Labor Market Characteristics of Agricultural Workers in the United States, 1996-2001

Report for Congress
Labor Market Characteristics of Agricultural
Workers in the United States, 1996-2001
Updated January 24, 2003
Gerald Mayer
Economic Analyst
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Labor Market Characteristics of Agricultural Workers
in the United States, 1996-2001
Summary
An issue before Congress is whether to change immigration policy to increase
the number of legal foreign agricultural workers in the United States. In 2001,
approximately 3.4 million persons were employed in the agriculture industry in the
United States, or about 2.4% of the total U.S. labor force. Most persons in the
agricultural labor force are native-born, while most foreign-born persons in the
agricultural labor force are Mexican-born.
From 1996 to 2001, the total U.S. labor force increased by an estimated 7.9
million persons, or 5.9%. During the same period, the agricultural labor force
declined by an estimated 340,000 persons, from 2.8% to 2.4% of the total labor force.
In 2001, the number of Mexican-born persons in the agricultural labor force was
approximately the same as in 1996 (530,000 and 533,000, respectively).
Nevertheless, from 2000 to 2001 the number of Mexican-born persons in the
agricultural labor force fell from an estimated 611,000 to 533,000.
Compared to the overall labor force, men make up a greater share of the
agricultural labor force, and an even greater share of the Mexican-born agricultural
labor force. The Mexican-born agricultural labor force is significantly younger than
the native-born agricultural labor force.
From 1996 to 2001, unemployment was greater among Mexican-born persons
in the agricultural labor force than among native-born persons. From 2000 to 2001,
while the national unemployment rate increased from 4.1% to 4.9%, the
unemployment rate among Mexican-born agricultural workers increased from 10.7%
to 14.5% and from 4.0% to 4.8% among native-born agricultural workers.
In 2001, full-time wage and salary agricultural workers had median weekly
earnings of $365, compared to $597 for all full-time wage and salary workers. The
median weekly earnings of native-born agricultural workers ($400) were greater than
the median weekly earnings of Mexican-born workers ($300).
An analysis of changes in employment and median weekly earnings of full-time
wage and salary workers suggests that, from 1996 to 2000 (i.e., before the decline in
employment from 2000 to 2001), the relative supply of and demand for labor in
farmworker and technical occupations were essentially unchanged. In managerial
and farming occupations, the analysis suggests that both the supply of and demand
for labor increased.
Compared to workers in all industries, agricultural workers are (a) more likely
to be self-employed (native-born workers are more likely than Mexican-born workers
to be self-employed), (b) less likely to have finished high school or graduated from
college, (c) more likely to be employed in production, service, and operator
occupations, (d) less likely to work year-round, (e) more likely to have annual money
income below the official poverty thresholds, (f) less likely to have health insurance,
(g) less likely to be unionized, and (h) less likely to hold multiple jobs.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Proposed Policy Changes............................................2
Labor Market Analysis..............................................5
Efficient Labor Markets.........................................6
The Distribution of Earnings.....................................7
Immigration and Competitive Labor Markets........................7
Findings .........................................................8
Size and Composition of the Agricultural Labor Force.................9
Demographic and Social Characteristics...........................10
Gender .................................................10
Age ....................................................11
Education ...............................................12
Employment Characteristics....................................13
Class of Worker..........................................13
Unemployment ...........................................15
Median Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers.........17
Occupation ..............................................20
Median Earnings by Occupation.............................21
Union Membership.......................................25
Full-Time and Part-Time Work..............................25
Multiple Jobholders.......................................26
Other Indicators of Economic Well-Being.........................26
Weeks Worked Annually...................................27
Health Insurance Coverage.................................28
Poverty .................................................29
Appendix A: Data and Methodology.................................30
Appendix B. Data Used in Analysis..................................32
Appendix C. Median Weekly Earnings of All Wage and Salary Workers.....45
List of Figures
Figure 1. Composition of the Labor Force: Total Labor Force and the
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001...................................9
Figure 2. Gender of the Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor Force, and
Mexican-Born Labor Force, 2001................................10
Figure 3. Age Distribution of the Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor
Force, and Mexican-Born Agricultural Labor Force, 2001.............11
Figure 4. Educational Attainment: Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor
Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born Agricultural Labor Force, 2001...12

Figure 5. Class of Worker of the Agricultural Labor Force and Composition of
the Self-Employed Agricultural Labor Force, 2001...................14
Figure 6. Unemployment Rates: Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor Force,
and Foreign-, and Mexican-Born Labor Force, 1996-2001.............15
Figure 7. Full-Time Employment: Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor Force,
and Native- and Mexican-Born Agricultural Workers, 2001............26
Figure 8. Percentage of the Labor Force Employed Year-Round: Total Labor
Force, Agricultural Labor Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born
Agricultural Workers, 2001.....................................27
Figure 9. Percentage of the Labor Force With Health Insurance: Total Labor
Force, Agricultural Labor Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001..................................28
Figure 10. Percentage of the Labor Force Below Poverty: Total Labor
Force, Agricultural Labor Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001..................................29
List of Tables
Table 1. Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers:
All Workers and Agricultural Workers, Native-Born, Foreign-Born,
and Mexican-Born, 1996-2001..................................18
Table 2. Occupational Distribution: All Employed Workers and
Agricultural Workers, Including and Excluding Self-Employed, 2001....22
Table 3. Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers
by Occupation, 1996-2001......................................23
Table B1. Size of the Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001.......32
Table B2. Gender of Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001........33
Table B3. Age Distribution of the Total and Agricultural Labor Force,
1996-2001 ..................................................34
Table B4. Educational Attainment Among Persons in the Total and
Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001 .............................35
Table B5. Class of Worker: Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001..36
Table B6. Number of Employed and Unemployed Persons in the Total
and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001..........................37
Table B7. Occupations of Employed Total and Agricultural Workers,
1996-2001 ..................................................38
Table B8. Union Membership and Union Coverage Among Agricultural and
All Workers, 1996-2001.......................................39
Table B9. Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Employed Total and
Agricultural Workers, 1996-2001................................40
Table B10. Number of Employed Total and Agricultural Workers Who are
Multiple Jobholders, 1996-2001.................................41
Table B11. Annual Weeks Worked Among Persons in the Total and
Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001.............................42
Table B12. Number of Persons in the Total and Agricultural Labor Force
With and Without Health Insurance, 1996-2001.....................43
Table B13. Number of Persons in the Total and Agricultural Labor Force
Below the Official Poverty Level, 1996-2001.......................44

Table C1. Median Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers: All
Workers and Agricultural Workers, Native-Born, Foreign-Born, and
Mexican-Born, 1996-2001......................................46
Table C2. Median Weekly Earnings of All Wage and Salary Workers
by Occupation, 1996-2001......................................47

Labor Market Characteristics of Agricultural
Workers in the United States, 1996-2001
Introduction
An issue before Congress is whether to change immigration policy to increase
the number of legal foreign agricultural workers in the United States. Some
proposals would increase the number of legal immigrants by allowing a number of
undocumented immigrants to become legal permanent residents, while other
proposals would increase the number of legal nonimmigrants by creating a new
guestworker program or by making changes in the existing temporary guestworker¹
(H-2A) program for agricultural workers.
The purpose of this report is to provide information to policymakers considering
a new, smaller, or larger agricultural guestworker program.² The report examines
selected labor market, social, and demographic characteristics of the agricultural
labor force in the United States for each year from 1996 through 2001. The analysis
examines differences among native-born, foreign-born, and Mexican-born workers.
The characteristics examined include age, education, earnings, occupation, union
membership, weeks worked per year, poverty status, and health insurance coverage.
The report analyzes data on wage and salary workers in both the agriculture
industry and for all industries combined. The data are from the monthly Current
Population Survey (CPS), which is the main source of labor force information for the
United States. A detailed description of the data and methods used in the report is
provided in Appendix A.
In this report, native-born persons are defined as individuals who were born in
the United States, Puerto Rico, or other U.S. territory or who were born in a foreign
country to at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. All other persons are defined
as foreign-born. Foreign-born persons include both naturalized citizens and
noncitizens. The CPS does not ask noncitizens if they are legal or undocumented
immigrants or whether they are nonimmigrants who are in the United States

¹ For a history of temporary foreign worker programs in the United States, see U.S.
Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Temporary Worker Programs: Background
and Issues. Committee Print, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1980.

² For a discussion of the labor market effects of temporary agricultural worker programs in
the U.S., see CRS Report 95-712 E, Immigration: The Labor Market Effects of Temporary
Alien Farm Worker Programs, by Linda Levine. p. 1-6.

temporarily (e.g., on business or as students).³ Therefore, in this report the definition
of foreign-born persons includes legally admitted immigrants, refugees, and
temporary residents, as well as undocumented immigrants.
In this report, agricultural workers are persons working in the agriculture
industry. The agriculture industry includes crop (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and tobacco)
and livestock (e.g., cattle, poultry, and hogs) production as well as landscaping,
veterinary, and other agricultural services. The agriculture industry includes the same
range of occupations found in the economy at large. Thus, an analysis of the labor
market characteristics of workers in the agriculture industry includes persons
employed as managers, sales workers, mechanics, machine operators, security guards,
laborers, and other occupations. A data source other than the CPS may include a
narrower range of occupations. For example, the National Agriculture Workers
Survey (NAWS) is a survey of crop workers (see footnote 3).⁴ Data from the CPS
allow comparisons among groups within the agriculture industry as well as
comparisons between agriculture and other industries.
Because the focus of this report is on the U.S. labor market, it does not examine
other social, political, or demographic issues related to guestworker programs. Nor
does the report examine the benefits and costs of guestworker programs – to the U.S.
government or to state and local governments. Finally, the analysis examines data
covering a 6-year period. A study covering a longer, or different, time period may
yield different results.
Proposed Policy Changes
Proposals to change U.S. agricultural worker immigration policy focus on two
broad issues: (a) whether to provide some kind of amnesty (i.e., legalization) for
undocumented workers in the agriculture industry who are already in the United
States and (b) whether to create a new temporary guestworker program to increase
the availability of legal agricultural workers. In addition, many policymakers favor
changes in the existing temporary agricultural worker program, which is known as
the H-2A program and is the only program for legal temporary foreign agricultural
workers in the United States.⁵ Proposals to change U.S. immigration policy include

³ According to the results of the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agriculture Workers
Survey (NAWS) for FY1998, 52% of U.S. farm workers were undocumented workers. The
survey defines farm workers as crop workers who are engaged mainly in growing and
harvesting farm crops. (Harvest workers are defined to include workers employed in tasks
such as field packing, sorting, and grading.) U.S. Department of Labor. Findings from the
National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997-1998. p. 2, 22, 30.
⁴ For an analysis of the labor market for hired farmworkers (i.e., farmworkers employed by
growers or by farm labor contractors) that uses data from the NAWS and other sources see
CRS Report RL30395, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, by Linda Levine.
p. 7-15. [Hereafter cited as: CRS Report RL30395, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration
Policy.]
⁵ H-2A visas are one of several temporary visas granted under the Immigration and
(continued...)

recommendations to expand as well as proposals to reduce the amount of
immigration to the United States.
President George Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox met twice in 2001
and again in 2002, with immigration among the major topics of discussion. In 2001,
the two presidents established a working group to develop immigration proposals,
including options for a new or expanded guestworker program.⁶ Undocumented
immigrants in the United States reportedly could be eligible for a new guestworker
program. Debate about whether to create a new guestworker program or to make
changes in the H-2A program lost momentum, however, after the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks.⁷ In November 2002, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and
Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Costenada reaffirmed the intention of the two
countries to continue talks to reach an agreement on immigration.⁸
In the 107th and prior Congresses, various proposals were introduced that would
have created a new guestworker program, alter the existing H-2A program, or allow
undocumented workers in the United States to adjust to legal status.⁹
Organizations and individuals hold different views on U.S. immigration policy.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports a new temporary worker program as well

⁵ (...continued)
Nationality Act (INA). The H-2A program allows employers to hire foreign agricultural
workers to perform temporary work, provided there are no U.S. workers available. An H-2A
visa may be issued for a period of up to a year. Extensions may be granted for up to a total
of 3 consecutive years. No limits are imposed on the number of H-2A visas granted each
year. In FY1999 the U.S. Department of State issued 28,560 H-2A visas. CRS Report
RL30852, Immigration of Agricultural Guest Workers: Policy, Trends, and Legislative
Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Geoffrey K. Collver. p. 1-5. [Hereafter cited as: CRS
Report RL30852, Immigration of Agricultural Guest Workers: Policy, Trends, and
Legislative Issues.]
⁶ The U.S.-Mexico High Level Working Group on Migration includes Secretary of State
Colin Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft of the United States and Foreign
Secretary Jorge Castaneda and Interior Minister Santiago Creel of Mexico. Bush Says Plan
for Immigrants Could Expand. New York Times, July 26, 2001. p. 1; Compromise 245(i)
Bill Passes Judiciary; Bush Considering Earned Citizenship Program. Daily Labor Report,
no. 144, July 27, 2001. p. A-5.
⁷ For a description of prior reporting requirements for foreign students and of changes in
these requirements enacted in the 107th Congress, see: CRS Report RL31146, Foreign
Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. p. 9-14. For
a description of recent changes in the registration rules for nonimmigrants, see: CRS Report
RL31570, Immigration: Alien Registration, by Andorra Bruno. p. 4-7.
⁸ CRS Issue Brief IB10070, Mexico-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress, by K. Larry Storrs.
p. 6-9.
⁹ For a description of immigration legislation enacted in the 107th Congress, see: CRS
Report RS21438. Immigration Legislation Enacted int eh 107th Congress, by Andorra
Bruno, p. 1-6. For a description of agricultural guestworker legislation introduced in the
107th and prior Congresses, see: CRS Report RL30852, Immigration of Agricultural Guest
Workers: Policy, Trends, and Legislative Issues, p. 8-13.

as a legalization program that would allow undocumented workers to become
permanent U.S. residents. According to the Chamber, nationals from Mexico and
other nations should be allowed to participate in both programs.¹⁰
The AFL-CIO supports a legalization program for undocumented workers and
favors changes in, but not an expansion of, existing guestworker programs.
According to the AFL-CIO, undocumented workers and their families, regardless of
country of origin, “who have been working hard, paying taxes and contributing to
their communities” should be given the opportunity to become permanent legal
residents of the United States.¹¹
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) also opposes an expansion of the H-
2A program. However, it is not opposed to a new guestworker program for
agriculture and other industries, provided that workers who participate in such a
program are covered by U.S. labor laws (e.g., laws relating to wages, working
conditions, and the right to unionize). NCLR also favors a program to allow
undocumented immigrants to earn permanent legal status.¹²
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) favors the reduction of both legal and
illegal immigration to the United States. CIS also opposes a new guestworker
program. The CIS argues that immigration increases the number of poor and
uninsured persons in the United States and imposes fiscal burdens on federal, state,
and local governments.¹³
An argument is also made that immigration should be reduced because of the
environmental impact of a growing population. According to this viewpoint,

¹⁰ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. U.S.-Mexico Migration
Discussions: A Historic Opportunity. Hearings, 107th Cong., 1st Sess, September 7, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002. p. 37.
¹¹ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. U.S.-Mexico Migration Discussions:
A Historic Opportunity. Hearings, 107th Cong., 1st Sess, September 7, 2001. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002. p. 26-27; Immigration. Statement of AFL-CIO Executive
Council, July 31, 2001. Available on the Internet at: [www.aflcio.org] (as of December 4,

2001); Immigration. Statement of AFL-CIO Executive Council, February 16, 2000.

