Recent occupation concepts applied to historical Census data
Peter B. Meyer
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology1
Oct 9, 2008
Preliminary and incomplete. Please do not quote or cite yet.
Introduction
Key aspects of people's lives, and their economic effect on others, follow from their
occupations. So when analyzing changes over time in earnings distributions, licensing,
union membership, and technological sophistication of a population, it can be analytically
helpful to make comparisons within and between occupations, rather than directly
comparing individuals without taking their jobs into account. National census data have
a wide spectrum of respondents and their jobs so detailed comparisons over time are
possible.
The purpose of this paper is to trace the general boundaries of the occupation data
available over time from the United States censuses, and to highlight some conceptual
issues in comparing occupation categories over the history of the census data. We can
show that many people who would now be counted as employed were not counted as
employed before 1940, and estimate roughly the magnitude of the differences. We first
review the historical changes that lead us to have the occupation numbers and categories
we have now.
Census of Population practices and occupation collection overview
A U.S. Census of Population has been conducted each ten years since 1790, because
the U.S. Constitution required there be a count of persons by locality to help define
representative political districts and fair taxation across the states. The census data would
support changes decennially (every ten years) so that as citizens moved and grew in
number, the political districts electing the House of Representatives would adapt. The
framers of the Constitution also required that any direct taxes imposed by Congress
would fall fairly and proportionately on the populations of the states. For the first
century, the counts were collected by marshals, from the national law enforcement arm of
the courts. The constitution required a separate count of the slave and free population.
(Anderson Conk 1980, p.8)
The Constitution did not call for collecting occupation or industry data, but it was
repeatedly suggested that it should (including by James Madison). In 1820, there was a
question about how many persons, including slaves, worked in three general economic
1
With thanks for advice to Margo Anderson, J. David Hacker, and Cindy Zoghi. Disclaimer: All views
expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1
sectors, agriculture, commerce, or manufactures. These are by current conceptions
industry information, not occupational information. In the 1840 census, respondents
were to be asked the same questions within these seven (industry) categories: mining;
agriculture; commerce; manufactures and trades; navigation of the oceans; navigation of
canals, lakes, and rivers; and learned professions and engineers. Again it appears slaves
were included (Hunt, 1909). Starting in 1850 and ever since then, many respondents
were asked more precisely for their profession, trade, or occupation.
In the 1850 census, "profession, occupation, or trade" was requested but only of free
males over 15. 323 occupations were presented in the results, summarized under ten
general headings: commerce; trade; manufactures; mechanic arts and mining;
agriculture; law, medicine, and divinity; other pursuits requiring education; government,
civil service; domestic servants; and other occupations. In around 1851 Joseph Kennedy
visited the statistical offices of several European countries. (Details to add)
The 1860 census was very similar to 1850, but now all free persons over 15, now
including females, were asked an occupation. An alphabetical list of 584 occupations
was presented in the results, according to Hunt (1909).2 The 1850 and 1860 results were
poor, in some unspecified sense, in Hunt's view. (p470)
In 1870, General Francis Walker took charge as the Superintendent of the Census.
Marshals continued to do the collection. The inquiry of occupation now went to all
person over 10 years of age. Starting with the 1880 census, marshals no longer collect
the data. The President appointed a Superintendent of the Census, and supervisors and
enumerators were hired. Hunt (1909) reported that quality improved with the 1890 and
1900 Censuses. The Bureau redefined the occupational category system each decade.
The category system became elaborated in detail about manufacturing in the early 1900s.
It was a large scale activity. Hunt reports there were more than 25 million copies of
instructions and forms ("schedules") for the 1900 population census of pop, and several
hundred supervisors, and 53,000 enumerators. The task was rushed.
There were more discussions of standardization across countries in the early 1890s.
"The International Institute of Statistics [recommended at its 1893 session] an
international classification of occupations ... and in 1907 named a commission to prepare
a technological glossary, in English, French, and German, of the designations of
industries and occupations which have been employed in the censuses of leading
countries, accompanied by a brief but exact description of the character of the work
covered by each term so used ... [The commission's] first report is to be made ... [in]
Paris, in May, 1909." Wright and Hunt, 1909. Citing the category system described by
Bertillon (1893).
Until this time, the Census infrastructure was temporary, existing just for a couple of
years before and after each decade’s canvass. In 1902, Congress established a permanent
Bureau to conduct this and other surveys and analyses. This was expected to reduce loss
2
I have not seen those results. IPUMS.org doesn't seem to have them online; they standardized these early
occupation results on the 1880 category system.
2
of knowledge and skills between Censuses and sustain a staff of professionals. Other
countries had done this around the same time.
A key analytical advance in 1910 was to ask two new questions along with the
occupation question which give the basic job facts. One was what “industry” the
employer was in. The other asked whether the respondent was an employee, or self
employed, or an employer (Anderson Conk, 1978). The existence of these related
questions allow the occupation question to break off from the sources of revenue and ask
about the worker’s own function or tasks.
Alva Edwards was in charge of the occupational statistics from 1910 to 1940, and
gradually reduced the use of industry information to classify the occupation. He had a
strong preference for an occupation system to give information about the skills and
intelligence of the worker. In the absence of measurable data about this he was
sometimes reduced to making inferences from demographic information about the
workers. He acknowledged that “certain specific occupations which technically are
skilled occupations were classified as semiskilled because the enumerators [found] so
many children, young persons, and women as pursuing these occupations as to render the
occupations semiskilled, even though each of them did contain some skilled workers”
(Edwards, 1917). Looked at from currently standard concepts, in which occupation is a
structural, functional classification of workers, Edwards improved the analytical
precision of the occupation categories by helping excise industry concepts from them, but
clouded them by de facto including demographic or social-economic elements. For a
more thorough discussion see Anderson Conk (1978, 1980).
The 1950 category system appears to have a good reputation among academics.
Matt Sobek of the IPUMS.org project extended its reach to the entire span of 1850-2000,
with jobs matched as well as possible from 1950 to the category system of the
respondent’s year. Since 1950 the classification has continued to be revised every
decade, and in major ways in 1980 and 2000.
Recent occupational classification practices
In recent decades the answers of respondents to the occupation and industry
questions in the decennial Census have been encoded into a three-digit occupation code
and a three-digit industry code, which are made available in the public-use micro
samples. A monthly survey conduced by the same Bureau, called the Current Population
Survey, has questions and procedures which are similar to the decennial Census. This
data is used to derive unemployment statistics. The following description of practices for
the Current Population Survey is similar to the practices for the decennial Census. The
respondent (or a proxy respondent like a family member or neighbor) is asked
approximately these questions3 in this order:
3
http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/bqestair.htm shows the exact phrasing of these questions for telephone
interviews for a recent CPS. http://usa.ipums.org has the questions asked for each past U.S. census.
3






