Abbott’s early

twentieth century history of women’s work, Women in Industry barely mentions black

women’s work.19 There is not even an index entry for “Negro” or “black” women.20 In

the same vein, an introductory sociology textbook of the same period refers to the “nearly one million married women” in work as a process of women leaving the home for the

factory, and mentions the concentration of immigrant women in factory employment.21

The imagined evils of the factory employment of married women captured the attention

of President Theodore Roosevelt in his 1904 address to Congress, stating that it was

“very desirable that married women should not work in factories…. the prime duty of the

woman is to be the mother, the housewife.”22 Factory work was believed to be

particularly damaging to women. Sociologist Annie Maclean, who did pioneering

ethnographic studies of working women wrote in her 1910 book Wage-Earning Women

that “the prime function of woman must ever be the perpetuating of the race,” and

“factory work must be accommodated to the girl or the girl taken out of the factory.”23

Newspaper stories in 1907 reporting on the statistics of the 1900 census showing an increase in married women workers gave examples of women working in boot and shoe

19 Edith Abbott, Women in Industry, a Study in American Economic History (New York: D. Appleton, 1910), 246-61. 20 Ibid., 401-09. 21 Emory Stephen Bogardus, Introduction to Sociology (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1917), 65, 69, 163. 22 “His Views on Public Questions: Message Sent to Congress by President Roosevelt. Many Topics are Discussed.” Washington Post, Washington (D.C.) Wednesday 7 December 1904, p.1. 23 Annie Marion MacLean, Wage-Earning Women (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 177. Margrit Eichler, "Women Pioneers in Canadian Sociology: The Effects of a Politics of Gender and a Politics of Knowledge," Canadian Journal of Sociology 26, no. 3 (2001): 375, V.K. Fish, "Annie Marion Maclean: A Neglected Part of the Chicago School," Journal of the History of Sociology 3, no. 1 (1981). 287

making, and dress making—more commonly performed by white wives.24 A contemporary industrial relations textbook by Adams, Sumner and Ely was unusual in following through the census statistics to the simple conclusion that most married women workers were black, and that black wives were more likely to work.25 Pervasive ignorance of black wives’ work was another constant in the discussion of married women’s work before 1940, while other aspects of the debate shifted.

Nineteenth century opinion

Before the turn of the century there was relatively little public comment about married women’s work in the United States. Married women’s work was unusual, and newspapers and books that touched on the issue confined its occurrence to particular

locations and industries. The textile town of Lowell, Massachusetts, for example, was

described as “a bad place for girls to get married in, because the men earn such small pay

that when they do get married, they are unable to provide a home for themselves, let

alone support a family.”26 Similarly, the relationship between earnings, marriage age and women’s work was found to be peculiar in the cigar making trade. While the Lowell

Democrat saw textile mills inhibiting marriage, an investigation of cigar makers observed

24 Gertrude Barnum, “Woman’s Work is Never Done,” Ada Evening News, Ada (OK), 14 August 1907, p.7. This article was re-distributed to multiple newpapers in August 1907, and relied on the statistics in Joseph A. Hill, Statistics of Women at Work: Based on Unpublished Information Derived from the Schedules of the 1900 Census (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907). Married women’s work in cigar- and shoe- making was often tied to artisnal traditions of production with workshops closely linked to the home. On shoes, see Mary H. Blewett, Men, Women, and Work: Class, Gender, and Protest in the New England Shoe Industry, The Working Class in American History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988). On cigars, see Patricia A. Cooper, Once a Cigar Maker — Men, Women and Work Culture in American Cigar Factories (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988). 25 Thomas Sewall Adams, Helen L. Sumner, and Richard Theodore Ely, Labor Problems; a Text Book (New York: Macmillan, 1905), 52-55. 26 “Bad Place for Girls: Why So Many Mill Girls Become Old Maids,” The Lowell Democrat, Vol. 21, No. 60, Monday, 12 February 1894, p.1. See also, “New England’s Girls: Sketches of the Most Independent Women in the Land” Galvston Daily News, Galveston (TX), Saturday 14 July 1888, p.12. 288

that cigar making employed both men and women, and that many found their spouse in

the trade. After marriage and children, women kept working at cigar making because of

the flexibility of the work which could be done at home.27

In other occupations there are reports of marriage bars—requirements that women

leave work on marriage, or not be hired if they were married—existing before the turn of

the century.28 For example, it was reported in 1889 that the Postmaster General had

banned the employment of married women in the Post Office.29 Yet in 1902, the order was issued again, suggesting that application may have been ineffective, or the policy lapsed.30 More common were bans on married women working as school teachers, that

first developed after the Civil War. The first systematic survey of marriage bars in

American schools was not done until 1928, by which time the initial reasons for adopting

marriage bars were somewhat lost to history.31

Marriage bars in teaching

Some of the early stated rationales for introducing bans on married women

teachers were moral. In 1876 a Commissioner on the New York Board of Education

sought to introduce a ban on married women teachers, supporting his argument against

the married woman teacher with “questions of delicacy [and …] reasons of a social

27 “The Women Who Toil,” Daily Republican, Mitchell (SD), 18 February 1886, p.4. Reprinted from “Cigarmakers Going to Work,” New York Times, 10 February 1886, p.3. 28 “The Woman Who Works,” The Galveston Daily News, Monday 24 July 1889, p.6. 29 Dubuque Herald, Saturday 9 December 1889, p.4. ; See also New York Times, December 4 1899, p.5. 30 “Two Salaries in a Family Too Much,” Galveston Daily News, Saturday 29 November 1920, p.7. 31 Joel Perlmann and Robert A. Margo, Women's Work (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 112- 14. Perlmann and Margo say that the early history of the marriage bar in teaching is mostly unknown, and that the economic logic of the policies was “unclear.” 289

character outside the school service”.32 A few years later in Cincinnati a woman who had continued to teach “until within two months of the birth of her child … was indelicate and immoral in its effect upon the pupils under her.” Her dismissal led to the proposal for a general ban.33 While not passed at the time, the idea was sprung again on the citizens of

Cincinnati in 1890, and the New York Times noted that only in Philadelphia among the nation’s major cities was there a ban on the married woman teacher.34 By 1891 the

question was apparently so familiar to the educational community that the San Jose State

College journal, The Pacific Coast Teacher noted that “like the return of migratory birds

comes the old question, ‘Ought Married Women be Allowed to Teach in Our Public

Schools!’”35 In the same year, the National Council of Women also noted the spread of

the marriage bar in teaching across the country.36 By the 1890s the idea of a marriage bar

in teaching was common, if not its implementation. Tracking the incidence and

prevalence of the marriage bar in teaching is complicated by the decision being made

locally, and the bars being reversed and reinstated.37 A 1928 survey by the National

Education Association, for example, covered 1532 cities—with which school districts

were often contiguous—with a population of over 2,500, that missed many smaller

school districts, while covering the majority of the population.38

32 “Married women as teachers,” New York Times, 30 September 1876, p.10. 33 “Married female teachers,” New York Times, 12 June 1881, p.1. 34 “Married women as teachers,” New York Times, 2 September 1890, p.4. 35 “Ought Married Women be Allowed to Teach in Our Public Schools,” Pacific Coast Teacher, 1, No.1 (September 1891): 23. 36 Mary A. Ripley “Employment of Women in the Public Schools,” Transactions of the National Council of Women of the United States (Washington, D.C: 1891): 204-209. 37 New York and Brooklyn schools went back and forth on this issue at the turn of the century. See "In and Around New York City," The School Journal, 44, No.7 (February 15 1902): 198. 38 Charl Williams, "The Position of Women in the Public Schools," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1929). 290

The regularity of successful proposals to bar married from teaching show there was a significant strand of opinion in turn-of-the-century America that opposed married women teachers.39 The bars on married women teachers persisted until after World War

II, and then died out relatively rapidly.40 A menu of stated moral reasons was available to support the marriage bar in teaching, yet there was also some economic logic to it.41

Among the moral reasons was the supposed “corruption” of young minds by being taught by a pregnant woman. Concerns about nepotism, when two teachers were married to each other, were cited in small school districts. In other districts, the ban on married women teachers was rationalized as a way of encouraging teachers to leave so that public employment could be shared around.42

The marriage bars in teaching, and in other areas rested on slender legal foundations. When dismissal at marriage was challenged in the courts, it was generally only upheld in some cases where there was a clause in the contract establishing a marriage bar when a woman was employed. In other cases, courts held that restrictions on marriage by employees served no public policy interest, and indeed was contrary to the

39 It should be noted that bans on married women teachers were found throughout Europe, North America and Australasia in the same era. John T. Prince, Methods of Instruction and Organization of the Schools of Germany (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1892), 12-13. Susan Trouvé Finding, "Teaching as a Woman’s Job: The Impact of the Admission of Women to Elementary Teaching in England and France in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," History of Education 34, no. 5 (2005): 487-88. Jo Aitken, "Wives and Mothers First: The New Zealand Teachers' Marriage Bar and the Ideology of Domesticity, 1920-1940," Women's Studies Journal 12, no. 1 (1996). Marjorie Theobald and Donna Dwyer, "An Episode in Feminist Politics:The Married Women (Lecturers and Teachers)Act, 1932-47.," Labour History, no. 76 (1999). Marta Danylewycz and Alison Prentice, "Teachers, Gender, and Bureaucratizing School Systems in Nineteenth Century Montreal and Toronto," History of Education Quarterly 24, no. 1 (1984), Mary Kinnear, ""Mostly for the Male Members": Teaching in Winnipeg 1933-1966," Historical Studies in Education 6, no. 1 (1994), George Perry, ""a Concession to Circumstances": Nova Scotia's "Unlimited Supply" of Women Teachers, 1870-1960," Historical Studies in Education [Canada] 15, no. 2 (2003). 40 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, 162-63. 41 On stated moral reasons, see Kimball Young, "Primitive Social Norms in Present-Day Education," Social Forces, 5, no. 4 (1927): 581. 42 E.g. “The married woman teacher problem,” The Daily Courier, Connellsville (PA), 22 July 1938, p.2. 291

interest of the state in encouraging marriage.43 Although the courts were quite firm that marriage bars in teaching had a slender legal basis, few cases were actually brought before the courts. American women were adept at using the law to defend and advance their rights, but there was little systematic challenge to the married teacher statutes. It is possible the shifting policies, and local control of the policies meant the issue got less attention than it might have. Encouraging turnover in the ranks of teachers had some economic logic to it as well, and illustrates the way in which gender ideology had to interact with prevailing structure of employment contracts in quite specific ways for marriage bars to be implemented. As we shall see later, the marriage bar would appear in selected occupations and industries in the 1920s.

Widespread, yet generally shallow, opposition to the idea of white married women working characterized the state of American public opinion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Yet formal policies banning married women only appeared in selected industries and occupations. For all the rhetorical opposition to married women working in factories, and the flurry of legislative proposals and enactments to improve conditions for working women, there was little appetite for laws to bar married women from factory work.44 Marriage bars were implemented in teaching, and later in clerical work, recognized all around as desirable jobs that women often wanted to keep. The marriage bars made economic sense, because ideology intersected with the needs of

43 I. N. Edwards, "Marriage as a Legal Cause for Dismissal of Women Teachers," The Elementary School Journal 25, no. 9 (1925): 692-95, Newton Edwards, "The Law Governing the Dismissal of Teachers. Ii," The Elementary School Journal 33, no. 5 (1933): 373-75, Lee O. Garber, "The Law Governing the Dismissal of Teachers on Permanent Tenure," The Elementary School Journal 35, no. 2 (1934), Ward Keesecker, The Legal Status of Married Women Teachers (Washington D.C.: Office of Education. United States Department of the Interior, 1934). “Teacher Tenure Contracts—Discrimination against Married Women Teachers, Indiana Law Review 13, No. 1(1938): 182-184. 44 I discuss the views on married women’s work that can be seen in Progressive era labor legislation later in this chapter. 292

employers in a very specific way. Teachers were typically paid on a salary schedule basis. Earnings advanced with age, according to a standard formula, and there was little negotiation with individual employees.45 If a teacher’s productivity did not keep advancing with their salary beyond a certain point, turnover in teachers benefited the school district by bringing in new and less-qualified, but cheaper employees.46 Perlmann and Margo argue that the salary progression could have been altered—smaller raises at older ages—to make the marriage bar unnecessary. It is possible that the salary progression implied without a marriage bar might have been too flat for enough women to enter teaching initially, though data to test these competing hypotheses is very likely unavailable. Most women entered teaching while single, and qualitative evidence indicates a substantial minority were happy to delay marriage to continue teaching.47 If college-educated young women were uncertain whether they would get married, the certain progression in salary compensated for the risk of being fired upon marriage.

Single women who studied the market for women teachers might also have noticed that marriage bars were not permanent. Small towns with limited pools of applicants for

45 Perlmann and Margo, Women's Work, 112-14. 46 The dismissal upon marriage of experienced teachers was a point that opponents of the marriage bar made frequently in arguing that the marriage bar was harmful to children and school districts. SeeHenry C. Kinney, The American Housewife at Work: A Statistical Examination of the Proposed Restriction of the Chicago School Board, Prohibiting the Continuance of Teaching after Matrimony (Chicago: 1897), Doris Hinson Pieroth, Seattle's Women Teachers of the Interwar Years: Shapers of a Livable City (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004). 47 Jackie Blount, Destined to Rule the Schools: Women and the Superintendency, 1873-1995 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), 92-94, Jackie M. Blount, Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005), 74-76, Pieroth, Seattle's Women Teachers of the Interwar Years: Shapers of a Livable City, 202-04. Blount shows that single women who stayed too long were sometimes suspected of being lesbians, even more morally questionable than motherhood. A contemporary study found the age-specific marriage rate of teachers to be 50-60% of the marriage rate in the general population. Harold H. Punke, "Marriage Rate among Women Teachers," American Sociological Review 5, no. 4 (1940): 505-11. On the fear of single women teachers becoming "queer," see Dennis H. Cooke and C. W. Simms, "Local Residents and Married Women as Teachers," Review of Educational Research 10, no. 3, Teacher Personnel (1940): 206-07. 293

teaching positions were especially likely to reverse their policy when it led to teacher

shortages.48 Another factor that led to bars being introduced and rescinded was that the

marriage bars were political. The educational bureaucracy and academy—professional

superintendents and educational academics—were strongly and consistently opposed to

the policy. A study of the issue in the early 1930s found that more than four-fifths of

superintendents opposed the marriage bar.49 Yet they acknowledged the strength of

public feeling on the issue. Writing in the late 1930s, when public sentiment against

employed married women was at its peak, two Illinois educators cautioned that "it is unwise to make a recommendation to the board of education that is clearly contrary to general community sentiment. However, it may be necessary to institute a program of community enlightenment."50 School boards, made up of elected officials, could, and did, change their minds depending on the vagaries of local politics, and the waxing and waning influence of the professional school administrators.51 Large cities were less likely

to have a marriage bar in place, though the reasons for this are not clear.52 More liberal

social attitudes in large cities are one possible explanation. Teachers in large cities may have been more likely to leave voluntarily with other white-collar occupations available

for educated women, reducing the need for school boards to have marriage bars

generating turnover. Intermittently applied until the 1920s, marriage bars in teaching

48 Susan L. Richards, "Gendered Work: Women's Paid Labor in Barre, Vermont and Trinidad, Colorado, 1880-1918" (University of New Hampshire, 2002), 185-87. 49 David Wilbur Peters, The Status of the Married Woman Teacher (New York city: Teachers college, Columbia university, 1934), 30. 50 Floyd Tompkins Goodier and William Allen Miller, Administration of Town and Village Schools (St. Louis, Mo.: Webster Publishing Co., 1938), 118. 51 Richard J. Altenbaugh, The Teacher's Voice: A Social History of Teaching in Twentieth-Century America (London; New York: Falmer Press, 1991), 52-55 looks at the New York situation from the late 1890s to World War I. 52 National Education Association, "Practice in City School Systems 1930-1931," Research Bulletin (1932). 294

became more common in the Great Depression, and were rapidly rescinded in the war, with few being reinstated after World War II.53 Prejudice against married women teaching was part of the foundation for marriage bars in teaching, but they were only introduced when ideology and incentives coincided.

Although marriage bars in teaching became more common in the 1920s and

1930s, their effect was probably only to slow the rate at which married women became teachers. Until 1910, between three and five per cent of women teachers were married, increasing to nearly eight percent in 1920. Ten years later one in six (16.6%) of women teachers were married, and in 1940 more than one in five (22.5%) of women teachers were married. Married teachers were not significantly more likely to be in large cities— where marriage bars were less common—than single teachers. This suggests that the growing number and proportion of married women teachers was not only due to married teachers, or teachers who wanted to work and marry, moving to large cities. Married teachers did become more common in larger cities between 1880 and 1940, but the proportion of married teachers among all female teachers increased in the country and cities of every size.54 For all the rhetoric surrounding the marriage bar in teaching, it did not stop the proportion of married women in teaching jumping three-fold from 1920 to

1940, and the number of married teachers increasing four-fold in the same twenty years.

53 Dennis H. Cooke, Jesse F. Cardwell, and Harris J. Dark, "Local Residents and Married Women as Teachers," Review of Educational Research 16, no. 3, Teacher Personnel (1946): 234-35. 54 Own calculations from IPUMS data, 1880-1940. 295

Early twentieth century opinion

The ineffectiveness of marriage bars in teaching illustrates that some of the

discussion about married women working in early twentieth century America was reaction to an already-underway trend that even legislation could not reverse. Public debates about the marriage bar in teaching were conducted locally, because decisions were made locally. Teachers, other education professionals, and women's rights campaigners recognized the national replication of the same debate in different settings, but the wider impact of the teacher marriage bar debate was constrained by the municipal setting of the decision. Other early twentieth century debates about married women's work generated a wider conversation, because they involved calls for state or federal government action.

Until the late nineteenth century the dominant mode of assistance to poor families was private charity. In the twenty years before World War I social reformers and philanthropists lobbied for, and obtained, greater government intervention in welfare for the poor. Historians have labeled this phase in American history the Progressive Era.55

Among the social problems the Progressives identified were the "home slacker," and the

"mother who must earn."56 Both reflected a breakdown in the normative family economy

of the era. The home slacker was a man who was unable to provide for his family. By

1916 every state in the union had passed a law that made a man's desertion of his family,

55 There is a large literature on this period of American history. Among important recent works are Alan Dawley, Changing the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 41-74, Eldon J. Eisenach, The Lost Promise of Progressivism, American Political Thought (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1994), Maureen A. Flanagan, America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s-1920s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), Robyn Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform 1890-1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), Daniel T. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1998). 56 Katharine Anthony, Mothers Who Must Earn (New York: Survey Associates, 1914). 296

or failure to support them a crime.57 The presumption that working wives represented a breakdown in the ideal family was thus encoded in the law across the country. Special courts for hearing "Domestic Relations" cases were established, with their aim being to try and restore a nuclear family, where the husband earned enough to support his wife and children.

Immigrants were over-represented in the Chicago Court of Domestic Relations studied by Willrich. Progressive reformers were apt to see immigrant wives as more likely to work. Associating immigrant wives with work served to strengthen the perception that married women's work was outside the norm. Yet as shown in Chapter 1

immigrant wives were not much more likely to work than native-born wives after

adjusting for family circumstances. It was immigrant daughters who rushed into work

compared with their native-born peers. Nevertheless early twentieth century reformers

saw the immigrant family as more likely to send its wives and daughters out to work, and

this perception shaped the formation of pre-World War I social policy.58 The much higher rate of labor force participation among black wives was, as discussed above, mostly ignored by progressive reformers, whose field of vision was largely northern and urban.59

57 Willrich, City of Courts: Socializing Justice in Progressive Era Chicago, Michael Willrich, "Home Slackers: Men, the State, and Welfare in Modern America," Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 492. 58 Inter alia Margaret Byington, Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town (1910), Anne Marie Cammisa, From Rhetoric to Reform? Welfare Policy in American Politics, Dilemmas in American Politics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998), Maurine Weiner Greenwald and Margo J. Anderson, Pittsburgh Surveyed: Social Science and Social Reform in the Early Twentieth Century (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), Paul Underwood Kellogg, Wage-Earning Pittsburgh (New York: Survey Associates, 1914), Alice O'Connor, Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History, Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001), James T. Patterson and James T. Patterson, America's Struggle against Poverty in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), Jacob A. Riis, How the Other Half Lives: Studies among the Tenements of New York (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1890). 59 Eileen Boris, "Changing Debate on Work and Family Lives: A Historical Perspective," in Unfinished Work: Building Equality and Democracy in an Era of Working Families, ed. Jody Heymann and 297

Preserving, restoring, or in the case of immigrants, creating, proper economic relationships within the family was a major goal of progressive reformers. The ideal of

Progressive reformers and allied labor groups was an economy where men earned enough to support their wife and children. In the United States this ideal was known variously as the "American standard of living," the "living wage," or the "family wage."60 The same

ideals were shared abroad. As with the marriage bars on teachers, the American

experience was not unique.61 The ideal that men should be able to support their families, and wives should not work was strongly held in Australasia, Canada, Britain and western

Europe. In the United States, as in Canada and Australasia, the family wage ideal encompassed both an ideology of work and gender, and the notion that the new world was superior to Europe by offering families a higher standard of living, where wives did

Christopher Beem (New York: New Press, 2005). . Jacqueline Jones, Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present (1985). Herbert Gutman, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925 (New York: Vintage Books, 1976), Tera W. Hunter, To 'Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors after the Civil War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). 60 Rosanne Currarino, "The Politics of “More”: The Labor Question and the Idea of Economic Liberty in Industrial America," Journal of American History 93, no. 1 (2006), Lawrence Glickman, "Inventing the "American Standard of Living": Gender, Race and Working Class Identity, 1880-1925," Labor History 34, no. 2 (1993), Lawrence B. Glickman, A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of Consumer Society (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), Eric Rauchway, "The High Cost of Living in the Progressives' Economy," Journal of American History 88, no. 3 (2001). 61 Colin Creighton, "The 'Family Wage' as a Class-Rational Strategy," Sociological Review 44 (1996), Colin Creighton, "The Rise and Decline of the 'Male Breadwinner Family' in Britain," Cambridge Journal of Economics 23 (1999), Colin Creighton, "The Rise of the Male Breadwinner Family," Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 2 (1996), Sara Horrell and Jane Humphries, "Women's Labour Force Participation and the Transition to the Male-Breadwinner Family, 1790-1865," Economic History Review 48, no. 1 (1995), A. Janssens, "The Male Breadwinner: Myth or Historical Reality? An Overview," Tijdschrift Voor Geschiedenis 111, no. 2 (1998), Angélique Janssens, The Rise and Decline of the Male Breadwinner Family? International Review of Social History. Supplement; 5 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), Melanie Nolan, Breadwinning: New Zealand Women and the State (Christchurch: Canterbury University Press, 2000), Melanie Nolan, "The High Tide of a Labour Market Sysem: The Australasian Male Breadwinner Model," Labour & Industry 13, no. 3 (2003): 72-93, Joy Parr, The Gender of Breadwinners: Women, Men, and Change in Two Industrial Towns, 1880-1950 (Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1990), Wally Seccombe, "Patriarchy Stabilized: The Constrution of the Male Breadwinner Wage Norm in Nineteenth Century Britain," Social History 2, no. 1 (1986), Lena Sommestad, "Welfare State Attitudes to the Male Breadwinning System: The United States and Sweden in Comparative Perspective," International Review of Social History 42, no. Supplement 5 (1997). 298

not have to work. Social insurance advocate I.M. Rubinow wrote in 1919 that "married

women in industry" were seen by many Americans as "an aspect of pauperized European

labor, which is contrary to American traditions…. only the wives of negroes, non-

English-speaking aliens, and defectives and delinquents, work for wages."62 What was

different in the United States, compared with “the Dominions” was that migration to the

United States was more ethnically varied, and married women's work was more common

among black women.63 The normative belief that the “American standard of living”

meant wives did not have to work clashed more with reality, when immigrant and black

wives appeared so much more distinctive. In Canada, and even more so in Australasia,

immigration was less ethnically heterogeneous than in the United States. Beliefs about

gender and work in the new society did not become entwined with perceptions of

immigrants. American historians have largely adopted the terminology "family wage,"

but usage at the time was divided between the "family wage" desired by middle-class

Progressive reformers, and the "living wage" that the labor movement supported.64

Historians have often asserted that the family wage was an ideal that not all families could live up to.65 Husband's ability to live up to the family wage ideal varied

with the family life cycle.66 Because the IPUMS samples allow us to see the characteristics of individuals and their co-resident family members, we can measure the

62 Isaac Max Rubinow, Standards of Health Insurance (New York: H. Holt and company, 1916), 132. 63 Alexander Brady, Democracy in the Dominions: A Comparative Study of Institutions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1947). Brady also includes South Africa, which to modern sensibilities is somewhat odd, but the date of publication—one year before apartheid was introduced—explains much. 64 Glickman, A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of Consumer Society, 158. 65 See, for example, Eileen Boris, Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1, 115, Carole Haber and Brian Gratton, Old Age and the Search for Security: An American Social History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 75. 66 Michael R. Haines, "Industrial Work and the Family Life Cycle, 1889-1890," Research in Economic History 4 (1979). 299

extent to which men lived up to the family wage ideal. A married man was defined as living up to the family wage ideal if he participated in the labor force, and all of the

following were true: none of his children worked, his wife did not work and the

household had no boarders or lodgers. Married men who lived with working siblings or

parents of either sex were not regarded as failing the family wage ideal. This definition

highlights that the economic relationship between household members have to be understood as inter-dependent and mutually constructed. Establishing an independent household was more expensive in the early twentieth century.67 Leaving home to enter

higher-education was not common. Thus, more wage-earning teenagers and young adults

remained living with their parents for longer than currently. This was a relationship with

some tension—as will be seen in the next chapter—but it was economically beneficial for

both generations. A similar interdependent relationship held between families and

boarders, who also could not afford an independent household.

Although there were minor changes between 1880 and 1940, the persistent pattern

of the family wage was that it was a life-cycle phenomenon (see Figure 4.1 and 4.2).

More than 80% of white husbands between the ages of 16-35 were sole providers. With

each 10 year age group the proportion of men who met the family wage ideal fell. After

the age of 45 less than half the white husbands were the sole providers. Black men were

much less likely to be the sole provider for their family. The white pattern of greater

independence in the younger age groups falling with every decadal age-group repeated

for blacks. Young white husbands in the 1920s and 1930s—married to the cohort of

white wives that stayed in work after marriage—were less likely to meet the family wage

67 Ronald Allen Goeken, "Unmarried Adults and Residential Autonomy: Living Arrangements in the United States, 1880-1990" (PhD, University of Minnesota, 1999). 300

ideal than earlier generations. Young black husbands, conversely, became more likely to support their family on their own.

301

Figure 4.1 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, all husbands

302

Figure 4.2 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, husbands with co-resident children

303

Wage earning mothers and mothers’ pensions

Wage earning mothers were the target of social reform when their spouses were

unable to provide, whether from industrial accidents, unemployment or low earnings.68

Mothers were a target of reform, because of the concern that children would be neglected

by working mothers. Reviewing the first year of the Illinois mother's pension law, The

World's Work, a magazine for Progressive reformers, opined that "Working mothers and

the consequent lack of care are what has sent many of the city children on the way toward

failure in life. The child that does not have enough of his mother is likely to get that

way."69 Mother's pensions were introduced to provide a last resort for families that could

not be reconstituted with a wage-earning father and husband.70 The legislative success of

the mother's pension movement before World War I belies their social impact. Enacted at

the state level, they were implemented by counties. While the programs were established

in large cities, in many rural countries the pensions were never given with counties

claiming they had no eligible mothers.71 The campaign for mother’s pensions reveals that

Progressive reformers ultimately hoped that married women’s work would be limited in

frequency and duration, by choice. They recognized that circumstances sometimes

68 On industrial accidents, see John Fabian Witt, "From Loss of Services to Loss of Support: The Wrongful Death Statutes, the Origins of Modern Tort Law, and the Making of the Nineteenth-Century Family," Law and Social Inquiry 25, no. 3 (2000). 69 Quoted in S.T. Rice and R.H. Schauffler, Mother's Day: Its history, origin, celebration, spirit and significance, (New York: Moffat, Yard & Co., 1915): 24. 70 Joanne L Goodwin, "Employable Mothers" and "Suitable Work": A Re-Evaluation of Welfare and Wage-Earning for Women in the Twentieth-Century United States," Journal of Social History 29, no. 2 (1995), Joanne L. Goodwin, Gender and the Politics of Welfare Reform: Mothers' Pensions in Chicago, 1911-1929, Women in Culture and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), Molly Ladd- Taylor, Mother-Work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890-1930, Women in American History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994). 71 Carolyn M. Moehling, "The American Welfare System and Family Structure: An Historical Perspective," Journal of Human Resources 42, no. 1 (2007): 121-23. 304

required wives to work, but social reform should aim to eliminate the circumstances that motivated wives to work, not make work more feasible for mothers. Florence Kelley, who as president of the National Consumers’ League was a leading figure in Progressive politics thought that making work more tolerable for mothers was perverse:

Whether the wage-earning mother leaves home, or brings her work into the home, her children pay the penalty. If she is away, they are upon the street or locked into their rooms. From the street to the court is but a short step. From the locked room to the grave has been for unknown thousands of children a step almost as short … Even the employers is injured by the presence in the market of a body of homeworking women …. In the employment of married women, as in all other industrial evils, it is ultimately the whole community which pays …. A perverse element in the problem … is the encouragement persistently given by philanthropists to the wage earning labor of married women. Day nurseries, charity kindergartens … contingent upon the recipients taking whatever work she may be offered, are all still in vogue in the year 1910.72

Child care, maternity leave, and schooling

Kelley’s views were influential, and there was little provision of child care for

working mothers in the United States at any point before World War II.73 The movement

for mother's pensions concentrated on encouraging women out of work. Supporters of

mothers' pensions were often opposed to child care that would allow women to work.74

What little organized child care there was in the United States before 1940 was provided

by day nurseries. Until World War II armaments factories required government provision

72 Florence Kelley, "Married Women in Industry," Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 1, no. 1 (1910): 90-96. 73 Kathryn Kish Sklar, Florence Kelley and the Nation's Work (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). 74 Sonya Michel, Children's Interests/Mothers' Rights: The Shaping of America's Child Care Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 74-75. 305

of child care, day nurseries were exclusively private operations.75 By contrast in World

War I the federal government's War Labor Policy Board decided that

the recruiting of mothers of young children for war industries should be discouraged. The object of establishing day nurseries in factories is obviously to increase and facilitate the employment of mothers of young children. The objections to such employment are manifold.76

With this government policy in place, the initiative was left to private businesses. An

article in the widely read Factory and Industrial Management journal described how

"two nurses are left in charge to look after the little tots during the day, so that the mothers can work in the mills. …. Perhaps plans like this would open up a large field of labor for you which at present it is impossible to obtain. As a considerable proportion of it would probably be experienced, but simply out of practice it would be worth much more than new workers ..."77

Tight wartime labor markets prompted some companies to establish day nurseries, but

many lapsed in the immediate aftermath of the war, when more normal labor market

conditions resumed.78 Simply put, many women would work at whatever prevailing

wage was offered. They were sensitive to their husband's income, but not to their own

potential wages or other benefits.79

Married women's elastic labor supply also explains why very few American employers established paid maternity leave, or even offered the benefit of holding a job

75 Sherna Berger Gluck, Rosie the Riveter Revisited: Women, the War, and Social Change (Boston: Twayne, 1987), 12-15, Janann Sherman, No Place for a Woman: A Life of Senator Margaret Chase Smith (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000), page. 76 Quoted in Florence Swift Wright, Industrial nursing, for industrial, public health, and pupil nurses, and for employers of labor (New York: Macmillan, 1919): 134. 77 "How Other Men Manage," Factory and Industrial Management, August 1918, p.372. 78 American Public Health Association, "Child Welfare Work in the United States," A Half Century of Public Health: Jubilee Historical Volume of the American Public Health Association (New York: APHA, 1921): 299-300. 79 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. 306

open for women while they gave birth and cared for an infant. There is little published

record of early maternity leave initiatives. Historical analysis of maternity or family leave

policies has focused on legislation guaranteeing some form of leave.80 Most modern

authors follow this conceptualization of the issue, and assert that the history of United

States maternity leave begins either in 1912, with the New York and Massachusetts laws

requiring women not to work for four weeks after childbirth, or after World War II with

the development of legislation that pressured employers to offer leave.81 In this section, I

show that this conception of United States maternity leave history leaves out a small but

important history of maternity leave before World War II. Schools in large cities and

some other employers of professional women did establish maternity leave policies in

this era. The leaves were typically not paid, and were not always established in good

faith, yet they gave women the right to leave their job to have a child, and return to the same job. Though there was no federal guarantee of the right to maternity leave, its history extends further back than previously realized.

It is important to distinguish between three different forms of maternity leave provided in legislation and other employment contracts.82 The first form was legislation

that required women to be absent from work for a specified period before or after

childbirth. Worldwide, and in the United States, most of the first maternity leave

legislation was of this sort. These required leaves were unpaid, and imposed costs on both

the mother and her employer. Given the stigma attached to married women's work, and

80 Anne Hélène Gauthier, The State and the Family: A Comparative Analysis of Family Policies in Industrialized Countries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 51-58. 81 Erin Kelly and Frank Dobbin, "Civil Rights Law at Work: Sex Discrimination and the Rise of Maternity Leave Policies," American Journal of Sociology 105, no. 2 (1999): 455-92. 82 The next two paragraphs draw on Gauthier, The State and The Family, 50-59, and "Maternity Benefit Systems," Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 3 (1921): 142-144. 307

the hard, physical nature of that work, it is highly likely that pregnant women who kept

working needed the money. Thus, the requirement to stop work before and after birth

diminished the family income in the absence of state maternity benefits. Protection for

the mother's rights to return to work varied across different countries. In general this

legislation imposed some cost on employers who had to re-allocate the work done by

absent mothers, or hire temporary employees. The second form of maternity leave was

short, publicly funded maternity leave for mothers. This was introduced in many Western

countries—but not the United States—before World War II. In general, the stated reasons

for subsidizing the leave were to encourage fertility, not to compensate families for the

mandated absence of the wife from work. Most of these foreign schemes paid a lump sum, or a percentage of earnings for the leave, and did not replace all the lost earnings.

No American states enacted publicly funded maternity leave before 1940.

The third, contemporary, form of "maternity" leave legislation has been broader.

Indeed, it has become so broad that the term "parental" or "family" leave is now used.

This form of legislation at a minimum guarantees both mothers and fathers the rights to absences from their job, with the right of return to the job. Earlier "maternity" legislation was partly motivated by concerns for the mother's health. Modern parental leave legislation recognizes the need for leave as social. The guaranteed leave period is longer, extends to both parents, and in many countries can be taken after adopting a child. The

key characteristic of this form of maternity leave is the right to return to work after a

long-term absence. The benefit to the employee (or, before 1940, the mother) is that they

can interrupt their work history to have children and return to work at a guaranteed time,

308

without having to search for a new job.83 Employers and colleagues may bear some cost of searching for interim employees, or accommodating the reduction in staff.84 It was this more modern form of maternity leave that could be found in the United States before

World War II in some professional occupations, particularly teaching.

