trends labor position for puerto 1970-1987

Trends in Labor Market Position forPuerto Ricans on the Mainland: 1970-1987

Luis M. FalconNortheastern University

Charles HirschmanUniversity of Washington

Social and economic indicators for the Puerto Rican population on the US mainlandshowed continued decline in status during the 1970s and early 1980s. Using data fromthe 1970 and 1980 census and the 1987 Current Population Survey, this article presentsand discusses the trends behind the shift in the position of Puerto Ricans. Changes inlabor force participation, employment, and average earnings for Puerto Rican malesand females during the 1970s and the 1980s are discussed with attention to nativity andgender differentials. Results show that the decline in socioeconomic status is not auniversal trend within the Puerto Rican population. Those bom in Puerto Rico, males,those without high school education, and those above age 55 seem to face a criticalsituation. The experience of Puerto Rican males is different from that offemales in thatthey continue to exhibit declining rates of labor force participation. On the other hand,there has been an increase in the representation of Puerto Ricans in the professionaloccupations. Structural changes in the economy have contributed to polarize the PuertoRican labor force into skilled and nonskilled groups with the latter group rapidlywithdrawing from the labor force.

The social and economic position of Puerto Ricans on the United Statesmainland has experienced remarkable change during the past 2 decades.Earlier studies often saw Puerto Ricans as similar to previous waves ofimmigrants and, as such, suggested that they were on the path to social andeconomic integration into American society.

The Negroes and the Puerto Ricans have followed the general outline of theexperience of earlier immigrants. These latest arrivals diverged from thatearlier experience because color prejudice and the social and economic condi-tions they encountered impeded their freedom of movement, both in space andin social and economic status. That divergence need not be more than tempo-rary, however. (Handlin, 1959, p. 121)

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 1, February 1992 16-51C 1992 Sage Publications, Inc.

16

Rodriguez, Melendez Introduction 15

relationship between the persistence of poverty and long-term changes in theeconomy.

References

Bean, F., & Tienda, M. (1988). Hispanic population in the l/.’5. New York: Russell SageFoundation. /

Enchautegui, M; E. (1990). Geographical differentials in the socioeconomic status of PuertoRicans: The role of migration selectivity and labor market characteristics (PSC ResearchReport No. 90-188). Ann Arbor: University of-Michigan, Population Studies Center.

Massey, D. S., & Bitterman, B. (1985). Explaining the paradox of Puerto Rican segregation.Social Forces, 64, 306-331.

Massey, D. S., & Demon, N. (1989). Residential segregation of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans andCubans in selected U.S. metropolitan areas. Sociology and Social Research, 73, 73-83.

Massey, D. S., & Eggers, M. L. (1989). The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the concen-

tration of poverty /970-SO;(Population Studies Center Discussion Paper OSC 89-1). Chi-

cago: NORC/University-of Chicago.Rodriguez, C. (1991). Puerto Ricans: Bom in the USA. Boulder, CO: Westview.Tienda, M. (1989). Puerto Ricans and the underclass debate. Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 501,105-119.Tienda, M., & Jensen, L. (1988). Poverty and minorities: A quarter century profile of color and

socioeconomic disadvantage. In G. D. Sandefur & M. Tienda (Eds.), Divided opportunities.New York: Plenum.

Torres, A^& Rodriguez, C. (1991). Latino research and policy: The Puerto Rican case. InEyiMelendez, C. Rodriguez, & Barry Figueroa, (Eds.), Hispanics in the labor force. NewYork: Plenum.

Falc6n, Hirschman Labor Market Trends 17

In fact, by the end of the 1960s, some indicators suggested an improve-ment in the situation of Puerto Ricans, further fueling the argument thatPuerto Ricans would eventually become part of the mainstream. The propor-tion of Puerto Rican famil ies on the mainland with incomes under the povertylevel declined markedly during the 1960s. In 1959, the rate of absolutepoverty for Puerto Ricans was 35.8%. By 1969, this rate had fallen to 28.8%of all Puerto Rican families. During the same period, median Puerto Rican

family income increased by 31.2%. By the late 1960s, research on PuertoRicans on the mainland tapered off as the "war on poverty" proceeded andthe notion of a narrowing gap between the poor and the nonpoor became partof the academic debate.

By the arrival of the 1970s, expected demographic and social changes inthe characteristics of the Puerto Rican population also suggested the possi-bility of improvement. There was a sharp increase in the size of the totalmainland population, particularly of mainland-bom (MB) Puerto Ricans ofworking age. Puerto Ricans were also engaged in a process of geographicdispersal that generated the growth of their communities outside the olderenclave in the New York metropolitan area. In addition, there were significantincreases in educational levels and work experience, particularly among theMB population. There were also expectations that later immigrants fromPuerto Rico were better qualified or, perhaps, a more selective group thanprevious immigrants and that they would therefore increase social mobility(Ortiz, 1986).

Yet by 1979 the poverty rate for Puerto Ricans was almost back to the1960 level-34.9%. By 1984 it had risen to 45.4% (Tienda & Jensen 1986).The 1976 report on Puerto Ricans by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rightshighlighted this reversal in trends for mainland Puerto Ricans. By the 1980s,there was a body of work that documented the increasingly disadvantagedposition of Puerto Ricans. Currently, many scholars contend that a largesector of the mainland Puerto Rican community has become part of theunderclass (Falc6n & Gurak, in press; Ricketts & Mincy, 1990; Tienda,1989).

What accounts for the continued erosion of the position ofPuerto Ricans?The increase in poverty rates and the widening gap between them and otherHispanic groups is rooted in changes in their labor market situation. The1970s seem to have been a critical period for this group, as evidence by thesudden reversal in poverty rates. The convergence of demographic andeconomic factors produced radical changes in the range of employmentoptions available for this group.

In this article we analyze trends in labor force participation, employment,and average earnings for Puerto Rican males and females during the 1970s

18 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

and the 1980s, paying specific attention to nativity and gender differentials.Our objective is to document the shifts in labor market position that are

behind the decline in socioeconomic position for Puerto Ricans on themainland. We focus on the impact of economic change on the participationin the labor force, particularly on differential impact across age, educational,and gender groups.

Some Important Issues

Puerto Ricans have, for decades, represented a significant proportion of

the minority community in several large eastern United States metropolitanareas. The 1990 Current Population Survey (CPS) estimated the total main-land Puerto Rican population to be 2.2 million. Recent figures show that 31%of all Puerto Rican families were living under poverty conditions in 1989

(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). This proportion far exceeds the 28.4%

among Mexican Americans their closest contender and the 11.6% amongthe total U.S. population not of Hispanic origin.

With the decline in general socioeconomic status, there was a decline in

labor force participation rates for both males and females during the 1960sand for males during the 1970s. There has also been an increase in the

proportion of female headed households among the total number of PuertoRican families. The proportion of Puerto Ricans families headed by womenincreased by 120% between 1960 and 1980-from 15.9% to 34.8%. Figuresfrom the 1990 CPS show that the proportion of female-headed families

among all Puerto Rican familieswas about 39%. According toTienda and Jensen

(1986), the disadvantaged position offemale-headed families is one major factorthat accounts for the increasing poverty rates among Puerto Ricans.

The rise in female-headship runs parallel with the rise in poverty. In 1970,female-headed families accounted for 51.2% of all Puerto Rican families in

poverty. Twenty years later female-headed families made up 73% of all

Puerto Rican families in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). Becausethe economic situation of an increasingly large proportion of all Puerto Ricanfamilies on the mainland depends on the position of Puerto Rican women in

the labor force, understanding the decline in socioeconomic position for this

group requires an examination of the situation of both males and females in

the labor market.The Puerto Rican experience on the mainland had been shaped, as with

many other immigrant groups, by the character of the original migration andtheir incorporation into socioeconomic structures in the midst of rapidchange. Puerto Ricans began arriving to the mainland in significant numbers


during the 1950s: a period of rapid structural change. The factors accountingfor the migration of Puerto Ricans are various and a substantial literatureexists on this topic. We, therefore will not discuss this issue in detail (seeFalcon, 1991; Friedlander, 1965; History Task Force: Centre de EstudiosPuertorriquenos, 1979; Maldonado-Denis, 1980). For our discussion, itshould suffice to say that Puerto Rican migration takes place as a responseto structural changes that affect the demand and supply of labor in PuertoRico, rather than because of a large demand for their labor on the mainland.