(class of employer) Is this person’s employer a private for-profit company, a
nonprofit, self-employed, federal government, state government, or local
government?
What is the name of the person’s employer?
(industry) What kind of business or industry is it; what do they make or do?
Is it mainly in manufacturing, retail trade, wholesales rate, or something else?
(occupation) What kind of work does this person do? (For example: plumber, typist,
farmer)
What are the person’s usual activities or duties at the job? (For example: typing,
keeping account books, filing, selling cars, operating printing press, laying brick.)
The answers to these questions, four of which are open-ended text, along with the
respondent’s city, state, sex, age, and years of education are made available to specialized
“coders” in the Census Bureau’s National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana. I
visited that office and interviewed some of the specialists.
The open-ended answers are in the respondent’s handwriting, digitally scanned from
the decennial Census form, or were typed by the CPS interviewer onto a computer then
downloaded to the coder’s computer. The coders follow carefully documented
procedures to assign a three-digit industry code and an occupation code to the respondent.
The open-ended answers are not made available in the public-use samples, and may not
be available any more in any form.
The respondent may have given a job title, but in the more challenging cases has
given a too-brief description of the tasks. A coder may not be able to assign occupation
and industry codes based on the documented procedures, in which case the respondent’s
data is forwarded (“referred”) electronically to a specialist called a “referralist.” This
occurred in 17% of cases in a large 1997-8 sample (Couper and Conrad, 2001, p. 10).
The referralist can match the employer name to a giant list of known employers called the
Business Registry (which is the same as an earlier list called the SSEL), and may do a
variety of kinds of research on the employer or the words used in the answers to the
“kinds of work” and the “activities or duties”. The referralist may look up the employer
on the web, and also can refer to a number of books on occupations. Referralists told me
that there is some tendency for respondents to over-inflate the importance or prestige of
their jobs.
If the job is hard to classify exactly, there are occupation categories for a best-match,
usually with the text "not elsewhere classified" abbreviated in the title. For example, in
the 1990 categories we see “Engineers, n.e.c.”, “Managers and administrators, n.e.c.,” “
Therapists, n.e.c.” and a dozen others like that. This technique helps keep some
categories precise while making room to fit everyone, and by stretching these residual
categories it is easier to extend a long time series of a particular category system.
Classifications of the Census data
4
The main classifications are in Table 1. In all cases I know of, the category systems
were determined in advance and the respondent’s self description of the work activity
was used by a Census Bureau employee to assign them into one of the categories. When
there are multiple numbers of classifications listed in table 1, it's because the sources
don't agree. One reason for that is that sometimes industry information was compounded
with occupational information. For example Anderson Conk (1980) uses the example of
“foreman and overseers (street railway)” which was distinguished from “foreman and
overseers (not specified).”
Histories of the occupation statistics treat top officials of the census as having had
strong inclinations which affect the way the jobs are reported (notably Anderson Conk,
1980, but also the earlier work). Francis Walker was in charge in 1870 and 1880 and he
tended to see the “sector” (industry) as important information to encode in the occupation
classification, although since 1920 there is a separate “industry” variable which
characterizes the employer’s field of activity. Carroll Wright was in charge for 1890 and
1900. Alba Edwards was an increasingly important official from 1910 to 1940. He
tended to elevate the importance of differences between jobs where workers used their
heads versus and those where workers used their hands.4
In Census-associated secondary surveys of business establishments, employers could
offer job titles they used, and not use the decennial census classification. For example, in
a 1880 census special survey manufacturing establishments (Weeks, 1884), employers
were invited to submit lists of the jobs at their establishment, and these were not
standardized. Meyer (2004) standardized these into a set of 300 jobs across all
establishments, but it does not match the HISCO classification or the classification in the
1880 census of households.
Summary: history going forward -- the historical process recording the
data
 Census starts in 1790, for political districting and taxation.
 Most Native Americans (Indians) were not counted.
 1850: Free male respondents first asked for their “Profession, occupation, or
trade” by U.S. marshals. Occupations were not categorized.
 1850s: International conferences on occupation collection in Censuses
 1860: All free respondents asked for occupation; household head, usually male, is
counted distinctively.
 1870: Slave category disappears.
 1870: Classification of occupations into 338 categories.
 Since 1870: The category system changed every decade since then.
 1880: Data collectors now political appointees not judicial aw enforcers
4
Anderson Conk (1980), p. 62.
5
 1902-10: Now permanent civil service bureau collects data and categorizes into
occupations. Quality improves.
 1940: Switch to “labor force” definitions and concepts, de-gendered
 Since 1940: Relatively stable definitions and practices.
 Since 1970: With each new system “dual-coded” data are now available.
6
Table 1. US Census occupational classifications
Sources: For 1850-60 categories, Hunt (1909). For 1870-1940 categories, Anderson
Conk (1980), p. 23. For more recent categories, http://usa.ipums.org. For the phrasing of
the question, Wright with Hunt (1900).
Census year
Number of categories
1790-1840 Censuses
The question asked, or other notes
No specific occupation question
1850
323
1860
1870
584
338
"Profession, occupation, or trade of each male person over 15 years of
age" and "Number of slaves" (without further detail on their activities)
"Profession, occupation, or trade of each person, male and female, over
15 years of age" and "Number of slaves" (without further detail on their
activities)
"Profession, occupation, or trade of each person, male or female"
"Profession, occupation, or trade of each person, male or female" over
age 10 and, of those, months unemployed during the census year.
Separately, months at school. Full list of occupations is at
http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/88occup.shtml
1880
276 or 265
1890
1900
1910
218
303
428 or 432
1920
572 or 574
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/92occup.shtml
1930
534
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/occ1930.shtml
1940
228, 221, or 451
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/94occup.shtml
1950
287
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usaaction/variableDescription.do?mnemonic=OCC1950
1960
296
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/96occup.shtml
1970
441
1980
504
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/97occup.shtml
"(a) What kind of work was this person doing? (at least two words) (b)
What were this person's most important activities or duties?" Full list of
occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/98occup.shtml
1990
2000 US Census (1%
sample)
504
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/99occup.shtml
510
Full list of occupations is at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/00occup.shtml
""Profession, trade, or occupation" and, of those, months unemployed
during the census year
2. The categories of people at the margins/boundary of occupation
definition
7
Some occupational categories have a clear continuity over time, such as those of
doctors, barbers, carpenters, laborers, or public officials. But most of the population was
not categorized in an occupation, or was considered in an occupation in some decades but
not others. A key principle was that a person's activity was almost always conceived of
as an occupation if and only if the person received pay for their time. To clarify this
through experience it is helpful to examine some of the sets of people who were
sometimes thought of as marginally employed or outside the system of occupations.
Indians. Indians, now called native Americans, were not defined by the Constitution
as citizens, and did not have representation in the U.S. and were at first excluded from the