In Europe, concern with the health effects of mothers employed in factories led to legally mandated maternity leave, starting in Germany in 1883. By the advent of World

War I, France, Italy and Britain also had maternity leave schemes. Of course, some women wanted to keep working soon after giving birth because they needed the money.

Mandated maternity leaves negated that choice. Eventually recognition of this tradeoff compelled European governments to fund maternity leaves at a modest level. 85 In the

Soviet Union, after the Bolshevik seizure of power a paid maternity leave at full pay for six weeks before and after giving birth was granted in 1922.86 Politically the Soviet enactment of maternity leave was not helpful to any campaign for maternity leave in the

United States, associating the idea with Communism.

83 Modern research shows that the cost of interruptions to career histories can be substantial. Women have more career interruptions, but the cost of each one is lower in terms of reduced wages. See Christy Spivey, "Time Off at What Price? The Effects of Career Interruptions on Earnings," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 59, no. 1 (2005): 119-40. 84 Modern research indicates that some of the cost of providing maternity leaves is borne by employees in the form of reduced wages. John S. Heywood, W. Stanley Sieberty, and Xiangdong Weiz, "The Implicit Wage Costs of Family Friendly Work Practices," Oxford Economic Papers 59, no. 2 (2007): 278-81 review the recent literature. In a widely cited United States study Gruber found that mandating maternity coverage in employer-provided health insurance reduced wages for 20-40 year old married women. See Jonathan Gruber, "The Incidence of Mandated Maternity Benefits," American Economic Review 84, no. 3 (1994). 85 Ernst Freund, "The Constitutional Aspect of the Protection of Women in Industry," Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 1, no. 1 (1910): 176.. Isaac Max Rubinow, "Standards of Sickness Insurance: Ii," Journal of Political Economy 23, no. 4 (1915): 359-60.. 86 Meryl Frank and Robyn Lipner, "History of Maternity Leave in Europe and the United States," in The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a National Policy, ed. Edward Zigler and Meryl Frank (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 3-8, Henry J. Harris, Maternity Benefit Systems in Certain Foreign Countries (Washington: Govt. print. off., 1919). 309

Perhaps ironically given the marriage bar, the one occupation in the United States where maternity leave rights did become established before World War II was in teaching. Women had the right in New York City schools to return to their jobs after having children, but as well as being a right it was also a restriction. The genesis of this was a 1913 ruling by the New York State Supreme Court that the School Board could not fire married women teachers, or teachers who left for a child.87 In response the Board imposed a two year maternity leave on the women, even though many indicated they wanted to resume teaching earlier.88 The schools of New York were not alone in giving

teachers maternity leave. David Peters' 1934 study of the married women teacher found that Minneapolis, Long Beach and Washington, D.C. had maternity leave provisions in

their contracts.89 Educational administration academics recommended to school boards that if they did employ married women teachers, that they make provisions for granting maternity leave. Maternity leave was explicitly recommended as a way to retain valuable employees, who would believe in teaching as a profession.90 Professional women were

87 The case became known as the Peixotto case, after the plaintiff, Bridget Peixotto. "School Teachers— Neglect of Duty," Michigan Law Review, 13, No.2 (1914): 169. 88 "Education Notes,” New York Times, 15 October 1915, p.18. ; "Change in Leave Urged," New York Times, 23 July 1937, p.21. Josephine Chase, New York at School: A Description of the Activities and Administration of the Public Schools of the City of New York (New York: Public education association of the City of New York, 1927), 219. George Clarke Cox, The Public Conscience: Social Judgements in Statute and Common Law (New York: Henry Holt, 1922), 462-64, Thomas Edward Finegan, A Textbook on New York School Law Including the Revised Education Law (Albany: Matthew Bender, 1919), 261-63. For contemporary criticism of the two year leave rule, see e.g Katharine Susan Anthony, Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia, v p., 2 l., 3-260 p. 20 cm. vols. (New York: Henry Holt, 1915), 38. 89 Peters, The Status of the Married Woman Teacher, 40.."Maternity Leaves of Absence in Perth Amboy, New Jersey," School and Society 36 (1932), William C. McGinnis, "Perth Amboy Gives Break to Married Women Teachers," Journal of Education 115 (1932).. U.S. Congress. Committee on the Civil Service. To Amend Married Person’s Clause. Hearings on H.R. 5051. April 18-24, 1935. 90 Goodier and Miller, Administration of Town and Village Schools, 118, Alfred Victor Overn, The Teacher in Modern Education; a Guide to Professional Problems and Administrative Responsibilities (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1935), 317. Ervin Eugene Lewis, Personnel Problems of the Teaching Staff (New York: The Century Education Co., 1925), 187. Jacob M. Ross, "Selection, Retention and Promotion of the Staff," in Administrative Practices in Large High Schools, ed. N.William Newsom and R. Emerson Langfitt (New York: American Book Company, 1940), 282. 310

the only women whose labor was valuable enough, and difficult enough to replace that

employers would voluntarily grant them maternity leave. The Women's Bureau's

newsletter, The Woman Worker cited a rare example from 1921 of a California law firm

that gave it's women lawyers 3-6 months of maternity leave with the right to return.91

Librarians in some large municipal library systems had unpaid maternity leave rights.92

Similarly, when Barnard College—the women's college of Columbia University— formalized a maternity leave policy in 1932 it explicitly acknowledged its interest in retaining valuable women faculty members.93 When law firms, and more frequently

schools, decided to employ married women against the social conventions of the time

they were explicitly accepting the argument that these workers gained valuable firm- or school- specific experience that it would be a shame to lose.

Maternity leave was given when it had an economic benefit for the employer as

well. Few women were in this position before World War II. The Children's Bureau

investigated maternity leave provisions early in the war in manufacturing plants,

inquiring about both past and present practice. They found that most employers asserted a

health risk to having pregnant women at work, but on further questioning admitted an

"esthetic and moral" reason too. It was just "not nice for obviously pregnant women to be

working in a factory … such employment had a bad effect on the male employees, who

made it a subject of frequent comment and were distracted from their work." Yet here, as

is often the case, rationalizations were found for practices that had been established for

91 Women's Bureau, Department of Labor, The Woman Worker, Vol 2. (1921): 11. 92 Proceedings, Meeting of Librarians of Large Public Libraries, in Connection with the Mid-winter Meetings of the American Library Association, 1923, p.2. 93 "Working Wives Win New Recognition as College Grants Maternity Leaves to Faculty Members," Dunkirk Evening Herald, Dunkirk, NY (6 January 1932), p.5. 311

other reasons. In New England textile mills it was apparently quite common for pregnant

women to work.94 When employers needed the labor they found a way to accommodate pregnant workers, if not to accommodate leaves for care of young infants. As was seen in Chapter 1, the labor force participation of women with infants—under one year of age—grew more slowly than the labor force participation of mothers of older children.

This suggests that women wanted to take time off from work if they had children, even if they desired to continue working. Without the law compelling them to offer maternity leave, or let women continuing working while pregnant, most women in pre-World War

II America had to quit their job with no guarantee of return if they had a child. Legal change at the state and federal level would ultimately be required to make maternity leave widespread in the United States.95

The economics of day care provision were similar to the economics of maternity leave. Women's labor supply was elastic enough with respect to their own income that employers did not need to provide child care. They could attract all the women they needed without the non-pecuniary benefit of child care. Day nurseries also faced the problem that working women who might demand child care were often quite poor. Day nurseries which imposed charges of even a nickel per day per child found that women would stop bringing their children.96 Demand could be highly sensitive to price, yet on a regular basis government and private industry saw little need to subsidize the provision of

94 Charlotte Silverman, "Maternity Policies in Industry," The Child, 8, No. 2 (1943): 20-24. 95 Kelly and Dobbin, "Civil Rights Law at Work: Sex Discrimination and the Rise of Maternity Leave Policies," 455-92. 96 Cleveland Hospital Council, Cleveland Hospital and Health Survey (Cleveland, 1920): 574-575. 312

day care. In this situation, day nurseries were provided by charities and philanthropies.

Most working mothers continued to rely on informal networks of care.97

With their funding largely limited to charity, the impact of day nurseries was limited. A government census of “benevolent institutions” in 1904 identified 166 day nurseries across the country, looking after 7,500 children, or just over 1% of the 688,000 children six years of age or younger who were not in school and whose mother was at work in 1900.98 Half of the day nursery “inmates”—to quote the Census Bureau’s term

for the young charges—in 1904 were in New York City, and another 1,200 were in

Pennsylvania—mostly in Philadelphia. Historians who have looked at day nurseries in the United States have primarily examined day nurseries in the largest cities, such as

Cleveland, Philadelphia, New York and Chicago.99

Yet day nurseries expanded in smaller industrial cities as well. Though less famous, their funding was also charitable and their impact bound to be quite limited. This did not stop proponents from claiming great things for them. Women trying to establish a day nursery in Racine (WI), having noted "what good work they were doing in

Milwaukee and Chicago," claimed "a day nursery would make seven out of ten families now securing help from the city able to take care of themselves, thus saving the city

97 Anne Durst, "Day Nurseries and Wage-Earning Mothers in the United States, 1890-1930" (PhD, University of Wisconsin, 1989), 101, 306-07. 98 John Koren, Benevolent Institutions, 1904 (Washington: United States Bureau of the Census, 1905), 31. Calculation of numbers of children from IPUMS. 99 Durst, "Day Nurseries and Wage-Earning Mothers in the United States, 1890-1930", Anne Durst, ""of Women, by Women, and for Women": The Day Nursery Movement in the Progressive-Era United States," Journal of Social History 39, no. 1 (2005), Michel, Children's Interests/Mothers' Rights: The Shaping of America's Child Care Policy, Elizabeth R. Rose, A Mother's Job: The History of Day Care, 1890-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), Susan Tiffin, In Whose Best Interest? Child Welfare Reform in the Progressive Era, Contributions to the Study of Childhood and Youth, No. 1 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982). 313

much more than the cost of running the nursery."100 This was the obverse of the

campaign for mother's pensions. A subsidy to cover most of the costs of day nurseries

would let mothers work and support their families without any public welfare. At its

best, supporters of day nurseries claimed that it was not even welfare. The President of

Day Nursery Society in Syracuse (NY) said that "the central idea of the nursery is to help

women to help themselves. We don't mean to be a charity in the ordinary meaning of the

term." Indeed, the Syracuse day nursery began by charging a daily fee of a nickel per

child, so that "mothers may not feel they are accepting charity."101

The number of institutions expanded quite rapidly. In 1916 there were around 700

day nurseries in the country, according to Sonya Michel.102 Illinois, for example, had just

6 day nurseries in the state in 1904. By 1917 there were 37 all over Chicago.103 Chicago's

day nurseries spanned the range of providers. In America's largest cities, with large

immigrant population, some of the nurseries were run by the National Federation of Day

Nurseries. As well as looking after children the Federation had the subsidiary goal of

assimilating their largely immigrant parents into American society. Other day nurseries

were run by social settlements, such as Chicago's Hull House. Religious institutions were

common sponsors, as were black women's clubs in both the South and the North.

Although child care for children under seven years of age was limited, the rapid

expansion of public schooling relieved wage-earning mothers of child care

responsibilities for some of the year. By 1900 thirty two states had passed compulsory

100 "Would Open Day Nursery," Racine Daily Journal, Racine (WI) Saturday, 27 February 1909, p.3. 101 "Among the Children: The Happy Family of Little Ones to be Found at the Nursery," Syracuse Daily Herald, Syracuse (NY) Sunday 7 June 1885, p.6. 102 Michel, Children's Interests/Mothers' Rights: The Shaping of America's Child Care Policy, 50-90. 103 Harvey Clarence Carbaugh, Human Welfare Work in Chicago (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co., 1917), 224-25. 314

schooling laws. The remaining states had no legislation, but nevertheless provided free

public instruction. As in other areas, the specific provisions of compulsory schooling laws varied significantly. Just eight weeks attendance was required of children in

Kentucky, while at the other end of the spectrum Massachusetts and Connecticut required full-time attendance over the nine-month school year.104 By 1918 all states had passed

compulsory attendance laws, though the maximum age limits were typically not binding.

Teenagers who wanted to work could be exempted from schooling requirements in most

states.105 Nevertheless, compulsory schooling laws were effective at raising educational enrolment by about five percent in the early twentieth century.106 The work exemption

was decried at the time. By making children's labor legal, it probably meant that some

wives who might otherwise have entered the labor market did not. But the long-term

impact of compulsory schooling legislation, and improving enforcement of it, was to

restrict children's labor supply, and probably to increase the labor supply of mothers.107

Protective labor legislation

While most states had compulsory schooling legislation by 1900, existing laws

were revised upwards, and the remaining states introduced their laws. This pre-World

War I round of schooling legislation was coincidental with protective labor laws with

104 William T. Harris, "Elementary Education," in Nicholas Murray Butler (ed), Education in the United States, (Albany: J.B. Lyon Co, 1907): 98-99. Robert A. Margo and T.Aldrich Finegan, "Compulsory Schooling Legislation and School Attendance in Turn-of-the-Century America: A "Natural Experiment" Approach," Economics Letters 53, no. 1 (1996), Carolyn M. Moehling, "State Child Labor Laws and the Decline of Child Labor," Explorations in Economic History 36, no. 1 (1999). 105 United States Children's Bureau, The States and Child Labor. Bureau Publication No. 58 (Washington: GPO, 1919): 26-39. Claudia Goldin, "Education," in Historical Statistics of the United States, ed. Susan B. Carter, et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 106 Adriana Lleras-Muney, "Were Compulsory Attendance and Child Labor Laws Effective: An Analysis from 1915 to 1939," Journal of Law and Economics 45, no. 2 (2002): 401-35. 107 I am not aware of any research that examines the impact of schooling laws on outcomes for parents, including labor supply. The data compiled by Lleras-Muney would allow this kind of research. 315

specific provisions for women.108 Many of the laws regulated maximum hours and minimum wages. Freedom of contract was a powerful legal doctrine, and in 1905 the

Supreme Court struck down a New York law legislating shorter hours for bakers in

Lochner vs. New York. However, in 1908 the Court upheld an hours law specifically for women in Muller vs. Oregon. The Court’s reasoning rested in part on women’s role as potential mothers:

as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well- being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race … The limitations which this statute places upon her contractual powers, upon her right to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labor, are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all. Many words cannot make this plainer. The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence of vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation, and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her.109

With the legal door opened by the Supreme Court, seventeen states passed laws proscribing the conditions under which women could work. The successful legal

108 Among important recent work on this topic are the following: Vivien Hart, Bound by Our Constitution: Women, Workers, and the Minimum Wage (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), Susan Lehrer, Origins of Protective Labor Legislation for Women, 1905-1925 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), Sybil Lipschultz, "Hours and Wages: The Gendering of Labor Standards in America," Journal of Women's History 8, no. 1 (1996), Holly McCammon, "Protection for Whom? Maximum Hours Laws and Women’s Employment in the United States, 1880-1920," Work and Occupations 23 (1996), Holly J. McCammon, "The Politics of Protection: State Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Laws for Women in the United States, 1870-1930," Sociological Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1995), Julie Novkov, Constituting Workers, Protecting Women: Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era and New Deal Years (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), Kathryn Kish Sklar, "'the Greater Part of the Petitioners Are Female': The Reduction of Women's Working Hours in the Paid Labor Force, 1840-1917," in Worktime and Industrialization: An International History, ed. Gary Cross (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988), Ulla Wikander, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Jane Lewis, eds., Protecting Women: Labor Legislation in Europe, the United States and Australia, 1880-1920 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995). David Bernstein, "Lochner's Feminist Legacy," Michigan Law Review 101, no. 6 (2003): 1960-86, Nancy Woloch, Muller V. Oregon: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, 1996). 109 U.S. Supreme Court. Muller v. State of Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) 316

reasoning, that the state interest in women’s work conditions was related to women’s role

as potential and actual mothers, lent itself to political campaigns for labor laws based on

the same rationale. The most common, and the most consequential, laws were restrictions

on maximum hours of work.110 In some respects the hours laws varied even more than

compulsory school attendance laws. School attendance laws varied along four different

dimensions: maximum age at entry, minimum age at leaving, minimum attendance

during the school year, and the age at which a work permit could be obtained, and the

child could actually leave school. Although maximum hours laws varied quantitatively

across just daily and weekly hours limits, in practice they were more complex. States might have numerically similar limits on hours of work, yet apply the law to different groups of people. Exemptions for certain industries or occupations were common, on top of the near-total exemption of agriculture and domestic service. Typically the industries exempted were important ones in the state's economy. In Washington state the food

packing industry was exempt, while in Delaware workers in the "canning or preserving or

preparation for canning or preserving of perishable fruits and vegetables" could work

without limits on their hours. Maine made a more oblique exemption for fish packing by

excluding manufacturing where "the material and products … are perishable." Arkansas

exempted cotton factories, while North Dakota only applied maximum hours laws in

towns of over 500 people.111 In short, many states made significant exceptions to their

110 Elizabeth Brandeis, "Labor Legislation," in History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932, ed. John R. Commons (New York: Macmillan, 1935), 457-500. 111 On the limits across different states, see Mildred J. Gordon, State Laws Affecting Working Women. Bulletin of the Women's Bureau, No. 16 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1921), and Florence Patterson Smith, State Labor Laws for Women, Bulletin of the Women's Bureau, No. 156 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1938). On the importance of the various industries, see Women in the Fruit- Growing and Canning Industries in the State of Washington: A Study of Hours, Wages and Conditions, Bulletin of the Women's Bureau, No.47 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1926); Women in 317

maximum hour laws that reduced their impact. While maximum hours legislation did

contribute to slight reductions in working hours for both women and men, the laws were

not binding in all cases. Some of the reduction in working hours would have occurred

anyway as earnings rose, and hours were bargained down.113 The decreasing length of the

work day, with a very rapid reduction in the decade between 1909 and 1919, was very

likely a factor in the growth of married women's employment, by making it easier to

combine paid work and family responsibilities.114 A contemporary observer noted in

1930 that “where married women are employed the five-day week is exceedingly popular

because it affords them an uninterrupted day at home for their housework or for an

excursion. They are willing to work nine hours and thirty-five minutes inevery day in

order to complete the 48-hour week.”115

Belief in women's more limited capacity to work, and the effects on their

reproductive capacity of long working hours, was an important basis for supporting restrictions on women's hours of work. This class of concerns also contributed to legislation that proscribed women's employment in certain industries, and attempted to

Delaware Industries, Bulletin of the Women's Bureau, No.58 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1927); Bertha Blair, Women in Arkansas Industries, Bulletin of the Women's Bureau, No.124 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1935). All the Women's Bureau bulletins through to No. 156 have been digitized, and are available at Harvard University Libraries Open Collection Program under the "Women Working" collection. http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/. 113 Dora L. Costa, "The Unequal Work Day: A Long-Term View," American Economic Review 88, no. 2 (1998), Claudia Goldin, "Maximum Hours Legislation and Female Employment: A Reassessment," Journal of Political Economy 96, no. 1 (1988), Elisabeth M. Landes, "The Effect of State Maximum-Hours Laws on the Employment of Women in 1920," Journal of Political Economy 88, no. 3 (1980), Robert Whaples, "Winning the Eight-Hour Day, 1909-1919," Journal of Economic History 50, no. 2 (1990). 114 John D. Durand, The Labor Force in the United States (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1948), 118. 115 “The Five Day Week in Manufacturing Industries,” Law and Labor, 12 (1930): 18.

318

make work physically easier for women. One of the most common pieces of legislation was law requiring the provision of seats for working women.116 It might be noted that again, this legislation was not unique to the United States.117 The seats were thought to be

“especially beneficial for women who may be injured by prolonged standing.”118 The injury that was not stated explicitly was being unable to bear children after standing too long. Similarly, several American states restricted the employment of women after childbirth.119 Wisconsin passed a law restricting women's hours of work after childbirth in 1867.120 Later, legislation in other states prohibited any employment within a specified period—often four weeks after childbirth. New York and Massachusetts enacted such laws in 1912, and were followed by Connecticut and Vermont in 1913, and later Missouri.121 Other protective legislation was even narrower, both through being uncommon, and restricting women’s role in industries that employed relatively few women anyway. For example, in 1900 there were 3,297 women employed in metal

116 Frank Mies, "Statutory Regulation of Women's Employment--Codification of Statutes," Journal of Political Economy 14, no. 2 (1909): 874-83. 117 National Council of Women of Canada, Women of Canada: Their Life and Work, (Ottawa: 1900): 321.; Frederic Jessup Simpson, Report of the Industrial Commission on the Condition of Foreign Legislation Upon Matters Affecting General Labor (Washington, D.C.: Industrial Commision, 1901) 52-53 on Australia, Britain and New Zealand. 118 Gordon S. Watkins, An Introduction to the Study of Labor Problems (New York: Thomas Crowell, 1922), 485. 119 Irene Osgood Andrews, "A Tentative Outline for Maternity Protection Legislation," American Labor Legislation Review, 10 (1920): 250. 120 Sheila B. Kamerman, Alfred J. Kahn, and Paul W. Kingston, Maternity Policies and Working Women (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).. 121 Horace E. Flack, “Employment of Women: Massachusetts” American Political Science Review, 5, No. 3 (1911): 433. ; Clara Mortenson Beyer, History of labor legislation for women in three states. Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. 66 (Washington, D.C: Department of Labor, 1929): 112. Irene Osgood Andrews, " State Legislation for Maternity Protection," American Labor Legislation Review 11 (1921): 81.; By 1921 no additional states had passed legislation: American Public Health Association, "History of Industrial Hygeine," A Half Century of Public Health: Jubilee Historical Volume of the American Public Health Association (New York: APHA, 1921): 377. 319

foundries—few of them married—just 0.06% of working women.122 They were well-

known enough to feature in Butler’s account of women in Pittsburgh industries, where

she described the “smoking ovens, boiling crucibles, … dim light through windows

encrusted with black dust … the impression of unreality and remoteness” and noted that

there were enough women in core making to be “menacing” of men’s wages.123 The New

York Factory Investigating Commission of 1912 was similarly graphic, and in 1913

women were banned from the industry in New York. The support of male workers,

concerned about competition from women, played an important role.124 Similarly, several

states prohibited the employment of women in underground mines.125 Public concerns

about the health of women in these industries allowed male workers concerned about competition from women workers to secure legislation prohibiting women’s employment.

Restrictions on employing women at night-time were passed in 16 states by the late 1920s. In this debate women’s supposed family responsibilities and the effect of fatigue on mothers were even clearer reasons to restrict work at night.126 Home work— the practice in certain industries of sub-contracting light industrial work to people who performed it at home and were paid piece rates—also appeared to threaten mother’s ability to care properly for their children. As was seen in chapter 3, a substantial minority of women were involved in home work. The promise of home work was just that—

122 Calculated from IPUMS. See also U.S. Bureau of the Census, Occupations at the Twelfth Census (Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce and Labor, 1904): 8. 123 Elizabeth Beardsley Butler, Women and the Trades: Pittsburgh, 1907-1908 (New York: Charities Publication Committee, 1909), 211-14. 124 Clara Mortenson Beyer, History of labor legislation for women in three states. Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. 66 (Washington, D.C: Department of Labor, 1929): 115-117. 125 United States Industrial Commission, Report of the Industrial Commission on Labor Legislation, (Washington, D.C.: 1901): 221. 126 Mary Della Hopkins, Women’s Employment at Night. Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. 64 (Washington, D.C: Department of Labor, 1928). 320

women could work at home and take care of their children. Working at home to produce

goods for market was common in the colonial era, and by the early twentieth century

home and work mingled less for most Americans than it had a century earlier.127

Industrial home work was different because women were often sub-contracted by firms,

rather than deciding on their own output and selling it themselves. Opponents of home

work focused on the distraction from mothering that work involved. The piece rates and

production targets were held to be so high that children had to help their mothers with the

work, undermining child-labor laws or involving children in physically dangerous work

with needles.128 Because the work put out to home workers was often irregular, and being

in the home less visible, attempts at regulating the practice were largely ineffective. Yet

the symbolism of home work was important. By the early twentieth century the

normative ideal was that home and work were separate, in gender and geography.

Industrial home work stood in contradiction to that ideal. Concerns about home work

declined in the 1920s, and the 1935 Consumer Purchases Study suggests that by the mid-

1930s the practice was somewhat less common than twenty years earlier.

World War I and the 1920s

World War I and married women’s work

With the United States only entering World War I in 1917, the impact of the war

on women's employment was small, compared to the shock that was World War II.

Historian's interest in women's work in World War I in the United States has been

127 Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work (New York: Oxford, 1990). 128 Boris, Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States, Eileen Boris, "Regulating Industrial Homework: The Triumph of "Sacred Motherhood"," Journal of American History 71, no. 4 (1985). 321

similarly slight. The standard work remains Greenwald's monograph from 1980.129

Especially in the Northeast and Midwest, labor markets in manufacturing were tight. As was seen in Chapter 3 from the 1917/19 Cost of Living Survey, unemployment was low.

Though there is little labor market survey evidence from 1915 and 1916 to confirm the

point, the qualitative evidence suggests that women who wanted to move into work found

more receptive employers, and a greater range of occupations open to them.130 Health concerns about women's work in heavy industries that had prompted legislation against them before the war now took somewhat of a back seat. Tight labor markets and patriotism demanded more accommodation of women's perceived disabilities at work.

The entry of the United States into combat took three million men out of the

American labor market.131 Women filled many of the jobs that men left. Greater government direction of labor markets was partially responsible for this shift of women into occupations and industries connected with the war effort.132 For example in the railroad industry, there were 31,400 women employed at the start of 1918, and 101,875 at the end of the year.133 But the expectation was made quite explicit by male workers, and

129 Maurine Weiner Greenwald, Women, War and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980). 130 On the absence of good short-term data on the United States labor market in this period seeW. J. Breen, Labor Market Politics and the Great War: The Department of Labor, the States, and the First U.S. Employment Service, 1907-1933 (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1997), 187, William J. Breen, "Labor Market Statistics and the State: The United States in the Era of the Great War, 1914-1930," Journal of Policy History 8, no. 3 (1996), Mary O. Furner, "Knowing Capitalism: Public Investigation and the Labor Question in the Long Progressive Era," in The State and Economic Knowledge, ed. Mary O. Furner and Barry Supple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 246-68, A. B. Wolfe and Helen Olson, "War-Time Industrial Employment of Women in the United States," Journal of Political Economy 27, no. 8 (1919). 131 Historical Statistics of the United States Millennial Edition, Table Ed.26 132 "Present Economic Status of Women: New Opportunities Thrown Open to Them by the War—They Have Won Equal Pay—Movement to Oust Male Industrial Slackers,” New York Times, 6 October 1918, p.76. 133 Isaiah Leo Sharfman, The American Railroad Problem: A Study in War and Reconstruction (New York: Century, 1921): 179. 322

employers, that women were only expected to work "for the duration," and would be

expected to give up their jobs when men returned. For example in Bridgeport (CT), a

major center for munitions production, the local paper reported in February 1919 that

they were

receiving many complaints because married women are continuing to hold positions, obtained by them during the war when industry needed their service, when they have homes and husbands able and willing to support them …. Undoubtedly in a good many cases these married women have felt the independence from their earnings and have had a new means of gratifying their desires for better living and naturally they are reluctant to give up their jobs. They sought the work through patriotism and we were all very proud of them for what they did …. But their services are no longer needed.134

At the Pennsylvania Railroad, the employment of married women was referred to as a

“temporary expedient … until our male employes were discharged from military service.”135 Employers tended to blame male labor, and especially organized labor, for

hostile attitudes to women's work.136 The Boston Edison power company's staff magazine

expressed the ideal of women substituting for men while the war was on, and then

leaving their jobs explicitly:

As the men left the office or factory, women took their places. A representative of one of the larger manufactures in the country tells us the universal story that the women did wonderfully well, in fact, were often more efficient than the men. But they are giving

134 "Women Should Resign Positions to Needy," Bridgeport Standard Telegram, Tuesday 18 February 1919, p.15. See also Cecelia Bucki, "Dilution of the Craft Tradition: Bridgeport, Connecticut Munitions Workers, 1915-1919," Social Science History 4, no. 1 (1980), Amy Hewes, Women as Munition Makers: A Study of Conditions in Bridgeport, Connecticut (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1919), 105-29. 135 W.A.B to Herbert A. Enochs, March 11 1921 In “Women, Employment of, 1918-1922,” Pennsylvania Railroad Collection, Series III, Box 987, Hagley Museum and Library. 136 L.H. Colburn, "Difficulties in Employing Women," Factory and Industrial Management, Vol. 55 (March 1918): 218. 323

way to the men, who are eager to pick up their old responsibilities where they left them.137

Some women were eager to stay, and indeed the Boston Edison claimed in a retrospective

on the company in wartime that women who wanted to remain in service were retained, and given other jobs they were better suited for. 138 The Edison company's official

surprise that women could do the putatively "male" jobs they were assigned was not

unique. Women surprised with their adaptability to work, and work practices in factories

were adaptable too.139

Formation of the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor

The war saw greater government involvement in the American labor market and

industry. Three million men were under arms. Production and distribution needed to be

rapidly re-oriented to wartime needs. Among the panoply of wartime agencies created to

monitor and direct the American economy was the Women in Industry Service, created in

the Department of Labor in July 1918.140 What distinguished the Women in Industry

service from many of its 1918 cohort of government agencies was its survival after the

war, and successful re-orientation towards the needs of a peacetime society. In 1920 the

Women in Industry Service became the permanent Women’s Bureau in the Department

of Labor, and later that same year American women voted across the nation in the first

137 “Editorial: A Quick Transition” Edison Life. X(6), June 1919. p.173-4. 138 Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston. A War-Time Record: An Illustrated Account of the War-Time Activities of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston During the Great World War. (Boston: 1922): 19. 139 C.E. Knoeppel, "American Women in War Industry—I," Factory and Industrial Management, Vol. 55 (June 1918): 480-483. 140 Gustavus Adolphus Weber, The Women's Bureau; Its History, Activities and Organization (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins press, 1923). 324

federal elections with universal suffrage. Universal suffrage may have reshaped the

politics of women’s social reform efforts more than it reshaped American party politics.

The establishment of the Women’s Bureau was a success for female social reformers

who, without the vote, had lobbied and persuaded to exercise political power.

Yet the political impact of the Bureau’s work was limited. The first director, Mary

Anderson, was well-connected with women social reformers, but lacked allies in the rest of government.141 In common with many women professionals and reformer of the era,

the Women’s Bureau staff were mostly single, and had chosen careers over family.142

Colleagues became family.143 The millions of working wives in America were

represented in government by a group of talented, dedicated women whose experience

was quite dissimilar. The Women’s Bureau could speak about the needs of working women, but it struggled to speak for working women. Moreover, the network of

Progressive women reformers that Anderson was connected with, were losing political

power as they struggled to adjust to the new reality of mass female participation in

politics implied by suffrage.144 . James Davis, the first Secretary of Labor she served under, from 1920 to 1928 had equivocal views on women’s work. In a 1923 speech he

141 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983). There is no published monographic study of Anderson’s life or role as head of the Women’s Bureau. A 1968 Georgetown history dissertation J.M. Daly, “Mary Anderson, Pioneer Labor Leader” is the most comprehensive study of Anderson’s life. Anderson’s autobiography was written in conjunction with a Women’s Bureau colleague in 1951: Mary Anderson, Women at Work: Autobiography of Mary Anderson as Told to Mary N. Winslow (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951). 142 Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, no. 596 (2004): 20-35 on the combination of career and family for cohorts of women in the twentieth century. The founding staff of the Women’s Bureau were squarely in the cohort that had to choose between career or family. 143 Carolyn Manning to colleagues. Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor papers. RG86. National Archives II, College Park (MD). 144 Estelle Freedman, "Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870- 1930," Feminist Studies 5, no. 4 (1979). 325

argued that “there is no vocation higher than that assigned by God: women have been

called to the care of children.”145 Yet in 1928 he tried to assuage husband's concerns

about wives work, saying

Here and there is discovered the husband or father who thinks his dignity suffers because the women of his household have taken some useful and paying occupation.Such men must learn to realize that we are living in a new day amid new conditions, and they may as well adapt themselves. In my estimation, there can be no turning back.146

Davis’ equivocation about women’s role in the workforce was shared by many

Americans. It would be difficult to find a causal link between suffrage, and the relatively rapid peacetime changes in women’s social and economic status in the next two decades.

The equivocal public opinion of the period reveals the change. Married women entered

the workforce quite rapidly, especially women without children in the largest cities. A

quarter of young (less than age 40) white wives without children were in work, with a

rapidly growing proportion in more desirable white-collar jobs. The assumption that

married women’s work was a response to cruel circumstance began to crumble.

While public attitudes were changing, they had not changed completely, and the

Women’s Bureau took a conservative approach to defending women’s work. In a series

of detailed reports in the 1920s and 1930s they attempted to provide a factual basis for a

defense of married women’s rights to work. The facts they sought were the numbers of

dependents that working wives supported. Women had just won equal political

citizenship, but the agency of government tasked with looking out for their economic

145 "Conference to Help Women in Industry," New York Times, 12 January 1923, p.11. Quoted in Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963, 39. 146 James J. Davis, "American Woman at Work." Nation's Business, November 1928, 41-4. 326

citizenship steered away from equality. The most important defense of women’s work in

the Women’s Bureau reports was women’s responsibilities for other family members.

This was, they acknowledged, difficult to measure as whose income went to whose

support within a family was not clear in theory or practice.147 Nevertheless, many

Women’s Bureau reports would stress the number of dependents that a “wage-earning woman” was responsible for.148 The implication—rarely stated too strongly in official

government documents—was that women were not working for themselves, they were

working for others, often children or elderly parents. The underlying reasoning of the

Women’s Bureau reports was that establishing the fact of wives' earning wages for

children would make married women’s wage earning socially acceptable. There were two

problems with this political approach, the first that the argument was based on the fallacy

that ought—“wives' work ought to be accepted”—could be derived from what was —

“wives were earning for the care of others”. The second was that the facts were shifting

underneath the argument. As shown in Chapter 3 women’s decisions were increasingly independent.

Despite their political isolation, the Women’s Bureau produced very effective research. Women social scientists were cheap in the early 1920s, and the Bureau recruited a cadre of experienced and well-trained researchers who remained working at

the Bureau until the 1950s.149 The research produced by the Women’s Bureau in its

bulletins provided accurate and detailed description of women’s work in the inter-war

147 Mary N. Winslow, The share of wage-earning women in family support. Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. 30. (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor,1923): 7-10. 148 The series of reports on women in the industries of particular states often touched on women’s support for dependents. There was also a series of more specialized reports on women’s responsibilities for dependents. 149 Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963, 47. 327

period. Women who worked at home sewing, in the homes of others doing domestic

services, in fields, in canneries, and in offices and stores were extensively covered in the

reports of the Bureau at a time when the media image of the woman worker was shifting

significantly.

Public opinion in the 1920s: New women, new work, new attitudes?

