The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
F. C. Harrington, Admlnlstn,tor
Corrington GUI, Assistant Administrator
DIVISION OF RESEA~CH
Howard B. Myers, Director
RURAL MIGRATION
IN THE
UNITED STATES
By
C. E. Lively
Univenlty of Mluourl
and
Conrad Taeuber
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Agricultural Economics
•
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XIX
1939
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Dig tized by
Goog rC
n,g
7edbyGoogle
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADl,IINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., May 1, 1939.
Srn: I have the honor to transmit a comprehensive analysis of rural
migration in the United States. The effect of migration on the
distribution of the rural population is important with respect to both
the location a.nd the extent of unemployment and relief needs and
consequently affects the extent and distribution of employment
under the Works Program. The depression of the early thirties
markedly reduced the migration from rural areas. Since there was
no corresponding decline in the excess of births over deaths, a rapid
increase in farm population was inevitable. Moreover, the increase
was most marked in the productive ages, especially among youth.
Not only have the reduced migration from rural areas and the backto-the-land movement been important factors in intensifying rural
relief needs but also residential requirements for public assistance
have had the general effect of retarding needed migration from rural
areas. Migration alone offers no panacea for the problems of rural
areas. In combination with efforts to improve the social and econoinic conditions of rural people where they are and with a declining
rural birth rate, however, guided migration for a limited number
seems to offer one approach to solving the long-time problems of
widespread need in rural areas.
By the use of census data this report presents a detailed analysis
of the recent movements of the rural population. In addition data
for approximately 22,000 rural families included in comparable field
surveys conducted in 7 States make possible an intensive study of
the characteristics of migrant and nonmigrant fainilies in the same
areas.
The study was made in the Division of Research under the direction
of Howard B. Myers, Director of Research. The schedules and instructions used in the field surveys were prepared by C. E. Lively,
now of the University of Missouri, and Conrad Taeuber, now of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
when they were members of the research staff of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. The analysis of both the census and
survey data was made under the supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr.,
Chief, Rural Surveys Section, Division of Research, and Carl C.
Ill
Dig tized by
Goog rC
IV • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Taylor, in charge, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The report wa.s prepared by
C. E. Lively and Conrad Ta.euber with the assistance of Frances
Foott, C. L. Folse, and Charles S. Hoffman. It wa.s edited by Ellen
Winston of the Division of Research. Special acknowledgment is
due the State supervisors and assistant supervisors of rural research
who conducted the field surveys and the staff of the Social Research
Section, Farm Security Administration, who assisted with the field
work and tabulations.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Administrator.
COL.
F. C. HARRINGTON,
Works Progress Administrator.
Dig t1zed by
Goog re
Contents
Page
Introduction -
XI
Summary - -
xv
Chapter I. Rural population movements before 1930
Growth of the rural population _ _ _ _
Rural popu]ation change by counties _ _ _ _
1900-1910 _
1910-1920 _______ _
1920-1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Net rural migration, 1920-1930
_ _ _ _
Number of migrants_ _ _ _ _
_ ____
Age of migrants_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Net rural migration, 1920-1930, by States ____ _
Rural-farm and rural-nonfarm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Net rural migration, 1920-1930, by counties _____
Chapter II. Movements of the farm population since 1930 Net migration to and from farms _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Effect of drought _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
Exchange of population _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Effect of decreased migration from farms
_ _
Migration to farms by geographic divisions and States
Migration to farms in relation to urban centers _ _ _
Migration to farms and quality of land _ _ _ _ _ _
Migration to farms and the incidence of relief and
incomes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The migrants _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1
1
4
4
_
_
_
_
_
_ _
_ _
__
_ _
_ _
low
6
10
12
13
15
17
18
20
25
28
30
31
32
33
35
37
40
_ _
43
Chapter Ill. Migration and rural reproduction - - - - - - _ - _
Rural reproduction by geographic divisions and States _ _
Rural reproduction by counties ________ _
Rural population fertility and replacement needs _ _
Net rural migration and rural reproduction ___ _
Type of net rural migration and rural reproduction _
47
48
Chapter IV. Migration and selected socio-economic facton
Mechanization of agriculture _ _ _ _ _ _
Quality of land _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Proportion of workers in agriculture
___ _
V
65
Dig t1zed by
48
54
59
60
65
66
68
Goog re
VI • CONTENTS
Page
Agricultural income _ _
Educational facilities _ _ _ _
Plane of living index _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Distance to cities and suburban development
Relief rates _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subjective factors influencing migration _ _ _
Background factors part of larger complex _
Chapter V. Rural migration in 1«lected areas - - _
Frequency of residence changes by heads of families _
Range of migration of heads of families _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Types of residence changes by heads of families and all
persons 16 years of age and over _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Decline in migration of children from parental homes __
Distance migrated by children leaving parental homes __
Type of areas receiving migrant children ____ _
Chapter VI. Characteristics of migrants in selected areas - _
Age of male heads of families ___ _
Age of migrant children _______ _
Sex of heads of families _ _ _ _ __ _
Sex and residence of migrant children _
Family composition ______________ _
Gainful workers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Occupations of male heads of families _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Range of migration _
_ _ _ _ _
Occupational changes _____________ _
Relief status _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chapter VII. The social slgnif'icance of rural migration _
Effects of rural-urban migration upon rural life _ _ _ _ _
Effects of rural-urban migration upon cities _ _ _ _
Mobility within agriculture _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Migration and agricultural opportunity _ _ _ _ _
Relation of rural migration to public work programs and
relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
B.
74
78
79
82
85
87
89
91
95
98
100
103
103
104
106
106
108
108
109
111
112
116
119
119
121
122
125
129
163
Methodological notes - _
- - - -
173
Selected bibliography _
177
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
185
Appendix C. List of tables
Appendix
Index
73
137
Appendix A. Supplementary tables_ _
Appendix
71
71
D.
Dgr
zedbyGooglc
CONTENTS • Vil
ILLUSTRATIONS
fl9ures
Figure
Page
1. Total population and farm population in the United States,
1920-1938 _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _
2. Density of population in the United States, 1790, 1840, 1890,
and 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. Gains and losses in the rural population of the United
States, 1900-1910 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. Gains and losses in the rural population of the United
States, 1910-1920 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. Net loss through migration to the rural population of the
United States, by age (estimated), 1920-1930 _ _ _ _ _
6. Percent net gain or loss through migration to the rural
population of the United States (estimated), 1920-1930 _
7. Total and net migration to and from farms, 1920-1937 _ _
8. Net migration of farm population, 1930-1934 _ _ _ _ _ _
9. Persons living on farms, January 1, 1935, who had a nonfarm residence 5 years earlier _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10. Children under 5 yea.rs of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 yea.rs of age, white rural-farm population, 1930 _ _ _
11. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 years of age, colored rural-farm population, 1930 _ _
12. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 years of age, white rural-nonfarm population, 1930 _
13. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 years of age, total rural population, 1930 _ _ _ _ _
14. Areas of absorption, dispersion, and depopulation in the
rural population of the United States, 1920-1930 _ _ _
15. Percent of gainful workers 10 years of age and over engaged
in agriculture, 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16. Gross farm income per gainful worker in agriculture, 1929 _
17. Rural plane of living index, 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18. Rural-farm plane of Jiving index, 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19. Male heads of families reporting a change in residence
during the period of survey, by type of change _ _ _ _
XII
2
7
9
16
22
26
29
35
52
53
56
57
62
70
72
76
77
92
Photosraphl
New lands ahead ____ _
Home by the highway! _
They too know drought __
Leaving the fa.rm _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
Facing xiv
Facing 18
Facing 30
Facing 31
Og1tzedbyGoogle
VIII • CONTENTS
Page
A little farm_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A potential migrant from poor land _ _
Some move east while some move west _
Rural youth in urban slums _ _ _ _ _ _
Modern migrants _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One poor farm supports two families _
Seasonal labor attracts many migrants _
Fresh from the country _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,,
_
_
___ Facing
_ Facing
_ _ Facing
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ _ _ _
_ Facing
_ _ _ _ _ Facing
;·
Dig11zed by
Google
44
66
82
100
108
109
124
130
Rural Migration in the United States
IX
DaltzedbyGoogle
Oia tiled by
Goog IC
INTRODUCTION
THE PEOPLE of the United States are traditionally restless. The
resultant redistribution of the population has signal influence on many
of the Nation's basic programs, such as those concerned with land use,
education, public health, public and private employment, and relief.
Before 1900 public interest in population movements was centered
on foreign immigration, land settlement, and the westward movement.
As the rush to the frontier died away and population turned toward
the cities, such attention shifted to rural-urban migrations. During
the World War, and subsequently, great interest was manifested in
the northward migration of Negroes. Within the same period some
attention was devoted to studies of the individual aspects of migration,
including analyses of the types of people who moved. In the decade
immediately preceding the economic depression of the early thirties,
the suburban trend caught the fancy of persons concerned with population movements, and more recently urban-rural migrations have
stimulated much discussion. At present the interest in migration
shows definite indications of broadening to encompass the entire
problem of the distribution of population in relation to resources
and economic opportunity.
The urgency of the problem of conservation of natural, particularly
agricultural, resources is becoming more and more apparent. Variations in the economic and social status of the population in different
sections of the country are little short of startling. The natural
increase of the population is so variable from section to section as to
give rise to the pertinent remark of Rupert Vance that the most
significant redistribution of population that could take place would
result from cessation of migration. Failure of a large proportion of
the rural population of many counties and States of high natural
increase and relatively low economic opportunity to migrate elsewhere might precipitate these areas, and indeed the rural population
generally, into an economic quagmire. This would place increased
demands upon work programs, relief, and other forms of public assistance. Because of the residential requirements of public assistance
XI
nigtized by
Google
--i--,
XII • RURAL M IGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
200
200
I
I
100
-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
Totol population
I I II
I
I I
10 0
I
I
80
I
80
I
I
I
60
60
.
I I ..;
•
;
...•
C
C
0
I III
g
i 40
I
40 i
II
I II I I
I
I
I
i
Form population
I
I
20
IO 1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
i
20
II
II
!
1936
1938 IO
FIG. I- TOTAL POPULATION ANO FARM POPULATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
1920-1938
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Deportment
of Commerce, and Bureau of Agricultural
Econom ics, U.S. Deportment of Agriculture,
Washington, 0. C.
011• zed by
0.
C
0
I I
I
---
I
Google
INTRODUCTION • XIII
programs, these demands might serve as deterrents to needed emigration. Yet, with the present state of the urban birth rate, the population of most large cities would soon begin to decline if rural-urban
migrations were to cease. Thus, migration becomes an important
phase of the entire problem of economic and social planning.
In spite of the growing interest in population movements, there
does not now exist any comprehensive body of knowledge regarding the
nature of migration and the migratory process. As a result, mistaken
notions and theories regarding the occurrence and social significance
of migration are widespread. Painstaking research alone can remedy
this situation.
The present study was undertaken for the purpose of providing a
better understanding of the extent and nature of rural population
movements and of the relation of these movements to such significant
social and economic factors as quality of land, economic status,
population growth, depression, drought, unemployment, and the need
for public work programs and relief. Because of such relationships
movements of the rural population have bearing upon the welfare of
the rural population and to some extent upon the welfare of the entire
Nation. This volume summarizes the available data on broad movements of the rural population and reports on a field survey of the
mobility of rural families.
The survey had its inception in 1934 when the authors were members of the staff of the Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance of
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. A project for the field
study of rural population mobility launched at that time was subsequently used for the purpose of making studies in a number of States.
The schedule has been used by the Works Progress Administration,
Farm Security Administration, and Bureau of Agricultural Economics;
and these agencies have collaborated in the analysis of the material.
The mobility histories of approximately 22,000 families were secured
through interviews in rural areas of Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota. 1
1
For methodology see appendix B, p. 168.
Dg1tzedbyGoogle
o,g 1,ztd by
Google
,ri.rew Lands Ahead.
Dq1
zedbyGoogle
01gt1zed by
Google
SUMMARY
THE EXTENT and direction of the movements of the rural population
of the United States are significant not only with respect to rural areas
but also with respect to the population of the Nation as a whole, since
there is a constant exchange of people between rural and urban areas.
Because the study of internal migration is comparatively recent, detailed data are often lacking. On the basis of the materials which
are available, however, it is possible to analyze the genera.I trends in
rural migration and to evajuate their social significance. Sufficient
data on the migrants are also at hand to indicate important charaoteristics of rural population mobility.
While data on rural population change in each State give the genera.I aspects of the situation, it is only when rural migration is studied
county by county that the wide variations from area to area are directly observable. The rural population of the United States as a
whole increased 9.2 percent during the decade 1900-1910, but nearly
40 percent of all counties decreased in rural population. Population
readjustments incident to the growth of cities and to a maturing rural
civilization were already under way in this period.
During the following decade, 1910-1920, the rate of rural increase
fell to 3.2 percent while more than one-ha.If of the counties experienced
a decrease in rural population. The trends evident in this decade
were continued from 1920 to 1930 with only minor changes. Although the average rate of growth of the rural population increased
to 4.7 percent, again more than one-ha.If of the counties lost rural
population. In genera.I, however, a definite tendency toward greater
stability in rural population growth was noticeable.
Since few if any counties have more deaths than births, such population losses as have been experienced must be attributed to migration.
During the decade 1920-1930 the net loss in total rural population
through migration to urban areas amounted to 11.1 percent of the
1920 population. Thus, had there been no net loss from rural migration, the gain to the total rural population would probably have
been approximately 16 percent instead of less than 5 percent. The
net loss from migration was not evenly distributed. The rural-farm
xv
Dgr
zedbyGooglc
XVI • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
loss amounted to 19.3 percent, but there was a rural-nonfann gain
of 1.7 percent. The white population in rural areas lost more heavily
through migration than the colored population. More than threefourths of the net rural migrants were less than 25 years of age in 1920.
Females predominated among migrants in both the younger and the
older age groups.
The net effect of migration between 1920 and 1930 varied greatly
among geographic divisions with the net loss in rural population
through migration ranging from 7.9 percent in the Middle Atlantic
Division to 15.8 percent in the Ea.st South Central Division. Only
the Pacific Division experienced an actual increase in rural population
through migration. All except eight States had decreases with the
losses heaviest in the North Central States and in the South. Although far greater changes resulting from migration occurred in the
rural-farm than in the rural-nonfarm population, there was virtually
no relation among the States between the rate of gain or loss from
migration in the rural-farm population and the corresponding gain or
loss in the rural-nonfa.rm population.
Analysis of net migration on a county ha.sis showed that 517 counties
gained and 2,542 lost rural population through migration during the
decade. The largest proportion of counties gaining rural population
in this manner was found in the Pacific Division (55 percent). Conversely, in the East South Central Division 95 percent of all counties
experienced a net loss through migration.
Since 1930 Nation-wide data are available only for the farm segment
of the rural population. During the period 1930-1932, when urban
employment opportunities were rapidly decreasing, many persons
were moving to farms in various parts of the country. Beginning in
1933, this migration to farms was sharply reduced and once more
there was an important net movement from farms. Even so, the
annual net migration from farms for the period 1930 through 1934
averaged only 120,000 in comparison with an annual average of 600,000
during the decade preceding 1930.
Widespread variations in migration to and from farms occurred
among the various geographic divisions of the country. The areas
reporting net migration from farms during the 5-year period 1930-1934
were, broadly speaking, the major agricultural regions-the areas
producing cotton and wheat together with a section of the Corn Belt.
Areas receiving a relatively large net migration to farms included the
northeastern portion of the United States, the Appalachian Mountains, the Lake States Cut-Over Region, and the far Northwest as
well as scattered smaller areas. Although the total net movement
from farms to villages, towns, and cities from 1930 through 1934 was
only 600,000 persons, approximately 8 times as many persons actually
moved to achieve this result, reflecting the constant interchange of
farm and nonfarm population.
Digt,zed bv
Google
SUMMARY • XVII
When the net migration from farms was reduced after 1930'without a correspondingly sharp decline in the excess of births over deaths,
a. marked growth in farm population was inevitable. Moreover, the
age groups which normally would have contributed the largest proportion of the migrants from farms naturally had the greatest increases,
resulting in a tremendous "piling up" of persons in the productive
ages.
Persons who have moved to farms since 1930 have shown a definite
tendency to locate near cities. This indicates that the movement
has not been primarily a return movement to areas from which
migrants to cities had come between 1920 and 1930. Nor have the
migrants gone disproportionately to the poorest agricultural areas.
In fa.ct, the data indicate that recent migrants were not primarily
responsible for the high relief rates in the poorer or so.called "problem
areas."
Since pressure of population upon available resources is generally
regarded as a fundamental factor affecting migration, the sharp differentials in the rate of rural reproduction among the subdivisions of
the United States are important. The rate of reproduction as measured by the number of children under 5 yea.rs of age per 1,000 women
2o-44 yea.rs of age is higher in rural than in urban areas and higher
in the rural-farm than in the rura.l-nonfarm population. The highest
rural-farm fertility ratios in 1930 prevailed generally throughout most
of the Southern States, the Western Pia.ins area, parts of the Rocky
Mountain section, and northern Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
Rural-farm fertility ratios were lowest in the older, more urbanized
New England area, in the farm areas of the Middle West, and on the
Pacific coast. Approximately the same general picture prevailed in
the rural-nonfarm population except that fertility ratios were distinctly below those of the rural-fann population.
In no State as a whole was the rural population failing to replace
itself in 1930, although in 22 counties the rural fertility ratio was
already below replacement requirements. At the other extreme there
were more than 200 counties in which the surplus of children above
actual replacement needs was equal to 100 percent or more.
Rural reproduction as measured by the fertility ratio was only
slightly related to the rate of gain or loss of population through migration from 1920 to 1930; i. e., there was a slight tendency for counties
losing rural population through migration to have higher fertility
ratios than the counties which gained by migration.
Consideration of selected factors other than fertility which supposedly are related to migration indicates that no one of them is of
primary significance in determining variations in migration. While
mechanization of agriculture is generally considered a cause of migration. from rural areas, it may also have been a result of such movements. The quality of land appears to be only indirectly related to
Og1tzedbyGoogle
XVIII • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNllED STATES
migration trends, and slow changes resulting from erosion and depletion are not likely to produce widespread migration. Also, little
direct relationship h8.8 been found to exist between migration and per
capita agricultural income. The extent of educational facilities is
another factor which is probably not of primary importance in determining the rate of migration.
Me8.8ures of the economic well-being of the population suggest that
there is no simple relationship between the rate of migration and the
presence or absence of a given level of living. However, it does appear
that measured in terms of the rural plane of living index, migration
during 1920-1930 W8.8 disproportionately greater from the less prosperous areas.
As far as distance to cities is concerned, the effect of urban centers
upon the rate of rural migration appears to be locali:r.e.d since only a
slight influence was noted beyond a distance of 100 miles. On the
other hand, the suburban trend, which has been an important element
in the growth of cities, promises to continue to be of major importance.
Counties with the highest average relief rates from July 1934 through
June 1935 had experienced a greater net migration from rural areas between 1920 and 1930 than any group of counties in which the relief rates
were lower. In the areas with high relief rates the relatively heavy
migration had apparently been insufficient to effect basic readjustments of numbers to natural resources.
Factors dependent on individual evaluations of conflicting alternatives often determine whether or not a migration actually occ\11'8.
For this reason migration takes place not only from rural areas of
relatively little opportunity but also from areas which appear to offer
better opportunities. Likewise, this accounts for the important crosscurrents of migration which constantly occur.
While the importance of data on the volume and direction of rural
population mobility and the interrelationships of such data with
various social and economic factors are basic, it is also significant to
analyze the characteristics of the migrants themselves and their successive movements, as revealed by special surveys. Relatively few
changes in residence were reported by the heads of the rural families
surveyed, especially in those areas which had been settled longest.
Within rural areas village residents had moved almost as infrequently
as open country residents. Of those heads of households who had
changed residence at some time, the great majority had moved only
once. Almost one-half of the heads of families who had moved had
come from another residence within the same county. Range of
migration was also related to the frequency with which changes of
residence were made. As the frequency of change of residence increased, the proportion which had moved from places within the
survey area or from adjoining counties generally decreased. A
D
ed
SUMMARY • XIX
larger proportion of village than of open country residents in the
survey areas had come from cities. Moreover, there was more movement from open country to village than from village to open country.
