Recent studies on occupational structure and individual mobility suggest that the number of categories in the occupational structure vastly exceeds the limited number of classes in commonly applied schemes (Cheng and Park, 2020; Lin and Hung, 2022; Toubøl and Larsen, 2017; Villarreal, 2020). This discrepancy underscores the inadequacy of coarse class schemes in capturing the complexities of occupational structures. We argue that a continuous, multi-dimensional representation offers a nuanced and efficient tool for understanding research questions across diverse topics such as gendered occupational choices, political views and values, intergenerational transmission of occupational attributes, and the nature and trajectory of structural labor change.Our contribution is to adopt a methodology that allows for the continuous differentiation of occupations across multiple dimensions, rather than confining them to discrete clusters. This approach aligns with the longstanding sociological tradition of representing occupational structures using continuous scales (Duncan, 1961; Cain and Treiman, 1981; Ganzeboom et al., 1992; Chan and Goldthorpe, 2004; Goldthorpe and Hope, 1974; Hadden et al., 2004; Lambert and Griffiths, 2018; Le Grand and Tåhlin, 2013; Prandy and Lambert, 2003; Treiman, 1977).While much of this research focuses on unraveling a primary vertical dimension of occupational structure, linked to class, status, prestige, and educational requirements, others highlight also the horizontal nature of occupational structure by considering gender as a second dimension (England, 1992; Magnusson and Tåhlin, 2023; Shu et al., 1996; McLaughlin, 1978; Wood and Eagly, 2012a). These two dimensions have also been put forward as intertwined in the sense that the dimension of gender also includes a vertical order where men's jobs are seen as more status-worthy (e.g. Charles and Grusky, 2005; Steinberg, 1990). Thus, our expectation is that the occupational structure from an individual mobility viewpoint is governed by at least two dimensions: socio-economic status and a division by gender.The trajectory of literature on occupational structure has evolved from the broad class models like the Erikson's and Goldthorpe's (1992; cf. Wright, 1997) to Weeden's and Grusky's (2005) micro class approach, and more recently, to the analysis of specific occupational traits enabled by the Occupational Information Network (O∗Net) (e.g. Levanon and Grusky, 2016). However, the main weakness of many recent contributions on the topic, particularly those reliant on O∗Net, lies in their preconceived categorization of work content and skills as either masculine or feminine, and their conflation of these traits with a vertical grading of occupations. In contrast, our approach returns to the foundational principles of social stratification research by employing an inductive methodology that distinguishes the core of occupational structure, emphasizing mobility over theoretical preconceptions. We hence rely on the Weberian concept of ‘social class’ for our conceptualization of occupational structure, as encompassing those economic situations between which individual (and generational) mobility is easy and typical (Weber, 1978, p. 57).We ask: What is the number of dimensions that can accurately and parsimoniously represent the occupational structure? Do the main dimensions in the analysis reflect occupational segregation in terms of status and gender? We leverage a comprehensive, nationally encompassing database capturing the majority of occupational changes in the Swedish labor market between 2001 and 2013 to answer these questions. We construct a distance matrix for 95 occupations, which is reduced using Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) techniques (Borg and Groenen, 2005). Subsequently, we rigorously test whether externally derived variables representing occupational status and gender can effectively substitute for the empirically derived dimensions, using constrained MDS.Our findings challenge traditional models by revealing a three-dimensional, continuously rectangular occupational structure. This structure is primarily organized along three distinct dimensions. The first is a vertical dimension, strongly associated with socio-economic status, which we interpret as representing the level of "Educational Certification" required to enter an occupation.The second dimension captures a distinction along a "Nature vs. Urbanity" spectrum. Here, "Nature" refers to occupations involved in extracting resources (e.g., food, materials, crafts, energy) or a scientific understanding of natural phenomena (e.g., physics, biology). By contrast, "Urbanity" encompasses roles more closely tied to administrative, service-oriented, or industrial settings.The third dimension distinguishes between "Caring vs. Technical" roles. Caring roles involve providing emotional support, consideration, and guidance, while technical roles are centered on machinery, production, and engineering. Although this dimension is correlated with the proportion of females in these occupations, our analysis demonstrates that gender segregation in a physical sense of the term is not a crucial feature of the occupational structure.