In 1926 the New York Times published a letter from N.H. Josephs, chairman of

the New York Social Problems Club, responding to an article about the possibility of

women combining marriage and career.150 Josephs noted that the

… discussion of married women workers centered only around married women who are artists, writers, or employed in one of the higher professions. Of course, it would not be very difficult for the women who are engaged in well-paid professions to be successful in their business and at the same time make good wives and mothers. More often wives! But if we talk about married women working, why not consider the status of those who belong to the poorer classes and work not because of some calling to art or business, but because they feel the need of helping their husbands to maintain their homes? The number of these working mothers and wives is far greater … [most] married women … are employed in the textile industries, tobacco and cigar factories, laundries and various other shops.151

150 “Combining Marriage and Career,” New York Times, 7 September 1926, p.20. The Social Problems Club was a left-leaning organization with chapters at the various New York universities, including Columbia, New York University and City College. Philip Arestis and Malcolm C. Sawyer, A Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists (2nd) (E. Elgar, 2000 [cited), Robert Cohen, When the Old Left Was Young: Student Radical and America's First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 28-30, Willis Rudy, The College of the City of New York, a History, 1847-1947 (New York: City College Press, 1949), 366, Norman Isaac Silber, With All Deliberate Speed: The Life of Philip Elman: An Oral History Memoir (Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 2004), 16. 151 N.H. Josephs, “What Makes a Career? Women Who Do Manual Work Get Little Attention in Discussion,” (Letter to editor), New York Times, 15 September 1926,p.28. 328

While the Women’s Bureau bulletins still recognized that many women worked in

manufacturing, agriculture, and domestic service, Josephs’ letter identified that the media

image of the typical working woman had segued from an immigrant woman in the

factory, to a young woman at a desk. There was still concern about the impact of

maternal employment on infant mortality. The Children’s Bureau of the federal

government continued to investigate the factors that influenced infant mortality rates, and

the observed difference between working and non-working mothers received attention.152

Yet there was also attention as to how women might beneficially combine work and family. This new phase of interest concentrated mostly on professional workers. For example, Virginia McMakin Collier published a study of 100 women who combined a professional career with married motherhood.153 The New York Times headlined her conclusion as suggesting that “Professional Women Can Combine Home and Job, While

Wage-Earners Cannot.”154 Collier justified her focus on professional women—mostly

college educated, a majority teachers or artists—because professionals “probably

represent the advance guard in any attempt to cope with women’s present day

problems.”155 Collier’s research was not unique in its focus on the professional woman. A

larger study of 652 married women by Cecile Tipton La Follette in the 1930s also

examined “women above the industrial class.” Both Collier and La Follette found that

“help”—employing servants—was common among professional wives. This finding was

152 Robert M. Woodbury, "Causal Factors in Infant Mortality: A Statistical Study Based on Investigations in Eight Cities," in Bulletin of the United States Children's Bureau (Washington D.C.: U.S. Children's Bureau, 1925), Robert Morse Woodbury, Infant Mortality and Its Causes (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1926). 153 Virginia MacMakin Collier, Marriage and Careers: A Study of One Hundred Women Who Are Wives, Mothers, Homemakers and Professional Workers (New York: Bureau of Vocational Information, 1926). 154 “Working Mothers are Studied By Experts,” New York Times, 19 December 1926, p.X18. 155 Collier, Marriage and Careers: A Study of One Hundred Women Who Are Wives, Mothers, Homemakers and Professional Workers, 10. 329

used by the National Federation of Business and Professional Women to support a

Depression-era argument that married women did not displace employment—they generated employment.156

Finding that professional women employed servants also supported claims that the home did not necessarily suffer from neglect if a wife worked. Yet not every working wife could afford servants. Many working wives still were servants. The argument that professional work and a functioning home could be had together was not a general defense of married women’s rights to work. It was also an argument somewhat at odds with the “official” argument of the Women’s Bureau, that married women worked mainly to provide for others. It was a debate that divided women’s rights advocates, in the wake of their success in winning universal suffrage.157 The professions were clearly attractive occupations, and women who were college educated, and often married to college educated professional men could not persuasively argue that they were working to save their families from penury. Yet the defense of professional women’s work did begin to promote a conditional acceptance of married women’s work on an independent basis.

Under certain circumstances working wives were now socially acceptable, a significant but not complete change in public opinion. Correspondingly, there were also circumstances when married women’s work was not acceptable. The interviews of rank- and-file workers analyzed in the next chapter reveal this inter-war tension in public opinion clearly. Married women's work was no longer a symbol of a husband who was a

156 Ruth Enalda Shallcross, Should Married Women Work? (New York: Public Affairs Committee, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, 1940).. See also, Anna Campbell Davis, “Married couples employed in state service” Report from Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, 1931. Davis was a student of, and later collaborator with, the institutional and labor economist, John R. Commons. See John Rogers Commons, Institutional Economics; Its Place in Political Economy (New York: Macmillan, 1934), xxxvii. 157 Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 115-43. 330

poor provider, nor did it necessarily mean that children would suffer. Even fiction

provides some insights into changing ideals about marriage and career for women. As in

the post-war period this kind of source must be handled carefully. The variety of

publications available for Americans to read means that examples supporting many positions are available.158 In many of the most significant and remembered novels of the

period working women were not portrayed positively. The Grapes of Wrath, for example,

depicted women's paid work as something undertaken only in an economic emergency—

an ideal that retained much of its force.159 Less celebrated writers, such as Fannie Hurst,

whose cheap novels were widely read and whose newspaper stories were widely

syndicated gave a more positive portrayal of women's work.160 In a 1930 short story,

"Which: Love Or a Career" Hurst's interlocutor, Emanie thinks that it is "wonderful to

belong so irrefutably to a world of women which had asserted its right to venture

unchallenged into certain fields of work-a-day activities hitherto reserved for the exploits

of men." The subtitle gives the ending away. It wasn't yet possible to have love and a

career. Yet Emanie, who rejected marriage to pursue her career, meets the woman who

married her former beau, and concludes "There is no doubt, of course, that not for one

instant would Emanie change places with Eileen [the woman who married]. On the other

hand there is even less doubt that Eileen could contemplate anything so calamitous as

158 Joanne Meyerowitz, "Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946- 1958," Journal of American History 79, no. 4 (1993). who looks again at the writing of the 1950s analyzed by Friedan in The Feminine Mystique. 159 Laura Hapke. Daughters of the Great Depression: Women, Work, and Fiction in the American 1930s. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995). 160 Hurst's work after being neglected by academics for a long time has been the subject of renewed attention in the last decade. The popularity of her work at the time is not a direct index of the popularity of her ideas, but does indicate that viewing work by women as generally positive was no barrier to commercial literary success. See inter alia Fannie Hurst and Susan Koppelman, The Stories of Fannie Hurst, 1st Feminist Press ed. (New York: Feminist Press, 2004), Brooke Kroeger, Fannie: The Talent for Success of Writer Fannie Hurst, 1st ed. (New York: Times Books, 1999).. 331

having to change places with Emanie." The professional woman and the married

housewife just did not understand each other. Hurst's portrayal of marriage in this piece is

revealing—it was "the monotony of routine life," and the "folly of throwing away her

freedom and economic independence." Marriage was not yet totally compatible with a

career, but too bad for marriage in Hurst's view.161 While working wives were no longer

drudges forced to labor by their husband’s paucity of provision, this image of the woman

behind a desk had moved faster than the reality.

As was seen in Chapter 1, there was some truth to this image that the prototypical

working woman sat at a desk. The proportion of women in white collar work did grow

rapidly after 1910, and growth was quicker again for married women. Yet in 1930 half of

America’s working wives were still operatives, service workers, or laborers. There was

some recognition of this at the time. Writing in 1939, the commentator and essayist

Henry Hazlitt wrote in a review of Simeon Strunsky's The Living Tradition that:

We are fond of pointing, again, to the vast social differences created by the new economic independence of women and the great invasion by women in the last few years of the fields of business and industry … In 1880 women workers were fifteen in every group of one hundred gainfully occupied Americans, in 1910 twenty-one in every hundred, and in 1930 twenty-two in every hundred. The change is noticeable, but it is not overwhelming. Our impressions have misled us. Our attention has been riveted too exclusively upon women of a higher social status. We notice the increase in saleswomen, teachers, stenographers, newspaper women, lawyers; we forget the relative or absolute decrease in laundresses, seamstresses, women factory workers.162

161 Fannie Hurst, "Which: Love Or a Career," Fresno Bee, 7 December 1930. (Distributed by McClure Newspaper Syndicate). 162 Henry Hazlitt, "The America That is Enduring: Mr. Strunsky Examines the Unchanging Aspects of Our National Life." Review of Simeon Strunsky, The Living Tradition: Change and America (New York: 1939) 332

Historians of women’s work in the inter-war era have somewhat neglected the continuity in occupations less glamorized at the time, and which by their nature left fewer literate sources to study, concentrating on the growth in women’s professional, sales and clerical work.

The rapid growth of clerical occupations in the early twentieth century was part of the transformation from a primarily rural and agricultural America, to an urban society where the majority of the workforce worked in manufacturing and service industries.163

In 1850 when half the labor force were engaged in agriculture the prototypical clerical worker was a man with a position of some authority in his firm.164 Literacy was not

universal, and the ability to read, write, add, subtract and organize information commanded a premium in the labor market. The etymology of "clerical" reveals its more

exclusive origins, transcribing for the clergy.165 By the time clerical work became a

commonplace occupation of American women, government and commercial

bureaucracies placed many employees at several removes from the owner of their firm, to

say nothing of God. Clerical work had come a long way in half a millennium. In the

federal government—then the largest bureaucracy in the land—the clerical worker was

in New York Times Book Review, 19 November 1939, p.BR2. See also "Women Gainfully Employed," New York Times, 11 September 1931, p.20. 163 Rotella, From Home to Office: U.S. Women at Work, 1870-1930, Elyce J. Rotella, "The Transformation of the American Office: Changes in Employment and Technology," The Journal of Economic History 41, no. 1 (1981). 164 R. A. Margo, "The Labor Force in the Nineteenth Century," in The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 165 On early clerical work, see for example, Elizabeth L. Einstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). 333

more common, and exercised less control.166 Large private bureaucracies were created in corporate firms in the late nineteenth century with multiple offices and divisions—such as railroads, insurance companies, and large banks—and there was a growing demand for workers who could process and organize information.167 The supply of workers with these skills was partially met by the growth of secondary schooling for both boys and girls in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries.168 The specific skills of operating the new machinery in clerical work were taught in private commercial colleges.169 Clerical work also became more capital intensive.170 Writing and mental arithmetic was slow. Typing and calculating machines were quicker. Some firms still needed to be persuaded of the benefits.171 The average earnings of clerical workers fell relative to manufacturing workers as more people wanted to work in clerical jobs, but the benefits of more attractive work, and a higher premium on education in clerical work

meant that women continued to flood into clerical work.

White collar jobs in the early twentieth century—including besides clerical work,

some of the professions, sales and service occupations—were heavily segregated by sex.

166 Aron, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service: Middle-Class Workers in Victorian America, Brian Luskey, "Jumping Counters in White Collars: Manliness, Respectability, and Work in the Antebellum City," Journal of the Early Republic 26, no. 2 (2006). 167 Alfred D. Chandler, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1977), Alfred Dupont Chandler, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, M.I.T. Press Research Monographs (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1962). 168 Claudia Goldin, "America's Graduation from High School: The Evolution and Spread of Secondary Schooling in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Economic History 58, no. 2 (1998). 169 Susan B. Carter and Mark Prus, "The Labor Market and the American High School Girl 1890-1928," Journal of Economic History 42, no. 1 (1982), Janice Weiss, "Educating for Clerical Work: The Nineteenth-Century Private Commercial School," Journal of Social History 14, no. 3 (1981). 170 Margery Davies, Woman's Place Is at the Typewriter: Office Work and Office Workers, 1870-1930 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982), Strom, Beyond the Typewriter: Gender, Class, and the Origins of Modern American Office Work, 1900-1930. 171 Walter A. Friedman, Birth of a Salesman: The Transformation of Selling in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), Walter A. Friedman, "John H. Patterson and the Sales Strategy of the National Cash Register Company, 1884-1922," Business History Review 72, no. 3 (1998). 334

Yet these jobs also brought men and women into close contact everyday on the job, and a

distinct culture of workplace heterosocial relationships developed before World War II.

The growth of clerical work and its relationship to changes in the economy have been

analyzed by economists and historians. In the past two decades there has also been a

steady flow of scholarship by historians on gender and workplace culture before 1940.

Very little of the literature deals directly with how married women as married

women related to this workplace culture. Indeed, married women were a minority of

employed women in most occupations and industries, and thus probably a minority

within most workplaces.172 Moreover, marital status did not transcend sex. For many

purposes, including employer’s assumptions of what employees were capable of, married

women were just women. Employers disagreed about whether this made married women

more or less attentive to their jobs, but it was ultimately a minor qualification to

widespread presumptions that men and women did different work.173 The historical

literature on workplace culture suggests that married women probably stood—or were

placed—somewhat outside the heterosocial culture of the white-collar workplace.

The culture of white-collar workplaces in the inter-war era was based on the

seemingly paradoxical combination of sex-segregated occupations that nevertheless

brought men and women into close proximity. The explanation for this seeming paradox

is that narrowly defined occupations were sex-segregated. Particular jobs were marked

male or female by employers and employees. In part this sex-segregation varied by

172 Payroll records shed some light on this question, giving at best an upper-bound on the numbers of married women in workplaces. Many of the “Mrs. Last Name” employees found in payroll records turn out to be widows on further investigation. 173 Donald Anderson Laird and Eleanor Childs Leonard Laird, The Psychology of Supervising the Working Woman, 1st ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1942), 28. 335

industry and by firm. Typing, for example, became a heavily female job. Yet in some

industries, such as railroads, a significant minority of men were still typists. Similarly,

bookkeeping became female dominated over time, but within a given workplace was

likely to be dominated by one gender or the other.174 Conventional measures of

occupational segregation by sex, which are based on census occupational categories do a

poor job of explaining sex-segregation within firms, or the extent to which men and

women come into contact on the job.175 For this question, firm-level data on the internal

division of labor would be needed. Payroll records, for example, shed some light on this

historically, showing that most “departments” within firms were dominated by one sex or

the other.

On the shop, store or office floor the extent to which men and women came into

contact during the working day depended on the internal organization of the firm. A

coarse generalization, that nevertheless covers the experience of many employees, is that work groups could be organized either by function, or by product.176 A functional

division of labor often divided work into departments corresponding to occupations, in

which either men or women were numerically dominant. Yet firms contained multiple

occupations, and in practice men and women encountered each other at work on a daily

basis. In some respects this is entirely unremarkable. Men and women have worked

together for centuries. The historical record shows quite clearly that on farms and in

174 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women, 111-14, Charles W. Wootton and Barbara E. Kemmerer, "The Changing Genderization of Bookkeeping in the United States, 1870-1930," Business History Review 70, no. 4 (1996). 175 Edward Gross, "Plus Ca Change.? The Sexual Structure of Occupations over Time," Social Problems 16, no. 3 (1968), Jerry A. Jacobs, "Long-Term Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex," American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (1989), K. A. Weeden, "Revisiting Occupational Sex Segregation in the United States, 1910-1990: Results from a Log-Linear Approach," Demography 35, no. 4 (1998). 176 Chandler, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. 336

workshops in the colonial and early national period of American history that men and

women worked together.177 Textile factories and cotton mills in the nineteenth century

again saw men and women working together. Yet it was more common in the earlier

period for people to be connected with a family group in their workplace. The shocked

reaction of some in the early nineteenth century to single women being employed in the

Lowell Mills was precisely because the women were away from their family, and

working with strangers.178 Most single working women still lived with their families. The

concerns of a century about “women adrift” overstated the scale of independent living. It

was true, however, that as firms grew larger and people moved to the city, that colleagues

at work were more likely to be strangers upon starting a job. Thus, the workplace

emerged as a relatively common location for young men and women to meet. Of course,

not all of these relationships were romantic. Sports and cultural activities organized

around relationships from the workplace were also common.179 Platonic, as well as

romantic, relationships between colleagues were encouraged by some firms as a way of

promoting workplace cohesion.180

Married women, by virtue of being married, stood somewhat outside the

developing culture of romance in the workplace. It was a culture that shocked some

middle-class observers, uncomfortable with the transition to new forms of courtship and

177 Boydston, Home and Work. 178 Thomas Dublin, "Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826-1860" (Thesis, Columbia University., 1975), 40-41. 179 Nikki Mandell, The Corporation as Family: The Gendering of Corporate Welfare, 1890-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), Nikki Mandell, "The Triumph of Personnel Management: Contesting Corporate Motherhood and the Corporate Welfare System," Essays in Economic and Business History 18 (2000). 180 Andrea Tone, The Business of Benevolence: Industrial Paternalism in Progressive America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 157. 337

relationship formation.181 Married women already had their family relationships, and had

less reason to participate in the firm-sponsored activities that promoted dating and

courtship between colleagues. Among employers there was divergent, but ultimately very

shallow, opinion on how this affected married women’s work. Some claimed that because

married women had a home to return to, they were better workers and less distracted by

attractive single male. Yet others—placing a higher priority on bonding between

colleagues—felt that because married women did not join their single colleagues in the

culture of workplace romance, that married women undermined the cohesion of the

group. Single women called to reflect on their married colleagues had similar differences

of opinion. Not participating in the workplace culture could be characterized as either

serious or aloof. Ultimately these were minor divisions in workplaces that, for the most

part, were structured far more by gender than they were by marital status.182

The major exception to the rule that gender mattered more than marital status was

the policy of the “marriage bar” that was instituted in some occupations and industries in

the 1920s. The existence of marriage bar policies provided a historical and practical basis

for opponents of married women’s work in the 1930s Depression to try and oust married

181 John D'Emilio and Estelle Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 194-95, 214-15. 182 Susan Porter Benson, Counter Cultures (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), Jerome Bjelopera, City of Clerks: Office and Sales Workers in Philadelphia, 1870-1920 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005), Lisa M. Fine, "Between Two Worlds: Business Women in a Chicago Boarding House 1900-1930," Journal of Social History 19, no. 3 (1986), Fine, The Souls of the Skyscraper: Female Clerical Workers in Chicago, 1870-1930, Kwolek-Folland, Engendering Business: Men and Women in the Corporate Office, Mandell, The Corporation as Family: The Gendering of Corporate Welfare, 1890-1930, Mandell, "The Triumph of Personnel Management: Contesting Corporate Motherhood and the Corporate Welfare System.", Strom, Beyond the Typewriter: Gender, Class, and the Origins of Modern American Office Work, 1900-1930, Tone, The Business of Benevolence: Industrial Paternalism in Progressive America. 338

women from employment.183 Goldin found that the same companies that implemented

“welfare work,” and the more modern forms of personnel management were the most

likely also to have marriage bars. Outside of teaching, the implementation of marriage

bars was associated with the development of separate personnel and human resource

departments within large corporations. The marriage bar, since it did not apply to men

who married, may appear misogynistic. In some ways misogyny is too simple an

explanation. The primary immediate beneficiaries of marriage bars were single women

applicants for the jobs vacated by married women. Moreover, women were especially

likely to be involved in personnel management compared to other areas of corporate

management, and thus older single or widowed women, played a role in administering

the marriage bar. Gender had to intersect with ideology and employment contracts in a

specific way before marriage bars were implemented.

The marriage bar came in two forms, a “hire bar” and a “retain bar.” The “hire

bar,” which made a policy out of not hiring already married women was more common.

“Retain bar” policies required women who married while in service to resign from a

company immediately, or in some cases up to 12 months after a woman married. The

retain bar was less common, as firms stood to lose their investment in worker’s training if

they required them to leave upon marriage. As in teaching, marriage bars were common

in clerical occupations where salaries increasing with age were the predominant mode of

payment. The rationale in clerical occupations for the marriage bar was similar, but not

183 Claudia D. Goldin, "Marriage Bars: Discrimination against Married Women Workers from the 1920s to the 1950s," in Favorites of Fortune: Technology, Growth, and Economic Development since the Industrial Revolution, ed. Patrice Higonnet, David S. Landes, and Henry Rosovsky (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 511-36, Strom, Beyond the Typewriter: Gender, Class, and the Origins of Modern American Office Work, 1900-1930, 191-96. 339

identical, to that in teaching. Whereas in teaching, there was very little prospect of linking remuneration directly to salary, in clerical work it was possible, but not all firms had worked out how to do so. Firms had also not worked out how to screen who were the most productive clerical employees before hiring. Faced with a large supply of willing workers, the costs that the marriage bar imposed on firms were also minimized. In the

1920s the flexibility of the policy was greater, and firms did not dismiss all married women. For the most part, there was little public discussion of marriage bar policies in the 1920s. In 1928 the Long Island Railroad proposed to dismiss 10 married women working as clerks in a freight office, after the company-sponsored Clerks’ Association proposed dismissing them.184 The self-interest of the clerks was obvious, and newspapers around the country that picked up on the story criticized the way the policy was proposed more than the policy itself which was acknowledged as a genuine issue.185 Self-interest was not how the Clerks’ Association argued for dismissing married women:

Most of the married women who worked for the road as clerks are being supported by their husbands and use the money they themselves earn to buy automobiles and clothes. We do not think it is fair for married men with families to take of to be discharged while these women continue to work for the sake of providing themselves with luxuries.186

Married women’s work had social implications beyond the employer-employee relationship. A family with both spouses earning had, in some people’s mind, excess money to which they were not truly entitled. Like the arguments of the Women’s Bureau defending married women’s rights to work, these opponents also accepted the premise

184 “Ask L.I. Road to Oust 10 Married Women,” New York Times, 14 September 1928, p.22. 185 [References to come] 186 “Ask L.I. Road to Oust 10 Married Women,” New York Times, 14 September 1928, p.22. 340

that married women’s rights to work should be related to family needs, and not the

individual liberty to pursue a career. It was an argument with a long history, and it would

flourish in the 1930s.

Public opinion in the 1930s

The Great Depression of the 1930s saw the highest ever levels of unemployment

in the United States. From nearly full employment in 1929, unemployment leapt to over

20% by 1932.187 Debate over the causes and persistence of the Depression continue

among economists today, while historians continue to debate the social and political

responses to unprecedented levels of unemployment. The federal government's response

to the Depression—the New Deal—had important continuities with earlier social

programs in the Progressive era. Yet the scale of government responses to the Depression

was such that the New Deal is properly seen as a major change in federal government

policy.

Married women's work and New Deal social policy

Early historical interpretations of New Deal social policy regarded it as generally

quite positive for women.188 Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration had an unprecedented

number of women in relatively senior public service positions. Many of these women had

forged a connection together in the Progressive era, and were able bureaucrats.189 Frances

Perkins' was the first woman Secretary of Labor. The First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was a

187 Robert A. Margo, "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives 7, no. 1 (1993). 188 Susan Ware, Beyond Suffrage: Women in the New Deal (1981), Susan Ware, Holding Their Own: American Women in the 1930s (Boston: 1982). 189 Linda Gordon, "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945," Journal of American History 78, no. 2 (1991). 341

vocal defender of married women's rights to work when they came under attack in the

late 1930s.190 In the last two decades this interpretation has been revised substantially.

Without denying the achievements of Perkins, Eleanor Roosevelt, and women

bureaucrats in the New Deal, more nuanced examinations of the era have analyzed how

New Deal social policy was affected by contemporary ideas about gender, work and

family.

The earlier, more positive, interpretations of the New Deal were largely the work

of historians, while the recent revision of the literature has been an interdisciplinary

conversation among historians, political scientists and sociologists.191 Political scientist

Virginia Sapiro was one of the first scholars to develop this new approach to studying

historical American social policy that took into account the ways in which gender had

influenced policy.192 Sapiro argued that women were often not the direct targets of

policy, but instead were instruments for achieving social policy goals related to children.

Moreover, American social policy had a long record of trying to establish, or re-establish

the economic independence of men. Support from the state or charity was meant to be

short-term and to propel men to self-sufficiency. Men’s ability to provide for themselves

and their family was understood as a natural and good social arrangement. A man’s

190 [References to come] 191 Inter alia Linda Gordon, Pitied but Not Entitled (1994), Linda Gordon, "Social Insurance and Public Assistance: The Influence of Gender in Welfare Thought in the United States, 1890-1935," American Historical Review 97, no. 1 (1992), Jacob S. Hacker, "Bringing the Welfare State Back In: The Promise (and Perils) of the New Social Welfare History," Journal of Policy History 17, no. 1 (2005), Suzanne Mettler, Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), Suzanne B. Mettler, "Federalism, Gender, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," Polity 26, no. 4 (1994), Gwendolyn Mink, The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917-1942 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), Ann Shola Orloff, "Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States," American Sociological Review 58, no. 3 (1993), Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992). 192 Virginia Sapiro, "The Gender Basis of American Social Policy," Political Science Quarterly 101, no. 2 (1986): 221-38. 342

dependence on his spouse’s earnings was a perturbation of the normal family economy,

and needed correction. Conversely a woman’s long-term dependence on her spouse’s

earnings required no intervention.193 In other word, the ideal of the “living” or “family”

wage influenced the nascent American welfare state. Men’s and women’s rights to

support from the federal welfare system created in the 1930s were not equal.

Women had won equal political citizenship at the national level in 1920. Thus, the persistent inequality of other aspects of citizenship has attracted scholarly attention.

The revisionist account of New Deal social policy often uses T.H. Marshall's division of citizenship into civil, political, and social aspects in the analysis.194 For example, Alice

Kessler-Harris' recent monograph In Pursuit of Equity divides Marshall's "social

citizenship" concept again into "social" and "economic" citizenship.195 Kessler-Harris

argues that United States social policy created rights to social support based on work, and

not on citizenship. Entitlement to unemployment insurance and Social Security old age

assistance was tied to participation in the labor force, and was not a right of all adult

citizens. Tying social support to a demonstrated record of lifetime earning made the new

social programs seem less like welfare, and upheld the ideal of men earning a wage

sufficient for their family. This made the new unemployment and old age insurance

programs politically acceptable. Kessler-Harris argues that although the legislation was

ostensibly gender neutral, in practice they reified the assumption of the family wage.196

Gender was not the only concern that shaped policy. Policy makers and legislators were

193 Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19, no. 2 (1994): 319-23 especially on the 1930s. 194 T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950). 195 Alice Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 10-12. 196 Ibid., 119-21 especially. 343

aware of how incentives shaped behavior, and tried to design social support programs in

a way that balanced the needs of relieving involuntary unemployment without promoting

voluntary idleness.

Marriage bars in the Depression

The federal government was also an employer, and in the Depression it faced the same pressures as private companies to inscribe the family wage ideal in its hiring

practices. As noted above, there had been periodic efforts in some government

departments, such as the Post Office, to fire married women workers. The debate over the

1932 federal Economy Act was slightly different. Ostensibly the debate was about reducing government expenditure. The married person’s clause—Section 213 of the Act

—did not attract a great deal of attention when the bill was initially passed in June

1932.197 As worded Section 213 was gender-neutral, prohibiting the employment of both

husband and wife in the Federal government. The smattering of debate on the married

person’s clause before passage brought out the argument that Americans would grapple

with repeatedly in the Depression—that it was unfair for some families to have both

spouses earning while other families struggled with none.198

It was an argument with significant appeal by virtue of identifying a simple—if

partial—explanation and solution for mass unemployment. The moral question of how to

distribute employment and support to individuals in a way that recognized they lived in

families that shared resources was an important one. Yet the simple idea of barring both

spouses from being employed by the federal government had more symbolism than it

197 "Federal Furlough Brings Confusion," New York Times, July 7 1932, p.13 198 Congressional Record. 1932. 344

ever had economic impact. In the five years that Section 213 was in place just 2500

people were dismissed under its provisions, compared to a total federal workforce of

605,000 in 1932 and nearly 895,000 in 1937.199 Lobbying for its repeal began almost

immediately, and the opposition of the new Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and First

Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was important in the eventual success of the campaign for

repeal.200 The symbolism of the clause and its repeal were self-evidently important because the actions of the federal government were a signal, albeit imperfect, of what was

socially and legally acceptable. It is significant in any assessment of views of married

women’s employment in the Depression that the measure was repealed. While there was

a great deal of opposition to married women's work, on this issue supporters of married

women’s right to work ultimately prevailed.

With the repeal of Section 213 in 1937 legislative opposition to married women’s

employment moved to the states. As historian Lois Scharf as shown bills were introduced in 26 states that prohibited under some conditions the public employment of married women.201 Again the introduction of the bills is a sign of opposition to married women’s

work. Yet the only state where a bill was successfully passed was in Louisiana, where

married women could not be employed if their husbands earned over $3000 annually.

Married women may have been rhetorical scapegoats for unemployment, but the political

failure of most bills barring their employment in state or local government suggests that

ultimately married women’s rights to employment had widespread support. Moreover,

199 Cathryn L. Clausen, "Gendered Merit: Women and the Merit Concept in Federal Employment, 1864- 1944," American Journal of Legal History 40, no. 3 (1996): 249. Historical Statistics of the United States Millennial Edition, Table Ea.894-895. 200 “Curb on Women Hit By Mrs. Roosevelt,” New York Times, 11 April 1933, p.21. 201 Scharf, To Work and to Wed: Female Employment, Feminism, and the Great Depression. 345

the legal standing of the proposed bills was dubious. The 1930s saw increasingly

successful legal challenge to bars on married women teachers. Then, in 1938 the

Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that proposed bans on married women’s public

employment was against the Massachusetts state constitution. Though the opinion was not a ruling by a federal court, the Massachusetts Court commented that most states’ Bills of Rights would permit a successful challenge to similar legislation in other states.

Moreover, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that laws barring the public employment of married women could also be challenged under the 14th Amendment to

the federal Constitution—the equal protection clause.202 A Women’s Bureau review of

legislative action against married women’s employment in 1940 found that the

Massachusetts ruling had not led to the withdrawal of bills pending in other state

legislatures.203 Yet it is possible that because the proposed bans on married women's

employment were known to be potentially unconstitutional that their political appeal

increased. Politicians could oppose married women's employment in public organizations

knowing that legislation was likely to be ineffective.

Bills against married women's employment that were introduced to state

legislatures in the Depression were mostly limited to public sector employment.

Opponents of working wives generally realized that restrictions on contracts between

private firms and their employees would not be constitutional. On the letters pages of

America’s newspapers there were fewer restrictions on what could be proposed, and

people did suggest that unemployment could be solved by fiat if married women's

202 “Public Employment for Married Women,” Illinois Law Review of Northwestern University, 34 (1939): 614-618.; “Constitutional Law—Equal Protection of the Laws,” Harvard Law Review 53 (1939): 670. 203 [Women’s Bureau memo, 1939] 346

employment was barred by law.204 Yet this was a minority opinion. Opponents of

married women’s work had widespread, if shallow, support in the community, but little

direct way to influence what private firms did about the issue. Formal restrictions on

married women’s work were found only in selected industries and occupations. Ideology

had to coincide with self-interest for married women to be fired.

In 1939 the National Industrial Conference Board (NICB) published the results of

an extensive survey of company policies about employing married women. Befitting the

sponsor of the survey, the 484 companies surveyed were large, employing 1,150,646

people among them.205 The concise historical introduction to the statistical tables was

noteworthy for its perceptive description of past and present attitudes, and the problems

of taking marital status into account in hiring and firing decisions:

Years ago it was assumed that when a woman employee married she would resign her position …. Gradually the age- old assumption that a woman’s natural career was that of homemaker began to yield to a newer conception of feminine independence and versatility. First single women and then married women provied their complete competence in professional and business fields, and the latter group worked out a system of more or less successfully maintenance of dual careers as wives and as gainfully occupied workers. The fact that a married woman was employed could no longer be regarded either as evidence that the husband did not earn enough to support the family or that for other reasons she preferred to have her own independent income. Then came the great depression …. Frequently the husband could find no work, and the anomalous situation of women working as breadwinners while their husbands kept house was not uncommon …. If two could not live as cheaply as one, two could at least live together if each had a job and they pooled their resources …. many companies had rules against the employment of women who were married and living with

204 [Numerous examples.] 205 “Employment of Women After Marriage,” Conference Board Management Record 1, No. 10 (1939(: 149-156. 347

their husbands, and others had adopted this regulation for at least the duration of the depression in order to spread wages and salaries as widely as possible. These company rules made liars of countless young women who were otherwise honest …. did not rigid company rules forbidding employment of women after marriage unjustifiably interfere with the private lives of employees?

The NICB correctly identified that the 1920s had witnessed some steps towards

acceptance of married women’s work. The Depression had brought the question of

married women’s work back in a slightly different form. Before the 1920s it was assumed

that married women’s work reflected the husband’s inability to provide. Married women’s work was unfortunate, but it mainly reflected a failure by the husband. In the

Depression married women’s work was more frequently assumed to be a poor choice by the wife. In both eras, there was acceptance of married women who worked when their husbands were unable to provide. Several things changed to make Depression-era disapproval of married women’s employment different than in earlier years. First, mass- unemployment cut into the belief that being out of work reflected a husband’s failure.

Moreover, the growth in living standards for wage-earners in the forty years leading up to the Depression eroded the idea that a single wage was not sufficient for a family.206

Finally, the tentative acceptance of working wives in the 1920s, and greater female independence within marriage, meant that people were now more likely to assume that a woman’s decision to work if her husband worked was more fully her decision alone.

206 Annual earnings for all employees rose from $418 in 1900 to $1425 in 1929. Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennial Edition, Table Ba.4280. Paul H. Douglas, Real Wages in the United States, 1890- 1926 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930). Stanley Lebergott, "Earnings of Nonfarm Employees in the U. S., 1890-1946," Journal of the American Statistical Association 43, no. 241 (1948): 74-93, Stanley Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth; the American Record since 1800 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). 348

These factors combined to make the Depression-era opposition to married women’s work

qualitatively different.

Despite some virulent letters and columns in the nation’s newspapers opposing

married women’s work the opposition was mostly ineffective. In most industries there was no marriage bar, and only a minority of women were subject to a formal marriage bar. The 1939 NICB survey shows the marriage bar existing in similar occupations and industries as the Women’s Bureau found in surveys in 1931 and 1939.207 Marriage bars

were most common in clerical work in financial institutions and public utilities, and in

teaching (though the NICB did not survey school boards). Approximately two-thirds of

firms had formal marriage bar policies in teaching, and for office workers in finance and

public utilities. Office workers in manufacturing industries were less affected by the marriage bar. One in four “paper products” firms surveyed had marriage bars, while just one of 23 leather manufacturing firms had a marriage bar. Industry and occupation mattered in whether a young woman would be affected by the marriage bar.

