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

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

Order Code RL31614
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Labor Market Characteristics of Agricultural
Workers in the United States, 1996-2001
Updated January 24, 2003
Gerald Maye
Gerald May r
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
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 guestworker
(H-2A) program for agricultural workers.1
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.

CRS-2
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...)

CRS-3
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.

CRS-4
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.

CRS-5
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.

CRS-6
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.

CRS-7
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.

CRS-8
employers may have greater information about the supply of labor in nearby labor
markets.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.]

CRS-9
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
Agricultural Labor Force (2.4%)
Total Labor Force
Native-Born (79.4%)
Mexican-Born (15.6%)
Other Foreign-Born (5.0%)
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.
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.

CRS-10
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
Total Labor Force
53.3%
46.7%
Agricultural Labor Force
Mexican-Born Agricultural Labor Force
72.6%
84.4%
27.4%
15.6%
Men
Women
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.

CRS-11
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
Total Labor Force
Agricultural Labor Force
Mexican-Born Agricultural Labor Force
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.
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.

CRS-12
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 Years or Less
9 to 12 Years
High School Diploma
11 to 15 Years
College Graduate
Advanced Degree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Total labor force
Agricultural labor force
Native-born agricultural labor force
Mexican-born agricultural labor force
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.
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.)

CRS-13
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 on
a family farm or family business.23
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.

CRS-14
Figure 5. Class of Worker of the Agricultural Labor
Force and Composition of the Self-Employed
Agricultural Labor Force, 2001
Self-Employed Workers (37.4%)
Agricultural Labor Force
Native-Born (92.9%)
Foreign-Born (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.

CRS-15
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%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total labor force
Agricultural Labor Force
Native-born agricultural labor force
Mexican-born agricultural labor force
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly CPS.
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.

CRS-16
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.

CRS-17
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 United
States for each year from 1996 through 2001.29 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
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
A. All Wage and Salary Workers
All Workers
90,949
$481
93,613
$500
95,595
$520
97,616
$550
99,917
$576
99,555
$597
Native-Born
80,854
$500
82,623
$517
83,920
$540
85,489
$565
86,521
$584
85,847
$600
Foreign-Born
10,095
$385
10,990
$400
11,675
$400
12,127
$430
13,397
$443
13,707
$474
Mexican-Born
2,882
$280
3,279
$293
3,529
$308
3,612
$320
3,980
$340
4,109
$358
B. Agricultural Workers
Agricultural Workers
1,342
$300
1,364
$300
1,406
$320
1,395
$345
1,501
$350
1,328
$365
Native-Born
935
$330
870
$325
880
$350
887
$382
914
$400
856
$400
Foreign-Born
407
$250
494
$271
526
$277
508
$296
587
$290
473
$310
Mexican-Born
359
$250
424
$263
437
$275
425
$280
484
$280
376
$300
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).

CRS-19
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...)

CRS-20
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.

CRS-21
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.

