70 no7e 251f. available frc?. - erictr. for sale by the superintendent of documents, u.s. government...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 045 835 VT 012 263

AUTHOFTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB LATENO7EAVAILABLE FRC?.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIFIOFS

IDENTIFIERS

AESTRACI

Schmidt, Fred H.Spanish Surnamed American Employment in theSouthwest.California Univ., Los Angeles. Inst. of IndustrialFelaticns.Colorado Civil Rights Commission, renver.; EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission, Washington, T.C.70251F.Superintendent cf Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402(Y3.EQ2:2SP2,$2.00)

EDRS Price MF-$1.00 IOC Not Available from EDFS.*Employment Patterns, *Employment Statistics, *EqualOpportunities (Jobs), Geographic Regions, ManpowerUtilization, Minority Groups, *SocialDiscrimination, *Spanish Americans, UnskilledOccupations*Southwest

This report provides statistical data on the lobpatterns that prevail for Spanish Americans in Arizona, California,Colorado, NEW Mexico, and Texas. The Southwest once represented aninternal colonial empire to the United States, and the inhabitantswere treated as such. Present employment patterns must he viewed inthis light. The data show that Spanish Americans are greatlyunderrepresented in white collar occupations and the trainingprograms for these occupations, but they are fairly well representedin craftsmen jobs and in on-the-job training programs for blue-collaroccupations. The presence of a large proportion of Spanish Americansin the population does not improve whitecollar employmentopportunities in a region, even for the lowest level jobs. (9H)

4I

I

Idi

<

cPe\o MssaataximlitLf1 Mill3Mtli-axedo AELM43r.11 ViiMak

3r.xikx:slcs3rmBirx-ttheScsix-tlinusir.Bmt

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION& WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DC NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

FRED H. SCHMIDTInstitute of Industrial Relations

University of CaliforniaLos Angeles

A studyprepared for the

ColoradoCivil Rights Commission

under theauspices of the

Equal EmploymentOpportunityCommission

Tr

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2

Foreword

Forewords are really the last words. They come at the completion of one's workand acknowledge that the work of others went into it. Just under the expressedgratitudes lies a ruefulness for all the private burdens a possessive work places on somewho are left unnamed. My open acknowledgments go to the Institute of IndustrialRelations for many things, but mostly for the freedom to work; to Shirley Matthewsfor all her secretarial diligence; to Lester Saft for research assistance instantly available;to Daewon Kwon for programing order out of disorder; to Felicitas Hinman forediting large parts of the text ; to Alan Horowitz, Susan Huxley, and Dina Lebow,each for taking some of the chores. And to Evelyn Crow of the Colorado Civil RightsCommission, Phyllis Wallace and Lafayette Grisby of the Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission, and those others on whom I have called for advice and assistance,my thanks. None of these persons or agencies need share any responsibility for thiswork, but they made it possible. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations, aswell as any errors or inadequacies, are my own.

FRED H. SCHMIDTInstitute of Industrial Relations,University of California, Los Angeles.

iii

Contents

PageForeword iiiIntroduction 1

Summary of findings 2A difference without a distinction 4Yet, no stereotype 6The employment of Spanish Surnamed Americans in the southwest 8

The pattern: Twenty counties 9The pattern: The census 18The pattern: County by county 19The pattern: White-collar occupations 31The pattern: The "Negro counties" 33The pattern: Prime contractors 34The pattern: Consumer-oriented industries 39The pattern: Training programs 42The pattern: Union agreements on hiring 43

A 1 irther word about Spanish Surnameds 46Participation in the labor force 46Fertility 49Education 49Housing 51Income, health, and mobility 53

A further word about the region 58The border 61Our manifest destiny 65The subject people 69The "Simple minded Children" 70Strangers in their own country 72Neither white nor black 75Priorities for the future 78Recommendations 80Appendixes 83

Appendix A Description of data 84Appendix B Selected employment statistics, Border counties, United

States, 1940-60 84Appendix C Spanish Surnamed population for 20 selected counties:

1960 85Appendix D Employment growth in selected industries: Explanation

and comparison of employment data from the censusesof 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 and 1966 County BusinessPatterns 85

Appendix E Standard industrial classification code and industrialheadings utilized by three data sources 91

Appendix F Consumer-oriented industries 92Appendix G Listing of counties with population 10 or more percent

Negro 92Appendix H 299 employment pattern diagrams for industries in se-

lected counties 93

Introduction

There is a large segment of our population who, because of their diverse back-grounds, cannot clearly be classified as either white or black, but who have sufferedand continue to suffer crushing discrimination in employment. This is the group ofAmericans who share a Spanish heritage.

This study, "Spanish Surnamed American Employment in the Southwest,"provides statistical information on the job patterns that prevail for this minority groupin the southwestern part of the United States where they are most heavily settled. Thereport demonstrates again and again that, in the region studied, Spanish SurnamedAmericans are underrepresented and underutilized in the labor force.

Equally significant, the report addresses itself to the historical background ofSpanish Surnamed Americans in the Southwest, giving information which can providenew insights into how and why the discriminatory job patterns have evolved.

This study presents the picture as it isand as it will remain unless all organiza-tions who participate in, or can influence, the zmplm ment process use the data topinpoint the problems and develop appropriate solutions.

WILLIAM H. BROWN, IIIChairman,Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Summary of Findings

1. Despite their being the Nation's second largestminority, Spanish Surnamed Americans have receivedscant attention in national affairs and are regarded asa regional phenomenon, rather than a national one.This comes partly from the one-sided treatment giventhe Southwest by U.S. historians.

2. Throughout the Southwest, among companies re-porting to the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission, a general stairstep employment pattern forminority workers shows that their portion of the avail-able jobs in an occupation descends as the occupationalhierarchy ascends. They have a share of service, laborer,and operative jobs that is far in excess of their sharein the labor force. In craftsmen jobs they approximateparity with the percentage they have in the laborforce, but in all the other occupations they fall farbelow that level.

3. Their share of available jobs descends steeplyonce the line separating white-collar from blue-collarjobs is crossed. There is evidence of a job caste thatwalls off white-collar jobs from minority workers, andthis wall is stouter against Spanish Surnameds in areaswhere their numbers in the population are propor-tionately greater, as it is for Negroes in those areaswhere they are a more prominent part of thepopulation.

4. The presence of large minority groups in a localpopulation does not appear as a factor that facilitatesminority workers gaining white-collar positions. Thisholds true in even the lowest-skilled white-collar jobsfor clerical and sales work, and is even true in the con-sumer-oriented industries.

5. The pattern of minority employment appears tobe better for each minority groin among employerswho do not do contract work for the government thanit is among prime contractors who have agreed to non-discriminatic n clauses in their contracts with the Fed-eral government.

6. Spanish Surnameds are greatly underrepresentedin on-the-job training programs for white-collar jobswhile being overrepresented in those for blue-collarjobs, indicating that they may become even more char-acterized as a blue-collar work force in the future.

7. The pattern of minority employment 1.1 betteramong employers who have arrangements wit}; labor

2

unions that affect to some extent whom they mayhire than it is among those who do not have such ar-rangements.

8. There is some indication that the advancementof Spanish Surnameds into occupations and industriesheretofore reserved for the employment of Anglosseems to facilitate the entry of other minorities intothose occupations and industries.

9. Spanish Surnameds, as are other Southwesternminorities, are an immensely diverse group, but thereare certain common features about the patterns of theiremployment throughout the region. In areas wherethey are a sizable part of local populations, they longhave been regarded as casual, incidental workers, oras factory hands available for the laborer, service, andoperative jobs in the generally lower paying industriesthat arose in those areas. Today, they do better thanother minority workers in gaining skilled craftsmenjobs.

10. The place of Spanish Surnameds in the South-west cannot be understood without a knowledge ofhow that region came to be joined to the Nation andthe colonial attitudes that prevailed there toward allracial and ethnic minorities thereafter.

11. The Southwest has the most cosmopolitan popu-lation in the United States, over one-fifth of whichbelongs to easily identified minorities. All of theseminority groups have experienced the segregation, dis-crimination, restriction of civil rights, and limited op-portunities that are commonly known to be the lot ofNegroes in this region and elsewhere.

12. These experiences provide further insight intothe significance of racism, showing that racist attitudescannot be dismissed as a consequence of a long-deadinstitution of slavery.

13. The shadows from past events in the lives ofIndiai.s, Spanish Surnameds, Orientals, and Negroesextend into the present and can be seen in the socio-economic characteristics of these groups today.

14. The 31/2 million Spanish Surnameds in theSouthwest are its largest minority, many of whom haveextraordinary rates of birth and death, poverty, subem-ployment, poor health, poor education, poor housing,and limited employment opportunities. Notwithstand-

ing, they have shown the same desire as others to beparticipants in the region's labor force.

15. The economic problems of Spanish Surnamedsare exacerbated by the policies of the U.S. Governmentwith respect to immigration and the contracting and

commuting of workers from Mexico. No other regioncontends with these problems on a similar scale. Noother group in the population is placed in the samecontinuing competition with the poverty of anothernation.

3

A DifferenceWithout a Distinction

This is a study of members of the second oldest, sec-ond largest minority in the United States. It is a studyof an ethnic minorityone that has been called "TheInvisible Minority."

Its members are of one race and one religion withthe country's majority. They are white, Caucasian;they are Christian. They descend from Europeans, thevery first to settle on this continent and on the land ofthis country. Their forebears outdistanced other Euro-peans in bringing a culture stemming from the Greeksand the Romans to most parts of the hemispherein-deed, to a major part of what is now the contiguousUnited States. As a minority they stand second in num-ber only to the descendants of those African blackswho were brought to this land along with that culture.

This ethnic group has no proper name, none thatis universally accepted or descriptive. This is the firstproblem: What designation is adequate for those whohave descended from or shared a common culture withColumbus, Ponce de Leon, Cortez, and all the men ofSpain who followed them?

The question is a prickly one, for in contrast toEnglish-speaking settlers who drove Indian groups into300 years of retreat, the Spanish often mingled withand joined the indigenous populations into their so-ciety. The multifarious people who issued from thisjoining cannot now be distinguished by the usual desig-nations of race, creed, color, or national origin. To thecontrary, their distinction is that no one of these, norall of them, suffices to describe their distinctiveness.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,which has generated this study, has itself had nettle-some encounters that have arisen from the felt distinc-tiveness of this minority. The Commission was earlycharged with being insensitive toward this group. Itwas charged with having a prepossession for those blackand white terms which are most often used to pictureour riven population, but which tell nothing of thisminority. The argument ran that any Commissionplans to balance the rights of broad groups of whitesand nonwhites would leave unredressed those grievousimbalances that persist among groups of whites. Thestatistics of black and white did not disclose the pres-ence, much less the problems, of distinct people whofor statistical purposes were subsumed into the pre-

4

dominant body of whites. The statistical convenienceof a white-nonwhite division of the population con-cealed more than it revealed. So ran the argument.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which created theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission, is notinsensitive toward any of the country's minorities. TheCommission acting under title VII of that act hasbroad authority to gather data on employment pat-terns and practices and to promote research of these.It has asked that this study analyze the employmentpatterns of "Spanish-speaking Americans" in theSouthwest.

The phrase "Spanish-speaking Americans" is butone of the several ways in which allusions are made tothe minority group under study. It is not definitive,and is perhaps a careless phrase in this context. Itdiffers from the designation of "Spanish SurnamedAmerican" which the Commission uses on the reportforms (Standard Form 100, EEO-1) that it sends toemployers for their use in reporting the number of theirminority group employees. This form defines SpanishSurnamed Americans as those of Latin American,Mexican, Puerto Rican or Spanish origin. Obviously,the fact of such origin when stretched by the passage ofgenerations does not assure that the subjects are indeedSpanish-speaking.

The employer reports are the source of much of thedata used hereafter. The designations and the defini-tions supplied by the Commission and the interpreta-tions employers have made of them must be accepted.However, it is readily apparent that a great confusionof tongues exists on this subject.

The Bureau of the Census has for four decades reflected the country's confusion and indecision in try-ing to gain an awareness of its Spanish Surnamedpopulation. Over the years the Census has given muchstatistical attention to the country's Negro population.This began with the original Constitutional require-ment that those 'other Persons," those enslaved, shouldcount as three-fifths of a person in determining aState's representation in Congress. But only since 1930has the Census endeavored to identify and count thosedesignated here as Spanish Surnameds. And only since1950 has the Census Bureau settled on its own designa-tion for members of this ethnic group. For the last two

census periods, data have become available on thecharacteristics of those persons the Census styles as"white persons of Spanish surname," but these datahave been published for only five States. The five Statesof Califcruia, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, aidTexas are where mo. of the Spanish surnamed reside,and they constitute the Southwest, the region to whichthis study is limited.

The past indecision of the Bureau of die Cc nsus un-derscores the general obscurity that surrounds thisethnic group and the lack of attention it has receivedin our national affairs. In the 1930 Census of Popula-tion, the Bureau sought a count of "Mexicans." A"Mexican" was defined as any person of Mexicanorigin whether or not he was Caucasian, Negro, Indian,or Japanese. This had interesting results. For instance,it found only 59,340 "Mexicans" in the eiltire State ofNew Mexico. A decade later the question asked bythe Census enumerator was changed to inquire whethera person had Spanish for a mother tongue. There hadbeen no influx of Spanish-speaking persons into NewMexico during that depression decade, yet in 1940the Bureau found 221,740 persons, almost a fourfoldincrease, who responded yes, that Spanish was theirmother tongue. The gross undercount in 1930 perhapswas occasioned by the sensitivity of people who ob-jected to the inference of alien origins while knowingthat their own State capital, around which they andtheir forebears had long resided, had been a territorialcapital more than 10 years before the English arrivedat Jamestown.

The Bureau's confusion of 1930 and 1940 has notdisappeared in these subsequent years. The prefatory"Definitions and Explanations" for the last census

in 1960 passes from one descriptive name to anotherin efforts to explain the Bureau's uncertain view ofthis group. It speaks of "Spanish-American," "Spanish-Colonial," "Hispano group," "Mexican American,"and "Mexican-American," with hyphen added. Des-pairing of the adequacy of any of these, the Census hasin the last two censuses settled on the identification ofpersons of Spanish surname. The determination ofwhat is considered a Spanish surname is made essen-tially from a listing compiled in 1936 by the Immi-gration and Naturalization Service. The Bureau states,"This classification does identify a population withdistinctive social and economic characteristics highlycorrelated with certain national origins." 1

The terms "Spanish-speaking American," "Spanish-American," or "Spanish Surnamed" are taken assynonymous for purposes of this study. In the South-west all of them have currency, but in that region,many other terms could be substituted for them :"Latins," "Latin-Americans," "Hispano-Mexicans,""Mexicanos," "Mexican-Americans," and others thatare purely local colloquialisms. What is considered anadopted and appropriate term in one area may beoffensive in another. The extreme sensitivity of slottingpeople who range, ethnically, from Indian to unmixedSpanish ancestry is apparent. This explains part of theproblem of giving this group a statistical existence.Their heterogeneity and their homogeneity is hereafterembraced with the phrase "Spanish Surnamed Ameri-can." It is a phrase that has gained an official usageand in no way is intended to suggest any judgment ofqualified citizenship.

U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Final Report PC (2)-1B, p. VIII.

5

Yet, No Stereotype

Strangely, American ethnocentrism never developeda very firm stereotype of its Spanish Surma/led minor-ity. The reasons for this would be a study in itself.Stereotypes and caricatures become pure of our folk-ways to represent those peculiarities of a group that themajority believes exist, no matter how false or exag-gerated these might be. The American stage long agoconventionalized the caricature of virtually every im-migrant group, usually in comic proportions. Harold E.Adams, in his study of minority caricatures, recountshow in the variety halls, dime museums, beer gardens,and burlesque shows early images were shaped of theAmerican Negro, Irish, German, Jew, Italian, evenChinese, but he does not even mention the Mexican orthe Spanish.'

These early caricatures were designed to reveal thestrangeness of language ar-1 custom of each group asit tried to fit into the national scene. Why was theSpanish Surnamed spared unt,1 relatively recent years?Perhaps because he was too far from the scene. Helived too far from the eastern cities which for so longwere the major cultural centers of the Nation. He wasunimportant, if not nonexistent, to the audiences inthose cities. He appeared only in the regional literatureof the Southwest, hardly ever in that of the Nation.

The literature of the Southwest concerned itselfchiefly with the epic tales of men and women of greatcourage who peopled a hostile landmen and womenfrom the Eastern States. Their fortitude and heroism,which were indeed of epic proportiris, need not betaken from them, but it should be recognized that thosewho wrote in English were themselves the heirs oftheir fathers' work, and they wrote their fathers' his-tory in terms that made it into America's version ofthe morality playthe Western.

The Ustory that was written does not tell how thingsappeared to those who resisted or were supplanted bythe settlers from the East, for those people wrote verylittle while retreating, and seldom in English. To thisday, one searches almost in vain for Spanish surnamesin the listings of writers, authors, and journalists fromthe Sout%west who are entered in "Who's Who InAmerica." The one-sidedness of the region's literaturecan be judged from the contrast between literary works

Harold E. Adams, "Minority Caricatures on the AmericanStage," in Studies in the Science of Society, edited by GeorgePeter Murdock, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1937,pp. 1-27.

6

that were of interest to the nation's publishing housesand what has survived in the ballads and narrativefolksongs, the corridos, of this border country. Theselast tell the views of those who were dealt with asintruders in the very land in which they were born.2

Then, of course, it should be added that the SpanishSurnameds could easily escape national attention sim-ply because of their residing in only one region of thecountry, a region so long considered remote from theNation. Only in recent decades have Spanish Sur-narneds ventured out of the Southwest in any numbers,but they attracted little attention when they iid so.Paul Taylor, an economist whose compassion for peopleequals his great scholarship, was almost alone in givingthem attention. He spent years recording the move-ments and fates of America's Spanish-speaking minor-ity wherever they went.' Over 35 years ago he begantracking them as if they were the lost tribes of Israel.When numbers of them left the Southwest to ventureto "foreign" parts such as Bethlehem, Chicago, andthe Calumet regionplaces then also remote to thecultural centers of the countr he followed them andwrote chronicles about their problems. But Paul Tay-lor's scholarly work on "Mexican" laborers was notthe fare given Sunday supplement readers so thatimages of them might take shape and gain a substancewhich could then affect our national policies. Anynational awareness of the Spanish Surnamed w's lim-ited to regarding him as strictly a regional phenome-non, perhaps 2. passing one.

These observations may suggest some of the reasonsfor the Nation's unawareness of the Spanish Surnamedswithin its population, but they do not account for theattitudes that have and do prevail toward them in theSouthwest. In that region, other explanations must befound. The majority of persons in the Southwest havealways beer: quite aware of the presence of the SpanishSurnamed. Not infrequently that majority has dealtwith him in ways that most of the Nation might nowwish to disavow. But, of course, history cannot be dis-avowed. It stands as it was lived. Therefore, it becomesessential that this study include a review of parts of

'Americo Paredes, "With a Pistol in His Hand," Universityof Texas Press, Austin, 1958,262 pp.

Paul S. Tay/or, "Mexican Labor in the United States,"vols. I and II, in University of California Publications inEconomics, vols. VI and VII, Berke/ey, Calif., 1928-30 and1931-32.

Ir

that history. The societal forms that have developedand the attitudes that prevail toward the SpanishSurnamed in the Southwest cannot be understoodapart from the events that brought these people intothe country.

Those events are reviewed in the latter sections ofthis inquiry. The requ;rements of contractual researchhave dictated this order. The calibration of existingemployment problems is first sought, then the searchfor their roots.

The sections next following are statistical accountsof various aspects of present employment patterns.Taken alone they provide but a dim understanding ofthose pervasive notions that complicate and restrictthe employment opportunities of Spanish Surnameds.They are an uncertain guide to corrective action, be-cause the employment problems of Spanish Surnameds

can scarcely 1,2 dealt with, nor are they likely to bedealt with in any important sense, without some feel-ing and precisely thatfor the historical sequencethat brings them before the Nation now.

For this reason there is one conclusion drawn fromthe region's history that must be laid out in advance ofthe statistics. Simply put, it is that the Southwest oncerepresented an internal colonial empire to the UnitedStates. Those persons who first peopled the region, aswell as their kinsmen who subsequently arrived, weregenerally regarded as colonial subjects and were dealtwith as such. Their present employment problems canno more be understood apart from this acknowledg-ment than can the parallel problems of Negroes bemade explicable apart from an acknowledgment oftheir former enslavement. The argument for this viewis made in the sections devoted to the region's history.

7

PIMPP_ _ -Pr

The Employment ofSpanish Surnamed Americansin the Southwest

Spanish Surnameds must be considered both as anative group and an immigrant group. Some have spec-ulated that much of the reason for their lack of assim-ilation within the gencral population is their dualidentity of being both native and foreign. Even thenative part of the group had its own well-defined insti-tutions and folk values when first thrust into contactwith Anglo society, a society which placed heavy em-phasis on industrial achievement, activity, and effi-ciency. It is argued that the different institutions andvalues of the Spanish Sumameds "have since been continually reinforced by a seemingly endless stream ofimmigrant and alien laborers from Mexico."

If this summary observation is valid (though it seemstoo undifferentiating of a very diverse people) , it isprobable that the incompleted processes of assimila-tion are in part a consequence of the employment op-portunities that the region has had for members ofthis group. If their institutions and folk values of anearlier time are steadily being fortified by infusionsfrom areas of Mexico which have not adopted the in-stitutions and values of an industrial society, then thenature of their work opportunities in this country mustbe considered as a factor that has slowed the assimila-tion process. Certainly, work opportunities determinethe character of the immigrant more than the immi-grant can determine the nature of the offered work.

In the Southwest, as will be shown, the SpanishSumameds have largely stood by to provide the un-skilled labor for the region. And Mexico has alwaysbeen the ever present, ever available reservoir fromwhich that pool of unskilled workers has been keptbrimming. So it has been since there has been a South-west. In agriculture, ranching, and mining, the earliestindustries of the region, these were the people whoserved as laborers. As crops needed cultivation or har-vest, these were the main body of field hands doingthe chopping, thinning, and pickingmoving likegypsies to get this work. When the railroads were laid,

Julian Samora, "Spanish-Speaking Peoples," staff paper,prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, ProgramsDivision, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 1964, pp. 8 and 53.

8

these were the section hands, and they serve themtoday as maintenance-of-ways workers. When irriga-tion works spread over tbe region, these were the ditch-ers and irrigators; when fruits and vegetables neededsorting and packing, these were the people who man-ned the canning plants and packing sheds; when smelt-ers were built, they handled the ore; when construc-tion boomed, they were the hod carriers and commonlaborers.

There is a difference in these kinds of work activitiesand those available to the great waves of immigrantswho entered the country on the eastern seaboard. Theindustrial jobs that once were open to the immigrantsfrom Europe by and large were of a different type anddefinitely in a more promising work environment. Theimmigrants to the Eastern United States entered amore industrialized and urbanized area, which couldoffer them a wider range of job opportunities thancould the once largely agricultural and rurally situ-ated industries of the Southwest. Mainly, it offeredthem more than the pick and shovel which they onceused for digging the subways and storm sewers, layingthe water mains, or cleaning the snow off city streets.Although many immigrants in the East entered themines or miserable factory jobs, they at least soon foundit possible to form unions and to improve their statusin their jobs through collective actions.

This possibility is still largely unavailable to thoseSpanish Surnameds who even today, as will be shown,must compete with foreign nationals for their jobs.2Whereas the great body of American workers have longbeen relieved of a direct competition with foreign

2 In 1965, union membership as a percent of employees innonagricultural establishments was below the 29.5 percentU.S. average in all states of the Southwest, except California,where a was 33.8. Percentages for the other states were:Texas-13.3; New Mexico-13.4; Arizona-20.8; Colo-rado-21.6. These percentages contrast sharply with NewYork's 39.4; Pennsylvania's 38.4; New Jersey's 37.7; or WestVirginia's 42.0.

Sec U.S. Dept. of Labor, Directory of National and Inter-national Unions in the United States, 1965. Washington,D.C., 1966, p. 58.

workers whose entry once hindered their efforts tostructure labo' markets in their own interest and toenhance the premiums paid for their work, this hasyet to occur for the Spanish Surnamed workers. Gov-ernment intervention to protect domestic workers hasnot extended to these workers of the Southwest. Thisis an historical anachronism, a governmental indiffer-ence more typical of the last century than the presentone.

This situation is examined in a following section butcan be illustrated here with a reference to those agri-cultural workers who, at this writing, have been onstrike against California grape growers for over twoyears. The chief complaint of these workers has beenlodged against the U.S. Government for permittingforeign nationals to work the crops which they havestruck. And the present sharp conflict on this issuebetween the Department of Labor on one hand andthe Department of Justice on the other makes it clearthat this complaint cannot be tucked away withouteventually reconciling its disposition with that of sim-ilar union complaints of almost a century ago.

Spanish Surnameds have long been regarded ascasual, incidental workers. Never until now has therebeen a governmental concern that they should be muchmore than that. In the past, after the big waves of im-migrations from Mexico from 1910 to 1930, even thejob opportunities that had existed for Spanish Sur-nameds diminished, and the tide of entering workerswas stemmed, and in some instances flowed back toMexico while the depression punished the land. Duringthe 1930's when new industries arose, such as the petro-leum industry, the Spanish Surnameds gained only in-significant positions in it. And their representationthere today has not been much improved. In theinstance of this industry, little can he said about minori-ties being unaccepted because of their lack of training,for the Anglo Texas farm boys who entered the newoil fields as "boll weevils and roughnecks" were nottrained either. They acquired their training on the job,relatively good jobs, jobs which later sustained themin the oil production fields, refineries, and pipelineoperations throughout all the booms that acceleratedthe growth of that industry.

What happened in petroleum happened in the newmetal fabricating, transportation, and other manu-facturing industries that burgeoned in the region dur-ing and after World War II. The Spanish Surnamedsand other minorities had only inconsequential roles inthe building of these new industries. By and large, theywere left with the laborer jobs in mining, smelting, orthe low-paid operative jobs in the garment trades, tex-tiles, and similar industries. The analysis that followswill show their job situations in contemporary terms.

This study is concerned primarily with how the labormarket in the Southwest functions for over a millionSpanish Surnameds who have a job there, or say that

they wish for one. In 1960 there were 1,003,423 personsin this group who were over 14 years old and had suc-ceeded in getting employment Of that number,736,768 were males, and 266,65. were females. Thelabor force participation figures, the unemploymentrates, the subempioyment rates, and the relatively lowincomes that prevail for Spanish Surnameds suggestthat there is an undetermined number of others whomight wish to join this employed labor force.

A close and recent look can be taken only at thatpart of this labor force working for employers coveredby the reporting requirements of the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission, and who responeto those requirements. In some cases, the informationsupplied in the employer reports can be supplementedor amplified from census data. This is fortunate be-cause the employment coverage of the reports to theCommission falls short of including a majority of thejobs in the region.

The Pattern: Twenty CountiesThe major employment counties in the Southwest in

which Spanish Surnameds represent a substantial partof the population are shown in appendix table C.These counties a. e also listed in table 1, which showstotal employment figures in each county accordingto the Bureau of the Census' "County Business Pat-terns" as of mid-March, 1966, a time contemporaryto the period when the Commission was gathering itsEEO-1 reports. (See app. A for a description of thedata.) Also shown in this table are the number ofemployees accounted for in each county by the EEO-1reports and the percentage these represented of totalemployment given in "County Business Patterns." Inonly one instance, that of Denver County, Colo., didthe EEO-1 reports account for over one-half of thetotal county nonagricultural employment. For overone-half the counties the coverage of the reports wasless than 38.0 percent, and it ranged as low as 13.6percent in one county.

The range of the Commission's potential effective-ness may be more limited in the counties of the South-west than is the case countrywide. An earlier studyprepared for the Commission at Princeton Universityfound that the absolute amount of reported employ-ment in the EEO-1 Reports for 1966 at the nationallevel represented about one-half of the total employ-ment shown in the census. The jurisdiction of theCommission has, of course, been expanded since 1966;but it began its functions in the Southwest with a juris-diction over only a minority of the employment situa-tions; at least this was the case in the listed counties.

Orley Ashenfelter, "Minority Employment Patterns,1966," Princeton University, April, 1968, 73 pp., plus tables,an unpublished analysis of employer, information reports pre-pared for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

9

TABLE 1. Employment coverage of EEOC reports and County Business Patterns forselected counties, Southwest: 1966

Counry

Total employment EEOC asa percentof CountyBusinessPatterns

CountyBusinessPatterns I

EEOC

ARIZONA:Maricopa 206,719 91, 418 44. 2Pima 59,375 26,649 44.8

CALIFORNIA:Los Angeles 2, 225, 641 I, 035, 496 46.5Orange 259,085 118,452 45.7San Bernardino 103,361 35,934 34.7San Joaquin 51,997 19,789 38.0Santa Clara 234, 920 115, 820 49.3

COLORADO:Denver 213,039 114,424 53.7Pueblo 24,263 11, 761 48,4

NEW MEXICO:Bernalillo 69,198 29, 814 43.0Dona Ana 8, 803 2, 762 31.3Santa Fe 9, 072 I, 349 14, 8

TEXAS:Bexar. 148,806 55,381 37.2Cameron 24, 342 7,162 29.4El Paso 68, 797 29, 845 43, 3

Hidalgo 22, 486 3, 623 16,1Jim Wells 5, 467 748 13.6Nueces 53, 872 17, 051 31, 6

Travis 53, 717 14, 615 27.2Webb 11, 309 I, 933 17.0

Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.I Number of employees, mid-March pay period.

EEOC data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Source: U S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1966, CBP-66-4.6, 7, 33, 45.

Any detailed examination of employment patternsin a wide range of occupations, industries, and loca-tions is tedious. The numbers assembled in **le em-ployer reports, which define these patterns, make sucha vast array, they dull the senses. Finding those situa-tions that might be of concern to fair employmentpractices agencies requires that these, too, be statis-tically presented.

This is unfortunate. Statistics activate the senses ofonly those who are familiar with their usc, and attain-ing the goals of equal employment opportunities mayrequire a more vivid language, one that moves thosewho are unmoved by regression and correlation co-efficients, "t" ratios, frequency curves, and the like.

A layman not attuned to the symbols of the statisti-cian may find it difficult judging relative sizes andsignificances from them. Yet, all people make visualjudgments of what they regard as big or little. Theyknow what to them is a big horse, for instance, thoughthey have not the faintest idea how many hands highit stands or how many stones it weighs. Their judgmentis a visual one; it does not depend on knowledge ofsophisticated weights and measures.

Perhaps this is why Herman P. Miller, although

10

being a statistician's statistician for over 17 years withthe U.S. Bureau of the Census, made profuse use ofcartoons drawn to scale to show differences in incomedistributions when he wrote "Rich Man /P, ,or Man."Obviously, he was endeavoring to reach those who werenot statisticiansthe same modest hope held for thepresent study.

The computer tabulations of the data supplied byemployers on the EEO-1 report forms are voluminous,filling many hundreds of pages. How this informationcan be presented in a graphic manner so as to be mean-ingful to the statistically-minded and yet convey toothers the patterns of minority employment as theyexist in the Southwest is one of the problems of thisstudy. A device developed to do this is described inthis se( .;on and is extensively used in appendix H, inwhich tin. employment patterns for selected industriesand counties are shown.

A set of basic diagrams has been constructed to dowhat a draftsman's drawing does in making a blue-print of an objectto set to paper a scale drawing ofthe object from at least three perspectives: the endview, the side view, and the top or bottom view. Thefirst rectangle is the end view, showing the level ofminority employment among all employees in an in-dustry (or all industries). The second rectangle showsminority employees as they are distributed in occupa-tions throughout the industry (csr all industries) . Thelast, or bottom, rectangle shows how minority employ-ment is distributed in occupations as seen from theperspective of the Spanish Surnamedtheir share ofthe minority-held jobs. The basic set of diagrams aredrawn within these three rectangles:

MINORITIES:ININDUSTRY

100

INLABORFORCE

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 721 80 40

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY- FILLED JOSS: BY OCCUPATIONS

100

ININDUSTRY 50

0

TOO

The smallest rectangle represents a receptacle con-taining all the er. ployees in an industry (or, in all in-dustries combined). Using the 0-100 scale alongsideof it, the percentage of total jobs held by employeesfrom minority grcups can be shown by shading part ofthe rectangle:

`Herman P. Miller, "Rich Man/Poor Man," Signet Books,The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., NewYork, 1965.

MINORINES:ININDUSTR

INLABORFORCE

ILO

50

0

The significance of this minority employment levelcan be judged by comparing it first to the percentagerepresented by all minority persons in the total civilianlabor force of the county (or other area) in which theindustry, or industries, are located. This percentage,taken from the 1960 census, is depicted by drawing acenterline across the smallest and largest rectangles: Inthe example, the ievel of minority employment given inthe EEO-1 reports can be read as approximately 19percent, a level below the 20.7 percent representationthey had in the civilian labor force shown by the census.

The largest rectangle is then divided into sections,each section representing the exact proportion of allemployees shown by the EEO-1 reports as working innine occupations in the industry:MINORITIES:

IN ININDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 a 5 6 7 9

22IN

LABORFORCE

100

0 20 30 40 50 BO 70 BO 90 100

The nine occupations are numbered according tothis code:

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3 OPERATIVES (SEMI- SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:

S CLERICALS OFFICE8. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS IL MANAGERS

The exact percentage of minority employees in eachoccupational category, which is identified by nu. aberfrom the above code, is then approximated by theshaded areas in the diagram:MINORITIES:


3 < R 67 9

22 4%IN

LABORFORCE

40.

100

0 lo 20 30 40 50 so 70 80 90 100

The bottom rectangle in the set is designed to showaccording to EEO-1 reports the percentage of all mi-nority-filled jobs in the occupational categories thatwere filled by Mexican-Americans (read SpanishSurnameds) .

374-21S 0-70 2

AIESICANAMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITYFILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

100

80 1130Apr.

INDUSTRY 5°

0

The centerline drawn across this rectang e repre-sents the percentage of all minority employees in theindustry who are Spanish Surnameds. Thus, the com-pleted diagram indicates the level of minority employ-ment, how it was distributed among occupaticns, howit compares to their representation in the civilian laborforce, the Spanish Surnamed share of minority-filledjobs by occupation, and how this compares with theirproportion of all minority-filled jobs in the industry.The last line of type gives the percentage of SpanishSurnameds among all minorities in the labor force.This can be used for comparison with their share ofminority-filled jobs in a particular industry.

The presumption is made here that if there were nosuch thing as a taste for discrimination and no differ-ences in the relative abilities, job preferences, mobility,training, and education of persons identified with anyracial or ethnic groupindeed, that if all jobs wererandomly filledthen, as the statisticians assure us,there should be no deviations for members of a par-ticular group being selected and distributed in alloccupations and industries in the same proportion thatthey represent in the universe of people involved. Ifthis is not the case, then other factors are affecting theselection process.

A final feature is added to the set of diagrams toindicate the extent of employment growth in the indus-try (or industries). This shows the extent to which theindustry in question is one of the expanding industriesin the area, and hence due priority consideration inefforts to revise overall employment patterns wheresuch might seem appropriate.

A cautionary word should be said about these em-ployment growth figures. Those shown on the dia-grams are based on the 1950-60 census period. Inmany cases there are more recent figures available fromthe Bureau of the Census' "County Business Patterns."These last are not always comparable to census figures,and the division they make of industries into namedcategories do not always match those of the census, nordo either of these sources exactly match the divisionsthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hadmade of the data from the employer reports. An ex-planation of these difficulties and how industries wereselected for diagraming is offered in appendix D, whichcontains a table comparing employment data by countyand by industry from the census for 1950-60 with thatfrom "County Business Patterns" for 1956-66. Use ofthis table will facilitate the use made of the employ-ment pattern diagrams. Also, in appendix E, a table isgiven to make it possible to compare and reconcilehow the Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC)

11

was used by all three sources to define the industrialheadings.

No. EP! -I.- DRAWING SEQUENCE: ALL INDUSTRIES-Twenty Spanish Surnamedcounties: Southwest

Item Figure

1 Percent growth in industry (growth patterns) 1950-6012 Employment level 19503 Employment level 19604 Minority level in industry (EEO) (percent)

Occupational distribution of labor force in Industry (ac-

34.92, am 1921, 511, 810 4, 322, 002

19.0

cumulative): Percent Percent Code

5 Service workers 8.1 8.1 (1)6 Laborers 7.3 15 -4 (2)7 Operatives 18.9 34.3 (3)8 Craftsmen 14.6 48.9 (4)9 Office and clerical 18.0 66.9 (5)

10 Salesworkers 7.1 74.0 (6)II Technicians 6.1 80.1 (7)12 Professionals 11.2 91.3 (8)13 Officials and managers 8.3 99.6 (9)

Minority level in occupations:14 Service workers 34.7 (I)15 Laborers 48.4 (2)16 Operatives 30.8 (3)17 Craftsmen 18.1 (4)18 Office and clerical 11.2 (5)19 Salesworkers 9.0 (6)20 Technicians 11.5 (7)21 Professionals 5.7 (8)22 Officials and managers 5.0 (9)23 Minority level in total labor force in county (census) 20.7

SSA share of minority filled jobs by occupations:24 Service workers 46.9 (1)25 Laborers 71.6 (2)26 Operatives 68.5 (3)27 Craftsmen 74.5 (4)28 Office and clerical 58.9 (5)29 Salesworkers 72.2 (6)30 Technicians 45.2 (7)31 Professionals 35.0 (8)32 Officials and managers 58. i; (9)33 SSA share of all minority filled jobs in industry 63.634 Share of minority labor force 64.1

'Santa Fe County excluded from growth figures only.

The completed diagram, which will be called anemployment pattern diagram (EP diagram), is shownbelow, followed by the worksheet from which it wasproduced. EP diagram 1 is for all industries combinedin the 20 selected counties in the five states. The coun-ties were selected on the basis of their being those morepopulous counties in the region that have a high num-ber of Spanish Surnameds. Appendix table C gives thepercentage of their population that is SpanishSurnamed.

The pattern of minority employment for all com-panies submitting EEO-1 reports in 1966 in the 20counties is shown (see app. A for a description of datacontained in the EEO-1 reports). The employer re-ports from these 20 counties covered 58.1 percent ofthe Spanish Surnamed employees in the region thatwere accounted for in all of the employer reports. Allminorities (Spanish Surnameds, Negroes, Indians, and

12

Orientals) , constituted 20.7 percent of the civilianlabor force in these counties. However, they were only19.0 percent of the work force in the reportingcompanies.

There is a deficiency in this comparison-the laborforce figure is based on 1960 census data while thework force figure derives from the 1966 EEO-1 re-ports. Because overall employment in these countiesgrew during that 6-year period, it is possible that somechange occurred in the percentage of the labor forcethat was composed of members of minority groups.There is no way, short of the next census, to determinethe exact extent of any such change, but it is notbelieved that it would have been a significant amountduring the 6 years. t is probable that any tendencyfor minority groups to gain greater representation inthe labor force by virtue of their higher birth rates orimmigration, is offset by the continuing immigration ofAnglos into these counties.

Whatever the case, minority employees in 1966 hadslightly less of a share of the jobs in the reporting com-panies than they represented ir, the total labor force ofthese counties in 1960. By the same standard, it is seenthat they were overrepresented in three occupationalcategories and underrepresented in six. They were over-represented, but in no case dominated, in the cate-gories of service workers, laborers, and operatives. Inthe craftsmen jobs and in all of the white-collar jobsthey were underrepresented. The degree of this under-representation generally increases as the occupationalhierachy advances. There is a stair-step pattern in theemployment of minority workers that reveals that theirshare of jobs descends as the job hierarchy ascends. Itis a pattern, as will be shown, that is repeated indus-try by industry, county by county, with but fewexceptions.

No claim is made that the order of occupationsshown in the chart depicts a consistent hierachy of thestatus or preferability of jobs, going from lowest tohighest. There are too many exceptions, and the jobscontained in the categories are too crudely grouped forthat purpose. The categories are those utilized by theBureau of the Census, which assigns jobs to one or theother according to its Classified Index of Occupationsand Industries. The index introduces aberrations inany view of these occupational categories as an exacthierarchy. The service workers category provides anexample. Those who are classified as service workersby the census include persons who work as messengerboys as well as detectives; they may be parking attend-ants or vocational nurses.5 Whether the category should

5 The Bureau of the Census lists service workers in thehighest decile of occupations for the dispersion (deviationfrom the average) of their wage and salary incomes. SeeHerman P. Miller, Income Distribution in the United States,U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington,1966.


20.7%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

TWENTY MEXICAN-AMERICANCOUNTIES; FIVE STATES

LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 11111MI

00 10 20 30 40 50

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

10063.6%

INDUSTRY l6-IN

1 2 3

111=

60 70 80 90 100

Mexican-Americans represent 84.1% of minorities in Labor Force.

be regarded as a beginning step in a scale of jobs willoften depend on the nature of the industry under con-sideration. Waen all industries are being considered,as here, the classification is a Mother Hubbard, cover-ing too wide a diversity.

Also concerning the job scale, it is recognized thata great many blue-collar jobs offer much better incomeprospects and enjoy higher social status than a greatmany white-collar jobs. The Chi-Square tests made ofthese data in a later section serve to refine these con-cepts. For the moment, it can be seen from the diagramthat slightly less than one-half of all the reported jobsare considered blue-collar. Looking at the blocks ofblue-collar and white-collar occupations separately,minorities have a generally declining representationmoving from left to right on this scale.

An interesting feature about this allocation of work-ers is that minorities have a considerably higher repre-sentation in the highest skilled blue-collar craftsmenjobs than they have in the least skilled white-collarjobs of clerical, office and sales workers, which makeup about one-half of all white-collar jobs. Thus, atthe outset, any disposition to account for the low repre-sentation of minorities in white-collar occupationssolely as a result of some skill gap between their groupsand the Anglo population is rendered suspect.

Even though the existence of a skill gap betweenthe groups is acknowledged, as it can be when thesetwo population groups are viewed as undiversified en-tities, the fact remains that the skills of minority work-ers were sufficient to gain close to the same proportion

TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

tool

z 5034.9,

11950

n.50

1960 4,322.022

2,810.192

of the highest skilled blue-collar jobs as they had in thetotal work forces of these companies. Yet, they did notcome near to that proportion in the lowest-skilledwhite-collar jobs.

Thus, a wall separating white-collar from blue-collaroccupations emerges early in the analysis. To whatextent does it arise from the skill requirements of thewhite-collar jobs, and to what extent is it erected as amatter of taste by those standing to the right of thewall?

Herbert R. Northrup has suggested the hypothesisthat companies headed by individuals of minority eth-nic stock are more likely to have initiated programssympathetic to bringing greater minority representa-tion into the jobs under them.° His suggestion impliesthat the presence of minorities in category 9 will resultin a higher level of minorities in categories 4, 5, 6, 7,and 8. The pattern of employment in this diagramsuggests a different hypothesis: That the flow of influ-ence goes in the other direction, so that any breachingby minorities of the wall between occupational cate-gories 4 and 5 tends to raise their level in all thehigher categories, including 9.

The question is an important one and will be takenup again. Its importance comes partly from the factthat efforts to improve minority employment opportu-nities have given it slight consideration while empha-sizing two other goals: The need to batter down formal

° Herbert R. Northrup, "The Racial Policies of AmericanIndustry," Monthly Labor Review, vol. 90, No. 7, July 1967,p. 42.

13

institutional barriers around some skilled trades (e.g.,union apprenticeship arrangements, exeosionary hir-ing halls, and the like), and the need to upgrade mi-nority skills and education so that more minoritymembers will find employment as technicians, pro-fer.ionals, officials, and managers.

This study will explore the proposition that becauseof priorities given to those two goals, a great middleground of potential employment opportunities may beneglected, the entry to which is largely ungoverned byany formal (i.e., legal) institutional barriers, and forwhich it is implausible to argue that the skill and edu-cation requirements exceed those that prevail in theskilled craftsmen occupations where minorities havealready gained a much higher representation. The ques-tion is, what supports the wall separating category 4from categories 5 and 6?

Leaving this for the present, the bottom rectangle inthe set of diagrams affords a view of the employmentpattern of minorities from the perspective of the Span-ish Surnamed. It shows the proportion of minority-filled jobs that went to Spanish Surnameds (labeledMexican-American in the diagrams), 63.6 percent inthe 20 counties. This is only slightly below the 64.1 per-cent they represented in the total minority labor forceof these counties in 1960. This is the first o' several in-dications that Spanish Surnameds are not necessarilyfavored over other minorities for employment in thosecounties where they are the main minority group inthe labor force.

An examination of the distribution of Spanish Sur-


24.2%IN

LABORFORCE

14

nameds among the different occupational categoriesdiscloses a highly irregular pattern, one that will be-come more meaningful as the analysis is taken to incE-vidual industries at separate locations. Fo all reportingcompanies in the 20 counties, Spanish Surnameds ap-pear to have a favor, or to be favored over other minor-ities, for the occupations of laborers, operatives,craftsmen, and sales workers. In these occupations theyrepresent a higher proportion of the minority em-ployees than their overall numbers represent amongthe employed minorities. Other minorities taken to-gether have a representation more than proportional totheir numbers among minority employees in the occu-pations for service workers, clerical and office, tech-nicians, professionals, and officials and managers.

Included in the 20 counties is Los Angeles County,which alone accounts for almost one-halt of all theemployees accounted for in the EEO-1 reports fromthese counties. It also contains over one-half of the totalnumber of employed persons the census shows for all20 counties. Accordingly, the next set of diagrams (EPdiagrams-2) presents the employment pattern for theremaining 19 counties when Los Angeles is omittedfrom the survey.

Except for a slight increase in the proportion of labor-ers and a slight decrease in the proportion of clericaland office workers, the occupational mix of the com-bined industries remains surprisingly unchanged whenLos Angeles County is removed.

Mina -ides represent a larger part, 24.2 percent, ofthe teal civilian labor force when Los Angeles is not

TWENTY MEXICAN-AMERICAN COUNTIES;FIVE STATES LESS LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4

0 10 20 30 40


1 2 3100

79.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

Mexican-Americans o-nresent BO" of minorities in Labor Force.


100 -

63.37(7 1960 1,948,311

50 -

0

-50 -

19501,193,061

included in the tally. Again, all of these counties in thefive States were selected because Spanish Surnamedsrepresented a large part of the population, but theyare not necessarily the ones with the largest SpanishSurnamed populations. San Diego County, for in-stance, was omitted because only 6.3 percent of itspopulation is Spanish Surnamed.

The pattern of employment with Los Angeles re-moved shows few changes. The same stairstep pat-tern emerges. Minority workers came closer toapproximating their labor force representation in thecraftsmen occupations, but they fare a little worse assales workers and somewhat better as clerical and officeworkers.

The Spanish Surnameds in these 19 counties nowconstitute 79.1 percent of all minority employment inthe reporting companies, while they were 80.6 per-cent of the r oinority labor force in 1960. They continueto trail other minorities in their share of the minority-

No. EPD-2.-DRAWING SEQUENCE: ALL INDUSTRIES: Twenty Spanish Surnamedcounties with Los Angeles excluded: Southwest

Item Figure

1 Percent growth in industry (growth pattarns) 1950-60 I2 Employment level 19503 Employment level 1960

63.31,193, 061

755.250 1, 948, 3114 Minority level in industry (EEO) (percent) 19.7

Occupational distribution of labor force in industry (ac.cumulative):

Percent Percent Code5 Service workers 9. 2 9. 2 (1)6 Laborers 7.8 17. 0 (2)7 Operatives 18.8 35.8 (3)8 Craftsmen 13.2 49.0 (4)9 Office clerical 16.9 65.9 (5)

10 Salesv,orkers 7.7 73.6 (6)11 Technicians 6.5 80.1 (7)12 Professionals 11.1 91.2 (8)13 Officials and managers 8.3 99.5 (9)

Minority level in occupations:14 Service workers 36.4 (1)15 Laborers 51.8 (2)16 Operatives 30.2 (3)17 Craftsmen 22. 3 (4)18 Office and clerical 9.9 (5)19 Salesworkers 11.7 (6)20 Technicians 10.2 (7)21 Professionals 5.2 (8)22 Officials and managers 5.1, (9)23 Minority level in total labor force in county (census) 24.2

SSA share of minority filled jobs by occupations:24 Service workers 65.9 (1)25 Laborers 84.3 (2)26 Operatives 84.1 (3)27 Craftsmen 88.3 (4)28 Office and clerical 76.7 (5)29 Salesworkers 87.1 (6)30 Technicians 61.7 (7)31 Professionals 48.0 (8)32 Officials and managers 80. 3 (9)33 SSA share of all minority filled jobs in industry 79.1

34 Share of minority labor force 80.6

'Santa Fe County excluded from growth figures only.

filled jobs for service workers, technicians, and profes-sionals. They almost gain their share of the minority-filled clerical and office jobs, increase their share ofoperative jobs, and they exceed till it share of the mi-nority-filled jobs among officials and managers. Itshould be noted, too, that the overall employmentgrowth in these 19 counties from 1950 to 1960 ex-ceeded that of Los Angeles County, 63.3 percent asagainst 34.9 percent.

This overview of the reporting companies ;n the 19counties shows that the wall that dams minority work-ers from white-collar occupations stands higher inthese rapidly industrializing counties than it did whenLos Angeles was included. The number of minorityclerical and officeworkers is proportionately less, whilethe number of salesworkers is proportionately greater.But the last group is much less in aggregate size thanthe former.

Table 2 takes a closer look at the leading industriesin the 20 counties. The three largest employment-offering industries reporting to the Commission arelisted along with the total county employment coveredin the reports. The extent to which Negroes and Span-ish Surnameds are a part each of these work forcesis also shown. Negroes rel +resent a relatively small partof the work forces because the counties were selectedfor their Spanish Surnamed populations, not Negro.However, the great similarity that is shown in thepercentages of all employed Negroes and of all em-ployed Spanish Surnameds who are blue-collar workersis one of the commonplace features of employment inthese areas. Furthermore, in a majority of the in-stances shown, the percentage of all employed SpanishSurnameds who work in laborer jdbs actually exceedsthat of all employed Negroes.