Available on the Internet at: [www.aflcio.org] (as of December 4, 2001).
¹² The NCLR is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is “to reduce poverty and
discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans.” U.S. Congress.
House. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Guestworker Visa Programs. Hearings, 107th Cong., 1st Sess, June 19, 2001. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2001. p. 27-29.
¹³ The CIS is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to research on the impact of
immigration on the United States. Krikorian, Mark. Guestworker Programs: A Threat to
American Agriculture. Washington, Center for Immigration Studies, June 2001. p. 5. U.S.
Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Guestworker Visa Programs. Hearings, 107th Cong., 1st Sess, June 19, 2001. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2001. p. 16, 23-24. Camorata, Steven. Immigration from Mexico:
Assessing the Impact on the United States. Washington, Center for Immigration Studies,
July 2001. Center Paper 19. p. 8-10, 57.

population growth affects air and water quality, causes more land to be developed,
and places greater demands on natural resources – in part, because of higher
consumption levels in the United States.¹⁴
Labor Market Analysis
The issue of immigration can be examined from different perspectives. Changes
in U.S. policy with respect to agricultural guestworkers would likely involve changes
in the U.S. (i.e., aggregate) labor market and in local or regional labor markets for
different occupations. This report analyzes selected labor market, social, and
demographic characteristics of the agricultural labor force in the United States.
Labor markets can be examined in terms of how changes affect the allocation of labor
(i.e., economic efficiency) and the distribution of earnings (i.e., equity). This section
describes the basic framework for labor market analysis used in this report.
According to standard economic analysis, competitive markets result in the most
efficient allocation of resources (i.e., labor, capital, and natural resources). In turn,
economic theory holds that an efficient allocation of resources provides the greatest
output and consumer satisfaction from a given quantity of resources. Most modern
economists believe that, compared to other economic systems, a market economy
provides greater incentives to work, save, invest, and innovate. The expected result
is a higher standard of living. At the same time, many economists acknowledge that
some markets may not fit the model of perfect competition. If markets are not
competitive, economic analysis indicates that government action may improve
economic efficiency. In addition, a market economy may result in a distribution of
income that is socially unacceptable. Governments may also adopt policies that
reduce earnings or income inequality.

¹⁴ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. U.S. Population and Immigration. Hearings, 107th Cong., 1st Sess, August 2,

2001. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2001. p. 29-34.

Efficient Labor Markets
In general, competitive labor markets are thought to provide the most efficient
allocation of labor (i.e., workers and hours worked).¹⁵ In practice, many labor
markets do not fit the model of perfect competition.¹⁶ For example, some employers
or workers may be able to influence wages. Some employers may not have sufficient
information or equal access to the kind of information needed to make informed
decisions about hiring workers. On the other hand, when looking for work, job
seekers may not have access to the same information available to employers. Job
growth may not be sufficient to employ all persons who want to work.
When labor markets depart from the model of perfect competition government
intervention may improve economic efficiency.¹⁷ But government intervention may
not be necessary or desirable. In some cases, departures from perfect competition
may be self-correcting. In addition, government policies aimed at improving
efficiency may fail to achieve their objectives. Or policies that improve efficiency
at one point in time may have little or no effect at another point in time.
Changes in U.S. immigration policy might harm the overall allocation of labor
if the changes add to total unemployment (e.g., if immigrants leave full- or part-time
jobs in their home countries and move to the United States where they are
unemployed). Changes in immigration policy might also harm efficiency if ease of
entry into the United States is not matched by a similar ease of exit and, perhaps,
reentry. On the other hand, economic theory holds that labor mobility can improve
the allocation of labor if unemployed workers in another country move to the United
States where they are able to find work or if workers move from less productive jobs
in their home countries to more productive jobs in the United States.

¹⁵ The following are the characteristics of a competitive labor market: (1) There are many
employers and many workers. Each employer is small relative to the size of the market. (2)
Employers and workers are free to enter or leave a labor market and can move freely from
one market to another. (3) Employers do not organize to lower wages and workers do not
organize to raise wages. Governments do not intervene in labor markets to regulate wages.
(4) Employers and workers have equal access to accurate labor market information. (5)
Employers do not prefer one worker over another equally qualified worker (i.e., equally
qualified workers are “perfect substitutes”). Workers do not prefer one employer over
another employer who pays the same wage for the same kind of work. (6) Employers seek
to maximize profits, while workers seek to maximize satisfaction. Reynolds, Lloyd G.,
Stanley H. Masters, and Colletta H. Moser. Labor Economics and Labor Relations. 11th
ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1998. p. 16-21. [Hereafter cited as: Reynolds
et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations.]
¹⁶ Samuelson, Paul A., and William D. Nordhaus. Economics. 13th ed. New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1989. p. 677.
¹⁷ For a discussion of departures from the model of perfect competition, see: Stiglitz, Joseph
E. Economics of the Public Sector. 3rd ed. New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 2000. p. 76-

85.

The Distribution of Earnings
Efficient labor markets, or improvements in economic efficiency, may improve
the allocation of labor, but the improvements may result in a socially unacceptable
distribution of earnings. In competitive labor markets, if the supply of unskilled
labor increases relative to demand, the result will generally be a more unequal
distribution of earnings. On the other hand, if the demand for unskilled labor
increases relative to supply, the result will generally be a more equal distribution of
earnings.¹⁸ Because wages tend to rise as labor productivity (i.e., the quantity of
output per hour) increases, the distribution of earnings may change if the growth in
labor productivity is greater in some occupations than in others. Finally, the
distribution of earnings may change because of institutional or policy changes,
including changes in the minimum wage or the degree of unionization.
Immigration to the United States can affect the distribution of earnings in both
the United States and in immigrants’ home countries. If skilled workers move to the
United States, the distribution of earnings in their native countries may become more
unequal, while the distribution of earnings in the United States may become more
equal. Conversely, if unskilled workers move to the United States, the distribution
of earnings in the workers’ native countries may become more equal while the
distribution of earnings in the United States may become more unequal.¹⁹
Governments can reduce earnings inequality directly through progressive
taxation, income transfers, and subsidized consumption (e.g., for health care or
housing) or indirectly by improving the distribution of earnings-producing human
capital (e.g., education and training). Improvements in the distribution of earnings
may involve tradeoffs with an efficient allocation of labor (e.g., if taxes or transfer
payments affect decisions to work or the number of hours worked).
Immigration and Competitive Labor Markets
In general, individuals may wish to move from one country to another if the
expected gain from temporary or permanent immigration exceeds the cost of moving.
All else being equal, the expected gain from immigration will generally be greater the
larger the differences in earnings between two countries. The expected gain will
likely be greater for younger persons, who have more working years to earn higher
incomes. In general, the expected cost of moving should be lower the shorter the
distance between labor markets. The expected cost of moving should also be less for
younger persons, who may have fewer family and other ties to their existing
communities. In addition, workers may have greater access to information about
differences in wages the shorter the distance between labor markets. Similarly,

¹⁸ Reynolds, et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, p. 24-25.
¹⁹ An increase in the relative supply of skilled workers, everything else remaining the same,
would reduce the wages of skilled workers relative to the wages of unskilled workers.
Conversely, an increase in the relative supply of unskilled workers – again, everything else
remaining the same – would reduce the wages of unskilled workers relative to the wages of
skilled workers.

employers may have greater information about the supply of labor in nearby labor
market s.²⁰
Government policies can affect the allocation of labor between countries (e.g.,
by improving the accuracy and availability of labor market information or by
removing barriers or disincentives to employment). But, in a world economy,
improving opportunities for employment or easing restrictions on the movement of
labor across borders is generally the prerogative of governments in individual
countries. Since improvements in economic efficiency may have socially undesirable
effects on the earnings of workers in particular occupations, some policymakers may
favor policies that limit the overall level of immigration or that limit immigration to
workers with specific skills.²¹
Findings
The remainder of this report examines selected characteristics of the agricultural
labor force in the United States. First, the report provides an overview of recent
trends in the size and composition of the agricultural workforce. Second, the report
examines selected demographic and social characteristics of the agricultural labor
force, including age, gender, and education. Next, the report examines selected
employment characteristics of agricultural workers, including unemployment, self-
employment, median earnings, occupation, and union membership. Finally, the
report examines additional indicators of economic well-being, including health
insurance coverage and poverty status.
For each characteristic, the analysis compares the agricultural labor force with
the overall U.S. labor force. Because Mexican-born persons make up the largest
portion of foreign-born persons in the agricultural labor force, comparisons of native-
born and foreign-born agricultural workers are often limited to a comparison of
native-born and Mexican-born workers. Appendix B provides extensive detail on
each of the characteristics discussed in the text of this report. (The tables in the
appendix show details rounded to the nearest thousand. The percentages and other
calculations in the text of this report are based on unrounded estimates. Therefore,
calculations made from the tables in the appendix may not match the calculations
shown in the text.)

²⁰ Filer, Randall K., Daniel S. Hamermesh, and Albert E. Rees. The Economics of Work and
Pay. 6th ed. New York, Harper Collins, 1996. p. 255-62.
²¹ For a review of research on the effect of immigration on the wages and employment of
native-born workers, see CRS Report 95-408 E, Immigration: The Effects on Native-Born
Workers, by Linda Levine. p. 5-15. [Hereafter cited as: CRS Report 95-408 E,
Immigration: The Effects on Native-Born Workers.]

Size and Composition of the Agricultural Labor Force
In 2001, approximately 3.4 million persons were employed in the agriculture
industry in the United States, or about 2.4% of the total U.S. labor force. (See Figure
1.) Although the U.S. labor force increased by 7.9 million persons from 1996 to
2001, in 2001 there were approximately 340,000 fewer individuals in the agricultural
labor force than in 1996.
Figure 1. Composition of the Labor Force: Total
Labor Force and the Agricultural Labor Force, 2001
^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^al^L^abor^F^o^r^c^e⁽²^.⁴^%⁾
^T^o^tal^La^bor^Fo^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^ve^-^B^orⁿ⁽⁷^9.^4%⁾
^M^e^xⁱ^c^aⁿ^-^B^o^rn⁽¹⁵^.⁶^%⁾
^O^t^h^e^r^F^o^reⁱ^gⁿ^-^B^o^rn⁽⁵^.⁰^%⁾
^Sour^c^e^:^C^a^l^c^ul^a^t^ed^by^C^R^S^f^r^o^m^t^h^e^m^ont^hl^y^C^PS.
Most persons in the agricultural labor force in the United States are native-born,
while most foreign-born persons are Mexican-born. In 2001, native-born persons
accounted for 79.4% of the agricultural labor force. Mexican-born persons
accounted for 15.6% of the agricultural labor force, and 75.6% of the foreign-born
agricultural labor force.
From 1996 to 2001, the number of native-born persons in the agricultural labor
force declined by an estimated 389,000. In 2001, the number of Mexican-born
persons in the agricultural labor force was approximately the same as in 1996
(530,000 and 533,000 respectively). However, from 2000 to 2001 the number of
Mexican-born persons in the agricultural labor force fell from an estimated 611,000
to 533,000.

Demographic and Social Characteristics
Gender. Compared to the overall labor force, men make up a greater share of
the agricultural labor force. A larger share of Mexican-born than native-born persons
in the agricultural labor force are men. (See Figure 2.) In 2001, men accounted for

53.3% of the total labor force, compared to 72.6% of the agricultural labor force.

Among persons in the Mexican-born agricultural labor force, 84.4% were men,
compared to 69.9% of native-born agricultural labor force.

Figure 2. Gender of the Total Labor Force,
Agricultural Labor Force, and Mexican-Born
Labor Force, 2001
^To^t^a^l^L^a^b^o^r^Fo^r^c^e
⁵³^.3%
⁴⁶^.⁷^%
^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^La^b^o^r^F^o^r^c^e^M^e^xⁱ^c^aⁿ^-^B^or^{n A}^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^La^bor^F^o^r^c^e
⁷²^.6%⁸⁴^.4%
²⁷^.⁴^%¹⁵^.⁶^%
^Meⁿ^Wo^m^eⁿ
^S^o^u^r^c^e^:^C^a^l^c^ul^at^{ed b}^y^C^R^S^f^r^om^t^h^{e m}^oⁿ^t^hl^y^C^P^S^.

Age. The agricultural labor force in the United States has relatively more
younger and more older workers than the overall labor force. On the other hand,
Mexican-born agricultural workers tend to be younger than the agricultural labor
force in general. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3. Age Distribution of the Total Labor Force,
Agricultural Labor Force, and Mexican-Born
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001
⁶⁵⁺
⁵⁵^-⁶⁴
⁴⁵^-⁵⁴
³⁵^-⁴⁴
²⁵^-³⁴
¹⁵^-²⁴
⁰^0.0⁵^0.1^0.¹⁵^0.²^0.2⁵^0.³^0.³⁵
^To^t^a^l^L^a^b^o^r^F^o^r^c^e^A^g^rⁱ^cul^t^u^r^{al Lab}^or^F^o^r^c^e
^M^e^xi^c^a^n-^B^o^rⁿ^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^a^l^L^abo^r^F^o^r^c^e
^S^o^u^r^ce^{: C}^a^l^c^u^l^ate^d^by^CR^S^fro^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^C^P^S.
In 2001, the median age of the total labor force was 39 years, compared to 40
years for the agricultural labor force, 42 years for the native-born agricultural labor
force, and 34 years for the Mexican-born agricultural labor force. In 2001, 16.3% of
the overall labor force was between 15 and 24 years of age compared to 18.4% of the
agricultural labor force. On the other hand, 13.4% of the overall labor force was 55
or older, compared to 21.8% of the agricultural labor force. In the Mexican-born
agricultural labor force, 53.0% of persons were between the ages of 15 and 34 –
compared to 33.5% of the native-born agricultural labor force.