Since the onset of the depression of the early thirties there have been
some noticeable changes in mobility in the rural areas surveyed.
There was a marked retardation of migration of children 16-24 years
of age from the parental home, which affected both boys and girls.
A slightly greater increase in the proportion of young women remaining at home in relief than in nonrelief households occurred, but no
difference in rate of migration from the two types of households was
observed for young men. When young people did migrate during
the depression period, they were more likely to move short distances
and to the open country than were those who migrated prior to
January 1, 1929. The most distant migrations of adult children
from both open country and village homes were principally to cities.
Young adults are the most mobile groups among both men and
women, and their mobility is closely related to marriage and the
beginning of an occupational career. Women leave the parental
home at somewhat younger ages than men, but in the survey areas
the proportions of persons 25 yeani of age and over of either sex who
were living in the parental homes were comparatively small. Family
heads who were under 35 years of age were more mobile than those who
were older. Families consisting of husband and wife with or without
children were more mobile than other family types. The presence in
the household of more than one gainful worker tended to retard mobility. Special circumstances were also found to influence the mobility of family groups; for example, families with female heads were
slightly more stable than those with male heads.
Different occupational groups showed varying rates of mobility.
Within both the farm and nonfann groups unskilled workers were
highly mobile, but their migrations were primarily for short distances.
Professional persons had traveled the greatest distances of any occupational group. Farm owners showed the greatest degree of stability
among the farm groups and proprietors, managers, and officials
among the nonfarm groups.
There was some shifting in occupations within the survey areas.
Those areas in which the number of farms and the farm population
increased most sharply experienced some changes from nonagricultural
occupations to agriculture. Newcomers to agriculture were more
likely to become tenants than owners, but farm owners by usual occupation were able to maintain their status more frequently than were
tenants.
On the average, families on relief had moved more frequently than
those not on relief. The migrations of nonrelief families were more
likely to be for longer distances, however, with the migrations of
o g11 ,ed by
Goog Ie
XX • l«JRAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
families on relief more frequently confined to the immediate vicinity
of the survey areas.
Although the effects of net migration from country to city have
generally been regarded as beneficial to both in terms of population redistribution and plane of living, whether the quality of the residual
rural population is lowered has not been satisfactorily settled. Migration seriously depletes the wealth of rural communities which
bear the cost of rearing children for the cities, while the payment of
inheritance claims to migrants offers another channel through which
rural wealth is lost to urban areas. Moreover, where rural migration
is both rapid and severe, it causes maladjustments in rural organizations and institutions.
The most obvious effect of rural-urban migration upon cities has
been the contribution to urban growth. That the future growth of
cities is dependent largely upon the volume of rural-urban migration can scarcely be doubted.
Three types of mobility a.re especially characteristic of agriculture:
the tendency for farm-reared youth to enter agriculture; the movement of families from f&I'IIl to farm; and the movement of farm operatol'S and their families up and down the socio-economic scale. In
spite of large-scale migration, however, the farm population has not
been distributed in a manner determined by productivity of the land
:resources. For the great majority of people farming on mediocre or
poor land, it appee.1'8 that programs for economic and social improvement must be developed on the be.sis of local situations e.s the prospects
for planned large-scale migration and resettlement a.re slight. This
will necesse.rily involve greater emphasis on noncommercial production. Even so, emigration should be definitely encouraged from the
poorer rural areas where the birth rate is markedly higher than is
necessary for maintaining a stationary population. By such means
it may be possible to improve, or at least to maintain, the status of
the large number of people who live upon the land but who have little
or no chance of success as commercial farmers.
Large-scale population movements, both planned and unplanned,
are inextricably associated with problems of relief. The reduced
migration from rural areas and the back-to-the-land movement have
been important factol'S in intensifying rural relief needs. Areas receiving large-see.le migrations, such as the far West, have found the
migrants a burden with which the relief agencies have been unable
to cope adequately.
Development of a Nation-wide relief and work program has had
significant, though unmeasurable, effects upon the volume of rural
migration as residential requirements for public assistance have retarded the flow of population; Differences in policies of distributing
relief have also undoubtedly affected currents of migration. Failure
Digt1zed by
Google
SUMMARY • XXI
of sufficient numbers to migrate from the South and from the Pia.ins
States has complicated the programs of both the Works Progress
Administration and the Fa.rm Security Administration.
Experience indicates that migration offers no general panacea. for
the problems of rural areas. Unguided migration has not been effective in preventing the need for relief, and planned resettlement must
necessarily be on a small sea.le in terms of the large numbers of povertystricken rural people. Rather, a. combination of directed migration,
reduced birth rates, and improvement of social and economic conditions in general within overpopulated areas seems to offer the soundest
approach to solving the long-time problems of widespread need in
rural areas
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
Digitized by
Google
Chapter I
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS
BEFORE 1930
BECAUSE THE attempt at detailed study of intemal migration in the
United States is comparatively recent, the factual materials necessary
for such study have been only partially 8.88embled. Furthermore,
the most complete data cover only recent yea.rs. The student who
would analyze trends in rural migration before 1920 must content
himself with information relative to differential increases and decreases
in the rural population, which are the result both of the excess of
births over deaths and the balance of in-and-out movements. Migration for the decade 1920-1930 may be dealt with directly. On the
basis of the data which are available, it is possible to present the
general trends of migration for the rural population of the United
States before 1930 and to suggest their implications with respect to
future trends.
GROWTH OF THE RURAL POPULATION
The rural population of the United States increased from a total
of 8,961,000 persons in 1820 to 53,820,000 persons in 1930. 1 2 Had it
not been for the exceptionally rapid rate of growth of the urban population during the latter half of the same period, the rural population
would scarcely have been regarded as slow-growing. With the exception of the decade following the Civil War the decennial increase in the
rural population did not fall below 25 percent until the decade 18801890, and it was not until after 1900 that the 10-year increase fell below
10 percent.
1 Thompson, Warren S. and Whelpton, P. K., Population Trends in the United
Statu, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933, p. 20.
1 Assuming the line of trend to be that determined by the compound interest
formula, the rate was 1.6 percent per year.
1
Dg1tzedbyGoogle
2 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
FIG. 2-'0ENSITY OF POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Source: Paullin, Charles 0 •• Atlas of ,,,.
Historical Geography of ,,_ Un"-d States.
publlshed Jointly by Carnegie Institution ot
Woshlnqton and American Geographical
Society of New York, 1932. Plates 76B and
76G.
Persons per square mile
§
[lii!!J 2-5
Fewer than 2
•
18- 44
45-89
B
•
90 or men
6-17
•
AF -2967, -
o gle
RURAL - POPULAnoN MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 • 3
FIG. 2- DENSITY OF POPULATION IN THE _UNITED STATES <Continued!
Source: Paullln.Charles O.,Atlas of the
Historical Geography of the United States,
published Jolntly by Carnegie Institution of
Washington and American Geographical
Society of New York, 1932, Plates 78B
and 79D.
Persons per square mile
§ Fewer than 2
lilll!!) 2-5
■ 18- 44
■ 45-89
•
■ 90 or mont
6-17
AF-21187.t., WPA
G ogle
4 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
The decrease in the rate of growth of the rural population, particularly in recent years, has been the result ot the combined effects of a
declining birth rate and of migration, together with the cessation of
immigration. Although the birth rate of the United States as a whole
has apparently been declining for more than a hundred years,1 a lag
in the decline of the rural birth rate and the addition of considerable
foreign immigration, particularly before 1900, tended to postpone the
day when the rate of rural population increase would turn sharply
downward.
Since 1790, when the first Federal Census was taken , profound
changes have occurred in the regional distribution of the population'
{fig. 2). By 1930, 37.9 percent of the rural population lived west of
the Mississippi River. At that time the South Atlantic Division
claimed the largest proportion (18.8 percent) of rural dwellers, followed
by the East North Central Division with 15.8 percent and the West
North Central and West South Central Divisions each with 14.4
percent. The Mountain and Pacific States together claimed but 9.1
percent.• The largest rural populations were to be fOlmd in Texas,
Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, in the order named, but the
greatest density of rural population occurred in Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, all of which had more than 60
persons per square mile.
RURAL POPULATION CHANGE BY COUNTIES
Data on rural population change on a State basis as presented
above conceal the extensive variations which occur within the larger
political units. Hence, it is more satisfactory for present purpost>,,s to
analyze the average rate of increase of the rural population on a
county basis. This more detailed analysis is made for the decades
1900-1910, 1910-1920, and 1920-1930.
190CH910
During the decade 1900-1910 the rural population of the United
States as a whole increased 9.2 percent. Of the 2,797 counties
{exclusive of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island) 8
1 Whelpton, P. K., "Geographic and Economic Differ ntials in Fert ility,"
The Annal., of tht American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188,
November 1936, p . 41.
4 Paullin, Charle11 0. , Atlas of the Hi1ttorical Geo{ITaphy of the United Statt1,
published jointly by Carnegie Institution of WMhington and American Geographical Society of New York, 1932, Plate 76B .
1 Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Censu• of the United Stale11: 1930, Population Vol. II, U. S. Department. of Comm rce, Washi ngton , D. C., 1933.
• Rural population of these States not available by couutil!s.
D]I
ze<lbyGoogle
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 • 5
existing at that time, more than 40 percent gained at a rate equal to
or greater than the national average, nearly 20 percent gained at a
rate less than the average, and nearly 40 percent decreased in rural
population (fig. 3 and appendix table 1).
The location of the counties experiencing these changes is of
interest. The largest numbers of counties showing increases equal
to or greati'lr than the average were to be found in the West North
Central, the South Atlantic, and the West South Central Divisions.
The highest proportion of counties experiencing such increases,
however, was to be found in the Mountain Division where 74 percent
of the counties increased 9.2 percent or more. High percentages of
increase also occurred in the West South Central and Pacific Divisions
and in scattered areas throughout the remainder of the United States.
The largest numbers of counties with decreases in population were
in the East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, and
East South Central Divisions. The largest proportions of counties
showing decreases, however, occurred in the New England, Middle
Atlantic, East North Central, and West North Central Divisions.
In all of these geographic divisions more than 50 percent of all counties
decreased in rural population during the decade. The counties of
decrease were concentrated in a triangular area from Ohio to central
Kansas and from Missouri to central Minnesota, with prominent
areas in Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
Few decreases occurred west of the 100th meridian.
The picture may be conveyed in a slightly different manner by classifying the counties of the United States upon the basis of change
greater or less than 10 percent (table 1). This classification shows
that 47 percent of all counties changed less than 10 percent in rural
population during the decade. A total of 40 percent gained 10 percent or more while 13 percent lost 10 percent or more. Only in
the Middle Atlantic and East North Central Divisions were the
counties losing 10 percent or more approximately equal in number to
those gaining 10 percent or more.
During the decade a total of 357 counties gained rural population
at a rate of 50 percent or more. The Dakotas, northern Minnesota,
and western Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas claimed most of these
counties, which were still largely of the pioneer type. Only six
counties lost rural population to the extent of 50 percent or more
during the decade, and they were widely scattered.
Thus, the decade 1900-1910 was characterized by: (1) a slower rate
of rural population growth than previous decades; (2) a marked extension of the rural population into the West (beyond the 100th meridian)
and into Florida, increases throughout most of the Southern States,
and heavy increases in the Appalachian Highlands; (3) an extension
D g1;zed by
Goog Ie
6 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
Table 1.-Counties of the United States by Percent Change in the Rural Population, by
Geographic Division, 1900-1910, 1910-1920, and 1920-1930
ll
Ir:
Geographic dlvl31on
~o
:: e
s ]
~
-c
js
.c
0
0
E-<
E
~
i:
ll
,::
B.,
-c
'ill
~
0
:ii
.c
a::e ijj!
f
j~ :: e
~
'C
IQ20-Ill30
IQIO-IQ'JO
III00--1910
s
.,e,O
s
{?. ]
"
0
.c
E
~
,::
~
E
I! ..
8,f0
t~
s
2E
'ill
.9
"
0
s ]
"
-.;
.c
E-<
B
j~ ::~~B
8.
""!!
.
~" ~
'C
"'o
.c
0
0
E
0
Number or counties
United Stat.flll ______ 2. 7117
3(\11
38
143
435
582
500
355
431
188
125
3
2.~
71
100
41
New England•------····Middle -•Ulantlc_ ·--··-·-·
EB!t North CentraL._. _. _
West North Central_ _____
South Atlantic. _____ . __ . __
Ea.st South CentraL.. ____
West South ·CentraL _. ___
Mountain ________________
Paclftc __________________ - -
1,312 1,ne 2,887
-- ------ --
50
37
28
14
30
5
00
28
6ll
4311
197
203
12.1
26.1
137
87
51,1
3f,O
455
205
1211
211.1
28!)
2511
180
1211
23
24
38
143
tl()fl
57e I. 5118
4
40
102
HI\
e5
eg
111
e2
37
31
82
284
3R7
304
235
IIIO
50
35
713 3,002
3
21
50
3R
143
43r,
133
ft!S
l4f,
5'I
5311
3114
e13 I, 1136
2
10.1
104
121
71
33
77
271
423
2fl4
223
22
7154
a
44
eo
154
4M
QI
!IHI
Q3
267
132
78
57
112
118
91
151
70
181
77
77
IQ
Percent distribution
United States ______
New En~land •----·-----Middle -~tlantlc __________
East North Central _______
West North Central. _____
South -~tlantlc ____________
Ea.st South Central_ ______
West South Central_ _____
Mountain .• ···----··· ____
Pacific. ___________________
1
100
13
47
40
100
20
55
26
100
~
1111
25
II
81
57
8
20
16
34
41
35
61
100
100
IOU
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
5
15
24
17
87
54
e2
SI
23
20
IQ
49
e1
42
42
27
-100- - - 7g- - 13
8
100
100
17
63
16
68
ICJO
17
8
14
15
49
51
51
30
12
11
IQ
100
100
100
100
100
g
73
70
28
23
14
13
1111
114
IY
59
65
24
30
211
42
24
27
15
II
22
2X
16
34
4ft
44
211
14
!IS
8
14
15
28
IQ
SQ
2Q
511
Exclusive or MIIS8achusett8, New Hampshire, and Rhode bland.
Sources: Bureau or the Census, Fourtunth Ctn1tu of the Vnft,d State,: /9to, Population Vol. I, tables
49 and 50, and Fiftunth Cen.,tu oft/u Unit<d Statu: l~SO, Population Vol. Ill, table 13, U. 8. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
of the areas with a decrease in population to include almost two-fifths
of all counties, located chiefly in the good farming areas of the North
Central States and in the Middle Atlantic Division; and (4) the appearance of minor areas of declining rural population in the Southern
States, which heralded a broader base for such decreases during subsequent decades. Some land pioneering was still going on in the West,
in Florida, in the Appalachian Highlands, and in the Northern States
of the Great Lakes Region. It was over in most of the eastern half
of the United States, and readjustments were occurring incident to
the growth of cities and a maturing rural civilization.
1910-1920
~y the decade 1910-1920 certain changes suggested by the trend of
rural population during the previous decade had become apparent.
D1gt1zed by
Google
FIG.3-GAINS AND LOSSES IN THE RURAL POPULATION
OF THE UNITED STATES
1900-1910
;ti
C
;ti
)>
r
"ti
~
C
r
~
5
z
~
~m
II Goin of 9 2 percent or more
1111
g
<O
m
*Comparable doto not ovoiloble
C')
for Mossochuseus, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
0
Source: Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census of
the United Stoles : 1920, Population Vol. I, U.S. Deportment
0
00
rv
rJ Commerce, Woshin91on, D.C.,1921, tables 49 ond 50
~
a
C.
~
z
a,
~ Loss
N
'"
Goin of less than 9.2 percent
~
m
;ti
...m
'°w
0
AF - 2968.WPA
•
..J
8 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
During this period the average rate of growth of the rural population
of the United States fell to 3.2 percent, only one-third the rate of increase during the previous decade. While 39 percent of the total
number of counties (exclusive of Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and Rhode Island) increased as much as or more than that amount,
9 percent increased at a slower rate and 52 percent decreased in rural
population (fig. 4 and appendix table 1). For the first time in the
history of the United States more than one-half of the counties decreased in rural population. Owing partly to the creation of new
counties, the number showing an average increase or more nearly
equaled the number showing such increase during the previous decade. The number showing less than the average increase shrank
more than 50 percent, however, and the number showing a loss increased by 37 percent over the previous decade. Among the geographic divisions the largest numbers of counties increasing at an
average rate or more were found in the West North Central, South
Atlantic, and West South Central Divisions. The proportion of
counties showing such increase was highest in the Mountain Division,
followed by the Pacific, South Atlantic, and West South Central
Divisions. There was a definite tendency for the proportion of counties showing more than average increase to decline in the Western
States, however, and to increase in the Eastern States. In the New
England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central Divisions the
proportions of counties increasing at the average rate, or better,
showed definite gains. In the West North Central, South Atlantic,
and East South Central Divisions there was little change, while in the
remaining divisions the proportions definitely declined. While the
growth of rural population was slowing down in the West, processes
of readjustment were getting under way in parts of the East. Changes
in type of farming, the influence of the automobile, suburbanization,
part-time fanning, and the like were beginning to influence rural
population trends. Also, the expansion of agriculture incident to
the World War made it profitable for the time being to fann land
which under other circumstances would have proved unprofitable.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the number of counties showing
more than average growth in the rural population should increase in
such States as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa.
Geographically, the picture for the decade ending in 1920 differed
sharply from that of the preceding decade. The major characteristics
of the picture were as follows: First, areas of decrease had become
rather generally distributed throughout the United States. Large
areas of decrease in the rural population had appeared in all of the
Western States, and areas of decrease were widespread throughout
the South. Second, only minor areas, such as northern Minnesota
D1q lized by
Goog Ie
FIG.4-GAINS AND LOSSES IN THE RURAL POPULATION
Of THE UNITED STATES
1910-1920
"'C
"'r0
)>
~
C
r)>
=
0
z
~
~
~
z
~ Goin of less than 3.2 percent
0
:6
-.
[
CY
'<
CJ
0
~
rv
~ Loss
""
0
"'...'"
* Comparable data not ovooloble
for Mossochusens. New Hampshire , and Rhode lslond.
Soun:e. Bvreou of the Census, Fourteen th Census of
lt>e Untied SNltes : I 920 , Population Vol. I, U. S Deportment
of Commerce, Washington, 0 . C., 192 1, tables 49 and 50.
~
a,
~
0
AF"- 2K't,WPJI
•
,0
10 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
and Wisconsin, southern California, Arizona, Utah, and portions of
Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, and North Dakota were
so uniform with respect to rural population growth as to suggest
frontier development. Third, the proportion of all counties gaining
10 percent or more in rural population had dropped from 40 to 25
percent, and the proportion losing 10 percent or more had risen from
13 to 20 percent (table 1). Fourth, the number of counties displaying marked changes in the rural population showed a. definite decrease
when compared with the previous decade. Whereas a total of 555
counties gained 30 percent or more in rural population from 1900 to
1910, only 248 counties experienced such gains during the subsequent
decade. Also, while only 31 counties lost 30 percent or more of their
rural population between 1900 and 1910, a total of 83 counties experienced such losses between HHO and 1920. Extreme gains were
concentrated in the West South Central and Mountain Divisions, but
many such cases occurred also in West Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin,
Minnesota., the Dakotas, Nebraska., Kansas, Washington, and California. Extreme losses were concentrated in the West South Central,
Mounts.in, and Pacific Divisions, with a substantial number of such
counties in the Wesi North Central and South Atlantic Divisions.
A total of 116 counties gained rural population to the extent of 50
percent or more, while 34 counties lost rure.l population e.t the same
rate. With the exception of scattered cases the counties gaining at
this rate were located west of a line drawn south from the western
boundary of Minnesota to the western boundary of Louisiana. Those
experiencing losses of 50 percent or more were, for the most part,
scattered throughout the same territory.