Except for five instances in counties where Negroesconstitute a part of the workforce, the percentage ofall employed Spanish Surnameds who work as officialsand managers exceeds that of Negroes. But the per-centage of both groups who work in such jobs is negli-gible in virtually all cases except for retail trade andgarment industries, in which the Spanish Surnamedsimprove their representation in counties where theyare a major part of the population.

In only one industry in one county did the percentageof Spanish Surnameds who were officials and managersequal the percentage of officials and managers em-ployed in the industry. In the apparel indusul, inWebb County, Tex. (Laredo), 1.7 percent of the ill'sin the industry are for officials and managers, and thatis the exact percentage of employed Spanish Sur-nameds in those jobs. However, this achievement isimmediately explained by noting that 98.8 percent ofthe industry's employees covered by the EEO-1 reportswere Spanish Surnameds. The writer also offers hispersonal observation that a very high proportion of theworkers in the Laredo garment industry are non-

15

TA

BLE

2.-

Em

ploy

men

t pat

tern

s in

sel

ecte

d co

untie

s, S

outh

wes

t

Are

aT

hree

larg

est e

mpl

oym

ent i

ndus

trie

s

Tot

alem

ploy

edla

bor

forc

e

Neg

ro in

ELF

(Per

cent

)

SS

A in

ELF

(Per

cent

)

Tot

al (

Per

cent

)N

egro

(P

erce

nt)

Spa

nish

-Sur

nam

ed (

Per

cent

)

Whi

teco

llar

2O

ffici

als

and

man

ager

s

Blu

eco

llar

3La

bore

rsW

hite

colla

rsO

ffici

als

and

man

ager

s

Blu

eco

llar3

Labo

rers

Whi

teco

llar2

Offi

cial

san

dm

anag

ers

Blu

Pco

llar3

Labo

rers

AR

IZO

NA

:

Mar

ico

pa91

, 418

2.2

7.7

47.8

8.3

52.1

5.8

16.8

.483

.119

.015

.52.

284

.422

.8

Ret

ail t

rade

12,9

613.

07.

448

.310

.551

.62.

015

.5.5

84.5

7.2

24.7

7.3

75.2

2.2

Ele

ctro

nic

mac

hine

ry22

,014

.84.

041

.16.

158

.83.

014

.8-

85.1

17.0

17.6

I.182

.311

.2M

achi

nery

and

non

elec

tric

6, 6

381.

12.

357

. 57.

642

.41.

115

.7-

84. 2

4.0

26.4

2.0

73. 5

2.5

Pim

a26

, 649

2.3

14. 5

50.7

6. 1

49.2

6.9

14.6

-85

.317

.824

.52.

475

.443

.0

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

3, 7

752.

718

.420

.42.

079

.513

. 15.

8-

94. 1

48. 0

9.9

.890

. 042

.6

Ret

ail t

rade

3, 3

b92.

215

.063

.7a

536

.22.

421

.9-

78.0

11. 0

62.3

7.6

37.6

.8E

duca

tiona

l ser

vice

s6,

227

3.0

7.0

75.7

4.4

24.2

4.1

15. 2

-84

.77.

835

.6.4

64.3

25. 5

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

;Lo

s A

ngel

esI,

035,

496

6.8

9.7

51. 0

8.3

49.0

7.0

20.3

1.0

79.6

16.2

20.7

1.8

79.2

20.0

Ele

ctro

nic

mac

hine

ry15

2,90

95.

07.

160

.28.

639

.73.

521

.0I.0

79.0

9.3

20.4

1 5

79.5

13.0

Ret

ail t

rade

106,

750

7.8

9.0

56.8

10.4

43.1

5.4

34.3

2.1

65.6

9.6

41.7

4.4

58.2

14.7

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

equi

pmen

t12

4,89

86.

67.

739

.86.

660

.12.

48.

7.4

91.2

6.2

II. 4

1.2

88.5

8.3

Ora

nge

118,

452

187.

955

.08.

345

.06.

019

.81.

080

.114

.517

.61.

582

.323

.1

Ele

ctro

nic

mac

hine

ry25

, 573

.85.

0a9

.89.

540

.12.

528

.62.

671

.39.

224

.62.

475

.36.

7M

achi

nery

and

non

elec

tric

25, 4

103.

04.

560

.68.

139

.3.5

20.1

.679

.81.

034

.51.

665

.4I_

I

Ret

ail t

rade

12,4

721.

25.

359

.47.

840

. 54.

132

. 22.

067

.719

.339

.73.

060

.29.

0S

an B

erna

rdin

o35

,934

2.7

12.6

35.2

7.8

64.7

10.3

15.7

1.4

84.2

17.8

8.3

1.0

91.6

26.3

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

8,27

22.

716

.622

.73.

777

.210

. 04.

0.4

96.0

29.0

3.8

.896

. 136

.7

Prim

ary

met

al8,

570

2.7

14.5

21.6

9.0

78.3

II. 0

5.6

.894

.317

.62.

8.6

97.1

22.9

Ret

ail t

rade

3,47

34.

27.

770

.810

. 529

.11.

850

.03.

350

.0.6

52.7

5.5

47.2

3. 0

San

Joa

quin

19,7

893.

7II.

I32

.67.

267

.321

.69.

3.2

90.6

43.1

9.7

1.7

90.2

42.5

Foo

d an

d ki

ndre

d pr

oduc

ts4,

400

4.0

16. 2

21. 5

7.5

78.4

25.0

17-

98.2

68. I

2.0

.198

.050

.3

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

2, 2

366.

016

.08.

312

91.6

65.0

--

100.

070

.53.

C-

97.0

77.0

Ret

ail t

rade

2,75

72.

05.

572

.69.

927

.33.

149

.0-

50.9

10.9

55. 5

4.0

44.4

7.1

San

ta C

lara

115,

820

2.4

7.4

62.1

8.0

37.8

4.2

29.8

1270

. 17.

624

.61.

775

.319

.7

Ele

ctro

nic

mac

hine

ry31

,481

2.0

6.8

57.3

8.0

42.6

1.8

25.0

L875

.02.

821

.51.

678

.45.

0

Tra

nrro

rtat

ion

equi

pmen

t26

,661

2.1

4.2

72.7

0.5

27.2

1.6

34.0

1.2

66.0

4.2

54.5

1.8

45.4

4.8

Edu

catio

nal s

ervi

ces

7, 3

283.

018

84.8

6.6

15. 1

1.2

41.5

1.0

58.4

7.0

45.3

.754

.610

.0

CO

LOR

AD

O:

Den

ver

114,

424

4.2

6.9

53.3

9.0

46.6

7.8

25.6

1.2

74.3

13.0

Ft 0

1.3

82.0

22.4

Ret

ail t

rade

19,2

093.

75.

254

.311

.245

.61.

117

.32.

882

.62.

031

.83.

06Z

...1

5

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

13,8

123.

04.

536

.87.

463

.19.

33.

2.2

96.7

20.0

14.4

1.2

85.5

44.0

Com

mun

icat

ion

8,93

61.

41.

776

.413

.123

. 5-

73.6

.726

.3-

87. 5

2.0

12.4

-P

uebl

o11

,761

2.0

22.7

26.2

8.5

73.7

18.6

6.8

.493

.127

.25.

41.

094

.540

. 5

Prim

ary

met

al7,

602

2.3

25.2

19.8

7.7

80.'

23.0

.5.5

99.4

32. 0

1.3

.698

.648

.5M

achi

nery

and

non

elec

tric

605

.821

.616

.08.

484

. (.,

28.2

20.0

-80

.026

.05.

33.

094

.635

. 1

Ret

ail t

rade

872

1.3

13.0

62.5

14.2

37.5

1.1

50.0

-50

.0-

44.2

7.0

55.7

1.7

NE

W M

EX

ICO

:

Ber

nalil

lo29

, 814

1.3

24.6

59.8

9.0

40. 1

6.0

20. 0

.280

.013

.529

.12.

570

.816

.8R

etai

l tra

de4,

834

1.6

28.5

59.1

11.1

40.8

2.2

15.1

-84

.87.

542

.36.

657

.64.

0B

usin

ess

serv

ices

7, 5

06.6

12.8

82.6

9.3

17.3

1.7

58.3

-41

.612

.550

.81.

049

.19.

1W

hole

sale

trad

e2,

371

.634

.354

.310

.045

.614

.720

.0-

80.0

20.0

22. 4

3.3

77.5

30.0

Don

a A

n3 3

2,76

21.

816

. 177

.74.

722

.213

.635

.2-

64.7

53.0

34.0

.866

.045

.6E

duca

tiona

l ser

vice

s2,

249

2.1

17. 0

79. 0

3.8

21. 0

16.6

37.5

-62

555

.234

.2-

65.7

52 2

San

ta F

eI,

349

.864

.534

.77.

065

.26.

59.

0-

90.9

9.0

18. 0

3.0

82 0

8.8

Med

ical

ser

vice

s41

41.

066

.132

11.

467

.84.

1-

-10

0.0

-i1

.0-

89.0

6.2

Ret

ail t

rade

237

.468

.035

.812

. 664

.1-

--

100.

0-

27.3

9.3

72.6

-C

ontr

act c

onst

ruct

ion

252

1.5

63.0

25.0

8.0

75.0

24.2

25.0

-75

.025

.010

.61.

889

.331

.4T

EX

AS

:

Bev

er55

,381

5.3

37.4

44.5

8.5

55.4

9.0

17.2

1.2

82.7

15.0

21.4

2. 5

78.5

17.4

Ret

ail t

rade

13,6

075.

733

.051

.512

. 048

.43.

012

.51.

587

.48.

038

.26.

261

.75.

8F

ood

and

kind

red

prod

ucts

5,78

73.

645

.827

.66.

772

. 317

. 19.

0-

91.0

27.0

10.3

1.3

89.6

25.2

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

5,17

76.

826

.725

.55.

574

.411

.31.

1.2

98.8

40.1

10.1

1.0

89.8

23.3

Cam

eron

7,16

2.3

77.2

27.8

7.0

72.1

35.1

50.0

-50

.04.

513

.01.

887

. 044

.8F

ood

and

kind

red

prod

ucts

2, 7

84.1

92. 4

7.5

3.4

92 4

80. 8

--

100.

020

.02.

6-

897

.386

.5R

etai

l tra

de1,

156

.262

456

.013

.044

.01.

266

.6-

33.3

-40

.04.

460

.02.

0

App

arel

608

-96

.76.

52.

693

.4-

--

--

3.5

.896

.4-

El P

aso

29, 8

451.

654

.442

.78.

557

.27.

312

1.8

87.8

13.5

24.1

13.

275

.911

.5A

ppar

el4,

712

.585

.69.

34.

190

.63.

08.

08.

092

04.

06.

32.

793

.63.

3R

etai

l tra

de5,

577

2. 0

51.8

56.2

12. 1

43.7

1.6

18.1

.881

.8.8

55.4

7.0

44.5

2. 8

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

3,62

71.

765

.043

.45.

256

.517

.018

.4-

81.5

23.0

37.0

2.2

62.9

23.5

Hid

algo

3,62

3.6

7:.8

18.3

5.7

81.6

39.2

--

100.

0-

7.0

1.1

93.0

52.4

Foo

d an

d ki

ndre

d pr

oduc

ts1,

139

-79

. 114

.33,

785

.663

.5-

--

-4.

8.3

95. 1

77.4

Agr

icul

ture

and

fore

stry

483

-95

.04.

11.

095

.887

.3-

--

-.4

-99

.592

0A

ppar

el38

5-

94.0

1.2

.598

.72.

5-

--

-.2

-99

.72.

7Ji

m W

ells

748

1.1

29.7

23.7

r.0

76.2

20.4

--

100.

025

.017

.1.9

82.8

32.8

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

214

2.3

61.6

19.6

9.8

80.3

24.7

-10

0.0

-1.

5-

98.4

37.8

Med

ical

ser

vice

s10

8-

51.8

75. 0

5.5

25.0

25.0

--

--

62.5

1.7

37. 5

37.5

Min

ing

376

.74.

210

.94.

789

.019

.4-

-10

0.0

66.6

--

100.

012

5N

uece

s17

,051

5.6

29.0

44.7

9.4

55.2

11.3

6.7

.293

.239

.821

.32.

278

.623

.3R

etai

l tra

de3,

314

4. 5

34.6

54.4

13.0

45.5

3.5

11.3

.688

.610

.634

.05.

666

.08.

1T

rans

port

atio

nI,

571

29.1

20.6

19.8

5.4

80.1

33.3

1.0

-98

.958

.510

.11.

589

.838

.4C

hem

ical

and

alli

ed p

rodu

cts

3,61

01.

08.

343

.010

.057

.04.

72.

6-

97.3

36.8

7.6

.392

. 349

.0T

ravi

s14

,615

9.2

17.4

53.6

9.0

46.3

7.6

9.8

1. 1

90. 1

16.8

14.5

1.6

85.4

24.7

Ret

ail t

rade

3, 2

459.

612

852

210

.047

.72.

09.

21.

290

.74.

818

.63.

581

.36.

6In

dust

ries

not c

lass

ified

1,45

33.

08.

783

.47.

616

.5.2

38.6

-61

.34.

568

.56.

231

.4-

Insu

ranc

e1,

016

1.0

4.3

98.8

9.2

1.1

.145

.4-

54.5

-88

.6-

11.3

4.5

Web

b1,

933

.177

.448

.17.

651

.810

.7-

-10

0.0

100.

050

.35.

449

.69.

5R

etai

l tra

de90

4-

94.4

77.6

9.7

22.3

.2-

--

-78

.27.

721

.7.7

App

arel

175

-98

.83.

41.

796

.5-

--

--

3.4

1.7

96.5

-T

rans

port

atio

n35

5-

13.5

31.5

7.3

68.4

18.0

--

-22

92.

077

.0-

I Cou

ntie

s se

lect

ed o

n th

e ba

sis

of th

eir

larg

e S

pani

sh-S

urna

med

pop

ulat

ion,

196

6.3

incl

udin

g of

ficia

ls a

nd m

anag

ers.

Incl

udin

g la

bore

rs.

4 In

dust

ry d

omin

ated

cou

nty.

Sou

rce:

Bas

ed o

n da

ta s

uppl

ied

to th

e E

qual

Em

ploy

men

t Opp

ortu

nity

Com

mis

sion

by

cove

red

empl

oyer

s on

For

m E

EO

-1.

English-sr taking Mexican nationals who commuteacross the international boundary to work. There is,of course, a need for more Spanish-speaking super-visors in such a situation.

The Pattern: The Census

Further examinations of the employment pattern ofreporting employers in the 20 counties are made in thefollowing sections. This section recapitulates what the1960 census reveals about the contrast between Angloand Spanish Surnamed employment throughout theSouthwest.

Table 3, showing the occupational distribution ofSpanish Surnamed male and female workers as re-ported by the census, supports the observations madefrom the employer reports. Only 8 percent of SpanishSurnamed employed males were in either sales or cler-ical and kindred occupations, while 15 percent ofAnglo males were in them ; 28 percent of Spanish Sur-named employed females had such jobs, while 45.5percent of employed Anglo females had them. By con-trast, 48.7 percent of employed Spanish Surnamedmales worked at craftsmen, foremen, operatives andkindred jobs, while 41.5 percent of Anglo males did so;26 percent of Spanish Surnamed females had such jobs,but only 13.3 percent of Anglo females did. Stated interms of the number of jobs, over one-fourth of allAnglo or Spanish Surnamed held jobs in the South-west were in sales, clerical and kindred occupations,but Spanish Surnameds, wl,o composed almost 12 per-cent of the total population, had only six percent ofthese jobs. Of clerical and kindred jobs, Anglo womenalone held 1,031,662, over 67 percent of the total, whileSpanish Surnamed women held but 3.5 percent, andthe percentage of Spanish-Surnamed males was even

less. Whatever factors cause this unbalanced distribu-tion may be important determinants of Spanish Sur-named female labor force participation rates, as dis-cussed hereafter.

If the occupational category of farmers and farmmanagers is omitted from the first five categories in thegroup of occupations in table 3, and the remainingfour categories accepted as the white-collar occupa-tions, it can be shown that only 16.2 percent of Span-ish-Surnamed male workers had white-collar jobs in1960, compared to 42.2 percent of Anglo males whohad such jobs. Although it is not shown in this table,it should be observed here that the percentage of non-white male workers who held white-collar jobs in 1960corresponded almost exactly to the percentage of theSpanish Surnamed males in those jobs. The wall heldagainst both minorities.

In the case of Spanish Surnamed female workers thesituation is somewhat altered; 36 percent of them hadwhite-collar jobs in 1960, but 66.3 percent of the Anglofemale workers had such jobs. The Mexican-AmericanStudy Project found that 22 percent of employed non-white females held white-collar jobs.? This suggeststhat female Spanish Surnameds succeed ^ crossing thebarrier between blue- and white-collar occupationswith greater ease than either nonwhite females orSpanish Surnamed males. One reason for this may bethe relatively higher acceptance of Spanish Surnamedfemales in some forms of sales work, an occupationwhere their numbers come closer to a parity with Anglo

This last figure is cited from an unpublished draft pre-pared by Walter Fogel and Leo Grebler, entitled "Occupa-tions and Jobs: An Overview," table 13-4, p. 13, June, 1967.T here are minor differences in the percentages given in theparagraph above and similar ones derived by Fogel andGrebler. However, these are all on the order of fractions ofa percentage point, and no effort has been to reconcile thesmall differences.

TABLE 3.Distribution by sex and occupation, Spanish Surnamed and Anglo populations, five Southwestern States. 1960

OccupationSpanish surname Anglo

Female PercentMale Percent Female Percent Male Percent

Piot essional, technical and kindred 28, 955 3.9 a1, 683 5.5 805, 595 13.6 433, 769 15.4

Farmers and farm managers 16,442 2. 2 482 0.? 253,603 4.0 12,759 0.A

Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm 32, 010 4.3 6, 744 2.5 806, 000 13.6 153,416 5.4

Clerical and kindred 33, 866 4.6 54, 362 20.4 411, 234 6.9 1,031,662 36.6

Sales 24,933 3. 4 20, 183 7. 6 ' 467 8.1 252,075 8.9

Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred 116, 578 15.8 3, 273 1.2 60 20.7 32,740 1.1

Operatives and kindred 168,497 22.9 66, 212 24.8 .,,is, 176 15.8 251, 215 8.9

Private household 878 0. 1 28, 514 10.7 5, 925 0.1 125,197 4.4

Service, except private household 52, 749 7. 2 41, 189 15.4 3nc, '14 5.2 347, 942 12.3

Farm laborers and foremen 117, 688 16.0 10, 319 3.9 131, 818 2.2 17,792 0.6

Laborers, except farm and mine 106, 409 14.4 3, 006 1.1 281,317 4.8 8, 864 0.3

Occupation not reported 37, 763 b. 1 17, 688 6.6 266, 519 4.5 149,499 5.3

Totals 736, 763 100.0 266, 655 100.0 5, 904,148 100.0 2, 816, 930 100.0

I "Anglo" represents the total employed in each category minus the Spanish sur-name and Negro totals.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Curious. "U.S. Census of Population: 1060. SubjectReports. Persons of Spanish Surname": U.S. Bureau of the Census. "U.S. Census of

18

Population: 1960. General Population Characteristics: Arizona. California, Colorado.New Mexico, and Texas."

Adopted from "Mexlcan-Americans in the United States" by Lamar B. Jones, a report

prepared for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (multilithed staff paper).

females than in any other white-collar occupation,although they are still far below them. In sales occupa-tions, Spanish S Irnamed males suffer one of theirgreatest numerical disparities with Anglo males.Whereas the number of Anglo males in this occupa-tion exceeds the number of Anglo females by over 90percent, the number of Spanish Surnamed males ex-ceeds Spanish Surnamed females by less than 23percent.

The nature of sales work suggests a tentative conclu-sion: It is here more than in any other occupation thatpreferences of social acceptability and subtle mattersof taste can be as controlling as standards of educa-tion, training, or actual job performance in determin-ing the initial admittance of persons to do this work.Much of sales work is of a persuasive nature, or isthought dependent on rituals of sociability. Persons se-lected to enact the rituals or add the touch of persua-sion are those who offer minimum deviations fromwhat the dominant society considers to be the cur-rently accepted norms of appearance, conduct, andspeech. It is not difficult to see how skin color, speechaccents, and notions of comeliness are added to otherlong-respected requirements, such as those for hair-cuts, modest dress and general conformity.

It is tempting to observe that there might be no lessrirm ground than these last standards on which to restthe case for any essential job requirements. They definea traditionalism and conservatism which our experi-ence of the past few years tells us is rapidly changingand no longer represents the unrelieved tone or habitof our society. We will return to this point later on, butwe call attention to it now, because it is in sales occu-pations, perhaps, that a breakthrough can be madewhich will bring the largest payoff in improving em-ployment opportunities for minorities.

At the other side of the white-collae wall, the over-representation of Spanish Surnameds in operative jobsmay be thought of as offsetting their underrepresenta-tion in sales and clerical jobs. This does not appear tobe a fair assumption when the nature of these operativejobs are considered. It is not possible from the EEO-1reports to break down this occupation into the spec-trum of jobs that compose it. Employers in their reportsdealt only with the broad occupational category andindicated none of the gradations between jobs thatmight be contained in it. However, the Mexican-American Study Project has examined the wide differ-ences in desirability of jobs that are included in thiscategory.8 It found that the overrepresentation ofSpanish Surnameds in the operative category occurredmainly because of their excessive representation in less

° Walter Fogel; Mexican-American Study Project, AdvanceReport 10, Leo Grebler, director, Division of Research,Graduate School of Business Administration, UCLA, 1966,pp. 205-211.

desirable jobs, such as furnaceman, smelterman, filers,grinders, polishers, assemblers, laundry and dry clean-ing operators, packers, wrappers, and also in the largenumbers of them who work in generally lower-payingindustries, such as furniture, stone and clay products,and textilesindustnes in which most workers areoften considered operatives regardless of the skill levelinvolved. The same study found great variations inactual earnings between Spanish Surnamed and Angloworkers, although for census purposes they appearedto be similarly situated occupationally. The varianceswere to the disadvantage of the Spanish Surnameds,and the study concluded that much of this could beaccounted for only as discrimination; any effort toexplain their adverse position on the basis of differ-encee in formal schooling was itself discriminatory,when schooling could not be related to the job per-formance required in these manual occupations.°

The Pattern: County by County

An employment pattern diagram is shown in thefollowing pages for all industries combined in each ofthe 20 selected counties. A diagram also was made forHarris County, Tex. (Houston) , because it is the cen-ter of the second largest metropolis in the region andis useful for comparative purposes. It has a relativelysmall Spanish Surnamed population, 6 percent of thetotal, but a quite large nonwhite population, 20 pe-cent of the total. It is helpful to examine the cour..ydiagrams before those for selected industries wi hinthe county, because they reflect something of a com-posite of the employment patterns prevailing in all ofthe reporting companies within the county.

In eight counties, the aggregate number of minorityworkers employed by the reporting companies in 1966was below the level their numbers represented in thecounty civilian labor forces in 1960. Of those minoritieswho were employed, Spanish Surnameds generallyequaled, or exceeded, the proportion they representedin the county minority civilian labor forces. In fivecounties, they were employed below that proportion.

There are other wide differences between the coun-ties, but there also are many readily apparent featuresthat are shared by all, or almost all of them. One ofthese is the general stairstep effect produced by thedeclining proportion of minority employees as occupa-tional categories move from service workers to officialsand managers.

t' Ibid., p. 192. Subsequent studies by Dr. Fogel, which areyet to be published, will show that person.; of Spanish sur-name who have educational preparation comparable to Anglosstill have incomes substantially below them, even where theyare engaged in similar jobs. Their attainment of more educa-tion does not close the earnings gap that exists between themand Anglos who are similarly situated.

19


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

20

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZ.


ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINCRI1 Y-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

30 40

100

ININDUSTRY 50


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

0

1 2 3

50 60 70 80

4 5 6 7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 89.4% of minorities in Labor f

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4

30 40

100

80.0:f,jIN

INDUSTRY 50

0

50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 73.0%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1 SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

MI= la 111=1

of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS

IM


% 1960 233,656100

50

0

-50

1950

11Z).4%

108,425


% 1960 86,295100 "

50 -

0

A

1950

-50

42,905

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF.


ALL INDUSTRIES

MINORITIES:IN ININDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3 4

17.8%

INLABORFORCE

\mg50

5 6 8 9

MIME

0 10 20


30

10052.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

1 2 3

40 50 60 70 80

6 7

90 100

100

50


ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF.

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 10 20 30 40 50


1 2 3.100

70.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

4 5

60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 83.5%OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50 -It 46.7%

-50

1960 2,373,691

19501,617,131


1960 241,805

A100

50

01950

.10

-50 .

229.9%

73,285

21

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF.



1001 2 3

13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

77.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50


22.2%IN

LABORFO CE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9

.11011111111!IIS


SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIF.

ALL INDUSTRIES

ININDUSTF'Y OCCUPATIONS1 2 3

0 10 20 30

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2100

63.2%IN

INDUS-5716'

0

40 50

Mexican - Americans represent 54.8%OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI - SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

22


WHITE COLLAR:



100 '16.3

1960 184,989%

LAJ A50

ye

1Z 0

91,942LAJ 1950ccLAJ

50


100

CD2 50

20.0%

Lij 0

etLAJ

50

1960 88,331

73,5641950


14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIF.


ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30


1 2 3 4100

59.2%INS'INDUSTRY 50


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60

6 7

70 80

NMI

90 100


DENVER COUNTY, COLO.

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30


100. 1 2 3

58.6%IN'INDUSTRY

0

40 50 60 70 80

7 8

NMI

90 100

MexicanAmericans represent 48.6% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR: .


WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960 228,156100

50 -

01950

A

-50 -

126.2%

100,822

.:TALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

100

50

17.4%

uj

1960 196,383

Z 01950 167,218

-50

23

PUEBLO COUNTY, COLO.



1001 2 3

18.5%IN

LABORFORCE

24

4 5 678 9

50

O 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2100

91.8%,IN

INDUSTRY 50

70 83 90 100

5 07 8 9


MINORITIES:IN IN

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEX.

ALL INDUSTRIES

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4

O 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30 40

.4...89.4%,rIN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican - Americans

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8 9.111-111

represent 87.4% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100

W

2 50gt

c-) 22.5%

Lij 0(.)CC

Q.

50

1960 38,452

31,3661950


100 -85.6%

1960

2 50

ti0

1950cc

Q.

A

50 -

86,823

46,764


20,9%IN

LABORFORCE

100

DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEX.


ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50IMMI IMMI IMMI IMMI IMMI IMO IMMI MS. IMI/

O 10 20 30


40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

77.0,

INmm.

INDUSTRY 50


50.7%IN

LABORFORCE

0Mexican-Americans represent 94.0% of minorities in Labor Force.

SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEX.

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 6 7 8 9

O 10 20


1

30

94.5%IN

INDUSTRY 50

100

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9

0Mexican-Americans represent 95.5%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6, SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100 -

-50

1960 17,544

1950

11,380


100

Lu

50

Z 23.3% 1960 14,219

11,525Lu 0

1950

Lu

-50

25

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS



1001 2 3

41.6%IN

LABORFORC

O 10 20 30


86.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

100



CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

ALL INDUSTRIES


1100

2 5 6 7 8 9

O 10 20


1 2

30

98.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 60

, 3 4

Mexican-Americans represent 98.496

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


26

70 80

=MI

90 100

, 5 ,6 7 8 9

of minoreles in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

2 50

T 28 3%

0

CC

-50

1960 205,376

1950159,966


100

2 50

1;,- 9.8%177,1 0

-50

1960 43,267

1950 39,375


47.7%IN

LABORFORC

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS


ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3

0 10 20 30


1 2 3

96.2%IN

INDUSTRY 50

.00:1100,,


66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7 8

100

50


HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 4 5 6'7b9

0 10 20 30 40 50

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY- FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

98.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

1 2

70 80 90 100

4 5 6 Ta9

Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities In Labur Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0-70-3

WHITE COLLAR:



100

1960 86,946

50

950

59,216


100

z 50

14.1%

LAJ

1960 57,096

1950 50,001

27

JIM WELLS COUNTY, TEXAS


ALL INDUSTRIES


1001 2 3

47.5%IN

LABOFORC

56 7 8 9

O 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: 3Y OCCUPATIONS

30

100

96.7%1r.IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 2

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5! 6 7. 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

MINORITIES:IN IN

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

ALL INDUSTRIES

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

100 1 2 3

O 10 20 30 40


84.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 2100

3

0

50 60 70 80 90 100

7 8


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


28

of minorities In Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100

Z 50

0 20 4% 1960 9,947

IAJW 0 8,2551950

cc14.1

50


100

14.1

1.7z 50

z 27 2% 1960 69,410

14.1 11950 54,530

14.1

50


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS


ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

65.2%IN ......41P"

INDUSTRY 50


81.9%IN

LABORFORCE

OWN

40 50

4 5

60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9

0Mexican-Americans represent 41.13% of minorities in Labor Force

100_50

WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS

ALL INDUSTRIES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

=1111

0 10 20

MEXICAN- AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

30

1 2 3100

1009:1,IN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americans

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


40 50

, 4 ,

60 70

6

80

represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:


90 100

713. 9


100

2 50"C 33.3%

ti

IY

a..

-50

1960 77,451

1950

58,068


100

2 50

2.4%Lu 0

IY

a.-50

1960 16.36916.981

1950

29

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS



1001 2 3 4

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6 7 8 9TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

100 -

0 10 20


30

100

28.7%

INDUSTRY 50

1 2 3

40 50 60 70 80

6 7 8

90 100

MexicanAmericans represent 19.0% of minorities in Labor Force.

The decline of this stairstep is so steep that once itpasses beyond the demarcation line that separates blue-collar from white-collar occupations, the number ofminority employees, scarcely without exception, neverreaches a level that has a parity with the proportionthat minorities represent in the civilian labor force ofthe county. In only two instances were there excep-tions. In both Webb an'l Santa Fe Counties, wherethey are actually a majority in the population, theSpanish Surnameds exceeded their labor force parityin the salesworkers' occupations. The only other countywhere this occurred was Dona Alia, where the numberin this occupation in the few reporting companies wasso small as to be of little significance. In two othercounties, Hidalgo and Cameron, where minorities alsoare actually the majority in the population, they did notgain their labor force parity in the sales occupations.

In none of these counties did the minorities reachtheir parity in the clerical and officeworkers occupa-tion They came closest to achieving it in Orange,Bernalillo, and, again, Santa Fe. The gap in theiremployment level and this parity was pronounced ineach of the other 105 separate white-collar occupa-tional categories that are diagramed.

In contrast to their poor showing in the white-collaroccupations, minority employees were quite heavilyrepresented in the blue-collar occupationsand heavi-est among laborers. In ali but five of the 21 countiesthey were a majority of workers in that classification.And among minority laborers, Spanish Surnamedsmake up a majority in most of the counties. In onlytwo instances did minority employees among serv-

30

50

1960 470.452

1950

325,192

ice workers exceed the proportion they had amonglaborers.

These minorities are clearly the factory hands in thereporting companies, as is seen from the heavy repre-sentation they have among the semiskilled operatives,where their employment level fluctuates closely to whatit is among service workers.

In the skilled craftsmen occupation, however, some-thing appears that is at some variance with what hasbeen observed in the country as a whole. In nine ofthe 21 counties, minority workers have a representa-tion among craftsmen that is either close to or in excessof their proportion in local civilian labor forces.

Whatever factors have brought about this relativelybetter showing of minorities in the skilled trades mayhave important implications for ordering priorities inthe efforts of creating equal employment opportunities.Much of that effort has been and is directed towardstriking down institutional barriers which adverselyaffect minorities, such as some that are set up in thejoint labor-management apprenticeship programs. Theemphasis on these programs may have diverted atten-tion from areas where larger payoffs are possible.Union rules and management compliance with them dosometimes serve to perpetuate systems that militateagainst minorities entering certain trades. This hasbeen amply demonstrated by F. Ray Marshall andVernon Briggs.1° But where are the rules and formal

" F. Ray Marshall and Vernon Briggs, "The Negro andApprenticeship," The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1967,pp. 1-283.

institutions that have kept potentially skilled workersfrom crossing the threshold to white-collar jobs? Theyare less visible, but only because they are less formal-ized. Being less formalized they should be less defensi-ble, and more subject to the Commission's persuasiveinfluences or the power contained in Executive Order11246.

The county employment pattern diagrams disclosethat the Spanish Surnamed generally has been favoredover other minorities in gaining entry to the skilledtrades in these counties. They do not exceed theirparity with other minorities in this occupation in allthe cases reviewed, but in many counties it is here thatthey register their high watermark against other mi-norities. There may be a causal relationship: That mi-norities stand as well as they do in the skilled trades inthe region and that Spanish Surnameds generally dom-inate among minorities in this occupation, indeed,reach their highest level above other minorities at thispoint, may indicate a sequence that may have primalvalue to the Commission.

We who have lived in the Southwest have witnesseda crudity of the times that is of more than casualsignificance. Simply put, when Spanish Surnamedsmove into a heretofore Anglo employment preserve,their entry seems to make it much easier for otherminorities, such as the Negro, to gain admittance.There is no way to state it more gently. The observa-tions of a lifetime confirm what one does riot needstatistics to vertify: Part of the ambience of this region,plainly stated, is that although Spanish Surnamedsgenerally are not fully acceptable to the dominantsociety, they have been more accepted than Negroesin some places more accepted than Orientals, in manyplaces more than Indians.

There is no certainty about there being a causalsequence which results in better job opportunities fornonwhites when Spanish Surnameds have gained theinitial m'nority acceptance in an industry or in occupa-tions above Coe service, laborer, or operative level, butsuch a sequenceis suggested by the employment pat-terns shown in these reports. In the long series of 299employment-pattern diagrams for industries by county,in appendix H, it can be seen how often Spanish Sur-nameds dominate numerically among minority workerswho have secured placements that are ranked abovethe service, laborer, and operative occupations. Andthe occupations where this dominance is greatest in anindustry are usually not the ones where minoritiestaken together have numerical dominance. These pat-terns suggest a sequence where Spanish Surnamedsmoving into an occupation are followed by other minor-itiessomething that can only be confirmed by observ-ing these industries over time.

The suggested sequence can be seen by examiningthe employment pattern diagram for Harris County,a metropolis in which Negroes are the dominant mi-

nority group. In every industry there, a very steepdescent is seen in the share minorities represent inoccupations as these arc scanned from left to right,from sem ice workers to officials and maragers. Theprofile of minority employment invariably crests atthe far left of the scale. But this is not so for the SpanishSurnamed. Their share of the minority-filled jobs crestsfar to the right on the occupational scale in industryafter industry, almost the reverse of the job profilefor all minorities.

The pattern in Los Angeles County, where SpanishSurnameds are the largest minority group, is similar tothat for Harris County. The proportion of jobs goingto minorities descends as occupations ascend from leftto right, but the share Spanish Surnameds have of mi-nority-filled jobs is greater toward the right of the oc-cupational scale than it is on the left. The principalirregularity in this profile of Spanish Surnamedemployment in Los Angeles comes in the occupations oftechnicians and professionals where their share ofminority-filled jobs drops sharply. &It this is accountedfor by the fact that Orientals have such a high repre-sentation in these occupations; it is not because Negroesoutnumber them in those positions.

The suggestion that the improvement of SpanishSurnamed employment opportunities has importancefor other minority groups is not meant to suggest thatthe Commission can or should give preference to Span-ish Surnameds, or any other minority group, in its ef-forts to revise employment patterns. To do so would becontrary to its purposes, if not unlawful. However, itwould be quite consistent with the Commission's pur-poses and the law for it to utilize its limited resources inthose areas where an enlargement of job opportuni-ties for the largest possible number might be expected.

The suggestion here is that an industry or occupa-tion into which Spanish Surnameds have gained sub-stantial entrance is likely to be one in which wideropenings for nonwhite workers can be made with min-imum effort. The social distance separating Anglomanagers and workers from potential minority man-agers and workers has already been lessened. An affirm-ative program to hasten this process should not be seenas a stalking horse strategy to advance SpanishSurnameds, but rather one to advance all minorities.

The Pattern: White-Collar Occupations

But neither Spanish Surnameds, nor all minoritiesconsidered together, have entered white-collar occupa-tions in numbers proportionate to their size in the laborforce. Over one-half of all jobs in the reporting com-panies throughout the region are white-collar jobs, butof the Spanish Surnameds working for these companiesonly 21.1 percent hold white-collar jobs, and almostone-half of these are in clerical positions.

31

It is odd that in the group of 20 counties SpanishSurnameds do less well in gaining white-collar jobs(20.1 percent) than they do in the region as a whole.(This is not the case in professional occupations, wherethey gain slightly.) The oddity comes from the fact thatthese are counties where Spanish Surnameds are a sub-stantial part, sometimes a majority of the population.That fact in itself does not seem to enhance their move-ment to sti, h jobs. It will be shown in a later sectionthat this also holds true for Negroes: They gain fewerwhite-collar jobs in those counties where they area larger part of the total population than they do in thewhole region. Both minorities make a better showing ingaining white-collar positions in areas where they areproportionately less of the labor force.

These findings indicate that the unfavorable occupa-tional positions of these two minorities cannot solelybe laid to their having an unhappy "strangeness" or"foreign" quality, when seen against the background ofthe local labor force. In areas where their numbersmake them a more prominent part of that background,the forces that work to bar their entering white-collarwork appear to be stronger.

Nor is it likely that this situation can be explainedon the grounds that the educational gap existing be-tween Spanish Surnameds and Anglos in these 20counties accounts for all of this difference. Generallyspeaking, the 20 counties embrace the larger urbanareas of the region and very probably offer better edu-cational opportunities to Spanish Surnameds than istrue of the region as a whole. Further more, SpanishSurnameds do find more placements ir. these countiesin the top-skilled blue-collar occupation of craftsmenthan they do elsewhere. Their education and skills takethem further in blue-collar work but not to those manywhite-collar jobs, such as much s.aleswork, which areless demanding in terms of education and skills thanare many of the craftsmen jobs.

This situation is plainly suggestive of some form ofsocial caste system that endeavors to sustain a wall be-tween blue- and white-collar jobs. The notion of casteat the work place appears to be greater where the sizeof the Spanish Surnamed group is larger. Perhaps sizeitself may be perceived as threatening, so that the formsof caste become more rigidly guarded.

It should also be observed that Negroes fare betterin entering both white-collar and the higher blue-collar positions in the 20 counties than they do in theregion as a whole, although their numbers representproportionately less of the labor force here than in thewhole region. Both in the case of the Negro and theSpanish Surnamed, the employer reports offer no evi-dence to support the view that a relative increase inthe size of a minority in the labor force is accompaniedby any overall increase in the influence they may haveover their occupational position. This may occur in acounty like Webb, where minorities make up an over-

32

whelming 81.9 percent of the local labor force; but,then, it did not occur in Hidalgo where they are animpressive 66.9 percent of the local labor force.

The observation from census data tl at female Span-ish Surnameds had found it easier than male SpanishSurnameds to cross the barrier to white-collar jobs issupported by the EEO data from the whole region.Whereas 62.1 percent of all females listed in tie em-ployer information reports were shown in white-collarjobs, onl, g.1 percent of the Spanish Surnamed fe-males were in such jobs. However, the relative gapbetween these two figures is less than that for SpanishSurnamed males; only 14.1 percent of them are inwhite-collar jobs, in contrast to the 42.9 percent of allmales who are in such jobs. This 14.1 percent is lessthan the 16.2 percent of Spanish Surnamed males whowere shown in white-collar jobs according to the 1960census figures for all employed persons. Thus, withrespect to getting white-collar jobs, Spanish Surnamedmales can be said to have fared less well in 1966 in com-panies subject to the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission and the Office of Contract Compliancethan they did in all enterprises in 1960. As for females,the 36.4 percent shown for white-collar jobs in theemployer reports is slightly higher than the 36 percentshown for such jobs in the census reports. The Negrofemales in the reporting companies fared about thesame as the Spanish Surnamed females: 34.3 percentof them were in white-collar jobs. But this definitelywas not the case for Negro males. Only 9 percent ofthem were shown in white-collar jobs in the reportingcompanies. They had a smaller proportion of em-ployees in each white-collar occupational category thandid any of the other nonwhite males or Spanish Sur-named males. Negro females in several instances had ahigher proportion of their total numbers employedby these companies in some white-collar categories thandid other nonwhite or Spanish Surnamed females.

When all minorities are considered together, 14.9percent of their males are in white-collar jobs and 38.9percent of their females are in such jobs. Consideringboth sex^s together, only 22.2 percent of all minorityworkers iiz the reporting companies were in white-collar jobs, whereas among all workers a majority, 50.3percent, were in such jobs. But a more significant com-parison should be made between Anglo workers aloneand minorities. Of all Anglo employees in the reportingcompanies, substantial majority, 56.7 percent, werein white-col.ar occupations. Of the 1,959,850 white-collar jobs f.a the reporting companies in the South-west, 1,809,961 are held by Anglos and only 149,889went to minority workers. The proportion of all Angloworkers in such jobs is over 21/4 times as large as theproportion of all minorities working in them.

An interesting aspect of minorities in the white-collaroccupations is that Orientals have a higher percentage,58.1 percent, of their employed numbers working ;n

those occupations than do Anglos. This is due . thefact that male Orientals have an extraordinarily nighproportion of their number, 21.8 percent, in profes-sional occupations, and female Orientals have anequally extraordinary proportion of their employednumbers in clerical occupations, 52.7 percent. Yet,both male and female Orientals are well underrepre-sented among officials, managers, and salesworkers.

The figure of 149,889 minority workers in all white-collar occupations is almost exactly the same as thenumber of minority workers in the single occupationalcategory of laborer, which is 148,455. Laborer jobsconstitute only 8.1 percent of all the jobs available inthe reporting companies, and 47 percent of those work-ing as laborers are minority workers.

This imbalance appears even more extreme whenonly the :obs held by men are examined. There are255,253 awn working as laborers in these companies.Minority male workers fill 123,418 of those jobs, or48.3 percent. Among the minority workers, the Span-ish Surnamed male provides the largest group of labor-ers, 68,235, followed by Negro males, 49, 635. Again,although minority male workers comprise only 17.2percent of all the male workers in these companies,they account for 48.3 per.-.ent of those males workingas laborers.

The Pattern; The "Negro Counties"

This section examines the pattern of employment inthose counties of the Southwest in which Negroes makeup 10 percent or more of the total population. Thereare 97 such counties; they are listed in appendix G.An inexact shorthand phrase is used, referring to this

group of selected counties as the "Negro counties"when comparing it to the previously discussed groupof 20 selected "Spanish Surnan ed counties."

The EEO-1 reports gathered employment informa-tion on 2,496,793 employees in the 97 counties. Therewere 192,176 Negro workers, or 7.6 percent of thetotal employees. Thus, it is apparent at the outset thatNegroes are gravely underrepresented in the reportingcompanies in these counties in all of which Negroeswere 10 percent or more of the population. Interest-ingly, the number of Spanish Surnamed workers ex-ceeded Negroes in these counties. There were 214,949Spanish Surnameds, making 8.6 percent of the totalemployees. These counties account for almost 80 per-cent of all Negro employees reported for the region,but less than 60 percent of the Spanish Surnamedemployees.

Table 4 shows the distribution of minority workersby occupation and their percentages of total jobs ineach occupation. Minority workers fared less favorablyin these counties than they did in the 20 "SpanishSurnamed counties." They hold slightly less of allwhite-collar jobs, fewer of the craftsmen jobs, and evenless of operative jobs. They fill 47.6 percent of alllaborer jobs and increase their share of service jobs,holding 37.8 percent of the total. Spanish Surnamedsbest the Negroes in the share of jobs they take in everyoccupational category, except for service workerswhere Negroes hold over 60 per cent of the minority-filled positions.

In this setting, there can be little doubt that the serv-ice worker positions gained by Negroes are overwhelm-ingly of the humblest, most marginal type, such as jani-torial, food serving, or refuse handling. In these countiesnot even the Spanish Surnameds con-.pete with the

TABLE 4.-Minority and occupational distribution, "Negro counties," Southwest

Employees IOccupation

Officials and Professionals Technicians Salesworkers Office andmanager: Clerical

Craftsmen Operatives Laborers Serviceworkers

Total

All employees 214, 321 234, 051 133, 875 185, 765 461, 887 374, 410 474,198 209, 436 208, 850 2,496, 793

Occupational distribution 8.5 9.3 5. 3 7.4 18.4 14.9 18.9 8. 3 8.3 100. 0

Participation rate 100.0 100.0 100, .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0

Negro 1, 533 3, 084 6, 153 4,142 14, 922 13, 521 54, 275 44, 537 50, 009 192, 176

Occupational distribution 0.7 1.6 3. 2 2.1 7.7 7.0 28.2 23.1 26.0 100. 0

Participation rate 0.7 1.3 4.5 2.2 3.2 3.6 11.4 21.2 23.9 7.6

Oriental I, 471 5, 585 3,155 1, 095 9, 012 3, 450 4, 533 2, 748 4, fa 35, 718

Occupational distribution 4.1 15.6 8, 8 3.0 25.2 9.6 12.6 7.6 13.0 100.0

Participation rate 0.6 2.3 2.3 0. 5 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 2.2 1.4

American Indian 431 282 327 509 1,037 1,499 1,971 1,188 764 8,008

Occupational distribution. 5.3 3. 5 4.0 6.3 12.9 18.7 24.6 14.8 9.5 100. 0

Participation rate 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0. 5 0.3 0. 3

Spanish Surnamed 3,879 3,489 5,161 6,675 21,612 30,715 68,452 51, 377 23,589 214,949

Occupational distribution 1.8 1.6 2.4 3.1 10.0 14. 2 31.8 23.9 10.9 100. 0

Participation rate 1.8 1.4 3.8 3. 5 4.6 8.2 14.4 24. 5 11.2 8.6

Minority total 7, 314 12, 440 14, 796 12,421 46, 583 49,185 129, 231 99, 850 79, 031 450, 851

Occupational distribution 1.6 2. 7 3.2 2.7 10. 3 10.9 28.6 22. 1 17.5 100. 0

Participation rate 3.4 5.3 II, 0 6.6 10.0 13.1 27.2 47.6 37.8 18.0

occupational distributions and part1dpation rates are expressed in percentages.

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Employer EEO-1 Reports, 1966.

33

Negroes in taking such jobs, as they did in the "SpanishSurnamed counties" where they held almost one-halfof the minority-filled service worker jobs. Here, theyhave less than 30 percent of them.

Again, it can be shown from these figures that Span-ish Surnameds tend to move into occupations ahead ofNegroes, even in these quite probably minority-conscious communities. They are represented in thecraftsmen occupations with an employment level veryclose to the percentage they have in the total workforce. But not so the Negro; he has less than one-halfof what his numbers should give him in that occupa-tion. In the white-collar occupations neither of thesetwo minorities do quite as well as they do in the 20"Spanish Surnamed counties," nor, for that matter, aswell as they do in the region as a whole.

It seems clear that the presence of sizable minoritygroups in a local population is not necessarily a factorfavorable to their advancement in employment, cer-tainly not one that enhances their chances of donninga white collar. Orientals, for instance, in Texas, wheretheir numbers are quite small, are more favorably sit-uated in white-collar jobs than in California, wheretheir numbers are much larger.

In table 5 a summary account is given of the place-ment of both Negro and Spanish Surnameds in white-cullar occupations in the region, the "Negro counties,"and the "Spanish Surnamed counties." The percentageof employed members of these two groups who havewhite-collar positions is compared to that for allworkers in the reporting companies, with the differencebetween the two figures shown. These differences are

34

not great, except for the better showing Negroes makein gaining white-collar jobs in the "Spanish Surnamedcounties." However, the most signific; alt aspect ofthese comparisons is that a relative incr .ase iA size ofa minority in a given local population does not appearto be influential in improving its occupational positionwith respect to white-collar jobs.

TABLE 5.Minority percentage distribution in white-collar jobs and difference fromtotal distribution

Negrocounties I

Span ish-Surnamedcounties I

Southwest

Percent of total employees in white-collarjobs 48.9 50.7 50.3

Percent Negro 15.3 20, 0 16.4Difference from total 33.6 30.7 33.9

Percent Spanish Surnamed 19.9 20.1 21.1Difference from total 29.0 30.6 29.2

Percent all minorities 20.5 23.1 22.2Difference from total 28.4 27.6 28.1

I See appendix G.

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on EEO-1Forms, 1966.

EP diagram 24 displays the minority employmentpattern for these counties. It should be compared toEP Diagram-1.

The Pattern: Prime Contractors

Since long before the passage of the Civil RigiltsAct of 1964 the Federal Government has held a power-

NEGRO COUNTIES: SOUTHWEST


ALL INDUSTRIES

MINORITIES:IN IN

.19.2%IN

LABORFORCE


100

50

1 2 3 4 7 6

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

47.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80

7 6

90 100

0'Estimates of M-A Labor Force Were Made Where Necessary


100 'a

50

0

50

ful pry-pole with which it could move some employersto make improvements in the job opportunities of mi-norities. Under five Presidents, beginning with Roose-velt in 1941, and continuing with Truman, Eisenhower,Kennedy, and Johnson, there have been Presiden-tial Executive orders affirming that there should beno employment discrimination in companies that serveas Government contractors. Those who accepted Gov-ernment contracts also have been required to acceptthe nondiscrimination clauses they contained. Forover a quarter of a century this has been the statedpolicy."