Education. Individuals in the agricultural labor force have fewer years of
formal education than the overall labor force. In the agricultural labor force,
Mexican-born workers have fewer years of education than native-born agricultural
workers.²² (See Figure 4.)
Figure 4. Educational Attainment: Total Labor Force,
Agricultural Labor Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001
⁸^Y^e^ar^{s or}^Le^ss
^{9 t}^o¹²^Y^e^ar^s
^Hⁱ^gh^S^c^ho^o^l^Dⁱ^p^l^o^m^a
¹¹^to¹⁵^Y^e^a^r^s
^C^o^l^l^eg^{e G}^r^a^d^u^a^t^e
^A^d^v^a^nc^ed^D^e^gr^e^e
^0%¹⁰^%²⁰^%³⁰^%⁴⁰^%⁵⁰^%⁶⁰^%⁷⁰^%
^To^t^a^{l la}^b^o^r^f^o^r^c^e^Ag^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^l^a^b^o^r^f^o^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^v^e^-^b^orⁿ^a^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^al^l^abo^r^f^o^r^c^e^M^e^xi^caⁿ^-^b^o^rⁿ^a^g^rⁱ^cu^l^t^u^r^a^l^l^a^b^o^r^f^o^r^c^e
^S^o^u^r^c^e^:^C^a^l^c^u^l^a^t^ed^{by C}^R^S^f^r^om^t^h^{e m}^o^nt^h^l^y^C^P^S^.
In 2001, 32.0% of persons in the agricultural labor force had not graduated from
high school (i.e., had not received a diploma), compared to 13.5% of persons in the
total labor force. In the agricultural labor force, however, a significant difference
existed between native-born and Mexican-born persons. In 2001, 20.6% of native-
born persons in the agricultural labor force had not graduated from high school,
compared to 82.7% of Mexican-born persons.
In 2001, 13.0% of persons in the agricultural labor force had a college or
advanced degree, compared to 27.2% of persons in the total labor force. Again,
among persons in the agricultural labor force, a significant difference existed between
native-born and Mexican-born persons: 15.3% of native-born persons in the

²² To the extent that differences exist in the quality of schooling across countries or among
schools within the United States, to employers individuals with the same years of schooling
may not be “perfect substitutes.” (See footnote 15.)

agricultural labor force had a college degree, compared to 1.1% of Mexican-born
persons.
Between 1996 and 2001, the number of persons in the agricultural labor force
with less than a high school degree declined by an estimated 202,000. But the
number of native-born persons with less than a high school education declined by
approximately 227,000 persons. From 1996 to 2001, the number of Mexican-born
persons in the agricultural labor force with less than a high school education was
essentially unchanged (447,000 an 441,000, respectively). (See Table B4.) Thus,
over the period, foreign-born persons made up an increasing share of persons in the
agricultural labor force who had not graduated from high school.
Employment Characteristics
Class of Worker. Most people in the labor force are wage and salary workers.
However, many individuals are self-employed in their own business, trade, or
profession. The labor force also includes family members who work without pay on²³
a family farm or family business.
In 2001, 92.8% of all persons in the overall labor force were wage or salary
workers, while 7.1% were self-employed. The remainder (0.1%) were unpaid family
members. In the agricultural labor force, on the other hand, 61.6% were wage and
salary workers and 37.4% of all persons were self-employed (1.0% were unpaid
family members).
In the agricultural labor force, native-born persons account for the relatively
large percentage of self-employed persons. In 2001, 92.9% of self-employed
agricultural workers were native-born (recall that 79.4% of agricultural workers were
native-born). (See Figure 5.)

²³ More specifically, wage and salary workers are persons who work for a private or public
employer. In this report, self-employed persons are persons who are self-employed in an
unincorporated business. Unpaid family members are persons who work without pay for
15 hours or more a week on a family farm or business. Persons with more than one job are
classified according to the kind of work on their main job.

Figure 5. Class of Worker of the Agricultural Labor
Force and Composition of the Self-Employed
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001
^S^e^l^f^-E^m^p^l^o^y^e^d^W^o^rk^e^r^s⁽³⁷^.⁴^%⁾
^Ag^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^al^La^b^o^r^Fo^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^ve^-^B^or^{n (}⁹^2.^9%⁾
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-^Bo^rⁿ⁽⁷^.¹^%⁾
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.
From 1996 to 2001, the share of workers in the total labor force who were self-
employed fell from 8.1% to 7.1%. In the agricultural labor force, the share of persons
who were self-employed fell from 41.6% to 37.4%.
Several factors may account for the decline in the number of self-employed
agricultural workers. A self-employed agricultural worker – who could be an owner,
renter, or sharecropper – could retire, take a wage job, or become self-employed in
another industry. Another self-employed farmer or an incorporated farm could take
over land that had been farmed by a self-employed agricultural worker. A self-
employed owner could convert a farm into an incorporated farm. Or, for some
agricultural workers, a wage job may become their main job, while farming becomes
their second job.

Unemployment. While the size and demographic composition of the labor
force provide information on labor supply, unemployment rates provide information
on the relative supply of and demand for labor. During the period from 1996 to
2001, the unemployment rate among persons in the agricultural labor force was
greater than the national unemployment rate. In addition, among persons in the
agricultural labor force, the unemployment rate among foreign- and Mexican-born
persons was greater than among native-born persons.
In 2001, when the national unemployment rate was 4.9%, the unemployment
rate among persons in the agricultural labor force was 6.5%. However, the difference
in unemployment rates was due mainly to higher unemployment among Mexican-
born persons in the agricultural labor force. In 2001, the unemployment rate among
native-born persons in the agricultural labor force was 4.8%, compared to 14.5%
among Mexican-born persons. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Unemployment Rates: Total Labor Force,
Agricultural Labor Force, and Foreign- and Mexican-Born
Labor Force, 1996-2001
¹⁶^%
¹⁴^%
¹²^%
¹⁰^%
^8%
^6%
^4%
^2%
^0%
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^To^t^a^l^l^a^b^o^r^f^o^r^c^e
^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^a^l^L^abo^r^F^o^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^v^e^-^b^o^r^{n a}^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^a^l^l^abor^f^o^r^c^e
^M^e^xⁱ^c^aⁿ^-^bor^{n ag}^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^al^l^a^bor^f^o^r^c^e
^S^o^ur^c^e^:^C^a^l^c^ul^a^t^e^d^b^y^C^R^S^f^r^o^m^t^h^e^m^oⁿ^t^hl^y^C^P^S^.
The decline in the national unemployment rate from 1996 to 2000 and the
increase in the rate from 2000 to 2001 are reflected in changes in the unemployment
rate in the agricultural labor force. From 1996 to 2000, both the national
unemployment rate and the unemployment rate in agriculture declined by 1.4
percentage points (from 5.5% to 4.1% and from 6.7% to 5.3%, respectively).
However, in the agricultural labor force, unemployment declined by a greater amount
among Mexican-born persons (4.5 percentage points) than among native-born
persons (1.1 percentage points). (See Figure 6.) From 2000 to 2001, on the other
hand, while the national unemployment rate increased by 0.7 percentage points,
unemployment among agricultural workers increased by 1.2 percentage points.

Unemployment increased more among Mexican-born agricultural workers (3.8
percentage points) than among native-born agricultural workers (0.8 percentage
points).
Do the higher unemployment rates in the United States among Mexican-born
workers imply that immigration harms the allocation of labor? Some evidence
suggests that, from 1996 to 1998, unemployment rates in the Mexican-born labor
force in the United States were higher than unemployment rates in Mexico. Using
definitions of the labor force and unemployment that more closely match the
definitions used in the CPS, Martin calculated that the unemployment rates in
Mexico for the years 1996 through 1998 were 7.2%, 4.9%, and 4.8%, respectively.
These estimates are based on a survey that includes only state capitals and cities of
100,000 or more. The nationwide unemployment rate may have been lower.²⁴ In
metropolitan areas of 100,000 or more in the United States, the unemployment rates
in the Mexican-born labor force (i.e., employed and unemployed workers in all
industries) for the years 1996 to 1998 were 9.8%, 7.2%, and 6.6%, respectively.
From 1996 and 2000 (i.e., before the rise in unemployment in 2001), the
demand for labor in the United States increased faster than the increase in supply
(i.e., the number of persons employed increased more than the number of persons in
the labor force). An economic slowdown or recession would likely affect the most
recently hired, since layoffs commonly begin with the least experienced workers (i.e.,
“last hired, first laid off”).²⁵ Nevertheless, differences in earnings and job growth are
probably better predictors of immigration than differences in unemployment rates.²⁶
Thus, even if the unemployment rate among Mexican-born persons in the United
States is higher than the unemployment rate in Mexico, economic theory maintains
that labor mobility improves the overall allocation of resources, since the main
economic reason why people move is to improve their economic situation. In
addition, a comparison between unemployment rates in Mexico and among Mexican-
born workers in the United States does not take into account higher unemployment
rates among recent (as opposed to all) immigrants to the United States.^27,28

²⁴ Martin, Gary. Employment and Unemployment in Mexico in the 1990s. Monthly Labor
Review, v. 123, November 2000. p. 4-5.
²⁵ Ehrenberg, Ronald G., and Robert S. Smith. Modern Labor Economics: Theory and
Public Policy. 7th ed. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 2000. p. 583.
²⁶ Filer, et al., The Economics of Work and Pay, p. 258-60.
²⁷ Meisenheimer, Joseph R., II. How Do Immigrants Fare in the U.S. Labor Market?
Monthly Labor Review, v. 115, December 1992. p. 11.
²⁸ The “frictional” unemployment rate among recent immigrants to the United States may
be higher than among long-time immigrants. Frictional unemployment occurs when workers
leave one job to look for another job or when persons enter the labor force but have not yet
found a job.

Median Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers. Table 1
shows the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in the United²⁹
States for each year from 1996 through 2001. Weekly earnings consist of usual
earnings before taxes from an individual’s only or main job and include overtime
pay, tips, and cash bonuses. A comparison of full-time workers partially controls for
differences in hours worked. Because the monthly CPS does not collect information
on the current earnings of persons who are self-employed, Table 1 excludes self-
employed workers.

²⁹ Table C1 in Appendix C shows the median weekly earnings of all wage and salary
workers (i.e., both full-time and part-time workers).

CRS-18
Table 1. Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers:
All Workers and Agricultural Workers, Native-Born, Foreign-Born, and Mexican-Born, 1996-2001
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ
^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly
^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings
^A^.^A^l^l^W^{age a}^{nd Salary Work}^ers
^Work^ers^90,949^$481^93,613^$500^95,595^$520^97,616^$550^99,917^$576^99,555^$597
^tⁱ^v^e-^Born^80,854^$500^82,623^$517^83,920^$540^85,489^$565^86,521^$584^85,847^$600
^rei^gⁿ^-^Born^10,095^$385^10,990^$400^11,675^$400^12,127^$430^13,397^$443^13,707^$474
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn²^,882^$280^3,279^$293^3,529^$308^3,612^$320^3,980^$340^4,109^$358
^B^.^{Agricultural Work}^ers
^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral^Work^ers^1,342^$300^1,364^$300^1,406^$320^1,395^$345^1,501^$350^1,328^$365
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}^tⁱ^v^e-^Born⁹³⁵^$330⁸⁷⁰^$325⁸⁸⁰^$350⁸⁸⁷^$382⁹¹⁴^$400⁸⁵⁶^$400^rei^gⁿ^-^Born⁴⁰⁷^$250⁴⁹⁴^$271⁵²⁶^$277⁵⁰⁸^$296⁵⁸⁷^$290⁴⁷³^$310
^g/wⁱ^can^-^B^orn³⁵⁹^$250⁴²⁴^$263⁴³⁷^$275⁴²⁵^$280⁴⁸⁴^$280³⁷⁶^$300
^s^.or
^le^ak^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.

^://wiki
^h^ttp

Table 1 shows that, in 2001, the median weekly earnings of all full-time wage
and salary workers ($597) were greater than the median weekly earnings of
agricultural workers ($365). The median weekly earnings of native-born agricultural
workers ($400) were greater than the median weekly earnings of foreign-born ($310)
and Mexican-born agricultural workers ($300).
Table 1 also shows that, between 1996 and 2001, median weekly earnings
increased for all groups of workers. In all cases, the increases were greater than the
rate of inflation.³⁰
Despite the relatively lower median weekly earnings of foreign-born, and
especially Mexican-born, agricultural workers in the United States, a net expected
gain in earnings is generally the main economic motive for migrating from one place
to another (see “Immigration and Competitive Labor Markets” above). In 2000, per
capita income in the United States was $34,100, compared to $8,970 in Mexico.³¹
Thus, for many Mexican workers, the expected gain from immigration may be
significant. In addition, given the proximity of U.S. and Mexican labor markets, the
costs of migration may be lower and information about U.S. job opportunities may
be greater for Mexican-born workers than for workers from more distant countries.
Even though migration may improve total output and individual satisfaction
(i.e., economic efficiency), it may increase earnings inequality in one country while
reducing it another. In recent years in the United States the earnings gap between
college-educated and less-educated workers has increased.³² Some researchers
suggest that the increased supply of foreign-born workers in the United States has
lowered the relative wages of less-educated workers, but that immigration has had
less impact on the relative wages of other workers.³³ As shown above, an increasing

³⁰ In Table 1, the increases, from 1996 to 2001, in median weekly wages range from 20.0%
to 27.9% (or, between 3.7% and 5.0% annually). Between 1996 and 2001, the consumer
price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) increased by 12.9% (or 2.5% annually), while
labor productivity (output per hour in the business sector) increased by 12.1% (or 2.3%
annually). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, [stats.bls.gov] (as of
January 24, 2003). For data on average hourly earnings of farmworkers, see CRS Report
RL30395, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, p. 13-15.
³¹ The per capita income figures are calculated in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP).
Using the prevailing exchange rate to convert per capita income measured in pesos into per
capita income measured in dollars may not give a clear comparison of the standards of living
in the United States and Mexico. PPP income provides a standard measure of real income
in different countries. World Bank. World Development Indicators 2001. Washington D.C.,
2001. p. 18-21. Available on the Internet at: [www.worldbank.org, in chapter 1, “World
View”] (as of January 24, 2003).
³² For a comparison of average earnings for male and female workers by level of education,
see CRS Report 95-1081 E, Education Matters: Earnings by Highest Year of Schooling
Completed, by Linda Levine. p. 1-2.
³³ According to Borjas et al., from 1980 to 1995 the increased supply of foreign-born
workers with less than a high school education accounted for between 27% and 55% of the
relative decline in the earnings of workers with less than a high school degree compared to
(continued...)