1~1930
During the period 1920-1930 the rural population trends noted for
the previous decade continued with only minor changes. The rate of
growth of the rural population increased slightly, the average for the
United States being 4.7 percent for the decade. While 34 percent of all
counties increased by that percentage or more, 14 percent increased
at a slower rate and 52 percent decreased in rural population (appendix table 1). Thus, for the second successive decade more than onehalf of the counties of the Nation lost rural population. The largest
numbers of counties with more than average increases were located in
the South Atlantic and West South Central Divisions. The highest
proportions of counties increasing at the average rate or more were
located in the Middle Atlantic, West South Central, and Pacific
Divisions.
The largest numbers of counties showing decreases in the rural
population were found in the East North Central, West North Centre.I,
and South Atlantic Divisions. The largest proportions of counties
Dgnzed
oyGoogle
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 • 11
losing rural population were to be found in the Ee.st North Central,
West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, and Mountain Divisions, each of which had more than 50 percent of its counties
in the group showing a decrease. In a number of Midwestern a.nd
Southern States more than 60 percent of all counties decreased in rural
population during the decade.
Of the 3,002 counties extant during the decade 1920-1930, 25 percent gained as much as 10 percent or more; 55 percent changed less
than 10 percent; and 20 percent lost 10 percent or more of their rural
population (table 1). Among the divisions the proportion of counties
gaining 10 percent or more in rural population varied from 8 percent
in New England to 59 percent in the Pacific Division. The proportion of counties losing 10 percent or more of their rural population
ranged from 5 percent in New England to 29 percent in the Mountain
Division.
Extreme gains and losses in rural population continued as in previous decades. Between 1920 and 1930, 306 counties gained in rural
population to the extent of 30 percent or more, and of these 146
counties gained to the extent of 50 percent or more. These counties
were distributed in all divisions except New England. Approximately one-half of the counties gaining 50 percent or more were
located in the West South Central Division, chiefly in the western
half of Texas. Many were located in California also. There was a.
notable increase in the number of rapidly growing counties east of the
Mississippi River, particularly in southern Michigan, Florida~ and the
Appalachian Highlands.
The number of counties losing 30 percent or more of their rural
population fell slightly during the decade following 1920 to 63.
These counties were concentrated in the South Atlantic, Mountain,
and West South Central Divisions Only nine counties experienced
losses of 50 percent or more. Two were located in Florida and two
in Nevada, while the other five were scattered in as many States.
The general picture for the decade 1920-1930 included, in the
first place, a slightly greater average gain in rural population than
the preceding IO-year period. In the second place, there was reduction of the broad areas of more than average increase. The northern
portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan shifted from areas
of more than average increase to areas of decrease as did also most of
Montana and Idaho and much of Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Utah.
The areas of marked gain in North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, and
the Appalachian Highlands also became dotted with counties of
decrease. In the third place, _areas like western Maine, Vermont,
New York, Ohio, and southern Michigan, in which the rural population decreased almost uniformly during the previous decade, showed
a definite tendency to recover. The effects of industrial develop-
0ig 11zP.c11 y
Google
1 2 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
ment, the automobile, and electricity were reflected perhaps in a
growing rural population in many counties. Finally, a definite
tendency toward greater stability in rural population growth was
noticeable.
The evidence presented indicates that since about 1910, and perhaps before, there has been a definite slowing down in the rate of
change in the rural population of the various counties. Without
doubt part of this bas resulted from a. reduced rate of natural increase.
Even so, high rates of gain could scarcely have been the result of
natural increase alone. Gains of 30 percent or more during a decade
must be attributed largely to migration. There has been a definite
tendency since 1910 for the number of counties experiencing such
heavy gains to decrease and a corresponding tendency for the number
experiencing only slight changes to increase. On the other hand, the
number of counties showing a loBB in total population has increased.
Since few if any counties actually have more deaths than births, such
losses must be attributed to migration. Although the volume of
migration from one rural area to another has probably decreased
during the last three decades, the volume of migration a.way from
rural territory has greatly increased.
NET RURAL MIGRATION, 191CH930
The net migration from farms of the United States during the
decade 1920--1930 has been estimated on more than one occasion and
perhaps with sufficient accuracy for ordinary purposes. There is no
disposition to criticize these estimates although the estimates in this
monograph differ slightly from them. Rather the aim is to extend
the range of these estimates to cover both the rural-farm and ruralnonfarm population. The 1930 Census provided for the first time
the essential data for making such estimates.
For a comprehensive picture of net rural migration in the United
States it is necessary to analyze trends in migration on a county
basis in order to delineate those areas in which profound population
changes resulting from migration a.re taking place. Not all rural
migration occurs between city a.ad country. Shifts are constantly
occurring within the rural population. Analysis of net rural migration by counties tends to reveal not only the net volume of ruralurban migration but also the areas of dispersion and concentration
within the rural population itself.
If there is no. emigration, a population will grow by the amount of
its natural increase plus whatever population it has acquired through
immigration. If the volume of emigration is smaller than the volume
of immigration, the population will grow by the amount of its natural
increase plus the surplus of immigrants over emigrants. But, if the
volume of emigration exceeds the volume of immigration, the popula-
Dig 11zed by
Goog Ie
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 • 13
tion will grow by an amount equal to the natural increase minus the
net emigration as long as the latter does not exceed the former.
When the volume of net emigration exceeds the natural increase
there is, of course, a decrease in the base population. This explains
why a population may possess a considerable natural increase and
show no gain, or even a loss, at ea.ch succeeding census.
In lieu of dependable vital statistics for rural areas in the past net
rural migration must be calculated on the basis of the population living
at the beginning of the period, in this case 1920-1930, with life tables
used to determine how much of the observed change in the population during the period was the result of deaths occurring in the resident population and how much was the result of net migration into
or out of the area under consideration. Following this technique
estimates of the net migration to and from rural territory during the
decade 192~1930 have been made for the continental United States,
for the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm populations, for whites and
Negroes, and for males and females. Estimates have also been made
for the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm populations by geographic divisions and States and for the total rural population of all counties. 7
In these estimates only the population living in 1920 is included since
no satisfactory technique for estimatfog the net migration of children
born after the 1920 Census has been developed. This means that all
persons referred to as migrants in this chapter were 10 years of age
and over in 1930.
Nu111ber of Mlgranll
The total estimated net migration 8 from rural areas of the United
States during the decade 1920-1930 amounted to 5,734,200 persons'
(table 2). Of this number 5,099,900 were white and 634,300 were
colored. Colored persons, mostly Negroes, thus composed 11.1 percent of the total net migration from the rural districts. Of the total
7 Because the age distributions of the ruiral-farm and rural-nonfe.rm populations for 1920 a.re not available by counties, it is possible to estimate net migr~
tion for the total rural population only.
• In estimating net rural migration a correction was me.de for the underenumeration of children in both the 1920 and the 1930 Censuses. For 1920 and
1930 the number of white children enumerated was increased by 5 percent and
that of colored children by 11 percent in the North, 13.5 percent in the South,
8 percent in the West, and 13 percent in the United States as a whole. These a.re
the corrections suggested by Whelpton, P. K., op. cit., p. 41. The suggested
corrections for Negro children a.re used here for all colored children.
• No attempt was me.de in these estimates to hold the territory of 1920 constant. It is well known that the territory designated as rural varies from censu1
to census becaul!8 of changes in the incorporated area of towns and cities. Gillette estimated that during the decade 1910-1920 the rural population lost
900,000 persons by incorporation. Such losses a.re included in the estimates of
this monograph. See Gillette, John Morris, Rural Sociology, Revised Edition,
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928, p. 94.
Og1tzedbyGoogle
14 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
·j
net migration 55 percent were females. Thus, for every 100 males
who were lost to the rural districts during the decade, 123 females
were also lost. The rural-farm population lost 6,084,600 persons, 10
but a small part of this loss was offset by the fact that the ruralnonfa.rm population gained 350,400 persons. 11
Ta&/e !.-Net Goin or loss I Through Migration to the Rural Poeulotion I of the United
States, by Residence, Color, and Sex, 1920-1930 1 (Estimated)
Rural popnlaUon, 1921
Realdence, color, and se:i:
Net rural migration, lll»lll30
Percent or
corrected 11120
population
Enumerated
Corrected for
underenu•
meratlon•
Total.... .... . . . .............. . . . .. . . ... .
51,W,:IOO
51, 742,600
-6, 734, :ioo
-II . I
Rural.farm.. . .. ... .. .. . . . ... . ..... ..... . . . . ... .
3 1,340, 100
20, 0 1ft, 100
31, 5114, 300
20, HR, 300
- ft, OS4, 600
+3.,;o, 400
-19.3
+1 . 1
Rural•nonfarm. .. .... . . . . . . . . ..... . ... . . . . . .. . .
Number
1= = = = 1= = = = =1=
White.. ........ .. .. ... . .. . . . ..... . . .. .. . . . . . . . .
H , 162, 100
44, 477.lllKl
- 5, 0\19, 000
7, 264, 700
Colored.... .. .. . . . . . . .. ..... ... . ... . .... ...... .
7, 1114, 100
- 1134, 300
l= = = = •l=====I•
Male. . .............. .. ... . . . . . . .. .. ... . .. . . . .. .
26, flM , 400
26, R67, 000
- 2,574, IOO
Female . ........ . .. . ..... . . ....... .. .. . . . .. . . . . .
:24, 1189, MOO
24, 875,600
- 3, IIIO, 100
0
-1 1. 5
- 8. 7
- 9.6
- 12. 7
Minoa (-) Indicates a loss.
• Includes only persons living In 1920 whose agM were reported .
For method of computation see appendix 8 .
• Of children under 5 yean of age .
1
I
When the net rural migration was calculated as a percent of the
1920 rural population, it was found that a total equal to 11.1 percent
of the population living in the rural districts at the beginning of the
decade was lost through migration during the period. The rural
population actually increased by 4.7 percent 12 during the same period,
but had there been no net loss from rural migration, the gain would
probably have been approximately 16 percent. Thus, more than
two-thirds of the expected natural increase was lost through migration.
This net loss from migration during the decade was not evenly distributed throughout the rural population. The white population lost
a total equal to 11.5 percent of the 1920 population, while the corresponding loss to the colored population was only 8.7 percent. The
loss to the rural male population by migration was only 9.6 percent of
the 1920 population in comparison with 12.7 percent for the rural
female population. Finally, 19.3 percent of the persons living on
10 Bee 0. E. Baker's estimate of 5,897,810 persons in "Rural-Urban Migration
and the National Welfare," Annals of the Aaaociation of American Geographers, Vol.
XXIII, No. 2, 1933, p. 69. See also Hamilton, C. Horace, Rural-Urban Migration
in Norlh Carolina, 191!0 lo 19S0, Bulletin No. 295, North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Raleigh, N. C., February 1934; and Thornthwaite, C.
Warren, Internal Migration in the United Statu, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1934.
11 A portion of this gain waa the reeult of a change in the definition of rural
territory.
u Corrected for underenumeration. The cenaua figure ill alao 4. 7 percent.
Digitized by
Google
•
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 •
15
farms in 1920 were lost by migration, while the rural-nonfe.rm population gained 1.7 percent as a. result of migration.
Age of Migrants
Almost 45 percent of the net rural migrants from 1920 to 1930 were
10-19 years of age in 1920 (table 3 and fig. 5). More than 75 percent
of the migrants were persons who were less than 25 years of age in
1920. Only 17.3 percent of the ma.le migrants were under. IO yea.rs of
age in 1920, but 21.5 percent of the female migrants were in this age
group. This is a. reflection of the well-known fact that females migrate
a.t e.n earlier age than males. On the other hand, females also predominated in the net migration of older people. While 21.0 percent of
the net migration of females from farms were composed of persons
aged 35 years and over, 19.0 percent of the ma.Jes were in the older ages.
Of the net colored migration 28.1 percent of all persons were 35
years of age and over in 1920. The corresponding percent for the net
white migration was 19.1. This racial difference in the age of migrants
is probably a reflection of the fa.ct that, during the decade in question,
the migration of Negroes was principally from the country to large
cities. Adults aged 35 and over who left the country went directly to
cities, chiefly northern ones, instead of moving to villages as many
whites did. In addition to that, it·is possible that since the Negro
migration more nearly resembled mass depopulation of an area., the
movement was less selective with respect to age.
To&le 3.-Net Gain or Loss1 Through Migration to the Rural Population! of the United
States, by Age, Residence, Color, and Sex, 192~1930' (Estimated)
Net gllln or loss through migration, 1920-1930
Ap,um
I
RuralTotal rural Rural-rann nonfann
\
White
Colored
Male
Tota) __________ -6, 734,200 -6, 084,600 +350,400 -6, 099, 900 -634,300 -2, 674,100
Under 6 years ____•____ -413, JOO
-356,500 -56, 600
-494,600 +81,500
-154, 900
IHI years _____________ -709, 500
-624, 000 -86,500
-639, 500 -70,000
-289, 700
10-14 years ___________ -1,386, 700 -1, 449,900 +64,200 -1, 210,400 -175,300
u,-19 yeara ___________ -1, 158,000 -1,341, 100 +183, 100
-989, 400 -168, 600
20-24
_....• _. -658, 800
-715,400 +56. 600
-400, 600 -162, 300
2.5-29 years
years ••.
___________
-151, 700
-238, 000 +86,300
-156, 200
+4,600
3o-34 years ___________ -104, 100
-132, 000 +27, 900
-138, 400 +34,300
-216, 400 -66, 000
-268, 000 -13, 500
35-3V years
years.___________
-• -••.•• -- -282, 400
40-44
-21, 100
-60, 500 +39, 400
+24,000 -46,000
45-411 years •• _••••• _._
-312, 600
-267, 100 -45, 500
-241, 100 -71, 600
II0-54 years_._. ___ ..• _ -176, 700
-192, 000 +rn. 200
-151,600 -25, 100
M-59 years ___________
-56, 700
-126,000 +69, 300
-61, 300
+4,600
IIO-M years ___________
-148, 700 +47, 600
-81, 400 -19, 700
years ___________ -101, 100
-70,300
-102, 200 +31,000
-67, 700 -12,600
70-74 years ___________
-44, 900
-53, 300
-43, 200
-1, 700
+8, 400
76 years and over ..• _.
-87, 500
-94, 600
-60,600 -26, 900
+7, JOO
~
-673,600
-593, 000
-318, 600
-43, 400
-IJ,600
-117, 100
+61,400
-167, 100
-89, 700
-Ii, 200
-47, 000
-3fl,200
-27,000
-48, 600
Female
-a. 160,100
-258, 200
-419, 800
-712, 200
-565, 000
-340,200
-108, 300
-ll'l,600
-165,300
-82, 500
-145, 600
-87.000
-39, 500
-53, 200
-34, JOO
-17, 000
-3!<,900
1 Minus (-) Indicates a loss.
• Includes only persons living In 1920.
• For method of computation - appendb: B.
Among the colored migrants who were 35 years of age and over in
1920, seven-eighths were 35-54 years of age. In comparison only
two-thirds of the white migrants 35 years of age and over were less
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
16 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNI TED ST A TES
7
7
6
6
ra Tolol populotion, 1920
5
•
r1
.
5
Net 1011
4
~ 4
§
i
Q.
C
~ 3
3~
:i
:i
2
2
F1G. 5-NET LOSS* THROUGH MIGRATION TO THE RURAL POPULATION
OF THE UNITED STATES, BY AGE (ESTIMATED)
1920-1930
&, •2 910,
"For method of computotion see appendix 8 .
WP&
than 55 years of age. It seems probable, therefore, that the proportion of migrants retiring on account of age was nearly three times as
high among white as among colored persons. Thus, the difference in
age, as well as the comparative economic status of the rural residents
of the two groups, suggests that a much higher proportion of the net
loss of the white population than of the colored population represented retirement from the rural districts to towns and cities.
Although a number equal to 11.1 percent of the rural population of
1920 was lost by migration during the decade, the loss was unequally
distributed throughout the various age groups (table 4). In the
group aged 10- 19 years in 1920 the loss was equal to 23 out of every
100 persons. Losses of 10 percent or more occurred also in the groups
aged 5-9, 20-24 , and 45- 54 years in 1920. Losses of les.'! than 5 percent occurred in the groups 25- 29 and 30-34 years of age in 1920.
In the rural-farm population losses were still heavier. The net
loss reached 41 percent in the group aged 15-19 yea.rs, 37 percent in the
group aged 10-14 years, and 29 percent in the group aged 20- 24 yea.rs.
All other age groups lost less than the average for the rural-fa.rm
population as a whole. As a result primarily of retirement, losses of
15 percent or more occurred in the age groups above 44 years.
Net gains in rural-nonfarm population from migration occurred
chiefly among persons aged 10- 34 years in 1920, although a gain also
occurred in the group aged 55 years and o, er. The latter was undoubtedly composed primarily of persons retiring from farms to villages.
D1qlized by
Google
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 •
17
Ta'11e 4.---Percent Net Gain or Loss 1 Throu~h Migration to the Rural Population I of the
United States, by Age, Residence, Color, and Sex, 1920-1930 1 (Estimated)
Percent net gain or loss through migration, 1920-11130
Age, 1920
Total
rural
-11.1
Total.------·--··------- Under 6 years __________________ - -6.2
-11.2
11--9 years_-----------······-··--23.2
10-14
years._____________________
__ ··-····-······-·-IIH9 years
-23.2
20-24 years _____________________
-15.8
25--29 years ____________ ···-·---_
-4.0
ao-34 years _____________________
-3.1
years _____________________
-5.0
-10.4
46-54
years_--······-·---______
5IHl4 years _____________________
-5.1
66 years and over. ______________
-7.8
~
Ruralfarm
,,.:'.19_ 3
Ruralnonfann
)
=
===
-8.4
-15.2
-36. 6
-41.1
-28.8
-11.2
-7.0
-7.0
-16.4
-15.1
-15.11
+1.1
-0.2
-3.8
+3.2
+10.ff
+3.4
+5.3
+1.0
-1.0
-1.5
+9.1
+1.1
White
=
Colored
-11.5
-8. 7
-8.8
-12.0
-24. 2
-23.6
-14.1
-4.8
-4.7
-4.ff
-0.ff
-5.1
-8.3
+7.8
-6.9
-18.0
-21.1
-24. 5
+o.9
+s.1
-7.7
-16.0
-5.1
-3.0
Male
=
-9.ff
-4.ff
-9.0
-22.0
-23.3
-15.1
-2.3
-0. 7
-1.8
-0.8
-3.7
-8.0
Female
-12- 7
- --7.8
-13.4
-24.4
-23.1
-lff.4
-5.8
-5. 7
-8.11
-11.2
-11.8
-1.e
• Mlnm (-) Indicates a loss.
• Includes only persons living In 1920.
For method ol computation - appendlz B.
1
Losses were heavier for females than for males in the rural population
at all ages except 15-19 years and 65 years and over. An important
difference in the group aged 5-9 years in 1920 reflects the earlier age
of migration among females. Important differences also occurred in
the age groups above 24 years. This reflects the migration of females
who had not married up to that time and also the migration of farm
widows who are less likely to remain on the farm after the death of
their husbands than are operators who lose their wives.
NET RURAL MIGRATION, 19!0-1930, BY STATES
The net effect of migration during the decade 1920-1930 varied
greatly among both geographic divisions e.nd States (appendix table
2). All divisions but two, the New England and Pacific Divisions,
lost rural population through migration. The West North Central,
South Atlantic, and East South Central Divisions each lost more than
a million persons. The East North Central and West South Central
Divisions lost approximately nine hundred thousand each. The
Middle Atlantic group of States lost nearly a half million, and had it
not been for the change in definition of rural territory for three New
England States in the 1930 Census that division also would have
suffered a net loss. 18 While the net loss from rural migration, 1920-1930,
11 In 1920 all towns in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island
"which had a population of 2,500 or more were classified as urban. This resulted
in including a considerable number of places that were ma.inly rural in their general characteristics. In 1930, the special rule for these States has been modified
so as to place in the urban classification, in addition to the regularly incorporated
cities, only those towns in which there is a village or thickly settled area having
more than 2,500 inhabitants and comprising, either by itseH or when combined
with other villages within the same town, more than 50 percent of the total population of the town." Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States:
19!10, Population Vol. I, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1931,
p. 7.
