Labor force in the United States

In the United States, there were three significant stages of women's increased participation in the labor force. During the late 19th century through the 1920s, very few women were employed. Working women were often young single women who typically withdrew from labor force at marriage unless their family needed two incomes. These women worked primarily in the textile manufacturing industry or as domestic workers. This profession empowered women and allowed them to earn a living wage. At times, they were a financial help to their families.

Between 1930 and 1950, female labor force participation increased primarily due to the increased demand for office workers, women participating in the high school movement, and electrification which reduced the time spent on household chores. In the 1950s to the 1970s, most women were secondary earners working mainly as secretaries, teachers, nurses, and librarians (pink-collar jobs).

Claudia Goldin and others, specifically point out that by the mid-1970s there was a period of revolution of women in the labor force brought on by different factors. Women more accurately planned for their future in the work force, choosing more applicable majors in college that prepared them to enter and compete in the labor market. In the United States, the labor force participation rate rose from approximately 59% in 1948 to 66% in 2005,[4] with participation among women rising from 32% to 59%[5] and participation among men declining from 87% to 73%.[6][7]

A common theory in modern economics claims that the rise of women participating in the US labor force in the late 1960s was due to the introduction of a new contraceptive technology, birth control pills, and the adjustment of age of majority laws. The use of birth control gave women the flexibility of opting to invest and advance their career while maintaining a relationship. By having control over the timing of their fertility, they were not running a risk of thwarting their career choices. However, only 40% of the population actually used the birth control pill. This implies that other factors may have contributed to women choosing to invest in advancing their careers.

Another factor that may have contributed to the trend was the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex. Such legislation diminished sexual discrimination and encouraged more women to enter the labor market by receiving fair remuneration to help raise children.

According to the US Census in 1861, one third of women were in the labor force and of these one fourth were married women.[8]

According to Ellen DuBoise and Lynn Dumenil, they estimate that the number of women in the labor force from 1800 - 1900 are:[9]

According to the US Department of Labor, as of 2017 women make up 47% of the total labor force with 70% of them mothers with children under 18 years of age.[10]

Men's labor force participation has been falling consistently since at least the 1960s.[11] This applies to both the overall and prime working age (25-54), as discussed in the analysis section below.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2019 Asians are most likely to hold a management position, while Hispanics or Latinos are most likely to hold a job in the service sector.[12]

A person's occupation is one of the main social determinants of health which greatly contributes to health inequalities and health disparities, racially and ethnically.[14][15] Determinants under the occupation category include: income, housing, paid sick leave and health insurance; they are related to a person's socioeconomic status.[16][17] The U.S. health care system is connected to employment and it is very likely that a worker is paying for health insurance through their employer; low-wage workers who opt for coverage through their employment pay a higher portion from their income than their middle- income and higher- income counterparts.[18] There is a disproportionate number of employed workers, based on race across the labor sectors, especially those of high- risk.[19]

*Numbers in the table are estimated.

The Family First Coronavirus Act (FFCRA), provided mandated paid sick leave for workers that are impacted by COVID-19 and people of color are affected since because of the exemptions in that law; only certain public employers, private employers of less than 500 employees, and small business with less than 50 employees may qualify for the mandate.[24][25] COVID-19 affected workers disproportionately, with Black and non-White races more likely to make up the baseline of the essential workforce this exposes to them to infections causing them to be unable to or to continue to work; FFCRA (2020) was passed in hopes of protecting workers but the ambiguity of the law puts minorities' paid sick leave at risk.[24] Less than 30% of the workforce in the United States have paid sick leave that is protected by state law[26]

From 1962 to 1999, women entering the U.S. workforce represented a nearly 8 percentage point increase in the overall LFPR.[28] The U.S. overall LFPR (age 16+) has been falling since its all-time high point of 67.3% reached in January–April 2000, reaching 62.7% by January 2018.[29] This decline since 2000 is primarily driven by the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Since the overall labor force is defined as those age 16+, an aging society with more persons past the typical prime working age (25-54) exerts a steady downward influence on the LFPR. The decline was forecast by economists and demographers going back into the 1990s, if not earlier. For example, during 1999 the BLS forecast that the overall LFPR would be 66.9% in 2015 and 63.2% in 2025.[30] A 2006 forecast by Federal Reserve economists (i.e., before the Great Recession that began in December 2007) estimated the LFPR would be below 64% by 2016, close to the 62.7% average that year.[31]

The labor force participation rate decreases when the percentage increase in the defined population (denominator) is greater than the percentage increase in the labor force (i.e., the sum of employed and unemployed, the numerator). With respect to the unemployment rate, if the percentage increase in the number of unemployed (numerator) is greater than the percentage increase in the number in the labor force (denominator), the unemployment rate will rise.[32]

Economists also analyze the LFPR for those prime-aged workers, aged 25–54. Mathematically, this ratio is computed with a numerator (labor force age 25–54) and denominator (civilian population age 25–54). This can help remove the impact of aging demographics, to better understand trends among working-aged persons. The prime-aged LFPR peaked at 84.5% at three times between October 1997 and April 2000. Prior to the Great Recession, the rate was 83.3% in November 2007, then fell to a trough of 80.5% in July 2015, before steadily climbing back to 81.7% in January 2018.[33] It is one of the few key labor market variables that had yet to recover its pre-crisis level as of January 2018 and is an indicator of slack in the labor market.[34]

• Men's prime-aged labor force participation has been falling consistently since at least the 1960s. It ranged between 93 and 95% during the 1980s, fell to around 90% during the 2000s and was 88.5% in October 2017.[35] Higher labor force participation is correlated with higher educational attainment.
• Women's prime-aged labor force participation rose consistently from at least the early 1960s, reaching a peak of 77.2% in August 1997. It has fluctuated around 75% since then, resisting the decline in men's prime age participation.[36] Women have increased their educational attainment relative to men.

