The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U N IT E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Ewan Clague, Commissioner + State and Regional Variations in Prospective Labor Supply Bulletin 7v£o. 893 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1947 For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. 8. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. * Price 15 cents Letter of Transmittal U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s , Washington, D. C., March 4, 1947. The S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r : I have the honor of transmitting herewith a bulletin presenting the results of a study of State and regional variations in prospective labor supply. The informa tion presented here should prove helpful to labor, business, and government groups concerned with problems of employment, industrial location, marketing, housing, and social security. The study was prepared by Lester M. Pearlman and Leonard Eskin in the Bureau’s Occupational Outlook Division. Sophia C. Mendelsohn and Mary J. Levy assisted in the formulation of the estimating procedures and supervised the statistical operations. E w an C lag u e, Hon. L. B. SCHWELLENBACH, Secretary o f Labor. (ii) Commissioner. Bulletin 7\[o. 893 o f the U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics [Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R eview , December 1946, with additional data] Contents Page Normal growth of the labor force, 1940 to 1950: National changes__________________________________________________ State and regional variations_______________________________________ Differential fertility and natural labor-force growth_____________ Internal migration and “ normal” labor-force growth___________ Factors determining deviation of labor force from normal, 1950__________ Extra workers_____________________________________________________ Interstate migration____ ______ State estimates of the labor force, 1950_________________________________ Iowa_________________________________ ___________________________ Washington___________________________ .____________________ _____ _ Appendix A.— Technical notes on estimating procedures_________________ Appendix B.— Additional tables— -------------------------------------------------------- (in ) 2 4 4 #9 11 14 15 16 17 18 23 30 PROSPECTIVE LABOR FORCE CHANGES, BY STATE m s 1 9 4 0 -1 9 5 0 DECREASE 4 % OR MORE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS LABOR FORCE INCLUDES ALL PERSONS 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER WHO ARE WORKING OR SEEKING WORK. LABOR State and R egion al V ariations in P rosp ective L abor Supply LABOB, business, and government groups engaged in labor-market analysis or concerned with problems of maintaining high levels of employment need some quantitative measure of prospective labor supply in their particular States or regions. An estimate of the total number of persons who will be working or seeking work provides a framework for the analysis of a variety of social and economic prob lems relating to employment, industrial location, marketing, housing, and social security. This report contains basic information on past trends and wartime developments in labor-force growth which will aid in the preparation of such an estimate for each of the 48 States. The Pacific Coast States and the South are expected to register the largest relative gains in labor force between 1940 and 1950. (See map on opposite page and table 4, p. 20.) On the other hand the Great Plains States stretching from North Dakota to Oklahoma will prob ably suffer a net loss in working population. Migrants, drawn largely from the South and the Great Plains States, accounted for much of the rapid expansion of labor supply on the Pacific Coast during the war. M ost of these migrants are likely to remain in their new locations because their movements followed a well-established long-term trend. The predominantly rural South, despite the fact that it loses many workers through migration to other regions, ranks second to the West Coast in the prospective rate of labor-force growth because of its relatively high birth rate. The industrial Northeast accounts for about half of the Nation’s working population, but lags behind the rest of the country in prospective labor-force growth be cause its birth rates are relatively low and it does not characteristi cally draw workers from other regions. Two types of data are presented here for use in estimating the size of each State’s labor force in 1950, a year when short-run dislocations of the postwar transition period are expected to be over. First, the base figure shown is the “ normal” labor force in 1950— the work force that would have been expected if peacetime trends in labor-market participation and interstate migration had continued after 1940 and if economic conditions similar to those of 1940 had prevailed. The normal estimates, although not predictions of the actual size of the labor force in each State, provide a basis from which realistic estimates may be made. Second, data are presented on the wartime changes in the labor force of each State. This material will aid in estimating the extent to which the actual size of the labor force in 1950 may differ from the normal level. (l) 2 , Normal Growth oj the Labor Force 1940 to 1950 NATIONAL CHANGES A brief examination of normal labor-force projections for the Nation as a whole between 1940 and 1950 shows a number of broad trends in population growth and labor-market participation which operate in all States. In addition, the national trends serve as a background against which State and regional variations can be studied. T a b l e 1.— “ Natural? ’ and “ N orm al” Labor-Force Growth, by State, 1940 to 1950 1 Region, division .and State “ Natural” labor-force projection, 1950 * “ Normal” labor-force projection, 19504 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Labor force, 1940* (in thou sands) U N ITED STATES___________________ 64,778 60,830 11.0 60,830 11.0 N O RTH ....................................................... 32,627 35,289 8.2 34,618 6.1 New England........................................ 3,757 4,082 iTT 4,062 O M aine--------------------------------------New Hampshire.............................. Vermont.......................................... Massachusetts................................. Rhode Islan d ................................. Connecticut..................................... 343 215 147 1,917 335 800 384 234 161 2,077 366 860 12.0 8.8 9.5 8.3 9.3 7.5 373 242 157 2,033 367 890 8.7 12.6 6.8 6.1 9.6 11.2 M iddle Atlantic..................................... 12,249 13,233 8.0 13,074 6.7 New York....................................... New Jersey...................................... Pennsylvania.................................. 6,188 1,928 4,133 6,571 2,065 4,597 6,501 2,098 4,475 5.1 8.8 8.3 East North Central............................... 11,203 12,086 6.2 7.1 11.2 — 12,109 8.1 Ohio................................................. Indiana......... ................................. Illinois............................................. Michigan......................................... Wisconsin........................................ 2,865 1,379 3,485 2,202 1,272 3,089 1,494 3,697 2,418 1,388 7.8 8.3 6.1 9.8 9.1 3,071 1,516 3,677 2,495 1,350 7.2 9.9 5.5 13.3 6.1 West North Central.............................. 5,418 5,888 8.7 5,373 - .8 Minnesota....................................... Iow a................................................ Missouri.......................................... North Dakota................................. South Dakota................................. Nebraska......................................... Kansas............................................. 1,142 992 1,579 244 248 519 694 1,242 1,069 1,698 277 279 569 754 8.8 7.8 7.5 13.5 12.5 9.6 8.6 SOUTH....................................................... 16,303 19,314 19,104 17.2 South Atlantic.............. ........................ 7,249 8,625 5uT 8,844 22J) Delaware......................................... Maryland........................................ District of Columbia...................... Virginia........................................... West Virginia................................. North Carolina............................... South Carolina................................ Georgia............................................ Florida............................................. 119 797 358 1,072 657 1,388 763 1,277 818 128 879 380 1,256 791 1,736 966 1,577 912 7.6 10.3 6.1 17.2 20.4 25.1 26.6 23.5 11.5 140 948 413 1,307 767 1,716 951 1,538 1,064 17.6 18.9 15.4 21.9 16.7 23.6 24.6 20.4 30.1 East South Central............................... 4,050 4,833 liT 4,645 m Kentucky........................................ Tennessee........................................ Alabama....... ................................. M ississippi...................................... 1,037 1,114 1,058 841 1,217 1,308 1,300 1,008 17.4 17.4 22.9 19.9 1,171 1,266 1,229 979 12.9 13.6 16.2 16.4 See footnotes at end of table. ~ 18.5 1,218 1,007 1,599 214 221 v 463 651 6.7 1.5 1.3 -1 2 .3 -1 0 .9 -1 0 .8 -6 ,2 3 T able 1.— “ NatnraV' and 44NormaF ’ Labor-Force Growth, by State, 1940 to 1950 1— Continued Region, division, and State Labor force, 19403 (in thou sands) (1) “ Natural” labor-force projection, 19503 “ Normal” labor-force projection, 19503 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 (2) (3) (4) (5) SOUTH—Continued. West South Central.............................. 5,004 5,856 17.0 5,615 12.2 Arkansas.......................................... Louisiana......................................... Oklahoma........................................ Texas............................................... 704 919 834 2,547 827 1,082 983 2,964 17.5 17.7 17.9 16.4 764 1,088 820 2,943 8.5 18.4 -1 .7 15.5 W EST.......................................................... 5,848 6,227 6.5 7,108 21.5 M ountain.............................. ................ 1,580 1,797 13.7 1,856 17.5 Montana.......................................... Idaho............................................... W yoming........................................ Colorado.......................................... New M exico.................................... Arizona..................................... . Utah................................................ Nevada............................................ 233 198 104 437 184 187 187 50 250 223 115 481 229 222 226 51 7.3 12.6 10.6 10.1 24.5 18.7 20.9 2.0 240 237 119 489 243 255 213 60 3.0 19.7 14.4 11.9 32.1 36.4 13.9 20.0 Pacific.................................................... 4,268 4,430 3.8 5,252 23.1 Washington—................................. Oregon-..-......... ............................... California........................................ 