Census. The sovereignty of North American Indian nations has been redefined over time.
By 1890, there was an ethnic category in the census for “civilized Indians,” apparently
meaning more or less the ones who had settled into fixed dwellings and who were willing
to be included in the American population. J. David Hacker reports that perhaps 90% of
Indians were excluded from the U.S. Census until 1920. In 1890, 1900, and 1910 there
were special censuses of Indians, including occupation, but the results were separate from
the main Census of Population.5 This means on the order of 250,000 persons were not in
the main occupation counts until 1920.
Slaves. The Constitution required a count of free citizens and a count of slaves. The
subject of slavery was very divisive, and after difficult bargaining the framers agreed to
count slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of a district's representation and
taxation, though slaves could not vote and did not themselves pay taxes. The census did
not inquire about the occupations of slaves, nor was "slave" defined as an occupation.
Some slaves were specialized and skilled however. One can see this as a tourist to George
Washington's plantation, where among the slaves there were metalworking and leather
specialists, clothing makers, food processors, housekeepers, and farm workers. The
standard census form ("schedule") did not ask for this information in the 1850 and 1860
censuses. After that, slavery was abolished legally and as a data category.
Wives and mothers at home. If not employed, these women do not have
occupations. This principle is of long standing. But because they were expected to be
dependents, women in past decades were less likely to be recorded as having an
occupation even if they were employed than they are now. My information on this
research comes from Anderson (2002). Bose (2001) evaluated how then-conventional
roles for women affected the way the 1900 census data reported female-headed
households and formally-unemployed housewives. “Bose estimates that in 1900, 46.4%
of women aged 15-64 'worked' in the formal and informal home based economy,
compared with a 1994 rate of 58.8%. According to the 1900 census definition, 22.5% of
women 'worked'.” (Anderson, pp. 507) Thus using 2000 definitions, twice as many
women were working in 1900 than the 1900 census reported. Thus many women in 1900
5
Anderson Conk, p. 16, and informal conversation with J. David Hacker. For more information I am
advised to consult: Hacker again; Historical Statistics of the U.S., especially the section by Matthew Snipp;
the work of Matthew Sobek of the Minnesota Population Center; and the census counting of Native
Canadians documented by Michelle Hamilton.
8
who were not recorded in an occupation category would, now, be recorded as having an
occupation if they submitted the same data to a current census.
Children and students. There is usually a lower bound on persons for whom an
occupation can be recorded. Based on the instructions to the enumerators, it was age 15
in the 1850 and 1860 Censuses, there was no age in the 1870 Census, then it was age 10
in 1880. There was no lower age in 1890. In 1940 the lower bound was changed from
10 to 14. In recent years I believe the lower bound age is 16. Being a student has not
been defined as an occupation in any year. A youth or student with a part-job is now to
be recorded as having an occupation if the job takes (I believe) twenty or more hours per
week.
Retired or unemployed. Since the 1970 census, there is classification for the
unemployed who have not worked in five years but would be willing to work. A
respondent who does not have a job but has had one less than five years ago and seeks
one now may describe themselves as having an occupation which is the customary job or
a previous job. A retired person, that is one who does not intend to return to a previous
line of work, is now conceived of as outside the labor force, and does not have a censusdefined occupation.
Non-citizens and border-crossers. The census is a survey of people who live in the
United States. Likewise, persons crossing borders between home and work, legally or
otherwise, are counted in the census and their occupations recorded if they live in the
U.S. and not if they live in another country. (These numbers can be large. It has been
estimated recently is that 11% of Mexico's population lives in the U.S.) In all cases it
does not matter whether the employer or the workplace is in the United States. I do not
know how far these principles go back. For redistricting purposes, I believe only citizens
count.
Military. A person in the military ordinarily has had an income, and was counted in
one of a very few general military occupation categories. For the 1990 census, some
military persons were categorized more closely by their work activity. For example, in
the 1990 data, a physician in the military would be in the occupation “physician”. That
change brought those people in alignment with the usual principle that the person’s work
tasks or activities, not the employer’s attributes, determines the occupation category. But
in 2000, the census returned to the principle that anyone employed by the military is in a
strictly military category.
The institutionalized. A persons might be hospitalized, imprisoned, in a
government or charity shelter for safety, or in special institutions for the aged or disabled
or mentally incapacitated. These persons count in the census, and could be reported to
have an occupation but only rarely do.
Tax evaders, illegally working, or doing illegal work. There is no link permitted
between an individual’s census data report and law enforcement or tax enforcement. A
basic principle is that the census data are to be an accurate count of persons, reporting the
9
world as it is. Therefore a person employed in criminal activities, or not paying taxes on
employment may simply report their activity as an occupation to the census. Gambling
and prostitution are legal in a few places in the U.S. I believe employment in these is
reported in the occupation category “personal service occupations, not elsewhere
classified” or some similarly broad classification.
Volunteers or hobbyists. A person devoted to volunteering, for example giving
tours at a museum without pay, or serving a religious institution or political party without
pay, is not employed, therefore these activities have not counted as census occupations.
A person delving into a hobby like stamp collecting has not counted as having an
occupation. There is however a self-employed category, and a person trying without pay
to invent something that will be valuable in the future may probably report himself as
self-employed as an inventor, and perhaps this would match an occupation. It is not clear
to me whether the rules on this have changed over time.
Apprentices. There were many apprentice occupation categories until 1960. If
payment was explicit, then certainly an apprentice had an occupation. If there was no
payment in the present but rather the prospect of a job in the future, it is unclear to me
whether this would sometimes be defined as employment and an occupation, or a student
role.
Households. In the 1850-1860 censuses it seems that households were described as
having one occupation, the principal occupation of the household head. Since then, the
occupation concept is closely attached to individuals, and never attached to households.
Can’t find, homeless, refused, or traveling. If after some efforts the Census
enumerators cannot reach a person, they can accept a secondary report on that
household.6 If the person has no identified home but generally resides in a locality I
believe this person is supposed to be included, and some homeless persons do have
occupations. A person who is traveling should be recorded, in the district where the
person lives (I believe) not where they temporarily are traveling to.
It is known that the Census undercounts the population overall, especially those
groups who are disconnected from jobs and families and stable homes. The undercount
is believed to be millions of people, though as a fraction of the population has probably
improved over time. Some of the uncounted persons would have had occupations.
Table 2. Counting of various groups over time
Sources: See above text section
Category of persons
Relation to occupation categories
6
Informally Michelle Hamilton reports that the Canadian census enumerators were supposed to visit a
dwelling three times before giving up on getting a report from that dwelling.
10
Indians (Native Americans)
Excluded, by Constitution; over time, most descendants have become
U.S. citizens or showed up in Census data, e.g. could have occupations
Slaves
Counted separately; did not have occupations in 1850 or 1860; after that
disappears legally and as a data category
Wives and mothers at home
Not counted in 1850. Later, were less likely to be counted as having an