Using occupation and industry specific estimates of marriage bar prevalence from the NICB survey, and National Education Association surveys of marriage bars in teaching, combined with data on single (never-married) women’s occupations from the

1940 census allows a rough calculation of the effect of marriage bars at the end of the

Depression. I use single women to calculate the effect of the marriage bar for two reasons. First, the NICB data only asked about the “retain bar”—the policy that dictated whether single women must give up their job upon marriage. Second, the census data does not allow us to calculate how married women’s occupational choices were altered

207 Goldin, "Marriage Bars: Discrimination against Married Women Workers from the 1920s to the 1950s." 349

by the “hire bar,” that affected married women applying for new jobs. To get an estimate of the effects of the hire bar we would need data on what sectors married women wanted

to work in, but didn’t because of the hire bar. Instead we observe where married women

ended up given the hire bar. Similarly, it is likely that at the margin the presence of

marriage bars affected single women’s occupational choices. Women who wanted the

possibility of combining career and marriage probably self-selected into occupations or

industries less affected by the marriage bar. Thus, the observed occupational distribution

for single women is affected by the marriage bar. With those caveats, the census does allow us to calculate the proportion of single women who would be affected by a hire bar

in their current job if they were to get married immediately. There are two remaining

sources of bias in the calculation. First, the marriage bar was more likely to be applied in

large firms of the kind surveyed by the NICB. Applying estimates of formal marriage bar

prevalence from the NICB survey to the general workforce will overstate the impact of

marriage bars. The second source of bias is that estimates of marriage bar prevalence are restricted to selected occupations and industries, covering just 40% of employed single

women in 1940. The qualitative evidence suggests that formal marriage bars were

uncommon in the sectors that surveys did not cover. Informal prejudice against married

women is likely to have occurred in these occupations and industries, but the extent of

such prejudice is unknown.

In the occupations and industries for which marriage bar data is available, 30% of

single women would have been working in a firm where they had to quit upon marriage.

Women working for firms for which we have marriage bar prevalence data made up 40%

350

of the 6.3 million never-married women working in 1940.208 If we assume that in the

other sectors there were no formal marriage bars—an extreme assumption—just 12% of

single women were affected by marriage bars. One-in-six office workers in

manufacturing were affected by a marriage bar. Contemporaries would have been very

likely to notice if one-in-six single women in other firms were affected by a marriage bar.

Thus, using this figure is almost certain to overstate the number of single women affected by the marriage bar in their current jobs. Applying this one-in-six rate to the rest of the workforce gives an estimate that 22% of single women would have been affected by the marriage bar at the end of the Depression. Although this estimate is subject to several

biases the cumulative effect is to bias the estimate upwards. Even with these biases, it is

very likely that less than 20% of single women worked in jobs they had to resign upon marriage. This is by no means a trivial figure, but it suggests that opposition to married women’s work in the Depression was selective in its effects upon women, and

constrained by other factors. In concert with the successful political and legal challenges

to marriage bars, it is difficult to see the Depression as a period where married women’s

rights to work were significantly held back. Opposition was concentrated, while the

majority of the public were ambivalent about the issue.

208 Of the estimated 6,330,770 single women in the labor force in 1940, 715,000 were 45 years or older and thus unlikely to marry. 351

Chapter 5

"Give the single girls a chance!" Rank-and file opinion about married women's work at the Western Electric Company

Introduction

The received historiography, discussed above, about contemporary views on

married women's paid employment is that the Great Depression of the 1930s witnessed

substantial public hostility to married women's right to be in paid employment. However,

it is not clear from this existing literature how widespread that intense opposition was. To

cast new light on this issue I turn to a lesser-used part of a well-known source: interviews

with workers at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric company. The Hawthorne

data is so well known that in a 1985 review article, Sonnenfeld wrote that “The fifty-year

old Hawthorne studies … are annually exhumed in academic journals and professional

association conferences."1 For the most part, however, Sonnenfeld was talking about

using the Hawthorne data to ask questions about the internal organization and working of the firm. My research, by contrast, reads the Hawthorne interviews for what workers thought about a public debate—whether married women should work. It was a public debate that was salient at Western Electric in the early 1930s, because the company had no clear policy on the matter. This indecision was some workers’ frustration, but our gain, as the interviews conducted give a deep insight into rank-and-file workers concerns with relatively few selection problems. Workers were not selected for the intensity or

1 Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, "Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies," Journal of Occupational Behavior 6, no. 2 (1985): 1. 352

direction of their views on any topic. Few historical sources of opinion on controversial

topics come with less bias than these interviews.

Letters and opinion columns are clearly subject to a selection problem, while most

of the bills restricting married women’s employment were defeated. The public opinion

polls cited are few in number, and were not carried out using modern sampling methods.

Historians have particularly emphasized the finding in polls carried out by the American

Institute of Public Opinion in the mid-late 1930s that around 80% of Americans opposed married women’s employment.2 The standard question asked in these surveys was

whether people approved of a married women working if her husband could adequately support her. The conditional phrasing of the question is crucial in the way people responded to the question, yet there has been no research on how ordinary Americans understood this question.

What is needed to answer this question are in-depth interviews with individuals who are not selected for their views about married women’s work, but who nevertheless provide their opinion on this issue. Interviews from the Western Electric Hawthorne study are nearly ideal for this purpose. They were conducted at the Western Electric plant in Cicero, Illinois conducted between 1928 and 1931 as part of the well known

Hawthorne studies. In particular, I use a subset of interviews from the Roethlisberger collection that have standardized demographic information about the respondents that

allows me to make some inferences about how opinions varied among different groups.

The timing of the interviews—starting in late 1928 and running through 1931—are ideal

for addressing concern about married women’s work. In 1929 few respondents expressed

2 “Survey Shows 78% Opposed To Wives in Pin-Money Jobs; By-Product of the Depression Young Folks Least Critical” New York Times, 25 December 1938, p.23. 353

concern about whether married women worked or not. In 1930 and 1931 the interviews

reveal that married women's employment was a live issue in the workplace.

The possible biases in the source are that it only includes people currently

employed, and from the Chicago metropolitan area. In other respects, the interviews are

ideal for addressing the question of the level and intensity of opposition to married

women’s work. The interviews begin in 1929—before married women’s employment

was a topic of major public concern—and continue through 1932. During the time of the

interviews some sections of the company furloughed married women employees, but

policy varied between different managers. This variation in policy across the company

meant that employees were aware of different ways to approach the issue. The interviews were non-structured and did not ask employees to express their opinion on particular matters. Because employees were not prompted to talk about the issue, whether they raised the issue of married women’s employment is a measure of the intensity of feeling about married women's work.

The interviews reveal that opinion about married women's employment varied

widely among employees. One third of the employees interviewed raised the topic of

married women's work in at least one interview, which indicates that the issue was not

dormant. Yet it was not all consuming. Public opinion polls of the time suggest that

opposition to married women's work was sensitive to context and question wording

(Table 5.1).

354

Table 5.1 Public opinion polls on married women's employment

Question, source and date of poll Yes No Not unless Don't they need to Know

Do you approve of a married woman earning money in business or industry if she has a husband capable of supporting her? (American Institute of Public Opinion) June 20, 1937 18% 82%

December 25, 1938 22% 78% Male voters 19% 81% Female voters 25% 75%

Do you believe that married women should have a full-time job outside of the home? Fortune, October 1936 All 15% 48% 35% 3% Men 12% 54% 31% 3% Women 18% 42% 38% 2%

Should married women work even if they 70% 30% have children (Asked of 15% responding yes)

For which of the following reasons should married women not work? Take men's jobs 36% Woman's place is in the home 36% Woman's labor is cheap labor that 21% brings down living standards

A bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature prohibiting married women from working in business or industry if their husbands earn more than $1,600 a year. Would you favor such a law in this state? (American Institute of Public Opinion, July 26, 1939) National 74% 23% 3% Married men 75% 22% 3% Single men 73% 23% 4% Widowed and divorced men 83% 16% 1% Married women 73% 24% 3% Single women 63% 36% 1% Widowed and divorced women 77% 16% 7%

355

National sample of married men (American Institute of Public Opinion, July 26 1939) Is your wife working? 12% 79% Asked of men whose wives were not working If she were offered a job at $25 per 17% 56% 6% week, would you want her to take it? If she were offered a job at $50 per 27% 48% 7% week, would you want her to take it?

A bill was introduced in the Massachusetts legislature prohibiting married women from working in state or local government if their husbands earn more than $1,000 a year. Would you favor such a law in this state? (American Institute of Public Opinion, July 26, 1939) National 66% 2% 3% Married men 68% 29% 3% Single men 65% 31% 4% Widowed and divorced men 70% 17% 13% Married women 63% 35% 2% Single women 58% 35% 7% Widowed and divorced women 61% 33% 6%

From Hadley Cantril (ed), Public Opinion, 1935-1946 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951): 1044-1045

Opposition to married women's work was over-stated by questions that did not allow respondents to express a conditional answer. While opinion that married women's work was acceptable if there was a family need did not grant women an equal right to employment, it granted them some rights. The differences in response between the

Illinois and Massachusetts laws also suggest that people evaluated married women's rights to work conditional on family income. It is revealing that married men's opposition declined as their wife's hypothetical wage increased. Attitudes were not fixed at all. The public opinion polls also let us place the responses from Hawthorne in some context.

Approximately 80% of respondents opposed married women's employment in some

356

form, but only one third of the people interviewed at Hawthorne brought up the topic, among whom not all were opposed. If Hawthorne workers had the same underlying opposition to married women's work as the national polls, opposition was shallow. Fewer than half the opponents of married women's work cared enough to raise the issue on their own initiative in an interview. By choosing other topics to discuss they revealed they did not care strongly about married women's work.

We cannot assume that the remaining employees who did not engage the issue with interviewers approved of married women's working. Yet we can say that, given an interviewing program that aimed to elicit as many thoughts from employees about their job as possible, these employees did not raise the issue even when they were voluble about other workplace issues. Interestingly, the most identifiable group to express opposition to married women working were single women who had significant financial responsibility within their families. Because many work groups at the Hawthorne plant were single-sex this meant that the debate about the propriety of married women's employment was often not between men and women, but among groups of women.

Among the nuggets of wisdom distilled from the Hawthorne studies was that the

"total situation" of the employee had to be considered in understanding their motivation and behavior. A similar conclusion is warranted in looking at how firms responded to social demands to act in particular ways. The demands expressed by some employees at the Hawthorne plant—that the company lay-off employed married women—echoed a demand made more generally in public, in the media and in state and federal legislatures.

As other authors have shown school districts and large employers of clerical labor appeared to respond to these public demands by strengthening the marriage bar. Yet at

357

Hawthorne, we observe only tentative concessions to these demands.3 The company's

remuneration structure—payment linked tightly to productivity—combined with a

production process that rewarded individual and group learning, meant there was little

pressure on the company to fire productive workers and disrupt productive teams. Even

with the institution of an interviewing program that exposed Western Electric, more than

most other companies, to the views of its employees the company did not respond to their

demands in this area. In short, public hostility to married women's work during the

Depression could only be put into practice where it coincided with firms' interests. The

Western Electric experience suggests that laying off married women did not always

coincide with firms’ interests. The company’s response to social pressure was contingent

on the profitability of those actions for the company.

Married women's employment in the inter-war era

As shown in previous chapters the social context for these interviews was one of

increasingly rapid change in married women's work. The inter-war era saw married

women enter the labor market relatively rapidly, compared to the previous forty years. In

1920 6.5 per cent of white married women were in the labor force, and their labor force

participation rates rose to 9.8 per cent in 1930, and 12.5 per cent by 1940.4 The change in participation rates obscures the change that went somewhat un-noticed at the time, and analyzed in chapter 3—the way families made decisions about who went out to work for pay changed substantially in the 1920s and 1930s. At the end of World War I, wives' decisions to enter the labor market were still somewhat dependent on whether husbands

3 F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939), 340-41. 4 Dora L. Costa, "From Mill Town to Board Room," Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2000). 358

were out of work.5 Yet by 1940 married women's decisions to enter employment were

actually less dependent on their husband's employment status than they had been in

1918.6 The Depression obscures this important change. With the huge rise in unemployment many married women entered the labor force to help maintain family incomes, yet the magnitude of this labor market entry by wives was much smaller than it could have been.7

While married women's employment decisions were becoming more independent

of their husband's the public reality was that unprecedented levels of unemployment co-

existed with increased numbers of married women working. Public debate about married

women's employment was predominantly hostile to the idea that married women should

be in paid employment. Legislation to prohibit the employment of married women whose

husbands held jobs was debated in state legislatures. At the federal level the 1932

Economy Act stipulated that both spouses could not be employed at the same time by the

government.8 Defenses of married women's right to work narrowed significantly. In the

1920s following the introduction of female suffrage, feminists had been vocal in

advocating for married women's rights to pursue careers.9 During the Depression their

position retreated to advocating married women's right to help support their families, not

pursuing independent careers. Defenders of married women's employment strained to

5 Carolyn M. Moehling, "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment," Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001). 6 T.Aldrich Finegan and Robert A. Margo, "Work Relief and the Labor Force Participation of Married Women in 1940," Journal of Economic History 54, no. 1 (1994). 7 Erika H. Schoenberg and Paul H. Douglas, "Studies in the Supply Curve of Labor: The Relation in 1929 between Average Earnings in American Cities and the Proportions Seeking Employment," Journal of Political Economy 45, no. 1 (1937). 8 Scharf, To Work and to Wed: Female Employment, Feminism, and the Great Depression. 9 Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism. 359

find evidence that women's employment was typically in low-status occupations where they would not compete with men.

Within the workplace the institution of the "marriage bar" became more common, and firms enforced its provisions more frequently.10 Marriage bar policies came in two forms: "hire" and "fire" bars. Hire bars specified that women who were married would not be hired. Fire bars required that women who married while in employment quit shortly after getting married. Marriage bars were most common in occupations where salary progression was linked to tenure, but not to productivity. Clerical workers in insurance, finance and utilities were often subject to marriage bars, as were teachers. For example, the New York Times reported that "at some of New York's most important banks both husband and wife cannot remain at the same institution. If two bank employees are indiscreet enough to fall in love and get married, one of them has to leave."11 Although marriage bars reflected some social stigma to married women's employment, they also had a real business and economic function. Goldin has explained the marriage bar as a device for increasing turnover, so that workers who were being paid more than their marginal output would leave the firm. Marriage bars were not as common in manufacturing, where earnings could be, and were, tied to output.

Interviewing workers at Western Electric

The Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne works in Cicero (IL) was not unusual in paying wages on the “straight-line principle of compensation, according to

10 Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. 11 "Working Wives of Now." New York Times. May 27 1923. p. SM7. 360

which the remuneration was directly proportional to individual or group output.”12 The research program undertaken by the Western Electric Company in conjunction with researchers from the Harvard Business School—principally Elton Mayo and Fritz J.

Roethlisberger —are well known to historians of American business. Western Electric had opened the Hawthorne plant in 1905, moving their Chicago operations out into what was then the countryside on the western edge of Chicago. In part the company did this to find a stable workforce that would not be influenced too much by the labor "agitation" fermented by Chicago's strong labor movement. Over the next decade Western Electric concentrated its telephone production at the Hawthorne plant, becoming one of the largest workplaces in the United States in the early twentieth century.13 By the 1920s the company employed 40,000 people in the Hawthorne works.14 In an operation of that size, even small improvements in individual productivity could be repaid with improvements large enough to justify research into different methods of organizing work.

The Hawthorne studies have been characterized as "the most audacious social scientific study ever made in the workplace," but also as having stimulated "decades of

… confused debate about their meaning."15 Their enduring relevance to scholars comes partly from the tentative conclusions reached by the original researchers.16 The studies

12 Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker, 12-14. 13 Stephen B. Adams and Orville R. Butler, Manufacturing the Future: A History of Western Electric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 83-84. 14 Adams and Butler report "more than 40,000 workers in the 1920s" (p.6). Roethlisberger and Dickson report "approximately 29,000 workers [in 1927]" (p.6). 15 Adams and Butler, Manufacturing the Future: A History of Western Electric, 119, Judith Sealander, "Whose Knowledge? Review of Richard Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge," Reviews in American History 22, no. 4 (1994): 649. Adams and Butler provide a concise 10 page summary of the studies that lay out what happened. Richard Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Sonnenfeld, "Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies," 111-30. 16 H.M. Gitelman, "Welfare Capitalism Reconsidered," Labor History 33, no. 1 (1992): 591. 361

were documented in Roethlisberger and Dickson's 1939 Management and the Worker,

that clearly and extensively lays out the motivation, procedures and contemporary results

of the experiments and interviews. Yet a definitive modern work on the Hawthorne

Studies probably still awaits us. Nearly eighty years after the Hawthorne experiments

began researchers still return to the original data, and debate continues about their

meaning and significance.17 What is clear is that the studies began with the modest

scientific and commercial objective of determining the effect of illumination on labor

productivity, and transmuted into social science somewhat by accident. Few remember

what effect lighting had on productivity. In the end, lighting was shown to have a

relatively small impact on productivity.18 The impact of the Hawthorne research on the

fledgling inter-disciplinary study of individual and group behavior in the workforce was substantial.19 Reflecting on the experiments at the end of his career, Roethlisberger

described their evolution as having developed

through four phases: from an almost exclusive concern with employee productivity, to a concern with employee satisfaction, to a concern with employee motivation, and finally to a growing realization that the productivity, satisfaction, and motivation of workers were all inter-related.20

17 Eg. Stephen R.G. Jones, "Was There a Hawthorne Effect?" American Journal of Sociology 98, no. 3 (1992), Steen Scheuer, Social and Economic Motivation at Work (Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2000). 18T. N. Whitehead, Helen M. Mitchell, and Western Electric Company., The Industrial Worker; a Statistical Study of Human Relations in a Group of Manual Workers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university press, 1938). 19 Sonnenfeld, "Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies," 115. Early reviews of Management and the Worker were not quite sure which academic discipline the research came from, with some combination of "industrial" or "occupational" with anthropology, sociology or psychology being common. See e.g; Paul A. Dodd, "Review of Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 208 (1940): 308. Dodd, "Review of Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker," 230. This was seen as a virtue by R. Graham, "Slavery and Economic- Development - Brazil and the United-States South in the 19th-Century," Comparative Studies In Society And History 23, no. 4 (1981): 151-52. 20 F.J. Roethlisberger, The Elusive Phenomena (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), 46. 362

The results of the original studies of the effects of illumination on output were less definitive than the company had hoped, but stimulated further research into the

“human factors” of production.21 This led to the establishment of the Relay Assembly

Test Room and Mica Splitting Test Room experiments, from which the company drew

the conclusion that improvements in output were partly related to better supervision.22

During the first two years of experiments in the Test Room the five women had been

interviewed extensively. Although the Test Rooms had been set up to attempt controlled

experiments in varying factors affecting production, the investigators concluded that

multiple independent variables were changing. Changes in productivity in the Test Room

could not be separated from the “total situation” of the room, including the social

relationships of the workers. Roethlisberger and Dickson described the change in the

research strategy as being motivated by how impressed management was at

… the stores of latent energy and productive co-operation which clearly could be obtained from its working force under the right conditions. And among the factors making for these conditions the attitudes of the employees stood out as being of predominant importance …. Management decided, therefore, that everything pointed to the need for more research on employee attitudes and the factors to which they could be related.23 (emphasis added)

The expanded interviewing program began in September 1928. Over the course of

the next three years more than 21,000 workers from a peak workforce of 40,000 were

interviewed. Initially the interviewers sought to elicit comments from employees about

their likes and dislikes with regard to three subjects: supervision, working conditions, and

21 Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker, 15-18. 22 Ibid, 179. 23 Ibid, 185-186. 363

the job.24 These initial interviews were generally terse and the transcripts rarely exceeded one typescript page. The interviewers found that employees did not open up about their attitudes with this format, and in July 1929 the interview method shifted to the “indirect approach.” During the second phase of interviewing employees from all across the

Hawthorne factory were interviewed.25 In a third and final phase of interviewing in 1931 and 1931 the researchers followed 500 employees employed in about 20 departments continuously, and interviewed them repeatedly. The interviews that are retained in the

Roethlisberger collection come from the group that was interviewed multiple times.26 The indirect approach began with the interviewer explaining the program, and then allowing the employee to choose their own topic of conversation. The guidelines to interviewers stressed that

As long as the employee talked spontaneously, the interviewer was to follow the employee’s ideas, displaying a real interest in what the employee had to say, and taking sufficient notes to enable him to recall the employee’s various statements. While the employee continued to talk, no attempt was to be made to change the subject. The interviewer was not to interrupt or try to change the topic to one he thought more important. He was to listen attentively to anything the worker had to say about any topic and take part in the conversation only in so far as it was necessary in order to keep the employee talking. If he did ask questions, they were to be phrased in a non-committal manner and certainly not in the form, previously used, which suggested the answers.27

24 Ibid, 201. 25 Ibid, 203. 26 Coded Interviews, Cartons 11-13, Series VI, F.J. Roethlisberger Papers, GA 77, Historical Collections Baker Library. Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. 27 Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker, 203. See also pp.270-291. 364

The interviewers were selected from groups of supervisors interested in the topic of

human relations in industry. Interviewers were assigned to interview employees who they

did not know, so that employees could speak freely about their views on the workplace

and their supervisors. After being transcribed and purged of identifying information the

interviews were used in supervisory conferences, where supervisors met to discuss issues

raised by employees and how they could improve their management of employees.28

From the 520 coded interviews that are extant in the Roethlisberger collection I

randomly sampled 304 interviews for analysis. The interviews are organized in

sequentially numbered folders in three archival cartons, with approximately 140 folders

per carton. Because of space restrictions at the Baker Library Historical Collections at the

time I visited it was not possible to request all three cartons at the same time. From the first box I read and entered data for ten interviews to estimate how many interviews could be analyzed in the time available.29 I then drew a random sample from each box, giving a

final sample stratified by carton. The finding aid for the collection indicates the

interviews are not arranged in any systematic order. The most obvious order for

organizing the interviews would have been by department within the firm, but the

departments represented in the collection are scattered through the cartons and folders. In

short, the sample drawn should be representative of the data collected subject to sampling

error. I entered all the standardized employment situation and demographic information

that was collected, and recorded employees’ comments about married women’s work,

marriage, and the employees’ perception of their economic role within their family.

Table 5.2 summarizes the workplace and demographic characteristics of the sample. The

28 Ibid, 211-214. 29 Three full-time weeks. 365

data collection was very nearly complete for all variables, with few unknown responses.

Most of the variables require little explanation, though it might be noted that "race" in a

manufacturing plant on the south side of Chicago between 1929 and 1932 still meant

variation in European ancestry, and not the distinction between black and white it would

become. The sample is balanced between men and women, with an adequate number of

marital states for each sex. Productivity linked pay was the norm, with 80% of the people being on piece rates. Tenure was relatively lengthy, with the median years in the company's service being around eight.30

Rank-and-file views on married women’s employment

Rank-and-file awareness of married women’s employment as a social issue

occurred in the context of the company’s preference for retaining long-serving employees

during layoffs, and for giving supervisors some discretion in furloughing workers during

a downturn. It was because the company lacked a clear, formal policy on dismissing

married women that it became an issue for some employees. The majority of employees

who spoke about married women’s employment in their interviews acknowledged that

the issue was a complex one. Both codified rules and supervisory discretion could be

justified by appealing to reasonable sounding principles. Calls for a consistent policy of

30 Marguerite B. Benson, "Labor Turnover of Working Women," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1929): 116-19, Paul F. Brissenden and Emil Frankel, Labor Turnover in Industry; a Statistical Analysis (New York: Macmillan, 1922), Susan B. Carter and Elizabeth Savoca, "Labor Mobility and Lengthy Jobs in Nineteenth-Century America," Journal of Economic History 50, no. 1 (1990): 1-16, Sanford M. Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900-1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), Sanford M. Jacoby and Sunil Sharma, "Employment Duration and Industrial Labor Mobility in the United States 1880-1980," Journal of Economic History 52, no. 1 (1992): 161-79, Laura J. Owen, "Gender Differences in Labor Turnover and the Development of Internal Labor Markets in the United States During the 1920s," Enterprise & Society 2, no. 1 (2001), Sumner H. Slichter, The Turnover of Factory Labor (New York: D. Appleton and company, 1919), Watkins, An Introduction to the Study of Labor Problems, 258. 366

firing married women, or ignoring marital status when furloughing staff, could result in

particular individuals suffering. Particular cases of individuals who would suffer unduly

if they were laid off contributed to support for supervisory discretion in layoffs, yet rank-

and-file employees could not be sure that supervisors were making the right decisions

with their discretion.

The 1930 and 1931 interviews occurred when the plant’s production was running

well below peak capacity, with demand for telephone products declining rapidly in the

Depression. The company’s wage policies tied remuneration directly to output. Even

clerical workers in accounting and typing roles were subject to a “bogey,” to ensure that

they maintained a steady rate of work. This practice was not unique to the Hawthorne

plant. Grace Coyle’s 1928 study of women’s work options found piece rates to be

relatively common.31 Piece rates were implemented in clerical work because it was difficult for companies to predict which workers would be productive. Screening workers before they were employed—by testing their typing ability—eventually allowed firms to select productive workers and pay salaries for clerical work. The piece rate in clerical work at the Hawthorne plant was similar to other companies. A base expected speed of keystrokes per minute—the bogey—was established. If workers fell below their bogey

their wages declined. To get paid more, a worker had to be consistently exceeding the bogey by a non-trivial amount, so that higher wages reflected truly higher productivity, and not random, temporary increases in speed. Thus, the Western Electric company faced little economic pressure to lay off people whose productivity had fallen below their wages. The company culture also valued length of service. Although tenure had a strong

31 Grace Coyle, Jobs and Marriage? Outlines for the Discussion of the Married Woman in Business (New York: Woman's Press, 1928), 23-24. 367

effect on status within the workplace, many of its effects were informal rather than

codified.32 Within some work groups a consistent policy of laying off married women would have eliminated most of the department. Indeed the employee whose comment

"give the single girls a chance" provides the title of this chapter acknowledged that if they

"lay off all the married women…. in our department, they wouldn’t have any left. It seems that almost all of them are married."33

Among supervisors, the company’s policy of preference for length of service was

sometimes controversial. One supervisor interviewed by Roethlisberger was particularly

voluble, feeling that:

… it was unfortunate that single girls were being discharged while married women were being retained. He recited a pathetic story of nineteen single girls dismissed from his department last week who would probably have to “go wrong” in order to make a living. He painted a disagreeable picture of married women who just in order to retain their unduly high standard of living were giving sob stories to the bosses because they couldn’t live on the money which their husbands alone earned.34

The recurring elements in discussion of women’s work are both present, first that single women without work will turn to prostitution, and second that married women who worked gave themselves and their families undeservedly high standards of living.35 The fear of young women adrift in the big city was recurrent in the United States between the

32 Ibid, 361. 33 FJR Collection Carton 12, Folder 68, Interview with employee 436536. December 5 1930, p.5. 34 Interview No. D-47, June 16 1931, 10:30 – 11.40am. Interviews Operating Branch Assistant Foremen (by FJR) 1931, Folder 38, Carton 10. 35 Penelope A.E. Harper, "Investigating the Working Woman: Middle-Class Americans and the Debate over Women's Wage Work, 1820-1920" (PhD, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1997), 124- 26. 368

Gilded Age and World War II.36 Yet most of the young women interviewed at Western

Electric were not “adrift” in the city, they were living with their families, and had financial responsibilities for them. As Margo Anderson has pointed out the number of young women, even in large cities like Chicago, who were living outside their family was quite small.37 Most young women who were working lived with family (see Table 5.3).

One of the first investigations of young working women, Carroll Davidson Wright’s

Working Girls of Boston noted that the numbers of the “class of working women who live

in the city among strangers … and who are away from home influence … is much less

than is generally supposed.”38 The concern was stubborn despite the facts. Yet some

Hawthorne supervisors assumed that all the single women in their departments were

boarding and ‘adrift’ from their families. Indeed, one interviewer noted parenthetically

after interviewing several supervisors who had talked about single women turning to

prostitution, “What does it mean? Is it wishful thinking of which they are horrified?”39

The second claim this supervisor makes, that married women who worked gave

their families an undeserved higher standard of living is more pertinent. Without praising or condemning this opinion, it deserves to be taken seriously. It was expressed repeatedly throughout the Depression. In some ways, it is a claim that when unemployment is high society should be concerned about equity in household income, a point of view many would have sympathy with. While proponents of this view often made exceptions for a

36 Joanne J. Meyerowitz, Women Adrift: Independent Wage Earners in Chicago, 1880-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). 37 Margo J. Anderson "Women in 1900: Gateway to the Political Economy of the Twentieth Century (review). Journal of Social History 36(2), 506-508. 38 Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics and Women's Educational and Industrial Union, Industrial Home Work in Massachusetts (Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Co., state printers, 1914), Microform. 39 Interview no. E-73. June 26 1931, 10.30 to 11.45am. Interviews Operating Branch Section Chiefs (FJR) 1931, folder 46, carton 10. 369

woman whose husband was unemployed, they rarely considered other aspects of the situation. For example, few acknowledged that women might remain in employment as a form of insurance for the possibility that their husband might lose their job. In a depressed labor market where job openings were scarce and many firms preferred to retain long-serving employees it made little sense for households to give up one of two incomes, when they did not know how long they would be employed. It also ignores that families might have basic outgoings for food and housing that could not be met by one income alone.

It is not clear what opponents of married women working would have thought about the situation where the same income was being brought in by the husband and a teenage daughter. Indeed, unmarried daughters were objects of sympathy from supervisors and co-workers for their financial responsibilities, even if their fathers were working:

There is another thing about the single girls that are being laid off. Why don’t they lay off the married women whose husbands are making $75 or $80 a week. Why don’t they lay her off, instead of a single girl, who maybe has to support her parents, or maybe she is an orphan who has to support herself. Just last week, some of the poor single girls were laid off. They were standing in a corner up in the department, crying about losing their jobs. And here, the old married women are sitting at the bench, laughing their fool heads off. What they should do, is lay off the married women, whose husbands are making good money, so they could stay home and raise children.40

Whereas some employees assumed that every married woman had a husband who was working, they assumed that single women were often supporting parents unable to earn. For example, one employee commented "Well, how about the single girls who help

40 FJR Collection, Carton 13, Folder 154 Interview with employee 957045, March 21 1930, p.2. 370

support the family, they think just because she has a mother and father she doesn’t have

to work. I don’t see it like that at all," continuing on to say "There are lots of other

married women in there who do nothing else but pile up their money."41

Rank-and-file male employees were more likely than supervisors to oppose married women’s employment on the grounds that wives had responsibilities at home.

One man stated simply that “a married woman’s place is at home …. she can find plenty to do there.”42 His opinion was echoed by others, including single women. One woman

explained how

When you select a man for your husband, he should be capable of taking care of you. I think if I thought enough of a man to marry him, I would be willing to do without a lot of things that I would be able to get myself if I was working. There’s plenty of work to be done at home, and in order to keep the home fires burning the way they should be, I don’t think the woman’s place is down here. It is at home cooking good meals for her husband and doing the necessary work she should do.43

Much more common was the view that married women’s employment was unfair

to other households. Some employees were resolutely opposed to any married women

working, while others allowed that some might really need to work because of their

family situation. A common perception was that married women who worked gave their

families a high standard of living. “They are all buying cars and fur coats, and then if

they don’t’ work they can’t pay for it,” was how one employee described married

women’s motivation for working.

41 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 23, Interview with employee 042834. April 26 1930, p.4. 42 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 13, Interview with employee 020836. December 22 1930, p.2. See also FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 156, Interview with employee 278674. October 22 1930, p5-6. 43 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 13, Interview with employee 020836. December 22 1930, p.2 371

Attitudes at the Hawthorne Plant were not unique, and were found in other companies during the Depression. An employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad wrote to

the company’s “Bureau of New Ideas” saying that “no hardship would be imposed on

those married ladies if they were dropped from the service.”44 Employers that followed

through on the idea of firing married women got more coverage than those who

investigated and hesitated. The Women’s Bureau files note a 1931 report from a New

England company that employed 36 married women, and considered dismissing them “to give employment to additional needy families.” Upon detailed investigation they found just eight of the working wives’ families would have been able to adjust readily to the loss of income. The summary of the other 28 families’ situation was a catalog of homes that would be foreclosed, tenuous prospects for continued employment at the husband’s firm, or the husband’s chronic ill-health. What this company found was not surprising. A

1928 study of married women job seekers asked to list their reasons for seeking work saw

260 (43%) of 598 women specify a husband’s illness, and another 147 (25%) specify

“insufficient family income” as their reasons for working. Just 30 (5%) claimed to be working to pursue a career they enjoyed.45 It is likely that some of these responses were

conditioned by social expectation. Chapter 3 showed that sickness and unemployment

could not explain all married women's unemployment, but were socially acceptable

reasons to work. In other cases, the apparently high family income from having both

44 “Suggestion to Pennsylvania Railroad Bureau of New Ideas, Bureau File No. 747. In Folder 16, “Employment of Women—General, 1918-1942,” Pennsylvania Railroad Collection, Series I, Box 1082, Hagley Museum and Library. 45 See Margaret Horsley, “Why Married Women Ask For Work: A study at the Employment Department of the Y.W.C.A. and at the Collegiate Bureau of Occupations” June 1928. In Bulletin #77 Correspondence. Women’s Bureau Records. RG 86. National Archives. See Emily Brown Clark, A study of two groups of Denver married women applying for jobs. Women’s Bureau Bulletin #77 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1929). 372

spouses employed, appeared much less luxurious when those earnings supported one, two, and sometimes more, elderly relatives in the days before Social Security.46 Yet opponents of married women's work at Hawthorne claimed that married colleagues admitted they were just working for the clothes:

Some of them even say themselves that the reason they are working is because they can get a lot of new clothes – well, if that’s the case they ought to be laid off right there and then – especially a woman that would make a remark like that. If they’re only working down here for clothes I am in favor of the idea that they should be laid off outright –let their husbands take care of them when it comes to providing clothes for them. I cannot see the idea – there are a lot of poor single girls and married men with large families and they should have to stay out of work because the married women are working to buy themselves a lot of clothes. I am not in favor of it.47

Just as common was the view that some discretion was needed, and that each case should be decided on its own merits. Women whose husbands were unemployed or sick, and who lacked other support were generally considered most worthy of continued employment. One employee commented on two women in his department who exemplified the worthy and the unworthy employed wife:

She is married, but she's had a lot of hard luck. They are keeping her. I believe it would be a tragedy if they laid her off, because her husband has been in the hospital for an operation. So it wouldn't look fair if they let her go. They've got to let her stay a little while longer, I think. But this other girl that is helping me on my work never did this work before. She's worked in the department, but she worked in the office on a clerical job. Well, since the depression came they haven't got any work for her there, so they put her out on the bench with me. I really think that girl could stay home. She has no

46 “Study of Employment of Married Women by a New England Firm (Late 1930 – Early 1931)” In Gainful Employment of Married Women, August 1936. Reports of the Bureau 1921-1942. Division of Research, Department of Labor Women’s Bureau. RG 86, Entry 26, National Archives. 47 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 33, Interview with employee 060395. October 21 1930, p.6. 373

idea of quitting, though, just because she's not laid off. I do believe that she could stay home. Her husband is working and it would give another single girl a chance to work …. if something should happen, if trouble should come after you are married, it is a different thing.48

It was acceptable according to this employee for a wife to look for work if her husband should lose his job, but she should not keep one while he was working. This reflected an alternative concept of fairness, that the company should attempt to make sure that all families were coping in the Depression. Employees were never clear on how family circumstances would be compared and a list of suitable candidates for layoffs determined. Some acknowledged that this would take considerable time and effort.