742 470 3,056 765 487 3,178 3.1 3.6 4.0 843 559 3,850 13.6 18.9 26.0 1 Data presented in this table cover total labor force including armed forces. All data at April seasonal level. Annual average for total United States is about three-fourths of a million higher. * Data from 1940 census have been revised upward for comparability with current census series. Pre liminary, pending release of official revision of United States total by Bureau of the Census. See Appen dix A, section 1. * This projection assumes (1) continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that works or seeks work; (2) economic conditions in 1950 similar to those of 1940; and (3) no interstate migration between 1940 and 1950. See Appendix A , section 2. * Assumption (1) and (2) same as above, but interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 assumed to be twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix C, section 3. Estimates of normal labor force for the United States have been constructed by projecting 1920 to 1940 relationships between popula tion and labor force through the decade 1940-50.1 The decennial increases in the labor force and population from 1920 to 1940 and the normal increase from 1940 to 1950 are shown in the following tabu lation! Increase (in thousands) 1980-40 1940-60 (normal) Population, 14 years of age and over: Total________ _ 14, 957 Male.................................................................................. 7,134 Female................. 7,823 12,002 5,466 6,536 9, 205 3,920 5,285 Labor force: Total___________________________________ 1 7,359 Male................................................................................... 15,110 Female...............- ..........................- ............................. 1 2, 249 5, 895 3,276 2,619 6,052 2,570 3,482 1920-80 1Since data for 1920 are not available on a “ labor force” basis, the 1920-30 change refers to “ gainful workers.” 1 Labor-force projections for the United States as a whole appearing in this article represent preliminary revisions by the authors of estimates prepared by the Bureau of the Census and published in Population, Special Reports, Series P-44 N o. 12, Bureau of the Census (W ashington), June 12, 1944. The revisions are designed to be consistent with current Census estimates which are based on a revised interviewing procedure adopted in July 1945. See Bureau of the Census, M onthly Report on the Labor Force, especially M R LF N o. 39, September 20,1945. 4 Despite the expected decline in the rate of population growth and an assumed continuation of past trends toward longer schooling and earlier retirement, the projected increment to the labor force during this decade is somewhat larger than the increase during the 1930’s. The long-term trend toward an increasing number of women work ers is the major factor supporting the large normal labor-force growth during the current decade. Over the years, it has been possible for a larger proportion of women to work outside the home because of greater mechanization of household and industrial processes, increasing urbanization, decline in the birth rate, and social attitudes more favorable to the employment of women. On the basis of peacetime expectations, the national labor force in 1950 would number about 60.8 million persons—43.6 million men and 17.2 million women.2 STATE AND REGIONAL VARIATIONS The rate of expansion of the national labor force during the decade 1940-50 represents the net effect of widely varying rates among the States. Differences in the birth rate and interstate migration play the leading roles in causing these variations. Differential Fertility and “ Natural19 Labor-Force Growth In the absence of migration, the South would be expected to have the fastest growing labor force in the Nation between 1940 and 1950. This is attributable to the high birth rates which prevail in the predominantly rural Southern States. Rural areas throughout the country have significantly higher fertility rates than urban areas. Regional differences in the “ natural” rate of labor-force growth 3 are as follows: Natural growth in the labor force, 1940-60 (percent) United States_________________________________ North......................... South.............. West________ 11 8 18 6 In the broad region called the South,4 the labor force of only two States, Delaware and Maryland (which are not typical of the other Southern States), would be expected to grow at a slower rate be tween 1940 and 1950 than the 11-percent natural increase anticipated for the Nation as a whole (table 1, column 3). The labor force in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama would be 8All data presented in this article cover total labor force including the armed forces. Projections are made at April seasonal level (the time of year when the decennial census is usually taken). On an annual average basis, the United States total labor force would be about three-fourths of a million higher * The “ natural” rate of labor-force growth is here defined as the projected rate of growth, assuming no interstate migration. 4Regional classifications used in this article are the same as those used by the Bureau of the Census. See tables for States included in each region 5 expected to grow more than twice as fast as the national labor force. In 24 out of 32 States in the North and West, the natural rate of laborforce growth would fall below the corresponding rate for the Nation. The lowest rates of labor-force growth in the country would prevail in the geographic division embracing the trio of Pacific Coast States— California, Oregon, and Washington. In every State the natural rate of increase in the labor force is very much greater for women than for men. This reflects the increasing participation of women workers as well as the declining proportion of boys and older men in the labor force. In the absence of interstate migration, the number of male workers in the Pacific Coast States, Nevada, and the District of Columbia would be expected to decline between 1940 and 1950, but these decreases would be more than offset by gains in the number of women workers. (See Appendix B, tables 1 and 2.) Replacement rates.—Thus far natural labor-force growth has been dealt with only in terms of net changes between 1940 and 1950. But these net changes result from differences between the number of persons who enter the labor market and the number who leave. The accessions to and separations from the labor force are analyzed in this section, not only to indicate their magnitude, but also to highlight State differences in the competitive position of new entrants to the labor market. The analysis is confined to male workers because the movements of women in and out of the labor market are complicated by changes in marital and family status. Areas of relatively high birth rates and comparatively young popu lation will have more new workers entering the labor force and fewer older workers leaving than areas where the population is relatively old. In the South, for example, some 3,895,000 young men (exclusive of in-migrants) would be expected to enter the labor force between 1940 and 1950, whereas only 2,321,000 would leave because of death or retirement.6 (See table 2, columns 1 and 2.) This means an average of 168 accessions for every 100 separations— a replacement rate of 168. In other words, if there were no migration into or out of the South, every 100 men leaving that region's labor force between 1940 and 1950 would be replaced by 168 new male workers. This rate is much higher than the rates for the North (118) or the West (107). Replacement rates for individual States tend to cluster about the regional average (see chart 1), but there are some exceptions, such as New M exico, Arizona, and Utah, where replacement rates more nearly resemble those of the South than those of the West. On the other hand, the pattern of labor-market accessions and separations in Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, and Florida is more like the North than like the South.* * Figures exclude accessions and separations of seasonal or intermittent workers. 727883°— 47------ 2 6 The differences in the relation between labor-market accessions and separations are reflected in the composition o f the labor force at any one time. If there were no interstate migration between 1940 and 1950, 28 percent of the South's male labor force in 1950 would have less than 10 years' labor-market experience as compared with 24 per cent in the North and 23 percent in the West. In South Carolina, one out of every three men in the 1950 labor force would be a new worker added after 1940; in California the corresponding figure would be only one out of every five. T able 2.— “ Natural” and “ Norm al” Accessions, Separations, and Replacement Rates fo r the M ale Labor Force, by State, 1940 to 1950 “ Natural” 1 Region, division, and State “ Normal” * Replace Replace ment rate Accessions * Separa ment rate Separa Accessions (accessions (accessions (in thou tions * (in (in thou tions (in per 100 per 100 thousands) separa sands) sands) thousands) separa tions) tions) (2) (1) (3) (5) (4) (6) U N ITED STATES.............. 10,974 8,404 131 10,974 8,404 N O R TH .................................. 6,033 5,102 118 6,250 5,818 107 New England_____ _____ 664 566 117 740 653 113 Maine......................... New Hampshire......... V erm ont.................... Massachusetts............ Rhode Island.............. Connecticut.............. . 72 39 30 332 58 133 57 35 25 287 47 115 126 111 120 116 123 116 84 56 39 379 74 186 75 48 36 362 62 148 112 117 108 105 119 126 M iddle Atlantic................ 2,150 1,819 118 2,332 2,126 110 New York................... New Jersey................ Pennsylvania............. 983 321 846 911 277 631 108 116 134 1,158 430 913 1,151 364 780 101 118 117 East North Central.......... 2,109 1,797 117 2,470 2,143 115 Ohio_______________ Indiana------------------Illinois......................... Michigan.................... Wisconsin................... 547 277 588 436 261 471 234 541 339 212 116 118 109 129 123 664 368 764 577 293 602 307 735 424 271 110 120 104 136 108 West North Central......... 1,110 920 121 1,138 1,326 86 Minnesota.................. Iowa............................ Missouri...................... North Dakota............ South Dakota............. Nebraska.......... ......... TTnnsim __ _ 227 207 296 61 59 113 147 188 175 259 43 42 90 123 121 118 114 142 140 126 120 278 243 369 54 56 113 171 254 256 404 83 84 169 222 109 95 91 65 67 67 77 SOUTH................................... 3,895 2,321 168 4,219 2,781 152 South Atlantic__________ 1,654 988 167 2,021 1,178 172 Delaware.................... M aryland................... District of Colum bia.. Virginia-.................... West Virginia............. North Carolina______ South Carolina........... Georgia....................... Florida........................ 21 145 40 248 186 364 201 298 151 18 114 43 151 100 172 94 167 129 117 127 93 164 186 212 214 178 117 36 236 115 355 210 408 226 356 305 25 154 101 211 142 224 129 242 176 144 153 114 168 148 182 175 147 173 8ee footnotes at end of table. 131 7 T able 2.— “ NaturaV9 and “ Normal” Accessions, Separations, amf Replacement Rates fo r the M ale Labor Force, fey State, 1940 to 1950 — Continued “ Natural” 1 Region, division, and State “ Normal” * Replace Replace ment rate Accessions* Separa ment rate Separa Accessions (in thou tions (in (accessions (in thou tions* (in (accessions per 100 per 100 sands) thousands) sands) thousands) separa separa tions) tions) (2) 0) (5) (4) (3) (6) SOUTH—Continued. East South Central........... 1,034 595 174 1,096 789 139 K entucky. ................. Tennessee................... Alabama..................... M ississippi................. 271 271 282 210 159 162 148 126 170 167 191 167 305 316 298 234 226 238 214 168 135 133 139 139 738~ " 164~ 1,306 1,018 128 Arkansas..................... Louisiana.................... Oklahoma................... Texas.......................... 