Abstract
The 1900 Census of Population microdata file is used to study the occupational status of adult male Jewish immigrants in comparison with other immigrants and native-born white men. On arrival the Jewish immigrants had a low occupation status but they experienced very rapid improvements with duration. Occupational parity was reached with Western European and Canadian immigrants (5 ½ years after immigration) and the native born (14 years). The Jewish adjustment pattern followed the model of refugees. Their high level of attainment reflected large human capital investments (at home and in school) and an emphasis on decision making skills.
Revision of the original article published in Explorations in Economic History, 28(1), January 1991, pp. 64-86. I appreciate the comments received on earlier drafts from Carmel U. Chiswick, William Bridges, Leonard Dinnerstein, Walter Kamphoefner, Barry Kosmin, James Oberly, Lawrence Officer, Paul Ritterband, and two anonymous referees, as well as Stephen N. Graham’s assistance in using the 1900 Census of Population. I also appreciate Xiao-Bo Li’s research assistance. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Social Science History Association and the Association for Jewish Studies, as well as at the Department of Economics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Financial support for this project was provided, in part, by a grant from the Sloan Foundation for immigration research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kuznets (1975, p. 120) concludes that “Total Jewish population in the United States in 1880 was estimated at 250 thousand. Obviously the inflow in the following three and half decades of two million Jewish immigrants, three quarters of them from Tsarist Russia and most of the rest from other countries in Eastern Europe, radically changed not only the magnitude but also the structure of United States Jewry.” He goes on to note that as of 1950, “probably no less than” 60% of American Jews were the descendants of these Russian Jewish immigrants (Kuznets 1975, p. 120).
During the period of the mass immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (1881–1914), Jews were 9.4% of the 21.9 million immigrants, while during the first half of this period (1881–1898) they were 7.0% of the 8.2 million immigrants. Of the Jewish immigrants (1881–1914), 76% were from Tsarist Russia, 19% from Austria-Hungary, 4% from Romania, and 2% from all other countries (Kuznets 1975, Table 4.1, p. 39). Kuznets estimates that during the period 1881 to 1898 two-thirds of the Tsarist Russian immigrants were Jews (Kuznets 1975, Table 4.2, p. 43).
Both Kuznets (1975) and, using a different methodology, Rosenthal (1975) conclude that Russian origin is a good proxy for identifying Jews in the population at the turn of the century and in later decades.
- 2.
Kuznets (1975, Table 4.5, pp. 50–51) and Vallee (1988) estimate that on average the annual rate of migration of Russian Jews to the United States from 1881 to 1914 was about 1.4 per hundred population. The proportion of Russian Jews emigrating is even higher considering the not insubstantial migration to other areas, including Britain, Germany, Canada, South Africa, and Palestine. Kuznets reports the findings of several studies indicating that 20 to 25% of Russian Jewish emigrants went to other parts of Europe (10–12%) or other areas of overseas settlement (7–15%) (Kuznets 1975, Table 4.4, p. 49.). Vallee (1988) also demonstrates the sensitivity of Jewish rates of emigration from Russia to the United States to economic conditions in both countries and to political instability and anti-Semitic events in Russia.
The Dillingham Immigration Commission (1911) commented that the “Hebrews“(Jews) were the second largest immigrant group, after the Italians, and that they were tied with “the Slovak” for the highest rate of emigration from Europe to the United States (18 immigrants per year per thousand in the European population). Because of such a high rate, the Commission commented that the high absolute level of Jewish immigration could not continue for long. The Commission wrote: “The primary causes have been a desire for better economic conditions, and the persecutions directed against the Jewish population.” (U.S. Immigration Commission 1911, Vol. 5, Dictionary of Races or Peoples, pp. 73–75). Jewish migration was more likely to be in a family context than as unattached young adults, reflecting their basic refugee orientation (see, for example, Kessner 1977, Chap. 5; Kuznets 1975, pp. 94–100; Howe 1976, pp. 57–63).