Each President since Roosevelt has reasserted thispolicy and vowed enforcement of it. The Executiveorders that have issued from recent administrationshave sought to lengthen the leverage against employersand to set up effective administrative agencies to makeuse of it. Under President Eisenhower, enforcement ofthis policy was vested in Vice President Richard M.Nixon, who was made head of the Administration'sCommittee on Government Contracts. President Ken-nedy established the President's Committee on EqualEmployment Opportunity and named Vice PresidentLyndon B. Johnson to head it. After the latter accededto the presidency, the present Executive Order 11246was issued in 1965. It contains provisions that enablethe Secretary of Labor to cancel, terminate, or suspendcontracts with employers who do not comply with thenondiscrimination clauses in their contracts and todeclare them ineligible for further Government con-tracts. All employers covered by Executive Order11246 were required to file information on minorityemployment. This information is included in the dataused as a basis for this study.

Following such a long period of governmental ef-forts, it would be a reasonable expectation to find thatemployers who were subject to the Office of Federal

Michael I. Sovern, "Legal Restraints on Racial Discrimi-nation in Employment," The Twentieth Century Fund, NewYork, 1966, pp. 101-142.

Contract Compliance in 1966 should be distinguishereadily by the improved work opportunities inmorityworkers have with them as contrasted with other em-ployers. Unfortunately, this is not tl. a case.

Each employer covered by Executive Order 11246was asked to indicate on the EEO-1 report formwhether he was a prime contractor or first-tier sub-contractor. For the purpose of examining the employ-ment patterns of those subject to the Executive orderall employers who were prime contractors weregrouped together. The employment information fromthis group was then summarized by State so that itcould be compared with the information submitted bythose employers in each State who were neither primecontractors nor first-tier contractors. The reason fornot including information from first-tier contractorsis that it -eemed less certain that as high a proportionof them actually submitted the employment informa-tion. The burden is on the prime contractor simply toinform his subcontractors of their responsibilities underthe Executive order.

It was not possible to include Texas in this compari-son. The magnetic tape for Texas did not contain in-formation that would enable the prime contractors tobe separately considered. However, in the four remain-ing States it was possible to tabulate employment in-formation for prime contractors having 1,232,944employees. These employees were divided among theStates as follows:

ArizonaCaliforniaColoradoNew Mexico

1,52,

069,76,34,

205348814577

Those employers who were neither prime contrac-tors nor first-tier subcontractors had 1,384,443 em-ployees who were distributed among the four Statesroughly proportionate to the figures above.

In table 6 the percentage of minority employmentin the work forces of the two groups of employers isshown by State and by occupation. In each State,minorities appear to fare worse with prime contractors

TABLE 6.-Minority percentage of employment by occupations, prime contractors, and all other employers' selected States

Arizona California Colorado New Mexico

Occupation Primecontractor

Others Primecontractor



Others

Width and managers 2.0 5.7 2.5 4.8 0.8 2.3 4.6 11.9Professionals 2.4 4.1 5.0 7.2 1.4 3.6 5.0 6.3Technklans 5.2 7.4 9.7 12.5 4.3 7.4 10.4 16.9Salesworken_ 5.9 11.7 5. 0 8.2 2.6 4.6 16.1 24.9Clerical and office 5.7 8.7 9. 2 13.1 4. 1 7.3 20.3 22.9Craftsmen 9.9 21.2 11.4 15.9 (9.3) (8.7) 21.7 31.1Operatives 19.9 35.9 23. 0 30. 8 (17.5) (17.2) (49.0) (45.6)Laborers 45.3 56.6 37.6 47.8 (37.6) (25.4) 62.1 74.0Service workers (33.3) (23.0) (33.9) (28.3) 22.0 24.6 (65.1) (52.1)

Total 11.9 21.7 13.2 19.5 9.9 12.3 22.7 35.6

I Excluding firsttier subcontractors.Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from employer EEO-1 reports, 1966.

35

than they do with other employers. The few instances(in parentheses in the table) where minorities in anoccupation are a higher percentage of those in the oc-cupation when working for prime contractors ratherthan other employers are all in blue-collar occupations,mainly service workers, operatives, and laborers. Not ina single instance have minorities gained a higher per-centage of the white-collar jobs with prime contractorsthan with employers who have no governmentcontracts.

Table 7 separates the different minority groups toshow the percentage of positions attained by each in

occupational categories with both groups of employers,Those instances where a minority gained a better repre-sentation in an occupation with prime contractorsrather than with other employers appear in parentheses.All of these instances seem insignificant. In only onecase, involving Indians in New Mexico, did a minoritygroup register more than a 0.3-percent gain in white-collar jobs working for prime contractors than withother employers. On the other hand, in many instanceswhere minorities fare getter with employers who are notGovernment contractors, the percentage differences areoften considerable, especially for Spanish Surnameds.

TABLE 7.-Breakdown of minority percentage of employment by occupations, prime contractors and other emplOyers,I selected States

Occupation

Arizona California Colorado New Mexico

Primecontractor




Others

All occupations:Negro 2.2 2.4 4.7 6.2 1.9 3.8 1.0 1.6Oriental .2 .2 1.8 2.1 .3 .5 (. 3) (. 1)Indian 1.1 1.4 .2 .3 (. 3) (. 2) 1.8 4.3Spanish Surnamed 8.2 17.6 6.4 '0.7 7. 2 7.6 19.4 29.4

Service workers:Negro (14.9) (6.3) (21.0) (14.8) 10.3 11.4 (6.4) (4.6)Oriental .2 .3 (3.8) (7.0) .5 .9 .4 .4Indian (5.6) (1.0) .3 .4 .2 .3 3.3 4.0Spanish Surnamed 12.5 15.2 8.7 10.0 10.9 1i.8 (54.8) (43.0)

Laborers:Negro (6.6) (5.3) 12.8 12.8 5.1 5.1 (4.1) (3.2)Oriental 0 .2 1.6 2.1 (. 4) (. 3) (. 3) (0)Indian _ 4.3 6.2 .6 .8 .6 .6 4.2 14.fSpanish Surnamed 34.3 44.8 22.5 31.9 (31. 3) 19.3 58.4 56.7

Operatives: ,

Negro (3.3) (2.6) (8.9) (8.6) 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.6Oriental (. 2) (. 1) 1.3 1.5 .3 .5 0 0

Indian (1.8) (1.7) .4 .5 (. 6) (. 4) 7.3 11.0Spanish Surnamed. 14.5 31.3 12.3 20.1 13.4 13. 1 (40.0) (33.0)

Craftsmen:Negro (1.2) (. 7) 3.2 3.2 1.2 L4 .4 1.0Oriental 0 0 1.2 1.2 .2 .2 0 0

Indian .8 1.6 .3 .5 (. 6) (. 1) (1.6) (1.5)Spanish Surnamed 7.7 18.6 6.6 10.9 (7. 2) (6.8) 19.7 28.4

Clerical and office:Negro (1.0) (. 7) 3.4 3.5 1. 2 3.0 (. 6) (. 3)Oriental .1 .2 2.0 3.0 .2 .4 .1 .1Indian .2 .3 .1 .2 .1 .1 .8 1.4Spanish Surnamed 4.2 7.4 3.6 6.3 2.4 3.6 18.7 21.0

Sales Workers:Negro .7 .9 1.2 2.7 .9 1.0 .3 .3Oriental 0 .1 .9 .9 .1 .3 (. 2) (. 1)Indian 0 .3 .1 . 7 (. 1) (0) (1. 6) (. 7)Spanish Surnamed 5.0 10.2 2.7 4.3 1. 3 3.2 14.0 23.6

Technicians:Negro 1.3 2.0 3.0 4.7 .9 3.4 .5 1.2Oriente' (. 4) (. 3) 2.9 3.1 (. 9) (. 8) .2 .6Indian .4 .5 .2 .2 (. 2) (. 1) .5 1.7

Spanish Surnamed 3.0 4.4 3.5 4.2 2.1 2.9 9.1 13.3Professionals:

Negro .2 .6 .8 L8 .2 1.1 .5 L0Oriental .8 .8 2.8 3.1 .7 .9 (1.2) (. 1)Indian .1 .2 0 .1 (. 1) (0) 0 1.4Spanish Surnamed 1.1 2.5 1.3 2.1 .3 1.4 3.1 3.8

Officials and managers:Negro .1 .1 .4 .8 0 .5 (. 1) (0)Oriental .1 .2 .6 1.2 0 .2 0 0

Indian .1 .2 .1 .1 0 .1 .2 .6Spanish Surnamed 1.6 5.1 1.2 2.5 .6 1.4 4.2 11.2

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from employer EEO-1 reports, 1966.

36

This record has a rather profound signifiance. Itreflects so adversely on the results of our present publicpolicies concerning this subject that two tests weremade cf the analysis.

To begin with, it is clear that the work forces ofemployers who are not prime contractors include asubstantially higher percentage of minority workersthan do those of the prime contractors: 19.3 percentfor the former and 13.2 percent for the latter. However,even though they employed relatively fewer minorityworkers, it was thought that they might have accom-plished a better distribution by upgrading them tohigher occupations, thereby compensating somewhatfor the lower percentage hired. But this did not proveto be true.

It is recognized that there are differences betweenthe types of work performed by the two groups ofemployers. These differences mean that the two groupsconsist of entirely different industrial mixes, whichin turn produce a difference between them in the num-bers of employees assigned to occupational categories.For instance, prime contractors have 54.5 percent oftheir total employees assigned to white-collar occupa-tions, while the other group of employers have 48.8percent. The contractor group has 17.9 percent of itstotal employees in craftsmen jobs and 6.4 percent inlaborer jobs, while the other employers have 12.5 per-cent and 9 percent in these jobs, respectively.

With these different occupational distributions ofemployees, there should be, of course, a difference inthe percentages that minority workers had in arty givenoccupation. But the question is: Were minority work-ers distributed between the occupations as were allemployees working for each employer group? If not,how far did their actual occupational distribution varyfrom that of all employees?

A chi-square test provides a means of evaluating theoccupational distribution patterns of minorities to seeif they are significantly different from the distributionrittern that all employees had with each group ofemployers. In applying this test, an assumption wasmade. It was assumed that both groups of employershad access to the same labor market, one that extendsthroughout the region. The hypothesis to be tested wasthat there would be no difference in the distributionof minority workers to occupations and that of allworkers. Expectedly, the hypothesis proved false, butthe test provides a measure of how far the actual ob-served distribution varied from the expected distribu-tion. This variation was greatest in the case of primecontractors. Minority workers were distributed in thedifferent occupations in a manner that varied morefrom that of all employees than was the case withemployers who had no government contracts.

Table 8 shows the calculations made. The observedfrequency (b) of minority employment in each occupa-tion is compared to the expected frequency (fe). The

difference between these two frequencies in each occu-pation is then squared (fo-h) 2, divided by the ex-pected frequency and summed. Th.. sum of the differ-ence (x2) for the two groups are quite close, but, again,those employers who are not government contractorscame closer (to a hypothetical zero) in placing theirminority employees in occupations with the same fre-quency with which all employees were placed, 53.14 asagainst 57.58. The tests are significant at the 1-percentlevel.

Yet another test was made of the data. An indexof the occupational position of minority workers wasconstructed for the two groups of employers. This in-dex shows the relative standing minority workers havein relation to all workers in each employer group. Inthese calculations, the percentage of all workers andof minority workers in each occupation was weightedby an earnings figure (California median male earn-ings per occupation) . The sum of these weighted fig-ures for both groups of workers were related to eachother to produce an index number for both prime con-tractors and the other employers. The index: for primecontractors was 88, indicating that the occupationalposition of their minority workers to that of all theirworkers stood as 88 to 100. For those minorities work-

TABLE 8.-Chisquare test, prime contractors, and all other employers I

Occupation

Observed Distributiondistribution of total (f, -f 02

of laborminorities force fi.

(f.) (0

PRIME CONTRACTORS

Officials and managers 1.5 8.2 5.47Professionals 5.8 16. 3 6. 76Technicians 4.4 6.3 .57Salesworkers 1.6 4.2 1.61Clerical and office 13.4 19.5 1.91Craftsmen 15.6 17.9 .30Operatives 30.8 17.7 9.70Laborers 18.6 6.4 23.26Service workers 7,9 3. 0 8.00

Chi-square =x1 57. 58

OTHER EMPLOYERS

Officials and managers 2.0 9.3 5.73Professionals. 1.6 5.9 3. 13Technicians 2.5 4. 4 .82S.lesworkers 4.9 10.4 2.91Clerical and office 9.9 18.8 4.21Craftsmen 8.5 12.5 1.28Operatives 26.6 17. 8 4.35Laborers 23.7 9.0 21. 01Service workers 20.0 11.3 6.70

Chi- square =x, =53.14

Excluding first-tier contractor.Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on

employer EEO-1 reports, 1056.

37

ing for employers who were not prime contractors, itwas 86.8.'2 Table 9 shows these calculations.

Thus, in this test minority employees enjoy a rela-tive occupational position with all employees that is1.2 points higher in the prime contractor group thanthe other group. The difference is quite small. It surelyis not substantial enough to base on it the case for theefficacy of present policies to enforce nondiscrimina-tion clauses in government contracts.

The four analytical views taken of the employmentpattern of minorities working for prime contractors re-veal an unexpected pattern. Returning to table 7, arather puzzling feature of Spanish Surnamed employ-ment can be seen. There are only 34 instances out of the144 examined where the occupational position of agiven minority appears better among prime contractors.jobs held by Negroes account for 11 of these; Indianscan claim nine of them, Orientals eight, and SpanishSurnameds only five. None of the five involving Span-ish Sumameds are in the white-collar occupations.This fact, plus the better showing Spanish Surnamedshave with employers who are not government contrac-tors, may indicate that Spanish Surnameds often re-ceive less consideration than do other minorities if andwhen prime contractors acting in response to govern-ment urging endeavor to follow an affirmative minor-ity employment policy.

It may be that Spanish Surnameds are not thoughtof as "enough" of a minoritynot dark enough, not

12 No significantly different results are yielded in this testwhen earnings figures, other than California's, are used. Thetest was made using Texas occupational median earnings andthe results were very similar, with the respective indices being82.3 and 80.6.

large enough in numbers, not vocal emugh to satisfythe employer's need for demonstrating an affirmativeemployment policy to the office of Federal ContractCompliance, if, indeed, that need b felt in a real sense.

But all of this leaves unanswered why minoriteshave fared better with companies where until very re-cently there has never been even lip service to theobjectives of equal employment opportunity. One canonly speculate on the answer. It was noted that the twogroups of employers are roughly the same size in termsof total employees. It seems a reasonable possibilitythat those who are prime contractors have characteris-tics that put them in a favored position over otheremployers: They generally represent newer technologi-cal enterprises, ones that are demanded by the Govern-ment's latest defense, space, and other needs; theyundoubtedly have experienced rapid and large growth,being helped in that growth by Government procure-ments; and they are quite likely to be able to competebetter in the labor market by paying higher wages whenbidding for the labor they need and desiresometimesbecause of the liberality of Government contracts whenurgent governmental needs must be met.

The schema, thus, is one where prime contractorsare best able to "cream" the labor market. Other em-ployers, having a generally less favorable position inthese terms, choose their employees from the labormarket after it has been creamed. Creaming in thisusage does not mean deliberate hiring according todiscriminatory ethnic tastes, but according to rigid andoften artificial employment prerequisites and testingprocedures that screen out large parts of the minoritylabor force due to factors related to their socioeconomiccharacteristics. High thresholds are erected before even

TABLE 9.Relative occupational index of minorities, prime contractors, and all other employers

Malemedian

Occupation earnings,California

(0

Prime contractors Others

Minorities Total employees Minorities Total employees

Percent(xi)

(xiya Percent(xi)

(xiyi) Percent (xyj) Percent(xi)

(xiYi)

8

Officials and managers V. 606 1.5 11,409.0 8.2 62, 369.2 2.0 15, 212.0 9. 3 70, 735.5

Professionals 2 7,403 5.8 42, 937.4 16.3 120, 668.9 1.6 8, 792.0 5.9 32, 420.0

Technicians 2 7, 403 4.4 32, 573.2 6. 3 46, 638. 9 2.5 13,737.5 4.4 24,178.6

Salesworkers 5, 669 1.6 9, 070.4 4.2 23, 809.8 4.9 22,878.1 10.4 58,957.8

Clerical and office 5,141 13.4 68, 889.4 19.5 100, 249.5 9.9 50, 895.9 18.8 96,650.

Craftsmen 6, 033 15.6 94, 114. 8 17.9 107, 990.7 8.5 51, 28;. 5 12.5 75, 412.5

Operatives 5, 0E2 30.8 155, 909.6 17.7 89, 597. 4 26.6 134,649.2 17.8 90,103.6

Laborers 3, 826 18.6 71, 163. 6 6.4 24, 486.4 23.7 90, 676.2 9.0 34,434. 0

Service workers 3, 541 7.9 31,449.9 3.0 11,943. 0 20.0 79,620.0 11.3 44, 985. 3

M0,10/100= 5,175.17 5, 877.54 4,755. 64 5, 475.31

Prime contractor relative occupational Index= 5,175.17 =88.0; other employers I relative occupational index:4,755.64686.8

5,877.54 5,475.31

I Excluding 1st tier contractors.2 Earnings for professional and technician were combined in the census.

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opprtunity Commission on Employer EEO-1 Repots, 1966. U.S. Census of Population; 1960, "Deblled characteristics,"

California PC(1)-6D, table 124.

38

entry jobs, thresholds such as high school diplomas,satisfactory test scores on paper and pencil tests ofliterary ability, examinations on cultural subjects thatare only dubiously job related; all of these may serve toscreen out persons capable of satisfactory performanceon the job in question." They are used extensivelyby employers who have the ability to take their pickof what is available in the labor market.

Title VII, of course, gives the Commission authorityto examine the nature of ability tests that are used byemployers and to determine if they are "designed,intended, or used to discriminate because of race"(sec. 703 (h) ) , This language makes it unclear whetherability tests that are not designed deliberately for thatpurpose or used with such intention, but produceresults that would be the same if they had, can be setaside. Certainly this is an area where the Commission'stechnical services might be profitably enlarged. A grow-ing body of studies confirm those criticisms of testingprocedures that the Commission has already made inits "Guidelines On Employment Testing Procedures."There is a need for bringing the findings of these studiestogether under an official format so as to increase em-ployer awareness of how tests based on job-relatedcriteria can serve their purposes and also improveemployment opportunities for minorities.

These observations about the standing of minoritieson the job ladder with prime contractors should not beread as a conclusion that contract compliance officershave been totally ineffective in altering minority pat-terns among such e,;:plcyers. What is not known iswhat the employment pattern for minorities wouldhave been had no such efforts been made. The specula-tion made above on probable causes for the differingpatterns between the two groups of employers is tosuggest that there might be strong economic forcesoperating within the labor market to offset the effortsmade by government contract officers. These forcescome as a result of the favored position governmentcontract employers have in the economy. That favoredposition is in itself an argument for stiffening the con-tractural expectations for equal opportunity. Those ex-pectations need to be extended to the screeningprocesses contractors use in selecting and promotingemployers.

Dale L. Hiestand, in a study done for the U.S.Department of Labor, developed a stylized model todescribe the general tendencies for utilizing minoritymanpower in the growth and decline of industries."According to the patterns on which his model wasbased, he found very few Negroes employed in anindustry during the initial peri6d when its field is new.

"equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Guide-lines On Employment Testing Procedures," Washington, D.C.,1966.

"Dale L. Hiestand, op. cit., pp. 58-77.

As it grows, some Negroes will be employed. As itsgrowth rate slows down, more and more Negroeswill be employed. When its grov th rate is relativelyslow, the employment of Negroes continues to increase;as the field declines, the employment of Negroesdeclines more slowly than that of whites. This modelwould fit with the characteristization given to primecontractors in the account above, namely, that .theygenerally represent newer avid more rapidly growingindustries than do employers who are not governmentcontractors. If this assumption is valid, it appears thatall minorities, and especially Spanish Surnameds, aretracking the minority manpower pattern described inHiestand's model.

That such strong economic forces might be exertingthemselves within the institutional arrangements ofthe labor market requires at the very least that thesufficiency of present Federal contract policies on non-discrimination be reexamined. If, in all these years,those policies have not been able to counterbalance,much less redirect, those economic forces, then there isa serious question about their adequacy. It goes withoutelaboration that there is no sanctity about economicforces or institutional arrangements for hiring. Theseare reordered in other areas to conform to the priori-ties set by our national purposes, and they canbe reordered to help achieve equal employmentopportunities.

Certainly, the results examined from these fourStates make a rather disappointing record shouldFederal contract compliance officers rest their caseupon it after a quarter of a century of inserting non-discrimination clauses into Fedcral contracts. it : houldalso be quite important to learn whether this samerecord is duplicated in other areas of the country.

The Pattern: Consumer-Oriented Industries

Other investigations into minority employment prob-lems have sensed a relationship between an industry'semployment policies and tl:e extent to which it is ori-ented toward the consumer inarket." One conjectureis that companies producing goods and services directlyfor the consumer market are more likely than are othercompanies to have integrated work forces where theyare dependent on an ethnically-mixed customer pa-tronage. There is evidence in the data that this rela-tionship does exist, but it does not support the con-jectured reason for its existence.

The company reports were separated and summarized with the aid of the computer to compare the pat-tern of minority employment in consumer-ori..nted in-dustries and other industries. Industries were dealt with

Herbert R. Northrup, The Racial Policies of AmericanIndustry," Monthly Labor Ret,ieto, vol. 90, No. 7, July 1967,p. 42.

39

on the basis of their two-digit SIC code. Twenty in-dustries were designated as consumer-orientcd, and thereports of 6,720 establishments were separated fromthe other reports, being about one-third of the totalreports. The two industry groups were also separatedand summarized for the 20 "Spanish Surnamed coun-ties," other counecs, and all L. :Nitrifies. The detailedtables for these groups in the region are shown :ntables 10 and 11. The listing of industries selectee forthis examination is given in appendix F.

The consideration of which industries should beclassed as consumer-oriented is somewhat arbitrary,since sometimes only a portion of a given industry maydirectly serve a consumer market. The list of those se-lected excludes such industries as communications andother utilities, which, although consumer-oriented, arenot as greatly affected by the customer choices implicitin this hypothesis. One implication of the hypothesis isthat industries serving a community in which thereare prominent minority groups will endeavor to havethose minorities represented in their work forces, atleast, more so than do industries that are removed astep or so from any exercise of choice by the finalconsumer.

It was found that minority employees are employedat almost exactly the same rate by the two industrygroups. However, minorities in the consumer-orientedgroup are more likely to be found in the white-collaroccupations in proportions closer to that of all workersthan they are in the other industries group. In theformer, 66.7 percent of all employees are white-collarworkers, and 42.4 percent of the minority employeesare classified as white-collar workers, mainly as clericalworkers. Among the nonconsumer-oriented industries

only 46.8 percent of the jobs are white-collar ones, andonly 17 percent of the minority employees are in suchjobs. This latter group has a much smaller part of itstotal jobs in the sales and clerical categories, whereminorities usually gain the major part of what white-collar jobs they hold.

It was also found that minorities come very close togaining a parity with all workers in the share of crafts-men jobs that they hold in the consumer-oriented in-dustries. Four percent of all workers are craftsmen inthis group, and 3.8 percent of the minority employeesare craftsmen.

In the nonconsumer-oriented industries 12.6 per-cent of minority employees an. craftsmen, compared tothe 17.5 percent of all employees who are in that oc-cupation. For other occupations, the patterns followvery closely those observed heretofore. However, thestairstep of minority job shares descends in the non-consumer-oriented industry group much more sharplyas jobs advance on the occupational scale.

The assumption concerning consumer influence inthis hypothesis is very probably false-minorities arenot necessarily advanced into white-collar positionsbecause of any presumed influence by minority custom-ers pressing for such advancement or because in amore ethnically mixed population there is greater cus-tomer acceptan. e of minority employees in tradition-ally Anglo-filled jobs. If this were the case, one wouldexpect to find higher proportions of Spanish Sur-nameds advanced to white-collar jobs in the "SpanishSurnamed counties" than in other counties. But justthe reverse of this is true.

In the 20 counties, 41.3 percent of minority em-ployees are in white-collar jobs, which constitute 63.4

TABLE 10.-Minority and occuaptional distribution "nonconsumer-oriented Industry," Southwest

EmployeesOccupation

Office andmanagers

Proles-sionals

Techni-clans

Sales-workers

Clerical Craftsmen Operatives Laborers Serviceworkers

Total

All employees 240, 819 345, 676 190, 4/5 123, 119 530, 856 532, 824 665, 025 270, 518 141, 315 3, 040, 627Occupational distribution 7.9 11.3 G. 2 4.0 17. e 17.5 21.8 8.8 4.6 100.0Participation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Negro 1,151 3, 590 7,120 1, 230 12, 529 15,142 60, 344 50,1.66 38, 208 189,480Occupational distribution 0.6 1.8 3.7 0 6 6.6 7.9 31.8 26.4 20.1 100.0Participation rate 0.4 1.0 3.7 0.9 2.3 2.8 & 0 18.5 27.0 6.2

Oriental 1,147 7, 442 3, 900 443 6, 725 3, SO2 5, 509 2, 626 2, 505 34, 099Occupational distribution 3.3 21.8 11.4 1.2 19.7 11..1 16.1 7.7 7.3 loo. oParticipation rate 0.4 2.1 2.0 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.1

American Indian 521 399 557 238 1, 079 2, 492 4,062 2, 669 854 12,87,Occupational distribution 4.0 3.0 4.3 1.8 8.3 19.3 31.5 20.7 5 6 NO. 0Participation rate 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.4

Spanish Surnamed 3, 741 5, 339 7, 761 3, 045 20,1;4 42, 995 101, 480 69, 108 18, 145 271, 808Occupational distribution 1.3 1.9 2.8 1. 1 7.4 15.8 37.3 25.4 6.6 100.0Participation rate 1.5 1.5 4.0 24 3.8 8.0 15.2 25.5 12.8 & 9

Minority total 6, 560 16, 770 19, 338 4, 956 40, 527 64, 431 171, 395 124, 569 50,712 508, 258Occupational distribution 1.2 3.2 3. 8 0.9 7. 9 12. 6 33.7 24.5 11.7 100. 0Participation rate 2.7 4.8 10. 1 4.0 7.6 12.0 25.7 46.0 42.2 16.7

Occuptional distributions and participation rates are in percentages.

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on employer EEO-1 reports, 1966.

40

TABLE 11.-Minority and occupational distribution "consumer oriented Industries," Southwest

Employees IOccupat'.th

Office andmanagers

Professionals

Tech ni-clans

Sales-workers

Clerical Craftsmen Operatives Laborers Serviceworkers

Total

All employees 107, 265 25, 286 13, 056 194, 495 232, 196 34, 324 38, 222 24, 781 186, 263 855, 888Occupationalial distribution 12.5 2.9 1. 5 22.7 27. 1 4. 0 4.4 2. 8 21.7 100. 0Participat on rate 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0

Negro 1, 049 287 318 4, 847 8, 345 1, 305 6,172 4, 600 25,245 52,168Occupational distribution 2.4 0.5 0.6 9.2 15.9 2.5 11.8 8.8 48.3 100.0Participation rate______ _ 0. 9 1. 1 2.4 2.4 3. 5 3.8 16. 1 18. 5 13.5 6. 0

Oriental 994 449 218 1, 427 5, 629 503 471 340 3, 793 13, 824Occupatioual distribution 7.1 3.2 1.5 10.3 40.7 3.6 3.4 2.4 27.4 100.0Participation rate 0.9 1.7 1.6 0. 7 2.4 1.4 1.2 1. 3 2. 0 1.6

American Indian 304 53 24 784 53:' 104 136 100 871 2,915Occupational distribution 10. 4 1.8 0. 8 26.8 18.4 3.5 4.6 3.4 29.8 100. 0Participation rate 0.2 0.2 0. 1 0.4 0.2 0. 3 0. 3 0. 4 0.4 0. 3

Spanish Surnamed 3, 815 525 716 14, 329 17, 084 3, 602 7, 777 5, 350 22, 414 75,612Occupational distribution 5. 0 0.6 0. 9 18.9 22.5 4.7 10.2 7. 0 29.6 100. 0Participation rate 3.5 2.0 5.4 7. 3 7. 3 10.4 20. 3 21. 5 12.0 8.8

Minority total 6, 162 1, 314 1, 276 21, 387 31,597 5, 514 14, 556 10, 390 52, 323 144, 519Occupational distribution 4. 2 0.9 0. 8 14.7 21.8 3. 8 10. 0 7. 1 36.2 100.0Participation rate 5.7 5. 1 9.7 10. 9 13.6 16. 0 38.0 41.9 28.0 16.8

Occupational distributions and participation rates are in percentages.

Source: Data gathered by the Equal employment Opportunity Commission on employer EEO-1 reports, 1966.

percent of total jobs in the consumer-oriented indus-tries. In the other counties, 55.2 percent of SpanishSurnamed employees in consumer-oriented industriesare in white-collar jobs, which are 68.8 percent of alljobs. In both sales and clerical jobs, in which one mightthink Spanish Surnameds would have a more readyacceptance in the 20 counties, they actually do no bet-ter than they do in the other counties.

These figures raise the suspicion of a job caste thatsoftens more slowly where a minority is more sizablein the population, maybe because of its very size. Cus-tomer acceptance, or what is presumed as acceptance,of a Spanish Surnamed sales employee appears nogreater in counties where Spanish Surnameds are alarger part of the population, nor where they are alarger part of the work force in consumer-orientedindustries. There are more Spanish Surnameds in thesales jobs of these industries outside the 20 countiesthan within them, although the number of all SpanishSurnamed employees in the industries is much largerwithin the 20 counties.

This being the case, it is believed that the reasonminorities generally fare better in securing sales andclerical job3 in consumer-oriented industries does notcome so mach from consumer influences as it doesfrom labor market considerations. One of the signifi-cant different es between the two industry groups is thefact that one-half of all jobs in the consumer-orientedenterprises are either in sales or clerical; they accountfor one-half the work force. In contrast to this, only alittle over one-fifth of the total jobs in other industriesare in sales or clerical, 4 percent for the former and17.4 percent for the latter.

It is not unusual to find large numbers of minoritiesentering those occupations of an industry which pre-

dominate in its work force, whether they are in service,laborer, operative, craftsmen, or clerical. The employ-ment pattern diagrams of a great many industries inappendix H illustrate this. Perhaps, when one or twooccupations predominate in an industry, it is h. thoseoccupations that management is most conscious of laborcosts and hence most ready to accept any groups ofworkers able to perform the work at minimum costs.It cannot be shown from these data, but there are verylikely much lower average earnings on the part of themany salesworkers, say, in retail trade than on thepart of the relatively few selling machinery equipment.

For cost considerations, it is believed, a managementof a company will be more likely to alter employmentpolicies affecting a single occupation when that altera-tion may result in substantial savings by bringing to itworkers not theretofore competitive with those alreadyin it. The histories of a number of industries show asequence of having worked a succession of minoritiesin their predominant occupational categories, one waveafter the other, without basically altering its otheroccupational groups. (The garment and textile indus-tries provide vivid examples of this.)

The importance of this to the Commission and toState fair employment practices agencies is that it sug-gests an area where small breakthroughs in changingemployment practices may have large payoffs in im-proving minority employment opportunities. It is ratherstartling to find that in the nonconsumer-oriented in-dustries less than 1 percent (0.9 percent) of the minor-ity employees in those industries are in sales jobs. Thiscan hardly be explained as the result of a skill gapwhen in those same industries 3.8 percent of the minor-ity workers are already working in the higher skilledtechnician occupations. In terms of whale numbers

41

and percentages, every single minority group has moreof its members working as technicians in these industriesthan they do in sales. There are 19,338 of them workingas technicians in the reporting companies, but only4,956 working as salesmen.

Except for the occupation of officials and managers,it is in the sales occupations of the nonconsumer-oriented industries (by far the largest of the two indus-try groups) that minority workers have their verylowest representation as a percentage of all employeesin the occupation.

Part of the significance of saleswork in the effortsto improve minority employment opportunities comesin the exposure such workers have outside the industryitself. Inasmuch as altering public attitudes clependsso much on simply seeing minority workers cast in newroles, sales jobs assume importance beyond their num-bers. The minority craftsman has small exposure awayfrom the work place; a salesman has a great deal.

This strategic importance of sales positions shouldbe emphasized more in governmental manpower pro-grams. The year the Commission collected these em-ployer reports, the U.S. Department of Labor wasestimating a need for 250,000 new sales employees ayear.16 However, at that time it reported only 2.9 per-cent of its 152,014 trainees under MDTA institutionaltraining as engaged in training as salespersons (alltypes). Under MDTA on-the-job-training programsonly 2.9 percent of the 68,997 trainees were authorizedto train for clerical and sales positions."

Two years later, in 1968, the Secretary of Health,Education, and Welfare reported that only 2.2 percentof all institutional trainees under MDTA in 1967 werereceiving training in saleswork, less than the numberpreparing to be cooks."

The Pattern: Training Programs

It is not possible with but 1 year's data to makeprojections that would be indicative of the future em-ployment patterns of minorities, but it can be donewith some accuracy when the 1967 employer reportsare available for comparison with the 1966 reports.This research should be given early attention. Thereeven may be some urgency about doing it. There is aneed to know whether future employment patterns are

" U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Hand-book, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1966-67edition, p. 306.

" U.S. Department of Labor, 1966 Report of The Secretaryof Labor on Manpower Research and Training Under MDTA,Washington, D.C., 1966, pn. 177-178.

"U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,Education and Training: Report of the Secretary of H.E.W.to the Congress on the Manpower Development and Train-ing Act, 1968, pp. 17-18.

42

likely to reflect progress it attaining our national com-mitment to equal employment opportunity.

One of the disquieting rejoinders being made tothose who feel that there has been progress in theseareas is that despite great efforts and the appearanceof progress, we are actually faced with widening gapsbetween promise and performance. The gaps betweenexpectations and attainable goals widen simply becauseothers are not standing still while minorities attemptto catch up with them. The dynamics of such catch-ing up require more than their being placed on anequal footing with others; they also require that minori-ties move with like speed and in the same direction thatis being taken by the work force of the future. Anythingless than that will not soften the harsh outlines of alabor market in which minorities could become in effecta permanent underclass.

Students of manpower trends are reasonably settledin their view that in the work force of the future thenumbers of white-collar workers will heavily predomi-nate. Therefore, the employer reports in 1966, whichenumerated the ethnic background of persons en-gaged in training, shed some light on the future ofminority employment patterns. This evidence may befragmentary, but there is no mistaking what it fore-tells.

Nine counties were selected in this examination.They are the larger ones of those 20 counties whichhave large Spanish Surnamed populations. The ninecounties contain 84.3 percent of all employees coveredby the EEO -1 reports in the 20 counties. Table 12shows the percentage of Spanish Surnamed employeesamong all employees covered in these reports and thepercentage of Spanish Surnameds among all those em-ployees who were engaged in apprenticeship trainingprograms or on-the-job-training programs for white-or blue-collar occupations. The message of these fig-ures is remarkably clear. Spanish Surnameds werebeing selected for apprenticeship programs in num-bers that roughly approximated their established sharein the existing work forces. Their aggregate numberin these programs, however, was not large; only ,481

TABLE 12.-Spanish Sumameds in reporting companies and their training programs;for selected counties

Percentof all

employees

Apprentice.ship

(percent)

Onthejob training

White collar(percent)

Production(percent)

Maricopa 7.7 4.5 1. 7 17. 0Pima 14.4 22.4 13.5' 6.6Los Angeles 9.7 14. 1 3.2 13.0San Bernardino 12.6 14.9 1.4 16.0Santa Clara 7.4 2.7 1.5 6.5Denver 6.6 5.2 3. 1 10.2Bernalillo 24.5 22.0 4.0 42.5Bexar 37.4 23.6 22.6 51.2El Paso 54.3 39.2 24.5 62.7

Source: Data gathered by the EEOC from employer report.

were reported from the nine counties, 274 of whomwere in Los Angeles.

With respect to on-the-jab-training programs, a verydecisive imbalance is evident: In virtually every in-stance, Spanish Surnameds have been entered intotraining for blue-collar production jobs at rates in ex-cess of their share in the existing work forces of thesecompanies. But in the case of training for white-collarjobs, they are greatly underrepresented in every in-stance, except Pima County, where a total of but 20trainees in three industries brought the percentage ofSpanish Surnameds close to their proportion in thetotal of all county work forces reported (17 of these20 were in a single industry). Fifty-seven of the countyindustries that reported having on-the-job-trainingprograms for white-collar workers did not have a singleSpanish Surnamed trainee.

By examining the county employment pattern dia-grams it can be seen that the reporting companies inmost of these counties already have work forces inwhich white-collar workers are dominant. To the ex-tent that this numerical dominance continues or in-creases, the Spanish Surnamed, judging from the 1966training programs, will not have an increasing shareof these white-collar jobs.

The Pattern:Union Agreements on Hiring

One of the questions asked of employers in 1966 waswhether they had any arrangement with a labor orga-nization that might affect whom they could hire. Thespecific question was:

Does the employer have any arrangement with alabor organization, pursuant to a collective bargain-ing agreement or other contract or understanding,formal or informal, by which the employer is obli-gated or required to accept for employment, or cus-tomarily and regularly accepts for employment,persons referred by such labor organization or anyofficer, agent, or employee thereof? If yes, and if thearrangement has been in effect for a period of 18months preceding the preparation of this report, liston an attached sheet the local number, internationalname, and location of each such labor organization.

Although this question was designed to determinethe names and addresses of referral unions that shouldbe required to submit reports (EEO -3) to the Com-mission, it is clear that the intent of the law in seekingthese reports was to enable the Commission to reviewthe extent to which the membership policies of labororganizations might have affected the hiring policies ofcompanies.

The question is pertinent. It goes to the heart of oneof the main controversies in the debates and litigation

374-215 0-70-4

over regulating fair employment practices. It enables acomparison to be made between the reports of employ-ers who answered the question in the affirmative andthose who did not. Those employment patterns thatwere affected in some degree by labor unions can beseparated from all others.

The question was not repeated in the 1967 reportforms. This may be unfortunate, as it will not be pos-sible to measure the effects of the public debates andlitigation that have centered on this subject since1964the 18 months' qualification to the questionlimits it to measuring the effects of labor union mem-bership policies that influenced hiring in 1964, or beforethat date. Thus, the answers of 1966 will tell us nothingof the impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It seemsappropriate, therefore, to recommend to the Commis-sion that the question be put again to employers, sothat the net effect of the act on trade union job refer-ral policies might better be measured. It should benoted that the 1966 question also does not embrace theperiod since the Secretary of Labor's regulations re-specting nondiscrimination in federally registered ap-prenticeship plans became effective for companiessubject to the Federal contractor program, which wasJuly 17, 1964.

From the responses of employers in 1966, it is pos-sible to take an overview of employment situationsaffected by labor unions from a vantage that has notbeen available before. It is not known by this writerwhether the Commission has yet published any reportsbased on those responses. This needs to be done, for,if the Southwest is at all indicative of the national sit-uation, there are provocative aspects shown here thatscarcely have been touched upon outside of the rheto-ric of labor union pronouncements. Their importancelies in the fact that they are at some variance withthe well-known and much-researched transgressions bysome unions against the concept of fair employmentpractices. The overview afforded in this analysis is oftotal employment in those situations where employersacknowledge that they were under some obligation toone or more labor organizations in setting their hiringpolicies for at least a part of their work force.

It is not possible to take this overview of all five ofthe Southwestern States. To do so would introduce anaberration. This comes about because the Commis-sion's question does not reckon with the fact that insome States an employer would proceed almost at hisperil if he gave an affirmative answer, even wheretruthfulness required such an answer. Two States ofthe Southwest, Texas and Arizona, have so-called right-to-work-laws, which make it unlawful for an employeror union to enter into an ae,-reenient that conditionedemployment on membership in a labor organization.Even where tacit arrangements exist to circumvent thisrestriction, how does an employer respond tc a govern-mental query of when he last violated the law?

43

The responses of Texas employers are indicative ofthis dilemma. A computer tabulation shows them tobe patently unreliable. Both Texas and Arizona shouldbe dropped from this consideration. But in the otherthree States, employers could respond to the questionwithout compunction, since union shop arrangementsthat effect hiring and tenure are lawful in their States.

California is the State with the greatest degree oftrade union organization among its nonagriculturallabor force, as shown in the footnote on page 8. Em-ployers having 380,086 employees acknowledged thatthey had an arrangement which obligated them to ac-cept for employment some persons referred to them bya union. Although this obligation probably did notextend to all the employers' jobs, it is reasonable to as-sume that it did extend to those occupations which pro-vide the main membership base for California laborunions: craftsmen, operatives, and laborers. Those em-ployers who had no such arrangement with a laborunion had 1,605,696 employees.

Table 13 shows the percentage of minority em-ployees among all employees and among employeesworking in those occupations that are commonly in-cluded in National Labor Relations Board determina-tions of an appropriate bargaining unit. These aregiven for both groups of employers. There are signifi-cant differences between the two groups.

Clearly, minorities had a greater representationamong the employees of those employers who had hir-ing obligations to a union. In this group, minorityworkers constituted a higher percentage of all em-ployees and of employees in each of these occupations.Perhaps the most surprising asp-ct of this is that mi-nority workers showed their greatest relative gain be-tween the two groups in the craftsmen occupation.Those working where union policies affected hiringwere 14.9 percent of all craftsmen, but in situationsnot so affected they were only 12.1 percent. This is arelatively larger difference than appeared for the op-erative and laborer occupations.

It is difficult going beyond this finding to search forthe causal factors that might explain it. The conclu-

TABLE 13.-Minority percentage of employment in selected occupations, employerswith union arrangement hiring and those without such arrangement in California

tin percent]

MinoritiesCraftsmen Operatives Laborers All employees

Union Non-union

Union Non-union

Union Non-union

Union Nomunion

Negro 4.0 2.9 9.0 8.3 18. 8 10.6 7.2 5.1Oriental 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.3 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.9American Indian .4 .3 .4 .5 .3 .7 .3 .3Spanish Surnamed 9.4 7.6 14.8 15.9 24.8 28.9 9.4 8.4

Minority total- 14.9 12.1 26.0 26.1 46.4 42.2 19.1 15.7

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission fromemployer EEO-1 reporte,1966.

44

sion of so many observers is that trade unions by theirvery nature must serve only their present membershipsand adopt restrictive policies against these not alreadya part of those memberships. There ; much evidencein some unions to support that conclusion. Perhapsthe key to an explanation lies in the phrase, "someunions." What we ai.e looking at here is an overallemployment situation where virtually all Californiaunions have played a role. The unions which usuallyhave been identified as ones having job entry policiesthat militate against minorities are largely those inthe construction trades and the other craft trades.These unions often havoc decisive influence on theselection of persons for training or apprenticeship fromamong those who wish to enter the trade. As noted inappendix A, construction employees are undoubtedlyunderrepresented in the EEO-1 reports. Constructionemployers probably were inclined to report on theirpermanent employees rather than those they hire forlimited periods when doing contract constructionwork.

That labor unions might actually help to improvethe employment prospects of minority workers shouldnot be dismissed as a possibility. When it is recalled thatmost of today's large industrial-type unions were bornfrom a rupture in labor's federation in 1938; that fromthat period on these unions officially have embracedthe nondiscrimination policy of the former Congressof Industrial Organizations; that in the reuniting ofthe separate federations in 1955 this policy was madeone of the conditions for membership in the AFL-CIO;that some of the larger industrial type unions have de-voted considerable effort to the advocacy of egalitarianprinciples, and have sought to instruct their member-ships in such principles; that a few of these unionsand the State bodies of the parent federation itself havehad active roles in the civil rights movement from itsvery inception; it does not seem implausible to findthat after 30 years of such advocacy and action sub-stantive improvements have come about in the em-ployment patterns for minority workers.

What would be utterly implausible would be to findthat no such improvements had occurred. Had theynot, the value of official and individual commitmentto the precepts of equal opportunity could be dismissedas incon^quential. And we could then be resigned toimmutable and impersonal historical forces-forcesthat excuse us from commitment.

But there has been commitment by much of orga-nized labor. At the time it began, it was almost a pio-neer venture, giving the prevailing social climate of thecountry. It is not necessary to enlarge upon this, or toexamine whether it came from unalloyed altruism orbase self-interest. The fact is that unions for auto-workers, steelworkers, packinghouse workers, indus-trial electrical workers, coal miners, hard-rcrl- miners,garment workers, maritime workers, cannery al agri-

cultural processing workers, transport workers, and afew others toc k an active part in promoting equal em-ployment opportunity. They did this years before anumber of the presently active civil rights groups wereorganized, or before there was a civil rights march onWashington.

That their halting pursuit of their commitment toequal opportunity might have weathered away someof the intransigence that enfoldt, the issue, both in theirown unions and in the other unions, is a possibility.Assuming that most of the intransigence was on thepart of their own membership and not the employers,it is likely that, gien the trade union preachments,employers themselves might have felt greater freedomto hire minority workers without thereby risking majorindustrial unrest over this breaching of communitymores. The point could be illustrated with cases ofthe former Committee on Fair Employment Practicesduring World War II, when trade union leadersactually did work with employer and government rep-resentatives in stopping wildcat shutdowns and in gain-ing membership acceptance of minority workers whenfirst they were hired or promoted in someestablishments.

There is a possibility that these differences in minor-ity job opportunities might arise from a difference inthe types of industries that predominate in the twogroups. The type of industrial activity which may bemore likely to be effectively unionized may also bethe type that for completely unrelated reasons em-ploys more minority workers at all levels. It is notpossible from this initial examination to answer thatquestion. But, since the possibility exists, it meritsfurther exploration.

The judgment of these statistics for the moment canbe, at the very least, that there is not evidence fromthe California reports to support the view that laborunions have an overall retarding effect on the em-ployment opportunities of minorities. On the contrary,it seems that they have advanced those opportunities.The statistics suggest that the value of commitmentis quantifiable, and that is extremely important.

The reports from Colorado and New Mexico differsomewhat but do not contradict what was found inCalifornia. Table 14 gives the minority percentagesworking in the selected occupations for the union andnonunion groups of emplOyers. In New Mexico, mostminorities fare much better in their percentage of allemployees and their percentage of those in craftsmenoccupations in the establishments whose hiring policiesare affected by labor unions. In Colorado, the differ-ences between the two types of establishments arenot enough to be significant one way or the other, butthere are unaccounted for differences appearing in theoperative occupation. Spanish Surnameds are em-ployed in operative jobs at a much lesser rate in the

union establishments than in the nonunion, althoughthe reverse of this is true in the higher ranking crafts-men occupations.

TABLE 14.-Minority percentage of employment in selected occupations, employerswith union arrangement on hiring and those without such arrangement in NewMexico a nd Colorado

[Percent]

MinoritiesCraftsmen Operatives Laborers Total

UnionNonunion Union

Non.union Union

Nonunion Union

Non-union

Nigro:New Mexico I. 0 0.5 2.5 1.3 3.2 2.7 2.0 1.1Colorado 1.0 1.2 2. 1 2.6 5.4 5.3 2.5 3.2

Oriental:New Mexico . 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .3Colorado . 0 .2 .1 .3 .0 .3 .2 .4

American Indian:New Mexico 2.2 1. 5 19. 1 4 . 9 4.6 12. 1 6. 1 2.4Colorado . 2 .4 .3 .5 .1 6 .2 .3

Spanish Surnamed :New Mexico 25.2 21.0 22.2 41.2 76.4 49.5 36. 0 22.4Colorado 7.0 6.4 7.9 14. 3 22.3 25. 2 7.9 7.6

Minority total:New Mexico 26.5 23.2 43.9 47.5 66.3 64.6 44.2 26.4Colorado 6.4 6.4 10.6 18.1 27.9 31.5 10.9 11.6

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission fromemployer EEO-1 reports, 1966.

As a means of testing to see if these u.,ferent em-ployment patterns for union and nonunion hiringpolicies might be accounted for entirely by differencesin the industrial mix of the two types of employers,an index of the occupational position of minorityworkers (similar to that previously used in comparingprime contractor with other employers) was com-puted for both groups in the three States. Such anindex removes the effccts of the different industrialand occupational mixes and simply states how the earn-ings of minority workers stand in relation to that forall workers, regardless of what the mixes are. The re-sults of this test were not appreciably different fromthe foregoing comparisons. The occupational positionindices for minority workers did not vary over 1.7points between the two groups of employers in any ofthe three States. They fared slightly better under unionhiring arrangements in New Mexico and Colorado,and slightly worse under them in California. Becausethe differences were so small, no significant conclusioncould be drawn from the test.

Furthermore, the use of this testing method may beinappropriate, since it determines the occupationalposition of minorities by utilizing employment figuresin all occupations. Labor unions scarcely ever have anyeffective influence on whom an employer places inwhite-collar occupations, so the more significant viewwould be one limited to the top, or craftsmen, jobswithin the coverage of the collective bargaining agree-ments. This view is given in tables 13 and 14.

45

A Further WordAbout Spanish Surnameds

This inquiry concerns primarily the employmentpatterns prevailing for Spanish Surnameds. The Colo-rado Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission have asked that thesepatterns be related to the socio-economic status ofSpanish Surnameds; therefore, this sectic.11 examinesthose economic and social characteristics which mostdirectly affect their employment.

There were almost 31/2 million white persons ofSpanish surname in these five States recorded in the1960 census. Table 15 shows how they were distributedin the States and the percentages they represented ofthe total State and regional population. These pop-ulation figures are to some extent an understatement,because the census does not include in its count allthose persons who come temporarily to the country asfarmworkers (the braceros), illegal immigrants, orcommuters, whether alien or not, who live in Mexicobut work in the United States. From 1950 to 1960 theaverage annual increase in the number of Spanishsurname persons was 5.1 percent, which is larger thanthe 3.7-percent increase in the number of Anglos inthat period, or the 4.9-percent increase in the num-ber of nonwhites.

TABLE 15.Number of white persons of Spanish surname and their percentage oftotal population Southwest: 1960

State Spanish sur-name

Percent of totalpopulation

Arizona 194, 356 14.9California 1, 426, 538 9.0Colorado 157, 173 8.9New Mexico 269,122 28.2Texas 1,417, 810 14.7

Southwest 3, 464, 999 11.8

Source: U.S. census, 1960, PC(2)-1B, table 1, p. 2.