portion of persons in the agricultural labor force with less than a high school
education are foreign-born. Thus, less educated prior immigrants may be one group
whose wages are affected by the immigration of workers who have not finished high
school.³⁴ In other words, increasingly, less educated immigrants may be competing
with one another for jobs.
Occupation. Occupation is an important indicator of individual earnings.
Workers in the agriculture industry are under-represented in managerial, professional,
and technical occupations. In the agriculture industry, a greater share of native-born
than foreign-born persons are employed in these occupations.
In 2001, 30.9% of persons in the total labor force were employed in “managerial
and professional specialty” occupations, compared to 6.4% of persons in the
agricultural labor force.³⁵ In the agriculture industry, 7.5% of native-born workers
were employed in “managerial and professional specialty” occupations, compared to
1.5% of foreign-born workers.³⁶ Similarly, in 2001, 28.9% of persons in the total
labor force were employed in “technical, sales, and administrative support”
occupations, compared to 7.5% of persons in the agriculture industry.³⁷ Again,
among agricultural workers, 9.0% of native-born workers were employed in these

³³ (...continued)
workers who had graduated from high school. According to the same study, immigration
accounted for between 3% and 7% of the decline in the earnings of high school graduates
relative to the earnings of college graduates. Borjas, George J., Richard B. Freeman, and
Lawrence F. Katz. How Much Do Immigration and Trade Affect Labor Market Outcomes?
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, no. 1, 1997. p. 62. For a discussion of this and
other studies and of different approaches to studying the labor market effects of
immigration, see CRS Report 95-408 E, Immigration: The Effects on Native-Born Workers,
p. 5-15.
³⁴ Two different studies concluded that a 10% increase in the number of immigrants reduced
the wages of immigrants by 4% and 2%, respectively. Smith, James P. and Barry
Edmonston, Editors. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of
Immigration. Washington, National Academy Press, 1997. p. 142, 223. Another study
indicated that in cities with large increases in the proportion of immigrants (between 1985
to 1990), immigration reduced the wages of laborers and lower-skilled service workers by
no more than 3%. Card, David. Immigration Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor
Market Impacts of Higher Immigration. Journal of Labor Economics, v. 19, 2001. p. 56-57.
³⁵ “Managerial and professional specialty” occupations include “executive, administrative,
and managerial” occupations and “professional speciality” occupations. These two
categories of occupations include jobs such as business executives, financial managers, hotel
and restaurant managers, purchasing agents, and public administration officials as well as
engineers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, and teachers.
³⁶ In 2001, the estimated number of Mexican-born agricultural workers in managerial
occupations was fewer than 5,000. Therefore, the percentage of Mexican-born workers in
managerial jobs was not calculated.
³⁷ “Technical, sales, and administrative support” occupations include the following
categories: “technicians and related support occupations,” “sales,” and “administrative
support.” Technicians include lab technicians, x-ray technicians, licensed practical nurses,
and computer programmers. “Administrative support” includes occupations such as
secretaries, payroll clerks, shipping clerks, dispatchers, and computer operators.

occupations, compared to 1.3% of foreign-born workers and 0.8% of Mexican-born
workers.
Compared to the overall economy, in the agriculture industry there are relatively
fewer jobs in production, service, and operator occupations. In 2001, 1.3% of jobs
in the agriculture industry were “precision production, craft, and repair” jobs,
compared to 11.0% of jobs among all industries.³⁸ And 2.4% of jobs in the
agriculture industry were “operator, fabricator, and laborer” occupations, compared
to 13.1% of jobs in the overall economy.³⁹ Finally, in 2001, 0.3% of jobs in the
agriculture industry were service jobs, compared to 13.7% of jobs in all industries.⁴⁰
The distribution of occupations in the agriculture industry is affected by the
disproportionate number of self-employed agricultural workers. In 2001, 82.1% of
occupations in the agriculture industry were “farming, forestry, and fishing”
occupations. These farming occupations include farmworker occupations such as
harvest workers, migratory workers, farm hands, poultry dressers, and ranch hands.
But they also include farm managers and supervisors. As noted above, in 2001,
37.4% of agricultural workers were self-employed. Table 2 shows the effects of
removing self-employed agricultural workers from the distribution of occupations.
Removing self-employed persons from the calculations increases the percentage of
managerial occupations in agriculture from 6.4% to 7.8% and reduces the percentage
of farming occupations from 82.1% to 75.6%.
Median Earnings by Occupation. In competitive labor markets, relative
earnings may change for different reasons. First, the supply of workers to an
occupation may increase relative to the supply of workers to other occupations, in
which case employment in that occupation will generally rise and earnings will
generally fall relative to employment and earnings in other occupations. Second, the
demand for workers in an occupation may increase relative to the demand for
workers in other occupations, in which case both employment and earnings in that
occupation will generally rise relative to other occupations. Third, relative earnings
in an occupation may rise if labor productivity in that occupation increases relative
to labor productivity in other occupations. Finally, relative earnings may change
because of institutional or policy changes (e.g., a change in the degree of unionization
or an increase in the minimum wage). In practice, all of these conditions may change
simultaneously, but to a different degree, making it difficult to identify the exact
causes of a change in the distribution of earnings.

³⁸ “Precision production, craft, and repair” occupations include jobs such as automobile,
truck, and farm equipment mechanics, telephone installers, brick layers, and carpenters.
³⁹ “Operators, fabricator, and laborer” occupations include the following categories:
“machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors,” “transportation and material moving
occupations,” and “handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers.”
⁴⁰ “Service” occupations include jobs such as cooks, waiters and waitresses, nursing aides,
janitors and cleaners, and family child care providers. Service occupations also include
“protective service” and “private household” occupations. Protective service occupations
include police officers, firefighters, and security guards. Private household occupations
include child care workers, housekeepers, and cooks.

Table 2. Occupational Distribution: All Employed Workers
and Agricultural Workers, Including and
Excluding Self-Employed, 2001
^Including^self^-^Excluding^self^-
^O^ccupa^tⁱ^oⁿ^em^p^l^oyed^em^p^l^oyed
^A^.^T^o^tal^em^p^l^oyed
^Man^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y^30.9%^30.8%
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport^28.9%^29.6%
^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s^13.7%^13.9%
^Preci^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r^11.0%^10.4%
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers^13.1%^13.7%
^Farmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g²^.4%¹^.6%
^T^o^t^a^l^100.0%^100.0%
^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^Man^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y^6.4%^7.8%
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport⁷^.5%^10.4%
^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s^0.3%^0.5%
^Preci^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r^1.3%^2.0%
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers²^.4%³^.8%
^F^a^rmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g^82.1%^75.6%
^T^o^t^a^l^100.0%^100.0%
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^te^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
Table 3 shows median earnings by occupation for full-time wage and salary
workers from 1996 to 2001 (self-employed workers and unpaid family members are
excluded).⁴¹ Table 3 separates farmworker occupations from other farming
occupations (i.e., the data for farming occupations exclude farmworker occupations,
which are treated separately). For a discussion of the differences between farming
and farmworker occupations, see the discussion in the section entitled “Occupation”
above.
The analysis of data in Table 3 is complicated by the small size of the
employment estimates for service, precision production, and operator occupations in
the agriculture industry. In these occupations, small changes in the number of
persons employed result in large percentage changes in employment. Therefore,
these occupations are not included in the analysis in this section of the report.

⁴¹ Table C2 in Appendix C shows median earnings by occupation for all wage and salary
workers (i.e., both full-time and part-time workers).

CRS-23
Table 3. Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers by Occupation, 1996-2001
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ
^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly
^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings
^{A. All w}^{age and s}^a^{lary w}^o^rk^ers
^Work^ers^90,949^$481^93,613^$500^95,595^$520^97,616^$550^99,917^$576^99,555^$597
^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y^27,225^$712^28,254^$742^29,304^$769^30,702^$800^31,455^$838^32,150^$865
ⁿⁱ^{cal, s}^a^les^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^e^26,121^$442^26,797^$454^27,372^$479^27,386^$481^28,252^$500^28,143^$520
ⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s^9,965^$300^10,184^$314^10,592^$326^10,837^$340^11,020^$358^11,156^$378
^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repa}ⁱ^r^11,022^$540^11,497^$550^11,691^$570^11,926^$600^12,163^$600^12,054^$630
^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers^15,106^$395^15,341^$400^15,082^$406^15,182^$430^15,411^$441^14,559^$464
ⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g⁹¹⁴^$316⁹⁴⁵^$318⁹⁵⁴^$320^1,052^$356^1,027^$360^1,008^$378
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}^c^l^u^diⁿ^g^f^a^rm^w^o^rk^ers⁾
^g/w^w^o^rk^ers⁵⁹⁵^$260⁵⁹⁵^$268⁶⁰²^$277⁵³¹^$300⁵⁸⁹^$300⁴⁸⁵^$315
^s^.or^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^le^ak^Work^ers¹^,342^$300^1,364^$300^1,406^$320^1,395^$345^1,501^$350^1,328^$365
^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y⁸⁰^$577⁷⁵^$576⁹⁹^$621⁹⁸^$700⁹⁸^$730⁹³^$749
^://wikiⁿⁱ^{cal, s}^a^les^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^e
^h^ttp¹⁰⁷^$344¹⁰²^$346¹⁰⁷^$385¹⁰⁵^$385⁹⁹^$402¹¹⁸^$428
ⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s¹⁷^$320¹²^$320¹³^$270⁸^$342⁶^$346^(a)^(a)
^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r³⁷^$425³¹^$400³⁹^$420³⁴^$450⁵¹^$410²⁹^$450
^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers⁴¹^$340⁷³^$350⁶¹^$346⁶⁰^$360⁷³^$375⁶⁵^$400
ⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g⁴⁷¹^$320⁴⁸⁴^$310⁴⁸⁷^$320⁵⁶¹^$350⁵⁹¹^$353⁵³⁹^$375
^c^l^u^diⁿ^g^f^a^rm^w^o^rk^ers⁾
^w^o^rk^ers⁵⁸⁹^$260⁵⁸⁸^$269⁶⁰¹^$277⁵²⁷^$300⁵⁸²^$300⁴⁸⁰^$315
^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{e es}^tⁱ^m^at^{ed n}^u^m^{ber of}^pers^on^sⁱ^s^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^5,000.

The data in Panel A of Table 3 show that, from 1996 to 2001, employment of
full-time wage and salary workers increased in all occupations except farmworker
occupations. Median weekly earnings increased in all occupations. In all
occupations, earnings increased more than employment.
In the agricultural industry, from 1996 to 2001, employment increased in the
following occupational categories: managerial, technical, and farming occupations.
Employment declined in farmworker occupations. In both 1996 and 2001 an
estimated 1.3 million persons were employed in the agriculture industry. From 2000
to 2001, however, employment declined by an estimated 173,000. Most of this
decline occurred among farmworkers (102,000) and farming occupations (52,000).
As was the case with all industries, in the agricultural industry earnings in all
occupations increased more than employment (recall that service, precision
production, and operator occupations are not included in this analysis).⁴²
Despite the decline in the employment of full-time wage and salary workers in
agriculture from 2000 to 2001, from 1996 to 2000 full-time employment increased
by an estimated 159,000. From 1996 to 2000 employment increased in managerial
and farming occupations, but declined in technical occupations. Employment in
farmworker occupations was essentially unchanged. Median weekly earnings
increased in all occupations. These findings suggest different combinations of
changes in labor supply, demand, and productivity. To some degree, labor
productivity may have increased in all occupations. In addition, the results suggest
that, in farmworker and technical occupations, the relative supply of and demand for
labor were essentially unchanged. In managerial and farming occupations, the results
suggest that both the supply of and demand for labor increased.
Interpreting the data in Table 3 requires some caution. First, separating the
effects of changes in relative supply and demand, changes in productivity, and
institutional or policy changes is beyond the scope of this paper. Second, the broad
categories of occupations include many specific occupations. Therefore, what is true
for a number of occupations grouped together may not be true for specific
occupations within that group. Third, the data in Table 3 represent the entire United
States. What is true for the nation as a whole may not be true for local labor markets
in individual states or regions. For example, the overall demand for labor or the
demand for particular skills may increase relative to supplies in one state or region,
but the situation may be different in another state or region. Finally, Table 3 shows
median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers. What is true for
median earnings may not be true for earnings at the top or bottom of the earnings
distribution. Similarly, what is true for full-time workers may not be true for full-
time and part-time workers combined.

⁴² The data in Table 3 are for full-time workers. Some full-time workers may have become
part-time workers. Table C2 in Appendix C shows that, compared to 2000, an estimated
78,000 fewer persons were employed in 2001 – compared to an estimated 362,000 fewer
persons employed full-time. From 2000 to 2001, the number of persons employed in the
agriculture industry declined by an estimated 175,000 persons – compared to a decline of
173,000 full-time workers. From 2000 to 2001, the number of farmworkers declined by
approximately 121,000 – compared to a decline of 102,000 full-time farmworkers.

Union Membership. Agricultural workers are less likely than all workers to
belong to a union or, if they are not members of a union, to be covered by a union or
employee association contract. In 2001, 1.7% of agricultural workers were members
of a union (2.1% were covered by a union contract), compared to 13.5% of all
workers who were union members (14.8% of all workers were covered by a union
cont ract ).⁴³
Full-Time and Part-Time Work. A common indicator in labor market
analysis is the percentage of workers employed full-time. In this report, a full-time
worker is someone who usually works 35 or more hours a week at all jobs.
Workers in the agriculture industry are somewhat less likely than all workers to
work full time. Among workers in the agriculture industry, however, Mexican-born
workers are more likely than native-born workers to work full time. In 2001, 77.7%
of workers in the agriculture industry held full-time jobs, compared to 82.5% of all
workers. Among workers in agriculture, 91.6% of Mexican-born workers were
employed full-time, compared to 74.5% of native-born workers. (See Figure 7.)

⁴³ Evidence suggests that union workers in the United States receive wages that are
approximately 10-20% higher than the wages of comparable nonunion workers. As noted
above in the discussion of The Distribution of Earnings, in addition to relative changes in
supply and demand, the degree of inequality may change because of policy or institutional
changes. Unions may either reduce or increase earnings inequality. For example, if unions
raise the wages of workers with above average wages, the effect of unions would be to
increase inequality. Evidence indicates that unions do more to reduce than to increase
inequality. Freeman, Richard B. How Much Has De-Unionization Contributed to the Rise
in Male Earnings Inequality? In Danziger, Sheldon, and Peter Gottschalk, eds. Uneven
Tides: Rising Inequality in America. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993. p. 139.