189 220 217 581 114 133 131 360 166 165 166 161 219 272 226 712 192 177 267 505 114 154 85 141 W EST..................................... 1,046 981 107 1,830 1,130 162 M ountain......................... 371 256 144 580 418 139 M ontana................... Idaho.......................... W yoming.................... Colorado..................... New M exico............... Arizona....................... U ta h ........................ Nevada....................... 47 48 22 91 54 46 55 8 41 34 16 73 26 28 29 9 115 141 138 125 208 164 190 89 71 87 46 151 91 99 64 27 72 61 36 128 52 56 48 21 99 143 128 118 175 177 133 129 Pacific................................ 675 725 93 1,393 855 163 W ashington.............. Oregon........................ California.................... 126 79 470 137 83 505 92 95 93 247 178 1,063 194 128 628 127 139 169 West South Central 1,207 i Assumes no interstate migration between 1940 and 1950. See Appendix A, section 6. * Assumes interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 to be twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A, section 7. * United States, regional, and divisional totals are less than the sum of their components because they exclude accessions and separations due to migration between States within the United States, region, or division. State variations in replacement rates should not be interpreted without reference to variations in economic opportunity. A State with a rapidly expanding economy may easily absorb 200 replace ments for every 100 persons leaving the labor force, whereas a less fortunate State might have difficulty providing employment oppor tunity for say 110 replacements. Given equal employment oppor tunity for two States, however, jobs would be harder to find in the one with the higher replacement rate because on the average more workers would be competing for each job opening. The difficulty of finding jobs would be greatly accentuated in a State with both a relatively high replacement rate and relatively low employment opportunity. Actually, the areas with the highest replacement rates and the greatest rates of natural labor-force growth tend to be the ones where economic opportunity is below par. This disparity between labor CHART I NATURAL REPLACEMENT RATES FOR TH E MALE LABOR FORCE 1940-1950 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP LABOR BUREAU OP LABOR STATISTICS 0 supply and economic opportunity has resulted in a consistent pattern of internal migration. The South and Great Plains characteristically have been losers in the give and take of population between regions. The West, on the other hand, has been able to draw large numbers of people from other regions of the country, while losing few. The effect of large-scale migration on State variations in labor-force growth is shown in the next section. Internal M igration and “ Normal” Labor-Force Growth Because of the extreme importance of population movements to the supply of labor in a given State, the estimates of “ normal” labor-force growth include an assumption with respect to interstate migration. For this purpose, the rate of interstate migration between 1935 and 1940 was projected through the decade 1940-50. The “ normal” labor force for each State, therefore, consists of a projection of migra tion movements as well as trends in labor-market participation. In the procedure employed no attempt was made to estimate the actual magnitude of migration. But the prewar population movements do reflect a migration pattern that prevailed dining the war and is likely to carry over into the postwar period.6 Since these normal labor force estimates by State assume a prewar migration pattern, there is also implicit the assumption that the prewar distribution of employment opportunity will not shift radi cally. In view of the past stability in the geographic distribution of economic resources and opportunity, both in years of war and peace,7 there is a strong likelihood that this distribution will not change significantly in the next 5 years. Estimates of normal labor-force growth and replacement rates between 1940 and 1950 by State and region including allowance for interstate migration are shown in tables 1 and 2. The introduction of the prewar migration pattern exerts great influence on the State and regional rates of labor-force growth as a comparison of these rates with those computed on a no-migration basis readily indicates (see chart 2). •See Demographic Aspects of W orld War II: Migration. Paper delivered before the American Socio logical Society (Cleveland, Ohio, March 1,1946), by Henry S. Shryock, Jr., and Hope Tisdale Eldridge. It should be reemphasized at this point that the so-called normal labor-force projections assume economic conditions similar to those of 1940. Their main function is to serve as a base upon which more realistic projections can be made and not to estimate the size of the labor force under ideal economic conditions. This is especially true with regard to the migration assumption. The 1935-40 experience was chosen simply because (1) it reflected a general pattern that has prevailed in the past and is likely to continue in the future, (2) the time reference is close to the 1940 conditions to which the “ normal” projections apply, and (3) there are more data available on the characteristics of migrants during the 1935-40 period than during any other period. 7 On this subject see National Resources Committee, Structure of the American Economy, Philadelphia, 1939; Is Industry Decentralizing? by Daniel Creamer, Philadelphia, 1935; Growth of American Manufac turing Areas, by Glenn E. McLaughlin, Philadelphia, 1935; Regional Distortions Resulting from the War, in Survey of Current Business, October 1943. EFFECT OF MIGRATION ON NORMAL LABOR FORCE GROWTH 1 9 40-195 0 SOUTH AND GREAT PLAINS, WHERE NATURAL GROWTH OF LABOR FORCE OUTSTRIPS OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT, SUPPLY LABOR TO EXPANDING WEST COAST PROJECTED LABOR FORCE GROWTH PERCENT WITHOUT MIGRATION 10 WITH "NORMAL* MIGRATION NORMAL MIGRATION ASED ON 1935*1840 MIGRATION RATE IN OUT MORE THAN g.S%F % 3 LESS THAN 2.5% B 3 11 Although the West has the slowest rate of natural increase in working population, the great inflow of migrants causes this region to have the fastest growing labor force in the Nation. California's rate of labor-force growth increases from 4 percent to 26 percent when allowance is made for migrant workers. The South, which had the highest rate of natural labor-force growth, runs second to the West when the migration factor is taken into account. Perhaps the most striking effect of migration on labor-force growth is shown in the Great Plains States where the labor force will actually decline between 1940 and 1950, if the exodus of workers equals or exceeds the prewar rate. And the heavy migration from this region during World War I I *8 leaves little doubt that by the end of this decade there will be in fact fewer workers in the area from North Dakota to Oklahoma than there were in 1940. Wartime migration, although creating some new local problems of overcrowding and Expansion of populations beyond the peacetime capacities of local economies to support them, was in general a movement from areas of low or declining opportunity to more favorably situated places. However, there is typically not enough migration from areas of low economic opportunity to drain off the surplus labor supply. Many workers are reluctant to leave familiar surroundings and family ties. The uncertainty and fear attending migration are reinforced by its cost. This is particularly significant, for it is precisely those who should move who usually lack the means to do so. Added to these factors is the general ignorance as to where employment opportunities lie. The war stimulated migration not only because new job oppor tunities arose but also because they were dramatized and publicized to an unusual degree. There has been a noteworthy trend toward the development of industry in areas o f surplus labor supply. During recent decades, for example, industrialization of the South has been proceeding more rapidly than in the country as a whole. Nevertheless, it appears that the resulting shift in the distribution of employment opportunity has been relatively small. Internal migration will have to continue if all workers are to be afforded useful employment opportunities.9 , Factors Determ ining Deviation o f Labor Force from Norm al 1950 The 1950 labor force in a given State may differ from a normal based on projection of prewar trends for two principal reasons: (1) the proportion of the population that works or seeks work may 8 See Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Beports, Series P-46, N o. 3 (W ashington), February 12, 1646. Migration data for the war and prewar periods are presented in Appendix B, table 3. 8 See Internal Migration and Full Employment, in Journal of the American Statistical Association, September 1946. 12 differ from that yielded by the normal projections; and (2) the actual volume of interstate migration may deviate from the assumed volume. National labor-force growth will be affected primarily by only the first of these factors; State labor-force growth will be influenced by both factors, but principally by the second. T able 3.— Estim ated Deviation o f Labor Force From “ N orm al” b y State, A p ril 1 9 4 5 1 [In thousands] Deviation of estimated labor force ft*om “ normal Region, division, and State Estimated “ Normal” actual labor labor force projection* force* Total Caused by Caused by “ abnormal” participa tion of migra “ extra” tion* workers (1) (2) (3) U N ITED STATES................................... 65,986 58,000 *7,986 N O R TH ...................................................... 38,619 33,781 4,838 New England........................................ 4,386 3^926~ 460~ Maine.............................................. New Hampshire.............................. Vermont.......................................... Massachusetts................................. Rhode Island.................................. Connecticut..................................... 398 229 147 2,225 387 1,000 358 227 151 1,985 354 851 40 2 -4 240 33 149 M iddle Atlantic.................................... 14,069 12,737 New York....................................... New Jersey...................................... Pennsylvania-............................... 6,920 2,339 4,810 6,378 2,028 4,331 East North Central. ............................ 13,883 11,705 2,178 Ohio................................................. Indiana............................................ Illinois............................................. M ichigan....................................... . Wisconsin........................................ 3,689 1,776 4,200 2,747 1,471 2,983 1,452 3,600 2,356 1,314 706 324 600 391 157 124 29 40 98 -3 3 582 295 560 293 190 W est North Central.............................. 6,281 5,413 868 -172 1,040 Minnesota....................................... Iowa................................................ M issouri--...................................... North Dakota................................. South Dakota................................. Nebraska......................................... Kansas............................................ 1,308 1,103 1,865 254 257 602 892 1,184 1,002 1,589 231 236 496 675 124 101 276 23 21 106 217 -8 6 -6 6 -8 -1 9 -1 7 0 24 210 167 284 42 38 106 193 SOUTH....................................................... 19,660 17,730 1,930 -440 2,370 South Atlantic....................................... 