The Congressional Budget Office explained in 2018 higher educational attainment is correlated with higher labor force participation. Prime-aged men tend to be out of the labor force due to disability, while a key reason for women is caring for family members. To the extent an aging population requires the assistance of prime-aged family members at home, this also presents a downward pressure on this cohort's participation.[2]

In 1979, there had been the highest teen labor force participation rate with 57.9 percent of teens participating.[37] In the early 21st century, there had been a drastic decrease in the teen labor force participation rate with the decrease expected to only decline more from 2017 to 2024.[37]

The reason for the decrease in teen labor force participation was the environment teens were in, including pressures by their family.[37] The environment pressured many to go to college, summer school became more prevalent, and schoolwork became more exhausting.[37] The cost of college has risen over the years, but it has not persuaded teens not to go to college. There is a higher number of teens requesting assistance to attend college.[37] There is an increased number of teens attending school and a decreased number of teens participating in the labor force.[37]

Teens who do not want to attend college have competition from individuals that are more experienced such as individuals who have graduated from college with a degree, individuals that are adults, and individuals from other countries that move to the United States and try to obtain jobs.[37] This has also contributed to the decrease in teen labor force participation.[37]

According to a Pew Research Center analysis on monthly 1944-2017 Current Population Survey, Millennials aged more than 16 represented the largest generation in the U.S. labour force and the highest quote since the postwar, with more than 35% of participants working or looking for a work.[38]

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a massive drop in employees persons in the labor force. According to Pew Research Center, from February 2020 to February 2021 an estimated 4.2 million people left the labor force because of COVID-19, a loss of employment that far exceeds that seen during the Great Recession.[39] Out of those that left the labor force, women accounted for 2.4 million, which is more than half of those that left despite the fact that they account for less than half of the labor force.[39]

The pandemic created a shift in the labor market where workers began voluntarily leaving their jobs in large numbers. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics states by July 2021 4 million workers had voluntarily separated from their employer.[40] A number of factors were impacting the trend which started in early 2021. With the large shift to working from home, and the risks associated with returning to unsafe working conditions, lack of childcare, coupled with a labor market where one can leave a job and higher pay elsewhere, and overall employee burnout, employers were experiencing higher turnover rates with little evidence of slowdown.[41] According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all industries in the U.S. labor market were impacted with highest numbers in hospitality and healthcare, while construction, mining, and oil/gas industries saw little to no impact.[42]

A SHRM survey found that Millennials and Gen Z have a higher probably to look for new work than Baby Boomers and Gen X. The findings cite a desire to seek employment that will allow them to live a more balanced life, and having access to growth opportunities lacking in their current roles, for the workforce exodus of their respondents.[43] These reasons are not isolated to the SHRM respondents, however. A shift in worker attitudes, overall priorities, and perception of their relationship with their jobs is a symptom of the pandemic, which forced many to drastically change the way they work and live.

The shifting sentiment of workers during a time of instability, women's rate of exit were twice that of men, according to Texas A&M University Organizational Psychologist, Anthony Klotz,[44] who also coined the term "The Great Resignation." As a result, their participation in the labor force is at a 30-year low.[45]

Since 1960, foreign-born immigrant women have the lowest labor market participation rate between all of the groups in the United States.[49] The groups include immigrant men and individuals born in the United States.[49] Foreign-born immigrant women participate in the labor force between 75 and 78 percent lower than native born males.[49] In terms of labor force participation, the foreign-born immigrant women from Mexico and Central America are the smallest number of participants in the labor force.[48] As far as foreign-born immigrants that are trying to participate in the labor force but cannot find employment, the unemployment rates are as follows. The unemployment are foreign-born immigrant women workers (9.1 percent), native women workers (7.9 percent), Mexico and Central American foreign-born immigrant women workers (12.1 percent), and other foreign-born immigrant women workers (7.7 percent).[48]

In terms of labor force participation, the foreign-born immigrant men from Mexico and Central America are the largest number of participants in the labor force.[48] The number of potential labor force participants for foreign-born immigrant men are foreign-born immigrant men workers (9.9 percent), native men workers (10.4 percent), Mexico and Central American foreign-born immigrant men workers (11.4 percent), and other foreign-born immigrant men workers (8.6 percent).[48] Foreign-born immigrant men have a similar unemployment rate to native workers, but the unemployment rate for foreign-born immigrant men that are from Mexico and Central America is considerably more than other groups of foreign-born immigrant men looking for work in the United States.[48]