- 3.
Jewish men have substantially higher levels of schooling, earnings, and occupational status than other non-Hispanic white men, both overall and when other variables are held constant. They also have a larger return on human capital investments. For analyses of the skills and labor market characteristics of contemporary American Jews, see Chiswick (1983, 1985, 1989a).
- 4.
Notable exceptions are studies by Simon Kuznets (1975) and Arcadius Kahan’s posthumously published collected essays (1986), as well as studies by Kessner (1977) arid Pearlmann 1988). These studies did not have the advantage of a computerized data file for statistical analysis as is used in this analysis. Kessner (1977) did sample Jewish and Italian households from the United States and New York State Census manuscripts for selected election districts in New York City.
- 5.
Some studies of turn-of-the-century immigrants, such as that of Douglas (1919), focused on administrative data published by the immigration authorities that cross-tabulated occupation at time of immigration by country of origin and period of immigration. Other studies focused on cross-tabulated data generated by state labor bureaus, such as the Eichengreen and Gemery (1986) study of immigrants in Iowa in 1894. The state labor data usually have a narrow geographic or occupational focus. Still others have used aggregated data published by the U.S. Commissioner of Labor, but these also tend to focus on particular industries or occupations (see, for example, Fraundorf 1978).
Perhaps the most frequently used data are the extensive cross-tabulations published by the Dillingham Immigration Commission in 1911. The Commission’s 1909 survey collected detailed information on wage and salary workers in mining and manufacturing, of whom about two-thirds were foreign born. Random sampling was not used, and the survey focused on industrial sectors and regions of the country with a heavy concentration of immigrants. Modern econometric techniques have been used to study the wages of immigrants in general using these data in Blau (1980), Higgs (1971), Hill (1975), and McGouldrick and Tannen (1977), among others. Chiswick (1989b) used these data to study Jewish immigrant wages in manufacturing. The authors all recognized the limitations inherent in these data.
- 6.
In his study of economic mobility among Jewish and Italian immigrants living in selected immigrant intensive areas in New York City (1885–1915), Kessner (1977, p. xv) reports that the use of a prestige scale gives the same basic conclusions as did his analysis of occupational attainment based on combining the detailed occupational categories into five broad groups based on level of skill.
- 7.
This measure is preferred to age simply for comparative purposes with other studies.
- 8.
The Census Bureau included a question on religion in the March 1957 Current Population Survey (CPS). Although they released some socioeconomic tabulations from this survey, no public use sample has been made available.
- 9.
The 1970 Census included questions on parental nativity and “mother tongue,” thereby permitting an analysis for second-generation American Jews. A person has a non-English “mother tongue” if there was a language other than or in addition to English spoken in the home when the person was a child, even if the person no longer speaks this language. Traditional Jewish languages include Hebrew, Yiddish, and Ladino, a language spoken by Sephardic (Spanish origin) Jews. For analyses of the human capital and earnings of Jews using the 1957 CPS and the 1970 Census, see Chiswick (1983, 1985) and Kuznets (1972). Some nongovernmental data files include a question on religion and have a sufficiently large number of Jews for a statistical analysis. For example, for an analysis of Jews using the NORC General Social Survey see Chiswick (1989a).
- 10.
The 317 observations in the regression analysis are less than the full sample of Jews because of missing values for several variables, primarily year of immigration to the United States. There were also some occupational categories for which there were no prestige scores (e.g., the military, landlords). For 13 observations identified as Jewish because of their parent’s birthplace, their own was Lithuania (4), Germany (4), England (2), and other parts of Central and Eastern Europe (3).
- 11.
By way of comparison, literacy, rates were 60% for U.S.-born blacks, 56% for those of Mexican origin (Mexican birth or parentage), and 70% for the Chinese and Japanese, of whom nearly all were foreign born.
- 12.