Figure 7. Full-Time Employment: Total Labor Force,
Agricultural Labor Force, and Native-and Mexican-
Born Agricultural Workers, 2001
¹⁰⁰^.⁰^%
⁸⁰^.⁰^%
⁶⁰^.⁰^%
⁴⁰^.⁰^%
²⁰^.⁰^%
^0.⁰^%
^T^o^t^a^{l la}^b^o^r^f^o^r^c^e
^Ag^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^al^Lab^o^r^F^o^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^v^e^-^b^o^rⁿ^ag^ri^c^u^l^t^ur^al^l^a^bo^r^f^o^r^c^e
^M^e^xⁱ^c^aⁿ^-^bo^rⁿ^a^g^ri^c^u^l^t^ur^al^l^a^bo^r^f^o^r^c^e
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.
Multiple Jobholders. Compared to the overall labor force, agricultural
workers are less likely to hold multiple jobs. Among agricultural workers, foreign-
born workers are less likely than native-born workers to hold more than one job. In
2001, 5.4% of all workers held more than one job, compared to 4.8% of workers in
the agriculture industry. Among workers in the agriculture industry, 5.5% of native-
born workers held multiple jobs, compared to 1.5% of foreign-born workers.⁴⁴
Other Indicators of Economic Well-Being
The previous findings in this report are from the monthly CPS. Each March,
however, the CPS includes additional questions on the number of weeks worked,
health insurance coverage, poverty status, and other questions about individual and
family income. These questions gather information for the previous year. The final
section of this report examines data from the March CPS for years 1997 to 2002 to
provide additional information on the economic well-being of agricultural workers
for the years 1996 to 2001.

⁴⁴ In 2001, the estimated number of Mexican-born agricultural workers holding multiple jobs
was fewer than 5,000. Therefore, the percentage of multiple jobholders was not calculated.

Weeks Worked Annually. Family income is affected by individual hourly
wages, the number of hours worked, the number of workers in a family, and the
amount of income from sources other than the labor market. Annual income is
affected by the number of weeks worked. Figure 8 shows the percentage of workers
who worked year-round in 2001. A year-round worker is someone who works at
least 50 weeks during the year. During the year, a person who works year-round may
work full-time, part-time, or both.
Figure 8. Percentage of the Labor Force Employed
Year-Round: Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor
Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born
Agricultural Workers, 2001
¹⁰^0%
⁹⁰^%
⁸⁰^%
⁷⁰^%
⁶⁰^%
⁵⁰^%
⁴⁰^%
³⁰^%
²⁰^%
¹⁰^%
^0%
^T^o^t^a^l^la^b^o^r^f^o^rc^e
^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^a^l^L^abo^r^F^o^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^v^e^-b^o^rⁿ^a^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^ra^l^la^b^o^{r f}^o^rc^e
^M^e^xⁱ^c^aⁿ^-^b^o^rⁿ^a^g^ric^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^l^a^b^o^r^f^o^rc^e
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March CPS.
Figure 8 shows that workers in the agriculture industry are less likely than
workers in the total labor force to work year-round and that Mexican-born workers
in the agriculture industry, are less likely than native-born workers to work year-
round. In 2001, 68.8% of workers in the agriculture industry worked year-round,
compared to 77.3% of workers in the economy as a whole. Among workers in the
agriculture industry, 54.4% of Mexican-born workers worked year-round, compared
to 71.9% of native-born workers.
Reflecting the tightening national labor market from 1996 to 2000, the
percentage of workers employed year-round increased in the overall economy as well
as in the agriculture industry. Among all workers, the percentage of workers
employed year-round increased from 74.6% to 78.4%. Among workers in the
agriculture industry, the percentage of workers employed year-round increased from

66.3% to 70.5%. Reflecting the increase in unemployment from 2000 to 2001, the
percentage of year-round workers declined from 78.4% to 77.3%. (Among
agricultural workers, the percentage of year-round workers declined from 70.5% to

68.8%, but the change was not statistically significant.)

Health Insurance Coverage. Figure 9 shows the percentage of persons in
the labor force in 2001 who were covered by health insurance. Health insurance
coverage includes employer-provided health insurance, privately purchased
insurance, and insurance coverage under different public programs (e.g., Medicare
Medicaid, veterans coverage, or other kinds of government coverage). An individual
may be covered by more than one kind of insurance plan.
Compared to all workers, a smaller percentage of workers in the agriculture
industry have health insurance coverage. Among workers in the agriculture industry,
foreign-born and Mexican-born workers are less likely than native-born workers to
have health insurance. In 2001, 83.1% of all persons in the labor force had health
insurance, compared to 64.8% of agricultural workers. Among agricultural workers,
74.6% of native-born workers were covered, compared to 28.5% of Mexican-born
workers.

Figure 9. Percentage of the Labor Force with Health
Insurance: Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor
Force, and Native- and Mexican-Born Agricultural
Labor Force, 2001
¹⁰⁰^%
⁹⁰^%
⁸⁰^%
⁷⁰^%
⁶⁰^%
⁵⁰^%
⁴⁰^%
³⁰^%
²⁰^%
¹⁰^%
^0%
^T^o^t^a^l^l^a^b^o^{r f}^o^rc^e
^A^g^ri^c^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^L^a^b^o^{r F}^o^rc^e
^N^a^tⁱ^v^e^-^bor^{n agr}ⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^a^l^l^a^bor^f^o^r^c^e
^M^e^xⁱ^c^a^n-^bor^{n agr}ⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^al^l^abor^f^o^r^c^e
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March CPS.

Poverty. Finally, Figure 10 shows the percentage of persons in the labor force
with annual incomes below the official poverty thresholds. Under the official
definition of poverty, a person is considered poor if his or her family money income
is below the poverty threshold for that size family. Noncash benefits – such as food
stamps, public housing, Medicare, and Medicaid – are not included in a family’s
money income.
Figure 10 shows that persons in the agriculture industry are more likely than all
persons in the labor force to have annual incomes below the official poverty
thresholds. Among workers in the agriculture industry, Mexican-born workers are
more likely to live in poverty than native-born workers. In 2001, 15.8% of workers
in the agriculture industry had annual incomes below the poverty threshold,
compared to 6.2% of the total labor force. Among workers in agriculture, 32.8% of
Mexican-born workers lived in families with incomes below the poverty thresholds,
compared to 11.9% of native-born workers.

Figure 10. Percentage of the Labor Force below
Poverty: Total Labor Force, Agricultural Labor Force,
and Native- and Mexican-Born Agricultural Labor
Force, 2001
⁵⁰^%
⁴⁰^%
³⁰^%
²⁰^%
¹⁰^%
^0%
^T^o^t^a^{l la}^b^o^r^f^o^r^c^e
^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^al^Lab^or^F^o^r^c^e
^N^a^tⁱ^v^e^-^bor^{n a}^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^al^w^o^r^k^er^s
^M^e^xⁱ^c^an-^bor^{n agr}ⁱ^c^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^w^o^r^k^er^s
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March CPS.

Appendix A: Data and Methodology
The analysis in this report is based on data from the Current Population Survey
(CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. The monthly
CPS is the main source of labor force statistics for the nation, including data on
monthly unemployment rates. The CPS collects a wide range of social, demographic,
and labor market data, such as information on age, gender, race, level of education,
family size and composition, marital status, occupation, industry, and earnings. Each
month, about 59,000 households are interviewed, either in person or by phone.
About 9,000 households are not eligible to be interviewed and about 3,200 are not
interviewed. Thus, about 46,800 households are currently interviewed each month.
The monthly survey collects information for approximately 94,000 persons ages
15 and over. Each month one-fourth of the CPS sample is asked questions about
current earnings. The CPS sample is representative of the civilian noninstitutional
population; it does not include persons on active duty in the Armed forces or persons
in institutions such as nursing homes or correctional facilities. The survey collects
information on persons who are temporarily absent from a surveyed household and
who have no other usual address. These persons include individuals who are on
vacation, away on business, and college students. The survey includes civilian
noninstitutional persons living in group quarters. (Group quarters are living quarters
where residents share common facilities. Examples may include group homes,⁴⁵
fraternities, or sororities.)
The BLS defines the labor force as the sum of employed and unemployed
persons. Unemployed persons are individuals who are not working but who are
available and looking for work. Employed persons are individuals who are working
for a private or public employer, are self-employed, or who work 15 hours or more
per week as unpaid workers on a family farm or business. Also counted as employed
are persons who are temporarily absent from work because of illness, bad weather,
vacation, job training, labor-management dispute, childcare problems, maternity or
paternity leave, or other family or personal reasons. BLS defines wage and salary
workers as persons who work for a private or public employer and self-employed
persons whose business is incorporated (i.e., these persons are paid employees of a
corporation). Because BLS does not collect earnings information on self-employed
persons, in this report wage and salary workers are individuals employed by private⁴⁶
or public employers.
Each March, the CPS includes a supplement to the basic questions. The
supplement includes questions about individual and family income, sources of
income, weeks worked, and health insurance coverage. These questions refer to the

⁴⁵ U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings, v. 48,
January 2001. p. 232, 241. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current
Population Survey: Design and Methodology. Technical Paper 63, March 2000. p. 1-1, 3-

7-3-9, 5-4.

⁴⁶ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, p. 5-3
– 5-5.

previous year. Thus, in this report, the information in Figures 8 to 10 in the text and
Tables B11 to B13 in Appendix B for 1996-2001 are from the March supplements
for 1997-2001. The sample for the March supplement includes military personnel
who live in a household with at least one civilian adult.⁴⁷ The estimates from the
March CPS for 2000 and 2001 use sample weights based on the 2000 decennial
census.
In this report, the data shown from the basic monthly CPS are annual monthly
averages. The monthly data for each year from 1996 to 2001 were combined to
calculate annual monthly averages. The analysis in the report focuses on the labor
market characteristics of persons age 15 and over who are in the labor force.
The CPS sample is weighted to represent the civilian noninstitutional
population. Official BLS labor force statistics use a “composite” weight that is not
available in the public use files for years before 1998. For consistency, this report
uses a “final” weight for all years from 1996 through 2001. (A different weight is
used for the analysis of earnings.) The difference in weights has a minimal effect on
the percentage calculations in this report.
Beginning in January 1994, the monthly CPS began to ask households questions
about citizenship; i.e., where individuals were born, how long they have lived in the
United States, and whether foreign-born persons have become citizens. Because of
uncertainty about the reliability of responses to these questions for 1994 and 1995,
this report begins with data for 1996.

⁴⁷ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, p. 11-3.

Appendix B. Data Used in Analysis
This appendix provides the absolute numbers used to calculate the percentages
discussed in the text of this report. The tables are presented in the same order as the
discussion in the text.
Table B1. Size of the Total and Agricultural Labor Force,
1996-2001
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal lab}^o^{r force (1000s}⁾
^A^{ll W}^o^r^k^er^s^134,713^137,079^138,856^140,289^141,811^142,642
^Nativ^e-^B^o^rⁿ^120,268^121,651^122,662^123,710^124,042^124,126
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-B^o^rⁿ^14,445^15,428^16,194^16,579^17,769^18,516
^Mexⁱ^can^-^B^orn^3,887^4,278^4,618^4,537^4,948^5,208
^{B. Agricu}^ltu^r^{al lab}^o^{r force (1000s}⁾
^A^g^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^a^{l W}^o^r^k^er^s^3,765^3,683^3,655^3,558^3,549^3,425
^Nativ^e-^B^o^rⁿ^3,108^3,016^2,910^2,808^2,779^2,719
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-B^o^rⁿ⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵⁰⁷⁷⁰⁷⁰⁵
^Mexⁱ^can^-^B^orn⁵³⁰⁵²²⁵⁹⁶⁶⁰²⁶¹¹⁵³³
^Source:^Calcu^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾
^No^tes:^Es^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e both}^em^ploy^ed^aⁿ^d^une^m^p^l^o^y^e^{d pers}^on^sⁱⁿ^th^{e labor f}^o^{rce, ag}^es^{15 an}^d
^ov^{er. Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Table B2. Gender of Total and Agricultural Labor Force,
1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^A^{ll W}^o^r^k^er^s
^Men^72,489^73,675^74,559^75,017^75,730^76,083
^Wom^eⁿ^62,224^63,404^64,297^65,272^66,081^66,559
^T^o^t^a^l^134,713^137,079^138,856^140,289^141,811^142,642
^Nativ^e-^B^o^rⁿ
^Men^63,945^64,486^64,925^65,308^65,235^65,161
^Wom^eⁿ^56,323^57,165^57,738^58,402^58,807^58,966
^T^o^t^a^l^120,268^121,651^122,662^123,710^124,042^124,126
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-B^o^rⁿ
^Men⁸^,544^9,189^9,634^9,709^10,495^10,922
^Wom^eⁿ⁵^,901^6,239^6,559^6,869^7,274^7,594
^T^o^t^a^l^14,445^15,428^16,194^16,579^17,769^18,516
^Mexⁱ^can^-^B^orn
^Men²^,727^2,983^3,221^3,115^3,379^3,526
^Wom^eⁿ¹^,160^1,295^1,397^1,423^1,568^1,682
^T^o^t^a^l³^,887^4,278^4,618^4,537^4,948^5,208
^B^.^{Agricultural labor force}
^A^g^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^a^{l W}^o^r^k^er^s
^Men²^,825^2,770^2,765^2,641^2,612^2,486
^Wom^eⁿ⁹⁴⁰⁹¹³⁸⁹⁰⁹¹⁷⁹³⁷⁹³⁹
^T^o^t^a^l³^,765^3,683^3,655^3,558^3,549^3,425
^Nativ^e-^B^o^rⁿ
^Men²^,271^2,205^2,128^2,010^1,969^1,901
^Wom^eⁿ⁸³⁸⁸¹¹⁷⁸²⁷⁹⁸⁸¹⁰⁸¹⁸
^T^o^t^a^l³^,108^3,016^2,910^2,808^2,779^2,719
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-B^o^rⁿ
^Men⁵⁵⁴⁵⁶⁵⁶³⁷⁶³¹⁶⁴⁴⁵⁸⁵
^Wom^eⁿ¹⁰²¹⁰²¹⁰⁸¹¹⁹¹²⁷¹²⁰
^T^o^t^a^l⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵⁰⁷⁷⁰⁷⁰⁵
^Mexⁱ^can^-^B^orn
^Men⁴⁶⁴⁴⁴⁸⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁴⁵¹⁸⁴⁵⁰
^W^o^m^eⁿ⁶⁶⁷⁴⁷⁸⁸⁸⁹²⁸³
^T^o^t^a^l⁵³⁰⁵²²⁵⁹⁶⁶⁰²⁶¹¹⁵³³
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^tes^{: Es}^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e both}^em^ploy^{ed an}^{d u}ⁿ^e^m^p^loy^e^{d pers}^on^sⁱⁿ^th^{e labor f}^o^{rce, ag}^es^{15 an}^{d ov}^er.
^Details^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Table B3. Age Distribution of the Total and
Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
^A^g^e¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^15-²⁴^21,837^22,123^22,628^22,952^23,432^23,285
^25-³⁴^33,835^33,397^32,893^32,131^31,671^31,140
^35-⁴⁴^36,596^37,352^37,602^37,924^37,846^37,624
^45-⁵⁴^26,420^27,591^28,436^29,405^30,456^31,532
^55-⁶⁴^12,154^12,688^13,288^13,714^14,067^14,655
^{65 an}^{d ov}^er^3,871^3,927^4,009^4,162^4,340^4,407
^T^o^t^a^l^134,713^137,079^138,856^140,289^141,811^142,642
^B^.^{Agricultural labor force}
^15-²⁴⁷¹⁰⁷⁰⁶⁷³⁶⁶⁸⁹⁶⁴⁷⁶³¹
^25-³⁴⁸¹³⁷⁷⁵⁷⁶⁵⁶⁹⁶⁶⁸⁷⁶¹⁶
^35-⁴⁴⁸⁵⁸⁸⁵⁰⁸³⁶⁸²⁸⁸²⁶⁸¹²
^45-⁵⁴⁶⁰⁵⁵⁹⁰⁶¹⁷⁶¹¹⁶²⁰⁶¹⁹
^55-⁶⁴⁴²²⁴²⁷⁴⁰⁸⁴³⁴⁴⁴⁵⁴⁴²
^{65 an}^{d ov}^er³⁵⁶³³⁵²⁹³³⁰⁰³²⁴³⁰⁵
^T^o^t^a^l³^,765^3,683^3,655^3,558^3,549^3,425
^C^.^N^a^ti^ve-Born^agri^c^u^l^tu^ral^l^a^b^o^{r force}
^15-²⁴⁵⁹³⁵⁸⁴⁵⁸⁶⁵³²⁵⁰⁴⁴⁹⁴
^25-³⁴⁵⁸⁵⁵⁶¹⁵³⁴⁴⁸³⁴⁴⁵⁴¹⁶
^35-⁴⁴⁶⁸⁹⁶⁸⁷⁶⁵¹⁶³⁴⁶¹⁸⁶¹³
^45-⁵⁴⁵¹⁵⁴⁸⁷⁵⁰²⁴⁹⁴⁵¹¹⁵¹³
^55-⁶⁴³⁸⁰³⁷⁷³⁵⁴³⁸⁰³⁹¹³⁹¹
^{65 an}^{d ov}^er³⁴⁶³²⁰²⁸³²⁸⁴³⁰⁹²⁹¹
^T^o^t^a^l³^,108^3,016^2,910^2,808^2,779^2,719
^{D. Foreign-B}^{orn agricultural labor force}
^15-²⁴¹¹⁷¹²²¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁷¹⁴³¹³⁸
^25-³⁴²²⁸²¹⁵²³⁰²¹³²⁴¹¹⁹⁹
^35-⁴⁴¹⁷⁰¹⁶³¹⁸⁵¹⁹³²⁰⁸¹⁹⁹
^45-⁵⁴⁹⁰¹⁰³¹¹⁶¹¹⁷¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁵
^55-⁶⁴⁴¹⁵⁰⁵⁴⁵³⁵³⁵¹
^{65 an}^{d ov}^er¹⁰¹⁴¹⁰¹⁶¹⁵¹⁴
^T^o^t^a^l⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵⁰⁷⁷⁰⁷⁰⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^{rn agr}^{icultural labor force}
^15-²⁴¹⁰³¹⁰⁴¹³²¹⁴²¹¹⁹¹¹⁷
^25-³⁴¹⁹¹¹⁸³²⁰⁰¹⁷⁷²⁰⁹¹⁶⁶
^35-⁴⁴¹⁴⁰¹³¹¹⁴²¹⁵⁷¹⁶⁷¹⁴⁹
^45-⁵⁴⁶⁸⁷²⁸⁸⁸⁶⁷²⁷¹
^55-⁶⁴²⁵²⁹²⁹³¹³⁶²²
^{65 an}^{d ov}^er^(a)^(a)^(a)⁹⁸⁸
^T^o^t^a^l⁵³⁰⁵²²⁵⁹⁶⁶⁰²⁶¹¹⁵³³
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^tes^{: Es}^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e both}^em^ploy^{ed an}^{d u}ⁿ^e^m^p^loy^e^{d pers}^on^sⁱⁿ^th^{e labor f}^o^{rce, ag}^es^{15 an}^{d ov}^er.
^Details^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^a ^T^h^{e es}^tⁱ^m^at^{ed n}^u^m^{ber of}^pers^on^sⁱ^s^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^5,000.

