4. Worker characteristics
We next analyze variation in our estimated physical proximity measure by worker characteristics. Once again, our analysis includes all occupations in the California labor market, under the scenario of a fully reopened economy.
Table 3 shows the percentage of workers in California within each occupational physical proximity group. In this table we are asking, for example, what is the gender distribution of workers employed in occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity to others in the workplace.
Overall, disproportionate employment in occupations with moderate to high levels of physical proximity to others are particularly evident for women; for workers of color; and for workers with less education than a bachelor’s degree.
Specifically, relative to their population share, women are significantly overrepresented in occupations with “very close” physical proximity to others (62.6%, compared to their overall 46.5% share of the workforce). Men are underrepresented in these occupations (37.4%, compared to their overall 53.5% share of the workforce). By contrast, men are significantly overrepresented in occupations with “moderately close” physical proximity to others (60.1%), while women are underrepresented in these occupations (39.9%).
Relative to their population share, Asian and Black workers are overrepresented in occupations with “very close” proximity to others. Latino/a workers make up a disproportionate share of the workers in occupations with “moderately close” proximity to others (44.9%, compared to their overall 38.7% share of the workforce). On the other end of scale, White workers and Asian workers are overrepresented in occupations with the lowest level of physical proximity, while Black and Latino/a workers are underrepresented in them. No strong patterns are evident for American Indians and Alaskan Natives, or for the Other group.[5]
The age distributions within each occupational physical proximity category do not show strong differentials; occupations with “moderately close” physical proximity tend to employ somewhat younger workers, and occupations entailing “slightly close” physical proximity tend to employ somewhat older workers.
US-born and foreign-born workers do not appear to differ significantly in levels of occupational physical proximity. Note however that we do not have data on workers’ documentation status, where other research suggests high rates of employment of undocumented workers in higher-risk occupations.[6]
Finally, Table 3 shows that workers with some college education or an associate’s degree are overrepresented among occupations with “very close” physical proximity to others (31.6%, compared to their overall 26.1% share of the workforce). Workers with a high school degree make up a disproportionate share of workers in occupations with “moderately close” physical proximity at work (35.9%). Workers with a bachelor’s or graduate degree are overrepresented among workers in occupations with the lowest level of physical proximity at work.
The intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender
In Figure 1, we show the estimated distribution of occupational physical proximity within gender and race/ethnicity groups. Here we are asking, for example, among Black women, what percent are employed in each of the three physical proximity groups.
Overall, women in every race/ethnic group are significantly more likely than men to be employed in occupations with “very close” physical proximity to others—on the order of about twice as likely (with the exception of the Other group). Conversely, men in every race/ethnic group are significantly more likely to be employed in occupations with “moderately close” proximity to others. Gender differences are less consistent when it comes to employment in occupations with “slightly close” proximity to others, and in particular, Black and Latino/a workers of both genders have low rates of working in these occupations.
But there are also within-gender differences. For example, Black and Asian women are more likely to be working in occupations with “very close” physical proximity to others, compared to women of other races/ethnicities. Latina workers are more likely to be employed in occupations with “moderately close” physical proximity to others, compared to other women. Black and Latina women are both less likely to be working in occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity to others; on the other hand, White and Asian women are overrepresented in these occupations. Among men, Black, Latino, and American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) men are more likely to be employed in occupations with “moderately close” physical proximity, while White and Asian men are more likely to be employed in occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity to others.
It is important to understand that the sorting of workers into different occupations based on gender and race/ethnicity drives these findings. Recall that our physical proximity measure is estimated at the occupation level, so all demographic variation in the physical proximity measure reflects differences in the occupational concentration of those groups. Therefore we here provide a brief illustration of the types of occupational sorting that underlie the patterns in Figure 1.[7]
First, it is clear that the disproportionate concentration of women in care-giving and customer-facing service jobs accounts for their higher rates of employment in occupations requiring high levels of physical proximity, relative to men (with variation by race and ethnicity). Specifically:
- Black women have high rates of employment in health care jobs (such as nurses and nursing assistants), personal care aides, and education jobs (K-12 teachers and teaching assistants). These occupations typically require “very close” physical proximity to others. Black women also have high rates of employment as retail workers, cashiers, office workers, social workers, and security guards; these occupations typically require “moderately close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity include managers, accountants and bookkeepers, human resources workers, and housekeeping cleaners/janitors.