However, most of the employees who expressed support for considering individual needs did not consider how it would be done. By the length of their qualifying statements some employees acknowledged that investigating individual circumstances to ensure fairness might be challenging:

I believe that if some of the married women were laid off, and the single girls be left to work in their place, conditions wouldn’t be as bad as they are. Maybe it is possible that some of the married men that are out of work could be put in their places. I don’t think it’s right that these married women should be left to work – especially in cases where their husbands are also working. Of course, I agree that every individual cases should be investigated, and wherever possible a married women should be laid off, if possible. Of course, there are exceptions in cases where it might be that their husbands happen to be out of work. A case of that kind should be considered in another way. But I do not think it is right that the married women that they have working here in the various departments should be allowed to work.49

48 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 13, Interview with employee 020836. December 22 1930, p.2 49 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 33, Interview with employee 060395. October 21 1930, p.6. 374

The differing policies introduced in different departments about furloughing married women made for some confusion. Employees heard rumors about what was occurring in other departments, and often asked the interviewer if they knew what the definitive policy was. Interviewers typically responded that matters would be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking individual circumstances into account, and trying not to push their own views on the subjects. While the discretionary investigation of individual circumstances was pushed by many employees, some argued that the process would not be entirely fair. With many Western Electric employees living as neighbors in Cicero and western Chicago, workplace tensions could spill over into the neighborhood:

I suppose they don’t tell the truth because they’re quite nice up in this department about investigating cases and if they find where a family is real hard up and there is only one working they won’t lay you off. I think that is quite nice, only they do things funny. When they send investigators out why do they send them to the neighbors homes to find out. May times neighbors aren’t good friends and they may tell things that are untrue just for spite and the Western takes their word for it. I have heard of cases like that.50

Conversely, other employees were suspicious that if there was discretion for married women to ask for continued employment based on hardship they would create spurious responsibilities to justify their work:

There are a lot of them that don’t need the work and still they put up a hard luck story and get away with it. I think when it comes time to lay off they would have been wise to have laid off all the married women at once and not given them a chance to frame up things. I’m pretty sure that a lot of them who are working up there now have just framed their stories. Taking other people to live with them and doing all that sort of thing in order to hold their job.51

50 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 150, Interview with employee 263975. December 2 1931, p.2-3. 51 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 167, Interview with employee 302964. October 27 1931, p5-7. 375

Married women were aware of the discourse that while some employees were opposed in general to married women working, many believed it was acceptable for married women whose circumstances justified it. When interviewed married women would often justify their circumstances, and why they deserved continued employment.

One woman who was married was very concerned to distinguish her situation from other married women who were spending their money on luxuries:

He [husband] only works two days a week now, and only brings in twelve dollars or fifteen a week. That’s not so much to get along with. I get so tired of hearing everybody yell about the married women. Why don’t some of them quit that can quit? They’re buying bungalows and cars and all the luxuries and they stay down here working, and then everybody nags a woman like me who are married and are in debt and have so much trouble. I should think that that they’d shut their mouths and not be bothered with women that have to work like I do, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference. If you’re married all they do is nag at you to quit. If I had my debts paid I wouldn’t care. I don’t know how I’m ever going to get them paid.52

Several employees commented that while they could afford to survive on just their husband's income, they would have to liquidate the equity in their houses to meet expenses on just one income.53

The group of employees who were most consistently hostile to married women’s employment were single women with significant financial responsibilities. The grievances expressed by single women at Hawthorne are continuous with sentiments

52 FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 107, Interview with employee 510405. May 6 1931. p.3-4. 53 FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 77, Interview with employee 450936. October 17 1930, p.4. ; FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 77, Interview with employee 450936. October 17 1930, p.5. ; FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 77, Interview with employee 450936. October 17 1930, p.8-9. FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 77, Interview with employee 450936. October 17 1930, p.9. ; FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 83, Interview with employee 464444. September 23 1931, p.1. 376

expressed by single women forty years earlier.54 Single women saw themselves as more

vulnerable to employment fluctuations than married women. Across half a century, in the

eyes of many single women, married women were working for pin money. A

Philadelphia saleswoman interviewed in an investigation of working women in

Pennsylvania in 1893 expressed a view also found in the Hawthorne works in 1931:

… I am employed at a first class house, but just as soon as times become dull I am thrown out of employment, and as I am entirely dependent on my own earnings I deeply feel the loss of my work and wages, while some are kept who only work for pin money. Herein is injustice shown by store keepers who should, in my opinion, inquire into women’s circumstances when the force is to be reduced and retain those who are the most needy.55

Another woman, a bookkeeper, interviewed in Pittsburgh in the same year drew a

contrast with the “family wage” ideal for men. The justification for men getting paid

more than women, that he had a family to support, did not apply to single men, while she had to support her mother.56 These two women were unusual in thinking out their

grievances about pay so clearly, but found much support among their female colleagues

for the idea that men’s and women’s wage should be equal for the same work. For the

most part, these late nineteenth century grievances of single women gave rise to little organized protest. Women were considered difficult to organize for working rights, let alone to organize around an ephemeral condition based on age and marital status. Yet

54 Gary Cross and Peter Shergold, ""We Think We Are of the Oppressed": Gender, White Collar Work, and Grievances of Late Nineteenth-Century Women," Labor History 28, no. 1 (1987): 23-53. 55 Interview excerpt No. 113½ “Women in Industry,” 22nd Annual Report of the Bureau of Industrial Statistics of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Secretary of Internal Affairs, 1894): A29. 56 Interview excerpt No. 405 “Women in Industry,” 22nd Annual Report of the Bureau of Industrial Statistics of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Secretary of Internal Affairs, 1894): A41. 377

there is some evidence that single women took their complaints to the public. In Hartford

(CT) in 1895, single women employed in stores circulated a petition calling for

legislation that would give single women preference over married women.57 A similar

organization was reported in Boston in 1900.58 Single women school teachers in

Brooklyn (NY) spoke out at a public meeting in 1896 against "women with husbands earning comfortable salaries…. given positions in the public schools to the exclusion of themselves who have to depend solely upon their positions for a living."59 The grievances

of single working women were consistent, because their role in the family economy was

consistent. If they were working and living with their parents, their families often needed

some of the money. While single women contributing earnings to their family reported their situation to interviewers in bleak terms, earning begot power. Children who brought in money to the household were able to spend more money on their own desires than similar children who brought in no income. The relationship between working single women and their parents was likely to have been interdependent. Both children and their parents gained something from maintaining a larger household and living together.

Indeed, research on children's transitions out of their parents' households finds that children left the household when they could afford to, more than they stayed because their parents needed them. This suggests that single women's opposition to married women's work may have been related to their own frustrated desires to leave home for a household independent of their parents, whether married or "adrift." Recent research by several scholars shows that wage-earning young adults in early twentieth century

57 “Want Married Women Shut Out,” Delphos Daily Herald, Delphos (OH), 26 March 1895, p.3 58 “Barring Out Married Women,” Delphos Daily Herald, Delphos (OH), 23 September 1900, p.3. 59 "Single Women Up In Arms," Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Brooklyn (NY), 6 October 1896, p.3. 378

American cities moved out when they were financially able to do so. However, the inter- war era saw a rising age of leaving home for young white men and women.60 Living together was a form of mutual financial support, but young adults revealed a preference for moving when they could. The tensions between single and married women workers also have roots in this slower transition to independent living amongst young women.

At Hawthorne, supervisors may have opposed married women’s employment out of jealousy. Single women saw themselves in direct competition with married women for jobs. A policy that gave preference to length of service often preferred married women who were, on average, older than single women. Many of the single women interviewed were also under considerable stress at home from the pressures of having to bring in income for their family. They contrasted their own situation with married women, who they perceived as living relatively easy lives on two incomes:

of course the women who are married and have working it would be all right, they wouldn’t mind it I guess, because they could get home earlier and make supper for their husbands, but when you’re single and have somebody to take care of it’s hard when your time gets cut that way.61

Another employee in a department that furloughed married women commented:

I’m glad they’re going to lay off the married women instead of the single women in our department, because I don’t know what we’d do in our family … You see my father hasn’t worked for about five years.62

60 Myron P. Gutmann, Sara M. Pullum-Piñón, and Thomas W. Pullum, "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America," Journal of Social History 35, no. 3 (2002), Steven Ruggles, "The Decline of Intergenerational Coresidence in the United States, 1850-2000," American Sociological Review (2007 forthcoming). 61 FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 167. Interview with employee 623253, September 10 1930, p.3. 62 FJR Collection, Carton 11, Folder 170, Interview with employee 303864. October 24 1930, p.2-3. 379

The misperceptions went both ways, however, with some married women

lamenting that they had to work to support a family in the Depression. It appears that

many married women did not expect to have to work when they were married. An article

in the Survey magazine in 1930 found that most of the wives who were working had not anticipated their work.63 This is consistent with research from the last few decades

showing that women form their expectations about whether they will work at various

points in their life from their mothers’ experience.64 Shocks to the economy that

increased married women’s labor supply, such as World War II, have been shown to have

flow-on effects on labor force participation later in life.65 The Depression certainly

shocked women at the time, and many of the women interviewed at Hawthorne were

reflective about changing expectations about work and family. Some married women at

the Hawthorne plant looked back fondly on being single, and having money to spend on

themselves:

I’m not crazy about working. I got married hoping that I would be able to quit working, but from the looks of things I guess I’ll have to work pretty steady. Well I haven’t got a very large flat – I’m only paying sixteen dollars but there are a lot of things that I have to do without because I am married. Now if I had been single, probably I could have had those things. When a girl is single, she doesn’t know how well off she is! One of the girls – a darn fool – in our department, she got married last Saturday night!66

63 Eleanor G. Coit and Elsie D. Harper, "Why Married Women Work," The Survey, April 1930 1930, 79- 80. 64 Claudia Goldin, " The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family," American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006): 2, 7-9. 65 R. Fernandez, A. Fogli, and C. Olivetti, "Mothers and Sons: Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics," Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 4 (2004): 1249-99. 66 FJR Collection, Carton 13, Folder 170 Interview with employee 993736, December 31 1930, p.2-3. 380

Other single women perceived married women to be working for small families of

themselves and their husband, while single women at work had to support extended

families:

There are so many single girls who have old fathers and mothers, some have younger sisters and brothers, and they must lose their jobs while some married woman is working and her husband is too. I really think they ought to do something about that.67

With less experience on the job their wages were slightly lower than married

women’s. Also feeding single women’s resentment of married women’s continued

employment was their perception that men were delaying marriage because of the

Depression. As the Depression wore on single women began to question whether their

expectations of leaving work after marriage, and being supported by their husband would

actually be realized:

I don’t want that kind of marriage for mine although it’s easy enough for me to say those things because I’ve never met anyone that I thought a lot of. I suppose I would do just the same as [end p.2] all the other girls do if I met someone I thought a lot of, I’d work for him too, but I always say I won’t anyway ….68

Some single women worried that with married women going out to work in the

Depression husbands would lose their sense of responsibility for providing the family income:

I know plenty of married men that are just taking it easy because their wives are foolish enough to go out and work for

67 FJR Collection, Carton 13, Folder 28. Interview with employee 705234, April 25 1930, p.2. 68 FJR Collection, Carton 13, Folder 28. Interview with employee 705234, October 16 1931, p.2-3. 381

them. I think you can spoil a man. That’s one thing I’d never do if I was to get married -- that is to work.69

It is awfully hard to find a good husband these days. I know that is the way I feel about it. Most of the men that I know are not so good. They expect their wives to work all the time and bring in the money, but they don’t want to do anything that they are supposed to do.70

One employee's interview encapsulated both financial pressures at home, and concerns about delayed marriage:

I was to have been married but now that it is such hard times I would rather stay home and help my parents because I do not want to work after I am married. I feel that no man has any business marrying a girl if he can’t support her, so I told my friend as long as he wasn’t working full time I was not going to get married. I was going to stay home and help my people. My father and mother are both very old, and if I get married that leaves all the responsibilities on my sister, and you can never tell. Maybe I would have to go home too, so I am going to stay and work until things pick up, and when they do, then I might consider getting married.… I am going to stay single until my boy friend can support me without making me come back to work…. I believe there is time enough to go out and work for a man when you’ve had hard luck or sickness, but to get married and come right back to work when it is not necessary, that I wouldn’t do.71

Ironically, the same ideology that husbands should provide for the household that single women espoused to justify the firing of married women contributed to men being reluctant to marry. Few saw the contradiction in their own position, moving seamlessly from asking that married women be laid off to wondering when "their steady" [boyfriend] would propose. It is important to note that not all single women expressed this hostility to

69 FJR Collection, Carton 13, Folder 65 Interview with employee 773563, September 30 1931, p.3-4. 70 FJR Collection, Carton 13, Folder 95 Interview with employee 849784, May 15 1931, p.5-6. 71 FJR Collection, Carton 12, Folder 99, Interview with employee 495736. January 27 1931. p.7-8.

382

married women's work. Indeed, the majority of single women, like the majority of other

employees did not express an opinion about married women's work. However, single

women with relatives dependent on their incomes were the most likely to express

hostility to married women's continued employment. Many single women acknowledged the procedural rules favoring long serving employees that led the company to retain married women. While they could see the rationality of these rules from the company's perspective, they demanded that the company consider notions of fairness and justice in assigning work that were largely extrinsic to the company. The company did not bear any costs for its policy, giving it little incentive to alter policy in response to employee demands.

Conclusion

Exploring the views of Western Electric workers about married women’s

employment during the Depression expands our knowledge of contemporary opinion

about this issue. Competing conceptions of fairness—procedural or material—underlay

the discussion, intertwined with concern for personal position. The most identifiable opponents of married women’s employment were single women who had significant financial responsibilities at home, and perceived themselves in competition for jobs with their married women colleagues. This alone complicates our understanding of opposition to married women’s work. Opposition to married women's work was not necessarily opposition to feminist visions of equality, it also reflected frustration by younger women at their lives not evolving in the way they expected.

Despite the unprecedented vehicle these young women had for expressing their frustrations to the company, and the responsiveness of the company to employee

383

concerns, the Western Electric Hawthorne plant did not introduce any consistent policies

to dismiss married women. With payment linked to productivity there was little reason

for the firm to fire productive individuals, and disrupt productive work groups. Without a

way to align employee demands with the company's interests, the company was able to

largely ignore complaints about married women's employment. Opposition to married women's employment in the 1930s was concentrated. Where it existed it was quite intense, but it did not always lead to effective action against married women workers.

The growing acceptance of married women workers in the 1920s did not entirely erode.

Although most Americans still evaluated a married woman's right to work in relation to her family situation, they were increasingly accepting of married women's work.

Acceptance was not complete in the 1930s—it was tentative and conditional. The ambivalence and division about married women's work in the 1930s was part of a transition to greater public acceptance of married women's work in World War II and the

1950s. Attitudinal change about married women's work unfolded slowly with each cohort, as behavioral change also occurred within cohorts.

384

Table 5.2 Characteristics of interviewed workers in sample

Branch Inspection 26 9% Operating 246 81% Technical 32 11%

Works in Office 28 9% Shop 276 91%

Works during Day 299 98% Night 5 2%

Works on Bench 180 59% Clerical 33 11% Common labor 4 1% Machine 52 17% Trade 32 11% Unclassified 1 0% Unknown 2 1%

Posture Alternating 33 11% Sitting 242 80% Standing 21 7% Unknown 1 0% Walking 7 2%

Payment basis Day work 29 10% Gang piece work 198 65% Individual piece work 49 16% Salary 28 9%

385

Payment period Day 10 3% Definite 3 1% Monthly 115 38% Weekly 82 27% Unknown 94 31%

Years of service 1 to 2 35 12% 3 to 4 34 11% 5 to 6 43 14% 7 to 9 72 24% 10 to 14 88 29% 15 to 19 15 5% 20 to 24 9 3% 25 to 29 4 1% 30 to 34 1 0% 40 to 44 1 0% Unknown 2 1%

Average weekly earnings 20-24 44 14% 25-29 103 34% 30-34 36 12% 35-39 29 10% 40-44 46 15% 45-49 27 9% 50-54 3 1% 55-59 1 0% < 20 7 2% Unknown 8 3%

386

Age 20-24 79 26% 25-29 85 28% 30-34 40 13% 35-39 26 9% 40-44 23 8% 40-45 1 0% 45-49 21 7% 50-54 6 2% 55-59 3 1% 60-64 1 0% 65-69 1 0% < 20 15 5% Unknown 3 1%

Race American 218 72% American / Italian 1 0% American and Hungarian 1 0% British 6 2% British (Scotch) 1 0% Greek 1 0% Italian 9 3% Lithuanian 4 1% Polish 17 6% Polish (and German Polish) 1 0% Russian (and Russian Polish) 2 1% Scandinavian 4 1% Slavic 29 10% Teutonic 5 2% Unknown 5 2%

Nativity English born parentage 1 0% Foreign born parentage 13 4% Mixed-born parentage 56 18% Native born parentage 190 63% Unknown 44 14%

387

Education 1-2 years college 2 1% 1-2 yrs high school 36 12% 3-4 years high school 21 7% Grade school 169 56% Less than grade school 30 10% Unknown 46 15%

Number of interviews One 101 33% Two 145 48% Three 52 17% Four 6 2%

Marital status Sex Female Male Total Divorced 1 0 1 0% Married 31 22 53 17% Married with dependents 5 83 88 29% Married with dependents (separated) 1 0 1 0% Single 62 31 93 31% Single with dependents 49 18 67 22% Widowed with dependents 1 0 1 0% Total 150 154 304

388

Table 5.3 Residence, family and work of young women, 1920-1930

1920 1930 Proportion of Proportion of All single Working All single Working women women women women Non-metropolitan residence, not working Not living with any parents 171,746 2.6% 189,225 2.5% Living with one parent Parent is not working 122,714 1.9% 126,125 1.6% Parent is working 222,627 3.4% 231,125 3.0% Living with two parents No parents are working 57,422 0.9% 47,147 0.6% One parent is working 1,408,051 21.5% 1,491,801 19.4% Both parents are working 49,947 0.8% 70,340 0.9% Non-metropolitan residence and working Not living with any parents 376,580 5.7% 10.2% 436,307 5.7% 10.7% Living with one parent Parent is not working 133,906 2.0% 3.6% 115,477 1.5% 2.8% Parent is working 132,812 2.0% 3.6% 129,781 1.7% 3.2% Living with two parents No parents are working 35,220 0.5% 1.0% 32,038 0.4% 0.8% One parent is working 645,740 9.8% 17.6% 585,983 7.6% 14.4% Both parents are working 81,038 1.2% 2.2% 70,141 0.9% 1.7%

Metropolitan residence, not working Not living with any parents 117,262 1.8% 192,864 2.5% Living with one parent Parent is not working 83,768 1.3% 115,848 1.5% Parent is working 90,420 1.4% 142,078 1.8% Living with two parents No parents are working 23,010 0.4% 52,799 0.7% One parent is working 509,491 7.8% 908,223 11.8% Both parents are working 26,446 0.4% 63,071 0.8% Metropolitan residence, working Not living with any parents 661,398 10.1% 18.0% 844,961 11.0% 20.8% Living with one parent Parent is not working 332,908 5.1% 9.0% 342,158 4.4% 8.4% Parent is working 156,932 2.4% 4.3% 177,125 2.3% 4.4% Living with two parents No parents are working 58,528 0.9% 1.6% 104,172 1.4% 2.6% One parent is working 1,018,030 15.5% 27.7% 1,169,524 15.2% 28.7% Both parents are working 45,716 0.7% 1.2% 62,070 0.8% 1.5%

Total number of single women, 16-30 6,561,712 7,700,383

389

Conclusion

In the first chapter of the dissertation, I presented an overview of trends in

American married women's labor force participation over the last two centuries, to

situate the 1860-1940 period in context. There was not significant change in the rate of labor force participation by American married women between 1860 and 1940.

The best estimates—derived from the work of Goldin and Sobek and augmented by calculations from the 1850-1870 IPUMS samples—suggest that married women's market work declined slowly in the second half of the nineteenth century. The decline

was primarily due to the shift of American men out of farming. Reasonable backward

projections of women's involvement in market work on American farms were used to

make these estimates of labor force participation. The probable decline in market work on farms was not replaced by increases in wage work, or participation in off-

farm family businesses. While it is not possible to determine the precise date, it is

clear that married women's labor force participation in the United States reached a

low point in the early twentieth century. From 1920 to 1940, white married women

entered wage work relatively rapidly in comparison to the previous forty years,

though this inter-war increase would be overshadowed by changes after 1940. Change was especially rapid from 1950 to 1990, with married women's labor force participation rates nearly static since 1990.

The impact of race on married women's labor force participation decisions has been an important continuity in American history. This dissertation concentrates on explaining changes in white women's behavior. Until the late twentieth century, 90%

390

of married women were white. The trends in white women's behavior largely determine the aggregate trends. The aggregate masks substantial variation in experience between white and black women, as well as smaller ethnic groups. Under slavery black women's labor force participation was high because it was coerced.

High rates of labor force participation continued for black wives after emancipation.1

Black women's labor force behavior was significantly different from white women's, even when white and black women were in apparently identical economic situations.

These persistent differences by race alone are a reminder that culture and historical experience are imperfectly understood influences on people's decisions. Race and culture can proxy for economic variables which are unmeasured, such as wealth, income, or access to credit, yet race may also convey different attitudes and values about work. The persistence of these racial differences in labor force participation until the late twentieth century caution against general explanations for change.

Although labor force participation rates did not change substantially or rapidly between 1860 and 1940, families were still faced with the decision of how to allocate time between household and market production. Primarily, this dissertation asks about changes in the ways that families made decisions about married women's market work, and pays less attention to the overall level of market work by married women. I argue that there were significant changes in the way families made decisions about married women's labor force participation. The consolidation of these changes in family decision-making in the 1920s and 1930s set the stage for the sustained post-World War II increases in married women's labor force participation.

1 Claudia Goldin, "Female Labor Force Participation: The Origin of Black and White Differences, 1870 and 1880," Journal of Economic History 37, no. 1 (1977), Jacqueline Jones, Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present (1985).

391

The cohorts of women that entered the labor market in the 1920s and 1930s, and were

still young enough to work after the war, led the rise in post-war participation.

Women in their 40s and 50s were the main source of married female labor market

entrants in the 1950s.2 In the 1920s and 1930s, these women were the young women

who came into marriage with increased education, more equal legal rights within

marriage, and the political power of suffrage.

These women were born in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth

century, and benefited from the conjunction of several factors. They had greater

opportunities for completing elementary and then high school education.3 A further

advantage for the cohort of women entering adulthood in the 1920s was that they became adults at the moment that fuller political citizenship was granted to American women in the form of suffrage.4 It is statistically impossible to estimate the effects of suffrage on the labor force participation of American married women. Universal suffrage was a one-time event that affected all women together. Nevertheless, both theory and modern empirical evidence suggest that suffrage could not have weakened women's position within the family.5 Cohorts born in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth century had greater opportunity to do paid work independent of their

2 Susan Thistle, From Marriage to the Market: The Transformation of Women's Lives and Work (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006). 3 Claudia Goldin, "America's Graduation from High School: The Evolution and Spread of Secondary Schooling in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Economic History 58, no. 2 (1998), Claudia Goldin, "Education," in Historical Statistics of the United States, ed. Susan B. Carter, et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F Katz, "Education and Income in the Early 20th Century: Evidence from the Prairies," in Working Paper (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1999). 4 Rights to sit on juries, for example, were still not equal. See, inter alia, Nancy Cott, "Marriage and Women's Citizenship in the United States, 1830-1934," American Historical Review 103, no. 5 (1998), Gretchen Ritter, "Gender and Citizenship after the Nineteenth Amendment," Polity 32, no. 3 (2000): 345-75. 5 Alice Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950).

392

husband's employment. Women's options for work moved outside of the family. The

share of the labor force in agriculture declined steadily throughout the period covered

by this dissertation. Growth in the scale of manufacturing enterprises reduced the

proportion of the male labor force that were self-employed.6 Rising incomes and

decreasing costs of establishing independent households reduced the demand of

unmarried adults for boarding and lodging with families.7 The opportunity for

married women to do market labor in family businesses, or provide domestic services

for boarders diminished. Industrial home work gave women some opportunity to do

market work at home, but did not fully replace the opportunities lost for home-based

market work.8 Married women who decided to work were more likely to go out to

work in occupations and industries independent of their husbands. They could earn a

separate wage to which most states gave them greater legal title.

These legal, industrial and educational changes contributed to greater, but

certainly not complete, equality within American marriages. It is clear that the post-

war increases in married women's labor force participation came about because wives

were now more responsive to their own earning opportunities than their husband's

fluctuating income and employment.9 In economic terms, the own wage elasticity of

6 Matthew Sobek, "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990" (PhD, University of Minnesota, 1997). 7 Ronald Allen Goeken, "Unmarried Adults and Residential Autonomy: Living Arrangements in the United States, 1880-1990" (PhD, University of Minnesota, 1999). 8 Eileen Boris, Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 9 Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, "Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Women: 1980-2000," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 11230 (2005), Robert T. Michael, "Consequences of the Rise in Female Labor Force Participation Rates: Questions and Probes," Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. 1 (1985), James P. Smith and Michael Ward, "Women in the Labor Market and in the Family," Journal of Economic Perspectives 3, no. 1 (1989), James P. Smith and Michael P. Ward, "Time Series Growth in the Female Labor Force," Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. Supplement (1985), James P. Smith and Michael P. Ward, Women's Wages and Work in the Twentieth Century (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1984).

393

married women's labor supply rose, and the cross-wage elasticity—how sensitive a

wife's labor supply was to her husband's wage and earnings—dropped.10 Indeed,

following the publication of Goldin's Understanding the Gender Gap it is common

for articles on modern women's labor supply to note that the magnitude of married

women's own- and cross-wage elasticities have moved in opposite directions over the twentieth century.11 To note that the relationship changed is to beg the question of

how and why the relationship between spouses changed.

Sustained changes in social behavior such as this are inevitably attributable to

many causes. The transformation of economic relationships between American

spouses can be attributed to; changes in the overall industrial structure of the

American economy, changes in married women's property rights and greater control

of their own labor within marriage, increased investment in elementary and high

school education, and universal suffrage. The existing literature discussed above

provides evidence about the effects of changing industrial structure, and education on

married women's work.12

This dissertation expands on previous research with new evidence about the

effects of the property acts on married women's work. Increased investment in girls education was plausibly associated with the passage of the married women's property acts. This is a new contribution to the historical literature about the married women's property acts, and extends our knowledge of their effects. The property acts had little

10 The cross wage elasticity dropped in absolute value, since it is negative. 11 Bradley T. Heim, "The Incredible Shrinking Elasticities: Married Female Labor Supply, 1979-2003," in Working Paper (Durham: Economics Department, Duke University, 2004), Chinhui Juhn and Kevin M. Murphy, "Wage Inequality and Family Labor Supply," Journal of Labor Economics 15, no. 1 (1997). 12 Claudia Goldin, " The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family," American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006), Sobek, "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990".

394

immediate impact on the labor force participation of contemporary married women.

However, the long run effects of stimulating investment in girls education were

significant. In the states that passed property and earnings acts, young women also delayed marriage slightly. By working for longer before marriage, these young women came to marriage with a greater stock of human capital, and more options for work. With better education and more work experience, these women were less dependent on their husbands for work. They had more option to take jobs off the family farm, and out of the family business. Thus, the property acts did contribute to

some measure of liberation for American married women but their impact was

somewhat after the passage of the acts. The immediate effects of the property acts

was on single women, who entered marriage with slightly more education and work

experience. My argument that the immediate effects of the property acts were on

single women, who later became married, contributes to an established debate on the

property acts.13 Historians of American women have wondered why the property acts

did not emancipate women more rapidly. In the last decade, legal historians have shown how the doctrine of marital service slowed the emancipatory promise of the property acts.14 By showing how the property acts had a long run effect on marriages

formed after they had been passed, my dissertation opens up new avenues for

historical research exploring the change I have identified in greater depth.

13 Carole Shammas, "Re-Assessing the Married Women's Property Acts," Journal of Women's History 6, no. 1 (1994). 14 Reva B. Siegel, "Home as Work: The First Woman's Rights Claims Concerning Wives' Household Labor, 1850-1880," Yale Law Journal 103, no. 5 (1994), Amy Dru Stanley, "Conjugal Bonds and Wage Labor: Rights of Contract in the Age of Emancipation," Journal of American History 75, no. 2 (1988), Sara L. Zeigler, "Family Service: Labor, the Family and Legal Reform in the United States" (PhD, University of California Los Angeles, 1996).

395

Single women's labor force participation among whites rose steadily from 1880 to 1920, and then remained steady until World War II. The majority of the increase in work experience by single women before marriage is not the result of the property acts. Whatever the causes of increased work amongst single women, it altered their lives afterwards. Like married women, single women increasingly worked out of the family firm and in wage work. They were more likely to meet their spouse in the neutral venue of the workplace.15 With more work experience and education, they came into marriage with greater bargaining power to make decisions jointly with their husbands.16 Combined with legal changes from the married women's property rights passed in the nineteenth century, American marriages formed in the 1920s and 1930s were more equal than those formed in the late nineteenth century.

Public opinion was not immediately accepting of these changes in the economic aspects of American marriage. In contrast to earlier scholars, I argue that the inter-war decades of the 1920s and 1930s saw public opinion move towards a conditional acceptance of married women's work. Previous researchers have overstated the hostility to married women's work during the Depression. Public opinion was sensitive to the framing of questions about married women's work, and to economic conditions. It is important not to overstate the extent of this conditional acceptance.

The instinctive reaction of most American adults in the late 1930s was still that married women's work was not acceptable. In-depth interviews with ordinary workers from the early 1930s show that despite initial opposition, few people were implacably

15 John D'Emilio and Estelle Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). 16 Potentially they also accumulated more independent wealth before marriage, though evidence on this is scant. Accumulated wealth from factory or store work would have been minimal for most young women.

396

and unalterably opposed to married women's work. They made exceptions for people

they knew. They were reluctant to criticize people they knew claiming that their

acquaintances' economic situations were exceptional, and work was justified. In the

midst of mass unemployment, opposition to married women's work was largely

abstract. Few people who were opposed to married women's employment acted upon

their beliefs. State legislation in the 1930s that was introduced to restrict married women's employment in state or local government failed in the majority of cases, and was found unconstitutional. Combined with the shallow public opposition to married women's work, this suggests that Americans were moving towards greater acceptance of working wives. Americans moved from conditional acceptance and shallow opposition to patriotic acceptance of married women's work in World War II. The remaining institutional barriers to married women's employment—marriage bars in teaching and clerical work—were eliminated quietly and rapidly in the late 1940s and early 1950s.17 Married women moved quickly into the labor force in the 1950s, with

many of the labor force entrants being women in their 40s and 50s who had worked

earlier in their lives, and returned to work after their children were all in school.18

By themselves these changes—married women's property acts, suffrage, education, and wage-work opportunities—had modest effects. In combination, they all served to give women slightly greater bargaining power within marriage.19

Contemporaries noticed the change in American marital relationships that these

economic and political changes had wrought. It is nearly a historical constant that

17 Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 18 Thistle, From Marriage to the Market: The Transformation of Women's Lives and Work. 19 Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak, "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, no. 4 (1996).

397

American marriage will be seen as under attack.20 The changes that were witnessed in the 1920s and 1930s were consistent with women's greater economic independence within marriage. The leading texts on marriage and family relations revised their sections on how women's employment affected the family several times in the inter- war period. At the beginning of the 1920s a wife's desire to work outside the home was viewed as a disorder that reflected poorly on the couple's relationship, and might well cause the marriage to fail. By 1940 the evidence had accumulated that a wife's desire for independent work was compatible with not only her happiness, but the happiness of her husband and children too.21

The slow accretion of changing attitudes and relationships within American

families was realized in rapid increases in labor force participation after the war.

While every historical period stands is important in its own right, it is natural to ask if

the revolution in one period had its roots in another. Historians of the growth in

American married women's labor force participation meet a version of this query, as

the time series trends invite asking whether the 1920s and 1930s were merely prelude to the dramatic changes of the 1950s. This dissertation argues that the inter-war era saw changes that were important for later rises in labor force participation. It was not that labor force participation rates had to be 10% in 1930 and 14% in 1940 for them to increase to 22% in 1950, and 31% in 1960. The realized rates could have turned out to be different. Behavioral and relationship changes within marriage that occurred in the inter-war period were crucial in the rapid rise of labor force participation after

20 Kristin Mary Celello, "Making Marriage Work: Marital Success and Failure in the United States, 1920-1980" (PhD, University of Virginia, 2004), Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000). 21 Ernest R. Groves, Marriage (New York: H. Holt and Company, 1941), Ernest R. Groves and William F. Ogburn, American Marriage and Family Relationships (New York: Henry Holt, 1928).

398

the war. The changes in economic relationships between spouses that occurred in

marriages formed in the 1920s and 1930s affected their children too. The sons and

daughters of these marriages grew up with their mothers going out to work, and their

attitudes to marriage shifted again.22 Changes in expectations about gender and work

were transmitted across generations, as successive generations of children grew up

with different patterns of labor force participation by their parents.

My research leaves open many unanswered questions, which is to be expected

for an important and large topic. The primary omission from the dissertation is sustained examination of the economic behavior and progress of black women. The

sources used in this dissertation, especially the 1880 complete count census, and the

family budget studies from 1917/19, 1935/36 and the 1940 census include sufficient

black families to extend the analyses in chapter 3 to black women. Expanded samples

of the 1900 and 1930 censuses will also provide sufficient cases to explore variation

in black families behavior outside of the South. Because of the legacies of slavery,

and the unique economic arrangements of sharecropping, analyses of black wives

behavior must take region and specific location into account. Chapter 1 showed that

the regional differences among black wives narrowed between 1880 and 1940.

Migration out of the South contributed to these narrowing regional differences.23

22 R. Fernandez, A. Fogli, and C. Olivetti, "Mothers and Sons: Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics," Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 4 (2004), Raquel Fernández, "Women,Work, and Culture," Journal of the European Economic Association (2007 forthcoming), Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, no. 596 (2004), Claudia Goldin, "The Rising (and Then Declining) Significance of Gender," in The Declining Significance of Gender? ed. Francine D. Blau, Mary C. Brinton, and David B. Grusky (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006). 23 Katherine J. Curtis White, "Women in the Great Migration: Economic Activity of Black and White Southern-Born Female Migrants in 1920, 1940 and 1970," Social Science History 29, no. 3 (2005), K. J. C. White et al., "Race, Gender, and Marriage: Destination Selection During the Great Migration," Demography 42, no. 2 (2005).

399

Further research on the impact of unemployment on labor force participation

decisions in the late nineteenth century is also possible. Towards the end of the

dissertation I discovered a set of Illinois and New Jersey Bureau of Labor Statistics

surveys from the mid-1880s that include consistent information on male

unemployment duration in the previous year, and separate annual earnings for husband, wives and children. The New Jersey surveys separate time lost from unemployment from time lost from sickness, making the data even more precise.