Oigtized by
Google
18 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
a.mounted to 11.1 percent of the tote.I rural population in 1920, the
relative losses ranged from 7 .9 percent in the Middle Atlantic Division
to 15.8 percent in the Ee.st South Centre.I Division.
Among the States losses tended to be genera.I with only eight States
(New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Dela.ware,
Arizona, Oregon, and California) gaining rural population by means of
migration. In general, State increases were moderate except in California. where more than 250,000 people were added to the rural population by migration during the decade, an increase of 23.3 percent.
Heaviest losses from migration occurred in Georgie. and Pennsylvania
both of which had net losses of approximately 500,000 persons. Proportionately, decreases ranged from less than 1 percent in Washington
t-0 23.3 percent in Georgie.. Although the losses from migration were
distributed generally throughout the States, they were heaviest in the
North Central States and in the South.
The relation between net gain or loss from migration and the actual
change in rural population recorded by the census for the decade is of
interest. Of the 48 States 35 actually gained rural population during
the decade while 13 lost rural population. On the other hand, 40 of
the States experienced a net loss from migration while only 8 gained
rural population by this means. No State that actually lost rural
population between 1920 and 1930 failed also to lose rural population
because of migration. The most conspicuous cases of States experiencing increases in rural population and yet having a net loss as e. result
of migration were those possessing relatively high rates of natural
increase and also important net losses from migration. Such States
as Mississippi, New Mexico, North Caroline., North Dakota., Okie.home., South Dakota., Texas, Utah, and West Virginie. a.re good
illustrations. Thus, in spite of comparisons which show actual
increases in total population in the face of net decreases through
migration, a close relation between actual change and change resulting
from net migration existed among the States for the period in question.
Rural-Fann and Rural-Nonfann
Although the preceding analysis was for the rural population e.s a
whole, far greater changes resulting from migration ooourred in the
rural-farm than in the rure.1-nonfarm population. Between 1920 11.nd
1930 the fa.rm population of the United States suffered an estimated
net.Joss of 6,084,600 persons through migration (appendix table 3).
Most of this loss occurred in the two North Centre.I and three Southern
Divisions. 14
Apparently Oe.lifornie. was the only State, exclusive of Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, in which the farm population increased as a result
of migration. Heaviest tote.I losses from migration occurred in South
Caroline., Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas, ea.ch of which lost more than
14
See also Baker, 0. E., op. cit., pp. 68-69.
Digtized by
Google
••
I
. •...
..
..
F11rm
8 ,curlt y Atl min i.~trar [,,n
\
.
( La 11 t1c ) .
Home by the Highway!
G
gle
Dgi.zed
oyGoogle
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 • 19
300,000 rural-fa.rm population.
So concentrated were the losses in
the rural-fa.rm population through migration that one-fourth of the
States 16 accounted for 59 percent of the total.
When considered as a percent of the 1920 rural-farm population,
these losses from migration assume still greater significance. Although the average loss for the United States amounted to -19. 3
percent of the 1920 rural-farm population, a total of 25 States lost less
than that percent and only 20 States lost that percent of persons or
more. Percentage losses were above 30 in Georgia, South Carolina,
and Utah. Losses of less than 10 percent occurred only in Wyoming,
Nevada, Washington, and Oregon. 18
By way of contrast with the heavy losses from migration occurring
in the rural-farm population, the rural-nonfarm population gained an
estimated 350,400 ~ersons, or a number equal to 1.7 percent of the
1920 population. By virtue of the changes in definition employed
by the 1930 Census a net total of 284,708 persons was classified as
urban in 1930 who would have been classified as rural under the 1920
definition. Assuming that these persons belonged chiefly to the
rural-nonfarm population, the continued use of the 1920 definition of
rural would probably have shown the rural-nonfarm population to
have gained more than 3 percent from migration.
Aside from the New England States which were especially affected
by the change in definition, five of the divisions lost rural-nonfarm
population by migration and three divisions gained. The loss was
heaviest in the West North Central Division, while the gain was
heaviest in the Pacific Division. By States the largest gain through
migration occurred in California which increased her rural-nonfa.rm
population during the decade by a number equal to 38.9 percent of
her 1920 population.
Most of the losses were slight. Only six States lost more than 10
percent of their rural-nonfarm population through migration. With
no change in definition of rural territory in 1930, one of these-Pennsylvania-would certainly have lost less than 10 percent.
Among the States there was virtually no relation between the rate
of gain or loss from migration of the rural-farm population and the
corresponding gain or loss of the rural-nonfarm population. For
example, in both the East North Central and South Atlantic Divisions
heavy emigration from farms occurred, but the rural-nonfarm population gained consistently.
11 Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
11 It seems probable that the influence of the changed definition of rural territory
employed by the Bureau of the Census in 1930 was slight as far as the farm population was concerned except in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Most of the
effect of this change of definition is reflected in the changes in the rural-nonfarm
population.
nigtized by
Google
20 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
NET RURAL MIGRATION, 19!0-1930, BY COUNTIES
By considering net migration on a eounty basis it is possible to
determine marked changes whieh have resulted from migration.
With the exception of a few counties, estimates of the total ehange
resulting from net migration are sufficiently accurate to eontribut~ to
a national picture of the migration tendencies of the rural population
for the decade 1920-1930. 17
For the period under consideration 83 percent of all counties 11
suffered a net loss in rural population through migration (table 5),
while 17 percent had a net gain. Of the counties that increased in
population, almost 40 pereent gained fewer than 1,000 persons and
about 70 percent gained fewer than 3,000 persons. Approximately
12 percent gained 6,000 persons or more. Of the c1unties that suffered
a net loss of rural population, less than 18 percent lost fewer than 1,000
persons, 65 percent lost fewer than 3,000, and 9 percent lost 6,000
persons or more. Thus, the variation in number of persons gained was
greater than in number of persons lost. Although the proportion of
counties gaining fewer than 1,000 persons was more than twice as
great as the proportion losing by that amount, the proportion iz:aining
a.s many as 8,000 persons was also more than twice the proportion
losing by that amount. Many of the gains were extreme. For the
44 counties gaining 8,000 persons or more, the average gain was 16,000;
for the 87 counties losing by that number, the average loss was 9,200
persons. 10
17 For a comparison of the results ohtained hy State and eounty estimates,
see appendix table 19.
11 Of the 3,072 counties in the l: nlted 8tates in 1930, 13 bad no rural population.
Bence, only 3,059 counties figured in these eomputations.
11 Counties gaining or losing rural population through migration, 1920-1930,
were as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
517 countiu gaining rural population through migration
Total galtl
44 counties gaining 8,000 persons or more _____________________ _
700,000
69 counties gaining 4,000-7,999 persons _______________________ _ 370,000
94 counties gaining 2,000-3,999 persons _______________________ _
270,000
107 counties gaining 1,000-1,999 persons ______________________ _
160,000
203 counties gaining fewer than 1,000 persons __________________ _
100,000
Total _______________________________________________ _
1,600,000
t,54t countiu lo11ing rural population through migration
a. 450 counties losing fewer than 1,000 persons ___________________ _
b. 639 counties losing 1,000-1,999 persons _______________________ _
c. 564 counties losing 2,000-2, 999 persons _______________________ _
d. 329 counties losing 3,000-3, 999 persons _______________________ _
e. 331 counties losing 4,000-5,999 persons _______________________ _
f. 142 counties losing 6,000-7,999 persons _______________________ _
g. 87 counties losing 8,000 persons or more ______________________ _
Total _______________________________________________ _
Dgr
Total lou
200,000
900,000
1,400,000
1,100,000
1,600,000
1,200,000
800,000
7,200,000
zedbyGooglc
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 •
21
Ta'11e 5.-Counties of the United States by Net Gain or Loss Through Migration to the
Rural Population, 1920-1930
1
(Estimated)
Number of counties
Number of persoDB gained or lost
Total
Gained rural popu•
lation, Ul'JO--ll,30
Lost rural populatlon, 1920--1030
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
3,059
100.0
517
100.0
2,542
100.0
334
319
746
616
371
381
161
131
10. 9
10. 4
24. 4
20. I
12. I
12. 5
5. 3
4. 3
135
26.1
13. I
20. 7
10. 1
8.1
D. 7
3. 7
8. 5
199
251
639
564
329
331
142
87
7. 8
9.9
25. 2
22. 2
12.0
13.0
5.6
3.4
------------1·-- ---------1----+--Tote.I...............................
Fewer than 500... ... ....... ..............
1---+---1----1----1---1-
60IHIOO....................................
1,000-1,999....•... ·····•···········•·· .. ..
2,000-2,999................................
3,000-3,999.................. ............ ..
4,000-5,999.. •. ... . ....... .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
6,000-7,000.. ••. .. . ... . . .. .. .... ... .. •. ....
8,000 or more..............................
1
68
107
52
42
50
ID
44
For method of computation see appendix B.
The concentration of the counties showing gains as a result of
migration may be indicated by the fact that 41 percent of the 517
counties with gains were located in New York, Florida, Kansas,
Texas, and California (appendix table 4). More than 35 percent of
the 113 counties gaining 4,000 persons or more by means of net
migration were located in New York, Texas, and California.
With respect to losses through migration notable concentration of
counties occurred in the West North Central and South Atlantic
Divisions. In the former division were located 22 percent and in
the latter division 19 percent of all counties losing rural population
through migration. If to these divisions are added the East North
Central, East South Central, and West South Central Divisions, 83
percent of all counties experiencing losses through migration a.re
included.
The largest proportion of counties gaining rural population by
migration was found in the Pacific Division where 55 percent of all
counties showed some gain. No other division was a close competitor.
Conversely, the highest proportion of counties showing losses was
found in the East South Central Division where 95 percent of all
counties experienced a net loss from migration. There were 12 States
in which more than 95 percent of all counties lost rural population by
migration.
Although the number of persons gained or lost by counties through
net migration is of interest, the rate at which population was gained
or lost is perhaps of greater significance. When the gain or loss to the
rural population, 1920-1930, was computed with the 1920 rural population as the base, more than one-fifth of all counties were found to
have experienced a net change of less than 10 percent in the rural
population as the result of net migration (appendix table 5). Of the
517 counties gaining rural population as a result of net migration,
about two-fifths gained less than 10 percent and more than seven-
nigtized by
Google
t-.:>
t-.:>
FIG.6-PERCENT NET GAIN OR LOSS* THROUGH MIGRATION TO THE RURAL POPULATION
•
OF THE UNITED STATES (ESTIMATED)
,c
C
1920-1930
,c
)>
r-
?:
G)
,c
)>
:::!
0
z
z
,.,,:r
C
z
:::;
,.,,
0
~
Percenl net Chcl'>Qe
IIJ
0
~ - 15 to - 30
~
<:
C")
~
O to- 15
•
O lo + l 5
111 . ,s ,o•30
•
(':)
-30 or more
+30 01
more
• For melhod of compulolion see appendix 8 .
a, ~29 71. WPA
)>
,.,,VI
-I
RURAL POPULATION MOVEMENTS BEFORE 1930 •
23
tenths gained less than 30 percent. However, more than 15 out of
100 gained 50 percent or more. Of the 2,542 counties that lost rural
population as a net result of migration, the modal loss was 10-19 percent. Approximately 8 counties in 100 lost as much as 30 percent of
their rural population.
Counties with low gains tended to be concentrated in the South
Atlantic and West South Central Divisions (fig. 6). Counties gaining
3o-49 percent were located chiefly in the West South Central and
Mountain Divisions, while counties gaining 50 percent or more were
located chiefly in Texas and Florida.
Counties losing by migration a number that equaled less than 10
percent of their rural population in 1920 were well distributed, although more than one-third of them were in the East North Central
and South Atlantic Divisions and more than three-fifths in these two
divisions plus the West North Central and West South Central DiV1S1ons. Counties losing by migration a number equal to 30 percent
or more of their rural population in 1920 were concentrated in the
South Atlantic, West South Central, and Mountain Divisions.
The data cited in preceding paragraphs represent the net result of
migration, but the total amount of migration that occurred was far
larger than they indicate. It was estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that a net migration of 6,296,000 persons 20 from
the farms of the Nation during the period 1920-1930 was obtained
by 13,140,000 moves to farms and 19,436,000 moves from farms.
Thus, there was a total of 32,576,000 moves between farms and
villages, towns, and cities during the decade. If each person who was
involved in these migrations had moved only once during the decade,
it would mean that the number of migrants was approximately equal
to the number of persons living on farms, or to one-fourth of the entire
population of the United States. Unfortunately, migrations to and
from rural-nonfarm areas cannot be estimated, but their number likewise must be very large in terms of the population concerned.
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Population Estimates, January 1,
The
estimate ia slightly higher than the estimate of 6,084,600 used in this chapter, but
the BAE figure includes all ages and is based upon annual estimates.
:io
1988, U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., June 16, 1938.
Digt1zed by
Google
Dg1
zedb}'Google
Chapter
II
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM
POPULATION SINCE 1930
CHANGES IN the farm population during any given period occur
as a result of the balance of births and deaths and of migrations to
and from farms. In recent years migrations to and from farms have
involved many more persons than are added to the population through
the excess of births over deaths. The numbers of births and deaths
change slowly from year to year. Although the estimated excess of
births over deaths in the farm population dropped from 485,000 in
1920 to 398,000 in 1930 and 394,000 in 1935, 1 the trends in the farm
population do not directly reflect such changes as the number of
migrants is much greater. Furthermore, the volume of migration
is sensitive to changing employment and income opportunities so that
the net movement may be to farms during one year and away from
farms during the following year. Therefore, the basis of major annual
changes in the number of persons living on farms must be sought in
the shifting balance of migrations.
The farm population of the United States was estimated to total
31,729,000 persons 2 on January 1, 1937, or only 115,000 more than in
1920. During the 17-year period the natural increase on farms was
more than 7,600,000 persons or almost 450,000 persons per year.
The small increase in the total farm population was the direct result
_Q_j_ the tremendous movement from farms to villages, towns, and cities.
The net movement from farms during the decade preceding 1930
amounted ·to about 600,000 annually. As a result of depression the
average for 1930 through 1934 was reduced to approximately onefifth of that total, or 120,000 per year. _In 1932 the trend was actually
reversed, and 266,000 more persons moved to farms than left farms
(table 6 and fig. 7).
1 Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Population Estimates, January 1,
1988, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., June 16, 1938.
I
Ibid.
25
26 • RURAL MIGRATI O N IN THE UNI TED ST A TES
Table 6 . -M ovement to a nd From Form~, 1920-1 9 37
Person, t1rr h··
lni: st for ms
rrom «·1t ie..,,
Y ear
towns . und
vi11n1u•s
r~
cll i~~. towns.
,rn ,I v 1ll•ge5
I, 3.'>5, 000
1, .'>81,1100
I, 3.'ll'o, 000
I, 427,J"KJO
I, i 05. 000
19'l!l • • • • ••• • • •• • ••••. • ••• • •• • • • • ••• •• • . •
l, flll X, IXlll
2, 1112, fl)()
2. 1211. IKII
llr.lll .•.• . • • • . • •• ••• • •• • ••. • • ••• • ••• • • • ••
I, 11(~ , IJOO
2. n,,.1 , 1100
1030 •.•.• . •••. •• .... •. •.•.••.•.• . . .. •.. •
193 1. ••••••. .• • • • ..... .• .. . .• . ••. . •• . •• •
I , f>II . IJUO
1, Mfi,1100
1. t i;, ooo
llH . 000
\ , SZ!, llOO
1933 •• .• . • • .• • •••• ••..•... . . • . •. •· •· ••• •
1920--- 1924 • • • • • •• • ••• • • • • ••• •• •• • • •• • •• ..
192!,--1029 • •. • •••• • • •••• • ••••• • •• • •• . . • • •
1930--1934••• • • •••• • •• •• • . • .• ••• • • • . •• • ••
cities, towns,
and Till
~000
I, 3~'3. (U l
!164,
2, 2.',:?, Ot)O
I , 137,
ll07,
2, lfi2. (0.l
48; .
2.1:1\.'°\,t'O, J
2. ro,. ooo
2. 33 1. fl)()
702,
907,
457. IXX>
422. IXX>
4n, tm
212, 000
:ll,000
I, t,r,6 , 000
2ftfl,OOO
l, M l , IX'Kl
281,000
351,
38(1, 000
447,000
288,000
I, 225, COII
1. 1~ 1, IIO()
72. 000
I , MO , fllO
3711, llll
; , TTO, IIOO
I\, j O\ , 'l()
11), 73.\ fl)()
fl, 57><. 1) )0
7, 17fl, 000
I, 211 , l'OJ
I. 1611, ll lO
S25, 000
~
Farms o
s ud vllla~e.,
1,\#\, l'UJ
m1,mo
irn.roo
19:W • . •• • •• . . • •• • ••• • • .••• • •.••• •• • •• ..•
1935 • ••• • .• • •• •• • .•• ... • . ••. • •..• . . . • . •.
1936 • • •. • • •• . • .• .•... •. .••• •... • • • • • • ••.
1937 • •• ••• • •• •• •• • • • • • • • •• •• • ••• • • •• . .••
L" II le,,. l0Wh5,
lo !RJ" lll5
:..t,..), 000
7:.9, 11)()
I , I I~. 11)0
1920 . •• • •.• • •• .. • • . • • •• •. . • • .. • • . ••••••
1921. .. ·· • ... . .. . . ••.... . • . • ••.. .. . .. •
1922 . • •.... • . •.•••. . . . •. .. · · •·· · • • • · • •
1923 • . • • . • . . .. • . ..•.•. • .•.. •. • • • . . ••• . •
1924 . • .•. ••• ...• •• • ••. •. . · •• ··•· • ·· •• •••
1925 . . • ..• • •. . .. •• •• ••• • . •·•• ••• •• ·· ·• •
JIY.lfl • • • • • • ••• • • • •• •••• • • • • • ••• ••• .••• •••
1927 • • • •• • •••• •• · •••••• • ·•··•• •• • • ·• •••
1912 • ••.•.•• • ••• • ••••• •· • •• ••• • ••· • · • . . •
Net mo,,emeint from-
ns lu,· •
lll ll h rr11 t1 fo r
3,331, 000
2,, IJll.\ 000
5118. 000
Source : Bure,au of A1lrlc111t11rsl F.conom i<"'l , Farm Po pulation 1-; ,1imat11, .lon ua,, I , 1'138, U . 8 . Dept11t men t ol gr icull u re , \ \ ' a., hin~ ton , D . C., Ju nr ltl, lVJ>,.
On the basis of fa rm pop ul a tion movPnH'n ts t hC' pNiod sin re 1!)30
m ay be divid ed in to two pttrts . D uring t ht' firs t yt'n n-; , l U30 - 1932,
urban employment opportunit ies werC' dC'c rf'nsing nnd in some p11rts of
the count ry many pN sons wern moving to fo rms fr, m villn ge:-1, towns ,
and cities. Some rct urn<'d to t he form homes , ·hich t ho_v hnd left
only a few ye11rs previously. Some movt,d to ahn.ndnnPd fnrms tPn.ds o r
looked for oth er pi n es wherP thPy <'011l d spc11 rt' r lH'II Jl ho using nnd
perh aps provide subsis PncP fo r thPmsPln · nnd tllt'i r fom ilil' S.
4
la Toto l
B Net 10 for ms
3
•
Net from fo rm5
3
.,.
C
~
~
C.
C
2
~
:i
0
1920
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
F1G. 7 - TOTAL ANO NET MIGRATION TO ANO FROM FARMS
1920 -1937
Sour ce : Ad opted fr om Bureou of Agrlcu lturol
Econom ics, US Dep ortmen t of A9ricul ture.