occupation (Bose (2001) especially if it were informal and through an
ethnic enclave. "Bose estimates that in 1900, 46.4% of women aged 1564 'worked' in the formal and informal home based economy, compared
with a 1994 rate of 58.8%. According to the 1900 census definition,
22.5% of women 'worked'." (Anderson Conk, 2002)
Children or students
Minimum age for an occupation has jumped around from 15 to 10 to 14
to 16. "Student" is recorded in some years but is not by usual definition
an occupation.
Retired or unemployed
Sometimes these are given categories in the occupation category system
Non-citizens and bordercrossers
Household location matters; employer's location doesn't.
Institutionalized
In prison, hospital, disabled, charity shelter; these can have an
occupation but usually don't.
Working illegally or
avoiding tax
Can be categorized in a Census occupation. No link to law enforcement.
However before 1880, Census enumerators were law enforcement
officials.
Volunteers or hobbyists
Not counted as in an occupation unless they report as self-employed
Apprentices
Yes, if paid. If not paid, might be conceived of as students.
Homeless; can't locate;
traveling
Can have an occupation based on information from others or remote
location.
Refused to answer
Historically a small category. Can have an occupation if enumerator
receives information from others (I believe). Possibly a growing
category.
Summary of categories crossing the boundary
 My main source: Bose (2001)
 Many women in 1900 who would now count as employed did not count as
employed in the 1900 Census.
 Working on family farm (est. 16.9% of US women age 15-64)
 Taking in boarders; taking care of other people’s children (3.9%)
 Outwork, e.g. sewing at home, or running a shop (3.1%)
 Her corrected figures are not far from the comparable measures available from
Australia which used two similar occupation concepts
Other sources: Sobek (1997), Goldin (2001), Abel and Folbre (1983), Deacon
(1985)
 Indians – slow transition into occupation, since the early Census (for more see
Snipp and Hacker)
11
 Slaves, till 1870 – not recorded as having an occupation
 Children – minimum age for recorded occupation jumps around, varying from 10
to 16 until 1910
 People who were disabled, retired, students, institutionalized, or seasonal workers
were less likely using post-1940 “labor force” definitions to have an occupation.
(Anderson, 1980, p.24)
In other cases, boundary did not change.
 Unemployed men – May report an occupation
 Non-citizens, border-crossers -- Household location matters; employer's location
does not matter.
 Working illegally or avoiding tax - Can have a Census occupation, without a legal
implication, but until 1880 Census enumerators were law enforcement officials.
 Volunteers or hobbyists -- Not counted as in an occupation unless they report as
self-employed
 Apprentices – yes, if paid. If not paid, might be conceived of as students.
 Homeless; traveling; or can't locate -- Can have an occupation based on
information from others or remote location.
 Refused to answer -- Historically a small category. Enumerator may receive
information from others. Possibly a growing category.
Translation and standardization over time
The IPUMS project (at http://usa.ipums.org) has mapped the occupations from all
years to the 1950 set of occupations. So if one downloads the data from there, almost all
employed persons from any year have an assigned occupation from the 1950 occupation
classification.
For more precision in recent data, Meyer and Osborne (2005) standardized the 19602003 period to have occupations from a harmonized classification based on, but coarser
than, the 1990 census classification. A general issue in this area is that the further in time
one tries to translate, the greater the danger that there is no corresponding occupation.
For example, the blacksmith category was important in 1880, but has disappeared by
1980. Even more difficult, the computer programmer category is important in 1990, but
has no close analogs a century before. Further work to make smarter imputations of an
occupation classification from years other than the years in which the data was collected
is in Meyer (2006).
3. Estimating the population beyond the boundary: history going
backward
12
Going back to 1940: little change in categories.
1930 and before: women, especially wives, not counted the same way as now. Also
Indians. Also maybe unemployed.
1910 back to 1870: Indians not counted the same way.
Before 1900: children counted differently.
Back from 1870 to 1850: slaves and Indians and women and children! 20% difference
from now in 1860, maybe 40% in 1850.
Rough estimates:
pop with
occupations
(41% in
1910)
women
"missing" by
today's
definition of
"occupation"
Native
Americans
not
apparently
counted
slaves
year
total
pop in
millions
1850
23.2
9.5
3.72
0.7
3.0
1860
31.4
12.9
2.51
0.6
4.0
1870
39.8
16.3
3.19
0.6
1880
50.2
20.6
4.02
0.6
1890
62.9
25.8
5.04
0.6
1900
76.0
31.2
6.08
0.4
1910
92.0
38.0
7.37
0.3
1920
105.7
43.3
8.46
0.2
1930
122.8
50.3
9.83
0.2
Graphing this:
140.0
total pop in millions
120.0
100.0
pop w ith occupations
(based on 41% in 1910)
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
w omen "missing" by
today's definition of
"occupation"
Native Americans
apparently not counted
18
50
18
60
18
70
18
80
18
90
19
00
19
10
19
20
19
30
19
40
0.0
slaves
13
Conclusion
Translating occupations over time is helpful for social-scientific comparisons (e.g.
the general effects of unionization, licensing, or technological change). But large
portions of the population are outside the occupational categories, and the limits have
been drawn differently over time. Among the challenges are narrow redefinitions of
categories, and insufficient data to match between them. A more difficult qualitative
challenge is that whole categories of people have shifted from having no identified
occupation, to having one. Specifically, most blacks in the U.S. in 1850 were slaves, and
outside the occupation category system. Most Indians were not, then, citizens in the
census. And by one estimate, 46% of adult women were working in 1900 if we use
current definitions, but only 23% were by the definitions in the 1900 Census. Much of
the population have transitioned or been redefined into the officially measured labor force
as financial and economic interaction has become pervasive, over and above ethnic,
racial, national, and gender categories.
 Can potentially do a good job matching current job categories back to 1970 using
“dual-coded” data sets.
 It is realistic to apply current occupation categories back to 1940
 Before 1930, might adjust for adult women in home-based economy and Indians
 Before 1870, occ data was not categorized and there were slaves
 In 1850 maybe only 35% of population would have a Census occupation; now
over 60%.
 With more research, it is feasible to get better at this.
Bibliography
Anderson Conk, Margo. 1978. Occupational Classification in the United States Census:
1870-1940. “Journal of Interdisciplinary History” IX:1 (Summer, 1978) 111-130.
Anderson Conk, Margo. 1980. The US Census and Labor Force Change: a history of
occupation statistics, 1870-1940. Yale University Press.
Anderson, Margo. 2002. Review of Christine E. Bose’s Women in 1900. Journal of
Social History 36:2 (winter, 2002), 506-508.
Bertillon JASA 1893
14
Bose, Christine E. 2001. Women in 1900. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Couper, Mick P., and Frederick G. Conrad. 2001. Analysis of Occupation Coding in the
Current Population Survey. Report for Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Edwards, Alba M. 1917. Social-Economic Groups of the United States. Journal of the
American Statistical Association XV: 645-653.
Hunt, William C. 1909. The Federal Census of Occupations. Journal of the American
Statistical Association.
IPUMS.org. Census questions and resulting data. http://usa.ipums.org
Meyer, Peter B., and Anastasiya Osborne. 2005. Proposed Category System for 19602000 Census Occupations. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics working paper WP-383.
http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/ec/ec050090.htm
Meyer, Peter B. (Ed.) 2004. The Weeks Report database, 4th edition. Available online:
http://econterms.net/weeksreport/weeksdoc.htm
Meyer, Peter B. 2006. Updated unified category system for 1960-2000 Census
occupations. http://pbmeyer/research/occs/SSHA2006/occ_defns.doc
Sobek, Matthew. 1997. Dissertation summary. (A Century of Work: Gender, Labor
Force Participation, and Occupational Attainment in the United States, 1880-1990)
(http://www.hist.umn.edu/~sobek/dissab.html)
Weeks, Joseph D., (editor). 1884. Report on the Statistics of Wages in Manufacturing
Industries, 1880 Census Vol. XX.
Wright, Carroll D., with William C. Hunt. 1900. History and Growth of the United States
Census.
Bertillon JASA 1893