Together, the four surveys give a sample size of approximately 3,000 families. The

1888-1890 cost of living survey does not give information on the duration of unemployment.24 Establishing better estimates of income and unemployment effects for the late nineteenth century will provide an important benchmark for understanding later changes in family decision making about work.25

Future historical research on married women's work should also consider the

impact of fertility on women's labor supply choices. Angrist and Evans have shown

how to estimate the impact of additional children on labor supply using information

on twin births and sex mix.26 Fertility has always been assumed exogenous in

historical analysis of married women's labor, and some attempt to correct that seems

necessary. The intuition behind these estimates is that twins are a surprise fertility

shock, and will alter parents labor supply by raising their total family size above their

expectations. The 1910 census asked every respondent's month of birth, allowing

24 Michael R. Haines, "Industrial Work and the Family Life Cycle, 1889-1890," Research in Economic History 4 (1979). 25 Carolyn M. Moehling, "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment," Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001). 26 J. D. Angrist, "Children and Their Parents' Labor Supply: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Family Size," American Economic Review 88, no. 3 (1998).

400

identification of twins in this sample. In modern data, the sex mix approach assumes

that parents with two children of the same sex will be more likely to try for a third child than parents with two children of different sex. It is not clear how well this assumption applies to late nineteenth and early twentieth century families where children's economic value differed by sex, and family sizes were larger. These avenues for future research will answer some of the questions raised in this dissertation.

401

Appendix A. Detailed occupations and industries of employed married women, 1880 and 1940

Table A.1 Detailed occupational statistics for married women, 1880 and 1940

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Accountants and auditors 3 0.0 3 0.0 Actors and actresses 725 0.4 2 0.0 730 0.2 2300 0.1 2300 0.1 Airplane pilots and navigators 100 0.0 100 0.0 Architects 7 0.0 7 0.0 Artists and art teachers 390 0.2 2 0.0 392 0.1 4643 0.1 4643 0.1 Athletes 10 0.0 10 0.0 Authors 100 0.1 1 0.0 101 0.0 12700.0 12700.0 Chemists 5 0.0 50.0 4000.0 4000.0 Chiropractors 600 0.0 600 0.0 Clergymen 109 0.1 10 0.0 119 0.0 10000.0 10000.0 College presidents and deans 5 0.0 5 0.0 Natural science (nec)- 1 0.0 1 0.0 Professors and instructors Social sciences (nec)- 1 0.0 1 0.0 Professors and instructors Nonscientific subjects- 6 0.0 6 0.0 Professors and instructors Subject not specified-Professors 23 0.0 1 0.0 24 0.0 2100 0.1 2100 0.1 and instructors Dancers and dancing teachers 24 0.0 24 0.0 2588 0.1 100 0.017 2688 0.1 Dentists 23 0.0 230.0 5000.0 5000.0

402

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Designers 10 0.0 100.0 30000.1 100 0.017 3100 0.1 Draftsmen 1 0.0 10.0 6000.0 6000.0 Editors and reporters 81 0.0 81 0.0 5387 0.2 100 0.017 5487 0.1 Civil-Engineers 4 0.0 4 0.0 Industrial-Engineers 400 0.0 400 0.0 Mechanical-Engineers 1 0.0 1 0.0 Metallurgical, metallurgists- 400 0.0 100 0.017 500 0.0 Engineers Entertainers (nec) 82 0.0 1 0.0 83 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 Farm and home management 500 0.0 100 0.017 600 0.0 advisors Funeral directors and 8 0.0 1 0.0 9 0.0 900 0.0 900 0.0 embalmers Lawyers and judges 90 0.1 4 0.0 94 0.0 1700 0.1 1700 0.0 Librarians 16 0.0 160.0 52870.2 300 0.050 5587 0.1 Musicians and music teachers 2090 1.2 44 0.0 2135 0.4 19087 0.6 488 0.081 19575 0.5 Nurses, professional 27 0.0 5 0.0 32 0.0 56544 1.8 1555 0.257 58399 1.6 Misc. natural scientists 1 0.0 1 0.0 Optometrists 500 0.0 500 0.0 Osteopaths 400 0.0 400 0.0 Pharmacists 51 0.0 510.0 16000.1 100 0.017 1700 0.0 Photographers 159 0.1 159 0.0 1200 0.0 100 0.017 1300 0.0 Physicians and surgeons 829 0.5 18 0.0 850 0.2 2200 0.1 100 0.017 2300 0.1 Religious workers 50 0.0 2 0.0 53 0.0 1200 0.0 78 0.013 1278 0.0 Social and welfare workers, 3 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.0 13417 0.4 600 0.099 14017 0.4 except group Misc social scientists 1 0.0 1 0.0 Sports instructors and officials 4 0.0 4 0.0 1000 0.0 100 0.017 1100 0.0 Surveyors 6 0.0 6 0.0 Teachers (n.e.c.) 7010 3.9 641 0.2 7657 1.6 158951 5.1 21144 3.501 180195 4.8 403

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Testing-technicians 4900 0.2 4900 0.1 Technicians (nec) 2 0.0 2 0.0 500 0.0 500 0.0 Therapists and healers (nec) 69 0.0 5 0.0 75 0.0 3600 0.1 200 0.033 3800 0.1 Veterinarians 3 0.0 30.0 2000.0 2000.0 Professional, technical and 153 0.1 11 0.0 165 0.0 7687 0.2 500 0.083 8187 0.2 kindred workers (nec) Farmers (owners and tenants) 10417 5.8 8373 2.8 18855 3.9 15017 0.5 7196 1.192 22383 0.6 Farm managers 50 0.0 2 0.0 52 0.0 300 0.0 300 0.0 Buyers and dept heads, store 2 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 7087 0.2 7087 0.2 Buyers and shippers, farm 33 0.0 33 0.0 3000.0 300 0.0 products Conductors, railroad 17 0.0 17 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 Credit men 1800 0.1 1800 0.0 Floormen and floor managers, 1500 0.0 1500 0.0 store Inspectors, public administration 2 0.0 2 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 Managers and superintendants, 33 0.0 3 0.0 36 0.0 13688 0.4 500 0.083 14188 0.4 building Officers, pilots, pursers and 27 0.0 2 0.0 29 0.0 engineers, ship Officials and administratators 50 0.0 50 0.0 51540.2 5154 0.1 (nec), public administration Officials, lodge, society, union, 7 0.0 7 0.0 6000.0 600 0.0 etc. Postmasters 229 0.1 1 0.0 230 0.0 8772 0.3 8772 0.2 Purchasing agents and buyers 1 0.0 1 0.0 26000.1 2600 0.1 (nec) Managers, officials, and 12145 6.8 414 0.1 12579 2.6 149018 4.8 4457 0.738 154075 4.1 proprietors (nec)

404

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Agents (nec) 38 0.0 38 0.0 3787 0.1 100 0.017 3887 0.1 Attendants and assistants, 4 0.0 4 0.0 33000.1 3300 0.1 library Attendants, physicians and 2 0.0 2 0.0 80870.3 400 0.066 8487 0.2 dentists office Baggagemen, transportation 3 0.0 3 0.0 Bank tellers 3 0.0 3 0.0 Bookkeepers 253 0.1 2530.1 137341 4.4 1100 0.182 138619 3.7 Cashiers 29 0.0 29 0.0 Collectors, bill and account 5 0.0 5 0.0 800 0.0 800 0.0 Express messengers and 3 0.0 3 0.0 railway mail clerks Mail carriers 6 0.0 6 0.0 900 0.0 900 0.0 Messengers and office boys 4 0.0 1 0.0 5 0.0 500 0.0 500 0.0 Office machine operators 15365 0.5 100 0.017 15465 0.4 Shipping and receiving clerks 2 0.0 2 0.0 4847 0.2 100 0.017 4947 0.1 Stenographers, typists, and 18 0.0 18 0.0 226194 7.3 1663 0.275 228157 6.1 secretaries Telegraph messengers 100 0.0 100 0.0 Telegraph operators 126 0.1 126 0.0 4700 0.2 4700 0.1 Telephone operators 4 0.0 4 0.0 61197 2.0 270 0.045 61467 1.6 Ticket, station, and express 29 0.0 29 0.0 5000.0 500 0.0 agents Clerical and kindred workers 417 0.2 9 0.0 427 0.1 164117 5.3 1800 0.298 166117 4.5 (n.e.c.) Advertising agents and 1 0.0 1 0.0 15870.1 200 0.033 1787 0.0 salesmen Auctioneers 3 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.0 8000.0 8000.0 Demonstrators 3000 0.1 3000 0.1 Hucksters and peddlers 801 0.4 204 0.1 1010 0.2 1288 0.0 400 0.066 1788 0.0

405

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Insurance agents and brokers 30 0.0 30 0.0 4457 0.1 300 0.050 4757 0.1 Newsboys 4 0.0 40.0 4000.0 4000.0 Real estate agents and brokers 16 0.0 16 0.0 30000.1 300 0.050 3300 0.1 Stock and bond salesmen 1400 0.0 1400 0.0 Salesmen and sales clerks 2523 1.4 47 0.0 2570 0.5 297761 9.6 3548 0.587 302109 8.1 (nec) Bakers 288 0.2 19 0.0 307 0.1 53290.2 100 0.017 5429 0.1 Blacksmiths 182 0.1 36 0.0 218 0.0 2000.0 2000.0 Bookbinders 63 0.0 63 0.0 Boilermakers 6 0.0 6 0.0 Brickmasons,stonemasons, and 102 0.1 12 0.0 114 0.0 388 0.0 388 0.0 tile setters Cabinetmakers 35 0.0 350.0 14000.0 100 0.017 1500 0.0 Carpenters 462 0.3 51 0.0 513 0.1 6410.0 6410.0 Compositors and typesetters 186 0.1 1 0.0 187 0.0 3900 0.1 200 0.033 4100 0.1 Cranemen,derrickmen, and 1 0.0 1 0.0 2780.0 278 0.0 hoistmen Decorators and window 1700 0.1 1700 0.0 dressers Electricians 15 0.0 150.0 5000.0 5000.0 Electrotypers and stereotypers 2 0.0 2 0.0 300 0.0 300 0.0 Engravers, except engravers 9 0.0 9 0.0 200 0.0 200 0.0 Foremen (nec) 112 0.1 3 0.0 115 0.0 18697 0.6 300 0.050 18997 0.5 Forgemen and hammermen 3 0.0 3 0.0 Furriers 22 0.0 220.0 12000.0 12000.0 Glaziers 2 0.0 20.0 1000.0 1000.0 Heat treaters, annealers, 187 0.0 187 0.0 temperers Inspectors, scalers, and graders 1 0.0 1 0.0 3000.0 300 0.0 log and lumber

406

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Inspectors (nec) 8 0.0 8 0.0 1878 0.1 1878 0.1 Jewelers, watchmakers, 50 0.0 50 0.0 12000.0 500 0.083 1878 0.1 goldsmiths, and silversmiths Linemen and servicemen, 1 0.0 1 0.0 6000.0 600 0.0 telegraph, telephone, and power Locomotive engineers 21 0.0 21 0.0 1000.0 100 0.0 Locomotive firemen 8 0.0 8 0.0 Loom fixers 1 0.0 1 0.0 Machinists 74 0.0 740.0 12880.0 400 0.066 1688 0.0 Automobile-mechanics and 200 0.0 200 0.0 repairmen Railroad and car shop- 2 0.0 2 0.0 mechanics and repairmen Mechanics and repairmen (nec) 31 0.0 3 0.0 34 0.0 2300 0.1 200 0.033 2500 0.1 Millers, grain, flour, feed, etc 77 0.0 1 0.0 80 0.0 Millwrights 4 0.0 4 0.0 Molders, metal 33 0.0 33 0.0 470 0.0 470 0.0 Motion picture projectionists 300 0.0 300 0.0 Opticians and lens grinders and 4 0.0 4 0.0 polishers Painters, construction and 130 0.1 13 0.0 144 0.0 1200 0.0 100 0.017 1300 0.0 maintenance Paperhangers 15 0.0 150.0 24880.1 24880.1 Pattern and model makers, 7 0.0 7 0.0 3000.0 300 0.0 except paper Photoengravers and 2 0.0 2 0.0 2000.0 200 0.0 lithographers Piano and organ tuners and 4 0.0 4 0.0 repairmen Plasterers 23 0.0 4 0.0 28 0.0 2000.0 100 0.017 300 0.0 407

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Plumbers and pipe fitters 12 0.0 12 0.0 400 0.0 400 0.0 Pressmen and plate printers, 1 0.0 1 0.0 2000.0 200 0.0 printing Rollers and roll hands, metal 1 0.0 1 0.0 Roofers and slaters 3 0.0 3 0.0 200 0.0 200 0.0 Shoemakers and repairers, 201 0.1 7 0.0 208 0.0 400 0.0 400 0.0 except factory Stationary engineers 73 0.0 3 0.0 76 0.0 300 0.0 300 0.0 Stone cutters and stone carvers 30 0.0 30 0.0 7000.0 700 0.0 Structural metal workers 5 0.0 2 0.0 7 0.0 900 0.0 900 0.0 Tailors and tailoresses 5810 3.2 54 0.0 5900 1.2 8000 0.3 8000 0.2 Tinsmiths, coppersmiths, and 27 0.0 1 0.0 29 0.0 164 0.0 164 0.0 sheet metal workers Upholsterers 51 0.0 510.0 13000.0 13000.0 Craftsmen and kindred workers 135 0.1 9 0.0 145 0.0 (nec) Members of the armed services 19 0.0 19 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 Carpenters apprentice 300 0.0 300 0.0 Electricians apprentice 100 0.0 100 0.0 Mechanics, except auto 1 0.0 1 0.0 apprentice Plumbers and pipe fitters 1500 0.0 1500 0.0 apprentice Apprentices, building trades 2 0.0 2 0.0 100 0.017 100 0.0 (nec) Apprentices, metalworking 2 0.0 2 0.0 trades (nec) Apprentices, printing trades 2 0.0 2 0.0 1030 0.0 300 0.050 1330 0.0 Apprentices, other specified 19 0.0 1 0.0 20 0.0 400 0.0 400 0.0 trades

408

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Apprentices, trade not specified 6 0.0 6 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 Asbestos and insulation workers 178 0.0 178 0.0 Attendants, auto service and 4900 0.2 100 0.017 5000 0.1 parking Boatmen, canalmen, and lock 64 0.0 2 0.0 66 0.0 500 0.0 500 0.0 keepers Brakemen, railroad 29 0.0 29 0.0 Bus drivers 13 0.0 13 0.0 Conductors, bus and street 5 0.0 5 0.0 railway Deliverymen and routemen 13 0.0 2 0.0 15 0.0 700 0.0 200 0.033 900 0.0 Dressmakers and seamstresses 24949 13.9 3454 1.2 28523 5.9 47778 1.5 5188 0.859 53053 1.4 except factory Dyers 43 0.0 4 0.0 47 0.0 2000.0 2000.0 Filers, grinders, and polishers, 44 0.0 44 0.0 31880.1 3188 0.1 metal Fruit, nut, and vegetable 1 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 9651 0.3 352 0.058 10103 0.3 graders, and packers, except facto Furnacemen, smeltermen and 15 0.0 2 0.0 17 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 pourers Heaters, metal 1 0.0 1 0.0 2088 0.1 2088 0.1 Laundry and dry cleaning 979 0.5 515 0.2 1528 0.3 54190 1.7 13876 2.298 68336 1.8 Operatives Meat cutters, except slaughter 101 0.1 3 0.0 106 0.0 400 0.0 400 0.0 and packing house Milliners 8283 4.6 20 0.0 8304 1.7 35000.1 35000.1 Mine operatives and laborers 201 0.1 14 0.0 226 0.0 1227 0.0 100 0.017 1327 0.0 Motormen, mine, factory, 100 0.0 100 0.0 logging camp, etc

409

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Oilers and greaser, except auto 300 0.0 300 0.0 Painters, except construction or 27 0.0 27 0.0 31750.1 3175 0.1 maintenance Photographic process workers 20 0.0 20 0.0 41000.1 4100 0.1 Power station operators 200 0.0 100 0.017 300 0.0 Sailors and deck hands 291 0.2 28 0.0 319 0.1 100 0.0 100 0.0 Sawyers 11 0.0 1 0.0 12 0.0 2000.0 2000.0 Spinners, textile 62 0.0 7 0.0 69 0.0 Stationary firemen 14 0.0 3 0.0 17 0.0 500 0.0 100 0.017 600 0.0 Switchmen, railroad 3 0.0 3 0.0 Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs 20 0.0 8 0.0 28 0.0 Truck and tractor drivers 169 0.1 34 0.0 203 0.0 2148 0.1 570 0.094 2718 0.1 Weavers, textile 2189 1.2 23 0.0 2438 0.5 Welders and flame cutters 800 0.0 800 0.0 Operative and kindred workers 30541 17.0 1276 0.4 31974 6.7 803425 25.8 21856 3.619 829586 22.2 (nec) Housekeepers, private 267 0.1 85 0.0 355 0.1 28632 0.9 15696 2.599 44328 1.2 household Laundressses, private 8447 4.7 30226 10.1 38875 8.1 16737 0.5 68569 11.354 85406 2.3 household Private household workers (nec) 23589 13.1 31582 10.6 55351 11.5 92605 3.0 253419 41.962 347166 9.3 Attendants, hospital and other 146 0.1 8 0.0 154 0.0 10798 0.3 900 0.149 11798 0.3 institution Attendants, professional and 527 0.3 46 0.0 755 0.2 4178 0.1 300 0.050 4478 0.1 personal service (nec) Attendants, recreation and 1600 0.1 300 0.050 1900 0.1 amusement Barbers, beauticians, and 521 0.3 259 0.1 782 0.2 75414 2.4 6612 1.095 82026 2.2 manicurists Bartenders 82 0.0 4 0.0 86 0.0 23620.1 23620.1

410

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Bootblacks 2 0.0 20.0 7000.0 100 0.017 800 0.0 Boarding and lodging house 6636 3.7 113 0.0 6763 1.4 9671 0.3 400 0.066 10171 0.3 keepers Charwomen and cleaners 86 0.0 37 0.0 124 0.0 17263 0.6 2646 0.438 19909 0.5 Cooks, except private 3130 1.7 15569 5.2 18758 3.9 44851 1.4 10951 1.813 56261 1.5 household Counter and fountain workers 3 0.0 3 0.0 Elevator operators 3100 0.1 1300 0.215 4500 0.1 Firemen, fire protection 1 0.0 1 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 Guards, watchmen, and 53 0.0 2 0.0 55 0.0 1000 0.0 1000 0.0 doorkeepers Housekeepers and stewards, 808 0.5 41 0.0 850 0.2 14378 0.5 800 0.132 15256 0.4 except private household Janitors and sextons 193 0.1 45 0.0 240 0.0 16622 0.5 1877 0.311 18599 0.5 Marshals and constables 5 0.0 5 0.0 Midwives 925 0.5 255 0.1 1181 0.2 Policemen and detectives 27 0.0 5 0.0 32 0.0 1100 0.0 1100 0.0 Porters 20 0.0 16 0.0 36 0.0 8000.0 200 0.033 1000 0.0 Practical nurses 1734 1.0 791 0.3 2529 0.5 16954 0.5 2829 0.468 19783 0.5 Sheriffs and bailiffs 5 0.0 5 0.0 Ushers, recreation and 200 0.0 100 0.017 300 0.0 amusement Waiters and waitresses 390 0.2 199 0.1 589 0.1 114486 3.7 4341 0.719 119227 3.2 Watchmen (crossing) and 166 0.1 166 0.0 bridge tenders Service workers, except private 913 0.5 436 0.1 1353 0.3 37020 1.2 22468 3.720 59646 1.6 household (nec) Farm foremen 9 0.0 3 0.0 12 0.0 Farm laborers, wage workers 7126 4.0 126237 42.2 133556 27.8 10382 0.3 30030 4.972 41077 1.1

411

1880 1940 Detailed occupation White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n% n % n%

Farm laborers, unpaid family 43741 1.4 74008 12.255 119697 3.2 workers Farm service laborers, self- 15 0.0 1 0.0 16 0.0 employed Fishermen and oystermen 50 0.0 22 0.0 84 0.0 970 0.0 970 0.0 Garage laborers and car 200 0.0 100 0.017 300 0.0 washers and greasers Gardeners, except farm, and 150 0.1 43 0.0 199 0.0 700 0.0 700 0.0 groundskeepers Longshoremen and stevedores 11 0.0 4 0.0 15 0.0 44 0.0 100 0.017 144 0.0 Lumbermen, raftsmen, and 55 0.0 22 0.0 94 0.0 200 0.0 200 0.0 woodchoppers Teamsters 200 0.0 200 0.0 Laborers (nec) 6488 3.6 76674 25.7 83484 17.4 40595 1.3 7028 1.164 47723 1.3 947 0.5 718 0.2 1675 0.3 Occupation missing/unknown 29688 1.0 3351 0.555 33039 0.9 N/A (blank) 9618 0.3 2459 0.407 12177 0.3

412

Table A.2 Detailed industrial statistics for married women, 1880 and 1940

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

N/A 27 0.0 1 0.0 28 0.0 96180.3 2459 0.4 12177 0.3 Agriculture 17770 9.9 134669 45.1 152725 31.8 76267 2.5 112715 18.7 191965 5.1 Forestry 22 0.0 45 0.0 76 0.0 5000.0 5000.0 Fisheries 50 0.0 22 0.0 85 0.0 3700.0 378 0.1 748 0.0 Metal mining 18 0.0 3 0.0 29 0.0 800 0.0 800 0.0 Coal mining 62 0.0 4 0.0 67 0.0 1800 0.1 1800 0.0 Crude petroleum and natural 7 0.0 7 0.0 1840 0.1 100 0.0 1940 0.1 gas extraction Nonmettalic mining and 14 0.0 6 0.0 20 0.0 1000 0.0 200 0.0 1200 0.0 quarrying, except fuel Mining, not specified 116 0.1 3 0.0 121 0.0 Construction 779 0.4 108 0.0 891 0.2 15816 0.5 878 0.1 16694 0.4 Logging 104 0.1 22 0.0 144 0.0 7000.0 100 0.0 800 0.0 Sawmills, planing mills, and 99 0.1 34 0.0 134 0.0 4590 0.1 400 0.1 4990 0.1 mill work Misc wood products 188 0.1 19 0.0 260 0.1 7794 0.3 600 0.1 8394 0.2 Furniture and fixtures 139 0.1 9 0.0 148 0.0 8440 0.3 200 0.0 8640 0.2 Glass and glass products 36 0.0 36 0.0 6553 0.2 87 0.0 6640 0.2 Cement, concrete, gypsum and 5 0.0 5 0.0 287 0.0 287 0.0 plaster products Structural clay products 51 0.0 18 0.0 70 0.0 2200 0.1 2200 0.1 Pottery and related prods 49 0.0 49 0.0 7177 0.2 7377 0.2 Misc nonmetallic mineral and 46 0.0 46 0.0 2100 0.1 2200 0.1 stone products Blast furnaces, steel works, 63 0.0 3 0.0 66 0.0 4058 0.1 200 0.0 4258 0.1 and rolling mills

413

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

Other primary iron and steel 45 0.0 2 0.0 47 0.0 20121 0.6 100 0.0 20221 0.5 industries Primary nonferrous industries 48 0.0 49 0.0 6090 0.2 300 0.0 6390 0.2 Fabricated steel products 197 0.1 28 0.0 226 0.0 2800 0.1 3000 0.1 Fabricated nonferrous metal 34 0.0 1 0.0 35 0.0 products Not specified metal industries 19 0.0 19 0.0 3146 0.1 200 0.0 3346 0.1 Agricultural machinery and 14 0.0 1 0.0 15 0.0 1900 0.1 1900 0.1 tractors Office and store machines 2 0.0 2 0.0 5487 0.2 5487 0.1 Misc machinery 115 0.1 1 0.0 116 0.0 11140 0.4 11140 0.3 Electrical machinery, 1 0.0 1 0.0 32488 1.0 32488 0.9 equipment and supplies Motor vehicles and motor 24054 0.8 300 0.0 24354 0.7 vehicle equipment Aircraft and parts 2900 0.1 100 0.0 3000 0.1 Ship and boat building and 28 0.0 1 0.0 29 0.0 1131 0.0 1131 0.0 repairing Railroad and misc 75 0.0 1 0.0 76 0.0 700 0.0 700 0.0 transportation equipment Professional equipment 10 0.0 10 0.0 7473 0.2 7473 0.2 Watches, clocks, and 136 0.1 136 0.0 8328 0.3 8506 0.2 clockwork-operated devices Misc manufacturing industries 1274 0.7 37 0.0 1326 0.3 24169 0.8 359 0.1 24928 0.7 Meat products 39 0.0 3 0.0 42 0.0 10812 0.3 446 0.1 11258 0.3 Dairy products 170 0.1 1 0.0 171 0.0 5388 0.2 5388 0.1 Canning and preserving fruits, 244 0.1 29 0.0 274 0.1 20225 0.6 1096 0.2 22021 0.6 vegetables, and seafoods Grain-mill products 91 0.1 12 0.0 105 0.0 2378 0.1 2378 0.1 Bakery products 333 0.2 20 0.0 353 0.1 14202 0.5 14202 0.4

414

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

Confectionary and related 19 0.0 1 0.0 20 0.0 12710 0.4 1578 0.3 14288 0.4 products Beverage industries 42 0.0 1 0.0 43 0.0 5700 0.2 5700 0.2 Misc food preparations and 36 0.0 5 0.0 41 0.0 kindred products Not specified food industries 1 0.0 1 0.0 6020 0.2 6020 0.2 Tobacco manufactures 1773 1.0 762 0.3 2539 0.5 24690 0.8 5634 0.9 30324 0.8 Knitting mills 542 0.3 2 0.0 545 0.1 63447 2.0 200 0.0 63647 1.7 Dyeing and finishing textiles, 116 0.1 3 0.0 119 0.0 4100 0.1 187 0.0 4287 0.1 except knit goods Carpets, rugs, and other floor 884 0.5 11 0.0 898 0.2 5003 0.2 100 0.0 5802 0.2 coverings Yarn, thread, and fabric 16368 9.1 68 0.0 16666 3.5 165996 5.3 1350 0.2 168021 4.5 Misc textile mill products 421 0.2 2 0.0 425 0.1 17073 0.5 400 0.1 18304 0.5 Apparel and accessories 4153 2.3 34 0.0 4217 0.9 238211 7.7 7582 1.3 246193 6.6 Misc fabricated textile products 274 0.2 2 0.0 276 0.1 7930 0.3 100 0.0 8030 0.2 Pulp, paper, and paper-board 1035 0.6 1 0.0 1037 0.2 10424 0.3 300 0.0 10724 0.3 mills Paperboard containers and 96 0.1 96 0.0 9259 0.3 9359 0.3 boxes Misc paper and pulp products 33 0.0 33 0.0 7709 0.2 300 0.0 8009 0.2 Printing, publishing, and allied 541 0.3 2 0.0 544 0.1 37602 1.2 500 0.1 38102 1.0 industries Synthetic fibers 71590.2 200 0.0 7359 0.2 Drugs and medicines 10 0.0 1 0.0 11 0.0 Paints, varnishes, and related 9 0.0 9 0.0 2588 0.1 2588 0.1 products Misc chemicals and allied 75 0.0 19 0.0 94 0.0 17160 0.6 563 0.1 17723 0.5 products Petroleum refining 5 0.0 5 0.0 3747 0.1 3747 0.1

415

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

Misc petroleum and coal 6 0.0 1 0.0 7 0.0 1500 0.0 1500 0.0 products Rubber products 218 0.1 218 0.0 14600 0.5 14600 0.4 Leather: tanned, curried, and 63 0.0 3 0.0 72 0.0 2087 0.1 2087 0.1 finished Footwear, except rubber 2528 1.4 11 0.0 2550 0.5 48936 1.6 48936 1.3 Leather products, except 95 0.1 3 0.0 99 0.0 10987 0.4 100 0.0 11087 0.3 footwear Not specified manufacturing 1262 0.7 195 0.1 1458 0.3 16453 0.5 1058 0.2 17511 0.5 industries Railroads and railway 330 0.2 47 0.0 377 0.1 8658 0.3 300 0.0 8958 0.2 Street railways and bus lines 20 0.0 1 0.0 21 0.0 3200 0.1 300 0.0 3500 0.1 Trucking service 175 0.1 33 0.0 208 0.0 4387 0.1 100 0.0 4487 0.1 Warehousing and storage 19 0.0 4 0.0 24 0.0 2000 0.1 100 0.0 2100 0.1 Taxicab service 20 0.0 7 0.0 27 0.0 1100 0.0 100 0.0 1200 0.0 Water transportation 656 0.4 78 0.0 734 0.2 2044 0.1 300 0.0 2344 0.1 Air transportation 800 0.0 800 0.0 Petroleum and gasoline pipe 400 0.0 400 0.0 lines Services incidental to 228 0.1 4 0.0 232 0.0 1100 0.0 1100 0.0 transportation Telephone 8 0.0 80.0 59447 1.9 200 0.0 59647 1.6 Telegraph 131 0.1 1310.0 71780.2 71780.2 Electric light and power 8400 0.3 100 0.0 8500 0.2 Gas and steam supply systems 8 0.0 8 0.0 2188 0.1 100 0.0 2288 0.1 Water supply 2 0.0 2 0.0 Sanitary services 4 0.0 4 0.0 1300 0.0 1300 0.0 Drugs, chemicals, and allied 5 0.0 5 0.0 products Dry goods apparel 42 0.0 42 0.0

416

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

Food and related products 33 0.0 8 0.0 41 0.0 Machinery, equipment, and 11 0.0 11 0.0 supplies Petroleum products 1 0.0 1 0.0 Farm prods--raw materials 49 0.0 2 0.0 51 0.0 Misc wholesale trade 344 0.2 20 0.0 364 0.1 59793 1.9 1564 0.3 61557 1.7 Not specified wholesale trade 178 0.1 7 0.0 185 0.0 Food stores, except dairy 4178 2.3 286 0.1 4469 0.9 133393 4.3 3135 0.5 137306 3.7 Dairy prods stores and milk 133 0.1 5 0.0 138 0.0 7990 0.3 300 0.0 8290 0.2 retailing General merchandise 1882 1.0 8 0.0 1890 0.4 153122 4.9 1970 0.3 155192 4.2 Five and ten cent stores 190 0.1 3 0.0 193 0.0 18502 0.6 300 0.0 18802 0.5 Apparel and accessories 14358 8.0 71 0.0 14466 3.0 80987 2.6 2403 0.4 83577 2.2 stores, except shoe Shoe stores 108 0.1 1 0.0 109 0.0 7400 0.2 400 0.1 7800 0.2 Furniture and house 189 0.1 2 0.0 191 0.0 12078 0.4 12078 0.3 furnishings stores Household appliance and radio 80 0.0 80 0.0 6900 0.2 6900 0.2 stores Motor vehicles and accessories 1 0.0 1 0.0 9365 0.3 9365 0.3 retailing Gasoline service stations 67240.2 200 0.0 6924 0.2 Drug stores 99 0.1 1 0.0 100 0.0 19704 0.6 500 0.1 20204 0.5 Eating and drinking places 1620 0.9 215 0.1 1840 0.4 187803 6.0 13552 2.2 202272 5.4 Hardware and farm implement 46 0.0 46 0.0 6547 0.2 6547 0.2 stores Lumber and building material 40 0.0 1 0.0 41 0.0 8064 0.3 100 0.0 8264 0.2 retailing Liquor stores 85 0.0 1 0.0 86 0.0 2200 0.1 200 0.0 2400 0.1 Retail florists 6 0.0 6 0.0 6300 0.2 234 0.0 6634 0.2

417

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

Jewelry stores 36 0.0 36 0.0 5965 0.2 500 0.1 6465 0.2 Fuel and ice retailing 56 0.0 7 0.0 63 0.0 4866 0.2 400 0.1 5266 0.1 Misc retail stores 785 0.4 14 0.0 799 0.2 28129 0.9 600 0.1 28929 0.8 Not specified retail trade 3641 2.0 134 0.0 3781 0.8 25030 0.8 1000 0.2 26030 0.7 Banking and credit 37 0.0 3 0.0 40 0.0 29869 1.0 100 0.0 29969 0.8 Security and commodity 27 0.0 27 0.0 brokerage and invest companies Insurance 37 0.0 370.0 38857 1.2 1100 0.2 40057 1.1 Real estate 62 0.0 5 0.0 67 0.0 50596 1.6 3528 0.6 54124 1.5 Advertising 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 63150.2 100 0.0 6415 0.2 Accounting, auditing, and 3 0.0 3 0.0 bookkeeping services Misc business services 164 0.1 11 0.0 175 0.0 11204 0.4 500 0.1 11704 0.3 Auto repair services and 67350.2 200 0.0 6935 0.2 garages Misc repair services 288 0.2 40 0.0 328 0.1 4278 0.1 4278 0.1 Private households 34019 18.9 62680 21.0 97088 20.2 159359 5.1 342358 56.7 502959 13.5 Hotels and lodging places 9658 5.4 917 0.3 10592 2.2 57392 1.8 13898 2.3 71590 1.9 Laundering, cleaning, and 1016 0.6 494 0.2 1549 0.3 78049 2.5 15541 2.6 93760 2.5 dyeing Dressmaking shops 24926 13.9 3454 1.2 28500 5.9 Shoe repair shops 5 0.0 5 0.0 Misc personal services 1276 0.7 313 0.1 1779 0.4 108301 3.5 12499 2.1 120800 3.2 Radio broadcasting and 14000.0 1400 0.0 television Theaters and motion pictures 780 0.4 5 0.0 788 0.2 14907 0.5 800 0.1 15707 0.4 Bowling alleys, and billiard and 3 0.0 3 0.0 pool parlors

418

1880 1940 Detailed industry White Black All wives White Black All wives n% n% n% n%n%n%

Misc entertainment and 430 0.2 30 0.0 461 0.1 11345 0.4 1287 0.2 12632 0.3 recreation services Medical and other health 1859 1.0 280 0.1 2144 0.4 services, except hospitals Hospitals 136 0.1 19 0.0 155 0.0 113571 3.6 7793 1.3 121764 3.3 Legal services 84 0.0 3 0.0 87 0.0 26500 0.9 200 0.0 26700 0.7 Educational services 9042 5.0 701 0.2 9750 2.0 216227 6.9 24743 4.1 241548 6.5 Welfare and religious services 346 0.2 24 0.0 371 0.1 22959 0.7 866 0.1 23825 0.6 Nonprofit membership 9 0.0 9 0.0 organizs. Engineering and architectural 16 0.0 16 0.0 services Misc professional and related 495 0.3 6 0.0 501 0.1 Postal service 291 0.2 2 0.0 293 0.1 15447 0.5 15447 0.4 Federal public administration 202 0.1 19 0.0 221 0.0 32996 1.1 1063 0.2 34259 0.9 State public administration 19 0.0 19 0.0 Local public administration 76 0.0 5 0.0 81 0.0 54819 1.8 2200 0.4 57119 1.5 Public Administration, level not 23 0.0 1 0.0 24 0.0 specified Nonclassifiable 253 0.1 1644 0.6 1905 0.4 60797 2.0 4821 0.8 65618 1.8 Industry not reported 11015 6.1 91021 30.5 102410 21.3

419

420 Bibliography

Primary sources

Archival collections

The following list of archival collection contains only the collections that have been used in the writing of the dissertation. Various collections examined early in the research that I did not return to use again are not listed.

Baker Library Historical Collections, Harvard Business School

GA 77: Fritz Jules Roethlisberger Papers, 1917-1974.

Mss 583: Western Electric Company. Hawthorne Studies Collection, 1924-1961.