AF -- 20n , wP&,
Ogr
·edby Goog le
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 27
Beginning in 1933 there was a revival in urban employment and a
re~val of hope of employment prospects. The latter may be as signifi.cant for migration as an actual increase in jobs. The migration
~from villages, towns, and cities to farms was sharply reduced, and
once more there was a net movement from farms, as there had been
annually during the 1920's.3
A comparison of the movements of farm population between 1930
and 1935 and of net rural migration between 1920 and 1930 suggests
that the changes which occurred between 1930 and 1935 were to some
extent a continuation of trenruLbegun in the earlier period. The rural
areas which reported net gains by migration between 1920 and 1930
and those counties which lost only slightly received a disproportionately large share of the migrants to farms after 1930 (table 7).
TafJle 7.-Farm Population, 1930, and Changes in Farm Population, 1930-1934, In
Counties With Specified Rates of Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930 1
Net rural migration, 1~1980
Total• ...........................
Prom raral territory:
Less than 10 percent.. •••••••••.•..
10-111 percent ••••.•...•..••....•••.
2>-fi peroent ••..•.••..•••••.••••••
30 percent or more .•...••••••.••.••
To raral territory .•.•.....•.••••.••••••
Percent of
total farm
e::pula•
ton, 1930
Percent In•
crease In 1930
In•
farm
popula•
Percent
Percent of crease In tlon bemwe
migrant!!
ofmlgrant8
farm
C::,PU•
to farms,
lat on,
from DOD•
1930-1934
1930-1934
farm terr!tory, 1930193'
Percent
change In
farm populatlon, ei:cluslveof migrant!! from
nonfarm terrltory, 19301934
100.0
100.0
+4.5
-Hl.6
-2.1
17.6
40.3
22. 3
4.9
14.9
111. 7
33.6
18. 7
+3.i
+2.9
+5.9
+4.8
+7.1
+7.3
+5.4
+5.5
+5.9
+10.4
· -3.6
-2.5
+o.4
-1.1
-3.3
4. 4
23.6
For method of computation see appendix B.
• Includes figures for farm population In counties which bad no rural population: 8,483 penon~ In 11130 and
.
Bource: Bureau of the Census, U71Ued &au, Cemua o' A,rleulture: 1936 ,Vol. II, U. 8. Department of
Commerce, Wuhtngton, D. C1., 1936, county table IV.
1
1,006 migrants to farms, 11130-1113'.
Total increases in farm population after 1930, however, were no·
directly related to gains or losses before 1930. This again illustrates
the necessity for ta.king into account all factors that contribute to a
change in population, i.e., migration to an area, natural increase, and
migration from the area. In the case of the counties which had a net
.gain by migration before 1930, the large increase in fa.rm population
after 1930 was due primarily to the migration to farms, which was
only partially offset by migration from farms. In the counties losing
most heavily before 1930, there was much less movement from farms
1 The available data on population of cities since 1930 give further support to the
interpretation that there was no wholesale migration from cities to farms. While
some cities decreased in population between 1930 and 1935, others maintained their
numbers or reported slight increases. For a summary of some of the data see
Bureau of the Census, State and Special Cemuses Sinu 19SO, release of the U. 8.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., May 29, 1937.
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
28 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
after that date. The increo.ses in such counties are explained by
migration to farms plus a retardation of the movement from farms.
NET MIGRATION TO AND FROM FARMS
Widespread variations in migration occurred among the different
geographic divisions of the country during the 5--yea.r period 1930-1934.
The number of persons moving to farms exceeded the number leaving
farms during ea.ch of the years 1930-1933 in the New England States,
1930-1934 in the Middle Atlantic States, and 1930-1932 in the East
North Central Sta.tes. 4 In the South Atlantic States, where the
reverse type of flow occurred, the movements from farms exceeded
the movements to farms during ea.ch of the 5 yea.rs, though the difference was as little as 2,000 in 1932. In the other divisions the number
moving to farms was generally greater than the number moving from
farms before 1932 and less after 1932, except in the Pacific States
where more persons were arriving on farms than were leaving farms
during 1933 and 1934. The individual States in each division showed
much diversity with respect to these movements. 1
By ta.king into account the natural increase in the fa.rm population
during the 5 years, 1930-1934, it is possible to estimate the extent of
the net migration to and from farms (fig. 8). 8 Severa.I areas which
received a. relatively large net migration stand out. The largest area
is that extending from the northea,,tern sea.hoard to the Appalachian
Mountains, and even farther west into Ohio. Another area which
received large numbers of migrants is the Lake States Cut-Over
Region. The States of the far Northwest received a. proportionately
heavy migration, while the wide diversity of conditions in California
is reflected by the irregular patterns of migration. Other areas of
immigration a.re found in southwestern Utah, the Rio Grande Valley
in Colorado and New Mexico, the Ozark Region of Missouri, and the
industrialized areas near the Great Lakes. Florida. generally received
migrants to her farms.
• Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Population Estimates, January 1,
l9S8, op. cit.
1 Data on file in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, D. C.
1 Fig. 8 was constructed by relating natural increase to the total increase as
reported in the United Statu Census of Agriculture: 1935. The areas for which
the comparability of the census figures may be called into question a.re generally
the areas which are here shown as having a large migration to farms. But Connecticut and West Virginia., where it is most difficult to account for the total
increase reported by the census, also reported a large proportion of persons "who
lived in a nonfarm residence five years earlier" and are therefore classified correctly. For methodology see Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., The People
of the Drought Statu, Research Bulletin Series V, No. 2, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 61-63.
Oigtized by
Google
,l
FIG.8- NET MIGRATION OF FARM POPULATION
1930-1934
~
~
ITI
z
v1
0
..,
:t
ITI
..,
►
;IJ
~
0
"0
Net m,grat,on
g
►
=
0
II Little or none
!a
C.
0
0
-n
00
10
forms
■ Heavy from fa""•
~
L)
Heavy
■ Slight from forms
N
"'
r
~ Sli ght to fo rms
[I]]]]
co
C
z
zn
ITI
...
~
Sou r ce Adapted fro m Bureau of Agr icultural
Economics, U S Department of Agr ic ulture.
0
AF-Z974, WM
•
tO
,0
30 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
The areas reporting net migration from forms are, broadly speaking.
the major agricultural regions, the areas producing cotton and wheat
together with a section of the Com Belt. Relatively high birth rates
in the past, the increasing use of agricultural machinery, agricultural
readjustments as a result of governmental programs, and changing
market conditions contributed to the migro.tion from these areas. To
such factors were added the severe droughts of 1934 and 1936 in large
portions of these areas.
Elect of Drought
The estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as well as
the de.ta from the 1935 Census of Agriculture unfortunately deal
only with gross movements of form population and do not permit one
to follow the individual migrant from point of origin to point of
destination. Since they deal exdusivelv with farm population, they
give only limited information about the migrations to and from the
drought Ste.tes. 7 Moreover, if agricultural le.borers lived in tourist
camps, migratory workers' camps, and nonfe.rm locations, they were
not counted as farm population although their major employment was
in agriculture.
Recent studies on a State basis, however, indicate the extent of the
:migrations both from the Great Plains drought area to the Pacific
coast and eastward into Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and
Louisiana. 8 The States which were most severely affected by the
drought were States in which the population has for some time shown
a high rate of turnover, and it appears that drought and economic
depression accentuated previously existing trends without radically
7 For a summary of the reports available late in 1936 see Taeuber, Conrad and
Taylor, Carl C., op. cit., pp. 4~7. See also Taeuber, Conrad and Hoffman, C. S.,
"Recent Migration From the Drought Areas," Land Policy Circular, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Farm Security Administration, Division of Land
Utilization, Washington, D. C., September 1937, pp. 16-20.
• See Taylor, Paul S. and Vasey, Tom, "Drought Refugee and Labor Migration
to California, June-December 1935," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1936,
pp. 312-318; Rowell, Edward J., "Drought Refugee and Labor Mi1uation to
California in 1936," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 43, No. 6, 1936, pp. 1355-1363;
Landis, Paul H., Rural Immigrants to Washington Stau, 1931-1936, Rural Sociology
Series in Population, No. 2, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman, Wash., July 1936; Breithaupt, L. R. and Hoffman, C. S., Preliminary
Information Concerning Immigration into Rural District& in Oregon, January 1933
to June 1996, Circular of Information No. 157, Oregon Agricultural Experiment
Station, Corvallis, Oreg., August 1936; Breithaupt, L. R., Preliminary Data Concerning an Immigrant Family Survey in Oregon, January 1930 to November 1996,
Circular of Information No. 164, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg., January 1937; Hoffman, C. S., "Drought and Depression Migration
into Oregon, 1930 to 1936," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1938, pp. 2735; and Hill, George W., Rural Migration and Farm Abandonment, Research
Bulletin Series II, No. 6, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., June 1935.
Digt1zed by
Google
....
"•
....
,.
THr,, SIDE UP
.
Th t>y Too Know Drou yhl.
-
<.;...
.
V
- .- . .
...
,.
_,..
.
•
•
Fa,·m ,'ic('ttri f y .tdmi11i.,tn1f ;u11 (J. ,,-1 .
L1·u11i11y t!w Farm.
gl
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 •
)
31
altering the direction of movement which had prevailed during the
1920's. The problems of the migrants and the manner in which the
areas of settlement have absorbed the migrants, however, have been
ra.dicallv changed.
EXCHANGE OF POPULATION
Migration between two areas is normally a process of two streams
moving in opposite directions. To speak of migration as proceeding
in one direction ordinarily means that the stream of migrants in that
direction is greater than the counter current. The statement that
from 1930 through 1934 the net migration from farms amounted to
nearly 600,000 persons is not to be interpreted as indicating that only
600,000 persons moved from farms to villages, towns, and cities.
Actually nearly 6,600,000 persons moved to farms during the 5 years,
while 7,200,000 persons left farms. 11
According to the 1935 Census of Agriculture nearly 2,000,000 persons who were living on farms on January 1, 1935, had a nonfa.rm
residence in 1930. 10 If figures both for the net migration from farms
from 1930 through 1934 and for those who had a nonfarm residence
in 1930 are correct, the number of persons who were on farms in 1930
and living elsewhere on January 1, 1935, must be nearly 2,600,000.
Clearly not all of the people who moved from farms to villages, towns,
and cities stayed there, nor did all of the people who moved to farms
remain. Many persons ma.de the shift from farm to town or from
town to farm more than once during the 5 years. 11 However, at least
4,600,000 different individuals were included. On the other hand,
the largest possible number of migrants would have been 13,756,000,
the total moves to and from farms.
Thus, the net movement of nearly 600,000 persons from farms to
villages, towns, and cities was the result of movements of approximately 8 times as many persons, and the total number of migrations
1
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Population &timatu, January 1,
1998, op. cit.
10 It is assumed that the change in farm population as reported by the census
i11 correct and that the persons who were reported as "Persons on farms on January 1, 1935, who lived in a nonfarm residence 5 years earlier" actually moved
from a nonfarm to a farm residence between 1930 and 1935. If it should be demonstrated that the farm population was relatively underenumerated in 1930 or
that it was relatively overenumerated in 1935, it would be necessary to assume
that migration from farms between 1930 and 1935 was greater than is indicated
and that the net migration from farms during the period was actually greater
than it is here stated to be.
11 Each person would be counted each time he moved.
Thus, if a person had
moved once from town to farm and back again each year, he would appear 10
times. The figure of 1,995,000 persons who moved from a nonfarm to a farm
residence between 1930 and January 1, 1935, as reported by the census, however,
is an unduplicated figure, as is that of 2,593,000 migrants from farms, which is
used here as its counterpart.
Dg1tzedbyGoogle
32 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
between fann and nonfann territory was 23 times as great as the
number of persons involved in the net change resulting from migration. This shifting of population to and from farms indicates a large
amount of experimentation, for in terms of numbers the net result of
these movements might have been achieved with approximately four
out of every hundred migrations that actually occurred.
But even these figures do not give the full measure of the extent to
which people on farms moved about during the 5-year period, for
they do not include the movement from one farm to another, which
is the largest single item in the mobility of the fann population. The
interstate farm-to-farm movement was even larger in volume and
extent than the movement between farms and nonfarm territory. 11
Yet the bulk of the farm-to-farm movement was a local milling about
that did not carry the individual outside his community or his county
or State. On the other hand, the migration between farm and nonfarm territory, though predominantly for short distances, more
frequently carried the individual beyond the bounds of the immediate
vicinity.
EFFECT OF DECREASED MIGRATION FROM FARMS
The net migration from farms for the period 1930-1934 was nearly
2,500,000 less than it would have been if migration had continued at
the same level which it reached during the 1920's. When the migration from farms was reduced without a correspondingly sharp decline
in the excess of births over deaths, a growth in fann population was
inevitable, even if there had not been some movement to the land.
Moreover, an increase under such circumstances is cumulative. The
persons who would have moved if earlier conditions had continued to
prevail were young people. 13 Remaining on the farms and marrying,
they in turn added to the excess of births over deaths in the farm
population. Jrrqm 1930 through 1934 the farm population increased
. by 5.4 percent." But if there had been no migration to or from farms,
the increase would have been at least 6.7 percent or 2,023,000 persons,
which is the computed excess of births over deaths.
Changes in the age composition of the farm population also resulted
from the fact that fewer persons moved from farms during the depression years than formerly (table 8). The number of persons aged
15-39 years increased more than the number aged 4Q-64 years during
the 5-year period. That is, there was a greater increase in the age
group which normally would have contributed the largest proportion
12 Data on file in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, D. C.
11 Approximately one-half of the migrants from farms between 1920 and 1930
were 10-19 years o( age in 1920.
14 Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Population Estimate,, January 1,
1938, op. cit.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 33
To&le 8.-Age of the Farm Population, 1930 and 1935 (Estimated)
January 1, 11130
January 1, 1935
Ap
Percent
Number
Total ____ --------------------- ______________ _
30, l&g, 000
Number
Percent
100. 0
31,801,000
100.0
11.1
25.0
36. 9
21.g
5. 1
3,329,000
6,Ql3,000
12,614,000
7,118,000
1,827,000
10. 5
21. 7
39. 7
22. 4
5. 7'
1-----
t' n d er 6 JNlS------ ---- ------------- ---- - - - - - -- -- - :;...14
--------------- __ --- ___ -- --- _-- _______ --_
l:;...39years
year3__________________________________________
~
ye&I'!_
-- -- ----- ------ ------- --- -------_
65
years
and---over---__________________________________
3,343,000
7,530,000
11,139,000
8,604,000
1,563,000
Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Populallon and Rural Life Adullic,, U. B. Department of Agrlcultnre, Washington, D. C .• July 1, 1937, p. 26.
of the migrants from farms, while proportionately the age group which
would be more directly affected by migration to farms increased less
rapidly.
MIGRATION TO FARMS BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS AND STATES
Approximately 7 out of every 10 persons who had moved from villages, towns, and cities to farms from 1930 through 1934 had left the
farms by 1935 (table 9)_ The largest proportion remaining on farms
was reported from the Ee.st North Central States, particularly Michigan, Ohio, e.nd Indiana. In the Middle Atlantic e.nd New England
States the proportion of these migrants who remained on their farms
in 1935 w11.s also somewhat above the average for the entire country.
Together, these three geographic divisions reported 28 percent of the
migrants to farms and 35 percent of those who remained on farms,
although they he.d only 22 percent of the total farm population in the
United States in 1930 and nearly the same proportion in 1935. 16
The percent of migrants remaining on farms we.s also above the
To&le 9.-Migranh From Cities, Towns, and Villages to Farms, 1930-1934, and Migranh
Remaining on Farms, January 1, 1935
Geographic division
United States ______ . _________________________________ _
New England_.
------------------------------------------.
Middle
Atlantic __
___________________________________________
East North Central ________________________________________ _
West North Central ____________ ---------------------------South Atlantic _____________________________________________ _
East South Central ________________________________________ _
West South Central _______________________________________ _
'-<'11lntaln _________________________________________________ _
Pacifk ____ • ____________________ • _____ • _____________________ _
Migrants re- Percent of
Total migrants
malning on
migrants
to farms 1 farms,Januaryl, remaining
1935 •
on farms
6,678,000
1,995,000
30
240,000
529,000
1,081,000
1,104,000
767,000
693,000
1,165,000
421,000
578,000
82,000
196,000
414,000
279,000
265,000
214,000
267,000
114,000
164,000
34
37
38
25
35
31
23
27
28
1 Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Popu/lllN>fl Eallmatc,, Januarr 1, 1938, U. B. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C., June UI, 19311.
• Persons on farms on January I, 1!136, who lived In a nonfarm resldenre 5 year.iearller. Bureau olthe Census, Uflittd Stalt1 CtftlUI of AorlcuUurt: 19:15, Vol. II, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C ..
1936, tllble Xlll.
11 Bureau of the Census, United Statu Cemua of AgricuUure: 1935, Vol. II, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1936.
o g11 ,ed by
Goog Ie
34 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
average in the South Atlantic States, which, however, received less
than a proportionate share of the migrants in terms of their farm
population. The West North Central and West South Central Divi,sions received their share of the migrants to farms, but they retained
only one-fourth of them. The severe drought experienced in those
States undoubtedly was the largest factor in reducing the proportion
which remained. In the Mountain States the more densely settled
. river valleys and irrigated districts apparently attracted and retained
more migrants than did the more sparsely settled and more arid areas.
While fa.rm residents on January 1, 1935, who had moved from a
nonfa.rm residence since 1930 made up 6.3 percent of the fa.rm population of the United States (appendix table 6), the proportion of the
1935 fa.rm population composed of persons who were not on fa.rms
5 yea.rs earlier was greatest in the Pacific Coo.st States, where approxi- ·
ma.tely one out of every seven fa.rm residents (13.7 percent) had
moved from a city, town, or village after 1929. Oregon led all other
States in this movement, 18 percent of its fa.rm population having~
come from villages, towns, or cities during the 5 yea.rs preceding
1935. In that State the migrants to farms sought out chiefly the
fertile Willamette Valley, where the major share of Oregon's agriculture is concentrated.
New England and the Middle Atlantic States also had secured
relatively large proportions of their 1935 farm population through
migrants who came from nonfa.rm areas, approximately 12 and 10
percent, respectively. In the Mountain and the East North Central
States 10 and 9 percent of the fa.rm residents, respectively, had
moved to farms since April 1, 1930. Michigan was outstanding
among the latter group of States with 13 percent of its farm population reported as recent arrivals on farms.
The five geographic divisions in which migrants to farms constituted more than 6 percent of the 1935 farm population were, except
for the Mountain Division, much more urbanized than the remainder
of the country. Only 30 percent of the farm population in 1935 was
reported in those divisions. In the other four divisions-West North
Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South Central-which contained 70 percent of the farm population and the majority of those engaged in commercial agriculture, migrants formed
less than 6 percent of the fa.rm residents. The East South Central
Division-Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi-reported
the smallest proportion of migrants; only 4.0 percent of the persons
on farms in 1935 had not been on farms in 1930.
The concentration of the migrants on farms in the northern and
eastern industrial States also stood out clearly when the number of
these migrants in each State was related to the area of the State.
The States with the highest ratio of migrants per 100 square miles of
territory were among the most highly urbanized States in the country:
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 35
Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Kentucky and West Virginia, which were also included in such a classification, had large rural-nonfarm populations.
MIGRATION TO FARMS IN RELATION TO URBAN CENTERS
The location of migrants to farms indicates to what a large extent
the movement was to areas near the larger cities (fig. 9). The
counties which included a city of 100,000 or more in 1930 reported
4.4 percent of the total farm population that year. During the
5 years, 1930-1934, their farm population increased by 16 percent,
ii.early four times as rapidly as that of the entire country. The
205,000 migrants to farms in these counties constituted slightly
more than 10 percent of the total. In other words, these urban
counties, with only 4.4 percent of the farm population in 1930, received more than 10 percent of the migrants to farms.
F1G. 9-PERSONS LIVING ON FARMS, JANUARY 1, 1935,*WHO
HAD A NONFARM RESIDENCE 5 YEARS EARLIER
1-.,/--,,..;.:-·...--=-·.~_J ( \
Jtt'--··•-i-t""'-}-..,,;.
United States 10101-
1,995,000 persons.
*Exclusive of children under
5 years of age .
Source: Adopted from Bureou of Agriculturol
Economics, U.S. Deportment of Agriculture.
