CCP 07-30-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C~NSUS BRIEl' M,1rch 1998 ------ ---------------------- or larger firms in office buildings resulted in a loss each decade in the number of at-home workers, For example, lrom 1960 (the first year soch data were collected) to 1970, the number 01 people who worked at home dropped hy almost 2 million to 2.7 million, a 42-percent decline. Simi- larly, during the 1970-80 period, there was a drop olahout another 500,000 to 2.2 million people, a 19-percent decline, "Clearly, by reversing these declines withsuch a steep increase - the number of at-home work- ersjumped 56 percent lrom 1980 to 1990 - the decade 01 the 1980s marked a rebirth of work at home in the United States, ~ Population Division demographer Phillip A, Salopek said. "It is note- worthy that this impressive growth occurred be- fore the expansion of the Internet. ~ MOST WHO WORK AT HOME ARE SELF-EMPLOYED The primary difference between those who worked at home and those who worked away from home was the source of employment. More than half the workers who labored in their homes (54 percent) were self-employed in 1990, 10 times the rate of self-employment found among those who worked away Irom home. Conversely, only 36 per- cent of those who worked at home were employed by private-sector companies, versus 77 percent of those who worked away from horne, There are other notable differences between the two groups, For the work-at-home group, the proportion of women (52 percent) was greater than for those who work away from home (45 per- cent). Those who worked at home were also older on average that those who did not. Forty-foor percent of the at-home workers were 45 years old or older, compared with only 29 percent over this age among people who worked away from home, INDUSTRY AND HOURS WORKED Almost half the workers whose workplace was home (46 percent) worked in the service Indus- tries, which include business and repair services, personal services, entertainment and recreation services and other professional and related ser- vices, About 18 percent of at-home workers were in the agricultural, forestry and fishing industries. Work-at-home people generally put in fewer hours per week than people who did not work at home, For example, of those who worked at home only 27 percent worked 35 to 40 hours per week, while nearly 50 percent of the people who worked outside their homes did so. However. a greater pro- portion of workers who worked at home worked more than 40 hours per week, 36 percent versus only 30 percent of those who did not work at home. EARNINGS . NOT-AT.HOME WORKERS 0:;' AT-HOME-WDRKERS "Private wage and salary .._.?~~... ..Government _17% I' ,;6% Wj . Self-employed '.Unpaid family 1% 4% 77% People who worked at home gen- erally earned less that those who did not. More than three-quarters of those who worked at home earned less than $25,000 a year, compared with less than two-thirds 01 those who worked outside the home, Neverthe- less, some people who worked at home earned substantially more money. About 3 percent 01 at-home workers earned more than $75,000 a year, A set 01 tables, "Working at Home," (CPH-L-195) is availahle in print lor $15 (call 301-457-2422) and on the Internet (<http:// www,censlls.gov/main/www/ subjects.html#w> and click on "Work at Home), 54% u.s. DepartlTl!!nt of Corrmerce; 8U~EAU or HiE CENSIJS c. ,EN... S."US BRIEF CON TA C T S: Analyst: PhiJIip Salopek 301-457-2454 psalopek@census.gov Statistical BriefS: Public Information Office 301-457-3030 pio@census,gov This Brief is one ofa series that presents inforOlation of current policy interest. All statistics are subject to sampling variability, aswclJ as survey design flaws, respondent classification and reporlingerrors, and data processing mistakes. The Census Bureau has taken steps to minimize errors, and analytical statemems have been tcsted and meet statistical standards. However, bccauseof methodologicaJdifferenccs, use cautionwhencomparingtbese data with data from other sources. , .