CRS-22
Table 2. Occupational Distribution: All Employed Workers
and Agricultural Workers, Including and
Excluding Self-Employed, 2001
Including self-
Excluding self-
Occupation
employed
employed
A. Total employed
Managerial and professional specialty
30.9%
30.8%
Technical, sales, and administrative support
28.9%
29.6%
Service occupations
13.7%
13.9%
Precision production, craft, and repair
11.0%
10.4%
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
13.1%
13.7%
Farming, forestry, and fishing
2.4%
1.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
B. Agricultural workers
Managerial and professional specialty
6.4%
7.8%
Technical, sales, and administrative support
7.5%
10.4%
Service occupations
0.3%
0.5%
Precision production, craft, and repair
1.3%
2.0%
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
2.4%
3.8%
Farming, forestry, and fishing
82.1%
75.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
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
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Number of Median Number of Median Number of Median Number of Median Number of Median Number of Median
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
A. All wage and salary workers
All Workers
90,949
$481
93,613
$500
95,595
$520
97,616
$550
99,917
$576
99,555
$597
Managerial and professional specialty
27,225
$712
28,254
$742
29,304
$769
30,702
$800
31,455
$838
32,150
$865
Technical, sales, and administrative
26,121
$442
26,797
$454
27,372
$479
27,386
$481
28,252
$500
28,143
$520
support
Service occupations
9,965
$300
10,184
$314
10,592
$326
10,837
$340
11,020
$358
11,156
$378
Precision production, craft, and repair
11,022
$540
11,497
$550
11,691
$570
11,926
$600
12,163
$600
12,054
$630
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
15,106
$395
15,341
$400
15,082
$406
15,182
$430
15,411
$441
14,559
$464
Farming, forestry, and fishing
914
$316
945
$318
954
$320
1,052
$356
1,027
$360
1,008
$378
(excluding farmworkers)
Farmworkers
595
$260
595
$268
602
$277
531
$300
589
$300
485
$315
B. Agricultural workers
All Workers
1,342
$300
1,364
$300
1,406
$320
1,395
$345
1,501
$350
1,328
$365
Managerial and professional specialty
80
$577
75
$576
99
$621
98
$700
98
$730
93
$749
Technical, sales, and administrative
107
$344
102
$346
107
$385
105
$385
99
$402
118
$428
support
Service occupations
17
$320
12
$320
13
$270
8
$342
6
$346
(a)
(a)
Precision production, craft, and repair
37
$425
31
$400
39
$420
34
$450
51
$410
29
$450
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
41
$340
73
$350
61
$346
60
$360
73
$375
65
$400
Farming, forestry, and fishing
471
$320
484
$310
487
$320
561
$350
591
$353
539
$375
(excluding farmworkers)
Farmworkers
589
$260
588
$269
601
$277
527
$300
582
$300
480
$315
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a The estimated number of persons is fewer than 5,000.

CRS-24
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.

CRS-25
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
contract).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.

CRS-26
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%
Total labor force
Agricultural Labor Force
Native-born agricultural labor force
Mexican-born agricultural labor force
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.

CRS-27
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
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total labor force
Agricultural Labor Force
Native-born agricultural labor force
Mexican-born agricultural labor force
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

CRS-28
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%
Total labor force
Agricultural Labor Force
Native-born agricultural labor force
Mexican-born agricultural labor force
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March CPS.

CRS-29
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%
Total labor force
Agricultural Labor Force
Native-born agricultural workers
Mexican-born agricultural workers
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March CPS.

CRS-30
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,
fraternities, or sororities.)45
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 private
or public employers.46
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.

CRS-31
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.

CRS-32
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
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force (1000s)
All Workers
134,713
137,079
138,856
140,289
141,811
142,642
Native-Born
120,268
121,651
122,662
123,710
124,042
124,126
Foreign-Born
14,445
15,428
16,194
16,579
17,769
18,516
Mexican-Born
3,887
4,278
4,618
4,537
4,948
5,208
B. Agricultural labor force (1000s)
Agricultural Workers
3,765
3,683
3,655
3,558
3,549
3,425
Native-Born
3,108
3,016
2,910
2,808
2,779
2,719
Foreign-Born
656
667
745
750
770
705
Mexican-Born
530
522
596
602
611
533
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS)
Notes: Estimates include both employed and unemployed persons in the labor force, ages 15 and
over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-33
Table B2. Gender of Total and Agricultural Labor Force,
1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
All Workers
Men
72,489
73,675
74,559
75,017
75,730
76,083
Women
62,224
63,404
64,297
65,272
66,081
66,559
Total
134,713
137,079
138,856
140,289
141,811
142,642
Native-Born
Men
63,945
64,486
64,925
65,308
65,235
65,161
Women
56,323
57,165
57,738
58,402
58,807
58,966
Total
120,268
121,651
122,662
123,710
124,042
124,126
Foreign-Born
Men
8,544
9,189
9,634
9,709
10,495
10,922
Women
5,901
6,239
6,559
6,869
7,274
7,594
Total
14,445
15,428
16,194
16,579
17,769
18,516
Mexican-Born
Men
2,727
2,983
3,221
3,115
3,379
3,526
Women
1,160
1,295
1,397
1,423
1,568
1,682
Total
3,887
4,278
4,618
4,537
4,948
5,208
B. Agricultural labor force
Agricultural Workers
Men
2,825
2,770
2,765
2,641
2,612
2,486
Women
940
913
890
917
937
939
Total
3,765
3,683
3,655
3,558
3,549
3,425
Native-Born
Men
2,271
2,205
2,128
2,010
1,969
1,901
Women
838
811
782
798
810
818
Total
3,108
3,016
2,910
2,808
2,779
2,719
Foreign-Born
Men
554
565
637
631
644
585
Women
102
102
108
119
127
120
Total
656
667
745
750
770
705
Mexican-Born
Men
464
448
517
514
518
450