8,868 8,067 801 -5 4 855 Delaware......................................... Maryland........................................ District of Columbia...................... Virginia........................................... West Virginia................................. North Carolina............................... South Carolina................................ Georgia...... .................................... Florida............................................. 144 1,087 510 1,399 800 1,574 884 1,465 1,005 130 874 387 1,191 712 1,553 859 1,423 938 14 213 123 208 88 21 25 42 67 3 82 77 52 -5 8 -121 -6 2 -4 4 17 11 131 46 156 146 142 87 86 50 East South Central............................... 4,705 4,350 355 -225 580 K entucky....................................... Tennessee................................... . Alabama.......................................... Mississippi...................................... 1,162 1,349 1,302 892 1,103 1,191 1,143 913 59 158 159 -21 -109 -1 2 -2 1 -8 3 168 170 180 62 See footnotes at end of table. (5) (4) 0 — 7,986 £778 68~ 402 -1 1 -1 0 -1 4 34 13 46 51 12 10 206 20 103 1,332 -8 4 1,416 542 311 479 -154 70 0 696 241 479 258~ 1,920 13 T able 3.— Estim ated Deviation o f Labor Force From “ N orm al” b y State, A p ril 1 9 4 5 1— Continued [In thousands] Deviation of estimated labor force from “ normal” Region, division, and State Estimated “ Normal” actual labor labor force projectioni*3 force* (1) (2) Total (3) Caused by Caused by participa “ abnormal” tion of migra “ extra” tion 3 workers (4) (5) SOUTH—Continued. West South Central.............................. 6,087 5,313 774 -161 935 Arkansas.......................................... Louisiana........................................ Oklahoma......................... .............. 826 1,054 944 3,263 733 1,003 830 2,747 93 51 114 516 -8 2 -1 1 -7 1 3 175 62 185 513 W EST.......................................................... 7,707 6,489 1,218 380 838 Mountain............................................... Montana.......................................... Idaho............................................... W yoming........................................ Colorado.......................................... New M exico.................................... Arizona............................................ Utah................................................ N evada........................................... 1,848 247 217 118 493 202 259 245 67 1,719 237 217 112 463 213 221 201 55 129 10 0 6 30 -1 1 38 44 12 -5 7 -3 1 -3 0 -6 -1 5 -2 9 23 23 8 186 41 30 12 45 18 15 21 4 Pacific.................................................... Washington..................................... Oregon............................................. C alifornia--..................................... 5,859 1,028 624 4,207 4,770 796 515 3,459 1,089 232 109 748 437 78 33 326 652 154 76 422 i Data presented In this table cover total labor force including armed forces. 3 Includes members of armed forces in States from which they were inducted. Preliminary, pending release of Bureau of the Census official estimate of United States total on basis comparable with current census series. See Appendix A , section 4. * Assumes interstate migration between 1940 and 1945 to be equal to the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A , section 3. 3 Estimate includes only migrants who would be in labor force on basis of prewar patterns of labor-market participation. Any migrants who were in the labor force in April 1945 but who would not have been workers under normal peacetime conditions are counted in column 5. See Appendix A_, section 5. « Revised slightly from United States total of 8.1 m illion published in M onthly Labor Review for November 1946. Analysis of the differential impact o f the war on the labor force of each State gives insight into the probable postwar deviation of the actual labor force from normal. The wartime expansion of the Na tion’s labor force to a level approximately 8 million above peacetime expectations was distributed very unevenly among the States. The extent to which these State variations in wartime excess of labor force over normal were .caused by differences in degree of recruitment of new workers and by “ abnormal” migration is shown in table 3. The two factors may supplement one another or offset each other. For example, the fact that California’s wartime labor force exceeded normal by approximately 750,000 workers resulted from the larger than usual inflow of migrants as well as from the more complete utiliza tion of its prewar labor supply. In contrast, out-migration o f large numbers of North Carolina’s working population offset the “ extra” workers drawn into its labor force, so that very little increase over normal took place. 727883°— 47-----8 14 The degree to which wartime change in the labor force of a given State came about through migration rather than through more extensive utilization of the resident labor supply will play a major role in determining the future size of the State's labor force. In general, the effects of migration are likely to f;be more lasting than the effects of drawing extra workers into the labor force from the resident population. EXTRA WORKERS Some indication of the extent to which extra workers will remain in the labor market may be obtained by examining the picture for the Nation as a whole. During the war, some 8 million persons who ordinarily would have been housewives, students, retired men, or others not in search of gainful employment were drawn into the Nation's labor force.10 These included about 4 million youths of school and college age, % million young women aged 20-34; 2 million women over the age of 35; and 1% million men over 25. Two-thirds of the wartime excess labor force caused by the prema ture entrance of school- and college-age youths into civilian jobs or the armed forces has already disappeared. Further reductions in the number of young workers are expected within the next few years as the prewar trend toward staying in school longer is resumed. With favorable employment opportunities, however, the teen-age labor force may be expected to continue somewhat higher than a projection of prewar trends would indicate, because a greater number of students will probably take advantage of opportunities for part-time and summer work. About 1K million young women aged 20-34 years quit working' during the first year of peace, chiefly because their husbands returned from the armed forces or they married returning veterans. The number of young women workers is now actually below the level expected from prewar trends because of the unusually large numbers of marriages and births since 1940. Continuation of a generally high rate of economic activity would keep the number of young women workers below the level anticipated by the normal projections because young women with family responsibilities would not have to work or seek work to the same extent as in 1940. Among men over 25 years old and women over 35, the wartime ex pansion in the labor force was a response to a full-employment situa tion as well as to the Nation's war needs. Jobs were available to those who had previously been considered virtually unemployable and others who had previously preferred retirement or homemaking were io For more complete discussions of the characteristics of extra wartime workers and the factors affecting their continued labor-market participation, see Sources of Wartime Labor Supply in the United States in M onthly Labor Review, August 1944; “ Extra” Workers in the Postwar Labor Force, in M onthly Labor Review, November 1946; and The~Labor Force in^thejFirst Year of Peace, in M onthly Labor Review, November 1946. 15 brought into the labor market by the availability of attractive work at good pay. As long as employment opportunities remain substan tially better than those of 1940, the number of workers in the middle and upper age groups is likely to exceed the level indicated by a pro jection of prewar trends, though not to the same extent as during the war. When the surplus of middle-aged and older workers is balanced against the deficit of young women workers, however, it is likely that the national labor force will not exceed normal by more than 1% million, or 2 to 3 percent, in 1950. Thus, in most States, the carry over from the more complete utilization of labor supply during the war will probably be relatively small. In some States, however— especially those with a large proportion of older men and middle-aged women in the labor force—failure to take account of the extra workers remaining may result in a fairly significant understatement of the avail able labor supply. INTERSTATE MIGRATION The extent to which the rate of interstate population movement be tween 1940 and 1950 will differ from the 1935-40 rate assumed in the normal estimates presented here is far less predictable than the extent to which wartime extra workers will remain in the labor market. Al though the 'pattern of wartime migration was very similar to that which had prevailed for some time before the war, the volume of 1940-45 civilian migration alone was considerably greater than that of total migration for the 5 prewar years used to compute the “ normal” estimates. The effect of this relatively heavy civilian migration in causing the labor force of each State to deviate from the assumed normal in 1945 is shown in table 3. The deviations from normal arising from mi gration are much more likely to persist through 1950 than are the deviations caused by the participation of extra workers during the war. Of course, there will be State variations in the extent to which gains and losses through “ abnormal” migration are retained. Under certain circumstances the gains and losses may be not merely retained but increased. Whether deviations from normal because of migration are increased, retained, or decreased between 1945 and 1950 will depend on the net result of several opposing forces. The pent-up migration plans of servicemen have been a major force exerting an upward pressure on the volume of postwar migration. The estimates of actual labor force in April 1945 (table 3) include armed forces in their State of origin, and there may have been con siderable migration of ex-servicemen following demobilization. Ac cording to an Army survey in the summer of 1944, 1 out of every 10 servicemen did not intend to return to the State in which he lived be 16 fore the wax.11 The survey further indicated that the migration of demobilized servicemen would be expected to follow the pattern of prewar and wartime movements of civilians. If employment is maintained at the current high levels, migration will be further stimulated. There is typically more net interstate population movement in good times than in bad. The existence of opportunity elsewhere generally creates a stronger impetus for mi gration than the lack of opportunity at home. And in times of depression, the relative security of even a bare subsistence on a farm may be more attractive than the insecurity of going jobless in the city. Moreover, during depression periods there is considerable move ment from cities back to farms which is against the prevailing direction of migration. This tends to hold down the net interchange of popu lation between States. In view of the large volume of unemployment that existed during the period 1935-40, the volume of migration during that period (used as a basis for the “ normal” estimates) is probably below par for more prosperous times. On the other hand, migration between 1945 and 1950 may be slowed down by virtue of the large-scale movement during the first half of the decade. The capacity of certain areas to absorb in-migrants may be glutted, at least temporarily, by the tremendous inflows of population during the war. In addition, overexpansion of population in relation to postwar opportunities may cause some reverse migration. The occurrence of a severe depression would also retard the character istic flow of population from farm to industrial areas. On balance, if conditions of high employment prevail, the volume of migration between 1945 and 1950 will probably equal or exceed the volume assumed in the “ normal” estimates. Even if the rate of migration were to fall below the “ normal” rate, during the second half of the decade, the decline would probably not nearly offset the unusually large flow of migrants between 1940 and 1945. In either case, therefore, the volume of migration for the entire decade, 1940-50, would exceed that based on the prewar experience; allowance for this factor should be made when adjusting the “ normal” labor-force estimates for 1950. , State Estimates o f the Labor F orce 1950 As indicated in the introductory paragraphs of this article, the State estimates of normal labor-force growth and wartime deviations from normal will aid in evaluating the prospective labor supply in each State. The insight which this material provides, however, should be supplemented by other information that is available on the work force of the individual States. 