the ranks of those gainfully employed, for some women turned from domestic service to factory work or other industrial employment, a statement especially true of negro women, who entered factory employment in large numbers during the war.

TABLE I-Number and proportion of all women 10 years of age and over engaged in each general division of occupations, 1920 and 1910.

1 The decrease during the decade 1910 to 1920 in the proportion of all women 10 years of age and over who were gainfully occupied is to some extent apparent only and may probably be attributed to three main causes: 1. The change in the census date from April 15 in 1910 to January 1 in 1920-from a very busy farming season to a time of the year when all farming activities are at their lowest ebb. This change in date probably resulted in a great reduction in the number of women returned in agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry, though the returns for men apparently were to a less extent affected by the same circumstance. 2. An overstatement in 1910 of the number of women engaged in agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry-a general division of occupations which comprised 22.4 per cent of all occupied women in 1910 and 12.7 per cent in 1920. The Census Bureau in 1910 (U. S. Bureau of the Census. 13th Census: 1910, v. 4, Population, occupation statistics, p. 28) estimates this overstatement at almost halls million, and suggests that it may have been largely the result of an instruction issued to census enumer ators to return every woman working regularly at outdoor farm work as a farm laborer. In compliance with this instruction many women who regularly fed their chickens or did other chores for an hour or so each morning undoubtedly were returned as gainfully occupied. To correct this tendency to overstate ment census enumerators were in 1920 instructed as follows: "159. Women doing farm work. For s woman who works only occasionally, or only a short time each day at outdoor farin or garden work, or in the dairy, or in caring for live stock or poultry, the return should be none; but for a woman who works regularly and most of the time at such work, the return should be farm laborer-home farm; farm laborerworking out: laborer-garden; laborer-dairy farm: laborer-stock farm; or laborer-poultry yard, as the case may be. Of course, a woman who herself operates or runs a farm or plantation should be reported as farmer and not as a farm laborer.' This stringent instruction, together with the change in census date, naturally resulted in the return of relatively fewer women in agricultural pursuits, since in January fes women are regularly employed most of the time out of doors on farms. Possibly, also, early in 19 women who had formerly been employed on farms may have been occupied with other work, though there is but little evidence to support this theory. 3. A great decrease in the employment of girls 10 to 15 years of age. This decrease to a large extent overlaps the decrease among women in agricultural work, but is is by no means confined to this sphere of activities. According to a recent census bulletin (U. S. Burad of the Census. 14th Census: 1920. Population: Occupations of Children) the proportion of all girls 10 to 15 years of age who were gainfully occupied dropped from 11.9 per cent in 1910 to 5.6 per cent in 190 The numerical decrease during the decade was 290,476, of which 222,106 was in the number employed in agricultural pursuits and 68,370 in the number employed in nonagricultural pursuits. Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

For explanation, see p. 15.

Many and varied are the reasons assigned for a numerical decrease of 344,297 women in domestic and personal service in a single decade. most of which occurred among women employed as servants and laundresses. Some persons have reached the conclusion that "the secret lies in the perfecting of the machine"; in other words, that

fewer servants are needed because of the widespread adoption of mechanical household devices. But is the extensive use of these devices the cause or the effect of a shortage of servants? Would so many families have invested in vacuum cleaners, in electric laundry appliances, in iceless refrigerators, none of which is inexpensive, if servants were to be had as in former days? Probably in many instances the machine in the home has displaced the servant, while in other cases it merely took the place already abandoned by the

servant.

It is true that during the war period large numbers of those who had been servants were attracted to other pursuits by the higher wage offered, thus leaving an actual shortage of servants in many sections a shortage which still existed to a considerable extent in 1920. It is also true that the wages of servants have within the past decade increased beyond the ability of many families to pay. This phenomenal increase might be considered an enticement for women to enter this class of work, yet servants become fewer and fewer in number, and apparently the American people are becoming reconciled to the scarcity and have decided to run their homes without them.

The servant problem pertains almost exclusively to the urban community. Few, indeed, relatively speaking, are the servants employed on farms, and though the tendency of wealthy families to live the year round in country homes within motoring distance of the large cities becomes more and more evident, such families comprise an extremely small proportion of our population. In the cities a greatdrift toward apartment-house life has been noted in recent years; and the scarcity of servants has been considered a prominent factor in the trend away from large private houses.

Is the decrease in the number of servants permanent or temporary? What part does the higher esteem usually shown toward factory work, with its clearly defined hours, play in this shortage? How much of the falling off is due to the curtailment of immigration since 1914, which has meant practically the elimination of those recruits who in the past took the places of girls who went on to other employment? Did the war-time action of the Government in urging the American people to release for more necessary employment every servant possible place a lasting stigma on domestic and personal service as nonessential work? Or, what is far more likely, did this action of the Government tend to introduce women who lacked initiative to new kinds of work which they individually would never have undertaken, yet which they found themselves perfectly

2 Exit the servant in the house. America at Work. V. 6, No. 1, June, 1922.

capable of doing and which was often more interesting, at higher pay, and done under more desirable working conditions? Were there not also at the date of the census some women customarily employed as servants who were remaining at home because it was easy for the men of the family to find work? Was not the latter cause responsible for some part of the decrease among negro women servants in the South? To what extent the suggestions here made may be considered factors in the reduction in the number of women employed in domestic and personal service is a matter of sheer conjecture, the only certainty being an actual decrease since 1910 of 431,546 among women employed as servants and laundresses.