Women
66
74
78
88
92
83
Total
530
522
596
602
611
533
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Notes: Estimates include both employed and unemployed persons in the labor force, ages 15 and over.
Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-34
Table B3. Age Distribution of the Total and
Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
Age
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total 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 and over
3,871
3,927
4,009
4,162
4,340
4,407
Total
134,713
137,079
138,856
140,289
141,811
142,642
B. Agricultural labor force
15-24
710
706
736
689
647
631
25-34
813
775
765
696
687
616
35-44
858
850
836
828
826
812
45-54
605
590
617
611
620
619
55-64
422
427
408
434
445
442
65 and over
356
335
293
300
324
305
Total
3,765
3,683
3,655
3,558
3,549
3,425
C. Native-Born agricultural labor force
15-24
593
584
586
532
504
494
25-34
585
561
534
483
445
416
35-44
689
687
651
634
618
613
45-54
515
487
502
494
511
513
55-64
380
377
354
380
391
391
65 and over
346
320
283
284
309
291
Total
3,108
3,016
2,910
2,808
2,779
2,719
D. Foreign-Born agricultural labor force
15-24
117
122
150
157
143
138
25-34
228
215
230
213
241
199
35-44
170
163
185
193
208
199
45-54
90
103
116
117
109
105
55-64
41
50
54
53
53
51
65 and over
10
14
10
16
15
14
Total
656
667
745
750
770
705
E. Mexican-Born agricultural labor force
15-24
103
104
132
142
119
117
25-34
191
183
200
177
209
166
35-44
140
131
142
157
167
149
45-54
68
72
88
86
72
71
55-64
25
29
29
31
36
22
65 and over
(a)
(a)
(a)
9
8
8
Total
530
522
596
602
611
533
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Notes: Estimates include both employed and unemployed persons in the labor force, ages 15 and over.
Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a The estimated number of persons is fewer than 5,000.