Mss 752: Boston Edison Company, 1884-1986.

Old Class Collection: Staff magazines

Chase National Bank, The Chase, 1922-1927, 1937-1940 Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway, The MK&T Employees Magazine, 1917- 1919 Western Electric Company, Western Electric News, 1912-1932 Whitin Machine Works, Whitin Spindle, 1919-1926

Hagley Museum and Library

Archives Division

Accession 1057: National Industrial Conference Board

Accession 1411: National Association of Manufacturers.

Accession 1810: Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Imprints division: Staff magazines

Allied Kid Company, Allied Kidder, Vol. 1-3, 1935-37. Babcock & Wilcox Co., The Generator, One issue, December 1918 Bethlehem Ship Building Co., Sparrow’s Point Pilot, 1918 Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp (Moore Plant, Elizabethtown, NJ). Moore Auxilliary, 1919. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp (union plant). Bethlehem Star, 1918. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem review, 1924.

421 Cleveland Crane Co., Crane-ing, 1922 E.F. Houghton & Co, The Houghton Pay Envelope, 1929 Eddystone Manufacturing Company, Eddystone Print & Dye-Jest, 1928-1930 Edison Electric Illuminating Co. (Boston)(Boston Edison), Edison Life, 1909- 1940 Fore River Shipbuilding, Fore River Log, 1915-1920 Imperial Metal Type Company, Imperial Metal Type Magazine, 1920-1930 Joseph Bancroft & Sons, Bancroft Bulletin, 1923-1930 Joseph Bancroft & Sons, The Bancroft Dye Jest, 1931. Pennsylvania Railroad, The Pennsylvanian, Various issues, 1924-1930 Provident Mutual Life & Trust Company, Between Ourselves, 1909-1940 Remington Rand, Remington Notes, 19uu-1925, and Remington Notes, 1931. Remington Rand, Remington Rand News, August 1936. Sperry Gyroscope, Sperry Searchlight, 1918. Strawbridge & Clothier, Store Chat, 1906-1916, 1918, 1928, 1931-1932 United States Envelope Co. The Hand Clasp, August 1920 – June 1922.

Imprints Division: Trade journals Factory and Industrial Management Industrial Arts Index Office Economist

National Archives II, College Park (MD) Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor. Record Group 86.

86.2: Women in Industry Service, 1918-1920

86.3: Office Files of the Director

86.3.3: Records of the Division of Research, principally records relating to Women's Bureau research bulletins

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Record Group 257

Unprocessed accession 257-1977-850. Study of Money Disbursements of Wage Earners, 1934-36 (Cities)— Planning, Sampling, Collection, Tabulation, Instructions.

Unprocessed accession 257-1977-851. Consumer Purchases Study, 1935-36— Planning, Sampling, Collection, Tabulation, Instructions

422 Datasets

Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) samples of the United States decennial population censuses of 1850-1880, 1900-2000, and American Community Survey from 2000-2005.

Ruggles, Steven, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database] Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor], 2004. Available: http://www.ipums.org/

North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) database of the complete United States population census of 1880.

North Atlantic Population Project and Minnesota Population Center. NAPP: Complete Count Microdata. NAPP Version 1.0 [computer files]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [distributor], 2006. Available: http://www.nappdata.org.

Goeken, Ron, Cuong Nguyen, Steven Ruggles, and Walter Sargent. "The 1880 U.S. Population Database." Historical Methods 36, no. 1 (2003): 27-34.

Roberts, Evan, Steven Ruggles, Lisa Y. Dillon, Ólöf Gar∂arsdóttir, Jan Oldervoll, Gunnar Thorvaldsen, and Matthew Woollard. "The North Atlantic Population Project: An Overview." Historical Methods 36, no. 2 (2003): 80-88.

ICPSR Cost of Living Survey Series

1888-1890: Haines, Michael R. Cost of Living of Industrial Workers in the United States And Europe, 1888-1890 [Computer file]. ICPSR07711-v4. Hamilton, NY: Michael R. Haines, Colgate University [producer], 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter- university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-12-07.

1917-1919: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cost of Living in the United States, 1917-1919 [Computer file]. ICPSR08299. 5th ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1986.

1935-1936: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Home Economics, et al. Study of Consumer Purchases in the United States, 1935-1936 [Computer file]. ICPSR08908. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1999.

423 Published sources

Books and reports

Abbott, Edith. Women in Industry, a Study in American Economic History. New York: D. Appleton, 1910.

Adams, Thomas Sewall, Helen L. Sumner, and Richard Theodore Ely. Labor Problems; a Text Book. New York: Macmillan, 1905.

Anthony, Katharine. Mothers Who Must Earn. New York: Survey Associates, 1914.

Anthony, Katharine Susan. Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia. v p., 2 l., 3-260 p. 20 cm. vols. New York: Henry Holt, 1915.

Aronovici, Carol, and Newport Survey Committee. The Newport Survey of Social Problems. [Fall River, Mass.: Munroe press, 1912.

Aronovici, Carol, and Seybert institution (Philadelphia Pa.) Bureau for Social Research. The Social Survey. Philadelphia: Harper press, 1916.

Barnes, Earl. Woman in Modern Society. New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1912.

Bishop, Joel Prentiss. Commentaries on the Law of Married Women under the Statutes of the Several States, and at Common Law and in Equity. 2 v.; 25 cm. vols. Boston: Little Brown, 1873.

Bogardus, Emory Stephen. Introduction to Sociology. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1917.

Brissenden, Paul F., and Emil Frankel. Labor Turnover in Industry; a Statistical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1922.

Brown, Gertrude Foster. Your Vote, and How to Use It. New York: Harper & brothers, 1918.

Bryant, Louise Stevens. School Feeding; Its History and Practice at Home and Abroad. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott co., 1913.

Burgess, Ernest Watson, and Harvey James Locke. The Family. New York: American book company, 1945.

Butler, Elizabeth Beardsley. Women and the Trades: Pittsburgh, 1907-1908. New York: Charities Publication Committee, 1909.

Byington, Margaret. Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town, 1910.

424 Carbaugh, Harvey Clarence. Human Welfare Work in Chicago. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co., 1917.

Chapin, Robert Coit. The Standard of Living among Workingmen's Families in New York City. New York: Charities publication committee, 1909.

Chase, Josephine. New York at School: A Description of the Activities and Administration of the Public Schools of the City of New York. New York: Public education association of the City of New York, 1927.

Collier, Virginia MacMakin. Marriage and Careers: A Study of One Hundred Women Who Are Wives, Mothers, Homemakers and Professional Workers. New York: Bureau of Vocational Information, 1926.

Commons, John Rogers. Institutional Economics; Its Place in Political Economy. New York: Macmillan, 1934.

Cox, George Clarke. The Public Conscience: Social Judgements in Statute and Common Law. New York: Henry Holt, 1922.

Coyle, Grace. Jobs and Marriage? Outlines for the Discussion of the Married Woman in Business. New York: Woman's Press, 1928.

Douglas, Paul H. Real Wages in the United States, 1890-1926. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930.

———. The Theory of Wages. New York: Macmillan, 1934.

Eaton, Allen H., and Shelby M. Harrison. A Bibliography of Social Surveys: Reports of Fact-Finding Studies Made as a Basis for Social Action, Arranged by Subjects and Localities: Reports to January 1, 1928. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1930.

Finegan, Thomas Edward. A Textbook on New York School Law Including the Revised Education Law. Albany: Matthew Bender, 1919.

Goodier, Floyd Tompkins, and William Allen Miller. Administration of Town and Village Schools. St. Louis, Mo.: Webster Publishing Co., 1938.

Groves, Ernest R. Marriage. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1941.

Groves, Ernest R., and William F. Ogburn. American Marriage and Family Relationships. New York: Henry Holt, 1928.

Harris, Henry J. Maternity Benefit Systems in Certain Foreign Countries. Washington: Govt. print. off., 1919.

425 Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics. Cost of Living Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1928.

Hewes, Amy. Women as Munition Makers: A Study of Conditions in Bridgeport, Connecticut. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1919.

Hill, Joseph A. Statistics of Women at Work: Based on Unpublished Information Derived from the Schedules of the 1900 Census. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907.

Houghteling, Leila. The Income and Standards of Living of Unskilled Laborers in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927.

Hughes, Gwendolyn. Mothers in Industry. New York: The New Republic, 1925.

Keesecker, Ward. The Legal Status of Married Women Teachers. Washington D.C.: Office of Education. United States Department of the Interior, 1934.

Kellogg, Paul Underwood. Wage-Earning Pittsburgh. New York: Survey Associates, 1914.

Kinney, Henry C. The American Housewife at Work: A Statistical Examination of the Proposed Restriction of the Chicago School Board, Prohibiting the Continuance of Teaching after Matrimony. Chicago, 1897.

Koren, John. Benevolent Institutions, 1904. Washington: United States Bureau of the Census, 1905.

Laird, Donald Anderson, and Eleanor Childs Leonard Laird. The Psychology of Supervising the Working Woman. 1st ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1942.

Lewis, Ervin Eugene. Personnel Problems of the Teaching Staff. New York: The Century Education Co., 1925.

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen Merrell Lynd. Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture, 1929.

MacLean, Annie Marion. Wage-Earning Women. New York: Macmillan, 1910.

Mangold, George Benjamin. Child Problems. New York: Macmillan company, 1910.

Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, and Women's Educational and Industrial Union. Industrial Home Work in Massachusetts. 183 p. plates, tables. 23 cm. vols. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Co., state printers, 1914.

Meyer, Annie Nathan, and Julia Ward How. Woman's Work in America. New York: Henry Holt, 1891.

426 More, Louise Bolard. Wage-Earners' Budgets; a Study of Standards and Cost of Living in New York City. New York: H. Holt and company, 1907.

Nearing, Scott. Financing the Wage-Earner's Family: A Survey of the Facts Bearing on Income and Expenditures in the Families of American Wage-Earners. New York: Huebsch, 1914.

Overn, Alfred Victor. The Teacher in Modern Education; a Guide to Professional Problems and Administrative Responsibilities. New York: D. Appleton- Century, 1935.

Peters, David Wilbur. The Status of the Married Woman Teacher. New York city: Teachers college, Columbia university, 1934.

Phelps, Edward Bunnell. Infant Mortality and Its Relation to the Employment of Mothers. Washington D.C.: Department of Labor, 1912.

Prince, John T. Methods of Instruction and Organization of the Schools of Germany. Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1892.

Reeve, Tapping. The Law of Baron and Femme, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, and of the Powers of Courts of Chancery. 3rd ed. Albany: William Gould, 1862.

———. The Law of Baron and Femme, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, and of the Powers of Courts of Chancery. 2nd ed. Burlington: Chauncey Goodrich, 1846.

———. The Law of Husband and Wife, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant. 4th ed. Albany: William Gould, 1888.

Reid, Margaret. Economics of Household Production. New York: John Wiley, 1934.

Riis, Jacob A. How the Other Half Lives: Studies among the Tenements of New York. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1890.

Roethlisberger, F.J., and William J. Dickson. Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Rubinow, Isaac Max. Standards of Health Insurance. New York: H. Holt and company, 1916.

Russell Sage Foundation. The Pittsburgh District Civic Frontage, Pittsburgh Survey; V. 5. New York: Survey Associates, 1914.

Schouler, James. Law of the Domestic Relations. Boston: Little Brown, 1905.

427 Shallcross, Ruth Enalda. Should Married Women Work? New York: Public Affairs Committee, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, 1940.

Slichter, Sumner H. The Turnover of Factory Labor. New York: D. Appleton and company, 1919.

Springfield Survey Committee (Springfield Ill.), Russell Sage Foundation. Dept. of Surveys and Exhibits, and Shelby M. Harrison. The Springfield Survey: A Study of Social Conditions in an American City. 10 vols. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1918.

Ward, Harry Frederick. The Gospel for a Working World. New York: Missionary Education Movement of the United States and Canada, 1918.

Watkins, Gordon S. An Introduction to the Study of Labor Problems. New York: Thomas Crowell, 1922.

Weber, Gustavus Adolphus. The Women's Bureau; Its History, Activities and Organization. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins press, 1923.

Whitehead, T. N., Helen M. Mitchell, and Western Electric Company. The Industrial Worker; a Statistical Study of Human Relations in a Group of Manual Workers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university press, 1938.

Williams, Faith M., Carle Clark Zimmerman, Institute of Pacific Relations., and Social Science Research Council (U.S.). Studies of Family Living in the United States and Other Countries: An Analysis of Material and Method. Washington: [U.S. Govt. print off., 1935.

Woodbury, Robert M. "Causal Factors in Infant Mortality: A Statistical Study Based on Investigations in Eight Cities." In Bulletin of the United States Children's Bureau. Washington D.C.: U.S. Children's Bureau, 1925.

Woodbury, Robert Morse. Infant Mortality and Its Causes. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1926.

Woytinsky, W.S. Additional Workers and the Volume of Unemployment in the Depression. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1940.

———. Three Aspects of Labor Dynamics. Washington D.C., 1942.

Wright, Carroll Davidson. Outline of Practical Sociology: With Special Reference to American Conditions. New York: Longmans, Green, 1899.

428 Book chapters, journal and magazine articles Aston, T.G. "Employment of Women in Railway Work." Electric Railway Journal, June 22 1918, 1193-4.

Benson, Marguerite B. "Labor Turnover of Working Women." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1929): 109-19.

Best, Doris. "Employed Wives Increasing." Personnel Journal 17, no. 6 (1939): 212- 19.

Brandeis, Elizabeth. "Labor Legislation." In History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932, edited by John R. Commons, 399-697. New York: Macmillan, 1935.

Buckstaff, Florence Griswold. "Married Women's Property in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Law and the Origin of the Common-Law Dower." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 4 (1893): 33-64.

Burdick, Anna L. "Training and Upgrading of Women Factory Workers." Proceedings of the National Safety Council 8 (1919): 1403-05.

Coit, Eleanor G., and Elsie D. Harper. "Why Married Women Work." The Survey, April 1930 1930, 79-80.

Cooke, Dennis H., Jesse F. Cardwell, and Harris J. Dark. "Local Residents and Married Women as Teachers." Review of Educational Research 16, no. 3, Teacher Personnel (1946): 233-39.

Cooke, Dennis H., and C. W. Simms. "Local Residents and Married Women as Teachers." Review of Educational Research 10, no. 3, Teacher Personnel (1940): 204-09.

Dodd, Paul A. "Review of Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 208 (1940): 230-31.

Edwards, I. N. "Marriage as a Legal Cause for Dismissal of Women Teachers." The Elementary School Journal 25, no. 9 (1925): 692-95.

Edwards, Newton. "The Law Governing the Dismissal of Teachers. Ii." The Elementary School Journal 33, no. 5 (1933): 365-76.

Freund, Ernst. "The Constitutional Aspect of the Protection of Women in Industry." Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 1, no. 1 (1910): 162-84.

Garber, Lee O. "The Law Governing the Dismissal of Teachers on Permanent Tenure." The Elementary School Journal 35, no. 2 (1934): 115-22.

429 Graham, Irene J. "Working Hours of Women in Chicago." Journal of Political Economy 23, no. 8 (1915): 822-31.

Hibbs, Henry Horace, Jr. "The Influence of Economic and Industrial Conditions on Infant Mortality." Quarterly Journal of Economics 30, no. 1 (1915): 127-51.

Hitchcock, Henry. "Modern Legislation Touching Marital Property Rights." Journal of Social Science, no. 13 (1881): 12-35.

Humphrey, Don D. "Alleged "Additional Workers" in the Measurement of Unemployment." Journal of Political Economy 48, no. 3 (1940): 412-19.

Kelley, Florence. "Married Women in Industry." Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 1, no. 1 (1910): 90-96.

Long, Clarence D. "The Concept of Unemployment." Quarterly Journal of Economics 57, no. 1 (1942): 1-30.

"Maternity Leaves of Absence in Perth Amboy, New Jersey." School and Society 36 (1932): 782.

Matheson, M. Cecile. "Married Women and Their Work." Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 8, no. 1 (1926): 50-54.

McGinnis, William C. "Perth Amboy Gives Break to Married Women Teachers." Journal of Education 115 (1932): 606.

Mies, Frank. "Statutory Regulation of Women's Employment--Codification of Statutes." Journal of Political Economy 14, no. 2 (1909): 109-18.

National Education Association. "Practice in City School Systems 1930-1931." Research Bulletin (1932).

Neyman, Jerzy. "On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: The Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 97, no. 4 (1934): 558-606.

Nixon, Russell A., and Paul A. Samuelson. "Estimates of Unemployment in the United States." Review of Economics and Statistics 22, no. 3 (1940): 101-11.

Norton, Esther. "Women in War Industries." The New Republic, 15 December 1917 1917, 179-81.

Persons, C.E. "Women's Work and Wages in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics 29, no. 2 (1915): 201-34.

Punke, Harold H. "Marriage Rate among Women Teachers." American Sociological Review 5, no. 4 (1940): 505-11.

430 Ross, Jacob M. "Selection, Retention and Promotion of the Staff." In Administrative Practices in Large High Schools, edited by N.William Newsom and R. Emerson Langfitt. New York: American Book Company, 1940.

Rubinow, Isaac Max. "Standards of Sickness Insurance: Ii." Journal of Political Economy 23, no. 4 (1915): 327-64.

Schoenberg, Erika H., and Paul H. Douglas. "Studies in the Supply Curve of Labor: The Relation in 1929 between Average Earnings in American Cities and the Proportions Seeking Employment." Journal of Political Economy 45, no. 1 (1937): 45-79.

Smith, Mary Phlegar. "Legal and Administrative Restrictions Affecting the Rights of Married Women to Work." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1929): 255-64.

Thornton, W.W. "Personal Services Rendered by Wife to Husband under Contract." Central Law Journal 50, no. 1 (1900): 183-89.

Van Kleeck, Mary. "Federal Policies for Women in Industry." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 81 (1919): 87-94.

Warren, Joseph. "Husband's Right to Wife's Services I." Harvard Law Review 38, no. 4 (1925): 421-46.

———. "Husband's Right to Wife's Services Iii." Harvard Law Review 38, no. 5 (1925): 622-50.

Williams, Charl. "The Position of Women in the Public Schools." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1929): 154-65.

Wolfe, A. B., and Helen Olson. "War-Time Industrial Employment of Women in the United States." Journal of Political Economy 27, no. 8 (1919): 639-69.

"Women Help Relieve Labor Scarcity in B.R.T Mechanical Department." Electric Railway Journal, October 12 1918, 655-7.

Woodbury, Robert M. "Infant Mortality Studies of the Children's Bureau." Publications of the American Statistical Association 16, no. 122 (1918).

Woytinsky, W. S. "Additional Workers on the Labor Market in Depressions: A Reply to Mr. Humphrey." Journal of Political Economy 48, no. 5 (1940): 735-39.

———. "Controversial Aspects of Unemployment Estimates in the United States." Review of Economics and Statistics 23, no. 2 (1942): 68-77.

Zueblin, Charles. "The Effect on Woman of Economic Dependence." American Journal of Sociology 14, no. 5 (1909): 606-21.

431 Secondary sources

Books, dissertations and reports

Adams, Stephen B., and Orville R. Butler. Manufacturing the Future: A History of Western Electric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Alexander, Gregory S. Commodity & Propriety: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Altenbaugh, Richard J. The Teacher's Voice: A Social History of Teaching in Twentieth-Century America. London; New York: Falmer Press, 1991.

Anderson, James D. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

Anderson, Margo J. The American Census: A Social History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Anderson, Mary. Women at Work: Autobiography of Mary Anderson as Told to Mary N. Winslow. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951.

Arestis, Philip, and Malcolm C. Sawyer. 2000. A Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists. In, 2nd, E. Elgar. (accessed.

Aron, Cindy Sondik. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service: Middle-Class Workers in Victorian America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Beard, Mary Ritter. Woman as Force in History. New York: Macmillan, 1946.

Becker, Gary Stanley. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Bennetts, Leslie. The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving up Too Much? 1st ed. New York: Voice/Hyperion, 2007.

Benson, Susan Porter. Counter Cultures. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986.

Bjelopera, Jerome. City of Clerks: Office and Sales Workers in Philadelphia, 1870- 1920. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005.

Blewett, Mary H. Men, Women, and Work: Class, Gender, and Protest in the New England Shoe Industry, The Working Class in American History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

432 Blount, Jackie. Destined to Rule the Schools: Women and the Superintendency, 1873- 1995. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.

Blount, Jackie M. Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.

Blumin, Stuart M. The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Modern History. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Boris, Eileen. Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Boydston, Jeanne. Home and Work. New York: Oxford, 1990.

Brady, Alexander. Democracy in the Dominions: A Comparative Study of Institutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1947.

Breen, W. J. Labor Market Politics and the Great War: The Department of Labor, the States, and the First U.S. Employment Service, 1907-1933. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1997.

Brody, David. Steelworkers in America; the Nonunion Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Bulmer, Martin, Kevin Bales, and Kathryn Kish Sklar. The Social Survey in Historical Perspective, 1880-1940. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Travedi. Microeconometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Cammisa, Anne Marie. From Rhetoric to Reform? Welfare Policy in American Politics, Dilemmas in American Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998.

Celello, Kristin Mary. "Making Marriage Work: Marital Success and Failure in the United States, 1920-1980." PhD, University of Virginia, 2004.

Chambers, Anne Lorene. Married Women and Property Law in Victorian Ontario. Toronto: Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Chandler, Alfred D. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1977.

Chandler, Alfred Dupont. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, M.I.T. Press Research Monographs. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1962.

433 Cohen, Robert. When the Old Left Was Young: Student Radical and America's First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Cooper, Patricia A. Once a Cigar Maker — Men, Women and Work Culture in American Cigar Factories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Cott, Nancy. The Grounding of Modern Feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.

Cott, Nancy F. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.

D'Emilio, John, and Estelle Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Dahlin, Michael, Carole Shammas, and Marylynn Salmon. Inheritance in America from Colonial Times to the Present. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.

Davidson, Janet F. "Women and the Railroad: The Gendering of Work During the First World War Era, 1917-1920." PhD, University of Delaware, 1999.

Davies, Margery. Woman's Place Is at the Typewriter: Office Work and Office Workers, 1870-1930. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982.

Dawley, Alan. Changing the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Douglas, Susan J., and Meredith W. Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. New York: Free Press, 2004.

Dublin, Thomas. "Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826-1860." Thesis, Columbia University., 1975.

Durand, John D. The Labor Force in the United States. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1948.

Durst, Anne. "Day Nurseries and Wage-Earning Mothers in the United States, 1890- 1930." PhD, University of Wisconsin, 1989.

Edwards, Laura. Scarlett Doesn't Live Here Anymore: Southern Women in the Civil War Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

Eisenach, Eldon J. The Lost Promise of Progressivism, American Political Thought. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1994.

434 Fine, Lisa M. The Souls of the Skyscraper: Female Clerical Workers in Chicago, 1870-1930. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Fitzpatrick, Ellen F. Endless Crusade: Women Social Scientists and Progressive Reform. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Flamming, Douglas. Bound for Freedom: Black Los Angeles in Jim Crow America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

Flanagan, Maureen A. America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s- 1920s. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Friedman, Walter A. Birth of a Salesman: The Transformation of Selling in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Furner, Mary O., and Barry Supple. The State and Economic Knowledge: The American and British Experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Gamber, Wendy. The Boardinghouse in Nineteenth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.

Gauthier, Anne Hélène. The State and the Family: A Comparative Analysis of Family Policies in Industrialized Countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Geddes, Rick, and Dean Lueck. "The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights." In John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper, 71. Palo Alto: Stanford Law School, 2000.

Geib-Gunderson, Lisa. Uncovering the Hidden Work of Women in Family Businesses: A History of Census Undernumeration, Garland Studies in the History of American Labor. New York: Garland, 1998.

Gignesi, Amy Lydia. "Relinquishing Control: The Married Women's Property Acts in Mid-Nineteenth Century America." PhD, American University, 2005.

Gillespie, Richard. Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Glickman, Lawrence B. A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of Consumer Society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997.

Gluck, Sherna Berger. Rosie the Riveter Revisited: Women, the War, and Social Change. Boston: Twayne, 1987.

Goeken, Ronald Allen. "Unmarried Adults and Residential Autonomy: Living Arrangements in the United States, 1880-1990." PhD, University of Minnesota, 1999.

435 Goldberg, Joseph P., William T. Moye, and United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1985.

Goldin, Claudia. Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F Katz. "Education and Income in the Early 20th Century: Evidence from the Prairies." In Working Paper. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1999.

Goodwin, Joanne L. Gender and the Politics of Welfare Reform: Mothers' Pensions in Chicago, 1911-1929, Women in Culture and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Gordon, Linda. Pitied but Not Entitled, 1994.

Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia Meyers. Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003.

Greenwald, Maurine Weiner. Women, War and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Greenwald, Maurine Weiner, and Margo J. Anderson. Pittsburgh Surveyed: Social Science and Social Reform in the Early Twentieth Century. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996.

Gutman, Herbert. The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925. New York: Vintage Books, 1976.

Haber, Carole, and Brian Gratton. Old Age and the Search for Security: An American Social History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

Hall, Kermit. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Harper, Penelope A.E. "Investigating the Working Woman: Middle-Class Americans and the Debate over Women's Wage Work, 1820-1920." PhD, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1997.

Hart, Vivien. Bound by Our Constitution: Women, Workers, and the Minimum Wage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Hartog, Hendrik. Man and Wife in America: A History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.

436 Heim, Bradley T. "The Incredible Shrinking Elasticities: Married Female Labor Supply, 1979-2003." In Working Paper. Durham: Economics Department, Duke University, 2004.

Hirshman, Linda R. Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World. New York: Viking, 2006.

Hoff, Joan. Law, Gender and Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women. New York: New York University Press, 1991.

Holcombe, Lee. Wives and Property: Reform of the Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth Century England. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983.

Hunter, Tera W. To 'Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors after the Civil War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Hurst, Fannie, and Susan Koppelman. The Stories of Fannie Hurst. 1st Feminist Press ed. New York: Feminist Press, 2004.

Igo, Sarah Elizabeth. The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Igra, Anna R. Wives without Husbands: Marriage, Desertion and Welfare in New York, 1900-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Jacobs, Jerry A., and Kathleen Gerson. The Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality, The Family and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Jacoby, Sanford M. Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900-1945. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

Janssens, Angélique. The Rise and Decline of the Male Breadwinner Family? International Review of Social History. Supplement; 5. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Jones, Jacqueline. Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present, 1985.

Kamerman, Sheila B., Alfred J. Kahn, and Paul W. Kingston. Maternity Policies and Working Women. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.

Katz, Michael B. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

437 Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th-Century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

———. Out to Work: Wage-Earning Women in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

———. A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences. Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 1988.

Kroeger, Brooke. Fannie: The Talent for Success of Writer Fannie Hurst. 1st ed. New York: Times Books, 1999.

Kwolek-Folland, Angel. Engendering Business: Men and Women in the Corporate Office. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Ladd-Taylor, Molly. Mother-Work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890-1930, Women in American History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Lazarou, Kathleen Elizabeth. "Concealed under Petticoats: Married Women's Property and the Law of Texas, 1840-1913." PhD, Rice University, 1980.

Lebergott, Stanley. Manpower in Economic Growth; the American Record since 1800. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Lehrer, Susan. Origins of Protective Labor Legislation for Women, 1905-1925. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987.

Licht, Walter. Working for the Railroad: The Organization of Work in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Long, Clarence D. The Labor Force under Changing Income and Employment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.

Lunardini, Christine A., and Catherine Clinton. The Columbia Guide to American Women in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.

Mandell, Nikki. The Corporation as Family: The Gendering of Corporate Welfare, 1890-1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

Margo, Robert A. Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950: An Economic History, Long-Term Factors in Economic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Marshall, T.H. Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950.

438 McKenna, Marian C. Tapping Reeve and the Litchfield Law School. New York: Oceana, 1986.

Meckel, Richard A. "Save the Babies": American Public Health Reform and the Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1850-1929. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.

Mettler, Suzanne. Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Meyerowitz, Joanne J. Women Adrift: Independent Wage Earners in Chicago, 1880- 1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Michel, Sonya. Children's Interests/Mothers' Rights: The Shaping of America's Child Care Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

Mink, Gwendolyn. The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917- 1942. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Moen, Jon. "Essays on the Labor Force and Labor Force Participation Rates: The United States from 1860 through 1950." PhD, University of Chicago, 1987.

Muncy, Robyn. Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform 1890-1935. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Nolan, Melanie. Breadwinning: New Zealand Women and the State. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press, 2000.

Novkov, Julie. Constituting Workers, Protecting Women: Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era and New Deal Years. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

O'Connor, Alice. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History, Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Parr, Joy. The Gender of Breadwinners: Women, Men, and Change in Two Industrial Towns, 1880-1950. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

Patterson, James T., and James T. Patterson. America's Struggle against Poverty in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Perlmann, Joel, and Robert A. Margo. Women's Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Pieroth, Doris Hinson. Seattle's Women Teachers of the Interwar Years: Shapers of a Livable City. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004.

439 Pitt-Catsouphes, Marcie, Ellen Ernst Kossek, and Stephen A. Sweet, eds. The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.

Richards, Susan L. "Gendered Work: Women's Paid Labor in Barre, Vermont and Trinidad, Colorado, 1880-1918." University of New Hampshire, 2002.

Rodgers, Daniel T. Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1998.

Roethlisberger, F.J. The Elusive Phenomena. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Rose, Elizabeth R. A Mother's Job: The History of Day Care, 1890-1960. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Rotella, Elyce. From Home to Office: U.S. Women at Work, 1870-1930. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Research Press, 1981.

Rudy, Willis. The College of the City of New York, a History, 1847-1947. New York: City College Press, 1949.

Ryan, Mary P. Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790-1865. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Salmon, Marylynn. Women and the Law of Property in Early America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Scharf, Lois. To Work and to Wed: Female Employment, Feminism, and the Great Depression. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Scheuer, Steen. Social and Economic Motivation at Work. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2000.

Schuele, Donna Clare. "`a Robbery to the Wife': Culture, Gender and Marital Property in California Law and Politics, 1850-1890." PhD, University of California Berkeley, 1999.

Sealander, Judith. As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983.

Sellars, Charles. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America 1815-1846, 1991.

Shammas, Carole. A History of Household Government in America. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2002.

440 Sherman, Janann. No Place for a Woman: A Life of Senator Margaret Chase Smith. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000.

Silber, Norman Isaac. With All Deliberate Speed: The Life of Philip Elman: An Oral History Memoir. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Sklar, Kathryn Kish. Florence Kelley and the Nation's Work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Skocpol, Theda. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992.

Smith, James P., and Michael P. Ward. Women's Wages and Work in the Twentieth Century. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1984.

Sobek, Matthew. "A Century of Work: Gender, Labor Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990." PhD, University of Minnesota, 1997.

Stanley, Amy Dru. From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Stata Corporation. Base Reference Manual K-Q. College Station, 2005.

Strom, Sharon Hartman. Beyond the Typewriter: Gender, Class, and the Origins of Modern American Office Work, 1900-1930. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992.

Sullivan, Kathleen. "Liberalism's Domesticity: The Common-Law Domestic Relations as Liberal Social Ordering." PhD, University of Texas, 2002.

Taylor, Quintard. In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 1528-1990. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998.

Thistle, Susan. From Marriage to the Market: The Transformation of Women's Lives and Work. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

Tiffin, Susan. In Whose Best Interest? Child Welfare Reform in the Progressive Era, Contributions to the Study of Childhood and Youth, No. 1. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982.

Tone, Andrea. The Business of Benevolence: Industrial Paternalism in Progressive America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.

441 Wadhwani, R. D. "Citizen Savers: The Family Economy, Financial Institutions, and Social Policy in the Northeastern United States from the Market Revolution to the Great Depression." PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2002.

Warbasse, Elizabeth Bowles. The Changing Legal Rights of Married Women, 1800- 1861. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987.

Ware, Susan. Beyond Suffrage: Women in the New Deal, 1981.

———. Holding Their Own: American Women in the 1930s. Boston, 1982.

Welke, Barbara Young. Recasting American Liberty: Gender, Race, Law, and the Railroad Revolution, 1865-1920, Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Wikander, Ulla, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Jane Lewis, eds. Protecting Women: Labor Legislation in Europe, the United States and Australia, 1880-1920. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995.

Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Willrich, Michael. City of Courts: Socializing Justice in Progressive Era Chicago, Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Woloch, Nancy. Muller V. Oregon: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books, 1996.

Zeigler, Sara L. "Family Service: Labor, the Family and Legal Reform in the United States." PhD, University of California Los Angeles, 1996.

Zunz, Oliver. Making America Corporate, 1870-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Book chapters, journal and magazine articles Aitken, Jo. "Wives and Mothers First: The New Zealand Teachers' Marriage Bar and the Ideology of Domesticity, 1920-1940." Women's Studies Journal 12, no. 1 (1996): 83-98.

Alter, G., C. Goldin, and E. Rotella. "The Savings of Ordinary Americans: The Philadelphia Saving Fund Society in the Mid-Nineteenth Century." The Journal of Economic History 54, no. 4 (1994): 735.

442 Angrist, J. D. "Children and Their Parents' Labor Supply: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Family Size." American Economic Review 88, no. 3 (1998): 450- 77.

Ashplant, T.G., and Adrian Wilson. "Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge." The Historical Journal 31, no. 2 (1988): 253-74.

Atack, J., and F. Bateman. "How Long Was the Workday in 1880?" 52, no. 1 (1992): 129-60.

Atack, J., F. Bateman, and R. A. Margo. "Part-Year Operation in Nineteenth-Century American Manufacturing: Evidence from the 1870 and 1880 Censuses." The Journal of Economic History 62, no. 3 (2002): 792-809.

Backhouse, Constance B. "Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth-Century Canada." Law and History Review 6, no. 2 (1988): 211-57.

Bailey, Joanne. "Favoured or Oppressed? Married Women, Property and 'Coverture' in England, 1660-1800." Continuity and Change 17, no. 3 (2002): 351-72.

Basch, Norma. "Invisible Women: The Legal Fiction of Marital Unity in Nineteenth- Century America." Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 346-66.

———. "The Emerging Legal History of Women in the United States: Property, Divorce, and the Constitution." Signs 12 (1986): 97-117.

Baskerville, Peter. "Women and Investment in Late-Nineteenth-Century Urban Canada: Victoria and Hamilton, 1880-1901." Canadian Historical Review [Canada] 80, no. 2 (1999): 191.

Berg, Maxine. "Women's Property and the Industrial Revolution." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24, no. 2 (1993): 233-50.

Bernstein, David. "Lochner's Feminist Legacy." Michigan Law Review 101, no. 6 (2003): 1960-86.

Bingley, P., and I. Walker. "Household Unemployment and the Labour Supply of Married Women." Economica 68, no. 270 (2001): 157-86.

Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn. "Changes in the Labor Supply Behavior of Married Women: 1980-2000." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 11230 (2005): Forthcoming in Journal of Labor Economics (2007).

Blumin, Stuart. "The Social Implications of American Economic Development." In Cambridge Economic History of the United States, edited by Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

443 Blundell, Richard, and Thomas Macurdy. "Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches." In Handbook of Labor Economics, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, 1559-695. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999.

Boris, Eileen. "Regulating Industrial Homework: The Triumph of "Sacred Motherhood"." Journal of American History 71, no. 4 (1985): 745-63.