The number of white persons of Spanish surname isincreased by continuous immigration, but only a frac-tion of the total are foreign born. In the region, 84.6percent of these persons were of native parentage.Table 16 shows that the percentage of foreign bornranged from 3.5 percent in Colorado to 20 percent inCalifornia. It is of some significance to repeat that

46

these figures are for white persons of Spanish surname.The 1960 census actually lists 3,513,684 persons ofSpanish surname in the five States, but 68,581, or2 percent, of them were nonwhites, being classed as"American Indians," "Filipinos," or "All others."Oddly, also, better than 6 percent of the foreign-bornwhite persons of Spanish surname did not have Span-ish as a mother tongue and 12 percent of the overone-half million foreign born did not come fromMexico. This illustrates again the difficulty of basinga definition of thi., minority solely on language, na-tional origin, or the ethnicity of surnames. It is asemantic thicket through which we must proceed whilepointing out necessary qualifications as we go.2

TABLE 16.White persons of Spanish surname, native and foreign born, Southwest:1950 and 1960

All Native born Foreign bornStateyear classes

Number Percent Number Percent

Arizona:1960 194, 356 160, 106 82.4 34, 250 17.61950 128, 580 105, 345 81.9 23, 235 18.1

Car.fornia:1960 1, 426, 538 1,141, 207 80.0 285, 331 20.01950 758, 400 591, 540 78.0 166, 860 22.0

Colorado:1960 157,173 151, 692 96.5 5, 481 3.51950 118, 715 113, 750 95.8 4, 965 4.2

New Mexico:1960 269,122 258, 509 96. 1 .3, 613 3.91950 248, 560 238, 040 95.8 10, 520 4.2

Texas:1960 1, M7,810 1,218, 671 86.0 199,139 1x. 0

1950 1, 027, 455 840, 535 81.8 186, 920 18.2Southwest:

1960 3, 464, 999 2, 930,185 84.6 534, 814 15.41950 2, 281, 710 1, 889, 210 82.8 392, 500 17.2

Source: Californians°, SpanishSurnametable A, p. 19, Division°, Fair EmploymentPractices, Department of Industrial Relations, State of California, May, 1964.

Participation in the Labor Force

The labor force participation rate (i.e., the ratio ofpersons aged 14 and over who are employed or seekingemployment to the total population aged 14 or over)

U.S. census, 1960, DC(2)-1B, table A-2, p. 202.3 Ibid., table A-1, p. 201.

TABLE 17.-Labor force participation rates, 1 males in the Southwest, 1960

A. Total, 14 years and over

Urban and Urbanrural

Spanish surname 77.5 78.1

Anglo 79.5 80.4Nonwhite 74.4 77.6

B. By age class (urban)

Age class Spanishsurname

All males

14 to 19 36.1 42.520 to 24 84.9 88.025 to 34 92.6 95.835 to 44 94.1 96.645 to 64 87.1 89.865 and over 27.5 29.5

1 Percent of he population in the labor force.

Source: Walter Fogel, MexicanAmerican Study Project, Advance Report 10, LeoGrebler, Director, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration,UCLA, 1966.

is not greatly different for the Spanish Surnamed maleand the Anglo male. The two-point difference for ur-ban and rural males, as shown in table 17 expandsto 2.3 when only urban males are considered. How-ever, as Prof. Walter Fogel of the Mexican-AmericanStudy Project has pointed out, the difference may bea function of the higher unemployment rates thatexisted for the Spanish Surnamed male as comparedto the Anglo male. These unemployment rates areshown in table 18. Dr. Fogel surmises that the unem-ployment rate for the Spanish Surnamed males, whichwas almost twice as high as that for the Anglo males,undoubtedly forced some of them to stay out of thelabor force. He found the difference in the participa-tion rate to be greatest for urban workers aged 14 to19, an age group largely representative of youths whohart not held their first job.

In the case of females, the same study shows thata more pronounced difference occurs between thelabor force participation rates for the Spanish sur-named and those for Anglos and nonwhites. The urbanfemale rates are: Spanish Surnamed 30.8; Anglo 36;nonwhite 46.4. Professor Fogel speculates that the dif-ference between the rates for the Spanish Surnamedfemale and the Anglo female may be explained by thelarger size family of the former and that the evengreater difference compared to the nonwhite femalemay be caused by the high incidence of families with-out a male head among nonwhites, their greater eco-nomic need that results from this, their willingness toaccept private household employment, and a more re-ceptive cultural attitude toward female employment.

An interesting aspect of the Southwestern labormarket is found by comparing the above labor force'participation rates of Anglos and Spanish Surnamed

TABLE 18.-Unemployment rates, males in the Southwest, 1960

A. Total, 14 years and over (all residences)

Spanish surnameUrban

Spanish Anglo Nonwhitesurname

8.0 8.5 4.5 9.1

B. By age class (urban)

Age classSpanish All

surname malesRatio ofcolumns1 and 2

(1) (2)

14-19 17.6 12. 5 1.4120-24 11.3 7.8 1.4525-34 6.6 4.1 1.6135-44 5.9 3.7 1.6045-64 8.3 5.1 1.6365 aid over 12.6 7.1 1.78

Unemployment as a percent of civilian labor force.

Source: Walter Fogel, MexicanAmerican Study Project, Advance Report 10, LeoGrebler, director, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration,UCLA, 1966.

to what these rates become when they are based onlyon the civilian labor force. One of the unusual featuresof the region's border-State economics is the extent towhich these are dependent on military salaries andexpenditures.

Table 19 provides some additional labor force sta-tistics, including the extent to which person, over 14years of age are participating in both the civilianmilitary labor forces. Working from these figures it canbe seen that, whereas only 2.61 percent of the totalU.S. labor force was in the military, in the four borderStates of the region this percentage was 4.87. In eachof the five States the percentage of persons over 14years of age who were in the military exceeded by farthis percentage for the United States.

The proportion of the employed labor force assignedto the military seems to increase with proximity tothe Mexican border. If we consider all the bordercounties in the four States as :uprising a separatejurisdiction, we find that a phenomenal 17.9 percentof all employed persons in this snake-like tier of 24counties were in the armed services in 1960. In otherwords, about one out of every six employed persons wasin a uniform of the armed forces. See appendix table B.

The number of Spanish Surnamed persons in rela-tion to total persons is not in the same proportion onthe military bases of the border States as in the laborforces of those States. This is understandable, becausemilitary personnel are drawn from all of the 50 States.Thus, the labor force participation rates excluding mil-itary personnel show a smaller difference betweenAnglo and Spanish Surname males: 78.5 for Angloand 77.1 for Spanish Surnamed, a 1.4 point difference

47

TO 5LE 19.-Selected population and labor force statistics, United States and Southwest: 1960

Persons 14 years old and over in labor force Persons not in labor force

Total populaNon

Area EmployedUnemployed Total

School age(0-15)

Working age(16-64)

Elderly(65+)

Total Civilian Military

United Stales 66, 372,649 64, 639, 247 1, 733, 402 3, 504, 827 109, 448, 150 57, 955, 829 38, 434, 636 13, 057, 685 179, 325, 626

Percent 37.01 36.05 .97 1.95 61.03 32.32 21.43 7.28 99.99Male 45, 171, 998 43, 466, 946 1, 705, 052 2, 295, 722 40, 835, 442 29, 370, 517 6,386, 674 5, 078, 251

Female 21, 200, 651 21, 172, 301 28, 350 1, 209,105 68, 612, 708 28, 585, 312 32, 047, 962 7, 979, 434

Arizona 446, 829 429, 862 16, 967 24, 126 831, 206 468, 715 288, 885 73, 606 1, 302,161Percent 34.31 33.01 1.30 1.85 68.83 36. On 22.19 5.65 99.99Male 313, 924 297, 132 16, 792 16, 695 323, 609 237, 5u2 52, 812 33, 295

Female 132,905 132, 730 175 7,431 507, 597 231,213 236, 073 40, 311

California 6, 061, 748 5, 761, 433 300, 315 373, 908 9, 285,178 4, 937, 698 3, 234, 744 1,112, 736 15, 720, 834

Percent 38.56 36.65 1.91 2.38 59.06 31.41 20.58 7.08 100.00Male 4, 155, 012 3, 858, 815 296, 197 239, 524 3, 439, 789 2, 501, 856 510, 377 427, 556

Female 1, 906, 736 1, 902, 618 4, 118 134, 384 5, 845, 389 2, 435, 842 2, 724, 367 685, 180

Colorado 654, 716 626, 769 27, 947 26, 036 1, 073,173 586, 589 360, 855 125, 749 1, 753, 925

Percent 37.33 35.74 1. 59 1.48 61. 19 33.44 20.57 7. 17 100.00Male 450, 559 423, 298 27, 261 17, 196 402, 594 296, 841 56, 257 49, 496

Female 204, 157 203, 471 686 8, 840 670, 579 289, 748 304, 578 76, 253

New Mexico 309, 812 287, 904 21, 908 18, 196 623, 015 373, 425 210, 207 39, 383 951, 023Percent 32.58 30.27 2.30 1.91 65.51 39.27 22.10 4.14 100.00Male_ 223, 642 201, 914 21, 728 12, 857 242, 844 188, 616 37, 363 16, 865

Female _ _ 86,170 85, 990 180 5, 339 380, 171 184, 809 172, 844 22, F t8

Texas 3, 480, 862 3, 318, 507 162, 355 -55.013 5, 945, 637 3, 296, 389 2, 074, 052 575,17; 9, 581, 512

Percent 36.33 34.63 1.69 1.62 62.05 34.40 21.65 6.00 100.00

Male 2, 425, 803 2, 267,103 158, 700 103,415 2, 214,944 1, 667,419 333, 003 214, 522

Female 1,055, 059 1,051,404 3, 655 51, 598 3, 730, 693 1, 628, 970 1, 741, 049 360, 674

Source: U.S Census of Population. 1960, General Economic and Social Characteristics, tables 37, 52, Detailed Economic and Social Characteristics, tables 65, 82, 155, and 158

instead of the two point difference previously men-tioned. This is shown in table 20.

These comparisons suggest a conclusion that theSpanish Surnamed male in the Southwest has essen.1tially the same will and desire to be employed as doesthe Anglo male. It is not indicated to the same extentfor the Spanish Surnamed female, perhaps for thereason of family size advanced by Professor Fogel.

The dependency ratio in a State is greatly affectedby the age distribution of the population. In the NewMexico population, for example, over 65 percent ofthe population was not in the labor force in 1960, afigure 4 percent higher than that for the United States.But this can undoubtedly be accounted for by the factthat the State had a considerably higher percentageoc its population under 16 years of age than did the

United States. Actually, in New Mexico in 1960 ahigher proportion of persons in the 16 to 64 age groupwere either working or seeking work than was true forthe United States. The same was true in Texas andArizona. Table 10 gives these figures for all of thefive States and for the United States. In the case ofCalifornia and Colorado, the percentage of personsin the 16 to 64 age group either working or seekingwork was lower than in the United States-a conse-quence perhaps of the greater emphasis those twoStates place on education and of the higher personalincomes they enjoy. The commitment to .ducationwould tend to delay the age at which youth enter thelabor force, and a higher median personal incomewould, of course, sustain a higher dependency ratio.

Whotever the subtleties that govern the will to work,

TABLE 20.-Civilian labor force and labor force participation rate for white and Spanish surnamed population, male and female, southwest: 1%0

AreaWhite laborforce lessSpanish

surnamed

Participationrate of

white laborforce tossSpanish

su rnamed

TotalSpanish

surnamelaborforce

Participationrate of

Spanishsurname

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Arizona 244, 200 116,157 76.3 33.8 47, 784 13, 663 78.5 24.9California 3,424,281 1, 718, 596 78.3 35.6 364, 548 ;38, 691 79.4 32.1Colorado 396, 633 193,474 78.4 34.9 32, 311 11, 431 70.3 25.4New Mexico 149, 860 66,960 80.9 33. 1 53,990 18, 632 68.9 23.8Texas 1, 812, 407 812, 349 78.9 32. 1 302, 412 113, 000 76. 5 27.0Southwest 6, 027, 381 2, 907, 536 78.5 34.4 801, 045 295, 417 77. 1 28.7

Source: U.S. census of population: 1960. General, Social, and Economic Characteristics, PC(1), 4C, 6C, 7C, 33C, 45C. - :1960, Persons of Spanish Surname, five southwesternStates, PC(2), 1B.

48

it does not appear that the Southwest as a whole canbe distinguished lir favorably with regard to the desireof its people to work.

Fertility

The relevance of dependency ra os to the employ-ment needs of the Spanish Surnameu is obvious. Theirexceptionally high fertility rates add another dimen-sion to their economic problems. A study of the U.S.Department of Agriculture shows that the child-woman ratio for the Spanish Surnamed population inthe Southwest is almost 70 percent higher than thatfor the other white population.3 There are 3,810 chil-dren born to every 1,000 Spanish Surnamed womenand 2,258 born to every 1,000 other white women. Forthe rural population this ratio per 1,000 women goesup to 4,657 children for the Spanish Surnamed and2,694 for other white women. This fertility rate for therural Spanish Surnamed woman is closer to those pre-vailing in underdeveloped nations than 't is to therates in western society. The rate is sufficient to doubletheir number in each generation, even after allowingfor the higher average death rate that prevails in theircase.

The same Department of Agriculture study relatesthese fertility rates to the heavy incidence of poverty inSpanish Surnamed families. The percentage of theirfamilies in poverty ranges from 17.5 percent for urbanheads of households in California to 47.3 perceit inTexas, and from 30.2 percent of their rural familiesin California that are poor to 69.2 percent in Texas.For the five States combined, the Department studyfound 30.8 percent of all their urban families in povertyand 52.2 percent of all their rural families.4

One of the advance reports of UCLA's Mexican-American Study Project refines the Census figures todetermine the actual number of poor children repre-sented )y the statistics on family poverty. The studyproject used a $3,000 annual income figure to drawthe poverty line for families. Table 21 shows thatthere were 1.8 million poor children under 18 in theregion with 430,000, or 29 percent, in Spanish Sur-name families; 395,000, or 22 percent, were in non-white families. Thus, in some contrast to the figuresfor poor families, when poor children are consideredseparately, it was found that a majority of tnem arenot Anglo but are in either Spanish Surname or non-white families, with the former having the largernumber.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Low Income Families inthe Spanish - surname Population in the Southwest, EconomicResearch Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 112,Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 10, table 5.

`Ibid., p. 12.

TABLE 21.Number and percent of poor families, poor persons in poor families, andpoor children in poor families for Southwest 1960

CategoryPor'ilation group

Total Spanishsurnamed

Nonwhite

Al? families 7, 356, 866 698, 027 590,299Poor families I 1, 451, 655 242, 903 245, 926Percent of poor in each group 19.7 34.8 41.7Poor in each group as percent of all poor 100.0 16.7 17.0An persons in families 26, 523, 796 3, 294, 687 2, 403,980Poor persons 4,730, 673 1, 081, 876 926,923Percent of poor in each group 17.8 32.8 38.6Poor in each group as percent of all poor 100.0 22.9 19.6All children in families 10,606, 485 1, 620, 000 1,110, 220Poor children 1, 828, 653 530, 000 395,000Percent of poor in each group 17.2 32.7 35.6Poor in each group as percent of all poor 100.0 29.0 21.6

I Families with annual income under $3,000 in 1959.

Source: Frank G. Mittelbach and Grace Marshall, The Burden of Poverty," Mexican-American Study Project, Leo Grebler, Director, Division of Research, Graduate Schoolof Business Administration, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966, tables 1, 2, 3,PP. 3, 5.

To the extent that poverty breeds poverty, it is notunlikely that the coming generation will recruit mostof its poor from these two minority groups. A studymade of Colorado welfare records bears this out. Al-though the Spanish Surname population in that Staterepresents less than 9 percent of its total population,in June 1966, 43 percent of all children on its aid todependent children rolls had Spanish surnames.5 Thetendency that these children would become second-generation cases was revealed by a 1961 study in thatState, showing that over 75 percent of all the second-generation cases (where the responsible relative hadhimself been a child recipient of A.D.C.) had Spanishsurnarnes.6 Negro and nonSpanish Surnamed whitefamilies each made up only about 12 percent of allof these cases.

These studies demonstrate what has long beenknown about the cumulative effects of poverty, whichinclude the poor education, health, and housing thatis closely associated with it. All of these factors bearon the employment opportunities of an individual.

Education

National statistics comparing education between theStates offer some puzzling contrasts between theSouthwest and the rest of the Nation. These statisticsshow that the median school years completed by par-sons over 25 years of age is higher in all of the South-

Colorado Commission on Spanish surnamed Citizens, TheStatus of Spanish Surnamed Citizens in Colorado, Report tothe Colorado General Assembly, January 1967, pp. 38-40.

° Ibid., p. 39, quoting a study of the Colorado State De-partment of Public Welfare, Aid to Dependent Children,Characteristics of Second Generation Cases, Report No. 63D-1, Denver: State of Colorado, June 1963.

49

west-except Texas-than it is in the United States;its rates of nonenrollment in school of persons of schoolage are impressively lower than the United States ratein each of its States; except for Texas, its expendituresper pupil in average daily membership in public ele-mentar and secondary schools is higher than theU.S. average. Clearly, the region compares favorablywith the United States in these respects, but thereare certain anomalies.

In 1960, 1.3 million adults in the region were func-tional illiterates, having attained either no schoolingat all or less than 5 years; the percentage of these per-sons who were white ran considerably higher thando similar figures for the entire United States; overone quarter of all functionally illiterate whites in theUnited States are in these five States, as shown intable 22.

TABLE 22.-Selected educational attainments statistics for Persons 25 years old andover: 1960

Area

Persons 25 yearsold and over

Persons withno schooling

Persons with lessthan 5 years

Number Percei,t Number Per-cent

Numbe, Per-cent

United States:Total 99, 438, 084 100.0 2, 274, 813 2.3 6, 027,769 6.1

White 89, 581,174 100. 0 1,720,154 1.9 4, 268, 675 4.8Nonwhite 9, 856, 910 100.0 554, 659 5.6 1,759,194 17.8

Arizona :Total 661,102 100.0 26, 362 4.0 66, 272 10.0

White 608, 827 100.0 14, 503 2.4 46, 671 7.7Nonwhite 52, 275 100.0 II, 859 22.7 19, 601 37.5

California:Total_ ....... 8, 668, 907 100.0 164,332 1.9 505,049 5.7

White 8, 221, 393 100.0 137, 986 1.7 427, 264 5. 2

Nonwhite 647, 514 100. 0 26, 346 4.1 77, 787 12. 0

Colorado:Total 940, 803 100.0 11, 046 1.2 4J ' 4.7

White 913,967 100: 0 10, 393 1.1 41, 857 4.6Nonwhite 26.836 100. 0 653 2.4 2, 245 8.4

New Mexico:Total 444, 503 100.0 19, 674 4.4 54, 040 .12.1

White 416,158 100. 0 12, 013 2.9 42, 922 12.1

Nonwhite 28, 345 100.0 7,661 27.0 11,118 39.2Texas:

Total 5, 030, 559 100.0 204, 045 4.1 672, 226 13.4

White 4, 442, 6u5 100.0 172, 335 3.9 533,467 12.0Nonwhite 587, 954 100.0 31, 710 5.4 138, 759 23.6

Source: U.S. Census of Fopulation , 1960, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureauof the Census, pcw-IC, 4C, 6C, 7C, 33C, 45C.

This lack of educational attainment among whitescan be laid to the education gap that exists betweenSpanish Surnameds and of er whites in the region.Table 23 shows the differ( ice in median years of schoolcompleted by different population groups. AdultSpanish Surname person!. had, on the average, 7.1years of schooling compared to 12.1 years for Anglosand 9.0 for nonwh.tes, a gap of 5 years between the

50

TABLE 23.-Median years of school completed by Spanish surname persons 25 yearsand over compared with other population groups, five Southwest states, 1950 and1960

State and population groupMedian yearscompleted

1950 1960

Southwest, total 10.6 II. 6Anglo II. 3 12.1Nonwhite 7.8 9. 0Spanish surname 5.4 7.1

Arizona, total 10.0 11.2Anglo II. 6 12.1Nonwhite 5. 5 7.0Spanish surname 6.0 7.0

California, total II. 6 12.1Anglo 12.0 12.2Nonwhite 8.9 10. 6Spanish surname 7.8 8.6

Colorado, total 10.9 12.1Anglo 11.3 12.2Nonwhite 9.8 11.2Spanish surname 6.5 8.2

New Mexico, total 9.3 11.2Anglo 11.8 12.2Nonwhite 5.8 7.1Spanish surname 6.1 7.4

Texas, total 9.3 10. 4Anglo 10.3 11.5Nonwhite 7.0 8.1Spanish surname 3.5 4.8

Source: Mexican-American Study Project, Advance Report 7, "The Schooling Gap:Signs of Progress" by Leo Grebler, Division of Research, Graduate School of BusinessAdministration, University of California, Los Angeles, March 1967.

Spanish Surnamed and Anglos. The median educa-tional attainment of the Spanish Surnamed rangedfrom 8.6 years in California to 4.8 years in Texas.Table 24 shows that in the latter State over half of allSpariA. 'ids over 25 years of age had less than afij . grate c -cation. The same table compares thepercentage of persons over 25 years who have acquired4 years or more of high school. In none of the Stateshave the Spanish Surnamed persons as high a percen-tage of high school graduates as nonwhite persons;much less, they do not even approach the degree ofhigh school training that prevails among Anglos,

In only two of 35 metropolitan areas of the South-west did the Mexican-American Study Project find

TABLE 24.-Percent of Spanish surname, Anglo and nonwhite populations 25 yearsof age and over who have completed 4 years of school or less and 4 years of highschool or more in five Sopthwestern States, 1960

State

Spanish surname Anglo Nonwhite

4 yearsor less

4 yearsof high 4 years

school or or lessMOM

4ofof high 4 years

school or or lessmore

4 yeaof high

school ormore

Arizona 35.0 14.7 3.6 53.3 37.5 15.7California 23.9 24.5 3.6 54,8 12.0 39.7Colorado 23.9 18.7 3.2 54.7 8.4 44.6New Mexico 29.6 18.9 3.6 57.1 39.2 19. 1Texas 51.7 11.9 6.3 46.4 23.6 20.8

Source: Adopted from Julian Samora, "Spa nisn Speaking Peoples," stet paper,U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February, 1964. (mimeographed).

the educational gap between the Spanish Surnamedgroup and Anglos smaller than that between Negroesand Anglos.7 All of these States are making efforts withsome success to close these educational gaps whichwere a legacy from earlier years when this disparitydid not appear as a matter of great concern to thedominant body of Anglos.

Joan W. Moore, the associate director of the Mexi-can-American Study Project, has pointed out thatalthough the legs; segregation of Spanish Surnamedsin the schools ended in the 1940's, a widespread defacto segregation still prevails throughout the South-west. The tracking system of separating academicallygifted students from other students tends to resegre-gate them within nominally unsegregated schools. Intheir schools they generally receive "fewer special serv-ices, less counseling, less experienced teachers, andand poorer physical plants." 8

The forms of educational discrimination are slowto disappear. U.S. Senator Ralph W. Yarborough ofTexas, in introducing legislation for a "SouthwesternHuman Development Act" and a "Bilingual Ameri-can Education Act" in 1967 spoke of ",nibtle an...! cruelforms of discrimination" that persist in the educationof Spanish Surnamed children.° He told the Senatethat equality of opportunity in the Southwest is a myth,that it is folklore, and pled for doing away with the"economic disadvantage * * * exploitation * * *discrimination * * * poor schooling, low healthstandards, job discrimination, and the many othaartificial barriers that stand in the way of the ad-vancement of the Mc,.:..an-American people alongthe road to economic equality." The Senator's billsseek to redeem the use of the Spanish language in theschools as a means of motivating those pupils whohave been denied its use in their education.

A survey in the Southwest conducted by the Na-tional Education Association concluded there is "some-thing inherent in our system of public schooling thatimpedes the education of the Mexican-Americanchildthat, indeed, drives him to drop out." The Sur-vey adopts the view of A. Bruce Gaarder, specialistin foreign languages with the U.S. Office ofEducation:

The greatest barrier to the Mexican-Americanchild's scholastic achievement * * * is that theschools, reflecting the dominant view of the domi-nant culture, want that child to grow up as an-other Anglo. This he cannot do except by denying

Leo Grebler, Mexican-American Study Project, "TheSchooling Gap: Signs of Progress," Advance Report 7,UCLA, table 6, p. 18.

1 Joan W. Moore, Mexican-American: Problems and Pros-pects, Institute for Research on Poverty, The University ofWisconsin, Madison, Wis., p. 38.

° Congressional Record, 90th Cong., First Sess., Vol. 113,No. 5, Jan. 17, 1967.

himself and his forebears, a form of masochismwhich no society should demand of its children.70The NEA survey found that in most of the States

the schools were mandated 1 y law to instruct in Eng-lish only. Corporal punishment was meted out to thosewho lapsed into Spanish, even where 99 percent of aschool's enrollment were Spanish Surnamed. "If youwant to be American, speak American," was the justi-fication offered by the schools. These schools urged thechild on one hand to eradicate his Spanish; on theother they accepted National Defense Act funds tostrengthen the teaching of modem foreign languages.

Housing

The principal aspect of housing that bears on workopportunities perhaps is the degree of residential seg-regation. The social reality of residential segregationin urban areas is now widely recognized as limitingthe employment opportunities of racial and ethnicminorities. The larger the city and the more rigid thepatterns of residential segregation, the more limitedthe minority worker will be in his search for employ-ment. The Luor market in which he resides developswhat become for all practical purposes restricted areasto which h2 does not have ready access: Distance,travel time, or the lack of public transportation workagainst him on the one hand, and on the other he isrestricted from freely moving his residence nearer toprospective employment sites.

A 1964 staff report to the U.S. Commission on CivilRights describes these restrictions in this manner:

Segregated housing is a part of the pattern ofdiscrimination against any minority. The problem ofhousing discrimination includes governmental sup-port of residential segregation, the inability to ob-tain loans for certain properties, the refusal of somereal estate brokers to show certain properties toSpanish-speaking homeseekers, the charging ofhigher rents to the Spanish speaking, and the out-right refusal by landlords, builders, and homeownersto rent or sell to them."All of the minority groups in the Southwest have

experienced the social, legal, and economic pressuresthat have produced those residential patterns, whichhave brought the word "ghetto" back into popular andprecise usage. Before the revival of that word, thestreet parlance of the Southwest spoke of the "barrio,"or the "Mexican quarter," referring to those areaswhere Spanish Surnameds resided. Negro neighbor-

The Invisible Minority, National Education Association,Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 1-39.

" Julian Samora, "Spanish-Speaking Peoples," staff paper,prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, ProgramsDivision, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 1964, p. 42.

51

hoods, of course, in the same parlance were known as"nigger towns," or, more genteelly, as "the coloredquarters." It is a commonplace of life in the regionfor town plans to be drawn in "quarters."

Housing segregation has had two interesting andsomewhat diverse effects on the Anglo majority. Forone, it has reduced the visibility of the minorities, pro-ducing a mindlessness toward them-a capacity to notsee what one does not wish to see. Yet, in anothersense it has provided Southwestern cities with a qualityof quaintness, something the Anglo majority is pleasedto regard as tourist attractions.

Where else are the poor regarded as quaint? Here,the Indian woman sitting crosslegged on the sidewalkmothering her child and offering beaded fobs for saleis quaint. Her colorful skirt and severe hairdo arequaint ; so is the dirt-floored hogan where she lives.The shacks of Spanish Surnameds with their luxuriantplantings in coffee cans are quaint, as are the China-towns and Little Tokyos that hide their poverty behindbright colors. A Sikh Temple is quaint, as are .thebearded, turbaned old bachelors who sit around it andremember laws that prevented them from marryingduring the years when that life urge might have pos-sessed them.

Almost every town has counterparts of these. Theyare regarded as the quaintness of other times and otherplaces, a kind of museum piece to show to visitors.The cultural differences of the people on exhibit seemto have made it unnecessary to contemplate their needsin the same terms used for members of the dominantculture.

These are, of course, subjective observations, butthey are no less valid because of the difficulty of quan-tifying them. These situations have much to do withthe task of structuring equal employment oppor-tunities.

One of the goals the Mexican-American StudyProject has set for itself is to develop some objectivemeasurement of what it calls "the taste for discrimina-tion" in housing. Its Advance Report 4 endeavors tofind a statistical proxy for discrimination and to con-struct an index of the degree to which residences aresegregated in a community. This it calls an index ofresidential dissimilarity, ranging theoretically from 0to 100, with the first representing no segregation of asubpopulation from the rest of the population and thelast representing total segregation.12

Table 23 gives the indexes of residential dissimilarityfor 3.5 cities of the Southwest. The areas surveyed werelimited to census tracts near the core of the cities in

"John W. Moore and Frank G. Mittelbach, with the as-sistance of Ronald McDaniel, Mexican-American StudyProject, Advance Report 4, Residential Segregation in theUrban Southwest, A Comparative Study, Division of Re-search, Graduate School of Business Administration, Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles, June 1966.

52

order to exclude outlying fringe areas, although theseactually might be a part of the cities' metropolitanareas. This exclusion automatically eliminated fromthe survey many Spanish Surnamed barri zis, which are,of course, tightly segregated. Such barrios often startas settlements of Spanish Surnamed agricultural work-ers on the outer edges of cities and towns, and manyhave been encompassed by the growth of the cities.Had all of these barrios been included in the surveyedarea, the indexes of dissimilarity for Spanish-surnamedpersons versus others would undoubtedly be higherthan those shown.

It would be incorrect to interpret these residentialpatterns as the result of some iron law of separationthat was enforced by the Anglo majority against theminorities. Obviously, there would not be such greatdifferences between cities if this were the case. Al-though there are instances where local law enforce-ment authorities in the past maintained the segregating

TABLE 25.-Indexes of residential dissimilarity for 35 Southwest central cities, 1960

CityAngin

versusall others I

(1)

WPSS 2

versusAnglo 3

(2)

NegroversusAnglo a

(3)

WPSS 2versusNegro

(4)

1. Abilene, Tex__ 68. 3 57.6 85.1 55.72. Albuquerque, N. Mex 53.0 53.0 81.7 62. 43. Austin, Tex 62. 9 63.3 72.1 66.14. Bakersfield, Calif 72.4 53.7 87.7 61.45. Colorado Springs, Colo 55. 4 44.8 74.0 53.86. Corpus Christi, Tex 73. 7 72.2 91.3 51. 07 Dallas, Tex 83.2 66.8 90. 2 76. 18 Denver, Colo 64.9 60.0 86.8 66.09. El Paso, Tex 52.9 52.9 79.2 59.5

10. Fort Worth, Tex 74.8 56.5 85.4 78.111. Fresno, Calif 64.4 49.0 92.0 55.212. Galveston, Tex 58. 1 33.3 73.8 52. 113. Houston, Tex 73.2 65.2 81.2 70.914. Laredo, Tex- 39.3 39.4 60.1 43.915. Los Angeles, Calif 68.7 57.4 87.6 75.716. Lubbock, Tex 74.4 66.0 94.4 80. 017. Oakland, Calif 60.0 41.5 72.2 56.418. Odessa, Tex 81. 8 75.8 90.5 29.219. Ontario, Calif 52.6 50.6 80.1 32.620. Phoenix, Ariz 62. 8 57.8 90.0 60.721. Port Arthur, Tex 81.7 45.9 89.7 76. 322. Pueblo, Colo 39.9 40.2 57.0 44. 123. Riverside, Calif 67. 7 60.9 80.8 45.624. Sacramento. Calif 39.5 30.2 61.9 47. 825. San Angelo, Tex 67.2 65.7 77.5 75.626. San Antonio, Tex 63.7 63.6 84.5 77.427. San Bernardino, Calif 70.6 67.9 83.5 35.228. San Diego, Calif 55.9 43.6 pl. 1 55.229. San Francisco, Calif 46.8 38.1 71.5 65.930. San lose, Calif 42.5 43.0 64.7 44. 431. Santa barbara, Calif 48.6 46.5 76.7 37.632. Stockton, Calif 59.3 52.6 73.0 31.033. Tucson, Ariz 63.9 62.7 84.5 64.134. Wino, Tex 65.7 59.7 74.3 60.635. NIchita Falls, Tex 76.8 64.8 86.1 47.6

I White persons of Spanish surname plus nonwhites.White persons of Spanish surname.

a Anglo whites, i.e., whites other than Spanish surname.

Source: 'Residential Segregation in the Urban Southwest: A Comparative Study."loan W. Moore and Frank G. Mittelbach. Mexlcan-Am arisen Study Project: Leo Grebler,Director, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Universityof California, Los Angeles, 1966, table 2. p. 16.

boundaries, or where company towns ware deliberatelydesigned to keep racial and ethnic groups apart, itshould not be concluded that this is why populationsubgroups continue to be separated.

The perpetuation of this condition only partly maybe attributed to past conditions. However, even if itis accepted that Spanish Surnameds live in ghettos bytheir own choice, it must be recognized that they maybe accepting ghetto housing out of a need to find theirpsychological security within the segregated commun-ity. This itself then is a mark of the failure to developmultiracial and multicultural communities withinwhich all persons are comfortable. The choice open toa member of a racial or ethnic minority is often aHobson's Choicethe freedom to choose, but no al-ternative to choose.

Whatever else might be said about ghetto housing,it is well established that the segregation of racial andethnic minorities in specific residential areas is asso-ciated with a high degree of poor housing and over-crowded housing in those areas. This has been shownin a report prepared for the Equal Employment Op-portunity Commission by Lamar B. Jones.13

The extent of dilapidated and deteriorated housingand the ratio of persons per roch are largely a conse-quence of in -ome. That these factors have reciprocatingeffects on a worker's productive abilities, and hencehis employment opportunities and income, is likely,though difficult to determine.

Income, Health, and Mobility

Comment has been made on the extent of povertyin minority group families. This section compares themedian incomes of all persons who had income in thedifferent groups. As a measure of their relative stand-ings with each other, this is perhaps more significantthan comparisons of the extent of poverty among them,for here we are looking at the central tendencies ofincome in the groups rather than just at those who trailbehind those tendencies.

Table 26 shows the incomes of all persons who hadincome in 1959, the year used by the 1960 census forthese tabulations. Persons of Spanish surname in theregion had only two-thirds of the median income of allwhites, Their median incomes were above those ofNegroes and Indians in all States, except in Colorado

1' See: "Mexican-Americans in the United States," a report(multilithed) prepared for the Equal Employment Opportu-nity Commission by Lamar B. Jones, Virginia F olytechnicInstitute, September 1966. Professor Jones in t,_!-:e IX,page 40, of his report gives the high percentage of Spanish-surname housing that is deteriorated, dilapidated, or over-crowded and compares this with that of Anglo and nonwhitein selected standard metropolitan statistical areas.

Also see Julian Samora, Op. cit., pp. 44-45.

TABU 26.Median income for selected ethnic groups, Southwest 1959

AriaWhite Nonwhite

Total I Spanishsurname

Negro Indian

Arizona $2, 395 $1, 945 $1, 622 $1, 000California 3,547 2,835 2,528 1,921Colorado 2, 856 I, 930 2, 289 1, 935New Mexico 2, 954 1, 913 1, 751 1, 337Texas 2,573 1,536 1,167 1,655Southwest 3, 186 2, 065 NA NA

These figures include the incomes of persons of spanish surname. The medianwould be higher if data were available separately for whites not having spanish stir-names.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960 SupplementaryReports, Population Characteristics of Selected Ethnic Groups in the Five Southweststates, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1968, table 6.

where they trailed both of these groups. It was notpossible to compute the median incomes for a): Negroesand Indians in the five States combined, bat data onthis are available for males separately considered. Fromthe source used in table 26 we find the Anglo malemedian income was $4,815; Spanish Surnamed male,$2,804; Negro male, $2,490; Indian male, $1,877.Thus, clearly, the incomes of persons of Spanish sur-name are much more on the order of incomes receivedby nonwhites than they are of incomes received byother whites. Furthermore, when family income isconverted into personal income, the income gap be-tween Spanish Surnameds and Anglos is increasedconsiderably due to the larger average size families ofthe former. This conversion also places the per personincome of Spanish Surnameds considerably below thatof nonwhites.

An interesting characteristic of the Spanish Surnamegroup is that the number of persons who are not em-ployed but receive income is only 35.1 percent of thenumber of their employed. This is a smaller percent-age than in the other groups. Table 27 shows that thenumber of Anglos with income is 43.4 percent morethan their number of employed persons. For Negroesthis percentage is higher, 45.2 percent; and for Indiansit is higher yet, 75.5 percent. From this it is apparentthat persons of Spanish surname are more dependenton employment for their incomes than are Anglos,Negroes, or Indians. However, the Orientals are evenmore dependent on employment income than Span-ish Surnamed persons; the number of Orientals whohave incomes is only 25.1 percent greater than thenumber who are employed.

These differences between the groups result fromtheir access to or eligibility for nonwork incomes. Suchnonwork income may come from dividends, rents,royalties, welfare payments, veterans' benefits, or awide range of other transfer payments.

A puzzling aspect of these differences is that theyvary considerably for some groups in some of the

53

States. The variations are least for Anglos and largestfor Orientals. Only in Colorado and New Mexico arethere exceptions to the order that Spanish Surnamedsare more dependent than Anglos on employment alonefor the incomes dr...), receive; and only in Colorado arethey less dependent than Negroes on employment alonefor these incomes. Even so, in each of these exceptedcases, their median incomes are below that of Anglos,and it is below that of Negroes in Colorado. It is alikely speculation that the increased proportion ofSpanish Surnameds who are receiving gionwork incomein Colorado and New Mexico are receiving it throughsome form of public income maintenance program, notfrom dividends, rents, or royalties.

As an aside, this situation points up how all of theestimates on the extent of poverty in the United Statescan be faulted. When w:- define the poor as those withincomes below some selected level of income, we auto-matically fail to include in the count those whose in-comes are above the poverty level as a result of incomethey receive only because they aro poor.

We rely basically on income data from the censusto estimate the extent of poverty. These will not giveus a whole count of the poor. The household question-naire used by the census enumerator inqui- of arespondent whether he has had income other thanearnings. If he has, the amount is entered on thequestionnaire as a total without distinguishing whetherit came from public assistance or stock dividends."

" U.3 Census of Population, 1960, Final Report PC(1),p. XXIV, question P34 on the household questionnaire.

Thus, those who received income because they werepoor enough to qualify for some form of income main-tenance program, and were thereby raised above thepoverty line, do not get counted as purr.

The point is not trivial. Over two 2.nd a half billiondollars a year goes to almost 51/2 minon recipientsfrom but one of the several public income maintenanceprograms, that for Aid to Dependent Children. All ofthe recipients of benefits from this program are poor.Bat a large number were raised above the poverty linewith time payments and are no longer counted as poor.However, instead of abolishing their poverty, the cur-rent payment for the cost of poverty simply has beenmade as it applies to their case.

Poverty has other aspects than the lack of income.One of these is the generally low level of healthfulnessof the poor. This is something that cannot quickly bealtered by the infusion of new money incomes. Thenet effects of poor health may have .,ccumulated for agenerationand may take as long azg be corrected.

Data on the health of persons of Spanish surnameare extremely sketchy. The National Health Surveydoes not gather data on this group, as it does for someothers. The existing information on their mortality andmorbidity rates comes from a few, scattered localstudies, and one State study which was made inCalifornia.

These studies indicate that there are significant dif-ferences in the mortality and morbidity rates of thisgroup compared to other ethnic and racial groups.However, these differences -,.re believed to be a result

TABLE 27 Percent of persons who derive income ( solely from sources other than employment, for selected ethnk arouPs, Southwest: 1959

Area Anglos

Total

Arizona:Number employed 344, 558

All persons with income 489, 938California:

Number employeo 4,861,314 1All persons with income 7, 089, 0251

Colorado:Number employed 569.430All persons with income 814, 273

New Mexico:Number employed 208, 038All persons with income 286, 678

Texas:Number employed 2, 534, 6331All Persons with income 3, 530, 756

Southwest:Number employed 8, 517, 9731All Persons with income 12,210,670 1

I Income of persons in 1959.

White Nonwhite

Spanish surname

Percent Total

Negro Indian Others

Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent

42.1

45.8

42.9

37.8

39. 3

43. 4

57,381 1

74,708

459,712162, 397

39,636161, 5211

65,472 1

95,761 1

381,222 1

500,832 1

I, 003, 42311,355,219 1

30.1

35.3

55. 2

46.2

31.3

35.1

12,994 1

20,180

289, 0051

428, 9721

13, 381

20,336

4,95718,2181

397, 6531565,0011

717,9901I, 042, 7071

55. 3

48.4

51.9

65.7

42. 0

45.2

13,007123, 403

10,78619,212 1

1,1852, 080

8,98815,289 1

I, 903'2,9521

35,869162,9361

79.9

78.1

75.5

70.1

55.1

75. 5

1,92212,3181

140,616.1

174, 3561

3,13714,4041

449

750

3, 0961

4, 825(

149,2201186,6531

20.6

23.9

40.3

67.0

55.8

25, 1

2 Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Hawa0ans. etc.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 196C. supplementary Reports, Series PC(51)-55, "Population Characteristics of Selected Ethnic Groups in the FiveSouthwest States," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1968, table 6.

54

of the socioeconomic differences between the groups,rather than their racial or cultural characteristics."

The death rates and the incidence of various dis-eases in the Spanish Surnamed population are thosethat are associated with a low income population. Astudy made in Colorado of that State's Spanish Sur-named population made this quite clear. It related thegenerally poorer hearth of the average Spanish Sur-named person to his economic deprivation and lack ofmedical care. That study produced the rather startlingstatEtic that the wean average age at death of SpanishSurnamed person. who survive their first year wasfound to be 56.73; for all others in the population itwas 67.46. They had over 10 years less of life thandid others in that State."

The Colorado study also found that the rate of deathat birth among the Spanish surnamed was about twiceas high as the expected rate and concluded that thiscame from poor prenatal care associated with poverty;it was "a reflection of a lower resistance to disease de-veloping out of weakness at birth due either to lack ofprenatal care or dietary deficiency of the mother." 17

These group differences in life expectancy, mortalityrates, and the age at which life ends stand as the finalarbiter of the significance of unmet health needs. Thepoint does not have to be belabored; that such unmetneeds can affect employabiiity is evident, although notquantified.

Another factor that is commonly associated with em-ployability is that of mobility. Table 28 shows the num-ber and the percent of males and of Spanish Surnamedmales over 5 years of age who in 1960 lived in thesame house that they had occupied in 1955. It alsogives the number and percent of persons whose changeof residence in that period was from another locationwithin their county of residence, or from a locationoutside that county. This last is taken as an indicationof the extent of residence moving that is likely to bejob related. Those movements of residence that a fam-ily makes within a county are less likely to be employ-ment motivated, because they are so often made inrespo-ase to changes in family size, family disruptions,altered economic circumstances, or other causes thatare not job related. Thus, the comparison of the rate ofintercounty movement of Spanish Surnamed males tothat of all males in the population may be a roughindication of the employment mobility of the twopopulations.

" A. Taher Moustafa and Gertrud Weiss, "Health Statusand Practices of Mexican Americans," Mexican AmericanStudy Project, Advance Report 11, Graduate School of Busi-ness Administration, UCLA, Los Angeles, 1968, 1-52 pp.

1° Colorado Commission on Spanish-surnamed Citizens,"The Status of Spanish-Surnamed Citizens in Colorado," Re-port to the Colorado General Assembly, Denver, 1967, p. 90.

17 Ibid., pp. 102-103.

This comparison suggests that the Spanish Sur-named males have only one-half the employment :no-bility of all the males in the population. Only 13.2percent of the Spanish Surnamed males had changedtheir residence across county lines during the 5-yearperioe, whereas 25.4 percent of all males had done so.This difference between the two groups varies fromState tc State, but in each State the Spanish Surnamedgroup appears to be less mobile than all males as agroup. Although they made intramunty residentialmoves at a higher rate than all males, the Spanish Sur-named males crossed county or State lines at a muchlesser rate. However, any conclusion that the SpanishSurnamed are less mobile than others in their searchfor employment must be treated as tentative and uncer-tain. It can also be observed that Spanish Surnamedsmay appear to be less mobile simply because a verysmall part of their population resides outside theSouthwest. Very few of them could have migratedfrom other States, whereas the potential for Anglo andnonwhite migration from other States is much greater.

The apparent lack of mobility of the Spanish sur-named has been attributed by some to their being morerooted to given geographical areas and more com-mitted to extended family situations which restraintheir movement to new areas, even when those areasmight offer then) improved employment prospects. Thisconclusion can be questioned.

There are other readily observable traits of thosewith Spanish surname that belie such a conclusion. Forone thing, it is inconsistent with the fact that suchlarge numbers of them have migrated across interna-tional lines, those of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, andother Central and South American countries, and alsowith the fact that such an exceptionally large numberof those who have not so migrated have at least oneparent who did. In the Southwest in 1960, the numberof Spanish Surnamed persons who were either born inMexico or had one or both parents born there wasfour-fifths as large as the number of those who werenative born of native-born parents." Add to this thatalthough these families have a more recent tie to amore rural, folk society, they are yet more urbanizedthan the population as a whole. Furthermore, thosewho are still attached to agriculture are in large partthat industry's migratory labor supply throughout theregion. From these characteristics it would appeardoubtful that there is some innate cultural reluctanceon their part to migrate. They have quite obviouslymoved from nation to nation, from rural to urban,and, in many instances, from one culture to anotherseeking better employment opportunities.

These contrary characteristics are suggestive of whatmay be an unexamined facet of the problem of mobil-ity. Why do those who have moved so much now

"Julian Samora, Op. cit., table 1.

55

TA

BLE

28.

-Res

iden

ce in

195

5 of

mal

e S

pani

sh S

urna

med

pop

ulat

ion

and

tota

l mal

e po

pula

tion,

5 y

ears

old

and

ove

r, S

outh

wes

t: 19

60

Sta

te

Per

cent

Sam

esa

me

Diff

eren

tP

erce

ntT

otal

hous

e as

hous

eho

use

indi

ffere

ntS

ame

Per

cent

Diff

eren

tP

erce

ntS

ame

Per

cent

Diff

eren

tP

erce

ntin

196

019

60U

nite

dho

use

inco

unty

sam

ern

enty

diffe

rent

Sta

tesa

me

Sta

tedi

ffere

ntS

tites

rU

nite

dco

unty

coun

tyS

tate

Sta

teS

tate

s

Mig

rant

s

Ariz

ona:

Spa

nish

sur

nam

e85

,247

36,3

6042

.638

,022

44.6

26,8

3131

.411

,191

13.1

4,40

85.

16,

783

7.9

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n56

9,24

5If

679

33.3

347,

679

61.1

158,

072

27.7

189,

607

33.3

30, 8

205.

415

8, 7

8727

9C

alifo

rnia

:S

pani

sh s

urna

me

624,

508

222,

081

35.6

330,

307

53.4

235,

389

37.7

94,9

1815

.249

,657

8.0

45,2

617.

2T

otal

pop

ulat

ion

6, 9

43, 6

592,

507

, 594

36.1

4, 0

47, 0

7358

.32,

237,

959

32.2

1,80

9,11

426

.079

2, 2

1711

.41.

016,

897

14.6

Col

orad

o:

Spa

nish

sur

nam

e67

, 058

28, 4

8642

.536

, 574

54.5

24, 0

7435

.912

, 500

18.6

7, 6

6111

.44,

839

7.2

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n76

3,63

930

1, 9

4539

.543

3,78

556

.819

2,10

025

.124

1,68

531

.698

,230

12.9

143,

455

18.3

New

Mex

ico:

Spa

nish

sur

nam

e11

3,46

266

,239

58.4

43,5

8038

. 529

,692

26.2

13,9

8812

.37,

560

6.7

6,42

85.

7

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n41

0,33

216

7, 0

7740

.722

8,39

955

.710

3,76

825

.312

4,63

130

.429

,386

7.2

95,2

4523

.2T

exas

:

Spa

nish

sur

nam

e58

2,96

028

2,93

948

.527

1, 7

8046

.621

0, 1

3236

.06'

, 648

10.6

48, 5

788.

313

, 070

2.2

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n4,

152,

885

1,80

5,14

943

.52,

196

,327

52.9

1, 2

96, 3

4431

.289

9, 9

8321

.752

8,52

012

.737

1, 4

638.

9S

outh

wes

t:S

pani

sh s

urna

me

1,47

3, 2

3063

6,10

543

.272

0,36

348

.952

6,11

835

.719

4,24

513

.211

7,86

48.

076

,381

5.2

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n12

,839

,760

4,97

1,39

438

.77,

253,

263

56.5

3,98

8,24

331

.13,

265

,020

25.4

1,47

9,17

311

.5.,,

785

,847

13.9

I Tho

se w

ho h

ave

mov

ed fr

om a

broa

d ar

e no

t inc

lude

d in

the

mig

rant

figu

res,

Sou

rce:

Tab

le )

00, R

esid

ence

in 1

955

of th

e po

pula

tion

5 ye

ars

old

and

over

, by

age,

col

or, a

nd s

ex, f

or th

eS

tate

and

for

citie

s of

250

,000

or

mor

e: 1

960

U.S

. Cen

sus

of th

e P

opul

atio

n, 1

960,

"D

etai

led

Cha

ract

eris

tics"

P((

1) -

40, 7

0, 3

30, 4

50, a

nd 6

D a

nd T

able

3, S

ocia

l cha

ract

eris

tics

of w

hite

per

sons

of S

pani

sh s

urna

me,

by

nativ

-ity

and

par

enta

ge fo

r 5

sout

hwes

tern

. Sta

tes,

urb

an a

nd r

ural

, 196

0, U

.S. C

ensu

s of

the

Pop

ulat

ion,

196

0, "

Per

sons

of

Spa

nish

Sur

nam

e,"

5 so

uthw

este

rn S

tate

s, P

C(7

)1B

.

mo,e so little? Are limited employment opportunitiesa consequence of inadequate mobility, or is inadequatemobility a consequence of limited employment oppor-tunity? Or can each be a function of the other?