CRS-35
Table B4. Educational Attainment Among Persons in the Total
and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
Years of Education
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
8 Years or Less
5,104
5,151
5,061
4,983
5,137
5,003
9-12 Years a
14,179
14,412
14,812
14,388
14,291
14,255
High School
43,549
44,511
44,346
44,226
44,187
43,914
1-3 Years of College
37,985
38,211
38,529
39,354
40,196
40,714
Bachelors’ Degree
22,887
23,555
24,339
25,121
25,610
26,026
Advanced Degree
11,010
11,239
11,768
12,216
12,391
12,731
Total
134,713
137,079
138,856
140,289
141,811
142,642
B. Agricultural workers
8 Years or Less
662
630
636
649
611
555
9-12 Years a
635
632
647
570
541
540
High School
1,275
1,246
1,239
1,165
1,193
1,157
1-3 Years of College
739
743
691
728
757
727
Bachelors’ Degree
334
303
320
341
322
323
Advanced Degree
119
128
122
105
126
122
Total
3,765
3,683
3,655
3,558
3,549
3,425
C. Native-Born agricultural workers
8 Years or Less
254
236
207
206
176
157
9-12 Years a
533
519
512
438
411
403
High School
1,194
1,151
1,119
1,053
1,068
1,051
1-3 Years of College
705
708
656
687
703
693
Bachelors’ Degree
311
283
302
328
304
301
Advanced Degree
111
117
114
97
116
114
Total
3,108
3,016
2,910
2,808
2,779
2,719
D. Foreign-Born agricultural workers
8 Years or Less
408
394
428
444
435
398
9-12 Years a
102
113
135
132
130
137
High School
81
95
120
113
125
107
1-3 Years of College
33
34
35
40
53
34
Bachelors’ Degree
24
19
18
13
18
21
Advanced Degree
7
11
8
8
9
8
Total
656
667
745
750
770
705
E. Mexican-Born agricultural workers
8 Years or Less
373
344
382
389
377
340
9-12 Years a
74
89
105
105
104
101
High School
52
61
83
78
87
69
1-3 Years of College
20
19
19
26
32
18
Bachelors’ Degree
10
6
(c)
(c)
8
(c)
Advanced Degree
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
Total
530
522
596
602
611
533
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a Estimates include persons who completed 12 years of school but who have not received a diploma
or GED.
b Estimates include persons with a GED.
c The estimated number of persons is fewer than 5,000.

CRS-36
Table B5. Class of Worker: Total and Agricultural Labor Force,
1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
Wage and Salary Workers 123,029
125,384
127,482
129,237
130,980
131,893
Self-Employed
10,815
10,845
10,605
10,355
10,166
10,078
Unpaid Family Member
195
182
153
146
146
142
Total
134,038
136,411
138,241
139,738
141,292
142,113

B. Total agricultural labor force
Wage and Salary Workers
2,136
2,116
2,223
2,178
2,237
2,110
Self-Employed
1,565
1,509
1,387
1,333
1,269
1,281
Unpaid Family Member
64
58
45
47
42
34
Total
3,765
3,683
3,655
3,558
3,549
3,425
C. Native-Born agricultural labor force
Wage and Salary Workers
1,579
1,534
1,552
1,513
1,542
1,496
Self-Employed
1,469
1,425
1,314
1,250
1,196
1,189
Unpaid Family Member
61
57
45
45
41
34
Total
3,108
3,016
2,910
2,808
2,779
2,719
D. Foreign-Born agricultural labor force
Wage and Salary Workers
557
582
671
665
696
614
Self-Employed
96
85
74
83
74
91
Unpaid Family Member
(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
Total
656
667
745
750
770
705
E. Mexican-Born agricultural labor force
Wage and Salary Workers
475
482
557
557
573
488
Self-Employed
54
40
39
44
37
45
Unpaid Family Member
(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
Total
530
522
596
602
611
533
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS)
Notes: Estimates include both employed and unemployed persons in the labor force, ages 15 and
over. Details may not add to totals because of rounding. The estimates of the number of persons in
the total force are not the same as labor force estimates in other tables because of missing data on class
of worker.
a The estimated number of persons is fewer than 5,000.