Each dot represents
200 persons.
AF-29711, WPA
A similar tabulation for the counties adjoining each county with a
large city showed the same concentration of migrants to farms. 18 The
11 The counties which in 1930 had a density of 100 persons or more per square
mile included 12.3 percent of the farm population. They received nearly twice as
large a proportion of the migrants to farms, 22.1 percent of the total. The farm
population of these counties increased by 12.6 percent, !nd migrants to farms
were 10.5 percent of the farm population in 1935, the corresponding national percentages being 4.5 and 6.3, respectively. The increase in farm population was
greater in these counties than the national average in every geographic division
except the Pacific States. The greater proportion of migrants, however, was
found in all divisions.
Og1tzedbyGoogle
36 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
counties including cities with 250,000 population or more and the
adjoining counties had 9 percent of the farm population in 1930, but
they received 15 percent of the migrants to farms which were reported
by the census. These results are in agreement with those which
would have been expected on the basis of the principle that most
migrations are for short distances-one phase of the Law of Limited
Circulation. 17
If the data were analyzed by minor civil divisions, the tendency to
locate near cities would be shown even more clearly. Such a tabulation was made for South Dakota, a State which reported a net migration from farms between 1930 and 1935. Minor civil divisions were
grouped into three classes: A-those including or adjoining a city of
5,000 or more; B-those including any incorporated place of less
than 5,000 persons; and C--all others. Migrants to farms were proportionately more numerous in the minor civil divisions included
under "A" than in those included under "B," and these in tum
exceeded those included under "C." Whatever their intentions concerning future residence may have been, the migrants from nonfal"D,l
to farm territory to a large extent moved to areas near urban centers. -:Much of the movement to farms from 1930 through 1934 was to
places near which nonagricultural employment had previously been
available. A large proportion of the nonagricultural population is
concentrated within relatively few counties. 18 A list of 167 manufacturing, 167 mining, and 41 other urban counties is given in the Study
of Population Redistribution. These counties included 13 percent of
the farm population in 1930, but in 1935 they accounted for 24.5
percent of the "persons on farms January 1, 1935, who were not on
farms 5 years earlier."
Increases in total farm population in these counties between 1930
and 1935 were considerably above the national average, and a large
share of these increases was due to the migration from nonfarm to
farm areas (table 10). In the mining counties the migration to farms
did not account for all of the increase in farm population. The figures
suggest that there was virtually no migration from farms in these counties and that some families changed their occupational classificatio·n
from nonfe.rm to farm between 1930 and January 1, 1935, without moving. 19 In the manufacturing and other urban counties there appears to
have been some migration from farms as well as to farms, although
in both groups the movement to farms exceeded the national average.
17 Lively, C. E., "Spatial Mobility of the Rural Population With Respect to
Local Areas," The A7¥"can Journal of Sociology, Vol. XLIII, 1937, pp. 89-102.
18 Goodrich, Carter, Allin, Bushrod W., and Hayes, Marion, Migration and
Planu of Living, 1920-1934, Bulletin No. 2, Study of Population Redistribution,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1935.
18 It is poSBible also that the farm population figures in these areas are not
entirely comparable because of different interpretations of census instructions.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 37
Ta&le 10.-Farm Population, 1930, and Changes in Farm Population, 1930-1934, in
375 Seleded Counties
Group
Percent
Percent
increase in
change
Percent
1930farm
In farm
Percent
Percent of
increase
population
population,
migrants
of total
in farm
because of
exclusive
farm popu• to farms, population,
migrants from of migrants
latlon, 1930 1930-11134
11130-1934 nonfarm terr!• from nonfarm
tory, 1930territory,
11134
1930-1934
United States....................
100. 0
100.0
+4.5
+l!.6
-2.1
Total counties (375) ..•.•..•.•..•
13.0
24.6
+1s.o
+12.4
+2.6
Manufacturing counties (167) •..•••.•.•
Mining counties (167) .........••...••.
Other urban counties (41) ......•.•••••
7. 2
3.8
2.0
14.5
+14.3
+20.5
+7.4
+13.2
+11.9
+103
+1.1
+s.6
-2.9
6.9
3.2
Sources: Bureau of the Census, United Stain Ce11am of Agrlcu/lurt: 19,6, Vol. II, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1936, county table IV; and Goodrich, Carter, Allin, Bushrod W ., and Haves,
Marlon, M'9ratltm and Plane, of Lirlng, 1910-19,~, Bulletin No. 2, Study of Population Redistrlhutlon,
Philadelphia: University of Pennaylvania Press, 1113.~.
The clustering around large cities of persons who moved to farms
between 1930 and January 1, 1935, and remained there indicates that
the movement was not primarily to the areas from which migrants
.... had come between 1920 and 1930 While some of these migrants
from cities to farms returned to the areas from which they had come,
many others obviously went to areas near the cities of their recent
residence.
MIGRATION TO FARMS AND QUALITY OF LAND
The available evidence does not support the thesis that recent
migrants went primarily to the poorest agricultural areas. For the
United States as a whole the proportion of the 1930 farm population
in problem areas, as delimited by the National Resources Board, 20
and the proportion of migrants in these areas were 24.8 percent and
26.6 percent, respectively (appendix table 7). Even when the
problem areas were further subdivided according to the proportion
of their land which should be withdrawn from agriculture, there was
no clear evidence that the poorest agricultural areas attracted a.n unduly large proportion of the migrants. Those counties for which it was
·recommended that 60 percent or more of the agricultural land should
be transferred to other uses included 640,000 farm residents in 1930,
2.1 percent of all farm residents in the United States. These counties
reported almost exactly the same percent (2.3) in 1935 of those
persons who had moved to farms since 1930 and remained there.
• In ~onnection with studies of soil resources and their most effective utilization
the National Resources Board has prepared a map showing areas of land-use
problems. These are the areas in which some or all of the farm land should be
transferred to grazing, forests, or other conservational uses. In 1930, 25 percent
of the farm population was living in counties classified as being in these problem
areas. In general they are areas in which income from agriculture is low and in
which other economic and social problems are prevalent.
Dgitzeu by
Google
38 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
While 6.3 percent of the persons on all farms in the United States on
January 1, 1935, had not lived on a farm 5 years previously, in the
most severely affected problem area counties the comparable figure
was 6.4 percent. For all problem area counties it rose to 6.5 percent,
and for those counties not classified as problem areas, it was 6.2 percent.
When the data were classified by six geographic regions, the same
results were obtained (appendix table 7). The proportion of migrants
in the problem areas of four regions was slightly higher than would
have been expected on the basis of the distribution of the farm popula-,
tion in 1930, but in two of the regions the proportion of migrants in the
problem areas was less than would have been expected on that basis.
Except in the Northwestern States, where the influence of drought
undoubtedly was the basis for the exception, there was less migration
from farms in the problem areas than from farms in the nonprohlem
areas. Disregarding migrants from nonfann territory there was a
decrease of 2.1 percent in the total farm population from 1930 through
1934. In the nonproblem areas the comparable figure was 3.1, but
in the problem areas there was actually an increase of 1.0 percent. 11
Birth rates in the problem areas are generally high; and if there were
no migration, their population would increase at a rapid rate. In the
instances in which the number of migrants from farms in problem
areas within the six regions was greater than the excess of births over
deaths, the differences were usually small. The major exception was
the most severely affected problem areas of the Far West.
It is clear, therefore, that in relation to the distribution of the farm
population in 1930 the problem areas attracted only slightly more
than their share of the migrants from villages, towns, and cities.
Rather, the generally high rates of reproduction in problem areas
together with retention of a larger than average share of the natural
increase were primarily responsible for the disproportionate increase
in the farm population of such areas. 22
11 It is not likely that migration from farms in other areas could account for
more than a small fraction of the increase. Therefore, the interpretation given
here that this represents failure to migrate is probably correct.
22 It has been asserted that the change in number of farms and in farm population as reported by the census for the years 1930-1934 is an overstatement of the
true situation and that the census of 1930 underenumerated the farms and farm
·population. If such assertions are correct, the argument above needs to be modified somewhat, for it assumes the correctness of the census figures. The number
of persons on farms on January 1, 1935, who were not on farms in 1930 may
probably be accepted as eBBentially correct in indicating the migration to farms
which had occurred. If the 1930 farm population as reported by the census is too
small, the effect would be to reduce the amount of change shown. The correation
would probably be greatest in the problem areas and in the areas ne.ar the larger
cities, where part-time and self-sufficing farms occur in large numbers and make
accurate classification of places as farm or nonfarm difficult. Any upward
adjustment of the 1930 Census figures would not detract from the argument that
D g1, zed oy
Google
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 39
To test further the conclusion that the back-to-the-land movement
was primarily a movement away from the larger industrial centers and
not a movemenrrotlie ·more remote agricultural areas, the problem
area counties were divided into two groups on the basis of whether
more of the gainfully employed workers (excluding trade, commerce,
and public and private service) were engaged in agriculture or in
manufacturing, forestry, and mining in 1930. Those problem area
counties classified as industrial on this basis failed to experience as
much migration away from farms as the agricultural counties and, with
the exception of the Far West, they also received a larger proportion of
migrants from nonfarm territory (table 11). In only 2 States, Iowa
and Indiana, was there a decrease in the farm population in• industrial
counties, but decreases in agricultural counties were reported for 14
of the States where the migration from farms was sufficiently great to
match the migration to farms and, in addition, to match the additions
to the population through the excess of births over deaths.
Ta&le 11.-farm Population, 1930( and Changes in Farm Population, 1930-1934, in
Industrial and Agricultura Counties 1 in Agricultural Problem Areas
Reeion and type
Percent
P ercent In•
change In
Percent
crease m 1930 farm populachange In ~8{,':;
tion, exelu•
population, farm popu· of migrants
sive of ml•
lll.'!O
fromn_anfarm
11
temto!1,
territory
f07,S'f~
{:~~1:;
J;~~~
l930-i 11M
United Btatt'S................................
Industrial................................
Agricultural..............................
Northeast..........................................
Industrial......................................
1
iftJi~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mid!fe
Industrial......................................
1
Noriifw:e~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Industrial......................................
Agricultural....................................
Southeast..........................................
Industrial......................................
Agricultural....................................
Southwest.........................................
Industrial. •.........••.•..••.•.....•.....•••...
Far
iv.~~t~J::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Industrial......................................
Agricultural....................................
100.0
20.6
79.4
+8.1
+17.7
+5.6
89. 5
100.0
+18.5
+21.0
+14.9
+11.4
+11.1
+10.0
-3.4
+29.6
-3.7
+o.a
+22.3
+4.4
+4.9
100.0
100. 0
50. 3
49. 7
+4.9
+4.2
+12.4
-4.0
10. 5
1930-11134
+7.0
+11. I
+a. o
+1.1
+a.e
+12. 2
+13. 6
+6.3
+7.4
+4.8
+t.8
+5.6
+o.s
-7.5
+10.~
-7.7
+t.6
+13.11
+0.1
-1.6
1====1•====1===,==
100.0
68. 9
41.1
100.0
24.1
75.9
100.0
0.9
99.1
100.0
~~~~:mom
+.fg:
~
+11. 6
+t ~
+19. 4
+4. o
+4. 8
+s. 4
+4. 3
+o. 4
+~t
t
+s. 8
+11. 4
-0.4
-1.5
-8.9
+3.8
-21.4
• The problem area counties were divided Into 2 groups on the basis of whether more of the gninfplJy
employed workers (excluding trade, commerce, and public and private service) were engaged in agriculture
or in manufacturing, forestry, and mining In 1930.
Source: National Resonrces Committee, TIie Problem• oJ a Cllanqi'll(J Population, Washington, D. C.,
May 1938, table 8, p, 107.
migration from nonfann territory was not disproportionately large in the problem
areas and that it was not the major factor in the increases that did occur. It is
assumed here that the figures for persons on farms in 1935 who were not on farms
5 years previously are reliable. For a discuBBion of this point see Thompson,
Warren S., Ruearch Memorandum on Internal Migration in the Depruiion,
Bulletin 30, Social Science Research Council, New York, 1937.
DaltzeobyGoogle
40 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
In a number of States another development is discernible. In
addition to receiving persons from nonfarm areas, and, in effect,
retaining their natural increase, the industrial counties in these States
appear to have gained some farm population through a shift from
nonfarming occupations to farming without any change in residence. 28
Unemployed miners or forest workers living in the open country on a
plot of land which could be utilized for agricultural production shifted
to agriculture when they lost their industrial employment, and their
holdings were classified as farms in 1935. 24
MIGRATION TO FARMS AND THE INCIDENCE OF RELIEF AND
LOW INCOMES
A somewhat different classification of problem areas has been made
in the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.21l In these six
problem areas, based primarily upon the occurrence of high reliPf
rates, farm population increased a total of 3.3 percent between 1930
and January 1, 1935, but in two of the areas, the Appalachian-Ozark
and the Lake States Cut~Over, the increase was approximately 17
percent. These six areas with more than two-fifths of the fa.rm population in 1930 received only one-third of the migrants to farms. The
Lake States Cut-Over Area received more than twice as large a share
of the migrants as it would have received if the migrants had been
distributed according to the farm population of 1930. The Appalachian-Ozark Area received slightly more and the Winter Wheat Area
slightly fewer migrants than would have been expected on that basis.
In the other three areas there were fewer migrants to farms; in the
Eastern Cotton Area the number of migrants was only about half
that which would have been expected (table 12).
In the three areas which were most severely affected by the drought,
there were decreases in the farm population; and in the Eastern ,
Cotton counties the increase was only 0.8 percent. In these four
areas of commercial agriculture the migration to farms was more than
offset by migration from farms to other areas. In the AppalachianOzark Area the increase in farm population through the arrival of
migrants to farms was 6.7 percent and an increase of 9.9 percent was
due to other factors, including the high rate of natural increase. In
the Lake States Cut-Over Area the rate of total increase as well as
n See also p. 36.
H The correctness of the censm classification is not called into question here. It
is posfi!ible, however, that the completeness of enumeration may have differed a,s
between 1930 and 1935. This would have the same effect as the creation of farms
by the proceas mentioned. The correction, if any, which would be made for this
factor would probably not be sufficiently great to alter the conclusions stated
above.
23 Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Six Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Resour~
Rehabilitation, Research Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics, and
Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washin,rt-On, D. C., 1935.
Digt1zed by
Google
I
I
I
I
I
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 •
41
To&le 12.-Farm Population, 1930, and Changes in Farm Population, 1930-1934, in
6 Rural Problem Areas 1
Area
Percent
Percent of Percent of change
In
total rarm migrants
larmroopupopulation. to farms,
lat on,
11130
1930-11134
Ul30-11134
Percent InPercent
crea.oe In lll30 change In
farm popufarm populatlon be- latlon, exclucause of mlslve of mlgrants from grants from
nonrarm
nonrarm
territory,
territory,
1930-11134
1930-1934
II rural prohlem areas ............
45.2
33.0
+3.3
H.8
-1.5
Appalachian-Ozark ...••••••..••.••....
Lake States Cut-Over ...•••..•..•••...
8. 6
1. 4
2.1
2.8
22. 6
7. 7
8.8
3. 2
I. 2
2. 7
12. 0
5.1
+16.6
+17.4
-5.5
-1.3
+o.8
-2.4
+6.7
+14.5
+3.7
+6.3
+3.5
+4.4
+9.9
+2.0
-0.2
-7.6
-2. 7
-f..8
~~t.~:::::::::::::::::::::::
tl'f~~!r
East<'!rn Cotton ...•...••••••••••....••.
West<lrn Cotton ..........•............
• The area.• are th0!18 used by Beck, P. 0. and For.it<lr, M. C. In Six Rural Problem Area,, Relief-Ju.
,o.,,,,,,_.R,habilitation, Researrb Monograph I, DIYision or R<lsearch, Statistics, and Finance, Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
Sour,e: Bureau of the Census, Fl/tetfllll Cemm of the United State,: 1930. Population Vol. III, table 13,
and Uniud Slate&
of Agriculture: 1986, Vol. II, county table lV, U. 8. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D. C.
c.....,,
the rate of increase from migration was larger than in the other areas.
Migration to farms alone was sufficient to increase the farm population
by 14.5 percent. The fact that, with so large an increase from migration to farms, the total increase was only 17.4 percent indicates that
there was also some migration from farms, for the rate of natural
increase in this area in 5 years probably would amount to more than
3 percent.
These facts have a significant bearing on the relation of migration
to farms and relief. These problem areas were selected primarily on
the basis of their high relief rates; in each of them there were counties
in which 30 percent or more of the total population was on relief
during at least 1 month between October 1933 and April 1934. In
June 1934 when 15 percent of the families in the United States were
on relief, the percent of rural families on relief ranged from 8 in the
Eastern Cotton Belt to 25 in the Lake States Cut-Over Area and 33
in the Spring Wheat Area. The fact that only 5 percent of the farm
population in these areas in 1935 (12 percent in the Lake States
Cut-Over) consisted of persons who had not been on farms 5 years
previously indicates clearly that recent migrants were not the primary
reason for the high relief rates. 20
Another approach to the problem may be made in terms of the returns received by farm operators. The 1930 Census of Agriculture
n Ibid., p. 27; and Bureau of the Census, United States Censm of Agriculture,
cit., county table IV. See also Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R.,
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research Monograph VIII, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, p. 43.
Similar findings are reported in unpublished data collected by the Reeearch Section, Social and Economic Division, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1935.
19S5, Vol. II, op.
Og1tzedbyGoogle
42 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
secured information concerning the total value of all products sold,
traded, or used by the operator's family. This is a gross income
figure which makes no allowance for operating expenses, taxes, etc.,
and is generally considerably larger than the cash income or the net
amount available for family living. For purposes of this comparison
counties were classified according to the percent of farms which
reported total products valued at less than $600. The larger the
percent of these farms the poorer the area was from an agricultural
standpoint (table 13). 27
This comparison also shows a greater increase in farm population
in the poorer agricultural areas, although they received less than
their proportionate share of the migrants to farms. In the better
areas, however, the larger migrations to farms were partly offset by
larger migrations from farms and they, therefore, had smaller net
increases of farm population after 1930.
Ta•t. 13.-Farm Population 1930, and Cha_nges in Farm Population, 1930-1934, by
Counties Having Specified Percent of Farms With Products Valued at less Than $600
in 1929
Per,ent of
total rarm
r.;:pulaton, 1930
Percent of
migrants
to farms,
Total. .•...••••••••••••••••••.•..
100.0
Le•s than 10 ...........................
14. 8
Percent off arms with products valued
at less than $600 In 1929
10-19 ..................................
20-29 ..................................
30-39 ........••.....••••....••••.•.•...
4o-49 .......•...... -....•••••.•••......
50 or more ..•.....................•..•.
21. 7
20.9
17. 0
12. 6
13.0
1030-1934
Percent
Increase
In farm
po/'ulaton,
Percent Increase In
1930 (QJ"m
population
because of
migrants
from non-
1
Percent
change In
farm populatlon, exelusive of
migrants
from nonfarm terr!tory, 193011134
1930-1934
farm terr!tory, 19301934
100.0
+4.5
+6.6
-2.1
10. 2
2,,. 1
-1.7
+1.5
+so
+4.5
+7.5
+1. 7
+6. 7
+6.0
+5.6
-6.2
-6.0
-2. 7
-1.5
+J.4
+6.0
24. 5
17. 4
11. 5
11. 3
+·'
7. 42
+11.6
1 Total value of all products sold, traded, or used by the operator's family In 1929.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, Fiftunth Ctn,u, cf the t'nited Stat,.: 19!10, A2rlculture Vol. ITT. county
tables III and IV..\ and linited Stale• Cenau• of Agriculture: 1~3$, Vol. II. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Wsshlngton, D. v.
In a study of the population of the drought States 28 it was shown
that recent migrants from villages, towns, and cities to farms in the
drought area went to areas of greatest distress less frequently than
to other areas. The most severely affected counties reported 10
percent of the farm population in 1930 and only 6 percent of the
migrants during the following 5 years. For the least severely affected
areas the comparable figures were 28 percent and 39 percent,
respectively.