One positive conclusion that comes from the 1960census figures on the movement of persons betweencounties is that there is a wide difference in the rateof movement of those in some occupations compared tothose in other occupations. For instance, in the totalpopulation of the United States, 33.5 percent of allmale professional, technical and kindred workers over14 years of age moved from one county to another inthe 5 years preceding the census. But only 15.8 percentof those in labor occupations made such moves." Didthose who moved get the better jobs, or did those whohad better access to better jobs move? To what extentdoes inadequate mobility hamper job opportunity andto what extent does inadequate job opportunity reducemobility? The answers to this are beyond the scopeof this study, but it deserves exploration.

The Social Security Administration's importantstudy of labor mobility in the American economy has

" US. Census of the Population, Mobility for States andState Economic Areas, PC (2)-2B, table 9.

already shaken some of the concepts of conventionaleconomic theory on the functioning of the labor mar-ket.20 That study underscores the great amount of in-voluntary mobility, mobility which is not a result ofany maximizing behavior, on the part of those whochange jobs. It found that involuntary job changesdominated in the aggregate, and that the impact of thison earnings was such that a $1,820 difference in meanearnings existed in favor of "stayers" rather than"movers." The extent to which this might apply tominority group workers, for whom there are alreadysystematic tendencies that tend to shift them to low-earnings-level industries, is a needed area for research.The SSA study concluded that in the case the Negromale his labor mobility behavior is more likely to beaffected and regulated by factors which are outsidehis own power to control. The same might be truefor the Spanish Surnamed male worker.21

"U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,"Interindustry Labor Mobility in the United States:" 1957 to1960, Social Security Administration, Research Report No.18, 1967.

Ibid , p. 89.

57

A Further Word.About the Region

The population of the Southwest is more urbanizedthan that of the United States. Over 80 percent of itspeople live in urban areas, as compared with only 70percent of the U.S. population.' The lack of water inbroad areas has driven the people into an oasis society;they cluster largely along the water edges, besidestreams in mountain valleys, and around the scatteredwells. In 1965 there were over 32 million of themone-sixth of the Nation's population.

The two great watersheds made by the ContinentalDivide tilt the land and the people toward the seas.Over half of the people live in the maritime counties,those with shores open to the Pacific Ocean or theGulf of Mexico, and their numbers are increasing at aspectacular rate. From 1920 to 1966 the populationof the Southwest increased 252.6 percentmore thanfive times the U.S. rate!

There are reasons to believe that the Southwest willcontinue to grow in population at a faster rate thanthe Nation. Projections for the period from the 1960census to the year 1985 indicate that all five Stateswill experience a higher percent of net growth in popu-lation than. will the United States. The net increasefor the United States during this projected period ispredicted to be 48.1 percent, while the increase for thefive States will range from 54 percent in Texas to 129.8percent in Arizona. California is expecting a 106.3-percent net increase, New Mexico 85.5 percent, andColorado 69.6 percent. When the net increases ex-pected in the five States are taken from the expectedU.S. total, the percentage increase for the UnitedStates will be substantially less than the 48.1-percentforecast.'

The Southwest had a phenomenal increase in totalemployment from 1940 to 1960. Its rate of employ-

1 An interesting facet of the urbanization of persons of Span-ish surname is that they, too, are about 80 percent urbanized,and over 75 percent of them live in the Standard Metropoli-tan Statistical Areas, which identify the major urban concen-trations. This contrasts with the fact that less than 65 percentof the U.S. population lives in such areas.

2U.S. Bureau of Census: "Historical Statistics ColonialTimes to 1957," Series A 123-180, p. 12 and "Current Popu-lation Report,," Series P25, No. 354, Dec. 8, 1966,

'Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "StateData and State Rankings," part 2, i964, S-1.

58

ment increase in the two decades was more than twiceas fast as it was in the United States. These changesare shown in table 29.

TABLE 29.Growth in total employment. Southwest and United States, 1940-60

AreaTotal employment

.74%1:1940 1960

Arizona 150,173 446,829 197.5California 2, 525, 281 6, 06i, 748 140.0Colorado 349,735 654,716 87.2New Mexico 140, 269 309, 812 120 8Texas 2.138, 355 3, 480, 858 62. 7

Southwest 5, 303, 813 10, 953, 963 106.5

United States 45, 375, 81S 66, 372, 649 46. 2

Source: U.S. Office of Business Economics, "Growth Patterns in Employment bCounty 1940-1950 and 1950-1960," Washington, D.C., 1965, vols. 6, 7, 8.

In recent years, the States of the Southwest havebegun to register unemployment rates that compareunfavorably with the U.S. rates. Chart 1 shows that in1960 only California had an unemployment rate inexcess of the U.S. rate. By 1967 three of the States hadrates higher than the United States. However, thereis considerable evidence that these rates are of only;:mited use in suggesting how worker.- are faring in theregion's labor market.

The word unemployment is too tightly packaged. Itmust be recalled that measuring the rate of unemploy-ment is done at one point in time and that it is nota measure of the number of those who have experi-enced unemployment during a period of time, nordoes it measure those who have part-time employmentand want fuller employment. This is illustrated by theunrevised 3.9 percent unemployment rate that wasposted for the United States in 1966. A 3.9 percentrate that year meant that less than 3 million personswere out of work at a given time. It was based on anaverage per week. Actually, there were 10.5 millionpersons who were unemployed at one or more timesduring that year.

U.S. Department of Labor, "Manpower Report of thePresident," April 1967, p. 123.

TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY STATE: 1960 - 1967

TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT - THOUSANDS

TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT - % OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1988

1987

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1988

1987

AR

IZO

NA

2228

25

2526

2721

244.

75.

85.

15.

05.

15.

1as

4.2

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

367

446

389

411

422

429

374

389

5 8

sa5.

86.

06.

05.

956

56

CO

LOR

AD

O25

3032

3528

2725

2636

4.2

4.3

4.6

373.

53.

232

NE

W M

EX

ICO

1822

1920

2119

1818

5.4

6.5

5.6

5.8

5.9

5.5

5.0

5.0

TE

XA

S19

022

019

520

418

616

913

012

15.

36.

05.

35.

44.

84.

33.

22.

9

UN

ITE

D S

TA

TE

S3,

852

4.71

43.

911

4.07

03.

786

3.36

62.

875

,75

5.5

6.7

5.5

575.

24.

53.

83.

8

CA

L

U S

.N

MT

EX

AR

IZ

CO

L

NM

CA

L

AR

IZu

s

CO

LT

EX

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1267

SOURCE:

U.S.

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

LA

BO

R, M

AN

PO

WE

R R

EP

OR

T O

F T

HE

PR

ES

IDE

NT

, TR

AN

SM

ITT

ED

TO

LO

NG

RE

SS

AP

RIL

1968.

SO

UR

CE

: pp.

214. 259

TA

BLE

SA

-11,

D-3, D-4

The index of subemployment, which the Der tmentof Labor has begun to construe t, offers a more mean-ingful concept of employment opportunities. This indextakes into consideration not only joblessness but theextort of part-time work when full-time work is wantedby the jobholder. Also, it counts those who are workingat such marginal jobs that they cannot make adequateearnings, such as heads of households who are under65 and earn less than $60 a week, and oilers under65 who earn less than $56 a week. It also estimates thenumber of able males who have withdrawn from thelabor force or have not been located in other surveys.Using these criteria the Department has constructeda fate of subemployment for 10 slum areas in thecountry, including three from the Southwest'.

The slum areas of Sal. Antonio and Phoenix rankedfirst and third in the survey, with New Orleans holdingthe second place. The subemployment rate for SanAntonio was 47 percentalmost one-half its laborforce; for New Orleans it was 45 percent; and forPhoenix 42 percent. Other slum areas in the survey,ranked in order of their percentage rates, were St.Louis, 39; Philadelphia, 34; New York, 29; San Fran-cisco 25; and Boston, 24.6

The range from Boston's 24 percent subemploymentrate to San Antonio's 47 percent tells a greal dealabout the differences between these two cities. Althoughthe unemployment rate in the Roxbury area of Bostonwas virtually identical at the time with that of thecast and west sides of San Antonio, employment pros-pects wore much worse in San Antonio. By itself,therefore, the rate of unemployment tells only a par-tial story. The composite subemployment rate disclosesmuch more about the adequacy of employment oppor-tunities in a community. And the sampling of citiesthus far suggests that persons in disadvantaged areasof southwestern cities are at considerably more of anemployment disadvantage than are those who live insomo of the more widely known slum areas of thecountry.

Another measure of the adequacy of employmentopportunities may be the number of persons going intoprivate household employment. Cite characteristic ofa well-to-do class is its ability to command the per-sonal service of others. The notion of a house withservants universally suggests affluence, and the maid,the butler, the housekeeper, the family nurse are allsuggestive of a inaster-servant relationship that resultsfrom that affluence. One sees this with the movie-sponsored image of a "proper Bostonian" attended byservants,

Ibid., pp. 74-76° Ibid,, pp. 74-76.

60

Despite that image, the chances of finding servantsin a household in San Antonio are over twice as goodas they are in Boston. The extent of private householdworkers per household in Boston is only 1.8 percent;the number in San Antonio is twice as high, 3.7 per-cent. Even in Laredo, often referred to as America'spoorest city, the chances of finding servants in a homeare over two and one-half times better than in Boston.As it happens, one can find in any city of the South-west, as perhaps also the Southeast, a larger percent-age of the labor force resigned to serving as privatehousehold workers than is the case in Boston or NewYork City, despite all the wealth the latter communitiescan command.'

The Southwest and the Southeast recently came tothe Nation's attention in quite another way. When theCitizens Board of Inquiry Into Hunger and Malnutri-tion in the United States reported in 1968 on the un-met nutritional needs of the country, the Southwestcame into focus as one of the main areas with thoseneeds. It, along with the Southeast, was seen as a regionwith large numbers of parsons suffering from malnu-trition. The Southwest and the Southeast containedvirtually all of the counties that the board of inquiryidentified as "emergency hunger counties," and, exceptfor most of California and northern Colorado, the over-whelming majority of the remaining counties in theother parts of the Southwest were identified as piaceshaving serious hunger problerns.s

These findings were treated with editorial surprisein the Nation's press, for they were in sharp contrastnot only to the notions of pervading affluence in oursociety, but also to all of the accounts of legendarywealth, industrial growth, and prosperity that are as-sociated with the Southwest. The picture of hungerabiding there alongside great wealth struck some asimprobable.

But there is an even more improbable situationtroubling the region. Its improbability comes from thecasual treatment given to something of such immenseimportance.

One of the major problems of the Southwest is notjust that it contains large numbers of the hungry poor,but that it is the only part of the United States thathas daily and intimate contact with the povery of an-other nation. Only a fence line or river that is oftenwadable separate the four border States from Mexico.

These computations were made by relating the number ofprivate household workers to the number of households inselected cities. Source: 1960 Census of Population, Vol 1,tables 13 and 74.

" Citizens Board of Inquiry Into Hunger and Malnutritionin the United States, "Hunger, U.S.A.," A Report, NewCommunity Press, Washington, D.C., 1968, 100 pp.

The Border

The 1,800-mile border that the region shares withMexico gives rise to unique problems. It is along thisborder that the two nations spill into each other. Foreach community on one side of the border there is acompanion community on the other. These twin-likecommunities are bound to each other in an economicand cultural symbiosis that is uncommon to most in-ternational boundaries. But the peculiar economic im-pact of the border extends inland, far beyond theborder communities.

The border itself is something of a fiction. it be-comes real when some national policy of either of theNations wants to assert the fact of its existence, butmost often it is a permeable thing, a membrane thatjoins rather than separates the nationally distinctcommunities.

For many persons along the border, the Mexicantowns offer an economical place to live. They fine itpossible to work on the U.S. side but reside in Mexico.Such persons are called "commuters." The FederalGovernment has shown some reticence about examin-ing the commuter situation. For example, the Govern-ment was brought to court in 1961 to show cause whyit should not restrict the flow of commuters. The suitwa3 a civil action brought by the Texas State AFLCIO. The State labor federation charged that the flowof commuters had an adverse effect on the ''ages andearnings of Americans.' The case seemed to have irri-tated a governmental nerve at the highest level, forbefore it was over the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk,had made affidavit in the trial.

The Secretary argued that any serious restriction incommuter traffic would have unfavorable, and possi-bly serious consequences for the relations between thetwo conntries. It was his view that closing off the com-muters would damage the economy of the region onboth sides of the border:

"In a very real sense, the cities along the border- -

for example, El Paso and Juarez. Eagle Pass andPiedras Negras, Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, Browns-ville and Matamoras, San Diego and Tijuanahavegrown into single economic communities. A disrup-

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, CivilActions 31G8-61.

tion in the life of these communities would do realharm to good neighbor relations in the are '

Although Secretary Rusk said that the United Statesand Mexican cities are "single economic communities,"our governmental statistics do not treat them as such.For instance, we have no way of knowing th..: extentof um:mployment in these "single economic commun-ities." Unemployment figures, which so often deter-mine an area's elis'oility for programs of Federalcommunity as :,.tance (e.g., economic development aid,accelerated public works projects, and extended unem-ployment benefits), are based on a survey of personsin dwelling units within th..1 United States, whichleaves out commuter workers who are not consideredin estimating the rate of unemployment in the locallabor force.3

It is :iossible for total employment to drop in a U.S.border town without its unemployment rate goingup. This would be the case where a large number ofcommuters were laid off in an industry; and someU.S. industries along the border have a decided p-ef-erence for employing Mexican nationals. Thus, thepresence of a pool of experienced and unemployedworkers a few hundred yards across a tenuous borderis an tier- present retardant to those wage determin-ing forces that operate for workers elsewhere withinthe United States. The incontestable poverty of largenumbers of Mexican workers, including many skilledworkers, is a steady c;eterrent to the aspirations ofdomestic workers who must compete with them. Ifnot their actual poverty, then the difference in expec-tations between foreign and domestic workers leads tothe same end.

In the court trial mentioned, the U.S. Departmentof Labor accepted the estimates of the Mexican Gov-ernment that its nationals working in the United Statesaccounted for 36 percent of the labor income earnedby residents in Juarez, 33 percent in Tijuana, 31 per-cent in Nuevo Laredo, 30 percent in Matamoros, 23percent in Piedras Negras, and 22 percent in Reynosa,

"Study of Population and Immigration Problems," Com-mittee on Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 1, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Special Series No. 11, Washington, 1963,p. 184.

Ibid., p. 172, letter of Seymour L Wolfbein, Director,Office of Manpower, Automation, and Training, U.S. De-partment of Labor.

61

Mexicali and Nogales.4 These estimates are of enor-mous importance. No other cities in the United Statescontend with a situation similar in scope. The U.S.worker who competes with the traffic of .vorkers fromMexico is caught in a situation where he pays a sub -stantial part of what the Secretary of State regards as aform of foreign aid to a neighboring nation.

In another lawsuit in 1959, in which effol is weremade to shut off a stream of Mexican workers whowere working at a struck meatpacking plant in El Paso,the U.S. Attorney General advanced .he view that thecommuters enjoyed the status of lawfully domiciledresident aliens and hence could not be excluded, eventhough they were not actually domiciled in this coun-try. The court observed that this c 31,cept of the statusof commuters was "an amiable. fiction." This "ami-able fiction" has persisted for over 40 years. It still does.

The uniqueness of this tolerance I 3r an alien laborsupply should be contrasted with those policies thatwere developed many years ago to deal with the im-portation of clicap labor 'Tito otla.: parts of the country.American labor union officials historically have ob-jected to unrestricted immigration into the UnitedStates. Often they have been chided for their illiberalstance in this regard. They fa; ored the exclusion ofChinese, a "gentlemen's a rTeement" to keep outJapanese, and generally tighter chokes .nt the flood-gates that brought European aliens to this country.Their urgings undoubtedly were xenophobic, but theirprimary motivation was more a matter of laboreconomics. They could hot accomplish the effectiveorganization of workers so long as there existed an opensluice to bring new workers into the areas they en-deavored to organize.

The Civil V, ar produced a temporary labor shortage,and for at least two decades thereafter the governmentaided employers in contracting for alien labor. In 1885the alien contract labor law was passed to curb theInducement of aliens to come to this country. "Theobjective of such inducements was to oversupply thelabor market so that domestic laborers would be Breedto work at reduced wages." 6 The 1885 statute wastightened in 1891, reaffirmed in 1907, and again in1917. However, the 1917 act contained a proviso whichpermitted the Commissioner of Immigration and Nat-uralization to approve temporary admission of aliens.This is the discretionary authority that has enabledMexican nationals to enter the country for work in erylarge numbers, as they have under a variety of pro-grams, including the different "Bracero Programs"since World War II, wh :reby alien workers come fortemporary periods of farm work. It places unions inborder communities in the position of fighting the

`Ibid., p. 156.p. 156.

° Ibid., p. 185, statement prepared by the Immigrationand Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

62

battles that unions in other regions of the countrysuccessfully won either 40 or 80 years ago,

A study of the El Paso-Juarez communities by twosociologists confirms these observations:

The El Paso garment industries employed morethan 4,000 persons of whom only about 300 weredues-paying union members. Union leaders com-plained that it was very difficult to organize theworkeis, many of whom lived in C. Juarez. Manyworkers were women who regarded their jobs astemporary. Moreover, it was customary for a reguk.....proportion of these to migrate to Los .'',neeles as soonas they had accumulated enough savings. Since mostworkers were earning more money (between $32and $56 per week in 19r than hank clerks in C.Juarez, to cite one example, they saw little need tojoin the uoion. The peculiar problem uf residing inone nation and working in another raised complexquestions about workers' legal rights. As a result ofall these factors, union leaden:, were beginning topressure the U.S. Government to prohibit the em-ployment in El Paso of persons residing in C. Juarez.This move was strongly and so far successfully re-sisted by El Paso businessmen.'

Their study makes the point that Juarez must notbe thought of as a village outpost of El Paso. Thepopulation of Juarez was only about 5 percent lessthan that of El Paso in 1960, and was actually largerat the time of the 1950 census. The "Mexico VIIICenso General de Poblacion 1960" set the rate of un-employment in Juarez at 15 percent when the U.S.census that year revealed a rate of only 6 percent un-employment in El Paso. But the pressures to work inthe United States were not generated entirely by un-employment. Perhaps even more pressure came fromthe fact that at the time of the censuses the per capitaannual income in Juarez was only $640, while it was$1,920 in El Paso, over three times as much."'

The Bureau of Employment Security of the U.S.Department of Labor found that the rate of unem-ployment in 1966 in Texas border cities was almost 95percent larger than in Texas interior cities; that firmswhich employ alien commuters tend to pay them lowerwages than they pay U.S. residents for the same work,and that such firms tend to pay lower wages than firmsthat employ only U.S. residents!)

The commuter is but one of the forms of Mexicanimmigration. Commuters can be either aliens or citi-zens. Aliens who come in may be either "green-card-

' William V. D'Antonio and William H. Form, "Influentialsin Two Border Cities," A Study in Community Decisionmaking, University of Notre Dame Press, 1965, p. 25.

Ibid., p. 42, table II." U.S. Department of Labor, "The 'Commuter' Problem

and Low Wages and Unemployment in American Cities onthe Mexican Border," Bureau of Employment Security, OfficeFarm Labor Service, April 1967, pp. 1-36 (mimeographed).

ers" or "bine-carders." The green card ( Immigrationform J-131) authorizes the alien to work and liveanywhere in the United States he wishes; the blue card(Immigration Form 1-186) authorizes him to enter theUnited States not to exceed 72 hours at a time. Butthere seems to be no assured way of keeping track ofthe 72 hours as it applies to an individual.

There are other types of entry both legal and illegal,temporary and permanent. The numbers of illegal en-trants, the so-called "wetbacks," have been astronomi-cal in some years (ever a million were actually appre-hended and returned to Mexico in 1954) ; then, thereare the border crossers who come for shopping, visiting,business, attending schooi, or as tourists; finally, thereare the contracted-tor agricultural workers who con-tinue to come for seasonal work under government-sponsored work arrangements.

The numbers of all these can only be estimated.The numbers of persons in some of these immigrantcategories are shrouded in official obscurities. Yet resi-dents in any border community can substitute theirobserved experience for this official silence. They seeit as a phenomenon that has existed since the UnitedStates gained the Southwest.

The "1965 Annual Report" of the Immigration andNaturalization Service recoins that of the 110,371 de-portable aliens located and returned that year, Mexi-can nationals exceeded those from all other countriescombined. And of the 55,349 Mexicans who werereturned, well over half had made surreptitious en-triesin contrast to less than 10 percent of deportedpersons from all other countries who had done so."Over 90 percent of the deported aliens who enteredwithout legal inspection in 1965 were Mexicans! Theycame ;n under the hoods of automobiles, by foot acrossthe desert, across railroad trestles and rivers, hiddenin freight eats. They continue to come as they have al-ways come. Their coming is assisted by organized com-mercial smugglers, the "coyotes" who prey on them,the counterfeiters and salesmen of fraudulent docu-ments. In 1965 the Immigration Service's FraudulentDocument Center in El Paso reported it had had itsmost productive year since inception." The Centermay do an able job of investigating suspected docu-ments, but the belief still prevails among MexicanAmericans that for $100 in Mexico one can buy afraudulent American birth or baptismal certificate toback up a claim to citizenship. The U.S. border is aCircean attraction for the poor. The border towns aretheir staging area, thus forcing these towns to continueto feed on what has made them ill. They importpoverty.

" Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department ofJustice, Annual Report, 1965, pp. 7-8.

" Ibid., p. 12.

The Mexican-American Study Project has recordedthe history and some of the implications of Mexicanimmigrv:on pressures. That study estimates that aminimum of 60,000 persons crossed the border regu-larly in 1960 for employment. It estimates that 17,976of the 32,684 permanent immigrants in 1960 enteredthe labor force. This figure represents the magnitudeof the annual cumulative increase in the permanentlabor force from this source. That same year the num-ber of Mexican workers who took jobs in this countrywas at least 191,176, and most of those jobs were inthe Southwest. Almost 90 percent of the permanentMexican immigrants give one of the five SouthwesternStates as their intended place of residence."

Ill's situation, complicated and fraught as it is withimplications for foreign policy, is taken as the basisfor one of the recommendations of this study. Most ofthe efforts to stem the tide of Mexican nationals haveturned on the "adverse effect" proscription of immi-gration law. This means that in each instance A is in-cumbent on the complaining party or agency todemonstrate that the entry of foreign nationals has anadverse economic effect on resident citizens. This isa great burden to carry to trial. The nature of practi-cally all economic data, such as what it needed toestablish this claim, is that they are measurements ofthings past, general rather than specific, and can onlycautiously and tentatively be applied to current spe-cific situations. If they satisfy the requirements of thelaw, they do so after the fact, which offers smallassistance to the complainants.

It is suggested here that there is new law availablethat might supplant the adverse effect doctrine. Thatlaw is reposed in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and, to the knowledge of this writer, has not beenapplied to this situation which plagues these borderStates. Since the previously mentioned cases werebrought to trial, immigration statutes and rules onthis subject may have to meet another test of law.Congress has stated that a new rule shall apply, onewhich makes unlawful any employment that favors aparticular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."National origin" may be the key for unlocking judicialinability to redress these complaints.

An employer who has shown a demonstrable prefer-ence for hiring either commuters or resident aliens mustcertainly, at some point, need to meet the test of show-ing that this does not run afoul of a national injunctionagainst showing preference for certain classes of work-ers because of their national origin, in this instance,

"Mexican- American Study Project, "Mexican Immigrationto the United States: The Record and Its Implications,"Advance Report 2, by Leo Grebler, Division of Research,Graduate School of Business Administration, UCLA, Janu-ary 1966, p. 64.

63

Mexico. Observable evidence up and down the borderis available to show that, for whatever reason, there areemployers who have a predominance of commutersworking in their establishmentswhy should this notbe tested against the strictures Congress laid down in1964? Inasmuch as the act permits a test by action ofany of the Commissioners, as well as of an :avolvedindividual, this is not something that need await thehappenchance of individual workers with motivationand resources to endeavor reversing a high policy ofthe U.S. Government.

The Acting General Counsel of the Commissionhas already ruled that the ac does not prohibit anempioyer and union from entering an agreement thatdiscriminates against the employment of nonresidentaliens as a class. This ruling is based on the groundsthat this does not constitute discrimination based onnational origins since to rule otherwise would conflictwith government policy as expressed in the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act, which states, perhaps some-

what ineffectively in this instance, that domestic laborshould be protected from competition of foreign labor."

Should not the Commission press government policyfurther to see if the predilection of some employers touse Mexican nationals violates title VII, whether ornot this produces adverse economic effects on thedomestic workers most immediately involved? Theutilization of a class of workers who have a commonnational origin as recent as each morning they com-mute to work would appear to offend title VII, what-ever the econor iic considerations. It seems unlikely thatthe court would construe title VII as the same type of"amiable fiction" that it found the residency require-ments of immigration law to be. This suggestion, ofcourse, is based on a layman's logic, but perhaps itdeserves exploration by the Commission's GeneralCounsel.

"Commerce Clearing House, Inc., Employment Practices,Decisions and Rulings, Equal Employment Practices Commis-sion, 17,304.61, "Discrimination against nonresident aliens,"No. 50-55, Aug. 18, 1967, p. 7413-35-36.

Our Manifest Destiny

It was observed at the outset that the central his-torical fact that is pertinent to this study is that theSouthwest once represented a colonial empire to theUnited States. In today's world there is an unpleasant-ness about this admission. Most historians avoidedmaking it in the past, and all would not accept ittoday.

Nevertheless, the acknowledgement of colonialismand colonial attitudes is as essential to an understand-ing of the present problems of Spanish Surnameds asis the acknowledgment of slavery in the case of NegroAmericans. The shadows of the past do extend intothe present, and the ones that concern us here beginwith this country's initial annoyance over a Spanishpr,sence on the continent.

Spain's frontier of settlements in lands that now area part of the United States once exceeded by far thatof any other European power. From its first permanentsettlement in Florida in 1565 to its retrocession ofLouisiana to France in 1800, Spain endeavored to holda line of settlements that extended from St. Augustine,Fla., to New Orleans, thence to St. Louis and west toSan Francisco by way of Santa Fe, N.M. The loss ofthe Louisiana territory separated its holdings on thecontinent. When the United States acquired that ter-ritory from France 3 years later, the area was set foran historic unwinding of national destinies that bestcan be compared to a corrida, a pageant of the bull-ring. There was never uncertainty as to which nationwas the matador. It was a confrontation between ayoung, zestful nation born in the English culturalstream and a distant, ancient nation trying to holdtogether an empire that had brought Latin civiliza-tion to most of the Americas within the 300 yearspreceding.

The metaphor of the bullring is not overdrawn.The ceremonial ploys that characterized the confron-tation in its early stages were clearly meant to hastenthe fatal moments intended from the first. The trum-peting of the first bars of what was to be called "Mani-fest Destiny" could only mean death to Spain.

The United States doubled in size with the LouisianaPurchase. The country's boundaries on the west sideof the Mississippi Riv-r became an almost exact re-flection of the shape and size of its boundaries on theeast. It was as though the continent had been creasedalong that river to make a giant inkblot which spread

a symmetrical wing of the Nation's boundaries overthe lands to the west.

In 1819 the King of Spain ceded Florida to theUnited States, following Jackson's invasion of thatarea. In exchange, the United States disavowed anyclaims to what is now Texas and to the other landsthat lay to the west and southwest in what was knownas New Spain. The Treaty of 1819 for the first timedefined a boundary between New Spain and the greatcentral river system that the United States had pur-chased from France. This boundary created forAmericans the concept of a southwestern region ad-jacent to their country. The line of separation crossedthe continent from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific,setting the northern and eastern limits of the areareferred to today as the Southwest.

When the boundary was drawn, none of the namesof the present southwestern States had entered ourlanguage. There were allusions to vast, imprecise areassometimes referred to as Texas and California, butthere was no agreement as to their bounds, for theydid not exist as natural or political entities. The poli-tical entities that confronted each other across thetreaty line were the Spanish Crown and the UnitedStates of America.'

American maps for a period thereafter designatedthe entire area north of the 42d parallel as "Oregon."All the expanse below the parallel was simply marked"The Great American Desert" and the "Great SandyPlain"covering over 1,500 miles of geography un-known to Americans. The only other designations smthese maps were the names of Indian groupings super-imposed over the areas that they were thought to Ire-quent.2 Little else was known about the region in theUnited States.

The erratic thrusts of the westward migration wereexpected to bypass the Southwest and head only for themore salubrious Oregon Territory. This view did notreckon with the expansionist designs and covetous pol-icies that obsessed of' et- Americans 20 years later. Inthe next two decades Arrerican settlers moved to the

T. Harry Williams, Richard N. Current, Frank Friedel,"A History of the United States: [To 18771," Second edition,revised, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1965, p. 308.

Charles 0. Paullin, "Atlas of the Historical Geography ofthe United States," Carnegie Institute of Washington and theAmerican Geographical Society of New York, 1932, the"Smith Map of 1843," Plate 32 (c).

65

borderland frontiers. Some moved beyond it, goingoutside the United States, often moving in fugitivefashion : sometimes they went to be free of persecu-tion, as in the case of the Mormons. The notion thatthe national boundaries should follow them becamepopularized in the tantalizing phrase, "Manifest Des-tiny," a belief that there was a providential designthat their kind, the English-speaking "Anglo Ameri-cans," should fill the continent from ocean to ocean.

Spain's colonial empire southwest of the interna-tional boundary gave way to the Republic of Mexicoin 1820. The lands adjacent to the United States,which had long been administrative outposts farremoved from the main centers of Spanish activity,became States of the new Mexican nation : Texas, NewMexico, and Upper California. These areas alreadyhad a long history tying them to the European cul-tural stream. Their local history began in 1540 whenCoronado spent several years exploring the region,twice wintering peaceably with the Pueblo Indianswho dwelt then as now in cities with three-story houses.This happened 67 years before the first English settle-ment at Jamestown! Santa Cruz was established in1603, 4 years before Jamestown and 17 years beforethe Pilgrims found their landing rock on the eastcoast. And, as has been said, Santa Fe, the presentNew Mexico capital, had been the territorial capitalfor over a decade before Jamestown.

The Spanish-speaking people in these areas knewthat their forebears had established many things onAmerican lands before the first Englishman everreached those lands. They farmed and mined; theybuilt aqueducts that still operate; theirs were the firstwheels to turn on the continent; they introduced manygrains, fruits, vegetables. and fibers to the land; theybrought livestock and turned the horse loose in Amer-ica; they organized cities and built over 50 missionsfrom southern Louisiana to north of San FranciscoBay. They did all of these things, lived all this history,before their history was taken from them.3

These deep roots are slighted by most U.S. historians.The story of the country's development is too oftentold by those who scanned the westward movementonly from the east. That perspective disadvantagesthose whose heritage ties them to the other half of thecultural division of Europe. It disadvantages evenmore those indigenous people who wrote no historiesto tell of their three centuries of retreat before the ad-vancing Anglos.

The Southwest became a place to discard what wasunwanted, a dumping ground for the dispossessed, for

Herschel T. Manuel, "Spanish. Speaking Children of theSouthwest," University of Texas Press, Austin, 1965, p. 9.

See also Carey McWilliams, "North from Mexico,"Monthly Review Press, New York, 1961, pp. 32-33; andHoward F. Cline, "The United States and Mexico," HarvardUniversitj Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, p. 33.

66

Indian tribes that were pushed from their verdanteastern homelands and thereby made to compete witheach other for the same living and hunting areas. Thenative tribes in the Southwest had been peaceably dis-posed toward the United States, but the influx of otherIndians driven out by the United States became thecause of constant friction.*

All too often the movement west has been viewedas the individual acts of independent, self-sufficientpioneer types, willing to take the risks of failure ordestruction. Without question, those who went to thefrontier were generally of this character. But this isnot enough. The pioneers were encouraged in theirwestward push by public policies, by Federal programsof frontier defense and for dealing with and movingthe Indians. The superior forces of the fierce plainsIndians could have cut down settlers as they arrived,had not Congress appropriated the funds to move thesetribes and make available the U.S. Army to keep themat bay. This was a deliberate manpower policy, asdeliberate as those policies today that are concernedwith the efficient utilization and placement of thelabor force.

Mention has already been made of a significant dif-ference between English, later United States, andSpanish colonial policies. The Spanish often mingledtheir blood with that of native population;. Inter-marriage between Spanish and Indian became sanc-tioned by royal decree in 1514. This contributed to thefact that the predominant population of Mexico be-came mestizos, mixed bloods, with only minorities ofthe original Indian and Spanish stocks.

In contrast to the English, the extent of Spanishpenetration on the continent was not to be measuredby a simple head count of the number of settlers whocame from the home country. The Canary Islanderswho were brought in to found San Antonio were fewin number. However, they laid out a city not ju...t forthemselves but also for the native Indian populations.They intended to convert what Indians they could andto include them in their society. True, their manner ofaccomplishing this was not always gentle, and the placeaccorded Indians within Spanish colonial settlementswas not always to their liking. Nonetheless, the Span-ish had a more relaxed view than the English on ques-tions of racial and ethnic integration. For instance, inthe group of 22 adults who first settled Los Angeles,20 were nonwhite of which 10 were Negro.3

One searches in vain for an English parallel to thiscolonial policy on our east coast. The peoples who

Edgar Bruce Wesley, "Guarding the Frontier," Universityof Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1935, p. 177.

Father Zephyrin Engelhardt. "San Gabriel Mission andthe Beginnings of Los Angeles." San Gabriel: San GabrielMission, 1927.

faced each other across the new international boundaryhad this important difference. It set the stage for dif-ferences that persist today.

In the 1820's the Mexican Government permittedimmigration into Texas and gave large grants of landto colonizers. Immigrants were required to acceptMexican rule and the Roman Catholic faith and toforego the practice of slavery, an institution it hadmade unlawful in 1829. None of these conditions weremet with universal good faith. By 1836 the number ofAnglo settlers who ranked under Mexican rule wassufficient to challenge that rule. They saw it as despotic,declared their independence, and successfully de-fended it. Mexico did not concede the loss, but 9 yearslater, in 1845, this did not stay the United States fromannexing the newly born Republic of Texas. Thegauntlet was then down.

Mexico promptly broke off diplomatic relations withthe United States. The situation was aggravated by thefact that there was no agreement as to the extent ofTexas' boundaries. Texans of that time held that theirborders encompassed most of the present State of NewMexico, plus parts of the present States of Oklahoma,Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. The area actuallyannexed by the United States was very much less thanthat and did not extend much past the center of thepresent State or south beyond the Nueces River. Evenso, Texans for their part asserted a claim to all theland to the south between the Nueces and the RioGrande Rivers.

President Polk eventually moved to recognize theTexans' claim and sent an army first to the Nueces andlater to the Rio Grande. He alerted a Pacific navalsquadron to seize California ports, should a war de-velop. When Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grandeand attacked a unit of American soldiers in the dis-puted Nueces strip, Polk asked for and got a declarationof war from Congress on May 13, 1846.

Mexico was assaulted by land and sea. Militaryoffensives were also carried out in New Mexico andCalifornia including what is now Arizona). Anglosettlers in California proclaimed an independent Stateand then joined U.S. troops in reducing the opposi-tion of Mexican loyalists in the fall of 1846. The UnitedStates soon held all of the Southwest.

But military victories for the United States camemore readily than did Mexican acceptance of peace.A year passed while the American army pressed on toseize and occupy the Mexican capital at Mexico City,raising the American flag for the first time above thecapital of a conquered nation. Even so, the MexicanGovernment would not assent to peace. It pled withthe American commissioner to reliniuish the demandthat it cede "New Mexico, and the few leagues whichdivide the right bank of the Nueces from the left bank

of the Bravo (Rio Grande) ."6 It would not formalizethe peace that was already forced upon it.

When Congress lifted the injuncfo,i of secrecy fromthe messages and documents pertai ling to the Treatyof Guadalupe Hidalgo, which %vas the treaty of peacethat was made following a change in the MexicanGovernment, the reasons for Mexico's stubborn con-cern became generally known. Mexico had resisted ac-cepting the inevitable out of concern for the fate ofits own nationals who were to be absorbed by theUnited States. It acknowledged and accepted thepledge of the United States to recognize the right of itsnationals to remain %%here they were and to preservetheir property and nationality, but it was fearful, itsaid, lest "they remain strangers in their own country."It told the U.S. commissioner, "it is not the Govern-ment of Mexico that will place a price upon the adhe-sion of its citizens to the soil upon which they wereborn." '

It was a new, more suppliant Mexican Governmentthat came to power 5 months after this exchange andassented to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Thetreaty secured for the United States the land it had goneto war to get. It was approved by the Senate. TheSouthwest had become part of the United States .s

A few years later, in 1853, the United States feltone further territorial need. An error in locating theproper latitude of El Paso had cost the country itsclaim to lands south of the Gila River which werethought needed for a railroad route to California.Accordingly, a railroad official was authorized to nego-tiate for the purchase by the United States of 30,000square miles of land on the borders of New Mexico andArizona. This was secured for 50 cents an acre, andthe. Southwest in its present bounds was defined. Thearea annexed covers the States of Nevada and Utah,in addition to the five States included in this study.

Had these lands not been taken from Mexico, thatnation today would be equal in size to the coterminousUnited States. Mexico was cut in half and the acreagethat was transferred is three-fourths that of Indiasuch was the size of the vast internal empire that wascreated in the name of "Manifest Destiny."

It should be said that the country was not of onemind about this seizure. The Congress was divided onit. One freshman Congressman, Lincoln from Illinois,was outspoken against the war. Ise said of thePresident,

I more than suspect that he is deeply consciousof being in the wrongthat he feels the blood of thiswar, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heavenagainst him. * * * His mind tasked beyond its

° U.S. Senate, "The Treaty Between the United States andMexico," 30th Cong., First Sess., Executive No. 42, Washing-ton, D.C. 1848, p. 343.

Ibid.8 T. Earry Williams, et al., op cit., pp. 520-527.

67

power, is running hither and thither, like some tor-tured creature, on a burning surface, finding noposition, on which it can settle down and be atpeace. * * * He knows not where he is. He is abewildered, confounded and miserably perplexedman.9

But President Polk's chief perplexity was whether theUnited States was seizing all the land that he felt thesituation warranted. When he submitted the treaty tothe Senate for ratification, 1w confided to his diary,"If the treaty was now to be made, I should demandmore territory." '" He felt pressed by those who wanted

Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: "The Prairie Yearsand the War Years," (one-volume edition), Harcourt, Braceand Co , New York, 1954, p. 96.

"' Henry Steele Commager, "Documents of American His-tory," Appleton-Century-Crofts, inc., New York, Sixth Edi-tion, 1958, p. 313.

68

to take all of Mexico and who saw in this act some-thing more than a mere transfer of acreage.

U.S. Senator Sam Houston, the former Presidentof the Republic of Texas, was one who ail ued,

The Anglo-Saxon race [must] pervade the wholesouthern extremity of this vast continent. * * *[The] Mexicans are no better than the Indians, and Isee no reason why Nie should not take their land.* * * We are now in the war * * * giving peace,security and happiness to those oppressed peop/c."

Abolitionist Congressman Thaddeus Stevens later spokeof them as "hybrid" people, degraded and priest ridden.Clearly, the United States wanted their land, not them.

" Ruth Landes, "Latin Americans of the Southwest,"McGraw-Hill Book Co., St. Louis, 1965, pp. 51-52.

The Subject People

The seizure of land does not necessarily spellcolonialism, nor must it result in people being treatedas colonial subjects. Most of the lands that make upthe United States were seized. But the consequencesof such seizure in the Southwest were not the same aselsewhere. There are several reasons for this.

The Southwest was the last great land mass addedto the country by conquest. At the time of its annexa-tion, it already contained a rich variety of people,people who today make it the most cosmopolitan re-gion of the Nation. It contains larger numbers ofpeople of different races, religions, national origins,and at different stages of cultural development thanany other region. Here are gathered some of the larg-est groups of Indians, both those native to the area andthose driven here, those from both primitive and ad-vanced cultures; here are the hispanicized Indians ofthis country and Mexico; here are four-fifths of allthose who are linked to the Conquistadores by theirSpanish surnames; here, if we leave Hawaii aside, arethe Nation's largest groups of Orientals: Two-thirdsof the Japanese, two-thirds of the Filipinos and overhalf of the Chinese; and a third of the Nation's com-bined groups of Asian Indians, Koreans, Polynesians,Indonesians, Hawaiians, and others; here, also, areover 2 million of the Nation's 1 T-groes.

In the truest sense of the word, the region is cosmo-politanits pepole belong to all of the world, and theties of many with other parts of the world are still

recent and unsevered, for here are found one-third ofall the Nation's registered aliens.

These racial and ethnic groups are the minoritypeople in the region. Of the 29.3 million persons inthese five States i 1 1960, 6.2 million, over 21 percent,were part of the minority population. In a nation thathas come to see its minority member as a black con-trast in a sea of white faces and refers to him as "Amer-ica's 10th man," the Southwest presents an exception.There, one of every five persons is a part of the minor-ity, and he is seen as such, for he too is separately visiblein the sea of white faces. The white descendant ofEuropean stock, who is not identified with one of thenamed racial or ethnic groups, is known as an Anglo.This in itself is an oddity, for v.,here else in the countryhas a member of the majority acquired a single com-monplace name?

Table 30 shows the population totals for the princi-pal minority groups and the majority Anglo group of"other white" and compares these for the census yearsof 1950 and 1960. In that decade, each minority groupshowed a greater increase in population than did theAnglos.

The rapid increase in the size of the minority popu-lations in recent years does not alter the claim madehere that it is the Anglo who came to possess theregion, and that he treated others as conquered orsubject people while doing so. The evidence to supportthis can be drawn from the history of the region.

TABLE 30. Population of selected ethnic groups, for five Southwestern States, urban and rural: 1960 and 1950

Census year, State, and area TotalWhite

Total Spanishsurname

Nonwhite

Other Total Negro Indian Japanese Chinese Other

1960 29,3n1 012 26, 576,041 3,464,999 23, 111,042 2, 72: , 971 2, 171,444 188,694 170, 647 103,794 93,392

Percent .,.0. 0 90.7 II. 9 78.9 9.3 7.4 .6 .6 .4 .31950 21, C3, 280 19, 223, 082 2, 239, 550 16, 933, 532 I, 830, 198 I, 494, 189 131, 912 92, 356 63, 334 45,400

Percent 100.0 91. 3 10. 9 BO. 4 8. 7 7.1 .6 .4 .3 0

Percent change1950 to 1960 3e. 2 38.3 51.3 36. 5 49. 1 45. 3 43.0 84.8 63.9 92.

Source: 1960 Census of Population, Supplementary Report PC(S1)-55, "Population Characteristics of Selected Ethnic Groups in the five Southwestern States," U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Bureau of the Census, issued July 1968.

69

The "Simpleminded Children"

Consider the Iadians. They were here first, and theirpresent multiplication despite their poverty is a suc-cess story in a grim sort of a way. In years past, forcingthe Indians into cracks and corners where their sub-sistence became uncertain or impossible was the markof a successfully pursued Indian policy. It was not be-lieved that civilization and industry might orevailexcept that this be done.

There were never but two choices open to theIndiansbetween bewilderment and hostility or abjec-tion and povertypoverty in the most elemental termsof survival. Those who chose hostility were regarded assavages and dealt with as such. The advancing Anglosaw his terms of survival as requiring the removal orthe extermination of the Indiansometimes one,sometimes the other. Men of both races made theirchoice, and the Indian was virtually removed fromassociation with the white man's civilization.

The annual report of the U.S. Bureau of IndianAffairs for the year 1871-72 leaves no uncertaintyabout the Government's role in executing this man-power policy.' The Commissioner of Indian Affairsthat year explained what was then seen as the one hopeof the Indians:

No one certainly will rejoice more heartily thanthe present Commissioner when the Indians of thecountry cease to be in a position to dictate, in anyform or degree, to the Government; when, in fact,the last hostile tribe becomes reduced to the sup-pliants of charity. This is, indeed, the only hope ofsalvation for the aborigines of the continent. If theystand up against the progress of civilization and in-dustry, they must be relentlessly crushed. The west-ward course of population is neither to be deniednor delayed for the sake of all the Indians that evercalled this country their home. They must yield orperish.The yielding continued Jntil only 82 years ago, when

U.S. cavalry troops engaged the last of the hostileApaches in Arizona.2 Because the Indians yielded they

"U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Report," 1871-72, Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1872, p. 9.

' There is a note of irony in that the commander of theU.S. forces in World War I, General John J. Pershing, earnedthe nickname "Nigger Jack," later softened to "Black Jack,"because as a young officer it was Negro troops he led in thecampaign against the Apache. See: Thomas J. Fleming,"Pershing's Island War," American Heritage, Vol. XIX, No.5, August 1968, p. 34.

70

TABLE 31. Indian population in the Southwest: 1960

AreaPopulation Percent

IndianTotal Indian

Arizona 1,302,161 83, 387 6.4California 15,717, 204 39,014 .2Colorado 1,753, 947 4, 288 .2New Mexico 951,023 56,255 5.9Texas 9, 579, 677 5,750 I

Southwest 29, 304, 012 188, 694 .6

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1966."(87th edition), Washington, D.C., 1966.

did not all perish. There were 188,694 of them countedin the five States in the last census. Table 31 shcwshow they were distributed among these States. Today,tl'e Indians stand first in the Nation in their poverty.No group is poorer. Table 32 gives their mcdian in-comes and the percentage of males with income below$2,000.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs acknowledges theabiding poverty of Indians today, saying, "Most In-dians are poor, desperately pooras poor as anybodywe know in this country of ours." 3 Yet they are alsoone of the fastest growing minorities in the country,despite having higher infant mortality rates and ashorter life expectancy than any other racial or ethnicgroup.4

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Af-fairs, "The War Against PovertyThe American Indian,"USGPO, Washington, 1964, p. 8 (pamphlet).

U.S. Department of Health, Education,. and Welfare, "In-dian Health Highlights," 1964 Edition, Public Health Serv-ice, Washington, D.C., April 1964.

TABLE 32. Income' of the Indian population, for Southwest, 1960

Area Medianincome

Median Percent ofincome males with

of males incomebelow 52,000

Arizona (7) 51, 358 60. ICalifornia $1, 921 2, 694 40.8Colorado 1, 935 2, 461 42. INew Mexico I, 337 1, 703 55.5Tees 1, 655 2, 017 49.7

f Income of persons in 1959,14 years old and over, 1960.2 Below $1,000.

Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, PC(2)-IC, table 56, pp. 234 239.

The problems of the Indian are much too diverseand complex be detailed here. A recent Congres-sional investigation has reported that his plight, in-stead of being lessened, has worsened in the last 15years. His unemployment rate is reported 10 times thenational average; 50 percent of his children drop outof school before completing high school; PresidentJohnson has called him "the forgotten American." 5The compounded errors of the past, which demandedthat the Indian give up being an Indian if he wishedto share in the benefits of the U.S. economy, were de-tailed for the Joint Economic Committee of the Con-gress in 1968 by the Director of Program Developmentof the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employ.Tnent Re-search. He urged that any program to rectify pasterrors undertaken by the Government must begin withbreaking "its unfortunate tradition of dealing with In-dians as though they are simple-minded children." 6

'Robert L. Jackson, "Indians' Plight Worse CongressProbers Find," Los Angeles Times, April 1, 1968.

°Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the Unit,e.States, Federal Programs for the Development of HumanResources, Subcommittee on Economic Progress, Joint Com-

Federal policy has indeed treated the pacified butuntractable Indians as simple-minded children. Thatpolicy has vacillated over the years and has not yetsettled on how to find accomm odations with theirdiversity. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which sees it-self as shielding the Indians from predations of theunscrupulous, has itself been condemned for takingfrom them the choices of their own life styles, com-munity, and the rearing of their children. In this con-nection it should be enough to recall that it was notuntil after World War II that citizenship was realizedby the last of the Indian groups. And in the last20 years were the last of them given the right to voteand to serve on juries. Arizcna and New Mexico werethe last of the States to permit then jury service andto grant them the franchise.'

mittee Print, Washington, 1968, paper submitted by HerbertE. Stiner, "Toward a Fundamental Program for the Train-ing, Employment and Economic Equality of the AmericanIndian," pp. 293-326.

'Felix S. Cohen, ed., Handbook of Federal Indian Law,Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office; 1942. U.SDepartment of the Interior; Office of the Solicitor.

71

" * * * Strangers in Their Own Country"

Much larger in number than the Indians are theSpanish Surnameds. Table 30 shows almost 31/2 millionof them living in these five States in 1960. True, onlya fraction might claim the distinctive heritage of beingdescendants of those settled families who lived in theregion at the time of the war with Mexico. and forwhom the Mexican Government expressed concern lestthey remain strangers in their own country. However,those who came as immigrants at a later date movedinto a social and economic climate already set by therelationship that had developed between the originalSpanish and Mexican settlers and the Anglos who be-came dominant after the war and were then joinedby such large numbers of other Anglos.

Article VIII of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgoguaranteed many things to the former Mexican na-tionals. Among these it gave assurance that Mexicansin territory previously belonging to Mexico would "befree to continue where they now reside * * * retain-ing the property which they possess." This pledge didnot prove adequate in all cases. The ratification of thetreaty opened the season for Anglo claims against theland properties of those for whom the commitmentwas made.

There are intricate and reasoned ways to explain theloss of land of former Mexican citizens and their heirs.But in so many instances it can only be seen asplundertheft dressed up in the trappings of legalismsand political decisions which did not exist at the timeof the treaty ratification.