CRS-37
Table B6. Number of Employed and Unemployed Persons in the
Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
All Workers
Employed
127,262
130,125
132,459
134,236
135,957
135,702
Unemployed
7,452
6,954
6,397
6,053
5,854
6,940
Total
134,713
137,079
138,856
140,289
141,811
142,642
Native-Born
Employed
113,831
115,654
117,134
118,459
118,954
118,175
Unemployed
6,437
5,997
5,529
5,251
5,089
5,952
Total
120,268
121,651
122,662
123,710
124,042
124,126
Foreign-Born
Employed
13,430
14,471
15,325
15,777
17,003
17,528
Unemployed
1,015
957
868
802
766
988
Total
14,445
15,428
16,194
16,579
17,769
18,516
Mexican-Born
Employed
3,513
3,964
4,318
4,273
4,677
4,865
Unemployed
374
313
301
265
271
343
Total
3,887
4,278
4,618
4,537
4,948
5,208
B. Agricultural labor force
Agricultural Workers
Employed
3,512
3,462
3,452
3,346
3,360
3,203
Unemployed
252
221
203
212
189
222
Total
3,765
3,683
3,655
3,558
3,549
3,425
Native-Born
Employed
2,950
2,860
2,770
2,681
2,667
2,588
Unemployed
159
156
140
127
112
131
Total
3,108
3,016
2,910
2,808
2,779
2,719
Foreign-Born
Employed
563
602
683
665
693
615
Unemployed
93
65
62
85
77
90
Total
656
667
745
750
770
705
Mexican-Born
Employed
449
468
544
533
545
456
Unemployed
81
53
52
68
65
77
Total
530
522
596
602
611
533
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Notes: Estimates include both employed and unemployed persons in the labor force, ages 15 and over.
Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-38
Table B7. Occupations of Employed Total and Agricultural Workers,
1996-2001
(in thousands)
Occupation
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total employed
Managerial and professional specialty
36,538
37,740
39,073
40,554
40,974
41,884
Technical, sales, and administrative support
37,802
38,428
38,794
39,132
39,649
39,250
Service occupations
17,382
17,767
18,154
18,170
18,568
18,619
Precision production, craft, and repair
13,622
14,155
14,461
14,614
14,897
14,862
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
18,272
18,449
18,388
18,264
18,408
17,780
Farming, forestry, and fishing
3,645
3,587
3,588
3,502
3,460
3,308
Total
127,262
130,125
132,459
134,236
135,957
135,702
B. Agricultural workers
Managerial and professional specialty
195
206
215
216
211
204
Technical, sales, and administrative support
234
226
211
218
222
240
Service occupations
29
25
21
15
16
10
Precision production, craft, and repair
40
34
39
36
54
41
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
59
87
82
77
90
77
Farming, forestry, and fishing
2,956
2,885
2,884
2,783
2,767
2,630
Total
3,512
3,462
3,452
3,346
3,360
3,203
C. Native-Born agricultural workers
Managerial and professional specialty
179
194
197
199
204
195
Technical, sales, and administrative support
228
222
205
210
208
232
Service occupations
24
21
16
13
11
7
Precision production, craft, and repair
30
25
25
25
40
30
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
51
64
53
59
70
56
Farming, forestry, and fishing
2,438
2,336
2,273
2,174
2,135
2,068
Total
2,950
2,860
2,770
2,681
2,667
2,588
D. Foreign-Born agricultural workers
Managerial and professional specialty
16
12
18
17
7
9
Technical, sales, and administrative support
5
(a)
6
8
14
8
Service occupations
5 (a) (a) (a)
5 (a)
Precision production, craft, and repair
10
9
14
11
14
11
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
8
23
29
18
20
22
Farming, forestry, and fishing
517
549
611
609
632
562
Total
563
602
683
665
693
615
E. Mexican-Born agricultural workers
Managerial and professional specialty
7 (a)
6
(a) (a) (a)
Technical, sales, and administrative support
(a) (a) (a)
5
7 (a)
Service occupations
(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
P
recision pro

duction, craft, and repair
8
5
8
9
12
6
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
8
22
22
14
18
17
Farming, forestry, and fishing
422
433
501
500
501
424
Total
449
468
544
533
545
456
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a The estimated number of persons is fewer than 5,000.

