This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800 Volume Author/Editor: Dorothy S. Brady, ed. Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-870-14186-4 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/brad66-1 Publication Date: 1966 Chapter Title: Labor Force and Employment, 1800–1960 Chapter Author: Stanley Lebergott Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c1567 Chapter pages in book: (p. 117 - 204) Labor Force and Employment, 1800—1960 STANLEY LEBERGOTT WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY I Historical Comparison of U.S. and U.K. Employment The full meaning of the employment trends shown in Tables 1 and 2 for this lengthy period can be understood best by reviewing the entire span of American history. So laudable an enterprise must be left to others. Here we seek only to consider a few obvious implications. In this section we make some contrasts with the concurrent employment changes in the United Kingdom—that colonial power once dominating this country, our competitor in third country markets, and perhaps our closest ally (Table 3). To do so we telescope our history into five periods. 1840—60 From the late 1830's, with Jackson's frigid treatment of joyous entre- preneurial expectations in banking, down to the eve of the Civil War, the United States decisively expanded its home market, while the United Kingdom extended its outward markets even more than those at home. The 60 per cent rise in U.S. farm employment was twice the rate of gain for the U.K. But exports were not the key. U.S. grain exports constituted an undistinguished footnote to the rise:wheat exports rose from $2 million to a mere $4 million; and while cotton exports gained from 744,000 to 1,768,000 pounds, tripling in value, neither category accounted for the bulk of the rise in farm employment. Even were we to attribute all the rise in farm slave employment to export sales—and a large segment was surely attributable merely to maintenance and expansion of the slave capital stock—the rise of over 50 per cent in the free farm labor force was another matter.That gain derived primarily from the support of a massive population increase—in city slums, in the open country, on frontier farms. TABLE 1 ThE LABORFORCE, BY(thousands)INDUSTRYManufacturingANDSTATUS1800—1960 Total TextileCotton PrimaryIronSteel and Transport 1800 1,900Total1,370FreeSlave530Agricul—1,400ture Fishing5 Mining10 Construe—tion EngagedPersons EarnersWage1 EarnersWage1 Trade VesselsOcean40 Rail—way Teachers5 ServiceDomestic40 1840183018201810 5,6604,2003,1352,3304,1803,0202,1851,590 1,4801,180950740 3,5702,9652,4701.950 2415146 32221311 290 50075 72551210 24205 350 95706050 7 45302012 24016011070 1880187018601850 17,39012,93011,1108,2508,7706,2802,340 1,970 8,9206,7905,8804,520 41283130 176280180102 900780520410 3,2902,4701,5301,200 17513512292 130437835 1,9301,310890530 135125145135 4161608020 23017011580 1,1301,000600350 1920191019001890 41,61029,07023,32037,480 10,79011,77011,6809,960 53686960 1,1801,068440637 1,6651,2331,9491,510 11,190 8,3324,3905,895 450370303222 460306222149 5,8455,3203,9702,960 205150105120 2,2361,8551,040750 436350752595 1,6602,0901,8001,580 1960195019401930 74,06065,47056,29048,830 10,5605,9707,8709,575 45776073 1,009901925709 3,6403,0291,9881,876 11,30917,145 15,6489,884 300350400372 530550485375 12,15214,0519,3288,122 135130150160 1,3731,1601,659883 1,8501,2701,0861,044 2,4891,9952,3002,270 over.aPersons engaged (employees, wage earners, salaried, self—euipl'oye4 and unpaid family workers), unless otherwise specified. Aged ten and PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THETABLE LABOR 2 FORCE, BY IU)USTRY Atsi) STATUS Total Primary(Farm, Ocean LaborForce Free Slave Farm• Nonf arm Mining)Fishing, Construc—tioij Manufac—turing Trade Transportand Rail Domestics 1800 100.0 72.1 27.9 73.7 26.3 74.5 • 2.1 2.1 1840183018201810 100.0 69.768.273.871.9 26.228.130.331.8 63.168.878.880.9 36.9 31.221.219.1 64.169.781.679.6 5.1 8.82.8 6.2 1.81.71,62.6 4.23.83.53.0 1880187018501860 100.0 78.976.1 21.123.9 51.354.852.552.9 48.747,547.145.2 53.154.154.956.4 4.75.26.05.0 18.919.].13.814.5 11.110.18.06.43.12.32.0 1.9 4.26.57.75.4 1920191019001890 100.0100.0 25.931.440.242.774.168.659.8 57.3 34.442.644.828,9 3.05.25.76.5 26.922.220,318.8 14.014.213.712.7 5,95.43.93.7 4.05.66.26.8 1960195019401930 100.0100.0 21.612.017,08.1 91,988.083.078.4 23.813.51889,1 4,94.63.34.1 23.223.920.1.20.2 19.018.616.6 1,42.33.7 