Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Interesting Data

    Posted by David Foster on June 9th, 2011 (All posts by )

    A visualization of the U.S. labor market over the past 150 years.

     

    6 Responses to “Interesting Data”

    1. Lexington Green Says:

      David, thanks for these. You get a sense of the economic history of the country by looking at them all.

    2. David Foster Says:

      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

    3. Tatyana Says:

      Can’t make head or tales with these. Where is the legend? What “red” or “purple” means?

    4. David Foster Says:

      Red/purple=female/male

    5. Tatyana Says:

      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….

    6. mishu Says:

      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.