CRS-39
Table B8. Union Membership and Union Coverage Among Agricultural and All Workers, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Union membership
1. All wage and salary workers
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Member
Employed
Member
Employed
Member
Employed
Member
Employed
Member
Employed
Member
Employed
All Workers
16,274
112,360
16,118
114,918
16,211
116,730
16,477
118,963
16,258
120,786
16,289
120,708
Native-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
Foreign-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
Mexican-Born
309
3,280
291
3,708
318
3,977
325
4,039
370
4,430
356
4,612
2. Agricultural workers
Agricultural
32
1,746
36
1,719
27
1,752
43
1,735
38
1,846
28
1,671
Native-Born
13
1,299
21
1,176
12
1,194
20
1,195
21
1,220
15
1,142
Foreign-Born
19
447
16
544
15
558
22
540
17
626
14
530
Mexican-Born
14
391
11
462
10
461
15
451
11
518
10
422
B. Union coverage
1. All wage and salary workers
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Covered
Employed
Covered
Employed
Covered
Employed
Covered
Employed
Covered
Employed
Covered
Employed
All Workers
18,164
112,360
17,932
114,918
17,918
116,730
18,182
118,963
17,944
120,786
17,878
120,708
Foreign-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
Native-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
Mexican-Born
344
3,280
332
3,708
351
3,977
368
4,039
406
4,430
394
4,612
2. Agricultural workers
Agricultural
37
1,746
40
1,719
32
1,752
48
1,735
46
1,846
34
1,671
Foreign-Born
17
1,299
22
1,176
16
1,194
25
1,195
25
1,220
17
1,142
Native-Born
20
447
18
544
16
558
23
540
21
626
17
530
Mexican-Born
15
391
12
462
10
461
16
451
13
518
14
422
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Notes: Union members are wage and salary workers who belong to a labor union or an employee association similar to a union. Covered workers include union members as well
as workers who are not union members but whose jobs are covered by a union or an employee association contract.

CRS-40
Table B9. Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Employed Total and Agricultural Workers, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Full-
Part-
Full-
Part-
Full-
Part-
Full-
Part-
Full-
Part-
Full-
Part-
time
time
Total
time
time
Total
time
time
Total
time
time
Total
time
time
Total
time
time
Total
A. Total employed
All Workers
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
Native-Born
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
Foreign-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
Mexican-Born
3,078
435
3,513
3,497
467
3,964
3,815
503
4,318
3,826
447
4,273
4,215
462
4,677
4,344
521
4,865
B. Agricultural workers
Agricultural Workers
2,629
883
3,512
2,618
844
3,462
2,644
809
3,452
2,558
788
3,346
2,607
753
3,360
2,487
715
3,203
Native-Born
2,127
823
2,950
2,082
779
2,860
2,018
751
2,770
1,956
725
2,681
1,970
697
2,667
1,929
659
2,588
Foreign-Born
502
60
563
536
66
602
626
57
683
602
63
665
637
56
693
559
56
615
Mexican-Born
406
43
449
427
41
468
507
37
544
490
43
533
503
42
545
417
38
456
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-41
Table B10. Number of Employed Total and Agricultural Workers Who are Multiple Jobholders, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Multiple
Total
Multiple
Total
Multiple
Total
Multiple
Total
Multiple
Total
Multiple
Total
Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders Jobholders
A. Total employed
All Workers
8,078
127,262
8,201
130,125
7,962
132,459
7,827
134,236
7,577
135,957
7,311
135,702
Native-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
Foreign-Born
525
13,430
580
14,471
579
15,325
572
15,777
585
17,003
600
17,528
Mexican-Born
85
3,513
100
3,964
100
4,318
95
4,273
111
4,677
113
4,865
B. Agricultural workers
Agricultural Workers
177
3,512
180
3,462
161
3,452
164
3,346
163
3,360
153
3,203
Native-Born
166
2,950
173
2,860
155
2,770
157
2,681
153
2,667
143
2,588
Foreign-Born
11
563
7
602
7
683
7
665
10
693
9
615
Mexican-Born
6
449
(a)
468
(a)
544
(a)
533
(a)
545
(a)
456
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a The estimated number of persons is fewer than 5,000.