17 For the relation of this measure of agricultural distress to others see Taylor,
Carl C., Wheeler, Helen W., and Kirkpatrick, E. L., Disadvantaged Classea in
American Agriculture, Social Research Report No. VIII, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Farm Security Administration and Bureau of Agricultural Economics
cooperating, Washington, D. C., April 1938.
11 Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., op. cit., p. 52.
D g1;zed by
Goog Ie
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 43
Thus, while some of the migrants to farms went to areas with high
relief rates and low annual incomes, they were generally underrepresented in such problem areas, taking the 1930 farm population
as a base. In many instances a high rate of natural increase and a
low rate of migration from farms have been more important factors
in farm population increase than the so-called "back-to-the-land
movement."
THE MIGRANTS
Migration from villages, towns, and cities to farms may involve
primarily the return of young people to the farm home they had
left for urban employment. It may, on the other hand, be a movement of families, with or without previous farm experience, which
attempt to find on the farm a degree of economic security or an occupational outlet which they could not find in the city. Obviously there
are other possibilities; not all of the single persons who moved to
farms returned to their homes and in some instances urban families
were divided, the members moving to more than one farm.
The census does not classify these migrants directly as to their
relationship to other migrants or to the other residents of the farms
upon which they are located. It does give the number of farms by
counties reporting such migrants and classifies them further into
farms reporting one such person, farms reporting two such persons,
and fa.rms reporting three or more such persons. 29 For the purposes
of this analysis it was assumed that persons on "farms reporting one
such person" were single individuals, most of whom were returning
to the parental home; and that persons on "farms reporting three or
more such persons" were members of family groups which had
migrated as units. No similar assumption seemed valid for the
persons included on "farms reporting two such persons," and they
were not included. Without more detailed data it seemed impossible
to allocate them properly among single persons and family groups.
Ten percent of all farms on January 1, 1935, reported persons who
had been living in a no'.!}farm residence 5 years earlier. 80 The pro. portions were highest in the Pacific (17.7 percent) and New England
(17.2 percent) States and lowest in the-East South Central (6.1 percent), South Atlantic (7.1 percent), and West South Central (7.4
percent) States. Among individual States Oregon led with 23.8
peroent of its farms reporting persons not on farms 5 years previously
while Mississippi reported the smallest percent, 3.4.
These figures again bear out the assertion that the migration was
. largely a movement to the vicinity of cities and that it was not a
11 For the States the last mentioned category is divided into farms reporting
3-9 such persons and farms reporting 10 or more such persons.
• Bureau of the Census, Unit«J. Statu Cen,u, of Agriculture: 1935, Vol. II,
op. cit., table XIII.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
44 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
movement to the agricultural areas which had sent the majority of
migrants from farms to urban areas between 1920 and 1930. The
States in which the proportion of farms reporting these migrants was
greater than the national average of 10 percent were, almost without
exception, N orthem and Eastern or far Wes tern States. Among the
Southern States only Oklahoma. reported more than 10 percent of its
farms in that category, and in the West North Central Division only
Missouri and Kansas ,bad more than 10 percent, but the excesses
were small.
Nearly 700,000 farms reported 1,995,000 persons at who were not
on farms 5 yea.rs previously or an average of 3 persons per farm (table
14). Nearly one-half of the farms reporting the presence of migrants
in 1935 reported three or more. The average number of persons on
these farms was 4.8. Approximately 3 percent of these farms re-·
ported 10 or more migrants. It is likely, however, that these latter
included some institutions and other places which should be classified as abnormal farms. Farms reporting one migrant were slightly
more numerous than fanns reporting two migrants.
TalJ#e 14.-Farms Reporting Pe11ons on January 1, 1935, Who Had a Nonfarm Residence
in 1930 and Number of Persons Reported
Farlllll reporting
persons
Number or mlgranb per farm
Average 1
number
1 - - - - - . - - - - - 1 - - - - - , - - - I of per•
MlD8 per
Number
Total....................................
1.. ••.•.••... ... . . ..•........ .. ...... .. ... ... . .
Percent
1171, 3111
100. 0
Number
Percent
farm re-
porting
I. 996,253
100. O
3. O
345,238
73. o
17. 3
2. O
----+---1----1,·---•--192, !!&I
28. 7
192, !!&I
9. 7
I. 0
2. •••···•·••••••••••••·•·•••·•·•·•·•••••••·••••
a or more......................................
1
Numher or persons
reported
172, ~19
305,833
2/i. 7
~- ~
I, ~7. 151
4.11
Arithmetic mean.
Bouroe: Bureau of the CeDSUII, Unlttd Slate,
Commerce, Wa.,hlngton, D. C~ 111311, table VU.
c,.... of .A,rlcwlw,: 19", Vol. u. U. 8. Dapwtment of
The average number of migrants per fa.rm reporting migrants was
greatest in the Southern States.12 Presumably the proportion of
migrants who traveled in family groups was greater there than elsewhere. Mississippi was the only I of the 13 Southern States in which
the average number of migrants per farm reporting was less than the
national average of 3. Florida with an average of 3.8 had the largest
number. On the other hand, family groups were less important
among the migrant.a to fanns in the Northern States, west of Ohio,
where the average was generally less than 3.0 migrants per farm
reporting migrants. In three States which suffered from severe
11
Exclusive of children under li years of age.
n Bureau of the Census, United State, Cmaua of Agriculture: 19!15, Vol. II, op.
cit., table XIII.
ed
Google
l'
I'
)
G ogl
!
D,g t,zed by
Google
MOVEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATION SINCE 1930 • 45
drought-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska-the average
was particularly small, being only 2.3. Whether this indicates that
relatively fewer families left a village, town, or city residence for
farms in the drought area, or that a larger proportion of the families
which moved to farms left those farms before 1935, cannot be ascertained from the data at hand. It seems likely, however, that migrants
who were still on farms in the drought area in 1935 included a large
proportion of unmarried persons who had returned to their former
homes during the depression years.
Many of the migrants from nonfarm territory to farms came with
little or no resources and, therefore, could hardly become owners of
the farm to which they moved. The resources to purchase needed
equipment to begin opera.ting a farm even as a tenant were lacking
in many instances. For this reason the migrants turned primarily
to pa.rt-time and subsistence farming rather than to commercial
farming. Furthermore, there were many persons among the migrf:l,nts
who had no intention of becoming farm opera.tors but rather of living
with fa.rm operators as pa.id or unpaid la.borers. Migrant families
appear to have settled as tenantB more frequently than as owne~,
whereas 'single persons moved to the homes of farm owners in larger
proportions than to the homes of tenants. 38 Perhaps the most
striking fact is that owners' farms reported as large a. proportion of
the migrants as they did.
Negroes and other colored persons were markedly underrepresented
among the migrants to farms. The movement was largely one-of
white persons to farms near the larger industrial centers and was less
important in those areas where Negroes normally comprise a. large
proportion of the population. In the Southern States the farms of
colored opera.tors received less than ha.If as many of these migrants,
proportionately, as the farms of white opera.tors. On the latter the
proportion of all farm residents who had not been on farms in 1930
was 5.0 percent; on the former it was only 2.3 percent. Moreover,
although a.bout one-fourth of the farm residents were on farms of
colored operators, only one-eighth of the migrants who remained on
farms were on farms of colored operators.a. In view of the census
practice of classifying croppers as well as owners under the heading
"fa.rm opera.tor," it seems probable that the ratios for the total farm
population in the South were similar to the ratios for fa.rm opera.tors
and that the farmwa.rd migration of colored fa.rm la.borers to farms of
white operators was not sufficiently great to introduce any significant
change.
Ibid.
"Bureau of t.he Census, United Statu Cen8tu of AgricuUure: 1935, Vol. III,
U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 157-163.
II
Og1tzedbyGoogle
Dai
zeobyGoogJe
Chapter Ill
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION
.
HARP DIFFERENTIALS in the rate of rural reproduction occur among
-1e subdivisions of the United States. Since pressure of population
.1pon available resources is generally regarded as a fundamental factor
affecting migration, the rate of reproduction of the rural population
is important in any analysis of rural migration. Both factors serve
to redistribute the population, the one by transferring persons from
place to place and the other by varying from place to place the rate
at which population is produced.
The measure of rural reproduction used througho1'. t this analysis is
the fertility ratio. This measure consists of the ratio ,f chlldren under
5 years of age to women 20-44 years of age and is eXJ l t '.ed as a given
number of children per 1,000 women. Since the numoer of children
under 5 years of age does not represent all of the children born but
rather the number born less the weighted average number of deaths
during the first 5 years, the fertility ratio is really a measure of effective
fertility, i. e., fertility modified by child mortality. 1 As this ratio is
based upon the total female population of childbearing age, it constitutes a fair measure of the rate at which a population is reproducing
itself.
Although certain exceptions occur, in general the larger the community the lower is the rate of reproduction of the population. The
principle holds for the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm populations 2 as
well as for larger communities. In 1930 the rate of reproduction of
the rural-nonfarm population was higher in all sections of the country
than that of communities of 2,500 population or more. In turn the
rate of reproduction of the rural-farm population was higher than that
of the rural-nonfarm population.
1 Lorimer, Frank and Osborn, Frederick, Dynamica of Population, New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1934, p. 397.
2 Woofter, T. J., Jr., "The Natural Increase of the Rural Non-Farm Population," The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XIII, 1935, pp. 311-319.
47
D
t
ed
48 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
RURAL REPRODUCTION BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS AND STATES
The rate of reproduction of both the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm
populations varies significantly by divisions and States. In 1930 the
ratio of children under 5 years of age to women 20--44 years of age
was 736 for the rural-farm population as a whole but ranged from 478
in Connecticut to 915 in Utah (table 15). 8 In the rural-nonfarm
population the corresponding ratio for the United States was 592, or
nearly 20 percent less than the ratio for the rural-farm population.
Again the ratio was lowest in Connecticut (454) and highest in Utah
(848).
In the rural-farm popu1ation only four States (Maine, Vermont,
Rhode Island, and New York) failed to show a lower ratio of children
to women in 1930 than in 1920. In eight States the 1930 ratio wa.t
less than 85 percent of the 1920 ratio. Heaviest declines occurred in
States in the West North Central, Mountain, and Pacific Divisions
and in Connecticut.
In the rural-nonfarm population the trend was also downward, the
decline being slightly greater than for the rural-farm population.
The decrease was most marked in the Middle Atlantic Division, while
nine States had dropped to less than 85 percent of the 1920 ratio.
The trend in rates of reproduction since 1930 cannot be determined
precisely as yet, but it is known to be downward. The general
decline in the number of births reported by State bureaus of vital
statistics was sharp from 1930 to 1934 when a slight upward trend
appeared. This upturn has failed to bring back the birth rates of
1930, however, and apparently the general trend is reflected in both
the rural and the urban populations. Indeed, there is some reason
to believe that in recent years the decline in the rate of reproduction
of the rural population has ·been more pronounced than that of the
urban population.
RURAL REPRODUCTION BY COUNTIES
Although sharp differences in the rates of reproduction of the
rural-farm and rural-nonf arm populations are indicated by the fertility ratios of the various States, State averages conceal geographic
variations of considerable significance. Not only are States large
territorially but also their limits are determined by political boundaries which are frequently unrelated to the variations in those economic
and social factors that influence the rate of reproduction of the population. Thus, a State like Missouri, which includes as varying areas
as the Ozark Highlands and the prosperous farming communities
1 In this and subsequent tables fertility ratios are based upon census figures
not corrected for underenumeration. It is recognized that underenumeration
occurs, but no reliable correction for variations by counties, by color, is available.
For purposes of this monograph the variations in rural population fertility are
more significant than the absolute ratios.
o g11 ,ed by
Goog Ie
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION • 49
To&le 15.-Children I Under 5 Years of Age per 1 000 Women 20 Through 44 Years of
Age in the Rural Population, by Geographic 6ivision, State, and Residence, 1920
and 1930
R u ral.farm
CJeosrapb lc d ivision and St a te
Ch ildren under 5
per 1,000 women
20--44
IV30
ratio a.-.:
pe rrent
Chll,lre n u nder 5
per 1,000 women
21H4
1930
ratio as
percen t
o l 1920 1 - - - ~ - - -I of 1920
1920
1930
ratio
1921)
1030
ro l io
- -- - -- -- - ------ - - - - - -· - - - - - - - - - - -United States . •• •. ••.•• . •.• . . . .. ...
ROIi
---
K ew E ngland •.• •. .•.. . . . . . . . ........ .....
Maine . . ......... . .... ... . . . ....... .. .
New HamJ)!h ln, . • ..... . .... . .. .. .....
Vermont . .• ....•. .. . . ... .. . .. .• . . .• ••
M assach~ t ts .•....... . .. . .. .. .. ....•
R hode Island •. . . ... ............. .... •
Con necticut. • . . •. .•............. .....
Middle Atlantic . ....• . . . . ...• . • . .. . •• . . ..
New York .... . . . . . ... .. . . .. . ... . . . .. •
New Jersey ... . .• •.. .... . . •...•. •. . .. •
1
EasiOhio
~"o~'..{'....
,1b~~. ....
fr"ac::::::::::::::::::::
• ........ . .... .. ... . •. •
Indiana... . . . ...... . ... .. ... . .. . . .... .
Illinois .•••. •... . .•.... . .. . . ..... ... . . •
M ichigan ...• • . •. . ... • •. . ..••. •• . ...•
Wisconsin . ...... . ........ . .... . . . . •• .
West N orth Central . . • ..• • . .. . .. • ... ... ..
Minnt'SOta . .... . .. . ...... . . ... . .... . . .
Iowa ... . . . . .. . . ... . .... .. .... .. . ... . . .
Missouri .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . •. .. . ...... .. .
North D ak ?ta • • .• •. • .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .
Sooth D akota ••• . . . ....•.. . . ..... . . ..
N ebraska ... . . . . .. . .... .. . . . . ..... . . . .
Ka1138S ..•..... ... . . . .• . •. ... . . . •. .. . .
Sooth Atlantic ••••.... . .. • ... . •..• . ... ...
DelaWBl't' •. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ·· . · · ·
w
~~r:~·--.·~:::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Virginia •. . . .•.. • . .. . . . . ....•. . . .
North Carolina ...... • . . .......... .. ..
Soo t h Carolina ..• . ..... . . ... . .. . ... ..
Georgia. ..... •• ....... . .......... .. ...
Florida • . • . .. . . . •• . . .. . . . .... . .... . ..
East Soot h Central .•.• . ......... . .. .. . . ..
Kentucky . . ... .......... . .... . . . . . . .. .
Tennessee . . .. .. . .... . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .
Alabama... . . ..... . . .. . . . ......... ... .
Missis.,ippl . ........ . ..... . ... . ... .. . .
We.st South Central . . . ....... . . . . ..... . . .
..\rkansas . .... .. . . . . . .. ... . ..... . . . . . .
Louisiana . . ......... .. .......... . . ... .
Oklahoma .. . .. . ................ ... . . .
Ten.• . ... . . . . . . . ............... . . .. . . .
Mountain .. . . .. . . . . .... . . . ...... .. . . . ... .
M ontana . .. ..... . ..... . ........ . . . . . .
Idaho.. ... . .. . ...... . .. . . . ... . ... ... .
Wyoming .. . .. ... ....... .. . . . ... ... .. .
C,:,Jorado. . . . . ..... . . . .. . . . .. . . .... ... .
N ew M exico . ... . ...... . . . . . ..... ... . .
Arizona. . .... .. ...... . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .
Utah .. . . .. .. . . . ...... .. ... . . . ... . . . .
Nevada .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .
Pacilio. . . .. .. . . ..... . .. .... . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .
Washington ... . . . . . .. . .. . . ... .... . . .
8~:0lii.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
623
657
.'iSS
663
581!
562
6 12
638
57f1
592
700
697
660
648
670
756
i80
i'3fj
YI. :1
6f,S
592
91). 0
609
686
547
694
S2I
587
47S
624
97. 8
1().1 , 4
98. 6
104. 7
88. 9
104. 4
78 . I
97 . 8
100. 7
8S. 3
07. 0
91. I
92. 4
92. 9
590
.521
619
88. 3
------ --- ------
580
505
670
635
610
602
593
693
Sill
700
6 77
702
732
639
729
I. OH
657
836
732
655
637
780
866
789
~f,
9 11
690
743
862
900
987
932
9 12
825
84i
872
842
001
775
8 55
859
861
932
819
891
873
916
'!(){)
8.1 4
002
899
1, 0.50
742
664
701
666
644
828
592
69 1
799
857
889
8.18
8 11
738
802
8.14
769
84.~
764
775
782
800
825
743
789
74 0
767
719
743
871
868
9 15
626
/\66
s:;,;
54 1
580
88. 5
01. j
89. 7
86, 8
86. 7
87. 3
90.1
82. 4
84 . 5
8.1 . 0
86. 7
90. 9
85, 8
93. 0
92. 7
9.',. 2
90 . 1
89. 9
88. 9
89 . 5
94 . 7
95. 6
\JI . 3
93. R
OR. 6
90, 6
91.0
92. 9
88. 5
90. 7
88. 6
~.I. 5
8.1 . 7
89 . 9
89. 1
!HI. 6
00. 6
87. 1
84 . 4
85. 2
79. 2
81. 2
00. 1
616
/\69
598
545
,' ,08
.>36
594
488
503
593
454
694
521
,; 74
814
628
657
589
599
679
619
586
578
472
467
680
577
600
569
512
643
/\64
515
531
477
5.17
630
.>33
599
720
599
.>31
570
729
~19
629
752
921
ii9
6 73
620
Oli
680
747
697
670
r,so
502
487
,507
665
484
,579
690
820
695
f,46
558
591
656
745
602
1144
572
514
64 6
641
647
705
617
598
580
720
1169
676
711
t).1 4
686
776
724
968
502
573
629
599
536
627
633
575
5-10
6.10
571
f,I ,';
SIS
686
848
565
194
502
[>0-1
488
100. 5
94. 2
119. 3
89 . 5
99. 0
76. 6
8.1. 3
\Jt). 6
8 1. 4
83. S
91.9
91. 3
96 . 6
85. 5
114 . 7
9 1.1
Si. 9
84. 3
89. 5
89 . 6
SO. 6
8.1 . 8
9 1. 7
88. 9
91. 2
93. 3
92. 1
9 1. 8
89. 7
89. 2
96. 0
90. 0
95. 8
00. 5
99. 7
95. 0
00. 1
89. 9
9 2. 6
90. ,5
96 . 9
89. 8
93. 2
92. 9
79 , 9
88 . 6
90. I
89. 7
105. 4
94 . 8
87. 6
112. 5
86. 2
79. 8
84 . 3
91.0
Number not corrected ror underenumeration.
Sources: Thompt!OD, Warren 8., Ratio of C/&Udrm to Womm Jgf(), Census Monograph XI U. 8. Department of Comme=, Bnrean ,r the Censns, Washlnl(ton, D. C., 11131, p. 97; and Bureau or the CenSWI, Fi/•
~ Cnmu of tlit F111ud SUrtu: 1960, Population -Vol. II, U. 8. Department or Commerce, Washington.
D. C., 11133, ch. 10, table 31.
1
that border Iowa and Illinois, is scarcely well represented by an
average fertility ratio of 657 for the rural-farm population. Certain
counties in MiBBOuri have fertility ratios that are double those of other
Oigtized by
Google
50 •
RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
counties. For example, Carter, Iron, and Reynolds Counties had
fertility ratios in 1930 of 971, 977, and 1,048, respectively, for the
white rural-farm population. At the other extreme, Lewis, Monroe,
and Knox Counties had ratios of only 432, 434, and 497, respectively.
Similar situations exist in other States with respect to both the ruralfarm and the rural-nonfarm populations. It appears to be clear,
therefore, that a more precise notion of the geographic distribution of
differential fertility may be obtained by analyzing the data by counties.
Of the 3,052 counties in the United States having 100 women or
more aged 2o-44 years in 1930, more than one-half had rural fertility
ratios ranging from 550 to 769 (table 16). Only 36 counties had
ratios lower than 440,' while 45 counties had ratios of 990 or more.