In a similar vein, Kessner (1977, p. 41) quotes a 1917 novel by Abraham Cahan about Jewish ghetto life: “The most ignorant ‘man of the earth’ among our people can read the holy tongue [Hebrew], though he may not understand the meaning of the words.”
- 13.
Howe (1976, p. 64) has written: “Most historians of the Jewish immigration have agreed that the social and cultural characteristics of the Jewish immigrants in the 1905–1914 period [between the unsuccessful revolution and the start of World War I] were notably different from those who came during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. By and large, the later immigrants brought with them a somewhat higher cultural level than those who had come twenty-five or thirty-five years earlier…. Important segments of the Jewish intelligentsia now felt that the time had come to leave.” See also Kuznets (1975) and Kahan (1986).
- 14.
To the extent that the East European immigrants observed Jewish religious practice it was that of the Orthodox. According to the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion: “To prevent any doubts regarding a possible admixture of milk from prohibited (“unclean”) species, the animal should be milked either by a Jew or in the presence of a Jew.” (Encyclopedia 1965, p. 263).
- 15.
The distribution of the occupational prestige score is positively skewed, but less skewed than a log normal distribution. In Tables 4.4 and 4.5 the prestige score is regressed as a linear function of the explanatory variables. The equations were also estimated with the natural logarithm of the prestige score as the dependent variable. These regressions offer the same findings.
- 16.
The steeper gradient of occupational prestige with respect to duration in the United States for the Jews cannot be attributed to a greater remigration rate of less successful Jews. Return migration of Jews was relatively rare. Nor is there reason to believe that unmeasured dimensions of worker quality fell more sharply for Jews than others in the last decades of the nineteenth century. A steeper profile is a characteristic of refugee populations, as were the Jewish immigrants (Chiswick 1978).
- 17.
Partial regression coefficients (controlling for literacy, experience, location, and marital status) in a pooled regression of foreign-born Jews and native-born white men:
- 18.
This pattern is consistent with Kahan’s speculation (1986, pp. 112–114) based on his historical study of the period.
- 19.
Partial regression coefficients (controlling for literacy, experience, location, and marital status) in a pooled sample of Jewish immigrants (N = 317) and native-born men of Russian parentage (N = 14):
At 20 years of residence the foreign-born Jews have an 8.0-point lower occupational score.
- 20.
The only other numerically significant group of white immigrants is the Mexicans. Other variables the same, the occupational status of Mexican immigrants did not differ from that of other white immigrants.
- 21.
The Jewish advantage is 14% when the dependent variable is the logarithm of the prestige score.
- 22.
When the natural logarithm of the prestige score is the dependent variable the Jewish occupational prestige scores are higher by 8.7 and 22.6% respectively.
- 23.
In his comparative analysis of Jewish and Italian immigrants in New York City, using manuscript records from the New York State Census of 1905, Kessner (1977, pp. 109–110) reports that the Jews experienced a steeper rise in occupational attainment with duration of residence in the United States.
- 24.
When the natural logarithm of the prestige score is the dependent variable, the catch up with the Western European and Canadian immigrants is at 6.4 years. Relative to those of Southern and Eastern European origin the Jews at arrival have a score higher by 17.4% and the differential increases by 0.5% per year.
- 25.
In a 1919 article Paul Douglas made a similar point. He wrote (p. 393): “… the Jews are the most highly skilled of the newer races,” that is, the Southern and Eastern European immigrants.
- 26.
A 7.6-point differential is roughly equivalent to the difference between a blacksmith (16) and a tailor (23). See the Appendix for occupational prestige scores.
- 27.
Even in contemporary data Jews have a different regional pattern. In 1970 Census data American Jews (defined as second-generation Americans with Hebrew, Yiddish, or Ladino as their mother tongue) earn more in the South than in the non-South, although for most other groups earnings are lower in the South. (Chiswick 1983).
- 28.
The trial and mob lynching in Georgia (1913–1915) of Leo Frank, a Jewish pencil factory manager falsely accused of murdering a young female employee, was perhaps the most extreme manifestation of a persistent antisemitism in the South (see Dinnerstein 1968).
