Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-11T14:23:03.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing Employment Patterns in New York

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Richard N. Boisvert
Richard N. Boisvert*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University
Get access

Extract

Although population, employment and income rose throughout the country during the 1960's, growth in New York was less rapid than in the country at large. Population in the state increased by 8.7 percent in the 1960–70 decade, compared with 10.7 percent in the nation. Per capita incomes also rose during the period but by only 65 percent in the state, compared to 78 percent nationwide; the ways in which New Yorkers were earning a living changed dramatically. Manufacturing employment by place of residence declined by 13.4 percent between 1960 and 1970, but nearly a quarter of all jobs in the state remained in manufacturing. Agriculture and agriculturally related jobs declined; the largest growth areas were trade and services. Outstripping the growth in the nation as a whole, employment in the trade and service sectors accounted for two-thirds of all jobs in New York by 1970.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , April 1976 , pp. 95 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The assistance of Lois Plimpton in collecting much of the data and Jan Locken's programming assistance are greatly appreciated. Comments by two anonymous referees of the Journal helped clarify several interpretations of the results and improve the exposition.

References

1. Beale, Calvin L. The Revival of Population Growth in Nonmetropolitan America. USDA-ERS-EDD, ERS-605, June 1975.Google Scholar
2. Boisvert, R.N. “Factors Affecting Poverty in the Northeast, 1960–1970.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, No. 2 (1975): 151–162.Google Scholar
3. Boisvert, R.N. “Growth … What Is It and Can It Be Managed?” Shibboleths True or False? New York State Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, 1974–75.Google Scholar
4. Cornell University, Local Government Program. Community Data Book, New York. New York State Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, October 1974.Google Scholar
5. Garrison, Charles B. “Industrial Growth in the Tennessee Valley Region, 1959–1968.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 56 (1974): 50–60.Google Scholar
6. Salem, A. B. and Mount, T. D. “A Convenient Description Model of Income Distribution: The Gamma Density.” Econometrica. 42 (1974): 1115–1127.Google Scholar
7. Select Committee on the Economy. Industry in New York: A Time of Transition. New York State Legislative Document No. 12, 1974.Google Scholar
8. Theil, H. Economics and Theory, Information. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company) 1967.Google Scholar
9. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service, Economic Development Division. “The Economic and Social Conditions of Nonmetropolitan America in the 1970's.” Prepared for the U. S. Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 94th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1975.Google Scholar
10. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1950. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office) 1952.Google Scholar
11. U. S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1960. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office) 1962.Google Scholar
12. U. S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1970. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office) 1972.Google Scholar
13. U. S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Current Labor Statistics.” Monthly Labor Review, No. 12 (1970): 78–110.Google Scholar