You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Flow of Occupational Supply and Recruitment
Peter M. Blau
American Sociological Review
Vol. 30, No. 4 (Aug., 1965), pp. 475-490
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2091338
Page Count: 16
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Human resources, Occupations, Workforce, Agricultural management, Self employment, Farms, Men, Sons, Solidarity, Supply
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The American occupational structure is analyzed in terms of the flow of manpower among 17 occupations, using data from a sample of more than 20,000 men representing the civilian labor force between ages 20 and 64. The findings suggest that increased demand for and recruitment into an occupation reduce its supply potential but that the impact of decreased demand and recruitment on supply is contingent on relative status. The intergenerational flow of manpower affects the composition of occupational groups, which, in turn, affects the intragenerational flow. The more heterogeneous in social origins the men starting in an occupation are, the greater is their tendency to leave it later for different occupations, which probably reflects the lesser solidarity of heterogeneous groups. Intergenerational as well as intragenerational mobility reveals two class boundaries--between white-collar and blue-collar groups and between the latter and farm groups--which limit downward movement to levels below chance expectation, though this is not the case for upward movement.
American Sociological Review © 1965 American Sociological Association