Comments on: A Historical Look at Changes in Work Type

By: The Best Jobs in America » Sociological Images

The Best Jobs in America » Sociological Images — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:47:21 +0000

[...] race, and education, men in “good” jobs by race, race and the economic downturn, changes in type of work over time, gender and the wage gap, trends in academic employment, science/engineering Ph.D.s for women and [...]

By: Emily

Emily — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:02:16 +0000

This seems like an irresponsible way to present this data, considering the cultural perception that women are taking jobs away from men. The percentage graph makes it look like a zero-sum game.

By: All the links that are fit to print | John Ryan | Blog

All the links that are fit to print | John Ryan | Blog — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:22:30 +0000

[...] Sociological images: A historical look at the changes in work type In 1850, over 50% of U.S. workers were farmers. Today? Barely over 1%. Meanwhile, office-related jobs have grown from nearly nothing to being the dominant form of employment. If you like demographics, be sure to check out this interactive graphic. [...]

By: Lynne

Lynne — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:31:49 +0000

Something that I found interesting was the graph for public officials. The number for 1999 and 2000 are as follows:

1990
Men 0.292%
Women 0.403%

2000
Men 0.077%
Women: 0.097%

First thing that I find interesting is that in both decades, women have made up a higher percentage of public officials. (This is in sharp contrast to the number of women candidates I’ve seen in major elections.) Another is the sharp overall decline in public officials. Does this mean we are relaying more on volunteers? Have these jobs been cut to save money? I’m not sure, but overall, the 1990s (for some reason) had much higher percentages than any other decade.

By: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Link Farm and Open Thread, Brain Scanning Dead Fish Edition

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:38:43 +0000

[...] The History of Jobs in America. I’m linking mainly because the graphic is so pretty. [...]

By: Idril

Idril — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:59:45 +0000

Yes, indeed, the decrease of men jobs seems to be quite mainly in terms of PROPORTION and not in terms of absolute number, as the y axis seems to measure the proportion in total jobs (female and male). If you add the final male result (about 53%) and the female one (about 45 %) it seems likely to add up to 100% though there might be a few percents indeed forgotten for other reasons.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:09:35 +0000

A better representation may have been percentage of the given demographic in that particular occupation. But then they’d run into the problem where it looks like all occupations fall off over time, because fewer people are doing the same things as they did in 1950.

In fact, limiting the job categories to those from 1950, and keeping all numbers proportional to 100% may give a different interpretation in the apparent rise in female participation in the workforce. It could be that men still tend to dominate the newer professions, abandoning the old ones, which then begin to be taken over by women.

By: AndiF

AndiF — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:08:49 +0000

Me Too’s comment probably applies more to farmers than farm laborers who I suspect are non-family farm workers. I know it was (and probably is) typical for only the husband to be recognized as the farmer, regardless of the wife’s contribution.

The same thing happens with Owner/Manager. We had a family business through 3 generations. All of the women were as much involved in running the business and working in it as the men but only the men were considered the owners and I doubt that the women were even counted as working in the business since they got no pay.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:48:22 +0000

That’s what I was thinking.

I’m also not sure if by “missing” they meant that the modern job names aren’t there and they’re therefore categorized under something else or if the jobs were left out altogether.

By: Jonathan Clark

Jonathan Clark — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:16:13 +0000

Yes, that is exactly why. This graph doesn’t consider participation rates.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:13:57 +0000

Possibly I’m missing the point, but don’t the two graphs show the percentages of men/women in the total labour force, so the trend for men is down precisely because the trend for women is up?

By: MeToo

MeToo — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:00:50 +0000

In that last graph, does ‘farm labourer’ only mean paid/for hire labour? Or only field/harvesting work? Because on family farms, farm-related duties have always been shared between spouses, even if there was significant gendered division of labour.