Most historians of the region today acknowledgethat there was wide-scale larceny as the Anglos ac-quired title to the land.' An account of the land lossesof Spanish Surnameds in northern New Mexico hasbeen made by Clark S. Knowlton, a sociologist atTexas Western College.2 He affirms that the Spanish

A view that dissents sharply from this is presented byWayne W. Scott in "Spanish Land-Grant Problems WereHere Before the Anglo," New Mexico Business, University ofNew Mexico, Bureau of Business Research, vol. 20, No. 7,July 1967, pp. 1-9. It is not persuasive to this writer, for hisargument hinges on the claim that many of the titles wereclouded under Spanish and Mexican law, and the act ofdispossessing people of their birthlands would be no morecommendatory had it been done in Spanish rather than inEnglish.

Clark S. Knowlton, "Causes of Land Losses Among theSpanish Americans in Northern New Mexico," Rocky Moun-tain Social Science Journal, Apr. 5, 1963, vol. I, pp. 201-211.

72

Surnameds, since 1854, have lost in New Mexico aloneover 2 million acres of privately held land and1,700,000 acres of communal land, granted and char-tered under Spanish law to villages for communalgrazing and timbering. In a'Adition, 1,800,000 acreshave been taken from them by the State, and othervast acreages have been taken by the Federal Govern-ment for forest reserves or granted by it to railroadcompanies.

These land transfers started with the treaty. Alargely illiterate population was treated by the enter.ing Anglos as fair game for sharp, if not shady, deals.Congress, in 1854, reserved to itself the right to passon private /and claims. The Spanish Surnameds, whencontested for their lands, were required to pay fortheir c.Ain surveys and spend some time in Washingtonif they hoped to get their claims confirmed. The vio-lence and conflict that grew out of these arrangementsled Congress to establish a Court of Piivate LandClaims in 1891 for New Mexico and Colorado. Thiscourt continued until 1904. Dr. Knowlton says it re-jected two-thirds of all the land claims of SpanishSurnameds coming before it. Many of them surren-dered their lands without a struggle when their rightswere challenged: "* * * they shrank from all Anglocontact * * *. To them the entire legal process seemedlike a giant Anglo conspiracy to veal their propertywithout possibility of escape or redress." 3

Carey McWilliams has written that California wasengulfed by a tidal wave of Anglos after 1848, andthat they took possession of the land and proceededto make things over to their own taste.' But the Tex-ans, which is to say Anglo Texans, got an earlier start intheir encroachments on Mexican holdings in theirown State. They were not encumbered after gainingtheir independence from Mexico by the treaty guar-antees that were later made by the United States. Theycould set about assembling larger land units withgreater ease, partly because the Mexican grants intheir State were less developed and less settled. InTexas, where even today a Spanish Surnamed remainsa "Mexican" in the parlance of the street, there wasless disposition to worry about the legalisms of landseizures. Texans felt little compunction about expel-

Ibid., pp. 8 and 9`Carey McWilliams, "North From Mexico," Monthly Re-

view Press, New York, 1961, p. 92.

ling these "alien" people from their midst, even afterthe treaty.

In 1856 Colorado County in Texas expelled all"Mexicans" on 5 days' notice and forbade them tocome within the limits of the county; MatagordaCounty took similar action; Uvalde County forbadethem to travel on public roads withuut passes; atGoliad, where Texans fought valiantly for their ownfreedom, a resolution was passed, stating "the. continu-ance of the greasers or peon Mexicans as citiiensamong us is an intolerable nuisance." 5

Paul Taylor has recorded how in the Nueces strip inTexas land titles were acquired and large cattle ranchesbuilt on lands that had been Spanish or Mexicangrants!'

Dr. Knowlton insists that this process is still at workin New Mexico. The construction of reclamation, irri-gation, and flood control projects opens again thecontest for water rights. Commercial and subsidizedagriculture, hungry for larger holdings, encouragesprojects that impose heavy water or conservationcharges upon land used for subsistence agriculture Thedecline of the sheep industry, the search for summerranges or income tax writeoffs result in the continuedland losses. The villagers in the Sangre de CristoMountains and upper valley of the Rio Grande arepressed in this squeeze, and finding they cannot getpublic assistance if land is owned, they sell it for whatthey can get or abandon it and move to town in asearch for employnent or to join the welfare roles.Recently some of these people have substituted a newbelligerence for what once was thought to be theirrustic charm.

The formation by some Spanish Surnameds of theAlianza, as the Federal Alliance of Land Grants andConfederation of Free City States is known, the dra-matic seizure of a court house, the shootings, the kid-nappings, the internments and subsequent trialsallhave: made the Natic aware that here is another mi-nority stirring in its frustrations. The appearance oftheir representatives at the Poor People's March onWashington in 1968 was treated as quixotic by mostof the Nation's pressthey were seen as quaint, out ofthe past, as were those Indians who went to the stepsof the Supreme Court to protest the loss of ancientfishing rights.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has acknowl-edged that these are unresolved problems. It hasstated that many problems in parts of the Southwest

6 Frank W. Johnson, "A History of Texas and Texans,"edited and brought up to date by Eugene C. Barker, theAmerican Historical Society, Chicago and New York, 1916,vol. I, pp. 514-515.

° Paul Schuster Taylor, "An American-Mexican Frontier;Nueces County, Tex.," the University of North CarolinaPress, Chapel Hill, 1934.

spring not from the scarcity of resources such as water,but from the complications associated with the use ofexisting resources:

Land transfers and bou -Aar), maintenance,especially for irrigated land holdings, are hinderedby ambiguous land titles handed down by the Span-ish Crown or by the Mexican Government, laterinterpreted by U.S. courts in terms of homesteadinglaws passed by the U.S. Congress during the latterpart of the 19th century. This situation impedesthose who arc in a position to reassemble many ofthe fragmented land holdings into larger and moreefficient units.'Whatever the complication, the Department's ob-

servation must be unsettling to Spanish Surnamedswho live in the affected areas. Here an agency of gov-ernment, almost 120 years after Guadalupe Hidalgo, issaying that the land titles from the defeated nationare "ambiguous," that the boundaries of holdings areyet unclear. There is even an ironic note to the Depart-ment's statement that fragments of land should beassembled into larger holdings so that they may bemore efficiently utilized. The titles to much of theland in question probably were rendered ambiguousand more susceptible to being taken away from theoriginal occupants because no single person did own it;it was communal land, it belonged to the village thatit might be more efficiently u:ed. U.S. land law foundit difficult to accommodate that communal arrange-ment and to protect it from homesteaders who wantedindividual, private holdings.8

Author Steve Allen, southwesterner, whose successesas an entertainer have not kept him from writingbroadly of his humane concerns, observes that theSpanish-speaking people of the Southwest "unlike theIndians, whose misery they have shared, * * * havenever had even the nominal protection of an agencysuch as the Bureau of Indian Affairs."

"The dimensions of depressed economic conditionof Mexican-Americans have never been brought intosharp focus." So states the Mexican-American StudyProject, the first extensive and in-depth research of theMexican-American population in the Southwest thatUCLA has undertaken with Ford Foundation assist-ance. That study further observes, "abject povertyamong Mexican-Americans has gone largely unno-tic.t.d in the Nation at large * * * few, if any, of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Rural People in theAmerican Economy," Agricultural Economic Report No.101, Economic Research Service (U.S.G.P.O.), Washington,D.C., 1966.

° Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State Uni-versity, "Rural People and Their Resources: North-CentralNew Mexico," Bulletin 448, October 1960.

" Steve Allen. "The Ground Is Our Table," Doubleday &Co., Inc., Garden City, New York, 1966, p. 36.

73

many nationwide studies of the poor have recognizedthe plight of the Mexican-American people." 10

William H. Crook, former director of the South-west region for the Office of Economic Opportunity,was one who tried to arouse public concern for thosewho were locked in seemingly hopeless, generations-oldpoverty. After touring an area covering several hun-dred miles of his region, he released these bitter wordsto the press:

I'm still appalled by some of the things I saw outthere. The way of life endured by some Mexican-American citizens here in Texas is incrediblesomething out of the 18th century. * * * Texanswould gag on their food if they could witness thekind of poverty I saw on that tour. * * * Thereare human beings existing in the border towns cfTexas under conditions as indescribably cruel as canbe found anywhere in the world. * * * I'll neverforget the hungry eyes of some of the children. Itwould be criminal for a civilized people aware ofsuch misery to remain inactive."The widespread poverty among Spanish Surnameds

cannot be disassociated from their employment oppor-tunities. The reciprocal relationship between poverty

10 Frank G. Mittlebach and Grace Marshall, "The Burdenof Poverty," Mexican-American Study Project, Advance Re-port 5, Leo Grebler, Director, Division of Research, GraduateSchool of Business Administration, University of California,Los Angeles, 196G, p. 1.

Austin Statesman, Austin, Tex., Sept. 1, 1966.

74

and employment opportunities has already been de-tailed. It is enough to repeat the finding of the Mexi-can-American study project that about 35 percent ofall Spanish-surname families in the Southwest arepoor. Although this is less than the 42 percent offamilies that are poor in the nonwhite group, itshould be emphasized that over one-fifth of nonwhitesin the Southwest are not Negroes. The principal non-white groups that are neither Negro nor Indian areshown in table 33, which also gives their number ineach of the States.

TABLE 33.--Nonwhite races, excluding Negro and Indian, in Southwest: 1960

Area Japanese Chinese Filipino AllOther I

Arizona 1,501 2,936 943 474California 157, 317 95,600 65,459 20,723Colorado 6,846 724 605 792New Mexico 930 362 192 458Texas 4,053 4,172 1,623 2,123

Southwest

United States excluding Alaska and

170,647 103,794 68,822 24,570

Hawaii 260, 059 198, 958 106, 426 75, 045Percent in Southwest 65.6 52.2 64.7 32.7

I Asian Indians, Koreans, Polynesians, Indonesians, Hawaiians, Aleuts, Eskimos,and other races.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1966."(87th edition), Washington, D.C. 19E6, table 25, p. 26.

Neither White nor Black

The presence of relatively large nonwhite minoritiesthat are neither Negro nor Indian can provide furtherinsights into the workings of racism in the Nation'spast. The searchings of the national conscience onthis subject have been devoted largely to retracing theexperiences of the Negro so as to account for how hepresently fares. Both the Negroes and the Indians havebeen seen as groups that were caught up in an his-torical matrix of forces that dealt harshly with them.but which somehow had to work themselves out beforekinder, more humane attitudes might prevail. Thisview sees the Negro and the Indian as victims ofunique, unrepeated historical accidents. Given theseaccidents, it was not possible to civilize the choicesmore than they were. It is a view that makes everyonea victim, regariless of where he stood in relationshipto others.

What seems to be inadequate about this view is thatit does not account for the experiences of other minor-ity groups that were not a party to the same historicalaccidents. If other minority people have had treatmentthat parallels in some regard that of the Indians andthe Negroes, then it is not realistic to treat racism asthe consequences of nonrecurring historical accidents;rather, it is seen as a feature of individual character,one that becomes a group characteristic. If all racialand ethnic minorities have been similarly treated vis -a-vis the Anglo, then attention must turn from imper-sonal historical forces to highly personal individualchoices. The point is pertinent to this study, for theattainment of truly equal employment opportunitymust eventually rest on the single individual's effortsto civilize his choices. This is no more arguable thanthe proposition that individual acceptance of the pre-mium we place on human life is more a deterrent tocrimes of violence than are the laws against murder.

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis-orders arraigned American society in 1968 as a racistsociety.' The acceptance of that judgment was madeeasier for some pt.rsons because they saw the chargeplaced against the historic backdrop of slavery. Thismade it possible to view white racism and racial prej-udice toward the Negro as a sort of lingering con-sequence of the institution of slavery: Had there notbeen a plantation economy in the South, there would

' Report of the National Advisory Commission on CivilDisorders, Bantam Books, Inc., New York, 1968.

374-215 0-70---6

not have been slavery; and had there not been slavery,we would not be burdened with the threat that racialprejudice makes on our future.

This would be a comforting conclusion, for theagony the Nation had in ridding itself of slavery couldthen be seen as absolving much of the guilt that lingersalong with the prejudice. However, this is an erroneousconclusion. To believe it one must believe that racismis but a consequence of a long-past slavery. The historyof the Southwest argues differently.

In the Southwest, it has been made clear that racismhas been woven into the warp of our society withoutany dependence on the existence of slavery. Slaveryin this region, with minor exceptions, was limited toTexas, essentially to east Texas. Yet, each of theminority groups dealt with in this study has been thevictim of racial prejudice. The same patterns of seg-regation, discrimination, and unequal rights and op-portunities that developed for the Indian, the Negro,and the Spanish Surnamed cars be shown to have de-veloped for the Orientals as well.

Significant numbers of Orientals began coming toCalifornia in gold rush days. By 1960 there were over350,000 Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos residing inthe five States. All of these groups have had their turnsas victims of a hard discrimination, ona that some-times took on violent forms. The extent of the pre-judice that has been manifested against them can beread in the records of anti-Chinese riots, the eviction ofthe Chinese from the mines, the Chinese ExclusionAct, the discriminatory taxation against their enter-prises, the prohibition against Orientals becoming citi-zens, their relegation to segregated schools and neigh-borhoods, the prohibitions against their owning land,the bans against interracial marriages, and, finally,the "Gentlemen's Agreement" of 1907, and the even-tual congressional bar to Japanese immigrants that wasenacted in the 1920's.2

For the Japanese the xenophobia that expresseditself through these acts erupted with fresh harshnessin wartime 1942, when tens of thousands of them wereinterned almost overnight and relocated in concen-ration centers where 70,000 of them were still confined

' These historical facts are .st long last being taught toCalifornia school children. See: John W. Caughey, et al,"Land of the Free," Benziger Brothers, Inc., New York, 1966,pp. 418-419.

75

over 3 years later. Eugene V. Rostow said that theevidence of this experience supports only one conclu-sion: "The dominant element in the development ofour relocation policy was race prejudice, not a mili-tary estimate of a military problem." 3

It would be unlikely if the accumulated effects ofthese attitudes and actions were not registered in thepresent income figures for Orientals. Whether such acausal relationship can be shown or not, it is clearthat Oriental groups have lagged behind the generalpopulation in their incomes. Table 34 gives the malemedian incomes and the percentage of Japanese, Chi-nese, and Filipino males with income below $3,00^.In each State where statistics are available, Orientalstrail the general population. These income statisticsare scant for States where the number of Orientals issmall. California alone has over 90 percent of the re-gion's Orientals, and there the disparity in their in-comes and that of the general population is pro-nounced.

TABLE 34.Median incomes' of Japanese, Chinese. and Filipino populations forselected areas: 1960

Areas PopulationMale

medianincome

Percent ofmales with

income below$3,000

Arizona 2JapaneseChineseFilipino

California 2

1, 302,1611, 501

2, 936

94315, 717, 204

34, 069

(3)3, 696

(3)4, 966

(3)

(3)

38.0

42. 3

30.3Japanese 157,317 4,388 33.3Chinese 95, 600 1 803 39. 0Filipino 55,459 2.925 51. 5

Colorado 2 1, 753, 947 4,191 36.1Japanese 6,846 3,700 41.0Chinese 724 (3) (3)Filipino 605 (3) (3)

New Mexico' 951, 023 3, 941 38.9Japanese 930 (3) (3)Chinese 362 (3) (3)Filipino 192 (3) (3)

Texas 2 9, 579, 677 3394 44.7Japanese 4,053 2,494 55.7Chinese 4, 172 3, 139 48.3Filipino 1,623 (3) (3)

I ncome of 1959 persons.2 Figures in this row are based on total population.3 Data unavailable.

Source: U.S. Census of Populariair 1960, "Nonwhite Population by Race," PC(2)IC, tables 57, 58, 59.

There remains one other major minority group inthe region, the Negro. So much has been written else-where about his economic and social problems thatit is unnecessary to recount it here. It should suffice

a Eugene V. Rostow, "Our Worst Wartime Mistake,"Harpers Magazine, Vol. 191, No. 1144, Harper & Brothers,September 1945, p. 197. Also: Jacobus tenBroek, et al., "Prej-udice, War and the Constitution," p. 308.

76

to observe that Texas was very much a part of thecotton - planting South, that it was a part of the Con-federacy, and that it carried into this century all ofthe same customs and traditions that prevailed in otherStates of the Old South. No one can question that the2 million Negroes who have been migrating steadilywestward in these five States have all had their per-sonal and family experiences with those customs andtraditions that grew from the Negroes' pa :t conditionof servitude, and perhaps simply because they areblack. Their experiences in the Southwest are but areplication of those that have left their mark onNegroes generally in the United States. The documen-tation is already abundant. It should do to recall thatthe explosive violence that has been erupting in theghettos of U.S. cities in recent years had its beginningsin the Southwest. The community of Watts lies in theheart of Los _Angeles. It is a community peopled largelyby economic refugees who have come from other partsof the region, notably Texas.`

The significance of these observations is that all ofthe minority groups mentioned here have lived in thisregion under social and economic conditions that arecommonly associated with the fate of the Negro inthe United States. The Indian, the Spanish Surnamed,the Oriental, the Negroall of whom are of significantnumber in the region's populationcan match amongthemselves their experiences with segregated housing,segregated schools, discriminatory social treatment,repressed civil rights, and limited employmentopportunities.

One must ask how such experiences can be explainedexcept as manisfestations of colonial attitudes. Theyare the mark of a separatist society, not the character-istics of a free and open one. This is not to say thatthe notion of "Manifest Destiny," which was taken asan expression of a young nation's foreign policy, wassimply and only one of raw imperial designs. Evenwere this the case, one would be hard put to indictthe United States of that period without carrying theindictment to all of the other expansionist nations ofthat age, including Spain. Perhaps such an indictmentwould be admissible, but it serves no purpose here.

What does serve a purpose is to recognize that re-gardless of what judgment is made of generations past,the history of the Southwest gives a clear reading thatthe hundreds of thousands of Anglos who poured intothe region saw the land and the opportunities it offeredlargely as something a kind providence had reservedfor thr.m and their kind. Those who were not of theirkind were considered foreign, and the differences theyexhibited were seen as but a measure of their infer-

U.S. Dept of Commerce. "Hard-Core Unemploymentand Poverty in Los Angeles," prepared for the Area Redevel-opment Administration by the Institute of Industrial Rela-tions, UCLA, Washington, 1965.

iority. When the Anglos became the majority they hadfew qualms about laying hold to any special rightsthey claimed for themselves. Those familiar with theregional history know that their genuine and fiercefrontier notions of freedom often did not keep themfrom denying that freedom to others. That so many ofthe others had a high visibility and were seen as spicks,greasers, pepper bellies, niggers, japs, chinks, red skins,or as persons deserving some other contemptuous

name, such as those that people everywhere apply topersons different from themselves, made it relativelyeasy to sort and segregate the non-Anglo. Those sosorted were not considered proper members of thedominant society.

These are the attitudes and memories that the re-gion inherits from its past. The extent to which theyhave found contemporary expression is what this in-quiry has endeavored to define.

77

Priorities for the Future

The Commission and State Lir employment prac-tices agencies have a common handicap. Both arecharged with awesome duties while handling heavycase loads with severely limited staffs and budgets.These limitations make it all the more important thatproper strategies be seletced to maximize the effective-ness of their work. The Commission's Office of Tech-nical Assistance began a number of key programs in1967 which were devised to gain the largest payoffs interms of jobs and promotions for minority workers.It is hoped that some of the findings of the presentstudy will be of assistance in ordering such prioritiesin the Southwest.

Priorities for larger payoffs can be selected along atleast three linesgeographical, industrial, and occupa-tional. The last of these already has been dealt within some detail. There is an obvious need to stress white-collar employment for minorities. In this regard salesand clerical positions are most likely to yield the mostjobs. They are at the beginning of the white-collaroccupational spectrum and together account for overone-half of all white-collar jobs. Their strategic im-portance comes not only from this, but also from thevestigial notions of job caste that seem to prevail insome industries, so as to reserve these positions forAnglo workers. These occupations, more than anyothers, were the ones which attracted such a largeinflux of female workers into the labor force in recentdecades. Further opening of them to Spanish Sur-nameds may substantially increase the lagging laborforce participation rates of Spanish Surnamed females,as well as add to the motivation of Negro females bysignaling a viable hope that increasing numbers ofthem may attain something other than service andoperative positions, the two occupations where amajority of them now work. (Less than one-fourth ofall workers are in those occupations. )

Selecting priorities among industries should be basedon what the existing employment patterns are in dif-ferent industries, their size, and whether they are grow-ing in terms of employment. Obviously, there is smallgain to be had in changing minority employmentpolicies in an industry that is declining, or which ac-counts for only a tiny fraction of the total local em-ployment. The industries selected for diagraming inappendix H are those in the 20 "Spanish Surnamedcounties" that had a positive growth rate from 1950to 1960 and accounted for at least 1 percent of the

78

total reported employment in the EEO-1 reports fromthat county. Industries not shown in this series did notmeet these criteria, hence would have limited impactfor changing community practices. Those that arediagramed can be rated according to the employmentfigures shown in the diagrams and the supplementalfigures for later years given in appendix D.

Those industries that grievously fail to meet reason-able expectations for equal employment opportunitycan almost be located by riffling the diagrams. Com-paring an industry's diagram with its neighboring in-dustries, or with the composite diagram for the county,quickly suggests where important changes need to beeffected. Some of these, such as educational services,printing and publishing, communications, wholesaletrade, finance, insurance and a few others, are so con-sistently behind other industries in their own commu-nities that affirmative steps are needed a.t the ear-liest opportunities. Some of the patterns even suggestan existing, though perhaps unspoken, quota systemfor minority employment. *hese are ones wherean even percentage of minori :y workers are found ineach occupation in the industry, although that percent-age is far below the percentage of minority workersin the county labor force.

Selecting geographical priorities is a more complexmatter. Those who feel the need for the Commission'sassistance would not welcome an arrangement wheretheir community was shunted aside so that greater at-tention might be given to another. Yet, it becomes anessential policy consideration to place technical serv-ices where the greatest gains can be made with avail-able resources. In effect, this is what the Commissionhas already done in deploying its staff throughout thecountry.

The Commission, of course, has no control over theorigin of complaints coming before it, but it does havewide discretion in the selection of areas where it offersits technical assistance or initiates complaints on itsown motion. Accordingly, some exploratory effortswere made in this study to find ways in which geo-graphical priorities might be determined.

Communities do not stand as equals in the degree ofjob segregation prevailing in their industries, just asthey do not in the degree of residential segregation.The problem is how to construct some areal index ofthe degree of job segregation by companies subject tothe Commission's jurisdiction.

TABLE 35.Occupational position Index of Spanish Surnameds male and female,selected counties

Male Female

Occu pa.Average earnings tional

positionCounties Total Spanish index

x surname y/x

Average earnings

total Spanishx surname

Occu pa.tional

positionindexY/

Maricopa I $5, 220 $4, 130 79. 1 32, 360 52, 019 85. 5

Pima I 4,937 4, 061 82.2 2,387 1, 983 83.0Los Angeles 6, 026 5,145 85. 3 3, 077 2, 789 90.6San Bernardino 5,211 4,660 89.4 2,536 2,073 81.7Santa Clara 6, 825 5, 518 80.8 2, 775 2, 240 80. 7Denver 5,253 4,334 82.5 2,683 2,229 83.0Bernalillo I 5,426 4,193 77.2 2, 523 2, 078 82.3El Paso I 4, 352 3, 799 87.2 2, 017 I, 824 90.4Bexar 3, 770 3,171 84. 1 2, 291 2, 018 88. 0

I To find comparable average earnings figures for Maricopa, Pima, Bernalillo, andEl Paso, earnings of female laborers were set at $1,000.

Source: Data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on em-ployer EEO-1 reports, 1966. U.S. Census of Population: 1960, "Detailed Characteristics,"California PC(1)-6D, table 124.

Since the number of minority and other employeesper occupation is known, it is possible to weight thesenumbers by the median earnings for occupations wherethese are available. The U.S. Census of Population,"Detailed Characteristics," (PC(1) table 124), pro-vides these earnings figures by occupation for severalof the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas whf:sseboundaries correspond to those of counties surveyedin this study. Nine such counties were selected as shownin table 35, and the median male o nd female earningsfor occupations in the SMSA were applied to the num-ber of Spanish Surnamed males and fe nales in eachoccupation and to all males and females in the occu-

pations. From these, the average earnings of SpanishSurnamed males and females and of all males andfemales were computed for each county. The incomefigures were then related to establi h an index of occu-pational positions showing how male and female Span-ish Surnameds stood in relation to all males andfemales in each county.

The Spanish Surnamed male has an occupationalposition closest to that of all males in San BernardinoCounty, Calif., where this index is 89.4; his occupa-tional position is furthest from that of all males inBernalillo County, N. Mex., where this index is 77.2.For Spanish Surnamed females their occupationalposition in relation to all females is highest, 90.6, in LosAngeles County, Calif., and lowest, 80.7, in Santa ClaraCounty, Calif. This index for females is higher thanthat for males in each of the counties except one, SanBernardino. There may be a slight distortion in thefemale indices because earnings figures were not avail-able for female laborers in four of the counties,and these were arbitrarily At at $1,000 in making thecomputations.

The value of this comparison can be shown by ex-amining the figures for El Paso County, Tex. There,although females receive a lower average income thanin any of the counties, their occupational position inrelation to all females is 90.4, almost as high as in LosAngeles. Generally, the average incomes of females inthese counties is only one-half that of males, both inthe case of all workers and of Spanish Surnamedworkers. Thus, for Spanish Surnameds a greater gapexists for males rather than females, and the gap be-tween them and all male workers is greater in Ber-nalillo County that: in the other counties.

79

Recommendations

1. The Commission and fair employment practicesagencies should treat sales and clerical occupations asones offering the largest payoffs in increased employ-ment opportunities for minority workers. They haves.rategic value not only in their growing size but infurther dispelling notions of job caste that make theseand other white-collar jobs largely an employment pre-serve for Anglo workers.

2. The Commission should explore every authorityavailable to it to reduce the adverse effects SpanishSurnamed workers, as well as other workers, now sufferunder present national immigration and border cross-ing policies along the Mexican border. The possibilityof asserting title VII's prohibition against discrimina-tion for reasons of national origin, instead of having toproceed according to the adverse effect doctrine, shouldbe tested. This should be done by the Commission, ora Commissioner, acting on its own motion, withoutawaiting a complaint from an individual with theresources and patience to make the test.

3. To the extent that the Commission can select pri-orities among industry groups, attention should begiven to the employment growth potential of the se-lected industries. Generally, minorities are already bet-ter represented in declining industries. There is lessgain to be had in altering employment patterns in thoseindustries where employment has stabilized as com-pared to those where it is expanding. These industriesare identified in this study.

4. More attention should be given ( through tech-nical assistance programs) to reforming the testingand screening practices now utilized by employers. Be-cause of the socioeconomic characteristics with whichhistory has endowed many minority group members,present tests, educational credentials, and culturalstandards effectively perpetuate by indirection a dis-criminatory practice that once was directly applied,but is now unlawful.

5. There is an urgent need for the Commission tosatisfy itself on the validity of the conclusions drawnin this study about the less favorable minority em-ployment patterns that prevail among prime contrac-tors as compared to other employers. If they are valid,even if only in th:. Southwest region, then the efficiencyof nondiscrimination clauses in federal contractsshould be examined for its failures, not its successes.There is an obvious need for more affirmative use ofthe enforcement authority that already exists in the

80

Office of Contract Compliance and in the Office ofthe Secretary of Labor. Among prime contractors,especially, the nature of preemployment testing andscreening should be assiduously examined to be certainthat these are related to the job functions in question.

6. Question nine in the 1966 EEO-1 employmentinformation report should be restated in future reportforms, but should be nan - wed to inquire what occu-pations are affected by the employer's hiring arrange-ment with a labor union. There is no way of determin-ing this from the way the question was put in 1966.

7. What was learned from the EEO-1 reports withrespect to the small numi_otr of Spanish Surnameds inthe Southwest who are in on-the-job training programsfor white-collar positions should be examined to learnif this also is true in the national figures for any minor-ity. If it is, that fact should be treated as a harbingerof an undesirable future situation. All the dimensionsof present framing policies should be examined forhow they tend to shape the minority labor force ofthe future. In this connection, the Commission andState agencies should press for more MDTA trainingin white-collar occupations.

8. Reference was made in the text to the uncer-tainty about the function of labor mobility in deter-mining employment opportunities. Recent studiesraise serious doubts about what familiar economytheory states about the maximizing activity of thosewho move. There is a need to know to what extentemployment opportunities are a function of mobilityand to what extent mobility itself is a function ofemployment opportunities.

9. There is a great need for giving Spanish Sur-nameds some of the same attention Negro and non-%bite groups receive in statistical accounts. This is notsimply a matter of refining Bureau of the Census enu-merations. It is something that should be done in othergovernmental surveys, such as those of the Bureau ofLabor Statistics. Most definitely, there is a need forSpanish Surnameds to be separately considered in theNational Health Survey. The Comn fission might statethe case for these needs through the "Statistical Re-porter" of the Bureau of the Budget, a highly usefulorgan that reaches the statistical technicians in all gov-!rnment agencies. The need for doing this is illustratedby the guidelines on needed areas of manpower re-search which recently were prepared for the U.S. Com-

mission on Civil Rights. If all the studies suggested inthose guide:ines by Profs. Eli GinsE,Irg and Dale L.Hiestand were completed, little more would be knownof Spanish Surnamed employment problems than isknown from present studies. There need to be linearstudies over time, and the Commission should make

the case for this before all the agencies of government.One thing is certain, though it does not appear in thedata with which this study dealt; the awakening, therestlessness, the self-concept of . whole people--Amer-ica's second minoritywill require it, sooner than thoseoutside the region might suspect.

81

Appendixes

APPENDIX A.Description of data.

APPENDIX B.Selected employment statistics, border counties, United States,1940-1960.

APPENDIX C.Spanish-surnamed population for 20 selected counties: 1960.

APPENDIX D.Explanation and comparison of employment data from the censusesof 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 and 1966 county business patterns.

APPENDIX E.Standard Industrial Classification code and industrial headingsutilized by three data sources.

APPENDIX F.Consumer-oriented industries.

APPENDIX G.Listing of counties with populations 10 or more percent Negro.

APPENDIX H.-299 employment pattern diagrams for industries for selected counties.

83

APPENDIX ADescription of the Lata

The basic data used in this study have been suppliedby the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.In 1966, the Commission, in cooperation with theOffice of Federal Contract Compliance and the Plansfor Progress program, collected employment reports(Standard Form 100) from 43.000 employers in theUnited States representing approximately 118,000establishments. These reports contained informationon total employment, male and female, and employ-ment of Negro, Oriental, American Indian, andSpanish Surnamed persons, male and female, in ninestandard occupational categories. They also containedinformation on persons in apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, plus other information referredto in the text of the study.

The most serious limitations on these data are thatthey come only from employers who were subject totitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and fromemployers holding Federal Government contracts orfirst-tier subcontracts of $50,000 or more and had 50 ormore employees. In 1966 those employers subject totitle VII were generally those with 100 or more em-ployees in at least 20 weeks in the calendar year. Theact reduces this to 75 employees in 1967 and to 50employees in 1968. Other than this exemption of em-ployers of certain size, another serious limitation is thatgovernmental bodes that were not also qualified asFederal contractors were exempted fror .ne reporting.

There are other deficiencies in the data having to dowith its representativeness (e.g., uncertain percentageof single establishment employers replying to the ,,ur-vey), the anthropological imprecision of employers inmaking racial and ethnic identifications, and certaininadequacies of coverage in some industries, such as inagricultural and contract construction. These inade-quacies are pointed to in the study where they mightbe pertinent to the analysis.

In the region under study 20,870 information re-ports were received. The Commission had the reportedinformation placed on magnetic tape. As is often thecase in trying to make use of raw data, many problemsand delays have been encountered. It would be tediousto recite these. Every effort has been made to over-come first-time problems and to organize these sum-mary accounts of the reported information so as toprovide a meaningful base for comparison with infor-mation that will become available for years subsequentto 1966. I: had originally been hoped that data forthe year 1967 might be included in this study. How-ever, the delays in making magnetic tapes available forthat year and the rigorous time limitations that gov-erned this study foreclosed that possibility.

In addition to the magnetic tapes of the detailedrecords, a great deal of summary data was provided

84

by the Commission. These consisted primarily of threesummary printouts from the tapes for selected groupsof counties and standard metropolitan statistical areasin the region. One group was for 20 cou sties selectedfor having both a large number and proportion ofSpanish Surnameds in their total populations. Anotherwas for 97 selected counties in which the Negro popu-lation was over 10 percent of the total county popula-tion, and the remaining group consisted of 23 selectedSMSA's in the five States. The counties and SMSA'sin these groups are listed in appendix table C and aresometimes referred to in the study as the "SpanishSurnamed counties."

Much of this study is based on summary tables fromthese printouts. They became available early in thestudy period and were utilized before the magnetictapes of the detailed records were available for pro-graming. They were used in constructing the manygraphic representations of the patterns of minority em-ployment in industries and counties shown inappendix D.

APPENDIX BSelected Employment Statistics,Border Counties, United States: 1940-1960

Area

Growth in Growthemployment employment1940-1950 1950-1960(Percent) (Percent)

Percent of areain employment in-

Four majorindustries,

1960

Armedservices,

1960

United States 26.7 15.5 35 2.61Four border States 49.4 39.2 4.87Calizinexas ('..o rder counties)... 67.2 61.1 17.9Texas 33.8 21.7 37 4.66

Cameron.. 49.4 19.7 42 8.32Hidalgo 47. 1 14.8 57 .6Starr 12. 4 42. 7 66 0Zapata 30.8 -8.7 61 9.9Webb 27.8 13.9 43 10.1Maverick 26.5 3.7 49 3.9Kinney -47. 3 -13. 1 65 .6Val Verde 5. 0 60.6 55 32. 2Terrell 15.1 -25.7 62 0Presido -29. 1 -24.8 58 0Brewster 21.7 -10.8 55 0Jeff Davis 58.7 -31. 3 60 0Culberson 3.5 50.7 53 0Hudspeth 41.1 -19.1 61 0El Paso 72. 3 49.9 49 22. 3

New Mexico 55.5 42.0 40 7.1Dona Ana 55.6 64.5 58 15.7Luna 45.4 20.7 48 .2Hidalgo 12.0 -36.5 53 0

Arizona 63.8 81.7 39 3.8Cochise -15.3 114.5 49 21.6Santa Cruz 12.6 16.9 48 0Pima 108.2 96.1 42 6. 1

Yuma 58.4 14.6 50 8.5California 61.4 48.7 34 4.9

Imperial 12.9 21.8 60 1.8San Diego 109.0 86.5 51 25.4

Source: ''Growth Patterns in Employment by County. 1940-1950 and 1950-1960,'U.s.Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, Vol. 6, 7, 8. 1965.

APPENDIX C

Spanish-Surnamed Population for20 Selected Counties: 1960

CountySpanish.

surnamedpopulation

Spanish-surnamedpopulation

as aPercent of

totalpopulation

Athena:Maricopa 78,996 11.9Pima 44,481 16.7

California:Los Angeles 576,716 9.5Orange 52, 576 7. 5

San Bernardino 60,177 12.0

San Joaquin 30, 585 12.2Santa Clara 77,755 12.1

Colorado:Denver 43,147 8.7

Pueblo 25,437 21.4

New Mexico:Bawling 68,101 26.0Donna Ana 25, 214 42.1Santa Fe 24,400 54.3

Texas:Boxer 257,090 37.4Cameron 96,744 64.0El Paso 136, 993 43.6Hidalgo 129,092 71.4Jim Wells 18, 848 54.6Nueces 84,386 38.1Travis 26, 072 12.3Webb 51, 784 79.9

Source: U.S. Census of Population: 1960, "Persons of Spanish Surname," FiveSouthwestern States, PC(2), 18.

APPENDIX D

Employment Growth In Selected Industries

This appendix shows the growth of selected indus-tries over time. The 1950 and 1960 employment figureswere obtained from "Growth Patterns in Employmentby County," 1 which, essentially, derived them fromthe census of population for 1950 and 1960. It shouldbe noted that these figures are the same as those de-picted graphically with a vertical arrow on most of theemployment pattern diagrams. The percentage growthfrom 1950 to 1960 for each industry, represented bythe height of the arrow, corresponds to the percentagefigure given in the following table.

Some industries for which data was provided by theEEOC are not shown in this table. The criteria used

U.S. Office of Business Economics, "Growth Patterns inEmployment By County 1940-1950 and 1950-1960," Wash-ington, D.C., 1965, Vol. 6, 7, 8.

for selecting industries in each county were that theyhad a positive growth rate from 1950 to 1960 (usinggrowth patterns data) and that they represented atleast one percent of the reporter employment in theEEOC reports from the county. Industries not fulfill-ing these requirements were not included. Occa-sionally, growth rates were not available on an industrywhich did meet the one percent requirement; this isnoted in the table by NA.

The 1956 and 1966 figures have been taken fromthe "County Business Patterns," 1 which are gatheredfrom employer reports on the number of employees ontheir payroll.

The table reads from left to right with the 1950 and1960 growth patterns figures on the top row, and the1956 and 1966 county business patterns figures aregiven on the row below. Percentage growths aro, shownfor both the growth patterns and county business pat-terns figures.

The purpose of this table is to supplement the em-ployment pattern diagrams by viewing an industry'sgrowth over z 16-year period. The county business pat-terns data also afford comparison with and fill some ofthe gaps left by the deficiencies of the growth patternsfigures. Furthermore, they reveal some negative growthrates which do not show in growth patterns data.

The classifications utilized by growth patterns occa-sionally differed from those used by the EEOC. Forinstance, growth patterns figures combined such indus-tries as insurance, finance and real estate, reportingone employment figure for all of these, while theEEOC reported er.ch separately. In some cases, thetable compares growth patterns figures for combinedindustry components that were reported separately bythe county business patterns. The detailed record ofeach heading by Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) code in appendix E tells where this occurs.Instances where growth patterns figures combine in-dustrial headings which county business patterns fig-ures reported separately have been footnoted.

Occasional reporting difficulties were found withcounty business patterns figures. For instance, finance,under the county business patterns, is divided into fourSIC categories (see app. E), aria often all four wouldbe reported in 1956 while only two or three would befurnished in 1966. County business patterns reportingdeficiencies are attributed to its policy of avoiding dis-closure of operations of individual reporting units(noted in the table by a "D") and not furnishing datafor an industry that does not have 100 employees or10 reporting units in the area covered (noted by adash () ).

U.S. Bureau of the Census, "County Business Patterns:"1956, 1966. Washington, D.C., 1958, 1967.

85

Comparison of employment date from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956

anJ 1966 county business patterns' and 196E county business patterns I-Continued

County, industry 1950 1956 19V 1966 Percentagegrowth

Maricopa, Ariz.:Contract construction 9,421 21,444 127.0

10,668 15, 571 45.9

Food and kindred products 2,678 5,050 88.52,667 4,737 77.6

Apparel 166 1, 879 1,031.0895 2,361 163.7

Printing and publishing 1,447 3,438 . ___. __ 137. 0

1,542 3, 199 107.4

Primary metal Industries NA NA -3,122 2,686 -13.9

Fabricated metal industries . _ NA NA -1,017 1, 934 89.8

Machinery (nortelectric)____ __ NA NA -1, 639 12, 797 680.7

Electrical machinery, equip-ment and supplies_ _ _ _____ NA NA -

222 19, 710 8,778.3

Transportation equipment____ 203 5,615 2,665.0

instruments and relatedproducts NA

5, 340

NA

1, 486 -72.1

-- D -Transportation 3, 937 5, 893 49.0

NA NA -Utilitie% and sanitary serv-

ICPJ 3,169 4, 689 48.02,500 D -

Wholesale trade 6,319 10,105 59.010,202 15, 234 49.3

Retail trade 21,198 38,529 80. 0

24,341 44,683 !Z. b

Finance 4, 541 13,897 3 206.02,888 6, 562 127.2

! nsurance 4, 541 13, 897 3 206. 0

2, 905 5, 937 104. 3

Business services 3,743 7,681 3 105. 0

1,432 5, 361 274.3Medical and other services_ _ . 11,468 28,565 I 149. 0

1,291 9,240 615.7

Miscellaneous and otherservices 11,468 28,565 I 149. 0

4,603 _ ______ 11,724 154.7

Pima, Ariz.:Mining 1,612 3,446 113.7

2,294 4,312 87.9Contract zonstruction 4,670 8,273 77.1

4, 484 5, 409 20. 6

Printing end publishing 527 940 78.3631 932 47.7

Primary metal Industries_ __ NA NA -D 144 -

Machinery (nonelectric) NA NA -139 335 141.0

Beatricel machinery equip-meat and supplies NA NA -- 0 -

Transportation equipment__ _ 27 222 722.11,518 D -

Transportation 3,565 3, 632 1.8NA NA -

Utnies end sanitaryservices 646 1,181 82.8

686 883 28.7Retail trade 8,953 15,434 72.3

10,527 15, 760 49.7Finance' 1,W7 4,554 3 183. 3

D 1, 879 -Real estate 1, 607 4, 554 2 183. 3

762 1, 545 102.7

See footnotes at end of table

86

County, industry 1950 1956 1960 1966 Percentagegrowth

Pima, Ariz.-Continued

Personal services 2,870 4,410 53.61,408 1, 994 38.0

Medical services 6,190 13,977 1 125.7

746 4,542 508.8Educational services 6,190 13, 977 I 125. 7

199 594 198.4Miscellaneous and other

services 6,190 13, 977 1 125.72,027 5,484 170.4

Los Angeles, Calif.:Contract construction 120,464 124, 170 3.0

121, 251 116, 256 -4.1Food and kindred products_ 37, 071 51, 668 39. 3

41, 808 49,735 18.9Paper and allied products____ NA NA -

12, 070 15,884 31. 5

Printing and publishing 30,164 43, 487 44.129,510 38,487 30.4

Chemicals and alliedproducts 13,932 22,163 59.0

19,217 21,348 11.0Rubber and plastic products__ NA NA -

14, 212 24, 255 70.6Stone, clay and glass

products NA NA -18, 025 20, 803 15.4

Primary metal industries__ NA NA -24,596 23, 883 -2. a

Fabricated metal products___ NA NA -53,315 62, 693 17. 5

Machinery (nonelectric) NA NA -57,132 67,442 17.9

Electrical machinery, equip-ment, and supplies NA NA -

51, 400 82, 640 60.7Transportation equipment____ 89,222 173,557 94.0

228, 619 162, 820 -28.7Instruments and related

products NA NA -14,227 21,022 47_7

Transportation 66,977 80,961 20.0NA NA -

Communications 3D, 752 39, 461 28.038,033 59,966 57.6

Utilities and sanitary services_ 25,389 29,989 18.015,786 15,173 -3.8

Wholesale trade 79, 881 95, 877 20.0128,282 169,537 32. 1

Retail trade 292, 859 344, 303 19. 1

301,920 388,125 28.5

Finance 83,719 127,350 3 52.0

35,721 62,531 75.0

Insurance 83,719 127, 350 3 52.0

35, 917 50, 028 39.2

Business services 52,352 95,203 3 81. 0

42,112 92, 019 118.5

Motion picture, amusementand recreation services._ 45,018 47,225 4.0

53, 081 52, 092 -1.8Medical services 164,120 276, 428 3 68.0

29, 090 91, 389 214.1

Educational services 164,120 276, 428 3 68. 0

4,144 23,182 459.4

Miscellaneous and otherservices i_ 164,120 276, 428 3 68, 0

37,875 89,448 136.1

Orange, Calif.:

Contract construction 7,436 20, 395 174.0

10, 027 20, 441 103.8

See footnotes at end of table.

Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 Comparison of employment data rrom the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956and 1966 county business patterns 1-Continued and 1966 county business patterns 1-Continued


Orange, Calif.-Continued

Food and kindred products__ 2, 324 5, 644 14k. 02, 285 5, 394 136.0

Paper and allied products__ - -491 1,766 259.4

Printing and publishing 879 4, 104 366.0943 4,068 331. 3

C hemicais and alliedproducts* 420 2,236 43.2

734 1,787 143.4Rubber and plastic product: _ -

1, 402 3, 511 150.4Fabricated metal products_ _ _ - -

1,974 _. _____ ._ 6, 973 253. 2

Machinery (nonelectric) - -1, 657 4, 551 174.6

Electrical machinery equip-ment, and supplies -

1,048 42,918 3995.2Transportation equipment__ 2,158 15, 076 598.0

1,061 10, 360 876.4Instruments and related

products - -1,513 _.... ...... 1,047 -30.7

Miscellaneous manufacturing_ - - -673 2, 998 345.4

Wholesale trade 3, 490 8, 582 145.03,661 9,587 161.8

Retail trade 13, 511 38, 366 183.018, 355 58, 271 217.4

Insurance 2, 639 11, 725 2 344.01,325 4, 849 265.9

Business services 2, 182 7, 382 3 238.01,130 6,114 441.3

Motion picture, amusement,and recreation services _ _ . _ 886 3,513 298 0

1, 838 5,302 188.4Medical services 7,174 27, 816 4 287.0

1, 450 10,228 605.3San Bernardino, Calif.:

Contract construction 8, 146 13, 021 59.87,064 9,806 38.8

Food and kindred products_._ 2, 219 3,103 39.81,649 2,405 45.8

Printing and publishing 830 1,777 114.0800 1,177 47.1

Stone, clay and glass prod-ucts NA NA -

2,493 2,671 7.1Primary metal industies_____ NA NA -

8, 174 D -Fabricated metal products___ NA NA -

567 1,789 215.5Electrical machinery, equip-

ment and supplies NA NA -1,015 1,261 24.2

Transportation equipment 333 2, 872 762.7116 3,179 2, 640.5

Transportation 7,798 9, 268 18.8NA NA

Wholesale trade 4, 502 5,213 3.85, 007 5,717 14.1

Retail trade 15,433 25,231 63.416,181 26, 055 37.7

Finance* 2, 649 5, 872 2 121.61,477 3, 051 106. 5

Insurance 2, 649 5, 872 2 121.6

876 1,518 73.2Business Services 2, 643 4, 332 3 75.8

763 2, 950 286.6

Sea footnotes at end cr table.


San Bernardino, Calif.-Continued

Medical Services 9, 242 21,533 4 132.91, 355 5, 395 298.1

San Joaquin, Calif.Food and kindred products_ 4, 202 6,192 47.3

3, 205 4, 236 32. 1Lumber and wood products 710 1,364 92. 2

1,190 1,324 11.2Paper and ,illied products__ NA NA -

1,111 1, 043 -6.1Printing and publishing 599 953 59.2

477 661 38.5Chemicals and allied products_ 105 273 159.0

57 340 603.5Stone, clay and glass products_ NA NA -

381. 1,658 435. 1Fabricated metal products NA NA -

419 1,189 183.7Machinery (nonelectric)___ NA NA -

1, 284 1,387 8.0Transportation equipment__ 227 386 70.0

396 868 119.1Transportation 4, 169 4,926 18. 1

NA NA -Wholesale trade 2,908 - 3,378 16.1

3, 074 3, 899 26.8Retail trade 11, 840 13,753 16. 1

9,988 12,913 29.2Finance 1, 826 2,773 52.0

766 1, 342 75. 1Medical services 6, 552 10, 469 r 59.7

563 2, 520 347.6Educational services _ 6, 552 10, 469 4 59.7

- __._ ..... 1,009 -Santa Clara, Calif.:

Contract construction__ 9,481 18,163 91.!10, 017 14, 652 46..