11 See Postwar Migration Plans of Army Enlisted Men, in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1045. 17 Table 4 presents three separate estimates of the 1950 labor force in each State, based on the data presented in tables 1 and 3, but computed on the basis of varying assumptions as to future interstate migration movements. (See p. 20.) In order to demonstrate the manner in which the data presented in tables 1 and 3 can be used to appraise the wartime experience and postwar prospects of the labor force in individual States, two States with substantially different labor-market characteristics have been selected for more detailed analysis. Assumption B, table 4, is used for purposes of illustration, but it is not necessarily the most reasonable assumption for the particular States involved. IOWA In 1940, approximately 992,000 Iowans were working or seeking work. Wartime pressures brought the labor force (including armed forces personnel from the State) to a total of 1,103,000 in April 1945— an 11-percent rise. Nevertheless, by 1950, the work force is expected to number less than 970,000— actually below the 1940 level. The wartime expansion in Iowa's working population represented the net effect of several opposing forces. The main reason for the rise in the labor force was the increased participation of housewives, students, retired persons, and others normally not working. Approxi mately 167,000 of these “ extra” wartime workers entered in response to unusual labor demands. This number was supplemented by about 42,000 entries that would have been expected from natural population growth and continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that works or seeks work. The total inflow of 209,000 into the labor market during the war was partially offset by a net migration from the State of 98,000 civilian workers who might other wise have participated in Iowa's war effort. The end result was an increase of 111,000 in the labor force between 1940 and 1945. There is reason to believe, however, that the effect of the wartime out-migration will be more lasting than that of the wartime accessions. Many who left the State during the war are unlikely to return, unless a severe depression should strike the areas to which they moved. Iowa, being a farm State, has customarily exported labor to the ex panding industrial areas. Moreover, mechanization of farm processes has made it possible to plant and harvest larger crops with fewer workers. Between 1935 and 1940, the number of persons moving out of Iowa exceeded those moving in by 61,000, and between 1940 and 1945 the State sustained a net loss of an additional 228,000 civilians (including the 98,000 workers mentioned above). These figures do not include any members of the armed forces, originally from Iowa, who may have decided to settle in other States after their discharge. Iowa is likely to continue to lose population to other States, though to a lesser extent than during the war. 18 M ost o f the extra workers drawn into the labor force from the res ident population of the State are likely to drop out by 1950. In the Nation as a whole, two-thirds of 8 million extra wartime workers quit the labor force during the first year of peace. It is likely that by 1950 those remaining will make up not more than 15 to 20 percent of the wartime total. Normally, the labor force in Iowa would be expected to grow from the 1940 level of 992,000 to a total of 1,007,000 by 1950. It seems likely, however, in view of the considerations noted above, that the work force in 1950 will be approximately 970,000. The tabulation which follows summarizes the derivation of the statistics used in the analysis of labor-force developments in Iowa. Number (in thousands) 992 1940 labor force____________________________ 1945 labor force____________________________ 1,103 (1) normal labor force______________ ___ 1,002 (2) deviation from normal_____________ 101 (a ) caused by participation of “ extra” workers.____________ 167 (b) caused by “ abnormal” migration_________________________ - 6 6 1950 labor force____________________________ 966 (1) normal labor force_________________ 1,007 -4 1 (2) deviation from normal_____________ (a) caused by participation of 25 “ extra” workers_____________ (b) caused by “ abnormal” migration_________________________ -6 6 Source Table Table Table Table 1. 3. 3. 3. Table 3. Table 3. 1 + 2 (below). Table 1. a + b (below). Assumed to be 15 per cent of 1945 extra workers (2a above). Assumed same as in 19451 (see 2b above). i It is assumed that the net number of workers who move oat of Iowa between 1945 and 1950 will be the same as would be expected on the basis of the 1935-40 experience. WASHINGTON In response to high wartime demands for labor, the working popula tion of the State of Washington increased by 286,000 between 1940 and 1945 to a total o f 1,028,000 (including armed forces personnel from the State). By 1950, the labor force is expected to number roughly 950,000, which is considerably above the 1940 level of 742,000, though short o f the wartime peak. Several factors combined to cause the wartime expansion in Wash ington’s work force. Increased participation of housewives, students, retired persons, and others normally not working accounted for approximately 154,000 o f the additional workers. In-migration of workers from other States resulted in a net gain o f another 119,000. 19 The remaining increment o f about 13,000 workers is the gain that normally would have been expected from natural population growth and continuation of prewar trends in the percentage o f the population that works or seeks work. It is likely that the great m ajority o f the workers who moved to Washington during the war will remain in the State. Washington has typically been an importer o f labor. Between 1935 and 1940, the number of persons moving into the State exceeded those moving out by 80,000. This movement was accelerated between 1940 and 1945 as the State gained an additional 273,000 civilians (including the 119,000 workers mentioned above) through in-migration. These figures do not include any members o f the armed forces from other States who may have decided to settle in. Washington after their discharge. Judging from the national experience and prospects, added partici pation o f workers normally outside the labor force will not account for more than 2 or 3 percent o f the 1950 labor force in Washington. On the basis o f prewar trends, the labor force in Washington would have been expected to increase from 742,000 in 1940 to 843,000 in 1950. It seems likely, however, in view o f the increase during the war that the 1950 labor force will be approximately 950,000. The following tabulation outlines the derivation of the statistical material used in describing past and prospective labor-force changes in Washington. Number (in thousand*) 742 1940 labor fore©_________ ________ ____ _____ 1945 labor force____________________________ 1,028 (1) normal labor force__________________ 796 (2) deviation from normal______________ 282 (a) caused by participation of “ extra” workers__ ___________ 154 (b) caused by “ abnormal” migration__________ _____ ________ 78 1950 labor force ______ ______ _______________ 944 (1) normal labor force__________________ 843 (2) deviation from normal_____ ________ 101 (a) caused by participation of “ extra” workers_________________ 23 (b) caused by “ abnormal” migration_________________________ 78 Source Table Table Table Table 1. 3. 3. 3. Table 3, Table 3. 1 + 2 (below). Table 1. a + b (below). Assumed to be 15 percent of 1945 ex tra workers (2a above). Assumed same as in 19451 (see 2b above). i It is assumed that the net number of workers who m ove into Washington between 1946 and 1960 will be the same as would be expected on the basis of the 1936-40 experience. 20 T able 4.— Estim ated Labor Force, 1940 and 1945, and Projections, 1950, Under Three Assum ptions as to Volume o f Interstate M igra tion 1 [In thousands] Estimated labor force Region, division, and State Projected labor force, 1950 * 1040* 1945* Assump tion A Assump tion B Assump tion C (1) (2) <3) (4) («> U N ITED STATES___ 64,778 65,986 62,028 62,028 62,028 N ORTH ......................... 32,627 38,619 35,732 35,395 35,455 New England........... 3,757 4,386 4,190 4,181 4,239 Maine................. New Hampshire. Vermont............ Massachusetts__ Rhode Island___ Connecticut....... 343 215 147 1,917 335 800 398 229 147 2,225 387 1,000 375 230 146 2,120 383 936 370 234 145 2,098 383 951 359 224 131 2,132 396 997 M iddle Atlantic....... 12,249 14,069 13,281 13,202 13,118 New York-------New Jersey------Pennsylvania— 6,188 1,928 4,133 6,920 2,339 4,810 6,486 2,187 4,608 6,451 2,204 4,647 6,297 2,274 4,547 East North Central. 11,203 13,883 12,644 12,655 12,913 Ohio................... In d ian a............ Illinois................ M ichigan........... Wisconsin.......... 2,865 1,379 3,485 2,202 1,272 3,689 1,776 4,200 2,747 1,471 3,292 1,578 3,810 2,599 1,365 8,282 1,589 3,801 2,637 1,346 3,406 1,618 3,841 2,735 1,313 W est North Central. 5,418 6,281 5,617 5,357 5,185 Minnesota_____ Iowa................... M issouri............ North D a k o ta South D akota... Nebraska........... Kansas............... 1,142 992 1,579 244 248 519 694 1,308 1,103 1,865 254 257 602 892 1,176 996 1,683 232 238 636 756 1,164 966 1,634 201 209 479 704 1,078 900 1,626 182 192 SOUTH.......................... 16,303 19,660 19,125 19,019 18,679 South Atlantic......... Jg 7,249 8,868 8,810 8,918 8,864 Delaware.................... M aryland................... District of Columbia. Virginia.—................. West Virginia............ North Carolina.......... South Carolina.......... Georgia....................... Florida....................... 119 797 358 1,072 657 1,388 763 1,277 818 144 1,087 510 1,399 800 1,574 884 1,465 1,005 139 1,016 481 1,356 743 1,626 910 1,526 1,013 145 1,050 497 1,382 781 1,616 902 1,507 1,088 148 1,132 574 1,434 673 1,495 840 1,463 1,105 East South Central.......... 