In turn, Puerto Rican migrants enter the labor market on the mainlandwithin a context of structural decline. The vast majority of the Puerto Ricanunskilled and semiskilled workers concentrated in the manufacturing sector

just as that same sector, during the 1950s, was undergoing rapid transforma-tion (Rodriguez, 1979; Torres, 1988b). It was the beginning of a process ofindustry attrition and relocation. In New York City, for example, the numberof manufacturing jobs declined by 92% between 1950 and 1960 (U.S.Department of Labor, 1975). As Rodriguez (1979) has argued, ongoingsuburbanization and automation along with a more competitive internationalmanufacturing sector contributed to this decline.

As a result, manufacturing employment declined rapidly in areas of theUnited States. In the northeast, during the 1960s, manufacturing employmentwent down by 14%. For the city ofNew York, the decline for the same periodwas 20% (Hughes & Sternlieb, 1978). The process of decline continued

during the 1970s. In 1972, of all employment in the city of New York, 18.8%was in manufacturing. By 1982, this percentage had declined to 14.7% andby 1987, to 10.7% (Meislin, 1987). In 1960, 54% of all employed PuertoRican workers were in the manufacturing sector. The New York standardmetropolitan statistical area, which accounted for 73% of all Puerto Rican

workers on the mainland in 1960, had an even higher concentration ofPuertoRican workers in manufacturing 57%. Evidently, very early in the migra-tion of Puerto Ricans their fate is closely tied to that of the manufacturingsector and of the City of New York. Fluctuations in the supply of manufac-turingjobs therefore, implied fluctuations in the economic situation ofPuertoRican families. As the number ofjobs in the manufacturing sector continuedto decline, the livelihood of Puerto Rican workers depended more on theirability to make a successful transition to other sectors of employment.

Another important factor in this increasingly complex process is thechanging ethnic configuration in major metropolitan areas where PuertoRicans concentrate. In the past 3 decades, the presence of Latino groups otherthan Puerto Ricans in major urban centers of the east coast has skyrocketed.Largely a result of changes brought by the Immigration Act of 1965, it canbe argued that the arrival of new sources of labor contributed to the exodus


of Puerto Rican workers from the manufacturing sector, primarily throughincreased competition and contributing to the downgrading ofjobs (Sassen,1988). It is not simply a decline in the number ofjobs, but also a change inthe character ofthosejobs left behind. Marshall (1987), for example, presentsevidence that the presence of large numbers of foreign-bom workers mayhave affected the quality of the jobs available. The garment industry, sheargues, has developed a dependency on foreign labor to remain competitive.The abundance of immigrant labor has tended to perpetuate low wages andpoor working conditions. To what extent this may have contributed to makingworking conditions unattractive to "native" workers like Puerto Ricans andBlacks is a critical question. Once conditions of employment go beyond acertain level, native workers may drop out of the labor force rather than takea job that may be considered an "immigrant" low-wage/dead-end -jobbased on who typically holds the position (Waldinger, 1985).

The set of changes enumerated above suggest circumstances where thereis decline in some sectors, growth in others, and increased competition. Thecharacter of available jobs is such that demand for educational credentialsvaries widely with evidence of polarization, that is, growth in the number ofoccupations both at the top and at the bottom of the educational scale (Sassen,1988). In this context of change, it is important to understand how PuertoRican workers on the mainland have been affected. Given the existence of alabor market configuration in the 1970s rather different from the one in the1950s, what has been the response of the Puerto Rican labor force?

Data

The data for the analysis are taken from the 1970 and 1980 Public UseMicrodata Samples and the 1987 March supplement of the Current Popula-tion Survey (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972, 1983, 1988). Working filesfor the current study were created by extracting all persons who classifiedthemselves as Puerto Ricans in each decennial census and in the 1987 CPS(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987). From the census files, data were extractedat the state level (11 states) for the states ofNew York, New Jersey, Connect-icut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Illinois,and Indiana. These states contained over 90% ofthe Puerto Rican populationon the mainland as of 1980. All respondents who resided in the above stateswere extracted from the 1987 national CPS sample. The sample of non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs) was obtained in a similar manner and, accordingly,is a sample of NHWs in the states where Puerto Ricans concentrate ratherthan a national sample. The sample includes both males and females between

Falcon, Hirschman Labor Market Trends 21

the ages of 18 and 64 and excludes those who were attending school at thetime of the interview.

Patterns of Labor Market Activity for Puerto Rican Males

Rates of labor force participation (LFP) for Puerto Ricans (PR), bymainland-born (MB) and island-born (IB) status, and for non-HispanicWhites (NHW) are presented in Table for the period 1970 to 1987.Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the gap in LFP rate between Puerto Ricansand NHWs remained at 10 percentage points. These aggregate rates, how-ever, mask variations by age and education. Less educated Puerto Ricans andNHWs have suffered the largest declines in rates of participation over time.In 1970, the difference in LFP between Puerto Ricans with some college or

college education and those with only elementary schooling was no morethan 9 percentage points. By 1980, this difference had widened to 23

percentage points. In 1987 it stood at 18 percentage points. On the average,better educated Puerto Ricans (12 years and above) fare better when com-

pared to Whites than do their less educated counterparts. Younger (18-24)Puerto Rican males tend to lag behind young NHWs in LFP. Also, note themarked decline in participation among those Puerto Ricans aged 55 to 64. In1970, Puerto Ricans aged 55 to 64 had a total LFPR of 68.2%. By 1987, theirrate was down to 45.7%. This large decline is concentrated among the lesseducated older Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans aged 55 to 64 with high schooleducation or more participated in the labor force at about the same rate as NHW.

The analysis of LFP by nativity presents a divergent picture for IB PuertoRicans. In 1970 there was no major difference in total LFP between MB andIB Puerto Ricans. The IB had a small advantage ofabout 4 percentage points,but this was mostly a result of differences between two age categories. TheMB aged 18 to 24 participated in the labor force at a lower rate than did theirIB counterparts-for the oldest cohort (55-64) the opposite was true. Tenyears later the rate of participation of IB men had declined by 5 percentagepoints whereas those MB remained stable. Although participation declinedoverall for the less-educated, the IB experienced much larger declines thandid the MB. At the other extreme, the LFP of educated MB and IB PuertoRicans (13 years and above) closely approximated that of NHW by 1980.

To the extent that these shifts reflect changes in the structure of available

employment, they coincide with the decline taking place in older sectors ofthe economy that relied on less-educated workers. Puerto Rican males werebarely able to hold theirground as the gap in labor force participation betweenthem and NHW remained almost constant through the 1970-1987 period.

Table 1. Rates of Labor Force Participation for Puerto Rican Males by Nativity and Non-Hispanic White Males in 11 U.S.States by Age and Education, 1970, 1980, and 1987

1970_______ _______1980_______ __________1987__________Education 18-24 25-54 55-64 Total 18-24 25-54 55-64 Total 18-24 25-54 55-64 Total

Total PR 77.4 87.3 68.2 83.6 76.6 82.8 57.7 79.2 80.0 80.0 45.7 76.4

NHW 89.4 95.4 83.4 92.3 92.8 94.4 72.7 90.0 89.0 90.1 63.1 86.4

MB 68.0 88.4 77.8 79.7 76.1 83.4 69.3 79.6

IB 80.1 87.2 67.9 84.1 77.3 82.7 56.9 79.10-8 years PR 78.0 83.2 64.4 80.1 68.1 75.5 53.4 70.9 90.6 76.0 34.7 68.4

NHW 78.8 88.5 79.9 84.7 80.4 81.8 58.3 72.0 74.5 63;3 52.9 60.8

MB 57.8 76.8 73.3 70.4 60.7 68.0 71.9 64.9IB 80.6 83.5 64.4 80.7 72.1 76.0 52.5 71.5

9-11 years PR 73.8 89.6 77.6 84.7 73.8 82.1 59.9 78.5 72.7 88.7 45.3 76.2

NHW 82.4 94.4 82.5 90.7 87.6 90.5 69.9 84.4 85.0 73.6 62.2 73.5

MB 63.4 87.3 76.2 71.8 74.7 65.4 72.8

IB 76.9 89.9 76.4 86.1 76.1 83.7 59.3 80.8

12 years PR 82.4 93.7 87.0 89.9 80.9 88.2 71.0 85.2 77.2 78.0 69.5 77.4

NHW 92.4 97.8 85.9 95.2 94.3 94.7 74.8 91.3 91.1 90.1 62.8 86.3

MB 78.1 92.9 86.6 80.9 86.8 71.0 83.5IB 84.1 94.0 86.4 90.9 80.7 88.6 71.0 86.2

13-15 years PR 69.8 91.2 84.6 91.4 91.2 69.3 90.3 100 79.7 84.1NHW 90.6 96.9 85.1 94.3 93.1 95.8 78.0 92.9 89.6 93.5 59.0 89.0MB 59.3 95.8 76.5 91.9 89.7 70.0 90.1IB 76.5 90.5 87.2 90.4 92.3 69.2 90.4

16 years PR 89.7 88.6 93.6 94.7 64.8 92.6 84.3 85.7NHW 91.4 96.5 88.2 94.8 96.3 97.6 84.2 95.7 86.6 96.6 75.8 94.0MB 96.3 93,8 90.4 95.8 94.4IB 85.7 85.3 100 94.0 66.2 91.4

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987).NOTE: Long dash (-)= less than 10 cases; short dash (-} not available.