3.43.04.14.6 TABLE 3 U.S. AND U.K. BY lSkO_Ig&Oa Trade Agriculture Fishing Mining(CoalU.K. ConstructionU.K.b CottonU.K. Textilesb TransportOcean Railway OccupationsCCommercialU.K. 1850—511840—41 4,5203,570U.S. 2,0171,515U.K. U.S.3024 U.K.3724 102U.S.32 Only)n.a. 410290U.S. 497377A B U.S.9272 331260A B 135U.S.95 U.K. 15676 U.S.207 U.K.292 530350U.S. 9195A B 1860—611890—911880—811870—71 9,9608,9205,8806,790 1,5021,6331,769 1,942 60412831 54 614840 440280176180 632485351n.e. 1,510900780520 902877716594 222175135122 529485450 120125135145236206192203 42075016080 213 1589660 2,9601,9301,310890 475363217132 1920—211910—111900—01 10,79011,77011,6801,4491,553 1,425 536869 5153 1,1801,068637 1,2481,049780 1,2331,9491,665 1,1451,219 899 739 450370303 580524 560 205150105314293264 2,2361,8551,040 3573733205,8455,320 3,973 1,491896613 1,759 1960—611950—511940—411930—31 10,5605,9709,5757,8701,2191,353n.e. 45776073 n.e.2640 1,009901925709 n.e.791n.a.931 3,6403,0291,8761,988 1,282n.e.987 300350400372 n.e.322n.e.564 135130150160n.e.218n.a.305 1,3731,1601,659883 n.a.n.e.318305 14,05112,1529,3288,122 2,2132,323n.e.n.a. docks";pp.• a 60—61,Source: for 118,agriculture,weFor 188; the andU.S., United usepresent agriculture,Kingdom, estimates. AnnualFor Abstract the U.K., ofand Statistics,B. forestry; R. Mitchell 1961,for coal,and p. Phyllis106. 1940 figureFor Deane, U.K. is Abstract vesselthat for transport of 1938. British we Historicaluse "sea, canals,Statistics, and1962, CbData inin column A A based are foron "cotmnercialFactory Inspectors occupations'; returns; in in B, B,f for or "coninercial insured employees. finance and insurance occupations (excluding clerical staff)." LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT, 1800—1960 121 Intimately linked to the advance was the concurrent rise in railroad employment: 300 per cent for the United States, compared with 100 per cent for the United Kingdom.' For the United Kingdom, railways offered only a superior means oftransport, competitive with existing roads and canals; for the United States, they constituted the very conditions for opening new territory, breaking into areas that had virtually no transport worthy of the name.2 Linked to the population advance was the 150percent rise in U.S. trade employment, compared with a mere 30 per cent for the U.K. London, Glasgow, Bath, and Barset had long since acquired their comple- ment of drapers, greengrocers, and apothecaries. New London, Chicago, and Etruria had still to develop such a network of shops. Why, one may ask, if extensive development were so characteristic of the U.S., did construction employment in the U.S. gain 80 per cent—not much more than the U.K. 60 per cent? It is likely that the answer lies in the nature of our measures. A substantial amount of construction for the new U.S. population was of the crudest sort, done by farmers themselves with the help of their laborers or slaves. Performed in this way, it created fewer opportunities for full time construction employees than the mere volume of construction would suggest. Finally, for both fishing and vessel employment, the rate of U.S. rise (50 per cent) was below the U.K. (70 per cent).For both industries, 1860 was a U.S. peak, the war then breaking permanently the U.S. rate of advance in these industries. 1860—80 Themost decisive contrast for these decades is in agriculture, where U.S. employment increased 100 per cent, while in the U.K. it decreased 15 per cent. The forceful U.S. advance in agriculture did far more than surpass the 1840—60 rate;it was of a different character.American wheat Shad begun flooding into markets from Wales to Sicily, successfully competing With exports from Devon, Cawnpore, and the Ukraine. The greater 1840—60 rise in U.S. than U.K. farm employment had reflected the extensive development of the U.S. and its home market. The 1860—80 rise now reported the swelling U.S. competitive advantage in world export markets. Concurrent export strength in mining (a 60 per cent employment 1Forrailroads we compute an 1850—60 change as being a more helpful basis for contrasting the two nations than the astronomical 1840—60 change. 2Weare not designating the railways as a sine qua non in development, but simply noting that the first transport network, whether road, rail or canal, had a role in cutting the cost of importing population, as well as of exporting goods, that was so significant as to be different in kind from a merely cheaper means of transport.