Table B4. Educational Attainment Among Persons in the Total
and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
^Y^e^ars^{of E}^d^u^c^ati^oⁿ¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^{8 Y}^ears^{or L}^e^s^s^5,104^5,151^5,061^4,983^5,137^5,003^a
^9-^{12 Y}^ears^14,179^14,412^14,812^14,388^14,291^14,255
^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l^43,549^44,511^44,346^44,226^44,187^43,914
^1-^{3 Y}^ears^of^C^o^l^l^e^g^e^37,985^38,211^38,529^39,354^40,196^40,714
^B^ach^elors^’^Deg^r^ee^22,887^23,555^24,339^25,121^25,610^26,026
^A^d^va^nc^e^d^D^e^gr^e^e^11,010^11,239^11,768^12,216^12,391^12,731
^To^t^a^l^134,713^137,079^138,856^140,289^141,811^142,642
^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^{8 Y}^ears^{or L}^e^s^s⁶⁶²⁶³⁰⁶³⁶⁶⁴⁹⁶¹¹⁵⁵⁵^a
^9-^{12 Y}^ears⁶³⁵⁶³²⁶⁴⁷⁵⁷⁰⁵⁴¹⁵⁴⁰
^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l^1,275^1,246^1,239^1,165^1,193^1,157
^1-^{3 Y}^ears^of^C^o^l^l^e^g^e⁷³⁹⁷⁴³⁶⁹¹⁷²⁸⁷⁵⁷⁷²⁷
^B^ach^elors^’^Deg^r^ee³³⁴³⁰³³²⁰³⁴¹³²²³²³
^A^d^va^nc^e^d^D^e^gr^e^e¹¹⁹¹²⁸¹²²¹⁰⁵¹²⁶¹²²
^To^t^a^l^3,765^3,683^3,655^3,558^3,549^3,425
^{C. Na}^tiv^e^-B^o^rⁿ^{agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^{8 Y}^ears^{or L}^e^s^s²⁵⁴²³⁶²⁰⁷²⁰⁶¹⁷⁶¹⁵⁷^a
^9-^{12 Y}^ears⁵³³⁵¹⁹⁵¹²⁴³⁸⁴¹¹⁴⁰³
^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l^1,194^1,151^1,119^1,053^1,068^1,051
^1-^{3 Y}^ears^of^C^o^l^l^e^g^e⁷⁰⁵⁷⁰⁸⁶⁵⁶⁶⁸⁷⁷⁰³⁶⁹³
^B^ach^elors^’^Deg^r^ee³¹¹²⁸³³⁰²³²⁸³⁰⁴³⁰¹
^A^d^va^nc^e^d^D^e^gr^e^e¹¹¹¹¹⁷¹¹⁴⁹⁷¹¹⁶¹¹⁴
^To^t^a^l^3,108^3,016^2,910^2,808^2,779^2,719
^D^.^Forei^gn^-Born^{agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^{8 Y}^ears^{or L}^e^s^s⁴⁰⁸³⁹⁴⁴²⁸⁴⁴⁴⁴³⁵³⁹⁸^a
^9-^{12 Y}^ears¹⁰²¹¹³¹³⁵¹³²¹³⁰¹³⁷
^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l⁸¹⁹⁵¹²⁰¹¹³¹²⁵¹⁰⁷
^1-^{3 Y}^ears^of^C^o^l^l^e^g^e³³³⁴³⁵⁴⁰⁵³³⁴
^B^ach^elors^’^Deg^r^ee²⁴¹⁹¹⁸¹³¹⁸²¹
^A^d^va^nc^e^d^D^e^gr^e^e⁷¹¹⁸⁸⁹⁸
^To^t^a^l⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵⁰⁷⁷⁰⁷⁰⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^rn^{agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^{8 Y}^ears^{or L}^e^s^s³⁷³³⁴⁴³⁸²³⁸⁹³⁷⁷³⁴⁰^a
^9-^{12 Y}^ears⁷⁴⁸⁹¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁴¹⁰¹
^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l⁵²⁶¹⁸³⁷⁸⁸⁷⁶⁹
^1-^{3 Y}^ears^of^C^o^l^l^e^g^e²⁰¹⁹¹⁹²⁶³²¹⁸
^B^ach^elors^’^Deg^r^ee¹⁰⁶^(c)^(c)⁸^(c)
^A^d^v^aⁿ^{ced Deg}^r^ee^(c)^(c)^(c)^(c)^(c)^(c)
^To^t^a^l⁵³⁰⁵²²⁵⁹⁶⁶⁰²⁶¹¹⁵³³
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^te^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^a ^Es^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e pers}^on^s^w^h^{o com}^p^{leted 12 y}^ears^of^s^c^h^{ool bu}^{t w}^h^{o h}^a^v^eⁿ^o^{t receiv}^e^d^{a diplom}^a
^o^r^GED.^b
^Es^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e pers}^on^s^w^ith^{a GED.}^c
^T^h^{e es}^tⁱ^m^at^{ed n}^u^m^{ber of}^pers^on^sⁱ^s^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^5,000.

Table B5. Class of Worker: Total and Agricultural Labor Force,
1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^Wag^e^an^{d S}^a^l^a^ry^Work^ers^123,029^125,384^127,482^129,237^130,980^131,893
^S^e^l^f^-^E^m^p^l^o^y^e^d^10,815^10,845^10,605^10,355^10,166^10,078
^Uⁿ^pai^d^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^Mem^b^er¹⁹⁵¹⁸²¹⁵³¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁶¹⁴²
^T^o^t^a^l^134,038^136,411^138,241^139,738^141,292^142,113
^B^.^To^t^a^{l a}^g^r^icult^u^ra^{l la}^bo^{r f}^o^rce
^Wag^e^an^{d S}^a^l^a^ry^Work^ers^2,136^2,116^2,223^2,178^2,237^2,110
^S^e^l^f^-^E^m^p^l^o^y^e^d^1,565^1,509^1,387^1,333^1,269^1,281
^Uⁿ^pai^d^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^Mem^b^er⁶⁴⁵⁸⁴⁵⁴⁷⁴²³⁴
^T^o^t^a^l³^,765^3,683^3,655^3,558^3,549^3,425
^{C. Nati}^ve-Born^agri^c^u^l^tu^ral^l^a^b^o^{r force}
^Wag^e^an^{d S}^a^l^a^ry^Work^ers^1,579^1,534^1,552^1,513^1,542^1,496
^S^e^l^f^-^E^m^p^l^o^y^e^d^1,469^1,425^1,314^1,250^1,196^1,189
^Uⁿ^pai^d^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^Mem^b^er⁶¹⁵⁷⁴⁵⁴⁵⁴¹³⁴
^T^o^t^a^l³^,108^3,016^2,910^2,808^2,779^2,719
^{D. Foreign-B}^{orn agricultural labor force}
^Wag^e^an^{d S}^a^l^a^ry^Work^ers⁵⁵⁷⁵⁸²⁶⁷¹⁶⁶⁵⁶⁹⁶⁶¹⁴
^S^e^l^f^-^E^m^p^l^o^y^e^d⁹⁶⁸⁵⁷⁴⁸³⁷⁴⁹¹
^Un^{paid Fam}^ily^Mem^b^er^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)
^T^o^t^a^l⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵⁰⁷⁷⁰⁷⁰⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^{rn agr}^{icultural labor force}
^Wag^e^an^{d S}^a^l^a^ry^Work^ers⁴⁷⁵⁴⁸²⁵⁵⁷⁵⁵⁷⁵⁷³⁴⁸⁸
^S^e^l^f^-^E^m^p^l^o^y^e^d⁵⁴⁴⁰³⁹⁴⁴³⁷⁴⁵
^Un^{paid Fam}^ily^Mem^b^er^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)
^T^o^t^a^l⁵³⁰⁵²²⁵⁹⁶⁶⁰²⁶¹¹⁵³³
^Source:^Calcu^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾
^No^tes:^Es^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e both}^em^p^l^o^y^e^d^aⁿ^d^uⁿ^e^m^p^loy^e^{d pers}^on^sⁱⁿ^th^{e labor f}^o^{rce, ag}^es^{15 an}^d
^ov^{er. Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^T^h^e^es^tim^ates^of^th^eⁿ^u^m^ber^of^pers^on^sⁱⁿ
^th^{e total f}^o^{rce are n}^o^{t th}^{e s}^a^m^e^as^{labor f}^o^{rce es}^tim^atesⁱⁿ^oth^e^{r tables}^becau^s^e^of^mⁱ^s^sⁱⁿ^g^{data on}^clas^s
^of^w^o^rk^er.
^a ^T^h^{e es}^tⁱ^m^at^{ed n}^u^m^{ber of}^pers^on^sⁱ^s^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^5,000.