Rates of unemployment for this period present a troublesome picture forPuerto Rican males, as shown in Table 2. The unemployment level for PuertoRicans reached double digits in 1980 and has remained there during the1980s. Typically, the rate of unemployment for Puerto Ricans has been abouttwice that for NHWs. Puerto Ricans with college-level education are moreinsulated from unemployment than are less educated Puerto Ricans. Theirrate of unemployment closely resembles that of NHW. Low-educated PuertoRicans seem to be faring slightly worst than low-educated Whites. However,the dissimilar educational distributions make the low-educated sector a muchlarger proportion of the Puerto Rican population. Due to their location in thelabor market, Puerto Ricans and many other minorities seem more responsiveto fluctuations in the economy. For example, after recessionary periods in1973-1975 and 1981-1983 unemployment levelsfor Puerto Ricans were 15.9and 17.3 for the following respective years (Torres 1988b). If we considerthat Puerto Ricans began the decade of the 1970s with rates that were alreadymuch higher than those of NHW, the significance of these results becomeseven more important.An inspection of rates of unemployment for Puerto Ricans by nativity in

1970 reveals that there were no major differences between the MB and theIB. By 1980, however, MB males were the most disadvantaged of the twogroups. NHWs enjoyed rates of unemployment that, although higher than in1970, were much lower than that of either MB or IB Puerto Ricans. Theprobability of being unemployed decreases rapidly with increases in educa-tion for all three groups. DeFreitas (1985), studying rates of unemploymentamong Hispanics, found that Puerto Rican unemployment was characterizedby a single event of long duration during a year, rather than by multipleevents. This speaks to the disproportionate impact of rising unemploymentfor Puerto Ricans relative to Whites.An examination of rates of full-time employment (data not shown) shows

that, on the average, during the 1970 to 1987 period, the proportion of PuertoRicans’employed full-time tended to be about 10 percentage points belowthe rate for NHW. Full-time employment does not vary as much by educa-tional levels as do rates of LFP. When comparing the IB to the MB, IB PuertoRicans exhibit a more stable picture in terms of full-time employment duringthe 1970s. In 1970 the IB held full-time jobs at a higher rate than did the MBand this is particularly true at the lower educational levels.

Evidently, the position ofPuerto Rican males in the labor force during this17-year period changed significantly and, to a large extent, in a negativedirection. While Puerto Ricans were not the only ethnic group to be affectedby economic change during the 1970s, they have probably suffered the most,because their position was already disadvantaged at the beginning of the

Table 2. Rates of Unemployment for Puerto Rican Males by Nativity and Non-Hispanic White Males in 11 U.S. States byAge and Education, 1970, 1980, and 1987

Education

Total PRNHWMBIB

0-8 years PRNHWMBIB

9-11 years PRNHWMBIB

12 years PRNHWMBIB

18-24

8.95.48.79.1

6.719.23.97.1

12.31.8

15.511.87.2

6.34.58.5

197

25-54

4.82.54.94.85.14.96.45.05.44.1

6.45.13.7

1.84.2

3.6

0

55-64

5.33.30.05.65.34.2

0.05.62.2

3.8

2.4

10.03.5

10.5

Total

5.73.06.2

5.6

5.35.35.05.47.03.99.86.5

4.92.84.35.1

18-24

18.7

11.819.318.025.420.4

25.5

25.323.618.827.1

19.713.311.913.812.4

19(

25-54

10.24.7

10.910.011.68.615.911.4

11.97.8

14.211.58.65.69.78.2

30

55-64

6.24.26.3

6.2

6.68.07.3

6.55.4

6.15.95.35.63.37.4

5.3

Total

11.85.8

14.710.812.69.2

19.312.015.49.7

21.813.09.76.811.7

8.7

18-24

26.410.5

29.339.3

42.7

18.0

23.49.1

19!

25-54

8.66.0

6.65.9

7.615.5

7.56.4

87

55-64

0.04.2

0.010.9

0.01.6

0.03.9

Total

12.26.7

8.312.5

19.814.0

11.1

6.8

(Continued)

Table 2 Continued

Education

13-15 years

16 years

PRNHWMBIBPRNHWMBIB

18-24

11.42.1

12.511.5

0.0

19^

25-54

4.62.14.4

4.62.60.7

0.04.2

70

55-64

3.2

0.0

Total

6.32.27.7

6.03.20.50.05.2

18-24

8.87.8

10.06.24.14.4

4.33.9

19(

25-54

9.93.712.38.43.32.2

3.23.4

30

55-64

4.93.5

5.68.71.7

9.3

Total

9.54.311.58.03.72.3

3.33.9

18-24

0.09.0

3.0

19(

25-54

16.96.2

6.03.4

i7

55-64

6.9

2.0

Total

12.86.9

5.43.3

NOTE: Long dash (-) less than 10 cases; short dash (-) not available.


decade. Labor force participation declined rapidly during the 1970s andslightly during the 1980s. Unemployment levels remained at a much higherlevel than for NHWs. Most of the decline in LFP seems among the IB PuertoRicans. Nonetheless, MB Puerto Ricans exhibited unstable patterns of full-time employment and unemployment during the 1970s. That the participationof MB Puerto Rican males in the labor force is not far better than that of theIB males is an issue of concern because it entails the possibility of a dismalfuture for successive generations of Puerto Rican workers. At the highesteducational level Puerto Ricans do approximate the characteristics ofNHWs.However, this highly educated sector only encompasses a fragment of thePuerto Rican population on the mainland. Increasing rates of school attritionamong young Puerto Ricans reduce the probability that this sector mayincrease significantly in the near future.

Industry and Occupation Distributions for Puerto Rican Males

The distribution within industry sectors ofPuerto Rican males by nativity,overall, and ofNHW males in 1970,1980, and 1987 are presented in Table 3. Itis obvious from these distributions that the sectors of employment for PuertoRican males did not undergo extreme changes between 1970 and 1980, withthe exception ofthe social services. This sector registered the largest increase,particularly in the categories of education and public administration. It maybe that some Puerto Ricans are benefiting from the growing need for services(usually state funded) to an increasingly poor Puerto Rican population andfrom the establishment of bilingual education programs for Hispanic chil-dren. Atypical outcome ofthe concentration and segregation ofethnic groupsin American society has been the growth of organizations that attempt toaddress some needs of the group and, to some extent, turn into avenues forsocial mobility for some.

The transformative sector (textiles, machinery, manufacturing, etc.) hashistorically been a major center of concentration for Puerto Rican maleworkers. By 1980, 41.8% of the Puerto Rican male workers were employedin this sector, down about 6 percentage points from 1970 (46.5%). It isimportant to note that much of the decline in the transformative sector hasbeen in the miscellaneous manufacturing category (detailed data not shown)and has primarily affected IB males. Puerto Rican males do not appear to bejoining the personal services sector (domestic, hotels, food service, etc.) inlarge numbers (as have other Hispanic groups). In fact, their share ofemployment in the service sector declined during the decade mainly due toa reduction in the proportion of IB employed in that sector.

Table 3. Industry Distribution of Currently Employed Mainland- and Island-Born Puerto Ricans and Non-Hispanic WhiteMales, 1970, 1980, and 1987

Industry Category

ExtractiveTransformativeDistributive serviceProducer servicesSocial servicesPersonal services

TotalPuerto Rican

2.146.519.98.49.9

13.5

1970

NHW

3.346.920.89.6

14.1

5.7

MB

1.1

34.825.413.315.010.4

IB

2.248.0

19.17.99.3

14.0

TotalPuerto Rican

2.541.819.210.715.210.4

1980

NHW

3.940.221.4

11.915.4

6.9

MB

1.333.022.914.618.69.9

IB

2.944.917.99.6

14.2

10.5

1987

TotalPuerto Rican

0.731.221.421.014.7

11.2

NHW

4.133.321.615.015.610.7

<V 4,358 3,434 539 3,999 15,896 46,656 3,991 11,905 498 3,984

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980, 11 states (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987, March supplement, 11 states).