this is a translation of a report at the Vienna session of the International Institute of Statistics, published in
Bulletin de L'Institut International de Statistique, 6:1 p. 263
"M. Vannacque and myself submit to your approval three classifications of occupations . . . " (p379)
The first has 65 headings, the second 197, and the third 456 categories. (p379)
The subject here is what Hunt later calls the IIS 1893 classification.
Some of the categories are more like ind than occ, but it's clear enough. Managers go in the group by industry
sector, not the professionals group. (my obs on p380)
Some confusion in my mind as to whether industry is incorporated into many precise categories or is
somehow separate; see pp 382-383.
[edit] Gannett JASA 1895
[edit] Wright, with Hunt (1900) The History and Growth of the United States Census
15


at DOL library, call # HD 8051 .A9 1900. Do not depend only on e-catalog for this call number. There is also
a special copy in the James Taylor room.
Prepared for a Senate committee on the census.
[edit] Hunt, William C. (JASA, June 1909) The Federal Census of Occupations




















the return and classification of occupations has not yet had satisfactory results and more than any other aspect
of the census this needs improvement (p468)
In the 1820 census, respondents were to be asked the number of persons including slaves engaged in
agriculture, commerce, or manufactures.
In the 1840 census, respondents were to be asked the same questions within these seven (industry) categories:
mining; agriculture; commerce; manufactures and trades; navigation of the oceans; navigation of canals,
lakes, and rivers; and learned professions and engineers. Again it appears slaves were included.
In the 1850 census, "profession, occupation, or trade" was requested but only of free males over 15. An
alphabetical list of 323 occupations was presented in the results. It was summarized under ten general
headings: commerce; trade; manufactures; mechanic arts and mining; agriculture; law, medicine, and
divinity; other pursuits requiring education; government, civil service; domestic servants; and other
occupations.
1860 census was very similar to 1850, but now all free persons over 15, now including females, were asked
an occupation. An alphabetical list of 584 occupations were presented in the results.
[I have not see those results; IPUMS doesn't seem to have them online; they standardized on the 1880
system.]
The 1850 and 1860 results were poor, in some unspecified sense, in Hunt's view. (p470)
In 1870, General Walker was in charge and did well.
Marshals continued to do the collection. (p470)
1870 census: The inquiry of occupation now went to all person over 10 years of age.
1870 census: Tabulated results comprised 338 occupations, in four categories: agriculture, professional and
personal services; trade and transportation; and manufactures and mechanical and mining industries. (p471)
Minimum age: 10
1880: as of this census the marshals no longer collect the data. The President appointed a Superintendent of
the Census, and supervisors and enumerators were hired. 265 occ categories. (p471)
1890: quality improves. 218 occ categories. Minimum age: 10 (p471-2)
1900: more improvement. 303 occupation designations. Similar to the 1890 categories.
1900: almost 26M copies of instructions and forms ("schedules") for the census of pop, and several hundred
supervisors, and 53,000 enumerators. Rushed.
1909, the present: new permanent Bureau should really help and should have been done 20 years ago. will
reduce loss of knowledge and skills between Censuses.
date changed from June 1 to April 15, which Hunt expects to help make a more complete enumeration
possible, but doesn't explain why he thinks that.
and he thinks it will help classify the occupations (p475)
1900: 475 occupation groups (p477). Which conflicts with the statement on p472 that there were 303 such
groups.
"The International Institute of Statistics [recommended at its 1893 session] an international classification of
occupations ... and in 1907 named a commission to prepare a technological glossary, in English, French, and
German, of the designations of industries and occupations which have been employed in the censuses of
leading countries, accompanied by a brief but exact description of the character of the work covered by each
term so used ... [The commission's] first report is to be made ... [in] Paris, in May, 1909." He means the
classification in Bertillon (1893), described above.
[edit] Edwards (1911)

Alba M. Edwards. 1911. Classification of Occupations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 12
(June 1911) pp 618-9.
GET THIS.
16