———. "Changing Debate on Work and Family Lives: A Historical Perspective." In Unfinished Work: Building Equality and Democracy in an Era of Working Families, edited by Jody Heymann and Christopher Beem, xi, 479 p. New York: New Press, 2005.

Boris, Eileen, and S. J. Kleinberg. "Mothers and Other Workers: (Re)Conceiving Labor, Maternalism, and the State." Journal of Women's History 15, no. 3 (2003): 90-117.

Boydston, Jeanne. "The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States." Journal of the Early Republic 16, no. 2 (1996): 183-206.

Bradbury, Bettina. "From Civil Death to Separate Property: Changes in the Legal Rights of Married Women in Nineteenth-Century New Zealand." New Zealand Journal of History [New Zealand] 29, no. 1 (1995): 40.

Braunstein, Elissa, and Nancy Folbre. "To Honor and Obey: Efficiency, Inequality, and Patriarchal Property Rights." Feminist Economics 7, no. 1 (2001): 25-44.

Breen, William J. "Labor Market Statistics and the State: The United States in the Era of the Great War, 1914-1930." Journal of Policy History 8, no. 3 (1996).

Bucki, Cecelia. "Dilution of the Craft Tradition: Bridgeport, Connecticut Munitions Workers, 1915-1919." Social Science History 4, no. 1 (1980): 105-29.

Cancian, Maria, and Deborah Reed. "Assessing the Effects of Wives' Earnings on Family Income Inequality." Review of Economics and Statistics 80, no. 1 (1998): 73-79.

———. "The Impact of Wives' Earnings on Income Inequality: Issues and Estimates." Demography 36, no. 2 (1999): 173-84.

Carter, Susan B., and Mark Prus. "The Labor Market and the American High School Girl 1890-1928." Journal of Economic History 42, no. 1 (1982): 163-71.

Carter, Susan B., Roger L. Ransom, and Richard Sutch. "The Historical Labor Statistics Project at the University of California." Historical Methods 24, no. 2 (1991): 52-65.

444 Carter, Susan B., and Elizabeth Savoca. "Labor Mobility and Lengthy Jobs in Nineteenth-Century America." Journal of Economic History 50, no. 1 (1990): 1-16.

Carter, Susan B., and Richard Sutch. "Fixing the Facts: Editing of the 1880 U.S. Census of Occupations with Implications for Long-Term Labor-Force Trends and the Sociology of Official Statistics." Historical Methods 29, no. 1 (1996): 5-24.

Cherlin, Andrew. "The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family 66, no. 4 (2004): 848-61.

Chiappori, Pierre-Andre. "Rational Household Labor Supply." Econometrica 56, no. 1 (1988): 63-90.

———. "Collective Labor Supply and Welfare." Journal of Political Economy 100, no. 3 (1992): 437-67.

Chused, Richard. "Married Women's Property Law: 1800-1850." Georgetown Law Journal 71 (1983): 1359-425.

———. "Late Nineteenth Century Married Women's Property Law: Reception of the Early Married Women's Property Acts by Courts and Legislatures." American Journal of Legal History 29, no. 1 (1985): 3-35.

———. "The Oregon Donation Act of 1850 and Nineteenth Century Federal Married Women's Property Law." Law and History Review 2, no. 1 (1985): 44-78.

———. "Married Women's Property and Inheritance by Widows in Massachusetts: A Study of Wills Probated between 1800 and 1850." Berkeley Women's Law Journal (1986): 42-88.

Clausen, Cathryn L. "Gendered Merit: Women and the Merit Concept in Federal Employment, 1864-1944." American Journal of Legal History 40, no. 3 (1996).

Coase, R. H. "The Problem of Social Cost." Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960): 1-44.

Cohen, Lizabeth. "The Legacy of Brody's Steelworkers." Labor History 34, no. 3 (1993).

Coleman, Mary T., and John Pencavel. "Changes in Work Hours of Male Employees, 1940-1988." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 46 (1993): 262-83.

———. "Trends in Work Behavior of Women since 1940." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 46 (1993): 653-76.

445 Combs, M. B. "Cui Bono? The 1870 British Married Women's Property Act, Bargaining Power, and the Distribution of Resources within Marriage." Feminist Economics 12, no. 1 (2006): 51.

Combs, Mary Beth. "Wives and Household Wealth: The Impact of the 1870 British Married Women's Property Act on Wealth-Holding and Share of Household Resources." Continuity and Change 19, no. 1 (2004): 141.

———. "A Measure of Legal Independence": The 1870 Married Women's Property Act and the Portfolio Allocations of British Wives." Journal of Economic History 65, no. 4 (2005): 1028-57.

Cookingham, Mary E. " Working after Childbearing in Modern America." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14, no. 4 (1984): 773-92.

Costa, Dora L. "The Unequal Work Day: A Long-Term View." American Economic Review 88, no. 2 (1998): 330-34.

———. "From Mill Town to Board Room." Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2000): 101-22.

———. "The Wage and the Length of the Work Day: From the 1890s to 1991." Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 1 (2000): 156-81.

Costa, Dora L., and Matthew E. Khan. "Power Couples: Changes in the Locational Choice of the College Educated, 1940-1990." Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, no. 4 (2000): 1287-315.

Cott, Nancy. "Marriage and Women's Citizenship in the United States, 1830-1934." American Historical Review 103, no. 5 (1998): 1440-74.

Couprie, H. "Time Allocation within the Family: Welfare Implications of Life in a Couple." The Economic Journal 117, no. 516 (2007): 287.

Creighton, Colin. "The 'Family Wage' as a Class-Rational Strategy." Sociological Review 44 (1996): 204-24.

———. "The Rise of the Male Breadwinner Family." Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 2 (1996): 322.

———. "The Rise and Decline of the 'Male Breadwinner Family' in Britain." Cambridge Journal of Economics 23 (1999): 519-41.

Cross, Gary, and Peter Shergold. ""We Think We Are of the Oppressed": Gender, White Collar Work, and Grievances of Late Nineteenth-Century Women." Labor History 28, no. 1 (1987): 23-53.

446 Cullen, Julie Berry, and Jonathan Gruber. "Does Unemployment Insurance Crowd out Spousal Labor Supply?" Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 3 (2000): 546- 72.

Currarino, Rosanne. "The Politics of “More”: The Labor Question and the Idea of Economic Liberty in Industrial America." Journal of American History 93, no. 1 (2006): 17-36.

Curtis White, Katherine J. "Women in the Great Migration: Economic Activity of Black and White Southern-Born Female Migrants in 1920, 1940 and 1970." Social Science History 29, no. 3 (2005): 413-55.

Danylewycz, Marta, and Alison Prentice. "Teachers, Gender, and Bureaucratizing School Systems in Nineteenth Century Montreal and Toronto." History of Education Quarterly 24, no. 1 (1984): 75-100.

Davidson, Janet F. ""Now That We Have Girls in the Office": Clerical Work, Masculinity, and the Refashioning of Gender for a Bureaucratic Age." In Boys and Their Toys: Masculinity, Technology, and Class in America, edited by Roger Horowitz, 55-90. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Davis, Joseph H. "An Annual Index of Us Industrial Production, 1790-1915." Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 4 (2004): 1177-215.

———. "An Improved Annual Chronology of U.S. Business Cycles since the 1790s." Journal of Economic History 66, no. 1 (2006): 103-21.

Dex, S., and A. McCulloch. "The Reliability of Retrospective Unemployment History Data." Work, Employment and Society 12, no. 3 (2001): 497-509.

Dougan, Michael B. "The Arkansas Married Woman's Property Law." Arkansas Historical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (1987): 3.

Dubler, Ariela R. "In the Shadow of Marriage: Single Women and the Legal Construction of the Family and the State." Yale Law Journal 112 (2003): 1641-.

Durst, Anne. ""of Women, by Women, and for Women": The Day Nursery Movement in the Progressive-Era United States." Journal of Social History 39, no. 1 (2005): 141-60.

Eichler, Margrit. "Women Pioneers in Canadian Sociology: The Effects of a Politics of Gender and a Politics of Knowledge." Canadian Journal of Sociology 26, no. 3 (2001): 375-403.

Erickson, Amy Louise. "Common Law Versus Common Practice: The Use of Marriage Settlements in Early Modern England." Economic History Review New Series 43, no. 1 (1990): 21-39.

447 ———. "Coverture and Capitalism." History Workshop Journal, no. 59 (2005).

Fernandez, R., A. Fogli, and C. Olivetti. "Mothers and Sons: Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics." Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 4 (2004): 1249-99.

Fernández, Raquel. "Women,Work, and Culture." Journal of the European Economic Association (2007 forthcoming).

Fine, Lisa M. "Between Two Worlds: Business Women in a Chicago Boarding House 1900-1930." Journal of Social History 19, no. 3 (1986): 511.

Finegan, T.Aldrich, and Robert A. Margo. "Work Relief and the Labor Force Participation of Married Women in 1940." Journal of Economic History 54, no. 1 (1994): 64-84.

Fish, V.K. "Annie Marion Maclean: A Neglected Part of the Chicago School." Journal of the History of Sociology 3, no. 1 (1981): 43-62.

Fitch, Catherine, and Steven Ruggles. "Historical Trends in Marriage Formation." In Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, edited by Linda Waite, Christine Bachrach, Michelle Hindin, Elizabeth Thomson and Arland Thornton, 59-88. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000.

Folbre, Nancy. "The Unproductive Housewife: Her Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Economic Thought." Signs 16, no. 3 (1991): 463-84.

———. "Womens Informal Market Work in Massachusetts, 1875-1920." Social Science History 17, no. 1 (1993): 135-60.

Frank, Meryl, and Robyn Lipner. "History of Maternity Leave in Europe and the United States." In The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a National Policy, edited by Edward Zigler and Meryl Frank, xxv, 358 p. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Frankel, Martin R., and Lester R. Frankel. "Fifty Years of Survey Sampling in the United States." Public Opinion Quarterly 51, no. 2 (1987): S127-S38.

Fraser, Nancy, and Linda Gordon. "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State." Signs 19, no. 2 (1994): 309-36.

Freedman, Estelle. "Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870-1930." Feminist Studies 5, no. 4 (1979): 512-29.

Friedman, Walter A. "John H. Patterson and the Sales Strategy of the National Cash Register Company, 1884-1922." Business History Review 72, no. 3 (1998): 552-84.

448 Furner, Mary O. "Knowing Capitalism: Public Investigation and the Labor Question in the Long Progressive Era." In The State and Economic Knowledge, edited by Mary O. Furner and Barry Supple, 241-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Gaspar Brown, Elizabeth. "Husband and Wife: Memorandum on the Mississippi Women's Law of 1839." Michigan Law Review 42, no. June (1944): 1110-21.

Geddes, Rick, and Dean Lueck. "The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights." American Economic Review 92, no. 4 (2002): 1079-92.

Genadek, Katie R., Wendy A. Stock, and Christiana Stoddard. "No-Fault Divorce Laws and the Labor Supply of Women with and without Children." Journal of Human Resources 42, no. 1 (2007): 247-74.

Gitelman, H.M. "Welfare Capitalism Reconsidered." Labor History 33, no. 1 (1992): 1-31.

Glickman, Lawrence. "Inventing the "American Standard of Living": Gender, Race and Working Class Identity, 1880-1925." Labor History 34, no. 2 (1993): 221- 35.

Golde, Hilary, and Diane Kirkby. "Mrs. Mayne and Her Boxing Kangaroo: A Married Woman Tests Her Property Rights in Colonial New South Wales." Law and History Review 21, no. 3 (2003): 585-606.

Goldin, Claudia. "Female Labor Force Participation: The Origin of Black and White Differences, 1870 and 1880." Journal of Economic History 37, no. 1 (1977): 87-108.

———. "Maximum Hours Legislation and Female Employment: A Reassessment." Journal of Political Economy 96, no. 1 (1988): 189-205.

———. "America's Graduation from High School: The Evolution and Spread of Secondary Schooling in the Twentieth Century." Journal of Economic History 58, no. 2 (1998): 345-74.

———. "A Pollution Theory of Discrimination: Male and Female Differences in Occupations and Earnings." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 8985 (2002).

———. "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, no. 596 (2004): 20-35.

———. "Education." In Historical Statistics of the United States, edited by Susan B. Carter, Scott Sigmund Gartner, Michael R. Haines, Alan L. Olmsted, Richard Sutch and Gavin Wright, 387-97. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

449 ———. " The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family." American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006): 1-21.

———. "The Rising (and Then Declining) Significance of Gender." In The Declining Significance of Gender? edited by Francine D. Blau, Mary C. Brinton and David B. Grusky, 67-101. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.

Goldin, Claudia D. "Marriage Bars: Discrimination against Married Women Workers from the 1920s to the 1950s." In Favorites of Fortune: Technology, Growth, and Economic Development since the Industrial Revolution, edited by Patrice Higonnet, David S. Landes and Henry Rosovsky, 511-36. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Goldin, Claudia, and Kenneth Sokoloff. "Women, Children, and Industrialization in the Early Republic Evidence from the Manufacturing Censuses." Journal of Economic History 42, no. 4 (1982): 741-74.

Goodwin, Joanne L. "Employable Mothers" and "Suitable Work": A Re-Evaluation of Welfare and Wage-Earning for Women in the Twentieth-Century United States." Journal of Social History 29, no. 2 (1995): 253-74.

Gordon, Linda. "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945." Journal of American History 78, no. 2 (1991): 559-90.

———. "Social Insurance and Public Assistance: The Influence of Gender in Welfare Thought in the United States, 1890-1935." American Historical Review 97, no. 1 (1992): 19-54.

Graham, R. "Slavery and Economic-Development - Brazil and the United-States South in the 19th-Century." Comparative Studies in Society and History 23, no. 4 (1981).

Grey, Jeffrey S. "Divorce Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married Women's Labor Supply." American Economic Review 88, no. 3 (1998): 628- 42.

Gross, Edward. "Plus Ca Change.? The Sexual Structure of Occupations over Time." Social Problems 16, no. 3 (1968): 198-208.

Grossbard-Shechtman, S. "The New Home Economics at Columbia and Chicago." Feminist Economics 7, no. 3 (2001): 103-30.

Gruber, Jonathan. "The Incidence of Mandated Maternity Benefits." American Economic Review 84, no. 3 (1994): 622-41.

Gutmann, Myron P., Sara M. Pullum-Piñón, and Thomas W. Pullum. "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America." Journal of Social History 35, no. 3 (2002): 533-76.

450 Hacker, Jacob S. "Bringing the Welfare State Back In: The Promise (and Perils) of the New Social Welfare History." Journal of Policy History 17, no. 1 (2005): 125-54.

Haines, Michael R. "Industrial Work and the Family Life Cycle, 1889-1890." Research in Economic History 4 (1979): 289-356.

Hansen, W. Lee. "The Cyclical Sensitivity of the Labor Supply." American Economic Review 51, no. 3 (1961): 299-309.

Hargis, Peggy G., and Patrick M. Horan. "Bounded by Culture or Culture Bound? Ethnicity, Schooling, and the Interplay of Theory and Evidence." Historical Methods 37, no. 1 (2004): 23-33.

Hatton, Timothy J., and Jeffrey Williamson. "Unemployment, Employment Contracts, and Compensating Wage Differentials: Michigan in the 1890s." Journal of Economic History 51, no. 3 (1991): 605-32.

Heckman, J. J. "What Has Been Learned About Labor Supply in the Past Twenty Years?" The American Economic Review 83, no. 2 (1993): 116.

Heckman, James J. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture." Journal of Political Economy 109, no. 4 (2001): 673-748.

Heneman Jr., Herbert G. "Measurement of Secondary Unemployment: An Evaluation of Woytinsky's Methods." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 3, no. 4 (1950): 567-74.

Herr, Elizabeth. "Women, Marital Status, and Work Opportunities in 1880 Colorado." Journal of Economic History 55, no. 2 (1995): 339-66.

Heywood, John S., W. Stanley Sieberty, and Xiangdong Weiz. "The Implicit Wage Costs of Family Friendly Work Practices." Oxford Economic Papers 59, no. 2 (2007): 275-300.

Hoover, Greg A. "Supplemental Family Income Sources: Ethnic Differences in Nineteenth-Century Industrial America." Social Science History 9, no. 3 (1985): 293-306.

Horrell, Sara, and Jane Humphries. "Women's Labour Force Participation and the Transition to the Male-Breadwinner Family, 1790-1865." Economic History Review 48, no. 1 (1995): 89-117.

Horvath, F.W. "Forgotten Unemployment: Recall Bias in Retrospective Data." Monthly Labor Review 150, no. 3 (1982): 40-43.

451 Huberman, Michael. "Working Hours of the World Unite? New International Evidence of Worktime, 1870-1913." Journal of Economic History 64, no. 4 (2004): 964-1001.

Ingram, Susan, and Kris Inwood. "Property Ownership by Married Women in Victorian Ontario." Dalhousie Law Journal 23 (2000): 406-.

Inwood, Kris, and Sarah VanSligtenhorst. "The Social Consequences of Legal Reform: Women and Property in a Canadian Community." Continuity and Change 19, no. 1 (2004): 165.

Jacobs, Jerry A. "Long-Term Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex." American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (1989): 160-73.

Jacobs, Jerry A., and Kathleen Gerson. "Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families? Explaining Trends in Work, Leisure, and Family Time." Work and Occupations 28, no. 1 (2001): 40-64.

Jacoby, Sanford M., and Sunil Sharma. "Employment Duration and Industrial Labor Mobility in the United States 1880-1980." Journal of Economic History 52, no. 1 (1992): 161-79.

Janssens, A. "The Male Breadwinner: Myth or Historical Reality? An Overview." Tijdschrift Voor Geschiedenis 111, no. 2 (1998): 258-80.

Jensen, Joan M. "Cloth, Butter and Boarders: Women's Household Production for the Market." Review of Radical Political Economics 12, no. 2 (1980): 14-24.

Jensen, Richard. "The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19, no. 4 (1989): 553-83.

Jones, Stephen R.G. "Was There a Hawthorne Effect?" American Journal of Sociology 98, no. 3 (1992): 451-68.

Juhn, Chinhui, and Kevin M. Murphy. "Wage Inequality and Family Labor Supply." Journal of Labor Economics 15, no. 1 (1997): 72-97.

Kelly, Erin, and Frank Dobbin. "Civil Rights Law at Work: Sex Discrimination and the Rise of Maternity Leave Policies." American Journal of Sociology 105, no. 2 (1999): 455-92.

Khan, B. Zorina. "Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790-1895." Journal of Economic History 56, no. 2 (1996): 356.

Kinnear, Mary. ""Mostly for the Male Members": Teaching in Winnipeg 1933-1966." Historical Studies in Education 6, no. 1 (1994): 1-20.

452 Kleinberg, S. J. "Children's and Mothers' Wage Labor in Three Eastern U.S. Cities, 1880-1920." Social Science History 29, no. 1 (2005): 45-76.

Landes, Elisabeth M. "The Effect of State Maximum-Hours Laws on the Employment of Women in 1920." Journal of Political Economy 88, no. 3 (1980): 476-94.

Laslett, Barbara. "Women's Work in Late-Nineteenth-Century Los Angeles: Class, Gender and the Culture of New Womanhood." Continuity and Change 5, no. 3 (1990): 417-41.

Lebergott, Stanley. "Earnings of Nonfarm Employees in the U. S., 1890-1946." Journal of the American Statistical Association 43, no. 241 (1948): 74-93.

Lipschultz, Sybil. "Hours and Wages: The Gendering of Labor Standards in America." Journal of Women's History 8, no. 1 (1996): 114-36.

Lleras-Muney, Adriana. "Were Compulsory Attendance and Child Labor Laws Effective: An Analysis from 1915 to 1939." Journal of Law and Economics 45, no. 2 (2002): 401-35.

Lundberg, S. "Men and Islands: Dealing with the Family in Empirical Labor Economics." 12, no. 4 (2005): 591-612.

Lundberg, Shelly J. "The Added-Worker Effect." Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. 1 (1985): 11-37.

Lundberg, Shelly, and Robert Pollak. "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage." Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, no. 4 (1996): 139-54.

Luskey, Brian. "Jumping Counters in White Collars: Manliness, Respectability, and Work in the Antebellum City." Journal of the Early Republic 26, no. 2 (2006): 173-219.

Maloney, Tim. "Employment Constraints and the Labor Supply of Married Women: A Reexamination of the Added Worker Effect." Journal of Human Resources 22, no. 1 (1987): 51-61.

———. "Unobserved Variables and the Elusive Added Worker Effect." Economica 58, no. 230 (1991): 173-87.

Mammen, Kristin, and Christina Paxson. "Women's Work and Economic Development." Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2000): 141-64.

Manacorda, Marco. " Child Labor and the Labor Supply of Other Household Members: Evidence from 1920 America." American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006): 1788-801.

453 Mandell, Nikki. "The Triumph of Personnel Management: Contesting Corporate Motherhood and the Corporate Welfare System." Essays in Economic and Business History 18 (2000): 135-47.

Margo, R. A. "The Labor Force in the Nineteenth Century." In The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The Long Nineteenth Century, edited by Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, 207-43. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Margo, Robert A. "Interwar Unemployment in the United States: Evidence from the 1940 Census Sample." In Interwar Unemployment in International Perspective, edited by Barry J. Eichengreen and T. J. Hatton, 325-52. Dordrecht, 1988.

———. "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s." Journal of Economic Perspectives 7, no. 1 (1993): 41-59.

———. "Labor and Labor Markets in the 1930s." In The Economics of the Great Depression, edited by M. Wheeler, 9-27. Kalamazoo: Upjohn Institute, 1998.

Margo, Robert A., and T.Aldrich Finegan. "Compulsory Schooling Legislation and School Attendance in Turn-of-the-Century America: A "Natural Experiment" Approach." Economics Letters 53, no. 1 (1996): 103-10.

Mathiowetz, N. A., and G. J. Duncan. "Out of Work, out of Mind: Response Errors in Retrospective Reports of Unemployment." Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 6, no. 2 (1988): 221-29.

McCammon, Holly. "Protection for Whom? Maximum Hours Laws and Women’s Employment in the United States, 1880-1920." Work and Occupations 23 (1996): 132-64.

McCammon, Holly J. "The Politics of Protection: State Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Laws for Women in the United States, 1870-1930." Sociological Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1995): 217-49.

McCurry, Stephanie. "Review of Basch, Framing American Divorce; Lewis Bredbenner, a Nationality of Her Own; Cott, Public Vows; Hartog, Man and Wife in America; Kerber; No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies." Signs 30, no. 2 (2005): 1659-69.

McGrattan, Ellen R., and Richard Rogerson. "Changes in Hours Worked, 1950– 2000." Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 28, no. 1 (2004): 14-33.

Mettler, Suzanne B. "Federalism, Gender, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938." Polity 26, no. 4 (1994): 635-54.

454 Meyerowitz, Joanne. "Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946-1958." Journal of American History 79, no. 4 (1993): 1455-82.

Michael, Robert T. "Consequences of the Rise in Female Labor Force Participation Rates: Questions and Probes." Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. 1 (1985): S117-S46.

Mincer, Jacob. "Labor Force Participation of Married Women." In Aspects of Labor Economics, edited by H. Gregg Lewis, 63-97. Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research and Princeton University Press, 1962.

Miron, Jeffrey A., and Christina Romer. "A New Monthly Index of Industrial Production, 1884-1940." Journal of Economic History 50, no. 2 (1990): 321- 37.

Modell, John. "Patterns of Consumption, Acculturation, and Family Income Strategies in Late-Nineteenth Century America." In Family and Population in Nineteenth-Century America, edited by Tamara F. Hareven, 206-40. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Modell, John, and Tamara K. Hareven. "Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 35, no. 3 (1973): 467-79.

Moehling, Carolyn M. "State Child Labor Laws and the Decline of Child Labor." Explorations in Economic History 36, no. 1 (1999): 72-106.

———. "Women's Work and Men's Unemployment." Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001): 926-49.

———. "The American Welfare System and Family Structure: An Historical Perspective." Journal of Human Resources 42, no. 1 (2007): 117–55.

Moncrief, Sandra. "The Mississippi Married Women's Property Act of 1839." Journal of Mississippi History 47, no. 2 (1985): 110.

Nolan, Melanie. "The High Tide of a Labour Market Sysem: The Australasian Male Breadwinner Model." Labour & Industry 13, no. 3 (2003): 73-92.

Orloff, Ann Shola. "Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States." American Sociological Review 58, no. 3 (1993): 303-28.

Owen, Laura J. "Gender Differences in Labor Turnover and the Development of Internal Labor Markets in the United States During the 1920s." Enterprise & Society 2, no. 1 (2001): 41-71.

455 Pampel, F.C., and H.E. Peters. "The Easterlin Effect." Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1995): 163-94.

Peel, Mark. "On the Margins: Lodgers and Boarders in Boston, 1860-1900." Journal of American History 72, no. 4 (1986): 813-34.

Perry, George. ""a Concession to Circumstances": Nova Scotia's "Unlimited Supply" of Women Teachers, 1870-1960." Historical Studies in Education [Canada] 15, no. 2 (2003): 327.

Pollak, Robert A. "A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households." Journal of Economic Literature 23, no. 2 (1985): 581-608.

Rau, William, and Robert Wazienski. "Industrialization, Female Labor Force Participation, and the Modern Division of Labor by Sex." Industrial Relations 38, no. 4 (1999): 504-21.

Rauchway, Eric. "The High Cost of Living in the Progressives' Economy." Journal of American History 88, no. 3 (2001): 898-924.

Richards, Susan L. "Making Home Pay: Italian and Scottish Boardinghouse Keepers in Barre, 1880-1918." Vermont History 74, no. Winter/Spring (2006): 48-66.

Ritter, Gretchen. "Gender and Citizenship after the Nineteenth Amendment." Polity 32, no. 3 (2000): 345-75.

Roberts, Evan, Matthew Woollard, Chad Ronnander, Lisa Y. Dillon, and Gunnar Thorvaldsen. "Occupational Classification in the the North Atlantic Population Project." Historical Methods 36, no. 2 (2003): 89-96.

Robinson, Robert V. "Making Ends Meet: Wives and Children in the Family Economy of Indianapolis, 1860-1920of Indianapolis, 1860-1920." Indiana Magazine of History 92, no. 3 (1996): 197-234.

Rosenbloom, Joshua L. "Was There a National Labor Market at the End of the Nineteenth Century? New Evidence on Earnings in Manufacturing." Journal of Economic History 56, no. 3 (1996): 626-56.

Rotella, Elyce J. "The Transformation of the American Office: Changes in Employment and Technology." The Journal of Economic History 41, no. 1 (1981): 51.

Ruggles, Steven. "The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the United States, 1880- 1990." Demography 34, no. 4 (1997): 455-66.

456 ———. "The Decline of Intergenerational Coresidence in the United States, 1850- 2000." American Sociological Review (2007 forthcoming).

Ruggles, Steven, and Susan Brower. "The Measurement of Household and Family Composition in the United States, 1850-2000." Population and Development Review 29, no. 1 (2003): 73-101.

Salmon, Marylynn. "The Legal Status of Women in Early America: A Reappraisal." Law and History Review 1, no. 1 (1983): 129-51.

Sapiro, Virginia. "The Gender Basis of American Social Policy." Political Science Quarterly 101, no. 2 (1986): 221-38.

Sealander, Judith. "Whose Knowledge? Review of Richard Gillespie, Manufacturing Knowledge." Reviews in American History 22, no. 4 (1994): 645-49.

Seccombe, Wally. "Patriarchy Stabilized: The Constrution of the Male Breadwinner Wage Norm in Nineteenth Century Britain." Social History 2, no. 1 (1986): 53-75.

Shachar, Ron, and Zvi Eckstein. "Correcting for Bias in Retrospective Data." Journal of Applied Econometrics 22, no. 3 (2007): 657-75.

Shammas, Carole. "Re-Assessing the Married Women's Property Acts." Journal of Women's History 6, no. 1 (1994): 9-30.

———. "Anglo-American Household Government in Comparative Perspective." William & Mary Quarterly 3rd Ser. 52, no. 1 (1995): 104-44.

Siegel, Reva B. "Home as Work: The First Woman's Rights Claims Concerning Wives' Household Labor, 1850-1880." Yale Law Journal 103, no. 5 (1994): 1073-217.

———. "The Modernization of Marital Status Law: Adjudicating Wives' Rights to Earnings, 1860-1930." Georgetown Law Journal 82 (1994): 2127-.

———. "Valuing Housework - Nineteenth-Century Anxieties About the Commodification of Domestic Labor." American Behavioral Scientist 41, no. 10 (1998): 1437-51.

Silbaugh, Katharine. "Turning Labor into Love: Housework and the Law." Northwestern University Law Review 91, no. 1 (1996): 1-86.

Sklar, Kathryn Kish. "'the Greater Part of the Petitioners Are Female': The Reduction of Women's Working Hours in the Paid Labor Force, 1840-1917." In Worktime and Industrialization: An International History, edited by Gary Cross, 103-34. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988.

457 Smith, James P., and Michael Ward. "Women in the Labor Market and in the Family." Journal of Economic Perspectives 3, no. 1 (1989): 9-23.

Smith, James P., and Michael P. Ward. "Time Series Growth in the Female Labor Force." Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. Supplement (1985): S59-S90.

Sommestad, Lena. "Welfare State Attitudes to the Male Breadwinning System: The United States and Sweden in Comparative Perspective." International Review of Social History 42, no. Supplement 5 (1997): 153-74.

Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A. "Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies." Journal of Occupational Behavior 6, no. 2 (1985): 111-30.

Spivey, Christy. "Time Off at What Price? The Effects of Career Interruptions on Earnings." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 59, no. 1 (2005): 119-40.

Stanley, Amy Dru. "Conjugal Bonds and Wage Labor: Rights of Contract in the Age of Emancipation." Journal of American History 75, no. 2 (1988): 471-500.

Stapleford, Thomas A. "‘Housewife Vs. Economist’: Gender, Class, and Domestic Economic Knowledge in Twentieth-Century America." Labor 1, no. 2 (2004).

Stephens Jr., Melvin. "Worker Displacement and the Added Worker Effect." Journal of Labor Economics 20, no. 3 (2002): 504-37.

Sundstrom, William A. "Discouraging Times: The Labor Force Participation of Married Black Women, 1930-1940." Explorations in Economic History 38, no. 1 (2001): 123-46.

Theobald, Marjorie, and Donna Dwyer. "An Episode in Feminist Politics:The Married Women (Lecturers and Teachers)Act, 1932-47." Labour History, no. 76 (1999): 59-77.

Trouvé-Finding, Susan. "Teaching as a Woman’s Job: The Impact of the Admission of Women to Elementary Teaching in England and France in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries." History of Education 34, no. 5 (2005): 483-96.

Wadhwani, R. D. "Citizen Savers: Family Economy, Financial Institutions, and Public Policy in the Nineteenth-Century Northeast." Enterprise and Society 5, no. 4 (2004): 617.

Wadhwani, Rohit Daniel. "Banking from the Bottom Up: The Case of Migrant Savers at the Philadelphia Saving Fund Society During the Late Nineteenth Century." Financial History Review 9, no. 1 (2002): 41.

458 Weeden, K. A. "Revisiting Occupational Sex Segregation in the United States, 1910- 1990: Results from a Log-Linear Approach." Demography 35, no. 4 (1998): 475-87.

Weiss, Janice. "Educating for Clerical Work: The Nineteenth-Century Private Commercial School." Journal of Social History 14, no. 3 (1981): 407-24.

Welter, Barbara. "The Cult of True Womanhood." American Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1966): 151-74.

Whaples, Robert. "Winning the Eight-Hour Day, 1909-1919." Journal of Economic History 50, no. 2 (1990): 393-406.

White, K. J. C., K. Crowder, S. E. Tolnay, and R. M. Adelman. "Race, Gender, and Marriage: Destination Selection During the Great Migration." Demography 42, no. 2 (2005): 215-41.

Williams, Joan. "Do Wives Own Half? Winning for Wives after Wendt." Connecticut Law Review 32 (2000): 249-80.

Willrich, Michael. "Home Slackers: Men, the State, and Welfare in Modern America." Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 460-89.

Wilson, Adrian, and T.G. Ashplant. "Whig History and Present-Centred History." The Historical Journal 31, no. 1 (1988): 1-16.

Witt, John Fabian. "From Loss of Services to Loss of Support: The Wrongful Death Statutes, the Origins of Modern Tort Law, and the Making of the Nineteenth- Century Family." Law and Social Inquiry 25, no. 3 (2000): 717-55.

Wootton, Charles W., and Barbara E. Kemmerer. "The Changing Genderization of Bookkeeping in the United States, 1870-1930." Business History Review 70, no. 4 (1996): 541-86.

Zeigler, Sara L. "Uniformity and Conformity: Regionalism and the Adjudication of the Married Women's Property Acts." Polity 28, no. 4 (1996): 467-95.

———. "Wifely Duties: Marriage, Labor and the Common Law in Nineteenth- Century America." Social Science History 20, no. 1 (1996): 63-96.

459

Figure 0.1 Proportion of white women ever married, 1880-1940

460

Figure 0.2 Proportion of black women ever married, 1880-1940

461

Figure 1.1 Trends in married women's labor force participation, 1860-2005

462

Figure 1.2 Labor force participation of smaller ethnic groups

463

Figure 1.3 Racial composition of married women, 1870-1940

464

Figure 1.4 Labor force participation including boarders, 1880-2000

465

Figure 1.5 Marriage to farmers, farm laborers and employers, 1850-1940

466

Figure 1.6 Labor force participation by race and husband's employment

467

Figure 1.7 Black labor force participation by marital status and sex 1860-2005

468

Figure 1.8 White labor force participation by marital status and sex, 1860-2005

469

Figure 1.9 Life course labor force participation of white wives

470

Figure 1.10 Age specific labor force participation rates of white wives

471

Figure 1.11 Life course labor force participation of black wives

472

Figure 1.12 Age specific labor force participation rates of black wives

473

Figure 1.13 Industrial composition of American labor force, 1850-2000

474

Figure 2.2 Illustration of difference-in-differences method

475

Figure 2.3 Coverage of property acts for women aged 20-30

476

Figure 2.4 Proportion of 20-30 year old women ever married, 1850-1920

477

Figure 2.5 Young women’s marriage behavior and earnings law reform

478

Figure 2.6 Young women’s marriage behavior and property law reform

479

Figure 2.7 Young women’s marriage behavior and sole trade law reform

480

Figure 2.8 Schooling and labor force participation by cohort for whites

481

Figure 2.9 Schooling and labor force participation for blacks

482

Figure 3.1 Husbands and wives labor force participation, 1860-1940

483

Figure 3.2 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force participation, 1880-1900

484

Figure 3.3 Husbands' annual unemployment and wives' labor force participation, 1910-1940

485

Figure 3.4 Children and white wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

486

Figure 3.5 Children and black wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

487

Figure 3.6 Children under six, and white wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

488

Figure 3.7 Children under six, and black wives labor force participation, 1880-1940

489

Figure 3.8 Working children and white wives labor force participation

490

Figure 3.9 Working children and black wives labor force participation

491

Figure 4.1 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, all husbands

492

Figure 4.2 Attaining the family wage ideal, 1880-1940, husbands with co-resident children

493