Industry employment for Puerto Ricans differs significantly by nativity.There was a higher proportion ofMB Puerto Ricans in the distributive sector

(transportation, retail, wholesale) in 1970 and 1980 (25.4% and 19.1%respectively) as compared to the IB. The difference of about 5-6 percentagepoints remained throughout the 1970s. In the transformative sector, however,the situation is the opposite with a higher proportion of IB than of MB. Thisreflects both the dissimilar age and educational structures of the two groupsthat would steer the MB to employment in sectors other than manufacturing.

An index typically used to summarize differences between two distribu-tions is the Index of Dissimilarity (ID). Its value can range from 0 to 100,with 0 meaning equal distributions and 100 meaning totally unequal distri-butions. When compared to NHW, the ID for MB in 1970 and 1980 were21.3 and 16.9 respectively, and for the IB in relation to the NHW it was 26.5and 22.8. Although it seems that during the 1970s the distribution of PuertoRicans by industry sector was becoming more like that of the NHW, the IDfor 1987 shows that there was a divergence. Unfortunately, because there isno nativity information for 1987, we cannot identify if this trend continued,or if either the MB or the IB contributed disproportionately to it during thistime.

Table 4 presents the occupational distribution for Puerto Rican males bynativity, overall, and for NHWs for 1970,1980, and 1987. Puerto Ricans werehighly concentrated in specific occupations in 1970 and, not surprisingly,continued to be in 1980. By 1987, however, they show rapid dispersion. Threeoccupational categories (crafts, operatives, and services) accounted for al-most two thirds of the male labor force in 1970 and 1980. Changes registeredduring the period were mainly in four categories. The proportion in profes-sional occupations almost doubled (2.7% to 4.8%), in managerial positionsincreased by half (4.2% to 6.7%) and in the operative and service sectorsdeclined (34.6% to 29.2% and 18.8% to 17.4% respectively).

As within industry distributions, the occupational structures of mainlandand island bom are very dissimilar, not in terms of the occupations in whichthey concentrate but in terms of the proportions within occupations. The MBpopulation has a higher proportion in professional and clerical occupationsthan do the IB. The situation is the converse in the operative and serviceoccupations. A meaningful finding is the increase registered by the IBpopulation in the professional, semiprofessional/technical, and managerialcategories. The latter three categories accounted for 7% of the IB in 1970.By 1980, this figure had increased to 11.5%. Interestingly, the increase is notas large among the more highly educated MB. An explanation for this maybe found in the rise of out-migration from the island experienced during thesecond halfofthe 1970s and the characteristics ofthe migrants (Falcon, 1991;

Table 4. Occupational Distribution of Mainland-Born, Island-Born, and Non-Hispanic White Males, Aged 18 to 64, 1970,1980, and 1987

Occupational Category P

ProfessionalSemiprofessional/technicalFarmerManagerClericalSalesCraftsOperativesServiceLaborFarm labor

Totaluerto Ftical

2.7

1.10.04.2

10.03.915.934.618.87.4

1.4

1970

NHW

12.52.61.5

13.58.57.2

24.318.36.64.50.5

MB

6.22.60.06.9

17.06.4

17.920.814.66.90.5

IB

2.2

0.90.03.99.13.5

15.636.519.47.41.5

TotalPuerto Rican

4.81.70.16.7

11,82.8

16.429.217.4

8.11.2

1980

NHW

14.52.71.2

16.27.67.2

21.516.77.1

5.00.5

MB

8.32.4

0.17.517.04.6

15.721.215.37.4

0.5

IB

3.61.50.16.410.02.2

16.631.918.2

8.31.4

191

TotalPuerto Ricar

7.4

2.40.07.5

11.1

6.214.1

24.916.49.70.2

37

NHW

15.62.31.3

18.17.18.3

19.212.49.85.4

0.6

N 4,565 3,455 547 4,018 15,810 46,326 3,967 11,843 498 3,963

Index of Dissimilarity PR and NHW 33.8MB and IB= 21.9MB and NHW =21.5IB and NHW 35.5

PR and NHW 30.8MBandlBs 16.2MB and NHW 24.6IB and NHW 32.9

PR and NHW 25.8

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980, 11 states (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987, March supplement).


Puerto Rico Planning Board, 1984). In other words, the most recent migrationflow may include a higher proportion of professionals and managers (or atleast well educated individuals) among its ranks. The ramp surveys con-ducted by the Puerto Rico Planning Board (1986) have shown that a largeproportion of the out-migrants is composed .of professionals and managers.Between 1982 and 1984, the survey results indicate that about 16% of themigrants reported being in the professional, semiprofessional, and manage-rial occupations. There are no data to evaluate the continuation of this trendby nativity during the 1980s but, by 1987, the proportion employed inprofessional, semiprofessional, and managerial occupations had continuedto increase, accounting for 17% of the Puerto Rican male working force.A shift toward low-white-collar and white-collar occupations among

Puerto Rican males seems evident in the decline in operative employmentand the rise in professional and in clerical occupations. It is not clear if it isa result of social mobility or due to changes in the economy that limit thedemand for labor at the lower rungs ofthe occupational ladder and, as a result,overemphasize the numbers at the top of the distribution. Comparing theoccupational distribution of Puerto Rican workers with that ofNHWworkersdiscloses quite dissimilar distributions. NHWs have larger proportions em-ployed in the professional and managerial occupations and lower proportionsin the operatives and services occupations. Of the two Puerto Rican groups,the MB’s occupational distribution more closely approximates that of theNHW. This is confirmed by the Index of Dissimilarity that was calculated tobe 21.5 and 24.6 between MB and NHW in 1970 and 1980 respectively,whereas, for the IB, the measures were 35.5 and 32.9. For 1987, the ID forPuerto Ricans and NHW was 25.8, a decline from 30.8 in 1980. This, again,suggests that their occupational distributions are becoming more similaroverall, but that the occupational distribution of the MB presents a divergenttrend. However, this must be interpreted in the context of industry distribu-tions that moved in disparate directions during the 1980s.

Change in Average Earning byOccupation for Puerto Rican Males

The ratio of average earnings of Puerto Rican to NHW workers byoccupational and nativity is presented in Table 5. The top panel includes allworkers who reported earning of $100 or more during the previous year.Full-time (35 hours or more per week) and year-round (48 weeks or more)workers are included in the bottom panel.’ The ratio columns are the ratio of


the earnings of Puerto Ricans to that of Whites in a similar occupationalcategory. These comparisons do not consider factors like age, education, andother human capital characteristics, which are related to earnings. Still, theyserve to illustrate the gross magnitude of the differentials and how these havechanged during the past 2 decades. Because the groups exhibit large variationin rates of labor force participation, we will concentrate the discussion onfull-time year-round workers.

Despite some positive trends, Puerto Rican males, on average, receivelower earnings than do NHW males. In 1969, the average full-time PuertoRican worker earned about 60% of the average salary of an NHW maleworker. By 1979, this had increased to 63% and by 1986 to 66%. This gap isnot as evident in the lower rank occupations like service, craft, and laborer,as in higher status jobs like professional and managerial. The operativescategory, where Puerto Ricans concentrate, shows a consistently decliningratio through time. This lends support to our earlier argument that salaries inthe manufacturing sector may have declined in geographic areas wherePuerto Ricans concentrate. Higher unionization rates among NHWs anddisproportionate location of Puerto Ricans within cities may also contributeto this differential.

Analysis by nativity for the 1970s shows that MB Puerto Ricans lost someground relative to NHW during the period. In 1979, the average MB workerearned 65% of the earnings of NHW workers, a decline from 74% ten yearsearlier. This could be a result of the entrance of young inexperienced MBmales into the labor force that would tend to lower the average earningswithin categories.

IB men show a different pattern than MB males during the 1970s. Theearnings ratio for IB men increased from 57% to 62%. Overall, by 1979, IBmen showed improvements in almost all categories when compared to NHWmen. In the context of declining rates of participation-particularly amongthe least educated-we speculate that the departure ofless-qualified workersfrom the labor force may be contributing to this general improvement inaverage earnings. Another plausible explanation may be in the rise in educa-tional levels of recent arrivals from Puerto Rico (Ortiz, 1986). In sum, thetwo Puerto Rican groups have barely been able to keep pace with the NHWin terms ofaverage earnings. In 1969, the average full-time year-round PuertoRican male earned (in 1986 dollars) about $6,700 (MB) to $11,100 (IB) lessthan the average NHW worker. By 1979, the average gap in earnings wasabout $9,00 regardless of nativity and by 1986 it had increased to $10,000.Although there were some positive trends within categories, the overall gapbetween Puerto Ricans and NHWs continued to widen.