4,050 4,705 4,600 4,507 4,282 Kentucky......... . Tennessee.......... Alabama............ Mississippi........ 1,037 1,114 1,058 841 1,162 1,349 1,302 892 1,111 1,300 1,270 919 1,087 1,280 1,235 905 978 1,268 1,214 822 West South Central. 5,004 6,087 6,715 5,594 5,433 704 919 834 2,547 826 1,054 944 3,263 739 1,083 859 3,034 708 1>08(| 777 3,023 626 1,075 706 3,026 Arkansas.. Louisiana. Oklahoma Texas....... See footnotes at end of .table. 21 Table 4.— Estim ated Labor Force, 1940 and 1945 , and Projections, 1950 , Under Three Assum ptions as to Volume o f Interstate M igration 1— Continued [In thousands] Estimated labor force Region, division, and State Projected labor force, 1950 * 1940* 1945* Assump tion A Assump tion B Assump tion C (1) (2) (3) (4) (*) W EST.......................................................... 5,848 7,707 7,171 7,614 7,994 M ountain.............................................. 1,580 1,848 1,796 1,827 1,770 Montana......................................... Id a h o ............................................. W yom ing........................................ C olorado......................................... New M exico.................................... A rizon a ........................ ................. Utah................................................ Nevada............................................ 233 198 104 437 184 187 187 50 247 217 118 493 202 259 245 67 220 204 113 477 209 263 245 65 215 211 115 481 217 280 239 69 184 181 109 466 188 303 262 77 Pacific.................................................... 4,288 5,859 5,375 6,787 6,224 Washington..................................... Oregon............................................. California................... *................... 742 470 3,056 1,028 624 4,207 905 566 3,904 944 603 4,240 1,022 636 4,566 * Data presented in this table cover total labor force including armed forces. A ll data at April seasonal level. Annual average for total United States is about three-fourths of a million higher. * From table 1, column (1). * From table 3, column (1). <A ll three projections assume that the 1950 labor force of each State will include some “ extra” workers who would not be in the labor force on the basis of the prewar patterns of labor-market participation assumed in the “ natural” and “ normal” projections (table 1). Participation of “ extra” workers in each State is assumed to be 15 j>ercent of the wartime extra-worker total (table 3, column 5). All three projections take account of net civilian interstate migration between 1940 and 1945. None of the projections make allowance for migration from foreign countries between 1940 and 1950. Assumptions with respect to interstate migra tion between 1945 and 1950 are as follows (see Appendix A , section 8): Assumption A. Whatever new interstate migration takes place between 1945 and 1950 will be offset by return of wartime migrants to their prewar States of residence so that interstate migration in the last half of this decade will have no net effect on the size of the labor force in each State. Assumption B. The net number of workers who move between States during the period 1945-50 will be the same as would be expected on the basis of 1935-40 experience. Assumption C. Net interstate migration of all workers between 1945 and 1950 will be equal to the net interstate migration of civilian workers between 1940 and 1945. Migration of workers on this scale during the second half of the decade could come about With a considerably smaller total population movement than occurred during the first half because wartime civilian migrants included large numbers of servicemen's dependents and a relatively small proportion of men of working age. A ppen dix A .— T echnical N otes on Estim ating Procedures The State labor-force estimates presented in this bulletin are con sistent with current national totals from the Bureau of the Census Monthly Report on the Labor Force (M RLF) which are based on a revised interviewing procedure adopted in July 1945. The effects on the Census series resulting from the introduction of the new inter viewing techniques are described in Bureau of the Census M RLF No. 39, September 20, 1945. National totals for April 1940 and April 1945 appearing in this bulletin are preliminary pending release of official revisions for these dates by the Bureau of the Census. The methods used in deriving the estimates presented in tables 1 to 4 and in Appendix B, tables 1 and 2, are outlined below. 1. L abor F orce, 1940. (Table 1 and Appendix B, tables 1 and 2.) State labor force estimates for 1940 were based on the Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Vol. I ll, The Labor Force. These data by age and sex were adjusted to preliminary national labor-force figures for 1940 designed to be consistent with the revised M RLF series. 2. “ N atural” L abor F orce, 1950. tables 1 and 2.) (Table 1 and Appendix B, a. 1940 State population figures by age and sex (and color for the South) were obtained from the Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, Part 1, United States Summary, table 26; and Vol. IV , Characteristics by Age, Parts 2 to 4, table 1. b. To obtain a 1950 population aged 14 years and over classified by age and sex (and color for the South), the 1940 population 4 years and over was aged by 10 years. Survival rates, based on Census life tables for 1939-41, were used to decrease the population by the number of deaths expected between 1940 and 1950. c. 1940 State worker rates by age and sex (and color for the S outh)1 were then applied to the corresponding 1950 population groups to obtain a 1950 labor force, unadjusted for trend.*2 3 1 1940 worker rates, i. e., the proportion of labor force to population in given groups, were obtained from the Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Vol. I ll, The Labor Force. (23) 24 d. Finally, these projected labor-force figures by State were ad justed to national “ normal” labor-force estimates, by age and sex, for 1950 to take account of long-term trends in worker rates. The estimates of “ normal” labor force were those of the Bureau of the Census2 adjusted to be consistent with the current Census M onthly Report on the Labor Force series. 3. “ N ormal” L abor F orce, 1945 and 1950. (Tables 1 and 3 and Appendix B, tables 1 and 2.) а. For 1950, the base population figures by age and sex (and color for the South), assuming no migration, are those obtained in section 26. The corresponding population figures for 1945 were derived in a similar manner by aging the 1940 population 9 years of age and over by 5 years. б. Shifts through migration were accounted for by using the 193540 volume of net interstate migration by age and sex (and color for the South) for the 1940-45 period.8 For the 10-year period 1940 to 1950, the figures were doubled.4 Total populations by age and sex for the years 1945 and 1950, assuming migration, were obtained by adding the volume of assumed migration 1940-45 and 1940-50 to the survived populations in 1945 and 1950, respectively. While the procedure employed does not attempt to estimate the actual magnitude of migration changes during the current decade, it is consistent with the migration 'pattern that prevailed during the war and is likely to carry over into the postwar period. An analysis of wartime and prewar migration patterns by Shryock and Eldridge.of the Bureau of the Census shows a close similarity between the war and prewar periods.5 The correlation coefficients between annual average net interstate migration for the period 1940-45 and the corresponding annual averages for three earlier periods for which data are available are as follows: 1940-45 correlated with— Coefficient 1935-40................. ........................................................— .9 2 1930-40................... ...............................................................79 1920-30_________________ __________________________ _ 81* 2 Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-44, No. 12, Normal Growth of the Labor Force in the United States: 1940 to 1960, by John D . Durand and Loring W ood. * Migration data obtained from Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Internal Migra tion, 1936 to 1940, Age of Migrants. <This procedure is conceptually not the best that could be devised, inasmuch as the age composition of migrants who moved during a 6-year period would be expected to differ from that of migrants who moved during a 10-year period. Because of the approximate nature of the entire migration assumption, however, it was felt that the use of a more intricate and time-consuming method, which would have in turn involved additional assumptions as to the timing of migration over the 10-year period, would not be justified. •Demographic Aspects of W orld War II: Migration. Paper delivered before the American Sociological Society (Cleveland, Ohio, M ar. 1,1946). 25 c. The 1945 and 1950 normal labor forces, unadjusted for trend, were computed by applying 1940 State worker rates to the population estimates computed in section 26. d. The labor-force figures for each year were then adjusted to national normal labor-force totals by age and sex (see section 2d) for the corresponding years in order to adjust for trend. 4. E stimated A ctual L abor F orce, A pril 1945. (Table 3.) An actual labor force for April 1945 by State was estimated by distributing preliminary estimates of the United States total (on the revised M RLF series basis) in the following manner: а. M R LF nonagricultural wage and salary workers (except domes tics).— Census State totals in 1940 were moved by the percentage change in the Bureau of Labor Statistics State estimates of non agricultural employees for April 1940 to April 1945. The 1945 State distribution thereby derived was used to distribute the M RLF national total. б. Nonagricultural self-employed, proprietors, domestic servants, and unpaid fam ily workers.— The most recent distribution of this group by State is found in the 1940 census. In order to take account of subsequent changes it was assumed that the distribution would shift between 1940 and 1945 by only half as much as did the distribution of employees in nonagricultural establishments. The State distri bution obtained was applied to the M RLF national figure. c. Agricultural employment— M RLF agricultural employment figures for family labor (self-employed plus unpaid family workers) and hired workers (wage and salary workers) in April 1945 were separately distributed by major geographic divisions. This was done by moving the 1940 census components for each geographic division by the rate of change in the corresponding Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) components between 1940 and 1945 and applying the distribu tion obtained to April 1945 M RLF totals. Each division's family labor was, in turn, broken into State figures by the distribution of farms in 1945.6 The two variables, when correlated from 1940 data, showed a very high relationship (.98887). Hired labor was distributed by State according to BAE State employment figures for hired labor in April 1942. d. Unemployment.— M RLF unemployment figure for April 1945 was distributed by State according to the distribution of continued claims for unemployment compensation in April 1945.7* * Bureau of the Census, Preliminary Compilation of Number of Farms and Acres in Farms in the United States, by Counties: 1945 Census of Agriculture (November 30, 1945). » Social Security Board, Bureau of Employment Security, Employment Security Activities, Vol. 1, No. 5, M ay 1945. 