CRS-42
Table B11. Annual Weeks Worked Among Persons
in the Total and Agricultural Labor Force, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
Weeks Worked
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
0-9 Weeks
7,618
7,293
6,858
7,044
6,573
7,314
10-19 Weeks
3,997
3,863
3,640
3,648
3,332
3,460
20-29 Weeks
6,011
6,000
5,518
5,622
5,450
5,780
30-39 Weeks
5,833
5,718
5,575
5,261
5,293
5,688
40-49 Weeks
11,004
10,638
10,278
10,458
10,356
10,612
50-52 Weeks
101,246
103,920
106,733
108,873
113,090
111,624
Total
135,709
137,432
138,602
140,904
144,094
144,478
B. Agricultural labor force
0-9 Weeks
340
271
305
299
310
343
10-19 Weeks
133
135
102
108
77
111
20-29 Weeks
178
179
209
200
236
176
30-39 Weeks
214
182
188
194
141
187
40-49 Weeks
304
273
275
292
237
238
50-52 Weeks
2,300
2,171
2,270
2,317
2,383
2,322
Total
3,470
3,209
3,350
3,409
3,384
3,376
C. Native-Born agricultural labor force
0-9 Weeks
250
234
249
234
211
256
10-19 Weeks
105
77
87
80
49
91
20-29 Weeks
130
119
144
133
140
117
30-39 Weeks
132
125
122
113
90
116
40-49 Weeks
200
181
190
199
164
145
50-52 Weeks
1,953
1,799
1,847
1,877
1,897
1,856
Total 2,769
2,535
2,639
2,637
2,551
2,581
D. Foreign-Born agricultural labor force

0-9 Weeks
90
36
57
65
99
87

10-19 Weeks
29
58
15
28
28
20

20-29 Weeks
48
60
65
68
96
59

30-39 Weeks
82
56
66
80
52
71
40-49 Weeks
104
92
85
92
73
92
50-52 Weeks
348
371
423
439
486
466
Total
701
674
711
773
834
795
E. Mexican-Born agricultural labor force