Food and kindred products_ 7, 810 10, 352 32.08,288 9, 125 10.0

Paper and allied products_-__ NA NA -705 2, 269 221.8

Chemical and allied products_ 591 1,335 12.0845 1, 629 92.7

Fabricated metal products. NA NA -1,598 2,073 29.7

Machinery (nonelectric) NA NA -2,667 11,888 345.7

Electrical machinery,equipment and supplk. NA NA -

5,945 24,105 305.4Transportation equipment 228 3, 347 1, 67.0

3, 392 5, 229 56.2Wholesale trade 4, 225 6,162 45.8

4, 477 10, 357 131.3Retail trade 17, 610 31,109 76. 0

19, 531 ___. _____ 39,813 103.8Finance 3, 870 10, 313 _____ . ___ 2 166. 0

2, 104 6, 387 203. 5

Insurance 3, 870 10,313 2 166.0

981 3, 388 245.3Business services, 2,904 7,013 3 141. 0

1, 928 8, 564 343.6

Medical services 12, 713 34, 636 4 172.0

1,795 10, 339 475.9

Educational services 12, 713 34,636 4 172.090 8,713 10, 255.5

Miscellaneous and other

services 12, 713 34, 636 r 172.01.821 10, 402 471.2


87

Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 Comparison of employment date from the censuses of 1950 and 1950 with the 1956and 1966 couey business patterns I-Continued and 1916 county business patterns 1-Continued

Denver, Colo.:Mining 490 1,678 242.0

3,290 3, 396 3.2Food and kindred products._ 6, 312 6,352 _ .6

8,044 7, 399 -8.0Printing and publishing 3,471 3,958 5.2

4,048 _ 5,492 35.6Chemicals and ailed

products :, 177 1,258 6.81,484 1,153 -22.3

Rubber and plastics NA NA -5, 217 D -

Leather products NA NA -2,542 D -

3tone, clad and glassproducts NA NA -

1,294 1,083 -16,3Fabricated metal products__ NA NA -

2,134 2, 247 5.2Machinery (nonelectric) NA NA -

3, 015 _ 3, 047 1.0Instruments, related products. NA NA -

663 647 -2.4Wholesale trade 10,236 10,612 3.6

20,255 24,727 22.GRetail trade 32, 010 32,151 .4

35, 918 41,710 16.1Finance 9,65 12,635 2 30. 8

4, 552 7, 958 74. 8Insurance 9,656 12,635 2 33.8

5,612 7,727 37.6Business services 4,980 6,274 3 10.1

3,275 6,253 90. 9Medical services 20,413 28,842 '41.2

1,958 12,492 537.9Educational services 20,413 28,842 4 41. 2

D 4, 269 -Miscellaneous and other

products 20,413 28,842 '41.25,569 11,287 102.6

Pueblo, Colo.:Food and kindred 638 826 29.6

products 699 755 19.7Printing and publishing 326 417 --------- 27.9

284 319 12.3Primary metal Industries-- NA NA -

8,266 ... ...... D -Machinery (nonelectric) NA . NA -

D D -Utilities and sanitary airy-

Ices 522 620 18.9542 420 -22.5

Retail trade 5,063 6,150 21.44, 282 5,148 20.2

Finance 827 1, 075 a 29.2406 591 45. 5

Medical services 3,689 6,424 '74.1325 2,157 563, 6

Bernalillo, N. Mex.:Contract construcUon 7,747 -------- 8,734 12.7

5,776 8, 277 43.2Ordntace and accessories - - -

1,000 D -Food and kindred products 698 1,708 144.6

920 1, 478 60. 6

Printing and publishing 477 1,357 104.t.Stone, clay and glass prod- 513 726 41.5

acts - - -199 595 198.9



88

Berne lillo. N Mex.-ContinuedMachinery (nonelectric) - - -

176 451 156.2Miscellaneous manufacturing. - - -

393 440 11.9Transportation 2,921 3,643 24.7

NA NA -Utilities and sanitary sem-

ices 801 1,428 65.7736 D -

Wholesale trade 2,374 3,660 54.13, 525 5,557 57.6

Retail trade 9, 289 14, 227 -10, 442 15, 242 46.0

Finance' 1,900 4,383 a 130.61,062 1,905 79.3

Insurance 1,900 4,383 s130.61,058 1,776 67.8

Business services 1,526 9,544 3 525.3685 8,857 1,192.9

Medical SerViCeS 5, 283 12,238 4 131. 6

691 3,447 398.6Educational services b, 283 12,238 4 131. 6

112 765 583.0Miscellaneous, other

services' 5, 283 12, 238 4 131. 6

1, 523 3, 883 154.9Dona Ana, N. Mex.:

Contract construction 1, 042 1, 427 36.9545 868 59.2

Electrical machinery, equip-ment and supplies NA NA -

- ...... ...... D -Educational services 882 1, C46 '18.7- - -Miscellaneous and other

services' 882 1,045 4 18. 7

117 437 213.5Santa Fe, N. Mex.:

Mining - - -193 464 140.4

Contract construction - - -1,084 1,021 -5.8

Food and kindred products- - - -- 160 -Electrical machinery. equip-

ment and supplies - - -- - -Wholesale trade - - -

330 458 38, 7

Retail trade - - -1, 859 2, 559 37, 6

Finance' - - -147 384 161.2

Personal services - - -320 365 14.0

Medical services - - -95 748 687.3

Miscellaneous and otherservices - - -

566 798 40.9Bexar, Tex.:

Mining 996 1,260 26.52, 498 1, 261 -49.5

Contract construction 14,292 15,278 6.811, 233 14, 217 26.5

Food and kindred products _ 5,625 --------- 7,091 26.0

5, 580 7, 937 42.2

Apparel 2, 489 2, 518 1.1

3,104 3,880 25.0



Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1550 and 1960 with the 1956

and 1916. county business patterns 1-Continued and 1966 county business patterns I-Continued

County, industry 1950 1956 1960 1°66 Percentagegrowth

Bexar, Tex.-ContinuedPrinting and publishing 2, 423 2, 818 16.0

1, 923 2, 471 28.4

Stone, clay and glassproducts NA NA

1, 090 1, 349 23.7

Primary metal industries NA NA -329 1, 002 204.5

Fabricated metal products NA NA -873 1,176 34.7

Machinery (nonelectric)___ _ . NA NA -1,507 1,782 18.2

Wholesale trade 8, 438 10, 230 21.212556 13, 945 11.0

Retail trade 33,495 38, 230 14.1

33, 465 38, 319 14.5

Finance 7, 099 10, 975 2 54. 5

3, 076 5, 080 65.1

Insurance 7, 099 10, 975 2 54. 5

4,181 5, 697 36.2

Personal services NA NA -4 489 6,362 41.7

Business services 4, 854 6, 967 343 5

2, 216 3, 917 76.7

Medical services 13 831 23, 383 4 69.0

I, 715 6, 332 269.2

Miscellaneous and otherservices.

NA NA -4,439 9,484 113.6

Cameron, Tex.:Food and kindred products 1, 505 3, 073 104.1

1, 751 3,579 104.3

Apparel 48 403 739. 5

D D -Stone, clay and glass

Products NA NA-- 220

Utilities and sa nitary service_ _ 947 --------- 1, 14,, 20.4

440 D -Wholesale trade.... 2, 162 - 2, 346 28.8

2,933 2,248 -23.3Retail trade 6,536 7,997 22. 3

6, 992 6,449 -7.7Finance 964 1,290 233.8

440 670 75.0

Personal services NA NA664 '790 18.9

Medical services 2, 408 4, 230 4 75.6

225 988 339.1

industries not classified NA NAD 110 -

El Paso, Tex.:Contract construction 5, 278 6,420 21.6

5 162,,5 485 6.2

Food and kindred products... 1,454 2, 213 52.2

1,488 2, 259 51.0

Apparel 1,025 3,157 208.0

3,492 9,703 177.8

Printing and publishing 653 1,203 84.2

592 736 24.3

Leather products NA NA -151 D -

Primary metal industries NA NA

I) 1,959 -Fabricated metal products__ NA NA -

412 613 48.7

Instruments and related

products NA NA -D - -



El Paso, Tex.-ContinuedUtilities and sanitary sera-

ices 1, 486 2,459 65.42,878 2,737 -4.8

Wholesale trade 2,866 3,730 _ _ . . ..... 30.14, 840 5,733 18.4

Retail trade 12,152 16, 097 32,413,710 16,6E6 21.7

Finance 2,070 4,010 2 94. 0997 1,787 79.2

Personal services 5, 150 6,787 33,71,632 1,988 21.8

Business services 1, 326 2, 260530 1, 275 140.5

Medical se. AB 5,183 10,463 4 101.8864 3,086 257.1

Miscellaneous and otherservices 5,183 10,463 4 101.8

1, 506 2, 877 SI. 0Harris, Tex.:

Mining 7,122 12,226 71.618, 499 18,098 -2.1

Cont ract construction 33, 145 34, 901 5. 233, 512 57, 574 71. 8

Food and kindred products__ 7, 404 9, 957 3447, 708 10, 023 30 0

Paper end allied products NA NA -3, 162 3,259 3.0

Printing and publishing NA NA - -4,980 6,049 21.4

Chemicals and alliedproducts 4,995 11,873 137.6

8, 912 11, 539 29.4Stone, clay, and glass

products NA NA -2,394 4,960 107.1

Primary metal industries_ NA NA -6,059 11,252 85.7

Fabricated metal products. NA NA -8, 563 16.575 98.2

Machinery (nonelectrie) . NA NA -18,041 18,209 .09

Electronic machinery,equipment, and supplies_ NA NA .-

1,481 3,463 135. 8

Transportation equipment__ 1,146 2,118 84.81, 310 2, 469 88.4

Transportation 24, 802 28,429 14.6

NA NA -Utilities and sanitary

services 6, 223 9, 242 48.5

0, 479 8, 529 31.6

Wholesale trade 17. 819 28, 022 57.2

34, 076 49, 303 44.6

Retail trade 57, 675 74, 080 28.4

62, 987 ---------- 86, 505 37.3

Finance 14, 689 23, 877 2 62. 5

6,705 ___. 41,634 73.5

Insurance 14,689 2.1 2 62. 5

9, 124 12, 080 32.3

Business services 8, 819 14, 505 _ a 64.4

5,290 14, 629 176.5

Medical service,' 26,134 52, 894 4 102.0

3,816 20,632 440.6

Educational services_ 26, 134 52, 894 4 102.0

471 4,752 908.9

Miscellaneous services 26, 134 52, 894 4 102. 0

8, 168 19, 804 142.4


89

Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 1956 Comparison of employment data from the censuses of 1950 and 1960 with the 393$and 1966 County busi, ens patterns I-ConUnued and 1966 county business patterns I-Continued

County, industry 1950 1956 1960 1966 Percrntagegrowth

Hidalgo, Tex.:Mining 744 1, 059 42.3

590 792 34.2Contract construction 2, 683 2,892 7

1,711 1, 854 8.3Food and kindred products 1,905 2,295 20.4

1, 687 1, 596 -5. 3Apparel 23 364 1, 482. 6

497 0Paper and allied products.... NA NA -

116 _. -Chemical and allied products_ 108 485 349.0- 154 -Utilities and sanitary services. 994 1,149 15.6

322 266 -17.3Wholesale trade 3, 663 5, 293 4.9

4, 474 4,153 -13.7Retail trade 7,111 8, 838 24.2

5,789 6,857 18.4Business services 994 1,167 3 17.4

196 137 -30.1Medical services 2,863 5,404 4 88. 7

262 597 127.8Jim Wells, Tex.:

Mining 1, 231 1,386 12. 5NA 1, 269 -

Transportation 408 412 1.2NA NA

Wholesale trade 232 308 32.7NA 450 -

Retail trade 1,358 1, 556 27.8NA 1,283 -

Medical services 480 872 4 81.6NA 220 -

Nooses, Tex.:Mining 1,900 2,564 34 9

3, 947 4,115 4.2Food and kindred products... 1,272 1,618 27.2

1, 400 1,963 40.2Printing and I:Wishing... _ _ _ 469 745 58.8

474 579 22. 1

Chemicals and allied'products 1, 023 1,352 32.1

3,115 1,509 -51.5Fabricated mete! products NA NA -

394 697 76.9Primary metal products NA NA -

761 1 -Transportation 2,340 2,672 14.2

NA NA -Utilities and sanitary services_ ,,223 1,593 30.1

933 915 -1.9Wholesale trade 2,462 3,155 28.1

3,891 --------- 4,584 17.8Retail trade 10, 920 10,989 18.9

10,915 12,164 11.4

Finance* 1, 912 2,921 '52.7845 1, 241 43.3

Personal services NA NA -1, 451 1, 832 26.2

Business services 1, 522 2,245 547, 5

500 1, 010 102.0

County, Industry 1950 1956 1960 1966 Percentagegrowth

Nueses, Tex.--ContinuedMedical services 4,132 8, 222 498.9

114 2,442 2, 042.1Travis, Tex.:

Contrsctconstruction 6,513 7,149 9.76, 163 28.5

Food and kindred products_ 889 1,293 45.41, 070 1, 622 51.5

Furnitute fixtures 633 703 11.0462 766 65.3

Printing and publishing 1,101 1,869 69.71,126 1, 631 44.8

Chemicals and allied prod-acts 188 259 37.2

128 123 -3,9Stone, clay, and glass prod-

nets - - -322 726 125.4

Transportation equipment 45 216 382.2- 0 -Communications 836 1,147 37.2

960 _ 1,477 76.6Utilities and sanitary serv-

ices 923 1, 274 .6.0336 351 4.4

Wholesale trade 2,050 2,392 16.62,318 3,445 48.6

Retail trade 11,393 12,648 11.010, 459 14, 051 34,3

Finance' 2,431 3,866 5 58. 9

942 1, 691 79.5Insurance 2,431 3,866 2 58. 9

1, 350 3, 676 172.2Personal services - - -

1, 585 2, 057 29.7Business services 1,568 1,982 3 26. 4

853 1,984 132, 5Medical services 10,397 17,355 4 66. 9

489 2,136 336.8Educational services 10,397 17,355 4 66.9

255 1,048 310. 9

Miscellaneous and other

Services 10,397 17,355 4 66. 9

2,311 4,464 93.1Webb, Tex.:

Apparel 172 230 34.3

390 363 -6.9Retail trade 3,166 3,537 11.7

2,955 4,428 49.8Miscellaneous and other

services' 1,122 1,646 415.7425 748 76. 0

'See foregoing exolanation of table.'Finance, insurance, and real estate are combined in the 1950, 1960 census figures

while reported separately in the 1956, 1966 County Business Patterns figtrvs.3 Business service is combined with repair service in the 1960 census figures, but

these Cr. reported separately in the 1956, 1966 County Business Patterns figures.4 Medical service, legal service, educational service, miscellaneous and other serv-

is and industries not classified are combined in the 1950,1960 census figures whileSee footnotes at end of table, reported separately in the 1956,1966 County Business Patterns figures.

PO

APPENDIX EStandard Industrial Classification Code and Industrial Headings Utilized by Three Data Sources

EEO-1

Headings

Growth patterns

SIC Headings

County Business Patterns

SIC Headings SIC

Agriculture, forestry and fisheries 01-09 Agriculture, forestry and fisheries 01,

02, 07, 08, 09 (except 0713)

Mining 10-14 Mining 10,11,12,11 14

Contract construction 15-17 Contract construction 15,16,17

Ordnance and accessories 19

Food and kindred products including tobacco manu-facturing 20, 21 Food and kindred products 0713, 217,

Textiles and mill products 22 Textiles and mill products 22

Apparel 23 Apparel 23

Lumber and wood products 24 Lumber, wood products, furniture 24, 25

Furniture and fixtures 25

Paper and allied products 26

Printing, publishing and allied industries 27 Printing and publishing and allied Industries. 27

Chemicals and allied products, including petroleumrefining 28, 29 Chemicals and allied products 28

Rubber and miscellaneo is plastic products 30

Leather products 31

Stone, clay and glass products 32

Primary metal industries 33

Fabricated metal products 34

Machinery (nonelectric) 35

Electrical Machinery, equipment and supplies 36 Electrical and other machinery 35,36Motor vehicles and equipment 371

Transportation equipment 37 Other transportation equipment 37 (except 371)I ntruments and related products 38

Miscellaneous manufacturing 39 Other a nd m istellaneou s 19, 21, 26, 29,30,31,32,33,34,38, 39

Railroads and railway express

Transportation 40-47 Other transportation 41,44,45,46,47Trucking and warehousing__ 42

Communications 48 Communications 48

Utilities anckanitary services 49 Utilites and sanitary services 49

Wholesale trade 50 Wholesale trade 50

Food and dairy product stores 54

Eating and drinking places 58

Retail trade 53 Other retail trade 52 53, 55,56,57, 59Finance 60, 61, 62,67 Finance, insuran- a and real estate 60-67

insurance 63,64Real estate 65,66

Personal services 72 Hotels and personal services 70,72

Repair service 75,76Business service 73 Business and repair services 73,75,76Motion picture, sicusement and recreation 78,79 Entertainment, recreation services 78,79

Medical service 80 Medical, other professional services _ 80, 81,82,84, 86,89Private households 88

Legal services 81

Educational services 82Other and miscellaneous service 70, 84, 86, 88, 89

Public Administration 91-93 (except 9190 part)Armed :,rces 9190 part

industries not classifiable 99 Industry not reported 99

Agriculture, forestry and fisheries 01-09

Mining 10-14Contract construction 15-17

Ordnance and accessories 19

Food and kindred products 20

Tobacco manufactures 21

Textiles and mill products 22

Apparel and related products 23

Lumber and wood products 24

Furniture and fixtures 25

Paper and allied products 26

Printing and publishing 27

Chemicals and allied producs 28

Petroleum and coal products 29

Rubber and plastic products n.e.c 30

Leather and leather products 31

Stone, clay and glass products 32

Primary metal industries 33

Fabricated metal products 34

Machinery, except electrical 35

Electrical machinery 36

Transportatiu, equipment 37

Instruments and related products neMiscellaneous manufacturing 39

Railroad transportation 40

Local passenger transportation 41

Trucking and warehousing 42

Water transportation 44T-ensportation by air 45

had line transportation 46

Transportation services 47

,;;;.,cations 48

Electric, gas and sanitary services 49

Wholesale trade 50

Retail trade 52-59

Bankinp 60

Credit agencies other than banks 61

Security and commodity brokers and services 62

Insurance, carriers, agents 63,641

Real estate 65

Combined real estate, insurance and law 661

Holding and other investment companies 67

Personal services 72

Hotels and other lodging 70

Automobile repair and services and garages 75

Miscellaneous repair services 76

Amusement and recreation services n.e.c 79

Motion pictures 78

Medical and other health services 80

Private households 881

Legal services 811

Educational services 82

Miscellaneous services 89

Miscellaneous business services 73

Government 91-94

Museums, botanical and zoological gardens 84

Nonprofit membership organizations 86

Source: U.S. Office of Business Economics, "Growth Patterns in Employment by County 1940-1950 and 1950-1960," Washington, D.C., 1965.U.S. Bureau of the Census ,"County Business Patterns," 1966, Washington, D.C., 1967.Data gathered by EEOC from employer reports.

91

874-215 0--70--7

APPENDIX F

Consumer-oriented Industries

SIC code (two digits) Industry SIC code (two digits) Industry

52 Building materials and farm equipment. 63 Insurance carriers.53 General merchandise. 64 Insurance agents. brokers and service.54 Food, 65 Real estate.55 Automotive dealers and service stations. 66 Combined real estate, insurance, etc.56 Apparel and accessories. 70 Hotels and other lodging places.57 Furniture and home furnishings. 72 Personal services.58 Eating and drinking places. 75 Auto repair.59 Miscellaneous retail stores. 76 Miscellaneous repair service.60 Banking. 78 Motion pictures.61 Credit agencies other than banks. 79 Amusements and recreation n.e.c.

APPENDIX GListing of Counties WithPopulation 10 or More Percent Negro

ARIZONA Austin Grimes Montgomery

Maricopa Bastrop Guadalupe MorrisBell Hall Nacogdoches

COLORADO Beau Hardeman Navarro

DenverBowieBrazorla

HardinHarris

Musses

Panels

CALIFORNIABrasBurleson

HarrisonHenderson

PolkRed River

Alameda Caldwell Hill RobertsonContra Costa Cass Hopkins RockwallFresno Chambers Houston RuskMorn Cherokee Hunt San AugustineLos Angeles Collin Jackson San JacintoMonterey Colorado Jasper ShelbyRiverside Dallas Jefferson SmithSacramento Delta Knufmnn TarrantSan Bernardino De Witt Lamar TitusSEA Diego Ellis Lavaca Travis

San Francisco Falls Lee Trinity

San .-laquin Fannin Liberty Tyler

San Mateo Fayette Limestone iJpshur

Solano Fort Bend Lubbock WalkerWaller

Freestone McLennanWash ington

TEXAS Galveston Madison WhartonAnderson Gonzales Matagorda WilliamsonAngelina Gregg Milan Wood

92

APPENDIX H

299 Employment Pattern Diagrams

for Industries for Selected Counties

93


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE



CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 5 87 8 9

O 10 20


30

1 2100

60%INTINDUSTRY


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

0

100

50

0

3

40 50

4

60 70 80 90 100

5 87 8 9uj


FOOD/KINDRED PRODUCTS


78 9i11.11

1111O 10 20


1001 2 3

30

75%IN

INDUURY

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

78 9

0Mexican - Americans represent 69.496

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


94

of minorities in

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL 8 OFFICE8. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS 8 MANAGERS

Labor Force.


% 1980 21,444100

50

01950

50 -


10088%

50

0

- 50

127%

9,421

1960 5,050

19502,878

MINORITIES:IN

INDUSTRY

15.5%IN

LABORFORCE


LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYAPPAREL


1 2 3 5789

0 10 20


1 2 3

30

ININDUSTRY 50


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5789

Mexican-Americans represent 89.496 GI minorities In Labor Force.

PRINTING/PUBLISHING


1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN - AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4100

ININDUSTRY SO

30

0

40 50 60 70 80

WIN

90 100

6 7 8

Mexican-Americans represent 89.496 of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



1960 1,879

100 -

50 -

0

-50

1950

1,031%

166


1960 3,438

100 -

50 -

t

-50 -

1950

137%

1,447

95


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE


LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYPRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3

0 10 20


10075% IIN

INDUSTRY 50


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

0


FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS


2 3 4 5 678'9

II0 10 2(


30

10078% ....g.IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

2 3

40 50 60 70 80

Mexican-AmericansOCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


96

represent 89.4% of minorities In Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

ti 1966 2,686Lti 0C.) 139%cccc 1958

50

3,122


0089.8%.

1966

50

0

50

1956

1.934

1,017


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

0



MACHINERY (NON-ELECTRIC)

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONSI 2 a U V f V V

me =N um a .. aim Ililas Maw

0 10 20


10012 3 4

30 40

58%IN ir6INDUSTRY


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50 80 70 80

100

50

0

Mexican- Americans represent 89.4% of minorities In Labor Force.

ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11 =los t

0 10 20


30

1100

'2

78% 11IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 80 70 80

Mexican-Americans represent 69.4% of minorities In Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OraRATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:



1988 12,797

100

50 -

01958

A

-50 -

680.7%

1,639


% 1968 19,710

100

50

o

-50

8778.3%

222

97


15,5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZ.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT FY INDUSTRY

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT


.-.40

IIMI MB .M. Ma =N. MIND MB MB .M. II M11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS BY OCCUPATIONS

10012 3 4 5 8

50%IN

INDUSTRY 50

MINORITIES:

15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

Mexican-Americans represent 69.4% ot minorities In Labor Force.

INSTRUMENTS/RELATED PRODUCTS


10013 4

50

0

5 7 8 9

mi

I oir. . wmlMITI70 10 20


13100

4

'30

56%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

MD MIN MB MS .1=.


BLUE COLLAR:

1, SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4 CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

98


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL F. OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


1980 5,615

100

50 -

01950

A

-50

2885%

203


100

50 -

0

-50


15.5%IN

100

LABOR 50FORCE\ Ey I=

0


LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYTRANSPORTATtaN


I ,,. ... . .. S.; GI 17

al

I NEM MEI le I=

0 10 20 30

MEXICAN-A %%RICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3

INDUSTRY 50IN

40 50

MINORITIES!ININDUSTRY

15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

60 70 80

M

90 100

4 5 6 78 9

Mexican-Americans represent 89.496 of minorities In Labor Force.

UTILITIES/SANITARY SERVICES


100 1 2 3 4

50

0

5 8 9

11 Il i 11 i 11 MMI M. i ii, NM / M. ME i 1=

0 10 20


1, 2 3

30

100

70%....IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mexican - Americana represent 89.4%OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


of minorities in

WHITE COLLAR:


Labor Force.


100

50 -49%

0

-50

1960- 5,893

19503,937


99


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE



WHOLESALE TRADE


1001 2 3 4

50

.111211

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


30 40

100

79%,,ar:IN`

50INDUSTRY

1 2 3

I50 60 70 80

INMP I MN

90 100

7 8 9


RETAIL TRADE


1001 23 4

15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6 78 9

0 10 20


30 40

100

67%IN101'.7

INDUSTRY """

i IIM MS IIM

50

23' 4

60 70 80

MN

90 100

78 9

Mexican-Americans represent 69.4% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


100

WHITE COLLAR:



100

59% 1960 10,10550 A

06,319

1950

50


1001960

80%

50

0

50

1950

38.529

21.198


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50



FINANCE

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 34 5 678

1111 M11 1I MOM =1111

0 10 20 30


1 34100

64%IN.

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

678

MINORITIES:

INDUSTRY

15.5%IN

LABORFORCE


INSURANCE


I134 5 6 7 8

MIND I1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100134 5

69%N""4"::

INDUSTRY

0Mexican-Americans

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS:9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


% 1960 13,897

100

50

01950

50 1


206%

4,541

% 1960 13,897100

50 -

A

206%

04,541

1950

50 -

101



BUSINESS SERVICES


1001 2 3 4

15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50 -

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4100

56%IN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7 8 9

MINORITIES:

INDUSTRY

15.5%

FOINLABOR


MEDICAL SERVICES


1 2 34 5 7 8 9

0 10 20 39 40


50 60 70 80 90 100

1001 2 34 5 7 8 9

IN Mft . .ft, .ftNDUSTRY


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


102


WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960 7.681100

50

0

50

105%

3.7431950


1960 28.565

100

50

0

50

1950

149%

11.468


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE



MISCELLANEOUS/OTHER SERVICES


1001 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


30

100

57%IN

INDUSTRY 5a


15.5%IN

LABORFORCE

0

100

40 50

2

60

34

70 80

6

90 100

7 8 9


AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY/FISHERIES


1 2 4 8 678 9

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100

89%00001eIN

INDUSTRY 50

0

2 5 6789


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANSS. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


% 1960 28.565

100

50 -

01950

-50 -

149%

11,468


100

50 -37%

0

-50

1980 18.929

13,7951950

103

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.

LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDU, `RYMINING


1001 2 3

19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

5 7 8 9

O 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OC(...,,ATIONS

30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100

100

81.79"IN

INDUSTRY 50


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

1 2 3 5 7 8 9

100

50




O 10 20


1001 2 3

30 40 50 60

88.1,11e.IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

5 7 8 9

MexicanAmericana representOCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


104

73.0% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960 3,446100

50

0

- 50 -

113.7%

19501,612


100 -77.1% 1960

a50 -

aU

LWj

01950

cc

a.- 50

8,273

4,670


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.


PRINTING/PUBLISHING

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 3 4 5 6 79

0 10 20


1 3100

30

96.0,0i000/49PIN

INDUSTRY 50


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 9

100


PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES


50

0 10 20


1 2 3100

73.7%

INDUSTRY 50

30

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 7' 8 9


BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:



1001960 940

50 -

0

-50 -

1950

78.5%

527


100 ."

50

0

-50 -

105


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.

LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYMACHINERY (NON-ELECTRICAL)


O 10 20


12 310

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

90.2%IN

INDUSTRY 50

6 7 8


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

PIM 0

Mexican-Americans represent 73.0% of minorities In Labor Force.

ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES


1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9

am am am e ow. om iim mem

O 10 20


1 2 3100

30

94.6!:#0,rIN

INDUSTRY 550

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mexican-Americans represent 73.0% of minorities in Labor Farce.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


106

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERIC:AL & OFFICE8. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


% 1966 335100 .

50 -

01956

4'

141.0%

- 50 I

139


100

50 -

0

- 50

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.




10012 3 4 5

19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

8 9

O 10 20


12 3 4100

85.4%,apeININDUSTRY 50


19.8%1IN

LABORFORCE


TRANSPORTATION

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 5 8789

O 10 20 30 40 50


2 3100

84.7:601rIN

INDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

5 8789


BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 - 8

.1p41111M

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960 222100

50 -

01950

- 50 -

722.2%


100

27

50

1.8% 1980 3.6320

- 50

19503.585

107


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.

LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYUTILITIES/SANITARY SERVICES


1MMM. =1 I 1 MM.

O 10 20 30 40 50


2 310

89.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

NMI 1

70 80 90 100

7 8 9


RETAIL TRADE


1001 2 3 4

19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

50

5 6 8 9

=1 M110 MM. M .O 10 20 30 40 50


1 23 4100 =Tr.-.87.21.01e

ININDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

78 9

Mexican-Americana represent 73.0% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


108

WHITE COLLAR:



100 "82.8% 1960

2 50 "

0

14.1 0O 1950cc14.1

-50 -

1,181


100

646

72.3% - 1960 15,434

-50

A

8,953


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

=NI MEN =NI

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.


FINANCE


O 10 20


14100..

89.1,rIN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

8 8

100

50

SF=

0


REAL ESTATE


1 2 3.4 5 6 78 9

I GYMS MONO MM. MI=

O 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100


1 2 34 5 6 78 9100

ININDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americana represent 73.0%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:



1980 4,554

100

50

et.

50

0

A

1950

183.3%

1,807


19804,554

loor50

50

183.3%

19501,807

109


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

PERSONAL SERVICES


1

0 10 20 30


100.94.676;00011r

INI.4DUSTRY

100

3 45 8789


MINORITIES:IN IN

19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

MEIACAL SERVICES

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 234

0 10 20 30 40 50


1100

83.2%IN41".,7

INDUSTRY 50

234 8 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4, CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

110

WHITE COLLAR:



100

Ili 53 6% 1 1960 4,4102 50S20Z--

02,870

1.1.1

Cr0 1950

(ii0.

-50


%1960 13,977A100 "'

50

01950

-50

125.7%

6,190


19.8%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZ.

LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYEDUCATIONAL SERVICES


1 2 3 4 5

I,=MI 0

0

Li I1 OMR I1 I Min =EN

10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100

MEXILZN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4 5100

1.163.6%

uIN

INDUSTRY 50

7 8 9

.11....,, .,,,.,,,.,,,.


MINORITIES:IN IN

19.8%IN

LABORFORCE


INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1

1002

50

4 5 6 7 8 9

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1100

2 8 9

69.0I%INPP.:

INDUSTRY

0Mexican-Americans represent 73.0% of minorities In Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960 13,977

100

50

01950

A.

-50

125.7%

6,190


% 1960 13,977100

N 125.7%

06,190

1950

-50

111

MINORITIES:

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF.LEVELS o MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

FOOD & KINDRED PRODUCTS


1001 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHAPE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3100

30

67%N

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

78 9




1001 2 3 4

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2 3100

87.8%IN "4",::

INDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8


BLUE COLLAR:


112


WHITE COLLAR:



100

z 50X 39.3%

0

a.-50 -

196051,668

37.0711950


100

2 50

I- 3.0%uj 0

a.-50

1960 124,170

1950 120,464


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

I

100

50

LOS ANGELES COUNTY. CALIF.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

PAPER & ALLIED PRODUCTS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2100

64.8%

INDUSTRY 50

3 4 5 678 9


MINORITIES:IN IN

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

PRINTING & PUBLISHING

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 4

100

- 50

=i=It 0

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


1 3100

61.2%IN ....SIP'

INDUSTRY 50

6 7 8 9


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

1966

50

1956

15,884

12,070


100

5044.1%

0

50

1960

1950

43,487

30,164

113

114


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

CHEMICALS & ALLIED PRODUCTS


1001 2 3 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3100

68.8%I N 41P.

INDUSTRY 50


17.4%IN

LABORFORCE

0

6 7 8

Mexican- Americans represent 45.7% of minorities in Labor Force.

RUBBER & PLASTIC PRODUCTS


0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORI'Y-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2100

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9

iNousinyIN

..00)"

...AL48.6%

Mexican-Americans represent 45.7% of minorities in Labor

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WOI' cERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:


Force.


100

41 59.0%z 50

50

1960

1950

22,183

13,932


24,255

14,212


STONE, CLAY & GLASS PRODUCTS

MINORITIES:IN IN

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3

100

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2 3100

73.3%IN /IF:

INDUSTRY 50


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8 9


PRIMARY METAL


0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

57.4%IN'',INDUSTRY 5u

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 67 8 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

SLUG COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

15.4% 1966 20.8030

195618.025

-50


100

50

0-2.8%

-50

1966 23 683'11- 24 5961958

115

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF,LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

FABRICATED METAL. PRODUCTS


1001 2 3

17.8%IN

LABORi:ORCE

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINONTY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3100

30

73.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80

IMO

90 100

5 6 78 9


MACHINERY (NON-ELECTRICAL)


1001'2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICOI-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

12 3100

52.8%IN

INDUSTRY

30

0

4,7: 50 60 70 80

4 5 6 7 8 9


90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. CPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

116

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

17.5%

0

50 -

196662,693

53,3151956


67,442

57,132


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE


ELECTRONIC MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES


1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


12 3 4100

49.6% %,,,...s..IN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7




1001.2 3

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

50 -

4 5 67 8 9

0 10 20


12 3100

30

49% %,,.....4,IN

INDUSTRY 57-

0

40 50 60 70

67

80 90 100

Mexican - Americans represent 45.7% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFF ICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100 ".

50 -,60.7%

0

-50 -

196682,640

51,4001956


10094%

50

1960 173,557

01950

89,222

-50

117


INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTS


1001 2 3 4

17.8%IN

1 ,4 8ORRCE

5 6 7 8 9

O 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCl/PATIONS

30

100

56%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 2 3

40 50 60 70

8 7

80 90 100


MINORITIES:IN IN

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

TRANSPORTATION


1001 2 3 6 7 8 9

50

O 10 20


1 2 3100

49%IN

INDUSTRY sr.

30 40

0

50 60

4

70 80 90 100

5 8 7 8 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


118

RA


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7 TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

5047.7%

196621,022

O 14,2271956

50


100

50

2J%196).

2n.961

O 66,4.771950

50


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE


LEVELS OF MIN:iRITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

COMMUNICATION


100123 4

50

5 6 7 8 9

-II

0

1I =1 1I MEM IIM 1I MINN, 1I

O 10

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: EY OCCUPATIONS

123 4

20 30 40 50 60 70

100

57%IN

INDUSTRY


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

INE11=1

80 90 100

6 7 8


UTILITIES & SANITARY SERVICES


O 10 20

VEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

12 3 4

30

100

30%IN

INDUSTR:

0

40 50 60 70 80

6 7

90 100


OCCUPATIONS C"DE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES 1SEMI-SKILLED)4, CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)


WHITE COLL/V.



50 .28%

0

50 -.

196039,461

195030.752


119


LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT SY INDUSTRY

WHOLESALE TRADE


1001 2 3 4

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4

30

100

62%IN""'"4

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 45.7% of

MINORITIES:IN IN

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

RETAIL TRADE

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 s 4

1005 6

Force.

8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4 5

30

100

ININDUSTRY 5

0

40 50

11". MIN INIM

MexicanAmencans represent 45.7%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORER:6 (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

120

60 70 80 90 100

6 78 9

-11.121.111.


WHITE CC I:5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

50 -

20%

-50

198096,877

79,8811950


100

50 -

19.1%

0

-50 -

1960344,303

1950292.859


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE



FINANCE


O 10 20 30


1234 5100

52%IN RY

INDUSTRY

40 50 60 70 80

6 7 8

90 100

Mexican - Americans represent 4i:7% of minorities in Labor t orce.

INSURANCE

MINORITIES:IN INIIMUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

100134 5

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

50

6 8 9

TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY,

100 -

52.%50

0

-50

1960

1950

127,350

83,719

I TOTAL,'!r.:H.OYMENTIN :'41DUS7RY

O 10 20

MEXIC! MEXICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

134 5100

47%"1/4IN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL &6. SALES WnfRt.RS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS

100 -

52%50 -

0

-50 -

1960 127,350

195083,719

121

MMORITIES:ININDUSTRY

17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

122



BUSINESS SERVICES


1 2 3 4

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: RY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4100

30

25%IN

INDUSTRY 5°

40 50 80

6 7

70 80 90 100

Mexican-Americans reoresent 45.7% of minorities in Labor Force.


10081%

50

0

50

198095,203

195052,352


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE



MEDICAL SERVICES


1 2 3 4

0 10 20


30

10030%IN

INDUSTRYIC


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

1

40

2 3 4

50 60 70 80 90 100


MOTION PICTURE, AMUSEMENT/RECREATION SERVICES

100

50

0


1 2 3 5 6 7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMEPICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7100

ININDUSTRY 50


1CCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WOF1KERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

374-215 0 - 70 - 9

of minorities

WHITE COLLAR:


in Labor Force


100

68%

50

0

50

1960276,428

1950164,,20


100

50

4% 1960 47,225

1950 45,0180

50

123


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE



EDUCATIONAL SERVICES


100 1 234 5

50

0

6 7 8 9

I11 ME IMI

O 10 20 30


1 234 5100

24%IN

INDUSTRY"*

5°Ab.


17.8%IN

LABORFORCE

0

Mall. EMIR NEM IIMI ME .1=

40 50 60

6 7

70 80 90 100

8 9

IMI MOM 11 ME iMl ME =SO =MO Ma,

Mei can-Americans represent 45.7% of minorities M Labor Force.



1 23 4 5

O 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30

50%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


124

WHITE GuLLAR:



276,428

164,120


278,428

164,120





1001 2 3

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

4 5F78 9

0 10 20 30 40 50


1001 2 3

ININ DUSTRY

4

IO

60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9

i=1. _fa




1001 2 3

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50

r

4 5 6 78 9

0 10 20 30


40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

82IN

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:



1960 20.395100 .

50 -

0

-50 -

174%

7 4361950


1960

100

50

0

A

-50 -

1950

5,644

142%

2,324

125


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50



PAPER/ALLIED PRODUCTS

NINDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 5 6 789

11

0 10 2 30

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY - FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2100

78%IN

INDUSTRY 50

4 0 0 70 0 CO 100

6 78 9


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50


PRINTING/PUBL!SHING


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4100

78%IN

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


126

WHITE COLLAR:



1966

100 '

50

0

50

1956

1.766

259.4 %

491


19604.104

100

50

0

50

1950

366%

879


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE



CHEMICALS/ALLIED PRODUCTS


10 20


oo1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 40 50 60 70 110

8

90 100

9

1-11 1111=1=1111_ .173 % aweINS"INDUSTRY 50

MINORITIES:ININLJSTRY

8.5%IN

LABORFOPCE

0

NW=


RUBBERRLASTIC PRODUCTS

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 5 678.9

0 10 20 30


1 2

40 50

3

60

70% . . .mIN 00011r.,,,,

INDUSTRY


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


70 80 90 100

4 5 6 7 8 9


WHITE COLLAR:



19602,236

100

50

01950

-50 -


1966

100

50

0

-50

1956

432%

420

3,511

150.4%

1,402

127






8.5%IN

LABOR 50FORCE

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY Oc.:UPATIONF

12 3100

89%.000#I N

INDUSTRY 50


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

Mexican- Americans represent 83.5% of minorities in Labor Force.'



0 10 20


12 3 4100

46%IN

INDUSTRY...49.

30

0

40 50 60

5 6 7

70 80

8

90 100

9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMISKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

128


WHITE COLLAR:



19666,973

100 -

50 .

0

A

1956

-50


1966

100

50

0

-50

1956

253 2%

1,974

4.551

174.6%

1.651


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF,


ELECTRONIC MACHINERY EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES


7: "hato" 7 7' '170 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 00 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINOR.TY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

10070%IN.01Pr

INDUSTRY 50


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

12 3 4 6 7

Mexican-Americans represent 83.5% of minorities in Labor Forte.



10012 3 4

50

0

5 6 7 8 9

1 II0 10 20


12 3 4100

73% owIN

INDUSTRY 50 .

30

0

40 50 60 70

6 7

80 90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8 PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


% _ 1966100

50

0

50

1956

42,918

3995.2%

1.048


190 15,076100

a 60

t-a1950

'u

50

598%

2,158

129


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



O 10 20 30


12 3 4100

65%IN

INDUSTRY

MINORITIES:IN

INDUSTRY

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80

6 7

90 100

100

50

Mexican-Americans represent E3 5% of minorities in Labor Force.

MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9100

66%

IN ....411;;;INDUSTRY 50

0MexicanAmericans

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


130


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSION/ALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

1.1.J

50

3:C.)

1.1.J0

C.)

Ou. 30.7 % --50

19661,047

L 1.5131956


19662,998

100

50

0

50

1956

345.4%

673

MINORITIES:IN!NDUSTRY

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

a



WHOLESALE TRADE

ININDUSTRY JCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4

30

100

64%IN ..410'

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 SO 100

7 8 9


MINORITIES:IN IN

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

RETAIL TRADE


100

50

5 6 78 9

A.., m ., ,10 10 20


1001 2 3 4

30 40

68%IN

INDUSTRY 50

5

50 60 70 80

NOM

90 100

78 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



1960% 8,582

100

50

0

--50

1950

145%

3,4.90


196038,366

100

50 183%

01950

13,512

50

131


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50



INSURANCE


1

I I

Ma MINN =MN 1O 10 20


134 5

30

100

85%IN ?!INDUSTRY

40 50 60 70

6 7

0 90 1C'.!

Mexican-Americans represent 83.5% of minorities in Labe- Force.

BUSINESS SERVICES


10G2 3 4 5 6 7

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50

a

8 9

O 10 20

.EXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 23 4 5 6 7

30 40

100

39%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

50 60 70

8

80 90 100

9

=I= =MN =MN

Mexican-Amoricans represent 83.5% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


132

WHITE COLLAR:


111


% 1960 11,725100.. A

50

0

-50

1950

344%

2,639


% 1960

100 -I A

50

0

-50 -

1950

238%

2,182


8.5%IN

LABORFORCE



MOTION PICTURE, AMUSEMENT/RECREATION SVS.


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I MI

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN- AMERICAN SHAW: OFMINORITY- FILLED JOBS of OCCUPATIONS

1003 4 5 6 7 8 9

INDUSTRY w

0

,Mexican - Americans represent 83.5% of minorities In Labor Force.

MEDICAL SERVICES


234

8.5%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

1 5 7 8 9

O 10 20 30 40


50 60 70 80 90 100

1 k.100

34 5 8 9

66%IN 41°41 M...

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENIN INDUSTRY

1960100

50

0

- 50

1950

3,513

296%

886


% 196027,816

100 1

50 287%

01950

7,174

- 50

133

MINORITIES:N

INDUSTRY

13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY


ININDUSTRY OCC:UPATIONS1 2 3 4 5 678 9

0 10 ?0


1 2 3100

74% ahle_. IPPIL ..Or =MI - NnIN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4 5 678

0


,..-- 10013.6%

INLABORFORCE

9


FOOD/KINDREO oRODUCTS

INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

92.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6 ,78 9


OCCUPATICAS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


134

WHITE COLLAR:



100

59.8% 1960j,-,- 13,021

0

-50

19508,146


100

5039.8%

0

-50 -

19603,103

2,2191950

MINORITIES:N

INDUSTRY

13.6%IN

LABORFORCE



PRINTING/PUBLISHING

INI NE.) .TRY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4

0 10 20


1 2 :1 4100

30 4C

61%IN

INDUSTRY

0

a_1

50 80 70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8 9


STONE CLAY/GLASS PRODUCTS


100 1 L 3

13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

5 67 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

84.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 80 70 80 90 100

5 678 9


BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI- SKILLED)4. LAAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE8. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALSALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


19601,777

100 .

50

01950

-50 .

114.0%

830


100

1966 2,6712,4931956

135


100




ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2

J13.6%

INLABOR 50FORCE

3 4 5 78 9

0 10 20 30


1001 2 3

83.8100.11IN

INDUSTRY 50


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 70 80 90 100

5 78 9




1 2 3

0 10 20 30 40


1 2 3100

82.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

567 9

Mexican-Americans

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


136


WHITE COLLAR:



100 .

50

0

50

TOTALEMPLOYMENT:N INDUSTRY

% 1966

100

50 215.5%

0 5671956

50


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

0



ELECTRONIC MACHINERY EOUIPMENT/SUPPLIES


1110 10 20


1 2100

30

80.2%.00jrIN

INDUSTRY 50


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 70 80 90 100

578 9




0 10 20 30 40 50

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMNORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3100

77.9%IN °°...

INDUSTRY 50

0

5 678 9

MesicanAmericans represent 75.2% of minorities In Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANSS. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

50

24.2%

0

-50

19861.261

19561.015


% 19802,872

100 t

50

0

-50

1950

782.7%

333

137


TRANSPORTATION

MINORITIES:IN IN

13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

138


1001 2 3 4 5 678 9

50

0 10 20


30

100

7I

5N

INDUSTRY 50


1 2 3

40 50 80 70 80 90 100

5 678 9

100

13.6%IN

LABOR - 50FORCE

IMM

0

Mexican-American. represent 75.2% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHOLESALE TRADE


MA... MEE ... MEE 1111 =MB

0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED.JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

81.5N

I

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

18.8%1960

9,26E

01950

7,79E

-50


100

50

3.8%0

-50

1960 5,213

1950 4'502


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE


RETAIL TRADE


1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN. AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4 5100

30

61.6%IN ....Ow

INDUSTRY 50


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 80 70 80 90 100

78 9

MexicanAmericans represent 75.2% of minorities In Labor Force.

FINANCE


0 10 20


13100

30

ININDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 80 70 80

68

90 100

MexicanAmericanc represent 75.2% of minorities In Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR


374-215 0 - 70 - 10

WHITE COLLAR:



100

196025,231

1950

50

15,433


19605,G72

100

50

0

50

1950

121.6%

2,649

139


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50


INSURANCE


0 10 20 30 40 50


14 5100

60 70 80 90 100


13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

0


BUSINESS SERVICES

ININDUSTRY OC^.UPATIONS234 5 7 8 9

MO MO 1I MO 0 1I MIMI 1I 11

0 10 20


234 5100

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mexican-Americans represent 75.2% o! minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


140

WHITE COLLAR:



1960% 5 672

100

50

1950

-50 -

121.6%

2,649


100

75.6% 1960 4,332

-50

19502,463



MEDICAL SERVICES


1

13.6%IN

LABORFORCE

1002 3 4 5 7 8 9

50 -

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1

10054.8%

ININDUSTRY 50

2 3 4 5

MM. i NM=

70 80 90 100

7 8 9

.1.

Mexican-Americans represent 75.2% of minorities In Labor Force


196021,533

100

50

0

A

50 .

1950

132.9%

9,242

141


22.2%IN

LABORFORCE





1 2 3 4 5 678 9

0 10 20


1 2100

30

73.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50


22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9


LUMBER/WOOD PRODUCTS


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


1 2100

83.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

11I MN=

Mexican- Americans

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


2


WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

Z 5047.3%

ti0

cccc

a.GO -

1960

1950

6,192

4,202


10092.2%

z 50

ti

0cccc

a.50

1960

1950

1,365

710


22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

10G

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIF.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



1MM 11 1MM 1E=

O 10 20


1 2 3100

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9


PRINTING/PUBLISHING


1001 2 3 4

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

5 6 9

INIM

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPAl IONS

1 2 3100

41.6%IN

INDUSTRY 513

0

4


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL 8 OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANACERS

TCTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

100


100

59.2%50 .

0

1960

50

1950

953

599

143


22.2%IN

LABORFORCE





1 2 3 4

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY .FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4100

30

50.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 au 60 70 80

6 7 8


100

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

50

Mexican-Americans represent 54.6% of minorities in I.sbo Force.

STONE, CLAY/GLASS PRODUCTS .


2 3 4 5678 9

0 10 20


2100

30

88.8%IN 0.011P.

INDUSTRY 50

0

40

3

50 60 70 80 90 100

5678 9

Mexican - Americans represent 54.6%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


144

of minorities in

WHITE COLLAR:


Labor Force.


1960273

100

50 -

0

-50

MI

1950

159.0%

105


19861,658

100

50 435.1%

0

-50

1956381

100 -





1 2 3100

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

50

11

0

5 678 9

Md. i 11 =MO

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 '0 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: Id' OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 678 9100 7

69.7%IN '4.

INDUSTRY 50


22.2%IN

LABORFORCE




0 10 20 30


1 2100

59.0%IN ...11

INDUSTtlY

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9

0Mexican-Americans represent 54.896

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFILIALS & MANAGERS


19661,189

50 -

0

A

1956

-50 -

183.7%


100

50

8.0%

419

1966 1,3870 1.284

-50

145


22.2%IN

LABORFORE

1,.



TRANSPORTATION EQUIEMENT

INnt 1STRY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3100

4 5 678 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AWIEllICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILL7..-0 JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3

68.5%IN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40


22 2%IN

LABORFORCE

50 60 70 80 90 100

678 9


TRANSPORTATION


0 10 20


2

30 40

10066.6%

IN50INDUSTRY

0

1

50 60 70 80 90 107.

569

Mexican-Americans represent 54"OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABCP.ERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

146


WHITE COLLAR:



100 a

uj 70.0%

2 50 aIC.)

0UErLu

1960

50 1

1950

386

227


100 -

Lu

2 50 a4[

X18.1 %.uj 0C.)

0.1

50 a.

19604 9264,169

1950


22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

100


WHOLESALE TRADE


0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

45.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

78 9


RETAIL TRADE


1001 23 4 5

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

6 8 9

0 10 20 30

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPAT ONS

1 23 4 5100

40 50 60

6

70 80 90 100

78 9

40.4%IN

INDUSTRYNoir'

0Mexican-Americans represent

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


54.8% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50grZ 1980Q 16.1% 3,3-81--

Zuj 0C.) 1950

2.908

ctW0.

50


100

50

:tC.)18 1%

Zuj 0 11.842C.)ctW

198013 753

50

1950

147



10013 5

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

50 -

FINANCE

8 9

woo

0O 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100


13100

36.3%IN

INDUSTRY.g.ak

5

Mexican-Americans represent 54.8% of minorities In Lebo Force.

MEDICAL SERVICES


1001 2.3.4 5

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

50

7 8

O 10 20


30

100

44.3%IN

INDUSTRY4g.

0

40 50

2 3 4 5

60 70 80 90 100

MexicanAmericans represent 54.8%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


148

of minorities

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL P. OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS P. MANAGERS

in Labor Force.


100

IQ 52.0%2 50

C.)

ti

0C.)tra.

50 -I

19602,773

19501,825


100

IQ 59.7%2 50

C.)

C.)trct.

50

196010,469

6,5521950





1001 2 3 4 5

22.2%IN

LABORFORCE

50 -

0 10 20


1 2 3 4 5

INDUSTRY 5°

27.7% _._IN

F

iI

0

30 40 5C

8 9

MEM MM Man ,MO OEM NM, OEM

60 70 80

8

90 100

9

MexicanAmerieens represent 54.6% of minorities In Labor Force.


100

Lu 59.7%1 19602 50 -2ti

01950

cc

EL

-50 -

10,469

6,552

149

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIF.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MINORITIES:IN IN

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE


INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS2

1003

50

=MN

5 678 9

O 10 20


1 2 3100

30

67%IN

INDUSTRY

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9


MINORITIES:IN IN

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE



100 1

2 6 78 9

O 10 20


1 2100

30

85%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 78 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


150

WHITE COLLAR:



100 1960

50 -

0

.-50

1950

18,163

91%

9,481


100 -

2 50

32%

W 0

50

196010,352

7,8101950


100

50

14.1%IN

LABOR




0 10 20 30 40


1 2100

80%IN

INDUSTRY 50

50 60 70 80

5 678 9

100


14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

M exican- Americans represent 74.2% of minorities in Labor Force.



0 10 20


12 3 4 5

30 40

10063%

INDUSTRY 501IN .....41P

0

50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3 OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS 2. MANAGERS


19662,269

100

50

01956

50 -.