Table 5. Ratio of Average Earnings of Puerto Rican to Non-HispanicWhite Workers by Occupation and Nativity, Males Aged 18 to64, in 11 U.S. States, 1969, 1979, and 1986

With Earnings Above $100

ProfessionalSemiprofessionalFarmerManagerClericalSalesCraftOperativeServiceLaborerFarm labor

MB/NH

0.820.85

0.750.680.520.800.790.870.75

1969

IB/NHW

0.630.80

0.480.660.520.710.710.750.750.76

PR/NHW

0.690.81

0.530.670.520.720.710.760.740.72

MB/NH

0.650.79

0.620.650.630.690.610.700.680.55

1979

IB/NH

0.670.901.150.570.740.570.760.710.810.850.64

PR/NHW

0.660.861.180.590.700.600.740.690.780.810.63

1986

PR/NHW

0.560.58

0.600.760.580.940.761.080.87

Overall mean 0.68 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.61 0.60 0.65


Overall mean

0.840.80

0.740.740.530.940.870.910.79

0.74

Full0.650.81

0.490.670.570.730.730.730.730.78

0.57

-Time Year0.700.81

0.540.680.560.760.740.75

0.740.79

0.59

-Round V0.660.87

0.640.720.740.750.710.750.790.61

0.65

corkers0.700.81

0.580.740.620.760.850.820.761.12

0.62

0.680.83

0.600.740.670.760.720.750.790.77

0.63

0.700.83

0.680.700.750.960.680.870.83

0.66

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980, 11 states (U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, 1987, March supplement).NOTE: Short dash (-) N less than 10 cases.

Patterns of Labor Market Activity for Puerto Rican Females

Patterns of labor force participation for Puerto Rican and NHW Femalesduring the 1970-1987 period are presented in Table 6. The labor forceparticipation rates of Puerto Rican females lagged far behind NHW femalesthroughout the period. The Puerto Rican/NHW gap has widened during the

Table 6. Rates of Labor Force Participation for Puerto Rican Females by Nativity and Non-Hispanic White Females in 11U.S. States by Age and Education, 1970, 1980, 1987

Education

Total

0-8 years

9-11 years

12 years

PRNHWMBIBPRNHWMBIBPRNHWMBIBPRNHW

18-24

39.858.952.336.024.022.929.123.629.035.067.527.361.461.4

197

25-54

33.149.439.632.126.648.425.626.4

33.047.047.133.144.748.1

’0

55-64

27.443.743.3,26.3

23.538.150.022.637.343.6

34.642.549.1

Total

34.249.644.932.425.842.628.825.631.944.955.731.550.850.5-

18-24

49.079.356.0

40.025.748.928.024.4

35.354.238.731.061.680.0

191

25-54

43.865.956.841.029.647.829.529.637.053.2

40.336.256.064.4

30

55-64

28.642.040.227.822.931.931.922.634.537.231.034.945.044.4

Total

43.361.855.939.027.739.229.027.636.347.639.235.257.162.5

18-24

42.7

80.6

0.044.8

27.461.2

43.7

77.5

1i

25-54

51.872.3

25.628.3

22.754.7

66.167.7

i87

55-64

18.635.9

6.124.3

26.5

85.638.8

Total

44.865.0

16.826.7

24.845.3

-’60.161.9

MB 75.0 65.4 69.5 67.3 62.1 41.4 64.3IB 58.4 43.8 46.0 48.8 51.7 53.7 45.8 52.8

13-15 years PR 64.9 59.0 41.7 60.0 72.7 68.0 62.2 69.2 81.8 83.1 28.2 74.5NHW 71.8 53.0 34.1 53.7 94.0 79.1 53.6 77.1 86.2 76.4 32.1 71.2MB 77.8 74.1 77.0 73.6 91.7 75.4IB 57.1 58.1 45.4 74.1 64.3 65.0 57.7 64.4

16 years PR 57.1 64.5 53.8 61.8 87.1 78.9 41.7 77.9 96.5 73.6 73.7NHW 89.6 55.7 58.0 59.7 96.3 97.6 84.2 95.7 96.6 85.6 47.2 80.8MB 85.7 85.3 90.6 81.5 84.0IB 50.0 60.0 56.4 82.3 77.6 36.4 74.6



last 17 years. In 1970, the rate of LFP for Puerto Rican females was about 15

percentage points below that ofNHW females. By 1980, the gap hadwidenedto 19 points and 7 years later it stood at 20 points. Contrary to the experienceof Puerto Rican males, the rate of labor force participation of Puerto Rican

females did increase during the 1970s regardless of nativity status. This is a

deviation from the pattern of continued decline exhibited during the 1960s

(Bean & Tienda 1988; Santana-Cooney & Colon-Warren 1979). Older co-

horts of Puerto Rican women have continued their attrition from the laborforce. In 1987, only 19% of Puerto Rican women aged 55 to 64 were in thelabor force-slightly more than half the rate for NHW women-36%.

Education appears to be a key factor in determining the labor force

participation of Puerto Rican females. In a pattern similar to that of males,the LFP of Puerto Rican females rises with increases in education. Althoughthe Puerto Rican/NHW gap narrows at the high school level and above, it

remains quite wide at lower levels of education. Forwomen, the labor marketseems increasingly more selective in terms of educational requirements, asreflected by large declines in participation over time for those with loweducational levels. However, Puerto Rican women counterbalanced this

negative trend with large increases at higher levels of education. This had theeffect of maintaining general rates ofparticipation constant during the 1980s.

Again, aggregate trends hide the underlying effects of market changes on the

labor activity of this group.The analysis by nativity presents more disparate trends. LFP did increase

during the 1970s regardless of nativity status. However, the increase was

larger for the MB females (11.0 points) than for the IB (6.6 points). MBfemales consistently exhibited higher rates of participation than the IB, bothin 1970 and 1980. Although LFP increased with education for both groups,the gap between IB and MB closed only at the lowest level of education. Athigher levels ofeducation the differences in LFPbetween MB and IB womenare wider. In contrast to Puerto Rican males, Puerto Rican females exhibitextreme differences in their rates of LFP by nativity. In both 1970 and 1980,MB females participated in the labor force at rates that were significantlyhigher than those for IB. Even within similar age and education categories,the MB have a typical advantage of about 10 percentage points. At higherlevels of education (12 years and above), the MB participate at a higher ratethan NHW and the IB narrow their gap with NHWnotably. This pattern holdsin both 1970 and 1980. Despite increases in LFP by the NHW at the highereducational levels during the 1970s, the MB were still able to maintain a

higher rate of participation.


Once in the labor force, about half of all Puerto Rican females heldfull-time employment in 1970 and 1980, rising to almost 60% in 1987 (datanot shown). The proportion of Puerto Rican females who held full-timeemployment does not vary greatly by nativity except in the lower educationalcategories (0-11) where IB females tended to work full-time more frequentlythan MB or NHWs. Younger women, particularly those aged 18 to 24, wereless likely to hold full-time employment than older women. This patternremains, even after controlling for education. Overall, every female groupexperienced slight declines during the 1970s in the proportion employedfull-time, but there was some recovery during the 1980s. It appears, then, thatsome of the increase in labor force participation may have been in part-timeemployment and/or increased unemployment.

Unemployment levels for Puerto Rican females rose sharply during the1970s, particularly for the MB females who, in some educational categories,had their rates double in 10 years (see Table 7). The MB females experiencedlarge increases in unemployment at the lowest levels of education. Forexample, unemployment among MB females with 0 to 8 years of educationincreased from 8.8% in 1970 to 18.5% in 1980. Among those with 9 to 11years of education, it increased from 5.8% to 23.8% in the same period. BothPuerto Rican groups exhibit high rates of unemployment among the youngage groups (18 to 34). NHW females show a similar problem among thoseaged 18 to 24, but it becomes less pronounced as education increases.Among IB females unemployment levels are high for every age group

when compared to both the MB and NHW. Again, it becomes more severewhen associated with less education. NHWfemales exhibit a somewhat morestable pattern than either of the Puerto Rican groups. For them, unemploy-ment steadily decreases with increases in education and/or increases in age.Low-educated Puerto Ricans remain at a disadvantage with NHW females,but Puerto Rican females with high school and above are almost indistin-guishable from NHW females in their levels of unemployment.

Puerto Rican females seem to have progressed somewhat during the 1970sin terms of increasing their levels of labor force participation. This progressbecomes more difficult to assess in the context of unemployment rates thatrose rapidly during the 1970s and remained larger than that of whites duringthe 1980s. Clearly, the instability exhibited by Puerto Rican females duringthe 1970s had much to do with an increase in young MB workers in the laborforce. Evidence for the 1980s suggests that the situation of Puerto Ricanfemales within the labor force may be more stable than that of Puerto Ricanmales.