Edwards, Alba M. 1911. Classification of Occupations: the classification of occupations, with special
reference to the United States and the proposed new classification for the thirteenth Census report on
occupations. Publications of the American Statistical Association 12:94. pp 618-646.
[edit] Edwards (1917, PASA) Social-Economic Groups of the United States
[edit] Edwards (1933)
Edwards, Alba M. A Social-Economic Grouping of the Gainful Workers of the United States. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 28 (Dec 1933) pp 377-387. GET THIS.
[edit] * Edwards, Alba M. 1941. Occupation and Industry Statistics. Journal of the American Statistical
Association 36:215. pp. 387-392.
[edit] Edwards (1943) Comparative occupation statistics for the United States, 1870 to 1940




subtitled: a comparison of the 1930 and 1940 census occupation and industry classifications and statistics: a
comparable series of occupational statistics, 1870 to 1930, and a social-economic grouping of the labor force,
1910 to 1940. by Census of occupation (1940), the sixteenth Census, Edwards, Alba M. U.S. Bureau of the
Census. US, Government Printing Office, 1943
Dr Edwards joined the Bureau of the Census in 1909. (p.ix, in Foreward by Stuart A. Rice)
In 1938 the ASA and the Central Statistical Board (part of the Bureau of the Budget) appointed a Joint
Committee on Occupational Classification to devise a standard classification. (p4) A Standard Industrial
Classification was proposed by another group in 1937-9).
next: p. 5
[edit] Griffen (1972)


cited by Anderson Conk (1980), on p157
Griffen, Clyde. Occupational Mobility in Nineteenth-Century America: Problems and Possibilities." Journal
of Social History, 5, Spring 1972, pp 310-330.
[edit] Katz (1972)








Katz, Michael B. Occupational Classification in History. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 3 (Summer,
1972). pp 63-88
Bank cashier: now, a routine clerical occupation; but circa 1850 it often signified bank manager.
“the [category-defining] principles of continuity and functional logic underlie a structural classification; they
are irrelevant to a mobility one.” Nicely put! And my interest is in continuity, functional logic, and a
structural classification. (p65)
the study of occupations must use a different classification for structure, and another for mobility. (p66)
Charles Booth in the 1890s devised a three-level system of classification which he claimed encompassed
every occupation listed in the censuses for London between 1851 and 1881. He used this scheme to analyze
changes in occupational structure through that period. (p67) Charles Booth, 1886. On Occupations of the
People of the United Kingdom, 1808-81, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society XLIX: 314-445.
“Blau and Duncan, American Occupational Structure 120, report an astonishingly high correlation between
the educational level of occupations, their economic standing and their prestige rating as measured in 1947.
That correlation is .91. [which of those correlations is .91? but whatever] Similarly astounding was a
correlation in occupational prestige rating between 1925 and 1963 of .93.” (p69)
In the period under study (1850s, Hamilton, Ontario), the term engineer was used almost interchangeably
with machinist.
“[earlier] I suggested grouping occupations according to [economic] structure, economic rank, and status, and
I offered the hypothesis that occupations would frequently occupy a different position with each type of
classification. In this section I offer some concrete evidence . . .” (p80)
17


“there are some miscellaneous occupations which . . . might be termed consumer groups. . . . [including]
unemployed women, like widows, unemployed men, like students, pensioners, gentlemen (where no other
designation is offered), and handicapped persons.” (p82)
finds that occupation prestige measure and wealth are not very closely correlated. (pp 84-86)
[edit] Bureau of the Census (1975) The Census Bureau, a numerator and denominator for measuring change.




Type: Book
Publisher: Washington : U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of
the Census, 1975.
OCLC: 1859504
is listed at the LOC. did not check DC library or DOL library
[edit] Anderson Conk (1978, JIH)










Anderson Conk, Margo. 1978. Occupational Classification in the United States Census: 1870-1940. Journal
of Interdisciplinary History 9:1 (Summer, 1978) 111-130.
"the Bureau's effors to describe and classify the manufacturing population shows a fundamental confusion-beginning in 1910--in how the information was used. This confusion derives from the Bureau's treatment of
occupational statistics as both social and economic indicators." (p111)
"In 1850, the Census Bureau made its first concerted effort to acquire information on the free, adult, male
population. [And summarized it into ten categories.] ... In 1860, the Census asked the occupation of the male
and female free population; the reports listd the occupations alphabetically and recorded the number of
individuals [in each]."
"In 1870, Francis Amasa Walker, Superintended of the Ninth and Tenth Censuses, revamped the occupation
census in an attempt to make it more accurate and scientific [and ambitious and precise]." Enumerators were
told to ask the occupation of all inhabitants and to describe an individual's occupation as accurately and in
[detail]." Published reports grouped occupations into four sectors: ag; prof and personal service; trade and
transport; and manufacturing, mechanical, and mining.
From 1870 to 1910, sys system of recording and reporting occupations remained much the same (p112)
"In 1900 a first attempt was made to divide the "manufacturing and mechanical pursuits" into more specific
industrial categories--such as building trade, textiles, or liquors . . ." (p112)
Cites James Leiby, Carroll Wright and Labor Reform, Cambridge, Mass 1960, p.124. And Francis A.
Walker. 1899. Discussions in Economics and Statistics, vol II, New York. 49-129.
The ASA, AEA, and other groups had advocated for decades that there be a permanent Bureau of the Census,
in lieu of the temporary setup in the Dept of Interior. In 1902 this finally happened in the Act creating the
Dept of Commerce and Labor. In 1913 this Dept split into Commerce, which kept Census, and Labor.
Cites W. Stull Holt. 1929. The Bureau of the Census: Its History, Activities, and Organization Washington.
And A. Ross Eckler. 1972. The Bureau of the Census. New York, 12-22. And, the 1910 Census's Population
book, 91-94.
In 1910
[edit] Sharlin (1978)


cited by Anderson Conk (1980)
wouldn't be on JSTOR as cited but look for this name: Allan Sharlin.
[edit] Anderson Conk (1980) The US Census and Labor Force Change: a history of occupation statistics, 18701940

The original purpose of the census was to fulfill the constitutional requirement that representation in the
[House of Representatives] be apportioned according to population with a re-count and new apportionment
every decade. The only other constitutional demand from the census was a separate count of the slave
and free population as called for in the Three-Fifths Compromise. In the beginning, then, the census was
no more than a tool to prevent the corrupt parliamentary practices that at least some Americans found
rampant in eighteenth century England. (p8)
18