26 e. Armed forces.— State figures for the armed forces in April 1945 were obtained by distributing the total for that month according to the distribution of inductions and enlistments from each State for the period April 1940 to July 1945 as shown in Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-46, No. 3. / . Total actual labor-force estimates for the States were derived by summing a through e. 5. D eviation of A ctual from “ N ormal” L abor F orce C aused b y A bnormal M igration, 1945. (Table 3.) The difference between each State’s normal labor force (section 3d) and actual labor force (section 4f) for April 1945 was divided into two parts: That due to extra participation of persons who normally would not work or seek work and that due to actual migration being greater or less than the assumed “ normal” migration. a. The deviation from normal attributable to migration was derived as follows: (1) Estimated net interstate migration of the civilian population between 1940 and 1945 was adapted from Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-46, No. 3. (See Appendix B, table 3.) (2) An over-all “ normal” worker rate for civilian migrants between 1940 and 1945 was computed as follows: The 1945 “ normal” ageand sex-specific worker rates were applied to the age and sex distribu tion of all civilian interstate migrants for the period December 1941 to March 1945 8 to obtain an estimate of civilian migrants who would normally be in the labor force.9 The ratio of this figure to the total number of civilian migrants for the period gave an over-all normal worker rate for migrants. (3) This over-all normal worker rate for civilian migrants was applied to the net civilian migration estimate for each State ((1) above) to obtain an estimate of the net number of civilian migrants to or from each State, 1940-45, who would normally be in the labor force. (4) The net number of migrant workers included in the 1945 normal labor-force estimate for each State (i. e., computed on the basis of 1935-40 migration— see section 2) was subtracted from the figure for each State derived in step (3) to obtain the deviation of actual labor force from normal caused by “ abnormal” migration between 1940 and 1945.• •Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-S, No. 5. •Data from the 1940 Census of Population indicate that interstate migrants (1936-40) had the same worker rates age for age as nonmigrants. The worker rate for all interstate migrants 14 years of age and over ex ceeded that for the corresponding group of nonmigrants, but this was entirely attributable to differences in the age composition of the two groups. 27 b. The estimated deviation from normal due to participation of extra workers in each State was derived by subtracting the deviation due to migration from the total deviation. 6. “N L atural” abor F A c c e s s io n s orce, to 1940-50. and S e p a r a t io n s (Table prom the M ale 2 .) The two basic sets of figures used in estimating accessions and separations were the 1940 male labor force by age and the “ natural” 1950 male labor force by age for each State. (See sections 1 and 2d.) a. Accessions.—All of the workers aged 14 to 23 in 1950, too young to have been counted in the labor force of 1940, were counted as acces sions to the labor force between 1940 and 1950. Part of the 24- to 34year-old labor force in 1950 was in the 1940 labor force as the 14- to 24year-old group; the rest are new additions during the 10 years. There fore, new labor-force entrants aged 14 to 34 in 1950 were obtained by subtracting the number of workers aged 14 to 24 in 1940 (adjusted for mortality between J.940 and 1950) from the labor force aged 14 to 34 in 1950. No allowance was made for new workers over 35 years of age in 1950, but their number is not significant. b. Separations.— Separations from the labor force during the 10year period are the sum of the expected deaths and retirements. They are computed in three parts: (1) The major part of the separations occurs among workers who were 35 years and older in 1940. This is estimated as the difference between the 1950 labor force 45 years and over and the 1940 workers who were 35 years and over. (2) For the group 14 to 24 in 1940, the estimated number of deaths is counted as total separations since there are very few retirements from the labor force among the young men in this group. (3) There remains the group aged 25 to 34 in 1940. This is a very stable group so far as labor-market participation is concerned. Very few men enter the labor market after age 25 and very few are sepa rated before age 44 except in case of death. Total separations were estimated by subtracting the estimated labor force aged 35 to 44 in 1950 from the labor force aged 25 to 34 in 1940. This procedure understates the number of separations by a small amount equal to the number of accessions after age 25. Thus in a few States the net separations were smaller than the expected number of deaths. In such cases the expected number of deaths were considered to be the total separations and the excess of deaths over net separations was added to accessions. The sum of groups (1) to (3) comprises the total number of separations for each State. 28 c. Replacement rates.— The replacement rate is the number of acces sions per 100 separations. 7. “N ormal” A ccessions to and Separations prom the M ale L abor F orce, 1940-50. (Table 2.) Accessions were considered to be composed of the 1940-50 in migrants in a Stated labor force as of 1950 plus the new entrants dur ing the decade from the nonmigrant population; separations, the sum of the 1940-50 out-migrants who were in the State’s 1940 labor force plus separations from the 1940 nonmigrant labor force during the decade.10 а. Migrants.—As previously indicated (section 36) the number of interstate migrants in each age and sex group between 1940 and 1950 was assumed to be twice the corresponding number between 1935 and 1940. б. In-migrant labor force, 1950.— The in-migrant male population by age for each State in 1950 was multiplied by age-specific worker rates to derive the in-migrant male labor force of each State as of 1950. These workers would be accessions to the State’s labor force during the 10-year period. c. Out-migrant labor force.—The number of 1940-50 out-migrants from each State who had been in the 1940 labor force was estimated by applying the 1940 age-specific worker rates to the out-migrant population. Since the out-migrants were distributed by their 1950 ages, worker rates for age groups 10 years younger were applied in order to estimate how many were in the 1940 labor force. For ex ample, the 1940 worker rate for men aged 35 to 44 was applied to the group of out-migrants aged 45 to 54 as of 1950. d. Nonmigrant labor force.— The 1940 out-migrant workers, by age (computed in 7c above), were subtracted from the corresponding age groups of the State’s 1940 labor force to estimate the 1940 nonmigrant labor force. e. The 1950 nonmigrant labor force was computed by subtracting from the State’s projected 1950 labor force by age, assuming no migration (section 2d), the number of workers who would be expected to leave the State between 1940 and 1950. The estimate of total outmigrant workers was obtained by applying age-specific worker rates to the 1950 out-migrant population. These two basic sets of figures on a nonmigrant basis were then used to obtain the accessions and separations from among nonmigrant workers. The same procedures as outlined for computing accessions to and separations from the total male labor force on the assumption i° Persons who would both enter and leave a given State’s labor force during the decade are not counted either as accessions or separations for that State. 29 of no migration were applied to these nonmigrant workers of 1940 and 1950. 8. P r o je c te d L abor F orce, 1950. (Table 4.) a. All three projections assume that the 1950 labor force of each State will include some *'‘extra’’ workers who would not be in the labor force on the basis of the prewar patterns of labor-market participation assumed in the ‘“ natural” and “ normal” projections (table 1). Par ticipation of extra workers in each State is assumed to be 15 percent of the wartime extra-worker total (i. e., 15 percent of column (5), table 3). b. Assumption A .— To the natural labor-force projection for 1950 (table 1, column (2)) was added (1) the allowance for extra workers (section 8a), and (2) the net number of civilian migrants between 1940 and 1945 who would normally be in the labor force (section 5a (3)). Thus, it was assumed that migration between 1945 and 1950‘would have no net effect on the size of the labor force in each State. c. Assumption B .—To the normal labor-force projection for 1950 (table 1, column (4)) was added (1) the allowance for extra workers (section 8a), and (2) the deviation of labor force from normal caused by abnormal migration between 1940 and 1945 (table 3, column (4)). Thus the labor-force changes due to abnormal wartime migration were retained and it was assumed that interstate migration of workers between 1945 and 1950 would revert to the 1935-40 volume and pat tern assumed in the normal projections. d. Assumption C.—To the labor force obtained under Assumption B was added an amount equal to the deviation of labor force from normal caused by abnormal migration between 1940 and 1945 (table 3, column (4)). Thus, it was assumed that interstate migration of workers between 1945 and 1950 would be the same as between 1940 and 1945 (i. e., would exceed normal by the same amount as the 194045 volume). A ppendix B T able 1.— “ N atural” and "N o rm a l” G rowth o f the M a le L a bor F orce , Region, division, and State by State, 1940 to 19501 Labor force, 1940 2 (in thou sands) (1) “ Natural” labor-force projection, 1950 * “ Normal” labor-force projection, 1950* Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 (2) (3) (4) (5) UNITED S T A T E S .................................. 41,036 43,606 6.3 43,606 N O R T H ....................................................... 24,222 25,153 3.8 24,654 1.8 New England........................................ 2,618 2,716 3.7 2,705 3.3 Maine.............................................. New Hampshire.............................. Vermont......................................... Massachusetts................................. Rhode Island................................... Connecticut..................................... 253 153 113 1,314 226 559 268 157 118 1,359 237 577 5.9 4.4 3.4 4.9 3.2 262 161 116 1,331 238 597 3.6 5.2 2.7 1.3 5.3 Middle Atlantic.................................... 8,822 9,153 3.8 9,028 2.3 New York....................................... New Jersey................................. . Pennsylvania.... .......................... .. 4,365 1,371 3,086 4,437 1,415 3,301 1.6 3.2 7.0 4,372 1,437 3,219 4.8 4.3 East North Central-............................ 8,540 '8,852 iTT 8,867 £8 Ohio..................... ........................... Indiana............................................ Illinois............................................. Michigan......................................... Wisconsin......................... ............ . 2,183 1,079 2,571 1,713 994 2,259 2,245 1,140 2.8 2,618 1,810 1,043 $.5 4.0 5.7 4.9 2,000 1,866 8.9 West North Central............................ 