Table 7. Rates of Unemployment for Puerto Rican Females by Nativity and Non-Hispanic White Females in 11 U.S. Statesby Age and Education, 1970, 1980, 1987

Education

Total

0-8 years

9-11 years

12 years

PRNHWMBIBPRNHWMBIBPRNHWMBIBPRNHW

18-24

10.95.48.7

12.119.419.218.819.614.21.89.8

15.97.06.3

197

25-54

7.82.56.98.09.34.96.29.56.84.12.37.68.01.8

’0

55-64

9.23.37.7

9.69.94.2

10.94.63.8

5.65.93.5

Total

8.73.07.89.110.85.38.811.08.83.95.89.67.52.8

18-24

17.38.0

15.121.026.524.626.326.628.021.730.324.413.87.9

191

25-54

11.24.59.511.714.77.6

14.014.812.67.815.911.89.44.8

30

55-64

12.74.35.3

13.415.05.84.4

15.515.05.40.0

16.75.14.4

Total

.12.85.212.313.115.97.8

18.515.717.39.3

23.814.310.75.5

18-24

4.97.1

2.219.0

7.27.2

19

25-54

8.33.7

20.914.3

10.37.8

9.14.7

187

55-64

13.84.3

0.0

3.1

0.04.0

Total

7.94.4

27.411.4

6.410.1

8.15.1

MB 7,3 10.3 8.7 11.0 7.8 0.0 9.4IB 7.0 7.5 5.9 7.2 20.0 10.2 6.0 11.6

13-15 years PR 6.2 1.2 3.6 10.1 10.1 10.7 10.1 0.0 3.4NHW 2.1 2.1 3.2 2.2 4.6 3.9 3.1 3.9 3.7 3.4MB 4.2 5.9 4.9 7.6 9.9 0.0 8.7IB 8.3 0.0 3.1 15.9 10.2 13.3 11.5

16 years PR 8.3 2.0 4.4 6.3 5.8 12.0 6.1 0.0 0.0NHW 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 3.0 2.3 1.9 2.3 3.6 1.3MB 0.0 10.0 3.9 4.3 5.1IB 3.0 2.3 9.8 6.5 0.0 6.6



Industry and OccupationDistributions for Puerto Rican Females

The structure of industrial employment for females underwent dramaticchanges during the 1970s (see Table 8). On one hand, a sharp decline of 12percentage points (48.7 to 36.2) was seen in the proportion employed in thetransformative sector. This continued during the 1980s with a 20 pointdecline in 7 years that placed transformative employment at only 16% of thetotal Puerto Rican female labor force. This decline was primarily due to thephasing out of Puerto Rican women from textile employment and miscella-neous manufacturing.

It is interesting that almost all the decline in transformative employmentis due to a reduction in the proportion of IB women engaged in this kind ofactivity. MB women do not exhibit such high concentrations except withinthe distributive category, where the proportion declined during the decade by8 percentage points. Marked increases in producer and social services (4 and9 percentage points respectively) were recorded during the 1970s. By 1987,the proportion of Puerto Rican women employed in either the producerservices sector or the social services sector was 57.4%. This is an increase of27 percentage points from their 1970 proportion. In the producer and socialservices sectors, both mainland- and island-born females share the increasebetween 1970 and 1980 about equally.

The decline in employment in the highly blue-collar transformative sectorand increase in the more white-collar social and producer services may notnecessarily imply a white-collar conversion of the female labor force, be-cause there are large numbers of lower ranked occupations within thosewhite-collar sectors. In addition, many women seem to be joining the retailsectorwhich includes large numbers ofpart-timejobs and seasonal employment.

The occupational distribution of Puerto Rican and NHWfemales is shownin Table 9. In 1970, Puerto Rican females were concentrated in a fewoccupational categories. The operatives and clerical occupations accountedfor over three fifths of the total Puerto Rican female labor force in either 1970or 1980. Half the MB females were in clerical occupations, which confirmsthe trend toward low-white-collar occupations ’suggested by changes ob-served in their industrial distribution. The proportion of IB females in theclerical sector also showed an increase during the period.

As suggested earlier, the proportion of Puerto Rican women employed inoperative employment continued to decline during the 1980s. On the otherhand, clerical employment continued to grow and, by 1987,44.8% of PuertoRican women were employed in clerical jobs. When compared to NHWfemales, in 1980, women were still underrepresented in the professional and

Table 8. Industry Distribution of Currently Employed Mainland- and Island-Born Puerto Ricans and Non-Hispanic WhiteFemales, 1970, 1980, and 1987

1970 1980 1987

TotalIndustry Category Puerto Rican NHW MB IB

TotalPuerto Rican NHW MB IB

TotalPuerto Rican NHW

ExtractiveTransformativeDistributive servicesProducer servicesSocial servicesPersonal services

0.348.713.110.619.47.7

0.824.619.913.630.310.8

0.020.623.321.4

24.99.6

0.454.611.08.5

18.27.4

0.636.212.514.828.37.5

1.219.918.517.633.09.9

0.521.515.024.931.26.9

0.543.311.49.9

26.97.7

0.415.916.823.733.79.7

1.214.4

18.022.032.411.4

N 2,102 2,095 364 1,738 10,171 40,528 3,319 6,852 401 4,195

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980, 11 states (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987, March supplement, 11 states).

Table 9. Occupational Distribution of Mainland-Born, Island-Born, and Non-Hispanic White Females Aged 18 to 64,1970,

1980, and 1987

Occupational Category Pi

ProfessionalSemiprofessional/technicalFarmerManagerClericalSalesCraftsOperativesServiceLaborFarm labor

Totaluerto Ricai

5.70.80.01.5

28.73.43.0

42.613.10.90.2

1970

NHW

14.7

1.10.04.3

38.66.92.6

15.515.20.80.2

MB

8.71.60.02.1

54.24.7

1.311.615.50.30.0

IB

5.00.70.11.4

23.23.23.3

49.312.6

1.00.3

TotalPuerto Rican

7.92.40.03.7

35.13.83.4

28.213.51.90.2

1980

NHW

17.4

3.10.28.1

38.36.92.09.613.21.1

0.2

MB

9.92.50.04.8

53.34.52.3

10.310.81.60.1

IB

6.92.40.03.1

26.43.43.9

36.814.72.1

0.3

191

TotalPuerto Ricar

7.52.70.09.5

44.84.10.7

14.315.10.9

0.4

37

NHW

19.43:40.212.7

35.27.81.75.212.91.2

0.3

N 2,147 2,137 380 1,767 10,093 40,235 3,286 6,807 400 4,166

Index of Dissimilarity PR and NHW 27.6

MB and IB 40.8MB and NHW 16.4IB and NHW 34.8

PR and NHW =21.1

MB and IB 32.8MB and NHW 16.5IB and NHW =31.8

PR and NHW =21.0

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980, 11 states (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987, March supplement).


managerial occupations. They have, however, made some progress duringthe 1970s. Both MB and IB increased their proportion among the three topoccupations: professionals, semiprofessional/technical, and manager. In1970, those three occupations accounted for 7.1% of the employed IB and12.4% ofthe employed MB. By 1980, the proportions had increased to 12.4%and 17.2% respectively.

In some lower status occupations the MB have about equal (operatives,crafts, labor) or lower (service) proportions than do the NHW. On the otherhand, the IB experienced some growth among the lower status occupationslike service and laborers, and their proportion among the high status occupa-tions increased. It is important to note the sharp decline (12.5 percentagepoints) in the proportion of IB women employed in operative occupationsbetween 1970 and 1980. In addition, there is what seems to be the "profes-sionalization" of the island-born female in the increases registered in theprofessional, semiprofessional/technical, and managerial occupations.2 Theoccupational distribution of MB females was closer to that ofNHW in 1980than to that of the IB. The ID for MB and NHWwas 16.5 in 1980, no changefrom 16.4 in 1970. For the IB in relation to NHW it was 31.8 in 1980, downfrom 34.8 in 1970. Overall, industry.and occupational distributions of PuertoRican women increasingly approximate those of NHW women. The contin-ued increase in clerical employment and the slowing-down of professionalemployment, however, presents a diverging pattern from that of NHWwomen.

Change in Average Earnings byOccupation for Puerto Rican Females

The average earnings by occupation of Puerto Rican and NHW femalesin 1969, 1979, and 1986 are presented in Table 10. Earnings for Puerto Ricanwomen, on the average, remained very close to that of NHW women. Theratio of Puerto Rican to NHW earnings declined by 4 percentage pointsduring the 1970s, but by 1986 it was back to the 1969 level. Withinoccupational categories, Puerto Rican women sometimes exceeded the av-erage earnings ofNHWwomen. Although this may reflect the disproportion-ate concentration of Puerto Rican women in high salary areas, it suggests lessdisadvantage for Puerto Rican women who are full-time year-round workers(relative to their NHW counterparts) than for Puerto Rican men.