Great quote on social science, accumulation, and refereeing: "The belief that social scientific knowledge is
cumulative underlies such standard academic practices as the article referee system. 'The system of
monitoring scientific work before it enters into the archives of science means that much of the time scientists
can build upon the work of others with a degree of warranted confidence.' The referee system 'provides an
institutional basis for the comparative reliability and cumulation of knowledge.' Robert K. Merton and
Harriet Zuckerman, quote in the New York Times, August 14, 1979, p. C4." (on Anderson Conk, p155,
footnoted from page 1)
"Occupational statistics used here encompass 92.5 percent of the working population for all the cities. The
worst year is 1870, in which 84 percent of the working population is represented. The best year is 1920, when
97 percent of the working population is represented. . . . In 1870 and 1880, the figures were deficient because
many manufacturing occupations were not listed. In 1910 the detailed statistics were uneven for some cities."
(p156, footnote 7)
On occupational mobility studies, Conk surveys and reports that the consensus of serious studies is that "there
is significant upward mobility in the lives of workers in industrialized societies. Mobility is most commonly
defined as movement from blue-collar to white-collar status in the course of an individual's lifetime or
between two generations." (p158)
"Before 1850, the form of the census followed narrowly from its goal [of] representative apportionment. The
basic unit counted was the household. Only the head of household name was listed on the form. The United
States marshals and their assistants took the census and asked the household head how many individuals,
male and female, free and slave, there were in the household in various age cohorts." And I infer from this
that there was no census form: "Until 1830, the federal government did not even print a standard schedule."
(p8-9) Great stuff!
The government experimented with additional questions. "In 1820 and 1840, Congress asked the household
head to specify how many members of the household were engaged in the various economic sector--i.e.,
'commerce,' 'agriculture,' or 'manufactures.' In 1820, the number of 'foreigners not naturalized' was requested
of each household. In 1830 Congress asked for information on the deaf and blind." (p9) Great!
The marshals went to the households physically, took the census, totaled the results for their district, and
transmitted them to Washington DC. There was no central bureaucracy to set standards, check for accuracy,
or administer the census at all. Congress requested certain information, and the marshals, under the direction
of the Secretary of State, reported it back. Tabulation of local figures was done by the local marshals, then the
federal government added the numbers up and reported them.
There was a dispute over the 1840 Census's numbers of insane and slaves. Edward Jarvis identified them. He
"could not determine whether they were the fault of the marshals or the clerks in Washington who transcribed
the results. He petitioned for a Congressional inquiry to check the data but was blocked by John C. Calhoun. .
. . mistaken arguments about [apparently] high [rates of insanity] among free blacks were the result of
deliberate falsification of the date or . . . technical incompetency . . ." (p159, which also cites deeper sources
on this).
Starting in 1850, there was a Census Office and a radical departure from the previous approach. The central
bureau took responsibility and authority away from the respondent and the census taker. It published a list of
questions on a form. Before 1850, the household head was asked how many males and females in the family
were under 10, between 10 and 24, etc. Starting in 1850, the form asked the age of the respondent. (and the
family? left unclear). "In 1850, the Bureau asked the 'profession, occupation, or trade' of the
respondent." And the assignment of a 'farmer' to 'agriculture' was made in the Bureau's Washington
headquarters, "not on the doorstep of the respondent. (p9)
This standardization and control was meant to aid uniformity and get more raw data. It also had the effect of
stamping the Bureau's standards on the data when the respondent might have done it differently. (p9-10)
In 1850 free inhabitants over age 15 were to be asked about their occupations, and the age, race, sex, and
birthplace of everyone were to be asked.
Francis Walker was a young general in the Civil War, a Massachusetts Republican. He was the founding
president ofthe American Economic Association (1885-1892), president of the American Statistical
Association (1883-1897), and president of MIT (1881-1897). Wow. Was superintendent of the 1870 and
1880 Censuses. (p11)
Walker through the new urban immigrants were a problem and proposed relocating them to the far West.
(p74)
In 1940, the age for inclusion in the occupation statistics was raised from 10 to 14. (p160)
...
19
The classification scheme evolves from one based on economic/industrial sectors to one reflecting skill and
socioeconomic status (Niemi (1981) review in JEH of Anderson Conk (1980))
The classification system altered in response to changes in social, economic, and cultural institutions (Niemi (1981)
review in JEH of Anderson Conk (1980))
[edit] Krotki (1989) review of Anderson book (1988)




The racism of census director Walker, a retired army general, is described, though the author does not attach
too much opprobrium to the description. (p312)
The census of 1950 was more efficiently run and much cheaper per capita than that of the 1940 (p313) Partly
this was through reliance on sampling, notably the efforts of Jerzy Neyman with his seminar article drawn
from his experience in Poland.
refers to 3/5 compromise
criticizes some details which may be worth noting in the origninal (p314).
[edit] Winkle (Sept 1989 RAH) review of Anderson (1988)






"Every ten years, the National Archives releases another 100 tons or so of manuscript census returns, 72
years after they were compiled, into the waiting hands of historians." (p341)
sources! W. Stull Holt's 1929 Bureau of the Census and A. Ross Eckler's 1972 Bureau of the Census
"The census performed another of its constitutional mandates when Congress levied direct taxes in 1798 and
1813, but otherwise made little impact on Americans' daily lives." (p342)
"Under FDR [a] younger more innovative staff deemphasized the decennial census and advocated sample
surveys to target specific problems. Census data help to implement New Deal programs and to measure their
[effects]." (pp343-4)
Anderson's book is an institutional history and methodological critique.
See source! Anderson's "Accuracy, Efficiency and Bias: the interpretations of women's work in the U.S.
Census of occupations, 1890-1940" Historical Methods 14 (Spring 1981): 65-72.
[edit] Swierenga (1990)
Swierenga's review of Margo Anderson's The American Census in The American Historical Review, April 1990





The bible of the trade is Carroll Wright and William Hunt's The History and Growth of the U.S. Census
(1990)
Anderson's book's central theme is "the politics of counting"
Census reports generate political fallout which has embroiled the agency in issues, which are listed here
Anderson's book emphasized occupation and other economic questions that were long demanded by the
major outside advocacy group, the Census Advisory Committee, which was chosen by the ASA and AEA.
The Census questionnaire was substantially revamped in 1850, 1880, 1900, 1950, 1970, and 1980.
[edit] Bernstein (1990)
Bernstein, Michael A. "Review: Numerable Knowledge and its Discontents" from Reviews in American History 18:2.,
June 1990, pp 151-164, JHU press. (reviewing Anderson Conk 1987, among others)


Conk's survey of the 1870-1940 occupation classes reports that rapidly changing social and economic
conditions made occ statistics obsolete quickly. To reduce this, the census tabulated large and prestigious
occupations. That was Francis Walker's technique. He was superintendent of the 1870 and 1880 Censuses
and then in 1885 the founding president of the American Economic Association! Walker thought occ
statistics were key to understanding the nation, and had great influence on the future of the Census. (p155)
Walker opted for a distinction between "productive workers" who made commodities and "unproductive"
ones who did not. Alba Edwards, the agent in charge of the occupational statistics from 1910 to 1940, instead
focused on the activity of the workers. From his effort emerged a separation of blue collar and white collar
workers -- or hand workers versus head workers. (p155)
20