Yet not every occupation listed under domestic and personal service shows a falling off in numbers during this decade. On the contrary, the most phenomenal change in any one occupation was that of elevator tenders, a group which increased from 25 in 1910 to 7,337 in 1920. Large increases were noted also among barbers, hairdressers, and manicurists; restaurant, café, and lunch-room keepers: laundry owners, officials, and managers; cleaners and renovators (clothing, etc.); janitors and sextons; and waitresses; while smaller increases were found in the numbers of housekeepers and stewardesses, nurses (not trained), and laundry operatives. These increases, however, were completely outweighed by the enormous decreases among servants, laundresses (not in laundry), cooks, and boarding and lodging house keepers.

Manufacturing and mechanical industries.

Under manufacturing and mechanical industries are grouped not only all factory laborers and semiskilled operatives but all persons engaged in the skilled building and hand trades, together with their apprentices, and all persons working in manufacturing industries in proprietary, official, and supervisory capacities. Clerks in factories are grouped with clerical occupations.

Over 100,000 more women were employed in manufacturing and mechanical industries in 1920 than in 1910, yet the proportion which women in this general division of occupations formed of all women 10 years of age and over decreased from 1910 to 1920. In other words, the number of women engaged in manufacturing and mechanical industries increased only 6 per cent, while the number of women 10 years of age and over in the population increased 17

per cent.

Industries in which women predominate.-Women employees outnumbered men in 11 manufacturing industries both in 1920 and in 1910. Among these were the clothing industries as a whole, as as four of their six subdivisions; also silk mills, knitting mills, candy

well

factories, and other groups less important numerically. The numbers of men and women occupied in these 11 industries are shown in Table II.

TABLE II.-Number of employees' in those manufacturing industries in which women predominated both in 1920 and 1910, classified by sex.

1 Includes laborers and semiskilled operatives.

2 Except hat factories (felt) and suit, coat, cloak, and overall factories.

According to the census bulletin the only instance of an industry where women lost in 1920 the numerical supremacy which they had in 1910 is in straw factories (including straw-hat factories), where in 1910 women numbered 4,064 and men 2,264, while in 1920 there were 8,264 men and only 6,415 women. Offsetting the decrease in this industry, however, is the striking increase in numbers of women in cigar and tobacco factories. In 1910 these women numbered 76,801, as compared with 91,392 men, while the 1920 figures for the same industry show 97,822 women and 82,557 men. This comparison indicates that women are supplanting men in the manufacture of cigars and tobacco, but there is only slight evidence of a similar tendency in other industries.

Industries in which women have increased at least 10,000 since 1910.-Those groups listed under manufacturing and mechanical industries in which at least 10,000 more women were employed in 1920 than in 1910 afford an interesting study, even though the increase in per cent is not always large.

Great numerical increases are shown among women employed as semiskilled operatives in food, iron and steel, and clothing industries. But a number of different specific industries form the component parts of each of these groups, making the inclusive figures less significant. Considering, therefore, specific industries rather than groups of related industries, it is apparent that during the decade 1910 to 1920 women operatives increased more in number in 14819°-22-3

"other clothing factories," in silk mills, in "other iron and steel factories," in electrical-supply factories, and in knitting mills, than in any other factories. In general, however, these increases are merely indicative of changes which are taking place for all workers regardless of sex.

TABLE III-Occupations in manufacturing and mechanical industries in cach of which the number of women employed increased 10,000 or more from 1910 to 1920, with number and per cent of increase.

1 Includes all iron and steel factories and foundries other than agricultural implement factories, sute mobile factories, blast furnaces and steel rolling mills, car and railroad shops, ship and boat building, and wagon and carriage factories.

2 Includes all clothing factories other than corset factories, glove factories, hat factories (felt), shirt, collar, and cuff factories, and suit, coat, cloak, and overall factories.

Unusual occupations for women.-Occupations grouped under manufacturing and mechanical industries which form one of the last strongholds of which men have a monopoly are the skilled building and hand trades. To be sure, some women returned their occupations as machinists, electricians, carpenters, and house paint | ers, but they were extremely few in number. The widow who continues to run her husband's plumbing, blacksmith, or carpenter shop has a tendency to return her occupation as plumber, blacksmith, or carpenter, though she may never have had the tools of the trade in her hands The girl who after long experience in a factory becomes expert in the operation of a certain machine may decide that she ought to return her occupation as machinist. Largely because of such returns the error in the number of women reported in the skilled building and hand trades is still believed to be high, though every

For explanation of terms, sce footnotes to Table III.