By 1979, the average earnings by occupation of Puerto Rican womendeclined as a proportion of the earnings ofNHW women. The decline seemsto have been larger for MB women. When looking at full-time year-round


Table 10. Ratio of Average Earnings of Puerto Rican to Non-HispanicWhite Workers by Occupation and Nativity, Females Aged 18to 64 in 11 U.S. States. 1969, 1979, and 1986


MB/NH

1.01

1.061.061.350.670.971.04

196

IB/NH\

With

1.021.03

0.890.981.230.700.961.170.71

9

N PR/NHW

Earnings AI1.020.96

0.941.001.260.700.961.150.74

MB/NH

bove S10C0.870.88

0.950.900.790.820.791.030.79

1979

IB/NH

0.940.96

0.970.960.840.780.841.181.020.94

PR/NHW

0.910.94

0.960.930.820.790.831.130.960.85

1986

PR/NHW

1.12

0.96

0.851.010.55

1.031.24

Overall mean 1.02 0.90 0.92 0.86 0.84 0.85 0.90


Overall mean

0.80

1.03

0.920.96

0.99

Full-Time1.00

0.99

0.960.911.17

0.670.930.960.87

0.86

Year-Rou0.951.00

1.010.951.220.670.930.960.91

0.88

ind Workf0.890.93

1.030.900.830.780.831.060.97

0.88

srs0.900.87

0.930.950.790.760.930.960.920.90

0.82

0.900.89

0.980.920.810.750.811.060.930.70

0.84

1.170.95

1.000.96

0.871.20

0.88

SOURCE: Public Use Microdata Samples, 1970 and 1980. 11 states (U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, 1987, March).NOTE: Short dash (-) N less than 10 cases.

workers, the average earnings by occupation of the two Puerto Rican groupsare about the same. Except for the lower blue-collar occupations (operative,service, laborer) where there are no differences in average earnings, thereseems to be no clear pattern in average earnings by nativity.

The ratio of the average earnings of MB women to that of NHW womendecline by about 10 percentage points during the decade. For IB women there


was also a decline, but of lesser magnitude. In 1969, a full-time year-roundPuerto Rican female worker earned (in 1986 dollars) on the average from$ 134 (MB) to $ 1,616 (IB) less than NHWwomen, depending on their nativitystatus. These figures increased by 1979 to $1,651 for MB women and $2,476for IB women. When compared to the situation of Puerto Rican males, theearnings standing of Puerto Rican women remains very close to their NHWcounterparts, despite an apparent decline in average earnings during the1970s.

Discussion and Conclusion

The 1970s were a period of rapid erosion for a group in an alreadyprecarious situation. The work experience of Puerto Ricans in the mainland

has been characterized by concentration in particular sectors of the economyand within a limited range of occupations. Earlier Puerto Rican migrants to

New York City were disproportionately concentrated in the operative occu-

pations in the manufacturing sector. The movement out of the manufacturingsector has been rapid and not necessarily into other sectors of the labormarket. Declining rates of participation for males in general and for low-educated females suggest that many of those leaving sectors in decline mayhave exited the labor force altogether. In a sense, structural changes havecontributed to selectively polarize the Puerto Rican labor force into skilledand nonskilled groups. Those in the latter category are increasingly not

participating in formal employment activities. This, in turn, has contributedto a rapidly reduced proportion of the mainland Puerto Rican population thatrelies on formal employment for their subsistence. Torres (1988a) examinedthe employment/population ratios (employed/population 16 years of age or

more) for Puerto Ricans during the 1950-1985 period and concluded that theyhave been rapidly declining since the early 1960s. In 1987, Puerto Ricanshad an employment population ratio of 48% -far below that for Mexicansat 59% and that for the non-Hispanic population, at 60%.

But the story is not one of total retrogression. Actively employed PuertoRican males increased their representation among higher status occupationsduring the 1970s and 1980s. Some of this growth has been narrowly circum-

scribed to particular sectors in the economy that have registered unprece-dented growth during the last few decades (e.g., public administration,hospitals, education, and social services). For MB men, some growth canalso be traced to legal services and real estate. This is in contrast to broadbased changes in higher status employment among NHW males. To what

extent the industries that have sustained the growth of professional occupa-


lions held by Puerto Ricans will continue to do so is questionable as theexpansion of social services, hospitals, and other partially or entirely state-

subsidized industries does not seem to be part of the present political andeconomic agenda.

The experience of Puerto Rican women diverts from that of Puerto Ricanmen. After a period of decline in participation during the 1960s, Puerto Ricanwomen have increased their presence in the labor force but still lag behindNHW women. The retreat of Puerto Rican women from the operativeemployment sector has been counterbalanced by a rapid influx into clericalemployment. Evidence shows that structural changes have contributed to thegrowth of jobs for women at a faster pace than for men (Tienda, Jensen, &Bach, 1985). For New York City, some figures show that about 80% of thejobs created during the 1970s were filled bywomen (Meislin, 1987). Becausejob requirements in operative employment are typically different from thosein clerical employment, most women entering the clerical sector are likelyto be new workers entering the labor force rather than old workers making a

transition. Findings from a 1985 survey ofPuerto Rican women in New YorkCity show that women who were last employed in the manufacturing sectorhad a much longer length of time out of the labor force than women who hadexited other sectors (Falcon & Gurak, in press). Other studies, like the 1987Aid for Dependent Children Recipients survey, show that these women havea keen awareness of the odds they face in the labor market given their skilllevel, child care needs, and current wage scales (New York State Departmentof Social Services, 1989). That the pattern of women continues to divergefrom that of men is also corroborated by the 1989 CPS. This survey reportsa further decline in LFP for men to 69.6% and a continued increase forwomento 41.7%.

The behavior of Puerto Rican women in the labor market-except theolder cohorts increasingly resembles that ofNHWwomen. Although theystill maintain low rates of participation, a much faster trend of improvementwas observed among the second generation females. Their rapid influx intoclerical employment is of concern, however, due to the wide variation in

earnings in that sector.

In general terms, second-generation Puerto Ricans have upgraded their

employment relative to the first generation. As the mainland-born populationages, some increases in income will probably be observed. This, will not bea function solely ofeconomic mobility, but also ofthe selectivity mechanismsthat are contributing to expel the less qualified Puerto Rican workers fromthe labor force. After almost 2 decades of significant presence of mainland-.bom Puerto Ricans in the labor market, we begin to see some changes in theearnings ratio. The impact ofthe latter may be limited due to the countervail-


ing effect of rising nonparticipation.’ Perhaps, the most pressing issue forPuerto Ricans at this point is lack of adequate employment for its most

marginal sector-the least educated.A more important trend, and one that reflects the structural changes in the

economy, is the general decline in rates of labor force participation amongolder Puerto Ricans: those aged 55 to 64. Since the 1970s, the trend has beenfor LFP to decline for this group, particularly among those with less than highschool education. As of 1987, only 46% of the Puerto Ricans aged 55 to 64were in the labor force. In addition, this age group shows increasing rates offull-time employment and very little unemployment when compared to

younger groups. Among females, we observe a similar process. These find-

ings lend support to our argument that the exodus from the manufacturingsector may have not resulted in a transition into another sector for manyPuerto Ricans-but in total attrition from the labor force. Given these trends,additional attention should be paid to the socioeconomic situation of olderPuerto Ricans.

The context of change during the period of analysis is one ofsimultaneousattrition and progress. Only in this context, can some of the latest socioeco-nomic indicators for Puerto Ricans be explained. The 1990 Current Popula-tion Survey reports a decline in the rate of poverty for Puerto Ricans on themainland from 42.4% in 1981 to 30.4% in 1989. How can these changes takeplace in the midstofrapid attrition from the labor force for men, older cohorts,and the least educated? Table 11 presents some answers. Between 1981 and1989, Puerto Ricans registered increases in median earnings and in thepercentage earning $25,000 or more that exceeded those of non-HispanicWhites and most other Hispanic groups. The magnitude of the changes is

particularly large among Puerto Rican females. This relative improvementcould partly explain a decline in the rate of poverty during the decade. Theincrease in income levels for Puerto Ricans is partly a function of theselectivity process generated by an economy that continues to polarize theincome structure of the Puerto Rican population. The missing factor behindthe changes in poverty rate is the one we have called attention to in this article,that is, the attrition from the labor force of the most marginal sectors of thePuerto Rican population on the mainland. Socioeconomic indicators will

continue to show some progress for this population because some of its

components are experiencing real social mobility. To the extent that theeducational, age, and gender selectivity continues to operate we should seeincreased polarization of the income structure ofthe Puerto Rican populationon the mainland.