- Latina women have relatively high rates of employment in health care jobs (such as nursing assistants and medical assistants), personal care aides, waiters, and education jobs (such as K-12 teachers, teaching assistants, and childcare workers). These occupations typically require “very close” physical proximity to others. Latina women also have high rates of employment in retail, as well as office jobs and garment industry jobs; these occupations typically require “moderately close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity include housekeeping cleaners/janitors, agricultural workers, and administrative assistants.
- Asian women have high rates of employment in health care jobs (such as nurses, nursing assistants, and pharmacy technicians), as well as personal services jobs (such as personal care aides, manicurists, and hairdressers). These occupations typically require “very close” physical proximity to others. Asian women also have high rates of employment in customer service and retail, as well as office jobs and garment industry jobs; these occupations typically require “moderately close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity include accountants and bookkeepers, managers, software developers, and administrative assistants.
- White women have high rates of employment in health care jobs (such as nurses and nursing assistants), restaurant, and personal care aides, as well as education jobs (such as K-12 teachers). These occupations typically require “very close” physical proximity to others. White women also have high rates of employment as sales and retail workers, office clerks, post-secondary teachers, and education and childcare administrators; these occupations typically require “moderately close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations with “slightly close” physical proximity include accountants and bookkeepers, managers, and administrative assistants.
Second, it is clear that the disproportionate concentration of men in blue-collar and professional jobs accounts for their higher rates of employment in occupations requiring “moderately close” or “slightly close” physical proximity, relative to women (with variation by race and ethnicity). Specifically:
- Black men have high rates of employment as truck drivers, security guards, laborers and stockers, and retail jobs; these occupations typically require “moderately close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations for Black men entailing “slightly close” physical proximity include managers, accountants, computer occupations, and janitors. Common occupations entailing “very close” physical proximity include K-12 teachers, police officers, restaurant jobs, personal care aides, construction, and mass transit bus drivers.
- Latino men have high rates of employment as truck drivers, construction workers, retail workers, landscapers, production workers, and laborers and stockers; these occupations typically require “moderately close” physical proximity. Common occupations entailing “slightly close” physical proximity include managers, agricultural workers, janitors, and truck and tractor operators. Common occupations entailing “very close” physical proximity include restaurant jobs, construction jobs, police officers, and K-12 teachers.
- Asian men have high rates of employment as software developers, accountants, and managers, as well as engineers; these occupations typically require “slightly close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations for Asian men entailing “moderately close” physical proximity include truck drivers, as well as retail jobs, production jobs, and laborers and stockers. Common occupations entailing “very close” physical proximity include physicians, nurses, restaurant jobs, and personal care aides.
- White men have high rates of employment as managers, software developers, accountants, and lawyers; these occupations typically require “slightly close” physical proximity to others. Common occupations for White men entailing “moderately close” physical proximity include truck drivers, laborers and stockers, sales workers, managers, and jobs in retail. Common occupations entailing “very close” physical proximity include K-12 teachers, police officers, firefighters, restaurant jobs, physicians, and construction jobs.
These brief summaries only scratch the surface of a complex matrix of occupational segregation by gender, race, and ethnicity in the California labor market. In fact, occupational segregation remains widespread in the U.S.[8] The forces that drive occupational segregation range from outright discrimination, legacies of decades of discriminatory employment policies, and current social and economic factors shaping career choices (that themselves represent institutionalized racism, sexism, and nativism), affecting a wide range of job quality and career outcomes. And now, occupational segregation also has the potential to result in different levels of workplace exposure to the coronavirus for different gender and race/ethnicity groups.