Table B6. Number of Employed and Unemployed Persons in the
Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^A^{ll W}^o^r^k^er^s
^Em^pl^oy^ed^127,262^130,125^132,459^134,236^135,957^135,702
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed^7,452^6,954^6,397^6,053^5,854^6,940
^T^o^t^a^l^134,713^137,079^138,856^140,289^141,811^142,642
^Nativ^e-^B^o^rⁿ
^Em^pl^oy^ed^113,831^115,654^117,134^118,459^118,954^118,175
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed^6,437^5,997^5,529^5,251^5,089^5,952
^T^o^t^a^l^120,268^121,651^122,662^123,710^124,042^124,126
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-B^o^rⁿ
^Em^pl^oy^ed^13,430^14,471^15,325^15,777^17,003^17,528
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed^1,015⁹⁵⁷⁸⁶⁸⁸⁰²⁷⁶⁶⁹⁸⁸
^T^o^t^a^l^14,445^15,428^16,194^16,579^17,769^18,516
^Mexⁱ^can^-^B^orn
^Em^pl^oy^ed^3,513^3,964^4,318^4,273^4,677^4,865
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed³⁷⁴³¹³³⁰¹²⁶⁵²⁷¹³⁴³
^T^o^t^a^l³^,887^4,278^4,618^4,537^4,948^5,208
^B^.^{Agricultural labor force}
^A^g^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^a^{l W}^o^r^k^er^s
^Em^pl^oy^ed^3,512^3,462^3,452^3,346^3,360^3,203
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed²⁵²²²¹²⁰³²¹²¹⁸⁹²²²
^T^o^t^a^l³^,765^3,683^3,655^3,558^3,549^3,425
^Nativ^e-^B^o^rⁿ
^Em^pl^oy^ed^2,950^2,860^2,770^2,681^2,667^2,588
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁶¹⁴⁰¹²⁷¹¹²¹³¹
^T^o^t^a^l³^,108^3,016^2,910^2,808^2,779^2,719
^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn-B^o^rⁿ
^Em^pl^oy^ed⁵⁶³⁶⁰²⁶⁸³⁶⁶⁵⁶⁹³⁶¹⁵
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed⁹³⁶⁵⁶²⁸⁵⁷⁷⁹⁰
^T^o^t^a^l⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵⁰⁷⁷⁰⁷⁰⁵
^Mexⁱ^can^-^B^orn
^Em^pl^oy^ed⁴⁴⁹⁴⁶⁸⁵⁴⁴⁵³³⁵⁴⁵⁴⁵⁶
^Uⁿ^em^pl^oy^ed⁸¹⁵³⁵²⁶⁸⁶⁵⁷⁷
^T^o^t^a^l⁵³⁰⁵²²⁵⁹⁶⁶⁰²⁶¹¹⁵³³
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^tes^{: Es}^tim^atesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e both}^em^ploy^{ed an}^{d u}ⁿ^e^m^p^loy^e^{d pers}^on^sⁱⁿ^th^{e labor f}^o^{rce, ag}^es^{15 an}^{d ov}^er.
^Details^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Table B7. Occupations of Employed Total and Agricultural Workers,
1996-2001
(in thousands)
^Occu^p^a^ti^on¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^A^.^T^o^tal^em^p^l^oyed
^Man^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y^36,538^37,740^39,073^40,554^40,974^41,884
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport^37,802^38,428^38,794^39,132^39,649^39,250
^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s^17,382^17,767^18,154^18,170^18,568^18,619
^P^r^ecisⁱ^on^produ^ction^,^craf^{t, an}^{d repai}^r^13,622^14,155^14,461^14,614^14,897^14,862
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers^18,272^18,449^18,388^18,264^18,408^17,780
^F^a^rmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g³^,645^3,587^3,588^3,502^3,460^3,308
^T^o^t^a^l^127,262^130,125^132,459^134,236^135,957^135,702
^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^Man^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y¹⁹⁵²⁰⁶²¹⁵²¹⁶²¹¹²⁰⁴
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport²³⁴²²⁶²¹¹²¹⁸²²²²⁴⁰
^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s²⁹²⁵²¹¹⁵¹⁶¹⁰
^Preci^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r⁴⁰³⁴³⁹³⁶⁵⁴⁴¹
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers⁵⁹⁸⁷⁸²⁷⁷⁹⁰⁷⁷
^F^a^rmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g²^,956^2,885^2,884^2,783^2,767^2,630
^T^o^t^a^l³^,512^3,462^3,452^3,346^3,360^3,203
^C^.^N^a^ti^ve-Born^agri^c^u^l^tu^ral^w^o^rk^ers
^Man^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y¹⁷⁹¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹²⁰⁴¹⁹⁵
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport²²⁸²²²²⁰⁵²¹⁰²⁰⁸²³²
^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s²⁴²¹¹⁶¹³¹¹⁷
^Preci^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r³⁰²⁵²⁵²⁵⁴⁰³⁰
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers⁵¹⁶⁴⁵³⁵⁹⁷⁰⁵⁶
^F^a^rmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g²^,438^2,336^2,273^2,174^2,135^2,068
^T^o^t^a^l²^,950^2,860^2,770^2,681^2,667^2,588
^{D. Foreign-B}^{orn agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^Man^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y¹⁶¹²¹⁸¹⁷⁷⁹
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport⁵^(a)⁶⁸¹⁴⁸
^Serv^{ice occu}^pation^s⁵^(a)^(a)^(a)⁵^(a)
^Preci^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r¹⁰⁹¹⁴¹¹¹⁴¹¹
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers⁸²³²⁹¹⁸²⁰²²
^F^a^rmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g⁵¹⁷⁵⁴⁹⁶¹¹⁶⁰⁹⁶³²⁵⁶²
^T^o^t^a^l⁵⁶³⁶⁰²⁶⁸³⁶⁶⁵⁶⁹³⁶¹⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^{rn agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^Man^a^g^e^{rial an}^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^{al s}^p^ecialty⁷^(a)⁶^(a)^(a)^(a)
^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^{, s}^a^l^e^s^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport^(a)^(a)^(a)⁵⁷^(a)
^Serv^{ice occu}^pation^s^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)^(a)
^P^r^e^cⁱ^s^oⁿ^p^r^o^d^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^c^r^a^f^t^,^aⁿ^d^r^e^p^aⁱ^r⁸⁵⁸⁹¹²⁶
^O^p^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers⁸²²²²¹⁴¹⁸¹⁷
^F^a^rmⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g⁴²²⁴³³⁵⁰¹⁵⁰⁰⁵⁰¹⁴²⁴
^T^o^t^a^l⁴⁴⁹⁴⁶⁸⁵⁴⁴⁵³³⁵⁴⁵⁴⁵⁶
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^te^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^a ^T^h^{e es}^tⁱ^m^at^{ed n}^u^m^{ber of}^pers^on^sⁱ^s^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^5,000.

CRS-39
Table B8. Union Membership and Union Coverage Among Agricultural and All Workers, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. Unio}^{n m}^e^m^b^ership
^{1. All w}^{age and s}^a^{lary w}^o^rk^ers
^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l
^Mem^b^er^Em^pl^oy^ed^Mem^b^er^Em^pl^oy^ed^Mem^b^er^Em^pl^oy^ed^Mem^b^er^Em^pl^oy^ed^Mem^b^er^Em^pl^oy^ed^Mem^b^er^Em^pl^oy^ed
^Work^ers^16,274^112,360^16,118^114,918^16,²¹¹^116,730^16,477^118,963^16,258^120,786^16,289^120,708
ⁱ^v^e-^Born^14,830^100,457^14,611^102,086^14,737^103,185^14,910^104,981^14,600^105,486^14,573^104,976
^gⁿ^-^Born^1,445^11,902^1,506^12,832^1,⁴⁷⁴^13,545^1,566^13,982^1,658^15,299^1,716^15,732
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn³⁰⁹^3,280²⁹¹^3,708³¹⁸^3,977³²⁵^4,039³⁷⁰^4,430³⁵⁶^4,612
^{2. Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral³²¹^,746³⁶^1,719²⁷^1,752⁴³^1,735³⁸^1,846²⁸^1,671
ⁱ^v^e-^Born¹³^1,299²¹^1,176¹²^1,194²⁰^1,195²¹^1,220¹⁵^1,142
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}^gⁿ^-^Born¹⁹⁴⁴⁷¹⁶⁵⁴⁴¹⁵⁵⁵⁸²²⁵⁴⁰¹⁷⁶²⁶¹⁴⁵³⁰
^g/wⁱ^can^-^B^orn¹⁴³⁹¹¹¹⁴⁶²¹⁰⁴⁶¹¹⁵⁴⁵¹¹¹⁵¹⁸¹⁰⁴²²
^s^.or^{B. U}ⁿⁱ^oⁿ^coverage
^le^ak^{1. All w}^{age and s}^a^{lary w}^o^rk^ers
^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l^To^t^a^l
^://wiki^Co^ve^r^e^d^Em^pl^oy^ed^C^o^v^e^red^Em^pl^oy^ed^C^o^v^e^red^Em^pl^oy^ed^C^o^v^e^red^Em^pl^oy^ed^C^o^v^e^red^Em^pl^oy^ed^C^o^v^e^red^Em^pl^oy^ed
^h^ttp^Work^ers^18,164^112,360^17,932^114,918^17,⁹¹⁸^116,730^18,182^118,963^17,944^120,786^17,878^120,708
^gⁿ^-^Born^16,542^100,457^16,245^102,086^16,²⁸²^103,185^16,421^104,981^16,104^105,486^15,991^104,976
ⁱ^v^e-^Born^1,622^11,902^1,688^12,832^1,636^13,545^1,761^13,982^1,840^15,299^1,887^15,732
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn³⁴⁴^3,280³³²^3,708³⁵¹^3,977³⁶⁸^4,039⁴⁰⁶^4,430³⁹⁴^4,612
^{2. Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral³⁷¹^,746⁴⁰^1,719³²^1,752⁴⁸^1,735⁴⁶^1,846³⁴^1,671
^gⁿ^-^Born¹⁷^1,299²²^1,176¹⁶^1,194²⁵^1,195²⁵^1,220¹⁷^1,142
ⁱ^v^e-^Born²⁰⁴⁴⁷¹⁸⁵⁴⁴¹⁶⁵⁵⁸²³⁵⁴⁰²¹⁶²⁶¹⁷⁵³⁰
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn¹⁵³⁹¹¹²⁴⁶²¹⁰⁴⁶¹¹⁶⁴⁵¹¹³⁵¹⁸¹⁴⁴²²
^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^:^Uⁿⁱ^oⁿ^m^e^m^b^e^r^s^a^r^e^w^a^g^e^an^{d s}^a^l^a^ry^w^o^rk^ers^w^h^{o bel}^oⁿ^g^t^o^{a l}^a^{bor u}ⁿⁱ^on^{or an}^em^pl^oy^{ee as}^s^o^ci^atⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱ^mⁱ^l^a^{r t}^o^{a u}ⁿⁱ^on^{. C}^o^v^e^re^{d w}^o^rk^ersⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e u}ⁿⁱ^on^m^e^m^b^ers^as^w^e^ll
^o^rk^ers^w^h^{o are n}^o^{t u}ⁿⁱ^on^m^e^m^b^ers^bu^{t w}^h^os^{e j}^obs^{are cov}^e^{red by}^{a u}ⁿⁱ^on^{or an}^em^ploy^{ee as}^s^o^ciation^con^t^ract.

CRS-40
Table B9. Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Employed Total and Agricultural Workers, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^Full-^Part-^Full-^Part-^Full-^Part-^Full-^Part-^Full-^Part-^Full-^Part-
^ti^m^e^ti^m^e^T^o^tal^ti^m^e^ti^m^e^T^o^tal^ti^m^e^ti^m^e^T^o^tal^ti^m^e^ti^m^e^T^o^tal^ti^m^e^ti^m^e^T^o^tal^ti^m^e^ti^m^e^T^o^tal
^A^.^T^o^tal^em^p^l^oyed
^o^r^k^er^s^103,620^23,642^127,262^106,392^23,734^130,125^108,572^23,886^132,459^110,450^23,786^134,236^112,447^23,510^135,957^111,949^23,753^135,702
^e-^B^o^rⁿ^92,168^21,663^113,831^93,957^21,697^115,654^95,347^21,787^117,¹³⁴^96,755^21,705^118,459^97,556^21,³⁹⁸^118,954^96,630^21,545^118,175
^rei^gⁿ^-^Born^11,451^1,979^13,430^12,434^2,037^14,471^13,225^2,100^15,³²⁵^13,696^2,081^15,777^14,890^2,¹¹³^17,003^15,320^2,208^17,528
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn^3,078⁴³⁵^3,513^3,497⁴⁶⁷^3,964^3,815⁵⁰³^4,318^3,826⁴⁴⁷^4,273^4,215⁴⁶²^4,677^4,344⁵²¹^4,865
^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^a^{l W}^o^r^k^er^s^2,629⁸⁸³^3,512^2,618⁸⁴⁴^3,462^2,644⁸⁰⁹^3,452^2,558⁷⁸⁸^3,346^2,607⁷⁵³^3,360^2,487⁷¹⁵^3,203
^e-^B^o^rⁿ^2,127⁸²³^2,950^2,082⁷⁷⁹^2,860^2,018⁷⁵¹^2,770^1,956⁷²⁵^2,681^1,970⁶⁹⁷^2,667^1,929⁶⁵⁹^2,588
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}^rei^gⁿ^-^Born⁵⁰²⁶⁰⁵⁶³⁵³⁶⁶⁶⁶⁰²⁶²⁶⁵⁷⁶⁸³⁶⁰²⁶³⁶⁶⁵⁶³⁷⁵⁶⁶⁹³⁵⁵⁹⁵⁶⁶¹⁵ⁱ^can^-^B^orn⁴⁰⁶⁴³⁴⁴⁹⁴²⁷⁴¹⁴⁶⁸⁵⁰⁷³⁷⁵⁴⁴⁴⁹⁰⁴³⁵³³⁵⁰³⁴²⁵⁴⁵⁴¹⁷³⁸⁴⁵⁶
^g/w
^s^.or^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^le^ak
^://wiki^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

^h^ttp

CRS-41
Table B10. Number of Employed Total and Agricultural Workers Who are Multiple Jobholders, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^M^u^lt^iple^To^t^a^l^M^u^lt^iple^To^t^a^l^M^u^lt^iple^To^t^a^l^M^u^lt^iple^To^t^a^l^M^u^lt^iple^To^t^a^l^M^u^lt^iple^To^t^a^l
^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders^J^o^bho^lders
^A^.^T^o^tal^em^p^l^oyed
^Work^ers^8,078^127,262^8,201^130,125^7,⁹⁶²^132,459^7,827^134,236^7,577^135,957^7,311^135,702
^tⁱ^v^e-^Born^7,553^113,831^7,622^115,654^7,383^117,134^7,254^118,459^6,992^118,954^6,712^118,175
^gⁿ^-^Born⁵²⁵^13,430⁵⁸⁰^14,471⁵⁷⁹^15,325⁵⁷²^15,777⁵⁸⁵^17,003⁶⁰⁰^17,528
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn⁸⁵³^,513¹⁰⁰^3,964¹⁰⁰^4,318⁹⁵^4,273¹¹¹^4,677¹¹³^4,865
^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral^Work^ers¹⁷⁷^3,512¹⁸⁰^3,462¹⁶¹^3,452¹⁶⁴^3,346¹⁶³^3,360¹⁵³^3,203
^tⁱ^v^e-^Born¹⁶⁶^2,950¹⁷³^2,860¹⁵⁵^2,770¹⁵⁷^2,681¹⁵³^2,667¹⁴³^2,588
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}^gⁿ^-^Born¹¹⁵⁶³⁷⁶⁰²⁷⁶⁸³⁷⁶⁶⁵¹⁰⁶⁹³⁹⁶¹⁵ⁱ^can^-^B^orn⁶⁴⁴⁹^(a)⁴⁶⁸^(a)⁵⁴⁴^(a)⁵³³^(a)⁵⁴⁵^(a)⁴⁵⁶
^g/w
^s^.or^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^le^ak
^://wiki^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^h^ttp
^{e es}^tⁱ^m^at^{ed n}^u^m^{ber of}^pers^on^sⁱ^s^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^5,000.