The decline in participation in the economy has not been equally distrib-uted across groups. We can recognize a selectivity process where males, older

Table 11. Earnings Indicators for Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Groups, 1981 and 1989

Males19811989Change (%)

Females19811989Change (%)

Non-Hispanic

$13,759$22,081

60.5

$5,482$11,885

116.8

Median Earnin’

Puerto Rican

$9,206$18,222

97.9

$4,698$12,812

172.7

asMexican

$10,397$12,527

20.5

$4,933$8,874

79.9

Cuban

$8,561$19,336

125.9

$4,682$12,880

175.1

Percentage R

Non-Hispanic

22.045.0104.5

2.817.8

535.7

eporting Earnings

Puerto Rican

6.531.8

389.2

1.4

16.61085.7

of $25,000 C

Mexican

10.318.781.6

1.09.8

880.0

ir More

Cuban

11.4

37.3227.2

2.416.6

591.7

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1982, 1991.

Falcon. Hirschman Labor Market Trends 49

workers, the less-educated, and those IB-who are less likely to speakEnglish-are experiencing the disproportionate impact of economic trans-

formations. Puerto Ricans have not been successful in dealing with a climate

of rapid economic change and, accordingly, their rate of poverty and eco-

nomic disadvantage in general reflects such an outcome. That Puerto Ricansare so concentrated geographically helps to intensify the effects of economictransformation. The consequences of this process have already taken their

toll on the social fabric of the Puerto Rican community as reflected by higherrates of marital instability, and of female-headed families than any other

Hispanic group (Falcon, Gurak, & Powers, 1988). The diminishing set of

options faced by the IB Puerto Rican generation is not circumscribed to their

immediate situation, but also to that of the subsequent MB generation. Theability of the first generation to transmit the resources necessary for social

stability and mobility to the second generation is critically important. Thecoincidence of a mass migration and structures in the middle of rapid changeconverged to create a situation where Puerto Rican workers in general have

faced a narrowing of economic opportunity.

Notes

1. Note that the earnings information from the census and the Current Population Surveysrefers to earnings during the year prior to the interview. Accordingly, the text makes reference

to 1969, 1979, and 1986 as the points of comparison.2. It could be argued that rather than professionalizalion it is "feminization" because the

movement is into traditional NHW female jobs.

References

Bean, F., & Tienda, M. (1988). The Hispanic population in the United Stales. New York: RussellSage Monograph Series.

DeFreitas, G. (1985). Ethnic differentials in unemployment among Hispanic Americans. InG. Borjas& M. Tienda (Eds.), Hispanics in the United Stales economy (pp. 127-157). NewYork: Academic Press.

Falcon, L. M. (1991). Migration and development: The case of Puerto Rico. In S. Diaz-Briquets& S. Weintraub (Eds.), Determinants ofemigration from Mexico, Central America, and theCaribbean (pp. 145-187). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Falcon, L. M., & Gurak, D. T. (in press). Dimensions of the Hispanic underclass in New York

City. In J. Moore and R. Rivera (Eds.), The effects ofeconomic restructuring Latino Com-munities in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University.

Falcon, L M., Gurak, D. T., & Powers, M. G. (1988). Socio-economiccorrelates offemale-headshipfor Puerto Rican women in New York City. Viper presented at the annual meetings of the

American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.Friedlander, S. (1965). Labor migration and economic growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.


Handlin, 0. (1959). The newcomers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.History Task Force: Centre de Estudios Puertorriquenos. (1979). Labor migration under

capitalism. New York: Monthly Review.

Hughes, J. W.. & Stemlieb, G. (1978). Jobs and people: New York City (1985). New Jersey:Center for Urban Policy Research.

Maldonado-Dennis, M. (1980). The emigration dialectic: Puerto Rico and the USA. New York:

International Publishers.

Marshall, A. (1987). New immigrants in New York’s economy. In N. Foner (Ed.), Newimmigrants in New York (pp. 79-101). New York: Columbia University Press.

Meislin, R.(1987, October 11). How’s New York doing? Much better. New York Times, sec. 12,p. 11.

New York State Department of Social Services. (1989). Hispanic ADC recipients in New YorkCity: Migration experiences, characteristics and attitudes. Albany, NY: Author.

Ortiz, V. (1986). Changes in the characteristics of Puerto Rican migrants. International migrationReview, 20, 612-628.

Puerto Rico Planning Board. (1984). Caracteristicas de la Poblacion Migrante. Halo Rey, PuertoRico: Junta de Planificacion.

Ricketts,E. R.,& Mincy, R. B. (1990). Growth of the underclass: 1970-1980. Journal ofHumanResources, 25, 137-145.

Rodriguez, C. (1979). Economic survival in New York City. In Labor Migration Under

Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review.Santana-Cooney, R., & Colon-Warren, A. (1979). Declining female participation among Puerto

Rican New Yorkers: A comparison with native White nonspanish New Yorkers." Ethnicity,6,281-297.

Sassen, S. (1988). The mobility of labor and capital: A study in international investment andlabor flow. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tienda, M. (1989). Puerto Ricans and the underclass debate. Annals of the American Academyof Political and Social Science, 501,105-119.

Tienda, M., & Jensen, L. (1986). Immigration and public assistance participation: Dispelling the

myth of dependency. Social Science Research, 15, 372-400.Tienda, M., & Jensen, L. (1988). Poverty and minorities: A quarter century profile of color and

socioeconomic disadvantage. In G. D. Sandefur & M. Tienda (Eds.), Divided Opportunities:Minorities, Poverty, and Social Policy (pp. 23-61). New York: Plenum Press.

Tienda, M., Jensen, L.,& Bach,R. L. 1985. Immigration, gender and the process ofoccupationalchange in the United States, 1970-1980 (CDE Working Paper 85-1). Madison, Wl: Centerfor Demography and Ecology.

Torres, A. (1988a). Explaining Puerto Rican poverty. Centra Bulletin, 2(2), 9-21. (Centre de

Estudios Puertorriquenos).Torres, A. (1988b). Human capital, labor segmentation and inter-minority relative status: Blacks

and Puerto Ricans in New York City, 1960-I980. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. NewYork: New School for Social Research.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1972). Public use samples of basic records; Descriptions andtechnical documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1983). Census of population and housing, 1980: Public usemicrodata samples technical documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). Current Population Survey, March J987 Tape TechnicalDocumentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1991). Current Population Reports (Series P-20, No. 449, The

Hispanic Population in the United States: March 1990). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1975). A socio-economic profile of Puerto Rican New Yorkers.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Waldinger, R. (1985). Immigration and industrial change in the New York City apparel industry.In G. Boijas & M. Tienda (Eds.), Hispanics in the United States economy (pp. 299-322).New York: Academic Press.

Household Composition, EmploymentPatterns, and Income Inequality:Puerto Ricans in New York andOtherAreas of the U.S. Mainland

\ ^

Havidan RodnguezUniversidad de Puerto Rico-Mayagiiez

This study focuses on the impact of household composition, educational attainment, and

employment characteristics on household income for Puerto Rican householders inNewYork and other areas of the United States, from 1970 to 1980. New York householdershad tower levels of education, in particular fewer college graduates, and lower labor

force participation, and higher proportion of female-headed households. Althoughaverage household income declined for both groups. New York householders hadsignificantly lower incomes relative to those residing elsewhere. Regression standard-ization showed thai, in 1980, the average compositional characteristics of New YorkPuerto Ricans were "less favorable" to household income. Further, they received lessincome for their average characteristics, when compared to householders not residingin New York. It is suggested that the deteriorating economic conditions of Puerto Ricansis a result of jobtessness and low-skilled, low-wage jobs among those employed.Industrial restructuring, low levels of education, and the dramatic growth of female-headed households also accounts for their depressed economic status and explains some

of the differences in economic well-being between New York and non-New York house-holders. Further, the problems of mainland Puerto Ricans have been exacerbated byracial and ethnic discrimination.

Puerto Ricans have been on the U.S. mainland for over 100 years, but itwas after World War II that the Puerto Rican population increased dramati-cally. From mid-1940s to mid-1960s, Puerto Rico experienced one of thegreatest migration movements in demographic history. The unprecedentedlevel of migration from Puerto Rico to the mainland has led to an enormousincrease in the Puerto Rican population in the United States. The total numberof Puerto Ricans in the United States increased from approximately 70,000

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 1, February 1992 52-75(R) 1992 Sage Publications, Inc.

52

trends labor position for puerto 1970-1987

Documents