0-9 Weeks
83
28
33
53
78
77

10-19 Weeks
21
33
15
26
21
16

20-29 Weeks
39
51
54
56
78
46

30-39 Weeks
63
50
42
74
45
65

40-49 Weeks
84
75
70
82
67
82
50-52 Weeks
276
276
319
352
399
343
Total
566
514
535
643
687
630
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-43
Table B12. Number of Persons in the Total and Agricultural
Labor Force With and Without Health Insurance, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
With Health Insurance
112,271
112,620
113,848
116,578
120,704
120,053
Without Health Insurance
23,438
24,812
24,754
24,326
23,390
24,425
Total
135,709
137,432
138,602
140,904
144,094
144,478
B. Total agricultural labor force
With Health Insurance
2,361
2,077
2,190
2,353
2,252
2,188
Without Health Insurance
1,109
1,132
1,160
1,056
1,132
1,188
Total
3,470
3,209
3,350
3,409
3,384
3,376
C. Native-Born agricultural labor force
With Health Insurance
2,117
1,860
1,952
2,066
1,973
1,926
Without Health Insurance
652
675
687
570
577
655
Total
2,769
2,535
2,639
2,637
2,551
2,581
D. Foreign-Born agricultural labor force
With Health Insurance
244
217
238
287
279
262
Without Health Insurance
457
457
473
486
555
533
Total
701
674
711
773
834
795
E. Mexican-Born agricultural labor force
With Health Insurance
175
142
165
222
199
180
Without Health Insurance
391
372
370
421
489
450
Total
566
514
535
643
687
630
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-44
Table B13. Number of Persons in the Total and Agricultural
Labor Force Below the Official Poverty Level, 1996-2001
(in thousands)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
A. Total labor force
Below Poverty Level
9,814
9,724
9,373
9,192
8,461
9,020
At or Above Poverty Level
125,895
127,708
129,228
131,712
135,632
135,458
Total
135,709
137,432
138,602
140,904
144,094
144,478
B. Total agricultural labor force
Below Poverty Level
563
482
593
541
471
533
At or Above Poverty Level
2,907
2,727
2,756
2,868
2,913
2,843
Total
3,470
3,209
3,350
3,409
3,384
3,376
C. Native-Born agricultural labor force
Below Poverty Level
288
316
421
309
267
308
At or Above Poverty Level
2,481
2,218
2,218
2,327
2,283
2,273
Total
2,769
2,535
2,639
2,637
2,551
2,581
D. Foreign-Born agricultural labor force
Below Poverty Level
275
165
172
232
204
225
At or Above Poverty Level
426
509
539
541
630
569
Total
701
674
711
773
834
795
E. Mexican-Born agricultural labor force
Below Poverty Level
231
139
146
206
189
207
At or Above Poverty Level
335
375
388
437
498
423
Total
566
514
535
643
687
630
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-45
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
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
Number of
Median
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
workers
weekly
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
(1000s)
earnings
A. All workers
All Workers
112,360
$415
114,918
$433
116,730
$460
118,954
$480
120,786
$500
120,708
$515
Native-Born
100,457
$425
102,086
$444
103,185
$470
104,977
$481
105,486
$500
104,976
$530
Foreign-Born
11,902
$344
12,832
$350
13,545
$365
13,977
$400
15,299
$400
15,732
$420
Mexican-Born
3,280
$270
3,708
$280
3,977
$300
4,038
$300
4,430
$320
4,612
$338
B. Agricultural workers
Agricultural Workers
1,746
$260
1,719
$274
1,752
$280
1,735
$300
1,846
$315
1,671
$330
Native-Born
1,299
$269
1,176
$280
1,194
$300
1,195
$320
1,220
$338
1,142
$350
Foreign-Born
447
$250
544
$258
558
$272
540
$288
626
$280
530
$300
Mexican-Born
391
$250
462
$250
461
$270
451
$280
518
$280
422
$300
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-47
Table C2. Median Weekly Earnings of All Wage and Salary Workers by Occupation, 1996-2001
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Median
Median
Median
Median
Median
Median
of
of
of
of
of
of
weekly
weekly
weekly
weekly
weekly
weekly
workers
workers
workers
workers
workers
workers
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
(1000s)
(1000s)
(1000s)
(1000s)
(1000s)
(1000s)
A. All wage and salary workers
All Workers
112,360
$415
114,918
$433
116,730
$460
118,954
$480
120,786
$500
120,708
$515
Managerial and professional specialty
30,958
$673
31,957
$692
33,102
$712
34,691
$750
35,378
$769
36,192
$800
Technical, sales, and administrative
34,280
$368
34,891
$384
35,379
$400
35,511
$410
36,124
$440
35,959
$450
support
Service occupations
16,080
$231
16,387
$240
16,594
$254
16,826
$270
16,953
$280
17,172
$300
Precision production, craft, and repair
11,622
$520
12,076
$533
12,274
$554
12,472
$577
12,716
$600
12,658
$600
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
17,483
$359
17,673
$365
17,443
$384
17,514
$400
17,642
$400
16,883
$420
Farming, forestry, and fishing
1,157
$277
1,188
$280
1,195
$288
1,277
$320
1,242
$320
1,238
$340
(excluding farmworkers)
Farmworkers
780
$238
746
$240
743
$250
663
$275
732
$280
608
$280
B. Agricultural workers
All Workers
1,746
$260
1,719
$274
1,752
$280
1,735
$300
1,846
$315
1,671
$330
Managerial and professional specialty
97
$511
86
$500
107
$621
109
$673
115
$673
114
$673
Technical, sales, and administrative
165
$280
158
$280
162
$320
170
$300
158
$315
190
$333
support
Service occupations
22
$295
20
$250
25
$245
14
$270
14
$210
6
$315
Precision production, craft, and repair
42
$400
31
$400
40
$420
35
$450
56
$400
33
$440
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
50
$320
81
$325
71
$320
69
$340
82
$360
70
$383
Farming, forestry, and fishing
597
$280
605
$280
605
$286
682
$315
700
$320
656
$346
(excluding farmworkers)
Farmworkers
772
$240
738
$240
741
$250
657
$275
723
$280
602
$280
Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.