- 29.
- 30.
References
Blau, F.D. 1980. Immigration and Labor Earnings in Early Twentieth Century America. In Research in Population Economics, ed. Julian L. Simon and Julie Davanzo, vol. 2, 21–41. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chiswick, B. R. 1978. The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign-Born Men. Journal of Political Economy. October, 357–399.
Chiswick, B.R. 1979. The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns. In Contemporary Economic Problems, 1979, ed. William Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Chiswick, B. R. 1983. The Earnings and Human Capital of American Jews. Journal of Human Resources. Summer, 313–336.
Chiswick, B.R. 1985. The Labor Market Status of American Jews: Patterns and Determinants. In American Jewish Year Book, 1985, 131–153. New York: American Jewish Committee.
Chiswick, B. R. 1988. Differences on Education and Earnings Across Racial and Ethnic Groups: Tastes, Discrimination and Investment in Child Quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics. August, 571–597.
———. 1989a. The Skills and Economic Status of American Jewry: Trends Over the Last Half Century. Paper presented at the Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, December 1989. (mimeo).
———. 1989b. Jewish Immigrant Wages in America, 1909. University of Illinois at Chicago. (xerox).
Dinnerstein, L. 1968. The Leo Frank Case. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 1982. Education and the Achievement of American Jews. In American Education and European Immigration, ed. Bernard J. Weiss, 1840–1940. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Douglas, P. H. 1919. Is the New Immigration More Unskilled than the Old? Journal of the American Statistical Association. June, 393–403.
Eichengreen, B. and Gemery, H. A. 1986. The Earnings of Skilled and Unskilled Immigrants at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Journal of Economic History, June, 441–454.
Elazar, D.J., and P. Medding. 1983. Jewish Communities in Frontier Societies: Argentina, Australia and South Africa. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion. 1965. R.J.Z. Werblowsky and G. Wigoder (Eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
Fraundorf, M. N. 1978. Relative Earnings of Native and Foreign-Born Women. Explorations in Economic History. April, 211–220.
Graham, S.N. 1980. 1900 Public Use Sample User’s Handbook. Seattle: Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington.
Higgs, R. 1971. Race, Skills and Earnings: American Immigrants in 1909. Journal of Economic History. June, 420–428.
Hill, P. J. 1975 Relative Skill and Income Levels of Native and Foreign-Born Workers in the United States. Explorations in Economic History. January, 47–60.
Howe, I. 1976. World of Our Fathers. New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
Kahan, A. 1986. Essays in Jewish Social and Economic History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kessner, T. 1977. The Golden Door: Italian and Jewish Immigrant Mobility in New York City 1880–1915. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kuznets, S. 1972. Economic Structure of U.S. Jewry: Recent Trends. Jerusalem: Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University.
———. 1975. Immigration of Russian Jews to the United States: Background and Structure. Perspective in American History 9: 35–126.
Manners, A. 1972. Poor Cousins. New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan.
McGouldrick, P. F., and Tannen, M. B. 1977. Did American Manufacturers Discriminate Against Immigrants Before 1914? Journal of Economic History. September, 723–746.
Pearlmann, J. 1988. Ethnic Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prais, S.J., and M. Schmool. 1975. The Social-Class Structure of Anglo-Jewry, 1961. Jewish Journal of Sociology 16: 5–15.
Reiss, A.J., Jr., O.D. Otis Dudley Duncan, P.K. Hatt, and C.C. North. 1961. Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Rosenthal, E. 1975 The Equivalence of United States Census Data for Persons of Russian Stock or Descent With American Jews. Demography. May, 275–290.
Ruppin, A. 1913. The Jews of To-Day. New York: Henry Holt.
Schultz, T. W. 1975 The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibria. Journal of Economic Literature. September, 825–846.
