"Restore(s) a little sanity into current political debate" - Kenneth Minogue, TLS "Projects a more expansive and optimistic future for Americans than (the analysis of) Huntington" - James R. Kurth, National Interest "One of (the) most important books I have read in recent years" - Lexington Green
Chicago Boyz is a member of the Amazon Associates, B&H Photo, Ammo.com and other affiliate programs. Your purchases made after clicking those businesses' links help to support this blog.
Some Chicago Boyz advertisers may themselves be members of the Amazon Associates and/or other affiliate programs and benefit from any relevant purchases you make after you click on an Amazon or other link on their ad on Chicago Boyz or on their own web sites.
Chicago Boyz occasionally accepts direct paid advertising for goods or services that in the opinion of Chicago Boyz management would benefit the readers of this blog. Please direct any inquiries to
Chicago Boyz is a registered trademark of Chicago Boyz Media, LLC. All original content on the Chicago Boyz web site is copyright 2001-2021 by Chicago Boyz Media, LLC or the Chicago Boyz contributor who posted it. All rights reserved.
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 7:04 am and is filed under Business, Economics & Finance, USA.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
It’s interesting that “clerical workers” has continued to increase as a % of the workforce…weren’t computers supposed to largely eliminate the need for clerical work? The rate of growth (as a %) indeed declined sharply in the late 1950s, but has continued to be positive.
A surprising one is the “waiter” category, which peaked in the 1960s…it’s hard to see how this is possible, since people are eating out now much more than then.
Note the astonishing growth in the “professor” category, which looks to be about 8X **as a percent** since about 1960.
Interesting that “physicians” represented a higher % in 1850 than today, though goodness knows what you got as a “physician” back then
Ah, found it.
Note that traditionally “female” professions, like nurse or hospital attendant are now have bigger percentage of male workers than female. I can’t remember any profession, actually, where females outnumber males. For all the rage and feet-stumping in “conservative” blogosphere….
The purple shaded areas in the graph represent the total area for males. The area doesn’t continue down to the x axis behind the female representation. The x axis is base line for both sexes and for the female portion. I was confused by that too. If you look at the first graph as a guide, it should give you a better idea of the proportions.
June 9th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
David, thanks for these. You get a sense of the economic history of the country by looking at them all.
June 10th, 2011 at 7:04 am
It’s interesting that “clerical workers” has continued to increase as a % of the workforce…weren’t computers supposed to largely eliminate the need for clerical work? The rate of growth (as a %) indeed declined sharply in the late 1950s, but has continued to be positive.
A surprising one is the “waiter” category, which peaked in the 1960s…it’s hard to see how this is possible, since people are eating out now much more than then.
Note the astonishing growth in the “professor” category, which looks to be about 8X **as a percent** since about 1960.
Interesting that “physicians” represented a higher % in 1850 than today, though goodness knows what you got as a “physician” back then
June 10th, 2011 at 8:33 am
Can’t make head or tales with these. Where is the legend? What “red” or “purple” means?
June 10th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Red/purple=female/male
June 10th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Ah, found it.
Note that traditionally “female” professions, like nurse or hospital attendant are now have bigger percentage of male workers than female. I can’t remember any profession, actually, where females outnumber males. For all the rage and feet-stumping in “conservative” blogosphere….
June 10th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Tatayana,
The purple shaded areas in the graph represent the total area for males. The area doesn’t continue down to the x axis behind the female representation. The x axis is base line for both sexes and for the female portion. I was confused by that too. If you look at the first graph as a guide, it should give you a better idea of the proportions.