4,242 4,432 M innesota..................................... Iowa................. ...................... ........ M issouri--...................................... North Dakota___^.......................... South Dakota................................. Nebraska......................................... Kansas....... ..................................... 885 792 1,200 202 201 924 824 1,237 411 551 SOUTH....................................................... South Atlantic....................................... 1,122 2.6 1.8 6.3 6.8 .2 5.7 1 .1 1,016 2.2 4.5 4,054 -4 .4 218 434 575 220 4.4 4.0 3.1 8.9 8.5 5.6 4.4 909 779 1,165 173 173 355 500 2.7 - 1.6 -2 .9 -14.4 —13.9 -13.6 -9 .3 12,323 13,897 12.8 13,761 11.7 5,284 5,950 12.6 6,127 16.0 Delaware......................................... Maryland............ ........................... District of Columbia...................... Virginia.......................................... West Virginia................................. North Carolina............................... South Carolina................................ Georgia............................................ Florida............................................. 87 583 217 817 539 1,015 533 918 575 90 614 214 914 625 1,207 640 1,049 597 3.4 5.3 -1 .4 11.9 16.0 18.9 98 665 231 961 607 1,199 630 1,032 704 18.1 18.2 12.4 22.4 East South Central............................... 3,132 3,571 14.0 3,439 9.8 Kentucky........................................ Tennessee........................................ Alabama______________ _________ Mississippi...................................... 846 855 800 631 958 964 934 715 13.2 12.7 16.8 13.3 925 933 884 697 9.3 9.1 10.5 10.5 West South Central.............................. 3,907 4,376 12.0 4,195 7.4 Arkansas............... ...................... . Louisiana-.................... ................. Oklahoma........................................ Texas.............................................. 580 694 655 781 752 2,188 12.9 12.5 12.9 607 4.7 13.7 - 6.2 10.5 See footnotes at end o f table. 666 1,967 (30) 20.1 14.3 3.8 11.2 789 625 2,174 12.6 14.1 6.5 17.6 12.6 31 T able 1.— “ N atural” and “ N orm a l” G row th o f the M a le L a bor F orce , b y State , 1 9 4 0 to 1 9 5 0 1— Continued Region, division, and State Labor force, 1940 1 2 (in thou sands) (1) “ Natural” labor-force projection, 1950 3 “ Normal” labor-force projection, 1950 * Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 (2) (3) (4) (5) W E S T .............................................................. 4,491 4,556 1.4 5,191 15.6 M ountain............. .................................... 1,270 1,385 9.1 1,432 12.8 M ontana............................................. Idaho. .................... ......................... W yom ing........ ................................ Colorado............................................. New M e x ic o ..................................... A rizon a.............................................. U tah........ .................... ...................... N eva d a .......................................... ; . 191 166 86 338 150 147 151 41 ',! 180 92 356 178 165 177 40 3.1 8.4 7.0 5.3 18.7 12.2 17.2 -2 .4 190 192 96 361 189 190 167 47 -.5 15.7 11.6 6.8 26.0 29.3 10.6 14.6 3,221 3,171 -1 .6 3,759 16.7 583 365 2,273 572 361 2,238 - 1 .9 - 1 .1 -1 .5 636 415 2,708 9.1 13.7 19.1 Pacific....................................................— Washington........................................ Oregon........... .................................... California................... .................... 1 Data presented in this table cover total labor force including armed forces. All data at April seasonal level. Annual average for total United States is about 400,000 higher. 2 Data from 1940 census have been revised upward for comparability with current census series. Pre liminary pending release of official revision of United States total by Bureau of the Census. See Appendix A, section 1. * This projection assumes (1) continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that works or seeks work; (2) economic conditions in 1950 similar to those of 1940; (3) no interstate migration between 1940 and 1950. See Appendix A, section 2. <Assumptions (1) and (2) same as above; (3) interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 assumed to be twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A, section 3. 32 T able 2.— “ Natural” and “ Norm al99 Growth o f the Fem ale Labor Force, 6r Slate, 1940 to 1 9 5 0 ' Region, division, and State “ Natural” labor-force projection, 19503 “ Normal” labor-force projection, 19504 Labor force, 1940* (in thou sands) Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) UNITED STATES.. 13,742 17,224 25.3 17, 224 N ORTH.................... 8,405 10,136 20.6 9,964 18.5 New England. 1,139 1,366 19.9 1,357 19.1 90 62 34 603 109 241 116 77 43 718 129 283 28.9 24.2 26.5 19.1 18.3 17.4 111 23.3 30.6 3,427 4,080 19.1 4,046 18.1 1,823 557 1,047 2,134 650 1,296 17.1 16.7 23.8 2,129 661 1,256 20.0 2,663 3,234 21.4 3,242 21.7 682 300 914 489 278 830 372 1,079 608 345 21.7 24.0 18.1 24.3 24.1 826 376 1,077 629 334 25.3 17.8 28.6 L176 1,456 23.8 1,319 12~2 318 23.7 22.5 309 228 434 20.2 Maine.................. New Hampshire.. Vermont.............. Massachusetts.... Rhode Island...... Connecticut........ Middle AtlanticNew York___ New Jersey___ PennsylvaniaEast North Central . Ohio........... Indiana___ Illinois____ Michigan... WisconsinWest North Central. . Minnesota........ Iowa................. Missouri........... North Dakota.. South Dakota.. Nebraska_____ 257 81 41 702 129 293 25.3 20.6 16.4 18.3 21.6 16.8 18.7 21.1 20.1 379 42 47 108 143 245 461 57 61 135 179 SOUTH______ . . . . 3,980 5,417 36T 5,343 3A2 South Atlantic. 1,965 2,675 36.1 2,717 38.3 32 214 141 255 118 373 230 359 243 38 265 166 342 166 529 326 528 315 18.8 23.8 17.7 34.1 40.7 41.8 41.7 47.1 29.6 42 283 182 346 160 517 321 506 360 31.2 32.2 29.1 35.7 35.6 38.6 39.6 40.9 48.1 918 1,262 37.5 1,206 31.4 191 259 258 210 259 344 366 293 35.6 32.8 41.9 39.5 246 333 345 282 28.8 28.6 33.7 34.3 1,097 1,480 34.9 1,420 29.4 124 225 168 580 172 301 231 776 38.7 33.8 37.5 33.8 157 299 195 769 26.6 32.9 16.1 32.6 Delaware.................... Maryland................... District of Columbia. Virginia...................... West Virginia............ North Carolina.......... South Carolina.......... Georgia-..................... Florida______ ______ East South Central___ Kentucky. Tennessee... Alabama___ MississippiWest South Central. Arkansas... Louisiana... Oklahoma... Texas........... See footnotes at end o f table. 200 21.6 35.7 29.8 25.0 25.2 41 48 108 151 14.0 14.5 -2 .4 2.1 .0 5.6 33 T able 2.— “ N atu ral” and “ N orm al” G rowth o f the F em a le L a bor F orce , b y State , 1 9 4 0 to 1 9 5 0 1— Continued Region, division, and State “ Natural” labor-force projection, 19508 “ Normal” , labor-force projection, 1950 1 *4 Labor force, 1940 3 (in thou sands) Number (in thou sands) Percent change from 1940 Number (jin thou sands) Percent change from 1940 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) W EST.......................................................... 1,357 1,671 23.1 1,917 41.3 Mountain............................................... 310 412 32.9 424 36.8 Montana.............................. - ......... Idaho............................................... Wyoming........................................ Colorado...................... - .............— New Mexico.................................... Arizona............................................ Utah................................................ Nevada............................................ 42 32 18 99 34 40 36 9 53 43 23 125 51 57 49 26.2 34.4 27.8 26.3 50.0 42.5 36.1 11 22.2 50 45 23 128 54 65 46 13 19.0 40.6 27.8 29.3 58.8 62.5 27.8 44.4 Pacific........... .............. ......................... 1,047 1,259 20.2 1,493 42.6 Washington..................................... Oregon............................................. California........................................ 159 105 783 193 126 940 21.4 207 144 1,142 30.2 37.1 45.8 20.0 20.1 1 All data at April seasonal level. Annual average for total United States is about 300,000 higher. * Data from 1940 census have been revised upward for comparability with current census series. Pre liminary pending release of official revision of United States total by Bureau of the Census. See Appendix A, section 1. 8 This projection assumes (1) continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that works or seeks work; (2) economic conditions in 1950 similar to those of 1940; (3) no interstate migration between 1940 and 1950. See Appendix A, section 2. 4Assumptions (1) and (2) same as above; (3) interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 assumed to be twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A, section 3. 34 T able 3.— N et Interstate M igration, 1 9 3 5 -4 0 Compared W ith 1 9 4 0 -4 5 Net interstate migration (in thousands) Region, division, and State Region, division, and State 1935-40 1940-45 (total) (civilian) UNITED STATES................. 0 0 N O R TH .................................... -615 -641 New England____________ -1 6 110 Maine_______________ New Hampshire........... Vermont. T.................... -9 —32 (i) 25 -3 9 -1 5 -3 9 27 33 143 Middle Atlantic__________ -131 -383 New V nrk N aw Jersey Pennsylvania.............. -5 6 29 -104 East North Central_______ Ohio.............. ................ Indiana___________ _ Illinois Michigan Wisconsin 26 —19 76 -3 2 Rhode Island................ Wg.st Noft-h OAntral Minnesota___ ________ Iowa______ __________ M issouri____________ North Dakota________ South Dakota............... 1935-40 1940-45 (total) (civilian) SOUTH—Continued South Atlantic—Continued District of Columbia.. . Virginia V11gJLJLLia West Virginia.............._ North flftrolirift li ut til V Ol South Carolina______ Georgia.......................... Florida.......................... 44 —27 —15 —16 —33 147 1JL Q o1I —163 —Oil/ —162 —149 219 East South Central............. —195 Kentucky Tennessee____________ Alabama.................... Mississippi______ _55 —39 -7 3 —28 —751 _ OA —O UO o —79 -134 -230 -143 West South Central............ -270 -657 41 632 -10 271 94 69 320 Arkansas....................... Tunisian a Oklahoma..................... Texas...... ...................... —75 Q —184 —20 —265 _IQ — lsf —356 —17 W EST........................................ 887 1,915 65 -6 9 _Q4 — —54 6 -6 -442 202 -12 2 -509 - 1,000 —18 —61 —85 -230 -228 -136 -6 6 —120 —61 —107 Mountain Montana Idaho...... ...................... Wyoming...................... Colorado.. _________ New Mexico Arizona.............. .......... — 10 Pacific......... ............................ 822 1,984 Washington____ ______ 80 77 665 1,551 S O U T H ......................................... -272 -1,274 South Atlantic.......... ............ 193 134 Delaware_____________ M aryland........... ............ 10 21 California........................ 274 _21 16 3 9 14 38 220 —12 8 -107 —115 -6 4 61 22 —26 —53 91 38 29 —111 Nebraska______________ Kansas ______________ Net interstate migration (in thousands) Utah............................... Nevada.......................... Oregon 273 t f iO JLOU 1 Less than 500. Sources: 1935-40—Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Internal Migration, 1935-1940, Color and Sex of Migrants; 1940-45—Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-46, N o. 3 (adjusted to exclude immigrants from other countries).
@FedFRASER