Tomes, N. 1983. Religion and the Rate of Return on Human Capital: Evidence from Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics. February, 122–138.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1979. Twenty Censuses: Population and Housing Questions, 1790–1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
U.S. Immigration Commission. 1911. Reports of the Immigration Commission. Vol. 1–41. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
Vallee, L. 1988. Russian Immigration to the U.S., 1881–1914. Department of Economics, MIT, February. (mimeo).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Construction of the Occupation Prestige Scores for the 1900 Census of Population
Appendix: Construction of the Occupation Prestige Scores for the 1900 Census of Population
This appendix discusses the occupational coding and the assignment of the occupational prestige scores on the 1900 Census of Population microdata file, as discussed in the user code book (Graham 1980). Additional material is derived from the 1900 Census questionnaire and enumerator instructions (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1979, pp. 32–39) and from Reiss et al. (1961), the source of the occupational prestige scores. The 1900 Census of Population required that the enumerator indicate the “Occupation, trade or profession” for each person 10 years of age or older who is in “gainful labor” (i.e., for pay or profit). For those with more than one occupation the enumerator was to list the one that provided the most income, and if this could not be determined then the one involving the larger part of the person’s time. Occupations were to be reported for students if they spent a greater portion of their time on that occupation rather than as a student. Detailed instructions were provided as to the classification of occupations. There was no question on industry. As a result of the complexity of recording occupations, the enumerator instructions for the occupation question were longer than for all of the other questions combined! The occupation questions and instructions are reproduced in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1979, pp. 32–37).
The occupational data were transcribed from the manuscript records and all of the occupations were assigned to one of the approximately 950 occupational categories. These detailed codes were then combined so as to replicate as close as was possible the occupational categories used by the Bureau of the Census for the tables published at the time from the 1900 Census.
The detailed codes were then converted to the 1950 Census occupational coding scheme used by the Census Bureau. This mapping required collapsing some of the very detailed occupational categories. While there were over 38,000 individuals with codable 1900 occupations, 532 (1%) could not be converted into 1950 occupational equivalents. For an additional 45 individuals there was no prestige score assigned to their occupation. As a result, occupational prestige scores are recorded for over 37,000 individuals.
The occupational prestige scores for the 1950 occupational categories were taken from the socioeconomic index developed by Otis Dudley Duncan in Reiss et al. (1961, Chap. 7 and Appendix Table B-1, column 1).
In a March 1947 survey conducted by North and Hatt for the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) respondents were asked to evaluate occupations. The key question was (Reiss et al. 1961, p. 19): “For each job mentioned, please pick out the statement that best gives your own personal opinion of the general standing that such a job has.
-
1.
Excellent standing
-
2.
Good standing
-
3.
Average standing
-
4.
Somewhat below average standing
-
5.
Poor standing
-
6.
I don’t know where to place that one.”
This question was asked for 90 occupations in total, with individual respondents reporting for a subset. Duncan used the proportion of responses (excluding “don’t knows”) who indicated “excellent” or “good” as the prestige index. Many of the occupations in the NORC survey were much too specific to be matched to the 1950 Census occupational categories. For 45 occupations this matching was possible.
The occupational prestige scores for these 45 occupations were regressed on measures of schooling and income for males in these occupations, as reported in the 1950 Census of Population. The variables used are the percentage in the occupation who are at least high school graduates and the percentage of those with non-zero incomes in 1949 whose incomes were $3500 or more. The education and income variables were both adjusted (standardized) for the age distribution of the males in the occupation.
The multiple regression had a high explanatory power, R2 equal 0.83. This regression was used by Duncan to predict the occupational prestige score for all of the 1950 Census occupations (Reiss et al. 1961; Appendix Table B-1). The prestige scores for selected occupations are reported in Table 4.6.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chiswick, B.R. (2020). Jewish Immigrant Skill and Occupational Status at the Turn of the Century. In: Chiswick, B. (eds) Jews at Work. Studies of Jews in Society, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41243-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41243-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41242-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41243-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)