221.8%

705


19601,335

100

50

0

50

12%

1950591

151




1001 2 3 4

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


12 3 4

30

100

55%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50

5 6

60 70 80 90 100

Mexican-Americans represent 74.2% of minorities In Labor



10012 3 4 5

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

7 8

0 13 20


1001 2 3 4 5

48%IN

INDUSTRY 511/4

30

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MexicanAmericans represent 74.2%

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


152


WHITE COLLAR:



1966 24,105100

50

01958 5.945

-50

305.4%


1960% 3,34710071-

50-

0

-50 -

1950

1,387%

228


14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

4..

100





0 10 20 30 40 50 60


100

89%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 2 3

70 80 90 100

5 6 8

Mexican-Americans represent 74.2% of minorities in Labor



1001 2 3 4

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6

Force.

8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

56%IN

INDUSTRY 5

40 50 60 70 80

6 7

90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

5029.7% 1966

01956

-50

2,073

1,598


196611,888

100

50

0

-50

A

345.7%

1956- 2,067

153


14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50



WHOLESALE TRADE


MIMI 11 =i =ME

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9100

72%IN 417:7

INDUSTRY


RETAIL TRADE

MINORITIES:IN ININDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPAT ONS

1001 2 3 4 5

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

6 78 9

0 10 20 30


1 2 3 4100

62%IN 41/

INDUSTRY 50

0

40

MIMI =MI

50 60 70 80 90 100

78 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


i54

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9, OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100 -

50 -45%

0

-50 -

1960- 6,162

4,2251950


10076%

50 -

0

-50

196031,109

195017,610


LEVEL,. OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY


10034 5

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

11

O 10 20


134100

FINANCE

678 9

Man Man MEM MEM MEM

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

50%IN

INDUSTRY

0Mexican-Americans represent 74.2% of minorities in Lebo Force.

678

MINORITIES:IN IN

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

14i

INSURANCE


1001 5 6 7 8 9

O 10 20


1 5100

30

57%IN

INDUSTRY 5

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 - 11

of minorities in

WHITE COLLAR:


Labor Force.


% 196010,313

100

50 -

01950

A

-50 -

166%

3,87C


% 196010,313

100 -

50 -

0

A

-50 -

1050

166%

3,870

155



BUSINESS SERVICES


1001 23 4 5

\kL

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

6 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCOUPATIONS

1 23 4 5

30

100

42%IN

INDUSTRY 5°\Tr.0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50


MEDICAL SERVICES


1 2 3 4 8 9

0

,MM MED

10 20 30 40 50


1 2 3 4100

32%IN

INDUSTRY 50

5 6

. .MIME

60 70 80 90 100

7

Mexican-Americana represent 74.2% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


156

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLER ICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


19607,013

100


% 196034,636

100

50

0

50 -

50

0

50

A

141%

2,9041950

172%

195012,713


14.1%IN

LABORFO



8

O 10 20


1 2 3 4 5100

20%IN ti

INDUSTRY 5°I

0

30 40

7

50 60 70 80 90 100




1001 2 3 4

14.1%IN

LABORFORCE

50

5 6 7 8 9

r- - - - MEM0 al=.1111..111...MIEMEIMIIIMEPIMNIE

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4


BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2 LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960

100

50

0

50

1950

34,63d

172%

12,713


% 196034,636

100

50

01950

172%

12,713

157

MINORITIES:

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE




1001 2 3 4 5

50

0

MINING

6 7 8 9

I MEE MEE MEE ME =..

=.. .

=IN

0 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30

ININDUSTRY 50


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50

6 7

60 70 80

=IN

90 100


PRINTING & PUBLISHING


1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


30

59.6%IN ...411.

INDUSTRY 50

1 2 3

0

4

40 50

L

60 70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8 9II I III


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


158

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960100

50

0

50

1950

1679

242%

490


100

50

5.2% 19600 34711950

3958

50

MINORITIES:

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

DENVER COUNTY, COLO.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



1001 2 3

50

4 5 6 7 9

m . .. .1, l . = = . 11 IIMMI

0 10 20 30 40


1001 2 3

7r 41.60"''IN

INDUSTRY 50

50 60 70 80 90 100

6 78 9

Mexican Americans represent 48.8% of minorities ir; Labor Force


50

.6%0

50

1960 6.3521950 6.312

159


INLAC'JRFORCE

100

50

=MI* AM=

DENVER COUNTY, COLO.LEVEL1 OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

CHEMICALS & AWED PRODUCTS

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATI...,:S12 3 4 5 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN - AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS' BY OCCUPATIONS

30

1

1002

74.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

3 4

40

5

50 80

_

70 80

8 7 8

J 1

9C 100

9

Mexican-Americans represent 48.896 of minorities in Labor Forcg.

RUBBER /PLASTICS


0 10 20

MEX(CAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

12 3100

30

81.9,1rIN

y

INDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 80 70 80 90 100

5 87 8


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


160

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE8. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIAN:7s8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS



100 -

50

0

50 -

MB.

DENVER COUNTY; COLO.


LEATHER PRODUCTS


2

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

\.

100

50

0

5 6 8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100

59.0%

INDUSTRYIN

0

2 5 6 8

LJ



100

50

0

50

161

DENVER COUNTY, COLO.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MINORITIES:IN IN

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

162

STONE, CLAY & GLASS PRODUCTS


1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50

0 10 20


1 2 3100

30

86.8.0.1rIN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100




1001 2 3

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


30

100

64.6%IN 11/

INDUSTRY

1 2 3

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

50

16.3%

0

50 -

1966 1,083

19561,294


100

50

5.2%0

50

1966 2,2471956 2,134


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

l0





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

l OM, i IIMM IIMM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100

73.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

12 3 5 6 7 8 9


INSTRUMENTS, RELATED PRODUCTS


1005 7

50

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY - PILED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

30

100

66.1%IN 7INDUSTRY

12 3

40

II1 MIIM *a*

50 60 70 80 90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

1.0% 1966 3 0471956 3.0150

50


100

50

19660 647

-2.4% 1956 663

50

163

L'ENVER COUNTY, COLO.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MINORITIES:IN IN

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE\

WHOLESALE TRADE

INDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 5

100

50

0

6 7 8 9

IMMO

O 10 20 30 40 50


1 2 3 4100

77.1% 0IN

INDUSTRY 50


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

110

60 70 80 90 100

100

50


RETAIL TRADE


1 23 4 5 6 8 9

=MO0

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

5 ',.7%IN

INDUSTRY50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


164

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

3.6%0

50

1960 10,81210,2361950


100

Lu

50

Lu.4%

CcLua.

50 1

1960 31 1511950 32,010


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE




1100

134

50 -

1=M

0

FINANCE

678 9

1. . MEI =M i MN MN OM 1 1=M

3.0 40 5.0 80 70 80 90O 10 20


100

55.5%IN

INDUSTRY 50

134 67 8

100


MINORITIES:IN IN

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

INSURANCE


100

- 50

6 7 8 9

l MIMI MIMI

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


134 5100

18.8%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


7 8 9


N MI MIMI


WHITE COLLAR:


1=M


100 -

50 -30.8%

0

-50 -

196012.635

199.656

50


100

5030.8%

01950

1960

-50

12,635

9.656

165



MINORITIES:IN IN

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

166

BUSINESS SERVICE;


1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 89

50 -

MM.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1001 2 34 5 6 789

59.4%IN Y-INDUSTRY


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100

Mexican-Americans represent 484% of minorities in Labor Force.

MEDICAL SERVICES

IIJINDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

w0

I1 IM/ (IniwilIMIP1111m%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 23 4 5 6100

39.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americans represent 48.896 of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

50 -

10.1%0

-50

1960 6,274

19504'980


100 .

5041.2%

0

1960

-50

1950

28,842

20,413


13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

I11 1





1 234 5 6 7 8 9

I1 1. NM=

l30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 10 20


1001 234 5 6 7

56.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

Mexican - Americans represent 48.696 of minorities in Labor Force.

MINORITIES:IN IN

13.1%IN

LABORFORCE

11.



1001 2 3 4

0 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30 40

63.7%IN

INDUSTRY

0

50 60 70 80 90 100

Mexican-Americans represent 48.696 of minorities In Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLrt.1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

50 -41.2%

0

-50

196028,842

20,4131950


100

5041.2%

0

-50 -

1960 28,842

20.4131950

167


18.5%IN

LABORFORCE



PRINTING/PUBLISHING


1 2 3 4 5 3 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40


1 2 3

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

J


18.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8

MexicanAmericans represent 894% of minorities in Labor Force.



0 10 20 30 40 50


1 3

96.5% 0*"...rIN

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


168

WHITE COLLAR:



100

z 5027.9%

ct0.

50

1960 417

1950326


826

638




MINORITIES:IN IN

18.5%IN

LABORFORCE


0 10 20


1001 2

30

90.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40

3

50 60 70 80 90 100

4 5 78 9=Me =IM

Mex IcanAmericans represent 89.4% of minorities in Labor Force.



1 2

18.5%IN

FORCELABOR 50

100

111111=11 MIND II =MN

3 4 5 78 9

0 10 20

MEXICANAMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2

30

96.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0:49,

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WOR''.ERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

0

50


100

50

ti

0

cc

50

169





10012 3 4

18.5%IN

LABORFORCE

50

5 67 8

. NM NMI NM =Me I NM NM .I 0010

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


12 3100

821,001/IN

INDUSTRY

4 67 8

Mexican-Americans represent 89.496 of minorities in Labor Force.

RETAIL TRADE


1001 2 3 4 5

18.5%IN

LABORFORCE

6 78 9

50

O 10 20 30 40 50 60

M. "ICAN- AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3 4

88.4y, ,r1IN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americans represent 89.496 of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2, LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3, OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

170

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

18.9%

0

50 -

1960620

19522

50


100

50

21.4%

0

50

19606,150

19505,063


18.5%IN

LABORFORCE

-.mow.

100

50



FINANCE


I 11 MEM 1I VON. I1 ,11 I1 MIMI. I1

0 10 20


1

30 40

38.7%

100

IN 4INDUSTRY 50..1'


18.5%IN

LABORFORCE

5

50 60 70 80 90 100

8 9

100

50

MEM


MEDICAL SERVICES


157

0 10 20


30

10091.8%

ININDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 60 70 80

57

90 100


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 - 12

WHITE COLLAR:



100

5029.9%

0

-50

1960, 1,075

1950827


100

74.1i50 .

0

-50

1960

fi1950

6,424

3,689

171


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

40.

172

100





50

0 10 20


1 2 3

88A% 11".IN

100

30 40

INDUSTRY 50

MINORITIES:

INDUSTRY

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

50

4

60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9_6_1_2111


ORDNANCE AND ACCESSORIES


1 2 3 4 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4

30 40

100

95.5%IN

INDUSTRY 50

50 60 70 80 90 100

0Mexican - Americans represent 87.4% of minorities In Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50 -

12.7%0

-50 -

1900 - 8,7347,747

1950


100 "

50

0

-50 -


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEX.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY


ININDUSTRY DCCUPATIONS

2 3 4

0 10 20


3100

95.6% 001r.IN

INDUSTRY 50


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100


PRINTING/PUBLISHING


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4100

96.7% .01IN

INDUSTRY 50


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



% 19801,708

100

50 144.6%

1950

-50

698


1980I-- 1,357

100-

50

0

A

1950

-50 -

184.8%

477

173



STONE, CLAY/GLASS PRODUCTS


1001 2 3

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

50

5 67 8

0 10 20


30 40

100

1.8%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 2

50 60 70 80




10012 3 4

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

410.

5 7 8 9

50

In=IMIM1 li l

0 10 20


12 3 4100

30 40

87.2% 0.11".IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

50 60

5 6

70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)

OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

174

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6, SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


oy 1966595

100 '"

50 -

0

-50 -

1956

198.9%

199


1966451

100 .`

50 -

01956

-50

156.2%

176



MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING


1001 2 3

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

4 5 6 78 9

0 10 20


1 2

L5°,

30

48.0%IN

INDUSTRY


40

3

50 60

VANE I1 I1 MEM I1 I1

70 80 90 100

4 5 6

TRANSPORTATION


1001 2 3

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

5 678 9

0 10 20


30

100

25.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

1 2

40

3

50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6.78,9


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:




100

50

24.7%

0

50

19603,643

19502,921

175


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50




1 2 3 4 6 7 8

0 10 20 30


1 2 3 4

95.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50

00*

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6 7 8


MINORITIES:IN IN

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE-

WHOLESALE TRADE


1001 2 3 4

C 10 20


3100.

1 2

95.2% 04'"IN

INDUSTRY 50

30

0

40 50 60 80 90 100

7 8. 9


BLUE COLLAR:


176


WHITE COLLAR:



100

65.7%50 -

1960

0

-50

A1,L28

1950801


100

54.1%50

0

1960

-50 -

1950

3,660

2,374


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

4111L00.



RETAIL TRADE


1 ?3 4 78 9

O 10 20


1 23 4

30

100

92.8 %.,IN

INDUSTRY 50


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wean-Americans represent 87.4% of minorities in Labor Force.

FINANCE


O 10 20


30

96.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50

"ro

0

40

5

50 60 70 80 90 100

68 9


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

53.1%50

0

1960

50

1950

14,227

9.289


% 1960 4,383100 .

50

0

50

130.6%

19501,900

177


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

101... Mom

100

50


INSURANCE


1=11M IMMO =MI

0

=IIM MM., 1=IM 1=IM 1=11M I

0 10 20 30


1

100

94.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

L.40.

178

5

40 SO 60 70 80 90 100


BUSINESS SERVICES


0 10 20


1001 2 3 4 5

92.0, .04r.IN

INDUSTRY 50

30 40 50 60 70 80


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

S. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


% 19604.383

100

50

0

A

50

1950

130.6%

1,900


19609,544

100 -

50

0

50 -

1950

525.1%

1,526


25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

/4/0



MEDICAL SERVICES


1 23 4

O 10 20


30

100

ININDUSTRY 50

0

40 50

23 4

60 70 80 90 100

8 9


MINORITIES:IN IN

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

410.



1001 2 3 4 5 7

50

O 10 20 3'1


40 50 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9100

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


II VIM


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGEF,S


% 1960

100

50

O 19505,283

12,238

131.6%

50


196012,238

100

50 131.6%

O1950

5,283

50

179





1001 2 3 4

25.1%IN

LABORFORCE

50

MM.

0 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30 40

74.4%IN 00°'

INDUSTRY

50 60 70 80 90 100


180


196012,238

100 A

50 131.6%

01960

5,283

50


INLABORFORCE I1

100

- 50

0

DONA ANA COUNTY. NEW MEX.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY


!NINGUSTRY OCCUPATIONS2 4 5 7 89

MOM IM= I1,

0 10 20 30

tICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMIF.ORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

2 410

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40


41.8%IN

LABORFORCE

I1 I1, NI= I1,

IM= =MD I1 MEI IMI IM= NM.

IMEI

50 60 70

I1 111

90 90

.5 7

T

100

89




1 3 4 5

0 10 20


1 3 4 5100

30

80.4%...0,71/IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE8. SALES WORKERS7. TECI-Ir IICIANS8. .3ROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100 -

5036.9%

0

50 -

19601,427

1,0421950


100

so -

0

-50

181


41.8%IN

LABOR

DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEX.




0 10 20


1 2 34 5 6100

30

74.5%IN °.°7,

INDUSTRY "

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 GM= i i i i




5100

7

41.8%IN

LABORFORC

50

0

8 9

i i i i I i i NEM i

0 10 20 30


5 710

100%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.0

Mexican-Americans represent 940% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


182

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

18.7%1960

1,046

0 8821950

50


1,046

882

MINORITIES:IN

INDUSTRY

50.7%IN

LABORFORCE

SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEX.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MINING


5 8

0 10 20


5100

30

ININDUSTRY 50


50.7%IN

LABORFORC

40 50 60 70 80 90 103




1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

MEXICAN-AMERWAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3100

93.7%IN

INDUSTRY

5 6 7

100

0

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


Mexican-Americana represent 95.5% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



% 19664

100464

50

0

50

140.4%

1956193


100

50

019661956 1,084-5.8%

50

183

SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEX.LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



3

50.7%IN

LABOrtFORC

0 10 20


310

30 40 50 60 70 80


50.7%IN

LABORFORCE




0 10 20


30

100

71.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 3 4

40 50 60 70 80

IBM

90 100


BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORt.AS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

184

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7 TECHNICIANSE. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

50

0

50 1


100

50

0

50

MINORITIES7ININDUSTRY

50.7%IN

LABORFORC

100



WHOLESALE TRADE


2 3

0 10 20 30


2 , 3100

40 50 60 70 80


50.7%IN

LABORFORC

100


RETAIL TRADE


1 34

JV

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


99.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1034

70 80 90 100

0

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BWEi COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:



100

5038.7%

0

1966

50 -

1956

458

330


100

5037.6%

0

1966

50 -

1956

2.559

1,8:19

185



FINANCE


1

FORCLABOR

,50.7%IN

1005

0 10 20 30


1

100

90.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


PERSONAL SERVICES


1002

50.7%IN

LABORFOrIC

0 10


1 2100

20 30

97.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80


BLUE COLLAR:


186

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1966 384100 -

50

0

50

161.2

1956147


100

50

14.0%0

- SO

1968365320

1956


50.7%IN

LABORFORC

100

50



MEDICAL SERVICES


1 89

O 10 20


1001

30

90.7,;00/11FFIN

INDUSTRY 50


50.7%IN

LABORFORC

0

100

50

40 50 60

23

70 80 90 100

9MI11 11. !NM 1I




1 3 4 6 8 9

O 10 20


30

99.3IN

INDUSTRY 50

11 . - . - - - -

%

40

0

50

151.

60 70 80

3 4

90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 - 13

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1966 748100

50

0

A

1956

50

687.3

95


z100

5040.9%

0

50 -

1966798

5661956

187


100

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS


MINING


1 2 3 5 6 7

0 10 20


1 2

97.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

30


41.6%IN

LABORFORC

40 50 60 70 80

5 6 7

90 100



INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 5 67 8 9

0 10 20 30


40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9100 comaNTI

89.59i0000"IN

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


188

WHITE COLLAR:



100 .

50 -26.5%

0

50

19601.260

9961950


100

50

6.8% 1960 15.2780

1950 .4.292

50


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS




0 10 20


1100

2

30

92.100/1IN

INDUSTRY 50


4'.6%IN

LABORFORC

40

3

50 60 70 80 90 100

6 789

Mexican-Americans represent 81.2% of minorities in Labor Force

TEXTILE PRODUCTS


0 10 20


1

100

30

1w:00001rieIN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 9

Mexican-Americans represent 13+

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


of minorities in LLoor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



7,091

5,62E


100 "

5035.2%

0

50 "

1960 457

3381950

189


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS


APPAREL


0 10 20 30


100 =123

98.4%IN

INDUSTRY

40 50 60 70 80

MIN

90 100

567,89


PRINTING/PUBLISHING


12 3 4100

41.6%IN

LABOR 50FORGE,

0

F

6 7 8 9

MEM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

81.2%.00,70"IN

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


190

norities in La, Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

1.1%0

50

1960 2,5181950 2.489


100

50

16.3%1960

2.8180

1950 2.423

50


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS




0 10 20 30


1 21

99.1%

40 50

3

60 70 80 90

4 5 6 7 8

100

9--...--_.111.11

ININDUSTRY 50


41.6%IN

LABORFORC

0

100

50



ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 567P

0 10 20


30

100-96.8%/

ININDUSTRY 50

1 2

40 50 60 70 80

Mexican-Americans represent 81 2% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIA NS8. PR )FESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

50

196623.7% 1,349

01956

1,090

50

re'rEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

19661,002

100

50

0 3291956

204.5%

50

191


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



O 10 20 30 40 50 60


1001 2 3

70 80 90 100

6 7 8


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

0




O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHAFiE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

12 3

95.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

4 5 6 7 8 9


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


T O T A LEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

100

<.750

z 3 4.7%UI-

0U

a.50

1966

873

1,176

1956


1,782

1.507


41.8%IN

LABORFORCE

100

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS


WHOLESALE TRADE


0 10 20


30

100

89.2%,#"'IN

INDUSTRY 50


41.8%IN

LABOR

1 2 3

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 81.2% of minoi.ties in Labor Force.

RETAIL TRADE


1001 2 3 4

50

0

78 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3100 _I

MAR IINM83.1.%.00001r

ININDUSTRY 50

0

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


4 5 6 78 9

Mexican-Americans represent 81.2% of minorities .n Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



100 1

50 -

21.2%

0

-50 -

196010.230

1 9508,438


100 -

50

14,1%0

-50 -

196038,230

1950.33,495

193

194


MINORITIES:IN IN

41.6%IN

LABORFORCE


100

FINANCE

8 9

0 1C) 20 30 40 50 60


1001 2 3 4 5 6 78 9r'"'

70 80 90 100

ININDUSTRY 50


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

0

100

50

exican-Americans represent 81.2% of minorities in Labor Force.

INSURANCE


134 5 6 7 8 9

MIND =11 Cana 1a1 11 111= Mlle NEM

U

IMMO. MEM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


134100

94.M.V09.IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

5 6 7 8 9

Mexican - Americas s represent 81.2% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8 PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

54.5% 1960 10,97550

01950

7,099

50 I


10,975

7,099


41.0%IN

LABORFORCE


PERSONAL SERVICES


1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9

0 10 20


30

100

95.1%.00.0"1""IN

INDUSTRY 50


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

1 2 3

40 50 60

4 5

70 80 90 100

8 9


BUSINESS SERVICES


1 2 3 4 5 6 8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


100

ININDUSTRY 50

1 2 3

WI=

70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL 8 OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

50 1966 636241.7%

0 44891956

50


6,967

4,854

195

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

LEVE,_S OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MEDICAL SERVICES


1 234

41.6% 1

INLABORFORCE

100

50

0 10 20 30


1 23 4100

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5

66.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50


41.6%IN

LABORFORCE

0

100

7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 81.2% of minct:tiezi in Labor FO7CO.

MISCELLANEOUSiOTHER SERVICES


1 5 6 78 9

0 10 20


30

1001=1.

ININDULITRY

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 678 9


BLUE COLLAR:


196

WHITE COLLAR:



23,383

13,831


23,383

13,831


61.8%IN

LABOFORCE





1 2 3 456789

0 10 20 30

MEXICAN-AMERICk14 SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1

10

99.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50


61.8%IN

IABOFORC

moo MINLA_L mow

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3 456789


APPAREL


CI 10 20


10 .1 3

30

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 1 :Al

56 9


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960100 3,073

50

01950

1,505

104.1%

50


% 1960403

100

50

0

50

1950

739.5%

197

198

MINORITIES:NNDUSTRY

61.8%IN

LABOFORCE

100





2 3 5 6 78 9

50

0 10 20

MEXICANAMERICAN St ARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

100.1 2 3

30

99.4;0/11rIN

INDUSTRY 50

MINORITIES:ININCUSTRY

61.8%IN

LABOFORC

100

50

40 50 60 70 80

=MN

90 100

5 67,8 9



ININDUOTRY OCCUPATIONS1,2,3 4 5 6 7 8

MIMI =1 mIle MI I11 1 FIN MilM

0 10 20


1 2 3 4

30

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

MI

40 50 60 70 8C 90 100

6 7 8 91=1 MilM I11

Megican-Americans represent 98.4%OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:



WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSIRY

loo 1

50

50


100

50

20.8%

0

50

19601.144

9471950


61.8%

LABORFORCE

100

50

CAMERON COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLCYMEA'T BY INDUSTRY

WHOLESALE TRADE

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1.2 3 4 5 6 7 9

O 10 20 30


100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1>


61.8%IN

LABORFORCE

1.2. 3

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7 9MII .MO1

Mexican-Americans represent 98.4% ol minorities in Labor Force.

RETAIL TRADE


1 23 4

O 10 20


30

10 '99.6%

ININDUSTRY 50

0

1 23

40 50 60 70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7 TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


100

50

8.5%0

50

1960 2 346

1950 2'162


100

50

22.3%1960

7.997

01950

6.536

50

199

200



FINANCE

MINORITIES:IN IN

61.8%IN

LABOFORC


100 67 9

MI= II MOM =OM EY MN/ NUM MI=

O 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITYFILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

9?..7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

101 67


PERSONAL SERVICES


1001 2

61.8%IN

LABOFORC

9

50

O 10 20


1 2

30 40

100100 .09.6"Pir

ININDUSTRY 50

0

50 60 70 80 90 100

6 8 9


BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORI.RS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICL6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFE0SIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS

TOTALEMPLOYMENT.1N INDUSTRY


100

50

18.9%1366

790

0 4 6641956

50



MEDICAL SERVICES

MiNORITIES:IN ININDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

1 234 6100

81.8%IN4f

LABORFORCE

NM!,

50

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100.97.8% "*.ir

ININDUSTRY 50

1234 5 8 9


INDUSTRIES NOT CLASSIFIABLE


1001

81.8%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

2 34 5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2,34 598.T%

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americans represent 98.4% of minorities in Labor For :e.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



10075.6%

50

19604,230

01950

2,408

50


10075.6 %I 1960

50

50

1950

4,230

2,408

201


47.7%IN y

LABOR\FORCE




IN

INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 4 67 8 9

0 10 20 30

MEXICAN-AMER!L:AN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2 3100

96.1%"."'IN

INDUSTRY 50


47.7%IN

LABORFORCE.

40 50 60 70

5 67

80 gr, 100

Mexican-Americans represent 95.5% of minorities in labor Force.



1001 2 3 5 6 78 9

0 10 20


30

98.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1 2

40 50 60 70 80

MIN

90 100

,=1.6,78 9

Mexican-Americans represent 9:-..5%OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


202


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIAN.;E. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS

TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUST9

100

50

21.6%

0

50

19606,420

5,2781950


100

52.2% 196050

0

50

1950

2,213

1,454


47.7%IN

LABOR

100

50.

0



APPAREL


0 10 20 30

MEXICAN - AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JCBS: BY OCCUPATIONS 7

1 2 3 4 56 89io ,mwil .. .... . iumjpplp_A,

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

99.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

C


PRINTING/PUBLISHING


1 2 3

47.7%IN

LABOR

1004 5 6

ijIli a 1 MEM 1 i1i i0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2 3100.

98.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

9

70 80 90 100

6 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 - 14

WHITE COLLAR:


TO' ALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY

% 1960

100

50

0

-50

1950

3,157

208.0%

1,025


10084.2%

50

0

-50

1960

A

1950

1,203

653

203



LEATHER PRODUCTS

MINORITIES:IN ININDUSTRY INC)!ISTRY OCCUPATIONS

1003

LABOR,

47.7IN

FORCE

56 9

0 10 20


30

99.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50

..1Siii;


47.7%IN

LABORFORCE

0

100

50

0

1 3

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 =IN ML156 9

Maxican-Americana represent 95.5% of minorities in Labor Force.



1

4 578 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


06.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

1 3MEM MEM IIIM =1 =1 1111M

5 78 9

Mexican - Americans represent 95.5% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


204

WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTR

100 -

50

0

50 -


100

50

0

50


47.7%IN

LABORFORC

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OrMINORITY - FILLED JOBS: BY OCrUPATIONS

1001 2 3

30

78.296000.11IN

INDUSTRY 50


47.7%IN

LABORFORC

0

100

50

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4 5 6.78 9

1 7./II1 IN MIMI




1 r--- 3

0 10 20


100..1

4 5 78 9

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

5 689

Mexican-Americans eepresent 95.5% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENT:N INDUSTRY

100

5048.7%

0

50

1966613

4121956


205


47.7%IN

LABORFORC

100





=Mb

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4100. ,

ININDUSTRY 50


47.7%IN

LABORFORC

0

100

5 A 7 8 9


WHOLESALE TRADE


50 =MY MM !EMMA 111

1W.

MO&

1

0 i0 20


30

100

95.3%,""IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40

1 2 3 4 5

50 60

6

70 eu

7

Mexican - Americans represent 95.5% of minorities In Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE Cr1LLAR:


206

WHITE COLLAR:


8

90 100

9


100

65.4%

50

0

50

19602,459

19501,486


3,730

2,866


47.7%IN

LABORFORC



RETAIL TRADE


1 2 3 4 5 78 9

10 20


1 2 3

30

96.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50


47.7%IN

LABORFORC


40

4

50

5

60 70 80 90 100

678 9

100

50

FINANCE


1 3 6 7 9

0 10 20

MLXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY,FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 3

30

100

87.7%IN

INDUSTRY se

0

40 50 60 70 80

6 7

90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIA!-S & MANAGERS


16.097

12,152

TOTALEMPLOYMENTiN INDUSTRY

4,016

2,070

207


47.7%IN

LABORFORCE

208



PERSONAL SERVICES


1 456 9

0 10 20


30 40

100..95.5%.00/01r.

ININDUSTRY 50


47.7%IN

LABORFORCE

50 60 70 80

=NI

90 100

56 9

100


BUSINESS SERVICES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50 . .0 10 20

I1M, 1111M, 1MIA 11M,

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-4RICAN SHARE OFMINORITY FILLED JOSS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1100

90.5%/IriIN

INDUSTRY 50


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

5031.7%

0

50

19606,787

5,1501950


100

196070.4%

50

1950- 1,326

50

2,260



MEDICAL SERVICES


1 2100

47.7%IN

LABORFORC

3 4 5

0 10 20


1

10088.3%.000,79r..

INI NDUSTPY 50


47.7%IN

LABORFORC




1 2 3 4 5 6 9

0 10 20


30 40

;"99.5%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

50 60 70 80


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



% 196010,463

100 itt

50

01950

50

101.8%

5,183


% 196010,463

100 .

50

0

50

101.8%

19505,183

209



MINORITIES:IN ININDUSTR INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3 4 5

24,7%IN

LABORFORCE

MINING

0 10 ?0


1 2 3 4100

30

INDUSTRY 52.1_39.2%

IN

\01Pr.o

40

5




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

210

100

50

MIK 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9100

37.4%IN

IrDUSTRY 5°


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN !NDUSTRY

100

1960

0T950

50

12,226


100 -4

50

7,122

5.2% 1960 34 9010

1950 33,145

50

M!NORITIES:ININDUSTRY

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

100

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



1 2 3 78 9

50

0 10 20 30 40 50


100

23.8%IN

INDUSTRY 5C


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

0Mexican-Americans reidesent 19.0% of minorities in Labor Force

1 2 3

M=.

70 80 9C 100

78 9



1001 2 3

50

5 67 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3

30

100

15.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 60

4

70 80

11171,

90 100

5 67 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 19.0% nf minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUS

100 .

5034.4%

0

50

19609,957

7,4041950


100

50

3.0% 1966 3,2591956 3,1620

50

211

MINORITIES:

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

IN


ININDUSTRY INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS

1001 2 3 4

PRINTING/PUBLISHING

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


30

100

31.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

=We

0

40 50 60 70 80 90 100




0 10


1 2100

17.5%

INDUSTRY 50I N

0

50 60 70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


212

WHITE COLLAR:



100

5038.5%

0

50

19606,383

4,6071950


% 196011.873

100

50

01950

4,995

50

137.6%


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE




0 10 20


30

56.5%IN

INDUSTRY

1001 2

40 50 60 70 80 90 1On

5 678 9


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

100




0 10 20 30 40 50 60

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUI 'ATIONS

100

11.6%IN

INDUSTRY 5°

0

70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSION/. LS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS

MI=


% 19664

100 -4,960

ISJ

(.050

r-

ujZ 0 . 2,394(.) I9 o6

107.1%

-50


100 -85.7%

50 -

0

-50

T1966 11,252

6,0591956

213


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

L.40.

214

160

50





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

O 10 20 30 40 0 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINOFUTY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

36.0%IN

INDUSTRY 5°

0MexicanAmericans represent 19.0% of minorities in Labor Force.



1001 2 3

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

50

111N.

6 7 8 9

O 10 20


30 40

100

26.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican.Am

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


12 3

50

4

60 70 80

MEE

90 100

5 6 7 8 9

ericans represent 19.0% of minorities in Labor Force.

WHITE COLLAR:



10098.2%

50

0

50

1966

1956

16,975

8,563


100

50

.09%0

50

1966 18,2091956 18,041


24.7%IN

LABORI'ORCE

4.

100

- 50


ELECTRONIC MACHINERY EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES


12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

111M11 MEI 1

111.. 0

MIN. =NM /Ma MI= 1

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED .JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

12 3 4 5100

59.4%IN

INDUSTRY




1001 2 3 4

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

5 6 7 8 9

i 111M11 1=.1 =NB O. =NB 1

1

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7100

58.7%IN -0-A.A.

INDUSTRY

0

8

111M11


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



% 1966

100

50

0

50

1956

3,483

133.8%

1,481


10084.8%

50

0

19602,118

50 -

19501,146

215



TRANSPORTATION


1002 3

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

4 5 8 7 8 9

0 10 20

MEXICAN AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-PLLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

30 40

100

23.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

1 2 3

50 60 70 80

MOO

90 100

4 5 6 7 8 9

IM




100 .

50 -

14.6%0

-50

1960 28,42924,802


1 2 3 4 6 7TOTALEMPLOYMENTIN INDUSTRY--r 100

24.7%IN

LABOR 50FORCE

=, MIMI =, =, =, MAIN A NAM 6.- =NV 9,242

/MIME 0 r0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6,223


1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9100

14.2%IN

INDUSTRY 50

Low mMO 11/2 _a_s VERB


BLUE COLLAR: WHITE COLLAR:

'I. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN (SKILLED)

216



24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

SM.

100

50

1IIM 0

HARRIS CO:INTY, TEXAS


WHOLESALE TRADE


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2 4 5 6 7 8100

29.7%IN

INDUSTRY 50


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

0

-00


RETAIL TRADE


1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2 3 4100

25.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

78 9

Mexican-Americans represent 19.0% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIOI IS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


TOTALEMPLOYMENTiN INDUSTRY

100

57.2%5O -1

0

-50

1960

1950

28,022

17,819


74,080

57,675

217


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE


100

50

0

FINANCE


1 234 5 6 7 8 9

=NM I1= 1=.

O 10 20 30 40 50 eo 70 60 90 100


1 234 5 6 7 6100

14.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americans represent 19.0% of minorities in Lobo Force.

INSURANCE


100134 5

24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

50

MOM IMMO IMI UM . - MMII MAIM

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100


134 5100

53.4%IN- 10..,.

INDUSTRY

0

6 7 6 9


BLUE COLLAR:


218

WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

62.59:50 -

0

-50 -

1960 23,677A

195014'669


100

-50 -I

23.677

14,689


BUSINESS SERVICES


1001 2 3 4

24.7%

LABORFORCE

50

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2 3 4 5

1WIE,

6

I / jIJ100

43.7%IN

INDUSTRY 5°


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

Lor.

0

100


MEDICAL SERVICES


1 2 3 4

0 10 20


30

100

19.8%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0L.111.-

1 2 3

40

4

50

5

60

7

70 80

8

90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 15

WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

64.4% 1960

50 -

0

-50

1950

14,505

8,819


% 1960 52,89410u

50

0

-50

1950

102%

26,134

219


24.7%IN

LABORFORCE

LIM*.

MIL

100

50

==1





1 234 5 6 7

0 10 20


1 23 4 5

30

100

50%IN

INDUSTRY 5

MINORITIES:ININOUSTRY

24.7%Iti

LABORFORCE

0

100

40 50

6 7

60 70 80 90 100


MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50


1 2 3 4

INDUSTRY 5°' -`" ""'""48.4%

IN II I

0

5 6 7 8 9k,1Mexican-Americans represent 19.0% of minorities M Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


220

WHITE COLLAR:



% 196052,894

100

50 -

0

-50

1950

102%

26,134


% 196052,894

100

50

0

-50

1950

102%

26,134

MINORITIES:iNINDUSTRY

66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

100



MINING


3

IM 011111 MEM MI= =I 1M I50

4 5 7 9

1M 1M

0 10 20


30

1

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50


68.9%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

0

3

MexicanAmericans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.


40 50 60 70 90 100

5 7 9


sr"0 10 20


1 2

30

97.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

40 50 6C

.--70 80

1M

90 100

578 9OM MIMI

MexicanAmericans represent NA% of minorities In Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERnAL & OFFICE8. SALEF., WORKERS7. TECH VICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS


1.059


100

50

7.7%0

-50

744

1960 2,8921950 2.683

221


LEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRYFOOD/KINDRED PRODUCTS


2

66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

0 10 20



66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

100



1 2

APPAREL

459

50

0 10 20


100.1 2

30

96.3%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

459

0Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities In Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


222

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

20.4%

0

50

1S602,295

11950

1,905


%

100

1960364

50

0

50

1950

1,482.6%

23


66.9%IN

LABORFORCE





2 5 6 9

0 10 20 30


100"2

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6 9.

MexicanAmericans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

CHEMICAL/ALLIED PRODUCTS


1 2 3100

66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

se IMMO ilm= EERIE =MD

50

4 5 6 7 9

0 10 20 30


100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

100..1.2. 3

MM. =MO

40 50 60

0

an=

70 80 90 100

4 5 6 7 9

Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

0

-50 -


1960

1C0

w

50

ti

141 0

to

I

-50 -

1950

485

349.0%

108

223


66.9%

INLABORFORCE

100

50

HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



0 10 20 30


10

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

1. 2 3

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6 8


66.9%

INA/LABORFOR,M

100

50

0


WHOLESALE TRADE


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


98.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

2

Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


224

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

15.6%

0

50 -

1960 1,149994

1950


100

50

4.9% 1980 5.2930

1950 3'663

50



RETAIL TRADE


100

66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

3 4 5 08

0 10 20


1

100,

30

95.0%IN

INDUSTRY SO

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2 3 4 .68 9


66.9%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities in Lneer Force.

BUSINESS SERVICES


3 5 6 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


3 4 5 6 910

100.0%IN,

INDUSTRY

0Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities In Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEM (SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS MAFIAGERS


8,8'18

7,11:


100

SO .-

17.4%

0

-50 1

1960 1.187

9941950

225

HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MEDICAL SERVICES


1 2 3 4 5 7 8

LIN

1LABOR 50

100

66.9%

FORCE

226

0 10 20

MEXICAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS; BY OCCUPATIONS

1 2

30

10 "-100.0%

ININDUSTRY SC

40 50 60 70 80 90 100



100 -11_196088.7%

50

0

A

50 -

1950

5,404

2,863


47.5%IN

LABORFORC


LEVELS OF MINORI7 Y EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MINING


1001 2 3

50

0

4 578 9

9 I I 1 1 MIME

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 2100

85.7% -OPIN °f-

50INDUSTRY


47.5%IN

LABORFOHC

578 9


TRANSPORTATION


1002 3

0 10 20 30


1 2100

96.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0Mexican - Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFTSMEN ;SKILLED)

WHITE COLLAR:



100 -

50 -

12.5%0

-50

19601,386

191,231

59


100

50

1.2%0

-50

1960 412

1950 408

227


47.5%IN

LABORFORC

228

100

50

0



WHOLESALE TRADE

6 9

0 10 20


1 3 410

30

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50


47.5%IN

LABORFORC

01

40 50 60

6

70 80

Mexican- Americana represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

RETAIL TRADE


90 100

9

0 10 20


30

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

10

40 50 60 70 80

=MO

90 100

0Mexican-Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50 -32.7%

0

-50

1960308

19232

50


100 -

5027.8%

0

-50

1960

1950

1.556

1.358

"NIMVi=


47.5%IN

LABORFORC

JIM WELLS COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MEDICAL SERVICES


2 5

0 10 20


30

10C 0%IN

INDUSTRY

10

0

2 5

40 50 80 70 80

Mexican - Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.

MIM

90 100


100981.6% 160 8i2

50

50

1957 480

229

NUECES COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

MINORITIES:IN ININDUSTRY INDUSTRY Occur: TIONS

10012 3 4

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

MINING

5 7 8 9

6.1M I== I=M =OE

0 10 20


30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100

72N

INDUSTRY 50


36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

12. 3 4 67




1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

I=M

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1 2 3100.

92.8%IN

INDUSTRY 50

70 80 90 100

8 9


OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


230

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50 -34.9%

0

-50

1960

t1950

2.564

1,900




PRINTING/PUBLISHING


1001 3 4

36.6%IN

LABORFORC

50

5 67 8 9

=NM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 3 4 .67

%97.7IN

INDUSTRY 50




1001 2 3 4

36.6%IN

LABORFORC

0 10 20 30 40 50


100

ININDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

Mexican-Ame.icans represent 85.0% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

58.8% 196074550

0

A

1950

50

469


100

50 -32.1%

0

50

19601.352

1.0231950

231




1001 2

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

4 578 9

O 10 20


100.1 2

30

98.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

578 9




1002

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6 7 8 9

50

O 10 20


100.1 2

30

90.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 6 7 8 9

0Mexican-Americana represent 85.0% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


232

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50 -

0

-50


10076.9%

2 50

CC

-50

1966

1958

697

394


36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50


LEI ELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

TRANSPORTATION


0 10 20


30

100

41.4%IN

INDUSTRY 5°

0


36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

1 2

40

3

50 60 70

4

80 90 100

5 678 9

MINE MI. M.




12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

MEXMAN-AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

10012 3 4 5 6 7

ININDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50 -

14.2%

0

-50

19802,672

19502,340


1,593

1,223

233



WHOLESALE TRADE


1001 2 3 4 5

36.6%IN

LABOR 50FORC

6 7 8 9

NMI= Nl NMI MI=

0 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30

95.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8 9

Mexican-Americar:. represent 85.0% of minorities in Labor Force.

MINORITIES:IN IN

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

RETAIL TRADE


10078 9

119 1 M..= OM! MEM 171

0 IMMMIIMIMMIIM0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100

88.40.0arINS

INDUSTRY 50

0

1

MILJ WINO MI=

2 3 4 5 6 78 9


BLUE COLLAR:


234

WHITE COLLAR:



100

3,155

2,462


100

50

18.9%

1900

1980

1 2 , 9 8 9

0 -- 10,920

50


FINANCE


1 234

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

67 9

MEM Winn MIN 11, MI1 WM WM 1 1M

0 10 20 30 40


I 234100

80.0%IN

INDUSTRY


36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

50 60 70 80 90 100


PERSONAL SERVICES

ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS2

1003

50

0

4 5 6 9

NM.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


2 3100.

96.9%IN

INDUSTRY 50

0Mexican-Americans represent 85.C% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


374-215 0 - 70 . 16

WHITE COLLAR:




100 ."

5026.2%

0

50 -I

19661,832

1,4511956

235


36.6%IN

LABORFORCE



BUSINESS SERVi...-ES


1 23 4 5 6

0 10 20


1 23 4 5100

30

43.4%IN

INDUSTRY 50.

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mexican - Americans represent 85.0% of minorities In Labor Force.

MEDICAL SERVICES


1001 2 3 4

36.6%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20


1 2 3 4100

30 40

84.5%.00071rIN

INDUSTRY 50

0

50 60 70 80 90 100

8 9

Mex Ican-Americans represent 85.0% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:

1. SERVICE WORKERS2. LABORERS (UNSKILLED)3. OPERATIVES (SEMI-SKILLED)4. CRAFIDMEN (SKILLED)

236

WHITE COLLAR:




100 -98.9%

50

19608,222

01950

4,132

-50


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

Lop.





0 10 20


1 2100

30

65.9%IN 47INDUSTRY 50


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

Loo.

100

50

40 50 60 70 60

OM=

90 100

78 9




1 2 4 5

0 10 20


30

1

10070.2%

IN /AP'INDUSTRY 50

0

2

40 50 60 70 60 90

OM=

100

3 4 5 8 9

I I


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

9.7%0

50

1960 7,149

1950 6'513


loo

50 196045.4% 1,293

01950

-50

389

237



FURNITURE/FIXTURES


1001 2

22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

Lor.50

IN=

578 9

O 10 20


1 2100.

30 40

22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

4p.

238

93.4%IN

INDUSTRY

50 60 70 80

El=

90 100

78 9


PRINTING/PUBLISHING


1001 2 3 4

50

MIN MED IN=

0

5 6 7 8 9

1 IN= IN= IN= 1111 WEN II El= MIMI El=

O 10 20 30 40 53 60 70 80 90 100


100

59.6%INKYINDUSTRY 50

12 3 7 8 9


BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS 81 MANAGERS

El=


100

50

11.0% 1960 703

0 6331950

-50


100

69.7%

50

0

-50

19601,869

19501,101


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50. .I1

TRAVIS r:OUNTY, TEXAS




123 4 5

.I1 . /IMMO MI

0 10 20


123 4 5

30

10041.0%

ININDUSTRY k NINE/.

I10


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

40

7

50 60 70 80

8

90 100

9

mim Imo mlw li Ems



0 10 20 30


40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 2 3 4 5 67 9100

80.1%.00T °IN

INDUSTRY 50

0

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:




19667

100726

50

0

-50

1956

125.4%

322

239


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

100

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXASLEVELS OF MINORITY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY



1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9

0 10 20 30


1 2100

95.9,0000r.IN

INDUSTRY 50

40 50 60 70 80

MOM

90 100

5 6 7 8 9

Mexican - Americans represent 41.8% of minorities In Labor Force.

COMMUNICATION


1001 3 4 5

22.4%IN

LABORFORCEL

0 10 20


1003 4

35.3%IN

INDUSTRY 5°

0 -1

MN= MN a mloi MI= ml

Mexican -Americans represent 41.8% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


240

WHITE COLLAR:



% 1960

100216

50

0

-50

382.2%

11950 45


100

50 6037.2%

11.147

-50

19501336


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

100




ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 2 3 6 7'8 9

O 10 20 30 40


100

26.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

Low

0

1 2 3 4

50 An

5

70 80 90 100

6 7 8 9

INNEN MM. WENN


WHOLESALE TRADE


O 10 20


1 2 3 4

30

100

58.0%IN ..foir.

INDUSTRY

0

40 50 60 70 ?..0

MI=

90 100

7 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 41" of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:


=NM


100

5° 196038.0%

0

-50 -

1950

1,274


100 -

50 -

18.8%

0

-50

923

19602,392

2,0501950

241



RETAIL TRADE


1001 23 4

22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

5 6 78 9

Lip..

242

0 10 20 30 40

MEXICAN. AMERICAN SHARE OFMINORITY-FILLED JOBS: BY OCCUPATIONS

1 23 4 5100

50

IN57.1%

INDUSTRY 50


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

4- -4

0

60 70 80

MS

90 100

6 78 9

11-.1

Mexican-Americans represent 41196 of minorities in Labor Force.

FINANCE

100

50

0

iV

INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1 3 4 5 678 9

ME =In .. MOE M _ _

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100


1 3 4100

11.1%IN

INDUSTRY 50L0

Mexican-Americans represent 41.6% of minorities in Labor ForceOCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


5 678 9

WHITE COLLAR:



100

50

11.0%0

50

1960 12,648

1950 11'393


100

58.9%50

0

50

1960

1950

3.866

2,431


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE


INSURANCE


124 5 6 7 8

0 10 20


124100

81.1!.4

30

ININDUSTRY 50


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

40

..MIMM,

50 60 70 80

7 8

90 100

Mexican-Americans represent 41.8% of minorities in labor Force

PERSONAL SERVICES


1 2 4 5 6 8 9

IMO

0 10 20 30 40 50


1001

64.4%IN .."4".

INDUSTRY 50

0

70 80 90 100

4 5 6 8 9

Mexican-Americans represent 41.8 %,of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100

58.9,50

0

50

19603,866

19502,431


A.

2,057

1,585

243


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE


BUSINESS SERVICES


10012 3 4 5 6

50

OM=

0

111, OM 1I

7 8 9

II UNE, 4.11 OM= Mol MN= I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


12 3 4 5 6

36.6%IN

INDUSTRY 50


MEDICAL SERVICES


1001 2 3 4 5

22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

0 10 20


1 2 3 4 5

30

100

52.1%IN

INDUSTRY 5cr

40 50

7

60 70

0

80

Mexican - Americans represent 4t.8% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


244

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7. TECHNICIANSo. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFICIALS & MANAGERS

90 100

8 9


100 -

50 -26.4%

0

-50

1960 1,982

f 1,5681950


100

66.9%50

-50

1960

1950

17.355

10,397





1001

22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

50

0

3 4 5 7 8 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


1 3 4 5 7100

15.6%IN

INDUSTRY SO

IMMO =1M mma MEI mma woo0


22.4%IN

LABORFORCE

100




1

50

NEN

0 10 20


30 40 50 60 70 80

100

38.4%IN

50INDUSTRY

0Mexican- Americans represent 41.8% of minorities in Labor Force.

OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


WHITE COLLAR:



100 .

86.9%50

0

50

1960

1950

17,355

10,397


100

88.9%50

0

50

19 .60 17,355A

195010,397

245


V"`"181.9%

INLABORFORCE

100

50

0

WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS


ININDUSTRY OCCUPATIONS1

APPAREL

3 4.5.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1

100-100.0%

ININDUSTRY 50


81.9%IN

LABORFORCE

100

50

70 80 90 1;40

5.9


RETAIL TRADE


1 2 34 5 8 9

0 10 20


1 234 510

30 40

100.0%IN

INDUSTRY 50

50 60 70 80 90 100

8 g

Mexican - Americans represent NA% of minorities in Labor Force.OCCUPATIONS CODE:

BLUE COLLAR:


246

WHITE COLLAR:

5. CLERICAL & OFFICE6. SALES WORKERS7, TECHNICIANS8. PROFESSIONALS9. OFFI -1IALS & MANAGERS


100 ."

5034.3%

0

-50

1960 230

1950172


100 ."

50

11.7%0

50

19603,537

19503'166


81.9%IN

LABOR 50FORCE

100

WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS




1 5 6789

0 10 20 30


1 2 . 3 , 4 5 6789.10 mmygol______________mmu ___/_!_mm -rwwwrz-1 moo

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100.0%,IN

INDUSTRY 50

Mexican-Americans represef4 NA% of roinoritiet. in Labor Force.


100 -

5046.7%

0

50

19601,646

1,1221950

US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1970 0-374-215

247