In Edwards's classification scheme, sectoral distinctions were lost so that the actual industrial classification of
the labor force was submerged in differences based on function. On the other hand, "head workers" often had
refined and important manual skills, such as those of surgeons and visual artists. For Edwards, the real issue
was that head workers hd higher social-economic status than hand workers. By 1940 Edwards had reorg'd the
occupational classifications so that status, not sector or activity, became the primary determinant of
classification.
[edit] Haines (1990), reviewing Anderson (1988)






This reader would have appreciated more attention to the first censues of manufactures (1810, 1820, and
1840) and discussion of the McLane Report of 1832. (p180)
Before 1902 the census was taken by separate temporary organizations created each decade by Congress.
This book portrays hardships and difficulties thus created, e.g. that a political process awarded employment
to clerks based on patronage. (p180)
The first census to enumerate each individual, not household summaries, was in 1850. Joseph C.G.
Kennedy was the superintendent. Anderson thoroughly studies Kennedy who was also superindentent of the
1860 census and a subsequent critic. This institutional history is valuable for users of the data.
The 1880 census was the first to have numerous volumes of special studies.
In the 1930s sample survey methods were adopted and the new labor force concept -- current labor force
status, replacing the "gainful employment" concept. And the first income question. and the first really usable
unemployment data.
The origins of the CPS follow from sample survey work from the 1940 census.
[edit] Atack (1990), reviewing Anderson (1988)


Census Superintendent Francis Walker played a leading role in formulating racist, nativist policies. He spoke
of the "foreigner bringing . . . a vastly lower standard of living [and an] incapacity even to understand the
refinements of life and thought". He spoke of "beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures
in the struggle for existence" (p.131 of Anderson).
Atack cites Hyman Alterman's 1969 Counting People, possibly a book I need.
[edit] Anderson (2002 JSH) review of Bose (2001)





Bose (2001) evaluated how then-conventional roles for women -- dependency and coverture for example -affected the 1900 census data.
This book "reorganizes and reinterprets" the way the census reported families to identify unreported femaleheaded households and formally-unemployed housewives (p507).
She finds "that once one takes the geographic concentration of African American and non immigrant Euro
American women in rural areas into account, many of the reputed 'ethnic' differences disappear.' (p507)
"Bose estimates that in 1900, 46.4% of women aged 15-64 'worked' in the formal and informal home
based economy, compared with a 1994 rate of 58.8%. According to the 1900 census definition, 22.5%
of women 'worked'. Bose also estimates that the official rate of household headship for women (about 10%)
needs to be inflated to about 12% in 1900 because younger [unmarried] women with children [tended not to
be reported as household heads; instead] they and their children appear in the 1900 census as subfamilies in a
larger household." (p507) Again here the difference between 1900 and 2000 is less than it looks like.
The Census 2000 Supplemental Survey reports that female headed family households make up 12.5% of all
households, and 18.5% of all families.
[edit] Levenson and Zoghi (2006)


They quote Alba M. Edwards (1911) thus: "It should be the purpose of statistics of occupation . . . [to] show,
so far as possible, not only the skill and intelligence of the worker, and his position in the industry, . . . but as
a means for the study of the risk, healthfulness, and numerous other problems connected with his occupation,
they should show, also, the specific services rendered, work done, or processes performed by him"
They go on to say that in the 1800s occupational classifications of a worker generally [derived from] the
industry in which the worker was employed. The 1880 Census occupation classification includes for example
"car makers", "clerks in stores", "bookkeepers in stores", "clerks and bookkeepers in banks", "clerks and
21


bookkeepers in companies", "clerks and bookkeepers in offices", "clerks and bookkeepers in railroad
offices".
Alba Edwards (1911, 1938, 1941) proposed that a worker should be classified not by the product he made but
rather "by the kind of work" done or service rendered. Census adopted a his methods in 1940, and tried to
measure the conditions of people (meaning unclear).
Margo Anderson Conk (1978) wrote that without a definition or criteria for skill, the Census began to classify
occupations by skill. "To do this, the Census fell back on the 'social' component of its definition of an
occupation [proxied by] ethnicity, race, sex, and age . . ." Thus an occupation might be categorized as
unskilled because there were females and minorities in it.
[edit] Bracke (2008) "Counting Occupations: the Belgian censuses, 1846-1947"















THE SAME ISSUES HAD ARISEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
Independence from Neth in 1830. First nationwide Belgian census in 1846. Muchly-improved occupation
counts in second census in 1856. (p1,2,16)
In the population censuses, household heads described and categorized the occupations of all household
members. In the economic statistics, occupation and employment status were described by the employers.
(Note: employment status means employer/employee/manual-worker, not employed/unemployed.)
In 1846 household heads reported only their own occupations. From 1856 on, each person in the household
could have an occupation, reported by the household heads from in a standardized classification of occs that
was determined before the census started. (p10) The occupations in the 1856 list (p19-20) look like
industrial/employer classifications.
In 1856, persons without occupations included two big groups: (1) those living off their wealth, landlords,
pensioners, housewives, and students, and (2) a socially inferior group of beggars, prostitutes, and brothel
keepers who were labeled as 'sans' profession'.
In 1900 and other years, housewives were listed as 'sans occupation'. So were children, the elderly, the sick
and invalids supported by family or charity.
The concept of an occupation was linked to the act of paying taxes.
There was no category for the unemployed. (p11) Author writes, peculiarly, that it was not a meaningful
category until the unemployment benefits came to exist. But the category is descriptive, like all in the census.
Those without a job, notably prisoners and pensioners were to report their last occupation. (p11)
In 1866, conscripts (meaning military draftees, I think) and prisoners were to report their last occupation.
Some occupations in 1846 and 1856 were subdivided into masters (employers) and workers. (p12)
Wage distinguished workers (meaning: manual workers) from employer/artisans. This became more
elaborated in 1880 into four categories: employers, manual workers, employees, and apprentices.
It is uncertain how apprentices and employees were categorized before 1880, e.g. whether apprentices were
classified as workers or as students without occupation. (p13)
The definition of employee in 1920 census was: a person doing non-manual work, for a wage, with a written
or oral contract with an employer.
Occupational nomenclature incorporated three perspectives: occupation, sector (industry), and employment
status (defined above to mean employer/employee/manual-worker/apprentice)
22