Table B11. Annual Weeks Worked Among Persons
in the Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
^W^eek^s^W^o^rk^ed¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^0-^{9 Week}^s⁷^,618^7,293^6,858^7,044^6,573^7,314
^10-^{19 Week}^s³^,997^3,863^3,640^3,648^3,332^3,460
^20-^{29 Week}^s⁶^,011^6,000^5,518^5,622^5,450^5,780
^30-^{39 Week}^s⁵^,833^5,718^5,575^5,261^5,293^5,688
^40-^{49 Week}^s^11,004^10,638^10,278^10,458^10,356^10,612
^50-^{52 Week}^s^101,246^103,920^106,733^108,873^113,090^111,624
^T^o^t^a^l^135,709^137,432^138,602^140,904^144,094^144,478
^B^.^{Agricultural labor force}
^0-^{9 Week}^s³⁴⁰²⁷¹³⁰⁵²⁹⁹³¹⁰³⁴³
^10-^{19 Week}^s¹³³¹³⁵¹⁰²¹⁰⁸⁷⁷¹¹¹
^20-^{29 Week}^s¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁹²⁰⁹²⁰⁰²³⁶¹⁷⁶
^30-^{39 Week}^s²¹⁴¹⁸²¹⁸⁸¹⁹⁴¹⁴¹¹⁸⁷
^40-^{49 Week}^s³⁰⁴²⁷³²⁷⁵²⁹²²³⁷²³⁸
^50-^{52 Week}^s²^,300^2,171^2,270^2,317^2,383^2,322
^T^o^t^a^l³^,470^3,209^3,350^3,409^3,384^3,376
^{C. Nati}^ve-Born^agri^c^u^l^tu^ral^l^a^b^o^{r force}
^0-^{9 Week}^s²⁵⁰²³⁴²⁴⁹²³⁴²¹¹²⁵⁶
^10-^{19 Week}^s¹⁰⁵⁷⁷⁸⁷⁸⁰⁴⁹⁹¹
^20-^{29 Week}^s¹³⁰¹¹⁹¹⁴⁴¹³³¹⁴⁰¹¹⁷
^30-^{39 Week}^s¹³²¹²⁵¹²²¹¹³⁹⁰¹¹⁶
^40-^{49 Week}^s²⁰⁰¹⁸¹¹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹¹⁶⁴¹⁴⁵
^50-^{52 Week}^s¹^,953^1,799^1,847^1,877^1,897^1,856
^T^o^t^a^l^2,769^2,535^2,639^2,637^2,551^2,581
^{D. Foreign-B}^{orn agricultural labor force}
⁰^-⁹^W^e^k^s⁹⁰³⁶⁵⁷⁶⁵⁹⁹⁸⁷
¹^W²⁹⁵⁸¹⁵²⁸²⁸²⁰
²⁰^-⁹^W^e^k^s⁴⁸⁶⁰⁶⁵⁶⁸⁹⁶⁵⁹
³^W⁸²⁵⁶⁶⁶⁸⁰⁵²⁷¹
^40-^{49 Week}^s¹⁰⁴⁹²⁸⁵⁹²⁷³⁹²
^50-^{52 Week}^s³⁴⁸³⁷¹⁴²³⁴³⁹⁴⁸⁶⁴⁶⁶
^T^o^t^a^l⁷⁰¹⁶⁷⁴⁷¹¹⁷⁷³⁸³⁴⁷⁹⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^{rn agr}^{icultural labor force}
⁰^-⁹^W^e^k^s⁸³²⁸³³⁵³⁷⁸⁷⁷
¹^W²¹³³¹⁵²⁶²¹¹⁶
²⁰^-⁹^W^e^k^s³⁹⁵¹⁵⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁴
³^W⁶³⁵⁰⁴²⁷⁴⁴⁵⁶⁵
⁴⁰^-⁹^W^e^k^s⁸⁴⁷⁵⁷⁰⁸²⁶⁷⁸²
^50-^{52 Week}^s²⁷⁶²⁷⁶³¹⁹³⁵²³⁹⁹³⁴³
^T^o^t^a^l⁵⁶⁶⁵¹⁴⁵³⁵⁶⁴³⁶⁸⁷⁶³⁰
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e Mar}^c^h^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^te^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Table B12. Number of Persons in the Total and Agricultural
Labor Force With and Without Health Insurance, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^Wi^t^h^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e^112,271^112,620^113,848^116,578^120,704^120,053
^Wi^t^h^ou^t^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e^23,438^24,812^24,754^24,326^23,390^24,425
^T^o^t^a^l^135,709^137,432^138,602^140,904^144,094^144,478
^B^.^To^t^a^{l a}^g^r^icult^u^ra^{l la}^bo^{r f}^o^rce
^Wi^t^h^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e²^,361^2,077^2,190^2,353^2,252^2,188
^Wi^t^h^ou^t^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e¹^,109^1,132^1,160^1,056^1,132^1,188
^T^o^t^a^l³^,470^3,209^3,350^3,409^3,384^3,376
^C^.^N^a^ti^ve-Born^agri^c^u^l^tu^ral^l^a^b^o^{r force}
^Wi^t^h^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e²^,117^1,860^1,952^2,066^1,973^1,926
^Wi^t^h^ou^t^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e⁶⁵²⁶⁷⁵⁶⁸⁷⁵⁷⁰⁵⁷⁷⁶⁵⁵
^T^o^t^a^l²^,769^2,535^2,639^2,637^2,551^2,581
^{D. Foreign-B}^{orn agricultural labor force}
^Wi^t^h^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e²⁴⁴²¹⁷²³⁸²⁸⁷²⁷⁹²⁶²
^Wi^t^h^ou^t^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e⁴⁵⁷⁴⁵⁷⁴⁷³⁴⁸⁶⁵⁵⁵⁵³³
^T^o^t^a^l⁷⁰¹⁶⁷⁴⁷¹¹⁷⁷³⁸³⁴⁷⁹⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^{rn agr}^{icultural labor force}
^Wi^t^h^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e¹⁷⁵¹⁴²¹⁶⁵²²²¹⁹⁹¹⁸⁰
^Wi^t^h^ou^t^H^eal^t^h^In^s^u^ran^c^e³⁹¹³⁷²³⁷⁰⁴²¹⁴⁸⁹⁴⁵⁰
^T^o^t^a^l⁵⁶⁶⁵¹⁴⁵³⁵⁶⁴³⁶⁸⁷⁶³⁰
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e Mar}^c^h^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^te^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Table B13. Number of Persons in the Total and Agricultural
Labor Force Below the Official Poverty Level, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^{A. T}^o^{tal labor force}
^Bel^o^w^Pov^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l⁹^,814^9,724^9,373^9,192^8,461^9,020
^A^t^{or A}^bov^{e Pov}^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l^125,895^127,708^129,228^131,712^135,632^135,458
^T^o^t^a^l^135,709^137,432^138,602^140,904^144,094^144,478
^B^.^To^t^a^{l a}^g^r^icult^u^ra^{l la}^bo^{r f}^o^rce
^Bel^o^w^Pov^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l⁵⁶³⁴⁸²⁵⁹³⁵⁴¹⁴⁷¹⁵³³
^A^t^{or A}^bov^{e Pov}^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l²^,907^2,727^2,756^2,868^2,913^2,843
^T^o^t^a^l³^,470^3,209^3,350^3,409^3,384^3,376
^C^.^N^a^ti^ve-Born^agri^c^u^l^tu^ral^l^a^b^o^{r force}
^Bel^o^w^Pov^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l²⁸⁸³¹⁶⁴²¹³⁰⁹²⁶⁷³⁰⁸
^A^t^{or A}^bov^{e Pov}^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l²^,481^2,218^2,218^2,327^2,283^2,273
^T^o^t^a^l²^,769^2,535^2,639^2,637^2,551^2,581
^{D. Foreign-B}^{orn agricultural labor force}
^Bel^o^w^Pov^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l²⁷⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁷²²³²²⁰⁴²²⁵
^A^t^{or A}^bov^{e Pov}^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l⁴²⁶⁵⁰⁹⁵³⁹⁵⁴¹⁶³⁰⁵⁶⁹
^T^o^t^a^l⁷⁰¹⁶⁷⁴⁷¹¹⁷⁷³⁸³⁴⁷⁹⁵
^E^.^M^e^xⁱ^can-B^o^{rn agr}^{icultural labor force}
^Bel^o^w^Pov^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l²³¹¹³⁹¹⁴⁶²⁰⁶¹⁸⁹²⁰⁷
^A^t^{or A}^bov^{e Pov}^e^rt^y^L^e^v^e^l³³⁵³⁷⁵³⁸⁸⁴³⁷⁴⁹⁸⁴²³
^T^o^t^a^l⁵⁶⁶⁵¹⁴⁵³⁵⁶⁴³⁶⁸⁷⁶³⁰
^So^urce^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e Mar}^c^h^Cu^r^r^en^{t P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^No^te^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

Appendix C. Median Weekly Earnings of All Wage
and Salary Workers
Table C1 shows median weekly earnings of all full-time and part-time adult
wage and salary workers, in contrast to Table 2, which shows the median weekly
earnings of wage and salary workers employed full-time. Similarly, Table C2 shows
median weekly earnings of all full-time and part-time workers by occupation.

CRS-46
Table C1. Median Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers: All Workers and Agricultural Workers, Native-
Born, Foreign-Born, and Mexican-Born, 1996-2001
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^{er of}^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ
^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly^w^o^rk^ers^w^eek^ly
^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings^(1000s⁾^earnings
^{A. All w}^o^rk^ers
^Work^ers^112,360^$415^114,918^$433^116,730^$460^118,954^$480^120,786^$500^120,708^$515
^tⁱ^v^e-^Born^100,457^$425^102,086^$444^103,185^$470^104,977^$481^105,486^$500^104,976^$530
^rei^gⁿ^-^Born^11,902^$344^12,832^$350^13,545^$365^13,977^$400^15,299^$400^15,732^$420
ⁱ^can^-^B^orn³^,280^$270^3,708^$280^3,977^$300^4,038^$300^4,430^$320^4,612^$338
^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral^Work^ers^1,746^$260^1,719^$274^1,752^$280^1,735^$300^1,846^$315^1,671^$330
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}^tⁱ^v^e-^Born^1,299^$269^1,176^$280^1,194^$300^1,195^$320^1,220^$338^1,142^$350^rei^gⁿ^-^Born⁴⁴⁷^$250⁵⁴⁴^$258⁵⁵⁸^$272⁵⁴⁰^$288⁶²⁶^$280⁵³⁰^$300
^g/wⁱ^can^-^B^orn³⁹¹^$250⁴⁶²^$250⁴⁶¹^$270⁴⁵¹^$280⁵¹⁸^$280⁴²²^$300
^s^.or
^le^ak^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^://wiki^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

^h^ttp

CRS-47
Table C2. Median Weekly Earnings of All Wage and Salary Workers by Occupation, 1996-2001
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰
^Num^b^er^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^er^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^er^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^er^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^er^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ^Num^b^er^Me^dⁱ^aⁿ
^of^w^eek^ly^of^w^eek^ly^of^w^eek^ly^of^w^eek^ly^of^w^eek^ly^of^w^eek^ly
^w^o^rk^ers^earnings^w^o^rk^ers^earnings^w^o^rk^ers^earnings^w^o^rk^ers^earnings^w^o^rk^ers^earnings^w^o^rk^ers^earnings
^(1000s⁾^(1000s⁾^(1000s⁾^(1000s⁾^(1000s⁾^(1000s⁾
^{A. All w}^{age and s}^a^{lary w}^o^rk^ers
^Work^ers^112,360^$415^114,918^$433^116,730^$460^118,954^$480^120,786^$500^120,708^$515
^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y^30,958^$673^31,957^$692^33,102^$712^34,691^$750^35,378^$769^36,192^$800
ⁿⁱ^{cal, s}^a^les^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^e^34,280^$368^34,891^$384^35,379^$400^35,511^$410^36,124^$440^35,959^$450
ⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s^16,080^$231^16,387^$240^16,594^$254^16,826^$270^16,953^$280^17,172^$300
^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repa}ⁱ^r^11,622^$520^12,076^$533^12,274^$554^12,472^$577^12,716^$600^12,658^$600
^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers^17,483^$359^17,673^$365^17,443^$384^17,514^$400^17,642^$400^16,883^$420
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31614}ⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g
^g/w^c^l^u^diⁿ^g^f^a^rm^w^o^rk^ers⁾^1,157^$277^1,188^$280^1,195^$288^1,277^$320^1,242^$320^1,238^$340
^s^.or^w^o^rk^ers⁷⁸⁰^$238⁷⁴⁶^$240⁷⁴³^$250⁶⁶³^$275⁷³²^$280⁶⁰⁸^$280
^le^ak^B^.^{Agricultural w}^o^rk^ers
^Work^ers¹^,746^$260^1,719^$274^1,752^$280^1,735^$300^1,846^$315^1,671^$330
^://wiki^a^g^e^ri^al^an^{d prof}^es^sⁱ^on^al^s^p^eci^al^t^y⁹⁷^$511⁸⁶^$500¹⁰⁷^$621¹⁰⁹^$673¹¹⁵^$673¹¹⁴^$673
^h^ttpⁿⁱ^{cal, s}^a^les^,^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^e¹⁶⁵^$280¹⁵⁸^$280¹⁶²^$320¹⁷⁰^$300¹⁵⁸^$315¹⁹⁰^$333
ⁱ^{ce occu}^patⁱ^oⁿ^s²²^$295²⁰^$250²⁵^$245¹⁴^$270¹⁴^$210⁶^$315
^sⁱ^on^produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^,^craf^t^,^an^{d repai}^r⁴²^$400³¹^$400⁴⁰^$420³⁵^$450⁵⁶^$400³³^$440
^erat^ors^,^f^a^bri^cat^ors^,^an^{d l}^a^borers⁵⁰^$320⁸¹^$325⁷¹^$320⁶⁹^$340⁸²^$360⁷⁰^$383
ⁱⁿ^g^,^f^o^res^t^ry^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g⁵⁹⁷^$280⁶⁰⁵^$280⁶⁰⁵^$286⁶⁸²^$315⁷⁰⁰^$320⁶⁵⁶^$346
^c^l^u^diⁿ^g^f^a^rm^w^o^rk^ers⁾
^w^o^rk^ers⁷⁷²^$240⁷³⁸^$240⁷⁴¹^$250⁶⁵⁷^$275⁷²³^$280⁶⁰²^$280
^{: Calcu}^l^ated^b^y^{CRS f}^r^o^m^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^Cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Su^r^v^ey⁽^C^P^S⁾^.
^{: Details}^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to totals}^becau^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.