Ta&le 16.-Counties of the United States by Number of Children I Under 5 Years of
Aga per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years of Age in the Rural Population, by Color
and Residence, 1930
White
Total
Children under 5 per 1,000
"'·omen20---U
Rural-farm
Nornber
Percent
Number
Colored
Rural•
nonrarm
Rural-farm
Percent
Nornber
Percent
Norn•
303
10. 2
I, 027
704
26. 6
886
449
34. 4
29.8
15.1
7. 3
2. 7
o. 7
19
67
151
274
22.1
her
Percent
Ruralnonrnrm
Xumlx-r
Percent
----- -Classifted counties ..... 3,052 100.0 2,082 100.0 2,978 100.0
903 100.0
935
100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 36
Fewer than 440••••••.••.••...
I. 2
u
I. 4
292
9.8
0. 6
5
182
19.11
440--549 •.. -- ----- -- . --·- .•....
650-650 •.. -- --- -- --- --·--- ....
660--769 •. ---- ---- --------- .•..
770--879 •••• _- __ • _. __ • ____ • _•..
880-989. -- --------- ------- .•. _
W0-1,0IKL
---------···-------____ ._. ______ . __ .
1,100 or more
478
92.1
S.1i
,160
173
34
11
15. 7
30. 2
27. 4
18. 3
5. 7
I.I
0. 4
son
647
298
60
'.!O
26. 8
21. 7
10.0
2.3
1.0
216
80
23
5
0. 2
116
46
2.1
7. ◄
16. 7
.!O. 4
24. 9
12.8
5. I
204
21.8
209
157
22. 3
16.8
50
54
44
6.3
26
- -7 - -----Unclassified counties•-.
77
81
2,156
- 2,124
- -- -- -
5.8
4. 7
2.8
-
Number not corrPCt<'d for underenumeration.
• Counties with !ewer than 100 women 2D--44 years of age and of the speclfted color.
Source: Unpublished data from the Bureau or the Census, U. 8. Department or Commerce, Washington,
D. C.
1
For the white population living on farms, more than the average
proportion of counties had fertility ratios of 990 or more. In the white
rura.1-nonfa.rm population, on the other hand, a disproportionately
large proportion of counties had ratios below 440. Among the colored
rural population, which is located chiefly in the South, county fertility
ratios for the fa.rm population ran distinctly higher than among whites,
but in the rural-nonfa.rm population the opposite tendency prevailed.
Within individual States important variations by counties were
likewise found in the rural fertility ratios of 1930 (appendix table 8).
For the white rural-farm population in the majority of the States the
largest number of counties fell in the 660-879 group. In Utah,
however, the largest number of counties had ratios of 880 or more
4
For the significance of this ratio see p. 55.
DaltzeobyGoogle
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION• 51
and no county had a ratio of less than 660. In only one county in
New England and in none in the Middle Atlantic or Pacific Divisions
was the fertility ratio for the white rural-farm population as high as
880. The largest number of counties with a ratio of 1,100 or more was
found in Kentucky.
In the colored rural-farm population most of the counties within
each State were in the 660-879 and 880 or more classes (appendix
table 9). Of the 46 counties with ratios above 1,100, 11 were in
California in sections where Mexicans and other foreign-born are
concentrated.
Data by counties emphasize the fact that fertility ratios in 1930
ran definitely lower in the rural-nonfarm than in the rural-farm
population. For the white rural-nonfarm population in the great
majority of the States the largest number of counties fell in the
440-659 class in comparison with the 660-879 class for the rural-farm
population (appendix table 8). Nearly 10 percent of the counties
had fertility ratios under 440 in the white rural-nonfarm population,
and only 11 States had no county in this lowest group. At the other
extreme, well over 10 percent of the counties had fertility ratios of
770 or more. Eleven of the twenty-eight counties with ratios of
990 or more were located in Kentucky.
In the colored rural-nonfarm population also the largest group of
counties in a majority of the States fell within the 440-659 group
(appendix table 9). Nearly 20 percent of the classified counties had
ratios under 440, while 13 percent had ratios of 880 or more. In the
Southern States, where the colored population consists almost wholly
of Negroes, all States except Delaware and Maryland listed one or
more counties with fertility ratios under 440. Among the Wes tern
States, where the colored population consists largely of Mexicans,
Indians, and orientals, only one California county had a ratio lower
than 440. On the other hand, more than one-half of the counties
having fertility ratios of 880 or more were located in the Mountain
and Pacific Divisions.
The highest rural-farm fertility ratios in 1930 prevailed generally
throughout the Southern States, except for Florida and portions of
Texas; throughout the Western Plains area; in much of the Rocky
Mountain section; and in northern Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (figs. 10 and 11). From the standpoint of the numbers of
persons involved, as well as from the standpoint of high rates of
reproduction, the most significant rural-farm fertility ratios were
found in the Southern States. The lowest rural-farm fertility ratios
occurred in the New England group of States; in the North Central
States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa, and in the
eastern half of Nebraska and Kansas; in portions of Texas and
Florida; and on the Pacific coast. Thus, in the older, more urbanized
New England Area, in the best farming region of the United States,
Oigtized by
Google
U1
"'•°
FIG. 10 - CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE PER l.000 WOMEN
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE
"'
"')>r
C
WHITE RURAL-FARM POPULAT ION
1930
~
G)
"')>
::!
0
z
z
:t
fT'I
C
z
::::;
fT'I
0
~
Children per
1,000 women
0
<O
~
EJ
Fewer !hon 440
c,-
•
440 - 549
~
'<
~ 550 -659
0
1111111111
0
af"O
Nore Counties having fewer than 100 women
(20 through 44 years of age) ore left blank
660 - 769
•
770-8 79
•
880 or more
~urce . Unpublished data from !he Bureou of lhe Census,
U. S. Deportment of Commerce , Wo shinglon, D C
2 ~ 82 . WPA
)>
.....
fT'I
V)
FIG II- CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE PER 1,000 WOMEN
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE
COLORED RURAL-FARM POPULATION
1930
I:
C)
,0
)>
~
5
z
)>
z
0
,0
C
Children per
1,000 women
E;:3 Fewer
[I]] 600 -
0
<O
~ 700 -
~
[
c,-
"<
C")
0
af"O
Note Counties having fewer lhan 100 women
(20 through 4 4 years of age ) ore lefl blank
Source Unpublished dola from lhe Bureau of the Census,
U S Oeporiment of Commerce, Wash1nQIOn, D C.
than 600
699
799
8 99
999
1111!111
BOO -
•
900 -
•
l,000ormol'9
AF - 2837. WPA
,0
)>
r-
,,,
-0
,0
,0
0
0
C
Cl
5
z
•
V1
w
54 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
and on the Pacific coast the rural-farm birth rates were lowest. In
the rural-nonfann population the same general picture is indicated
except that fertility ratios were distinctly below those of the ruralfarm population (fig. 12).
Combining the rural-farm and rural-nonf arm populations gave somewhat intermediate fertility ratios. Almost equal numbers of counties
fell into the two groups, 44o-659 and 660-879 (appendix table 10).
Only about 1 percent of the counties had rural fertility ratios of less
than 440, and more than one-third of these were located in the Middle
Atlantic Division. Approximately 7 percent of the counties had
fertility ratios of 880 or more. The Pacific Division had none of these
counties and only one each was to be found in the New England and
Middle Atlantic Divisions. Nearly one-third of these counties were
located in the South Atlantic Division.
The general picture of rural population fertility in the United
States in 1930 (fig. 13) emphasized the following characteristics.
Three clusters of counties with fertility ratios of 880 or more stood
out: the Appalachian Highlands, the Dakotas, and the Utah-ArizonaN ew Mexico Area. The remainder of the counties with the highest
ratios were scattered. Relatively high rural fertility ratios (660-879)
prevailed throughout the counties of the Southern States (except in
Delaware, Maryland, and Florida); in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, the
Dakotas, eastern Colorado and Montana, and Kansas and Nebraska
· west of the 100th meridian; and in northern Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. Relatively low rural fertility ratios (44o-659) prevailed
generally in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware; in
the Corn Belt States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa;
in Kansas and Nebraska east of the 100th meridian; in southern
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin; in Florida, N evade., and western Idaho; and on the entire Pacific coast. Exceptionally low rural
fertility ratios (under 440) occurred in the general neighborhood of
New York City and San Francisco.
The fact that combining the figures for the rural-farm and ruralnonf arm populations did not materially change the rural population
fertility map of the United States suggests that the fertility ratios of
the two populations are correlated. While the fertility of the ruralfarm population and that of the rural-nonfarm population do tend to
vary together, the relationship is far from perfect. 6
RURAL POPULATION FERTILITY AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS
What does the variation in the fertility of the rural population of
the United States by local areas mean in relation to rural population
growth? How do the actual fertility ratios compare with the ratio
6 The coefficient of correlation for the counties of six States selected at random
(Alabama, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wyominp;) was +0.64±0.02.
o g11 ,ed by
Goog Ie
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION• 55
which would be necessary exactly to reproduce the rural population,
i. e., to keep its total stationary, assuming no migration?
In order to determine the number of children needed to maintain a
stationary population, it is necessary to have at hand the age distribution of the population by sex and a life table based upon the
same population. Given these data, it is possible to estimate the
number of children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20-44 yea.rs
of age necessary under conditions of prevailing mortality to replace
the population and keep it stationary. The number of children under
5 years of age required under conditions of 1930 has been calculated
at 443 for the white population of the United States as a whole. 8
Because of the differences in mortality between rural and urban populations, the number of children under 5 years of age required to replace the white rural population is 440. 7 This means that in any
area where the number of white rural children under 5 years of age
is fewer than 440 per 1,000 white rural women 20-44 yea.rs of age,
the white rural population will not permanently replace itself. In
areas where the number of children under 5 years of age is as high
as 550 per 1,000 women 20-44, a 25 percent surplus of children above
actual replacement needs is being produced, and so on. Areas in
which the ratio of children to women is as high as 880 are producing
twice as many children as would be required permanently to maintain
the rural population, assuming no migration.
In no State as a whole was the rural population failing to replace
itself in 1930 (table 15, p. 49). This statement applies to both the
rural-farm and rural-nonfarm populations, although in 8 States the
rural-nonfarm excess was very small, the fertility rate being less than
500. The data for counties, however, indicate that in 41 counties the
white rural-farm population and in 292 counties the white ruralnonfarm population had fertility ratios too low for permanent replacement and, at birth and death rates prevailing in 1930, would eventually
begin to decrease in population, barring the effect of migration (appendix table 8). In the colored population only 5 counties showed
evidence of a declining rural-farm population, but in 182 counties
the rural-nonfarm population appeared not to be reproducing itself
(appendix table 9). When the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm populations were considered together, they combined in such a way that
the fertility ratio for the entire rural population was below 440 in
only 36 counties (appendix table 10).
It should be remembered, however, that the numbers of children
• Lorimer, Frank and Osborn, Frederick, op. cit., p. 10.
T Based on unpublished information supplied by the Metropolitan Life In11\U'ance Company. The figure is slightly higher for Negroes, but for purposes
of this monograph 440 has been used throughout. It is recognized, however,
that there are wide differences both among States and within States.
Digt1zed by
Google
VI
~
FIG. 12-CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE PER l.000 WOMEN
•
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE
~
C:
WHITE RURAL- NONFARM POPULATION
::0
►
r-
1930
~
c5
~
~
2
z
im
C:
z
§
Children per
1,0 00 women
0
~ Fewer lhoo 440
fil!iiE
a
~ 550 - 659
•
0
44 0 - 549
No le Counties hov,ng fewer than 100 women
(20 through 44 ye ars of ogel ore le ft blank.
Source Un pubhshed doto from the Bureau of the Census,
U. S Deportment of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
660 - 769
•
770 - 879
•
88 0 or more
AF- 2,e•.w~a
!!I
ffi
FIG.13- CHILDREN UNDER !S YEARS OF AGE PER 1,000 WOMEN
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE
TOTAL RURAL POPULATION
1930
~
G)
,i:,
►
=
0
z
z►
0
Children per
1,000women
~
[]Il]]l
,::,
440-549
111660 - 76 9
■ 770-8 79
~
Source: Unpublished dala from lhe Bureou of lhe Census,
U. S. ()epal'lment of Commerce, Woshinglon, O. C.
,
,::,
E3 Fewer than 440
~ 550 - 65 9
0
,::,
C
►
!Tl
~
,::,
0
0
C
r'\
■ 880 and more
~
AF ·296 6, WPA
I u,
•
.....
58 • RURAL MIG~ATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
upon which these fertility ratios are based were not corrected for
underenumeration by the census. Although there is at present no
adequate basis for correcting the underenumeration of children
under 5 years of age with the county as the unit, it may be assumed
for purposes of this discussion that the corrections elsewhere applied
to States and regions hold for counties also. 8 In applying these corrections to the 36 counties with rural fertility ratios below 440, it was
found that in 22 counties the rural fertility ratio still remained below
replacement requirements. For the white population the rural-farm
fertility ratios of 24 counties remained below 440 after corrections for
the underenumeration of children under 5 years of age had been made,
and the rural-nonfarm fertility ratios of 177 counties remained similarly low. For the colored population the rural-farm fertility ratios
of 2 counties and the rural-nonfarm fertility ratios of 101 counties
remained below 440 after corrections were made.
At the other extreme, the rural-farm populations of the entire States
of North Carolina and of Utah were producing more than 880 children
per 1,000 women 20--44 years of age in 1930 or more than twice as
many children as would be required to maintain a stationary farm population (table 15, p. 49). On a county basis there were 397 counties
in the United States in which the white rural-farm population and
108 counties in which the white rural-nonfarm population were producing at least a 100-percent surplus of children above replacement
needs (appendix table 8). The corresponding number of counties for
the colored population was 387 for the rural-farm and 124 for the ruralnonfarm population (appendix table 9). In terms of the total rural
population there were 218 counties in which the surplus of children
above actual replacement needs was equal to 100 percent or more
(appendix table 10). 9
The location of these extreme counties is of interest. Of the 22
counties in which the rural population fertility ratio was below the
requirements for maintaining a stationary population after corrections for uiiderenumeration, 4 were located in California; 3 each
were located in Montana, New Jersey, and New York. There were
two each in Missouri and N evade.. The States of Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Georgia, Colorado, and Oregon had one county each.
Seven of the counties were entirely rural in 1930, while ten were
largely urban or suburban in nature. Agriculture was the leading
industry in few of the counties.
• To correct for underenumeration the number of white children under 5 years
of age was increased by 5 percent and the number of colored children by 13 percent. See footnote 8, p. 13.
1 Statements in this paragraph are conservative since corrections for the underenumeration of children would further raise these ratios. It was considered
unnecessary for present purposes, however, to make this correction at the upper
end of the scale.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION • 59
The counties having rural fertility ratios of 880 or more were
concentrated in relatively few States, most of which were in the
southea.stem portion of the United States. Kentucky had 37 of
these counties; North Carolina., 23; and Virginia., 16. West Virginia.
and Tennessee had 14 each and Georgia. claimed 11. North Dakota.
had 11 and Utah 15. No other State had as many as 10 such counties.
Of the 10 counties having rural fertility ratios of 1,100 or more,
7 were located in ea.stem Kentucky, 2 in western Virginia., and 1 in
Utah. In three of the Kentucky counties, Breathitt, Clay, and
Leslie, and in Buchanan County, Va., agriculture is the chief occupation. All the others except the Utah county possess considerable
coal mining. The highest ratio found among the counties wa.s that
of Leslie County, Ky., which had an uncorrected rural fertility
ratio of 1,254.
NET RURAL MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION
Rural reproduction as measured by the ratio of children to women
was only slightly related to the rate of gain or loss of population
through migration during the decade 1920-1930. This relationship
was analyzed for a sample of 765 counties (table 17). Since these
counties were chosen at random from the 3,059 counties of the United
States, there is no reason to suppose that the entire list of counties
would yield different results. There wa.s a slight positive correlation
between the two fa.etors; 10 i. e., there wa.s a. slight tendency for
counties losing rural population through migration to have higher
fertility ratios than the counties which gained by migration. The
counties losing 30 percent or more by migration had somewhat
higher fertility ratios than those with smaller losses by migration.
Nearly all of the counties with fertility ratios of 880 or more were
in the group reporting a. loss by migration, but two-fifths of them
had a. loss by migration equal to less than 20 percent of their 1920
population.
Substa.ntia.lly the same results were obtained when the rural fertility
ratio wa.s related to the total number of persons gained or lost a.s a.
result of migration. For the same sample of 765 counties there was a
slight tendency for the net volume of migration to be proportional to
the size of the fertility ratio, the gains being related to low fertility
ratios and the losses to high fertility ratios.
If rural populations were similar and local conditions identical, the
disposition to emigrate would probably be proportional to the ip.creased
pressure upon local resources resulting from natural increase. Local
conditions vary greatly, however. Opportunity to rise in the economic and social scale varies enormously among the cotton plantations of Georgia, the coal plateaus of the Southern Appalachians, and
11
The coefficient of correlation was +0.20 ±0.03.
Dig11zed by
Google
60 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
Table 77.-Fertility Ratio, 1 1930,1 and Percent Gain or Loss Through Migration, 19201930,S of the Rural Population in 765 Sample Counties 4
Nnmlx-r of countie~111
Gained rural population, 1920-1930
Children under
5 per J,000
\\"OIDf'fl 20---·0,
PerC'ent
Percent
1930
Total
100
.'10-or
more 99
--
-
TotaL. __
Fewer than HO.
440--4114 _________
495--549 ______ - -550--{,()4 _________
505-n59 _______ -660--714-_ _______
715--769 ____ ----770-824 _______ • 825--879 _______ -880-93L _______
93."r-989 _________
990 or more ____
Lost rural population, 1920-1930
136
8
5
-2
---- 14
21
23
18
18
13
Ii
I
4
I
I
I
1
1
I
2
-
40-1304g
39
- -
13
7
-
-
I
-
3
--
12
J
-
2
2
2
I
2
-
-
-
2
1
I
1
2
2029
-
JOIQ
33
1
2
3
2
2
4
3
4
1
5
-I
3
r,
3
3
I
I
I
-
-
5
2
-
I
I
I
629
132
283
3
ft
g
10
Ii
g
ff
66
22
27
36
- -- - -2 - -1 - 111
00
8
81
ft
00
8
1
-
79
-lll
27
12
ft
19
14
12
15
10
3
--
-
55
48
42
41
25
14
10
5
1
49
-- -
-
51
40--
3039
10-120IQ
29
-- -- -- -
12
-- -
I
Tote.I Less
Less
than
than
10
10
163
-
I
7
24
18
IQ
25
30
17
12
5
5
-
41
-
1
1
5
4
5
11
8
5
1
-
-
7
-
50
or
more
-3
--
-1
I
2
2
1
-
-
1
1
1
---
Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 2(}-44 years of age.
• Unpublished data from the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
For method of romputalion see appendix B.
• 25 percent random sample.
1
1
the Corn Belt farms of Illinois and lowa. 11 In some sections, such
as in the Appalachian-Ozark Highlands and in the Lake States CutOver Area, economic opportunity of an agricultural nature has always
been very limited. Economic opportunity in these areas, in so far
as it exceeds the possibilities of bare subsistence, consists of the
shifting demand for man power in nonagricultural industries, such as
coal mining and lumbering.
In other sections, such as the Old Cotton Belt and portions of the
Western Plains area, economic opportunity had previously been
exploited and during the decade 1920-1930 was definitely on the
wane. On the other hand, it appears that the Pacific coast and portions of the Southwest possessed opportunity during that decade in
excess of the capacity of the local population to exploit it. Finally,
in the best agricultural areas of the Corn Belt the ample economic
opportunity appeared to be so well within the grasp of the resident
population that additional population could not gain a foothold.
TYPE OF NET RURAL MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION
Counties may be classified into types according to the relation of
net migration to natural increase. If a county retained, in effect,
all of its natural increase during the decade 1920-1930 and in addition
11 For an excellent discussion of the geography of economic opportunity see
Goodrich, Carter and Others, Migration and Economic Opportunit11, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936, chs. I-VIII.
Dig,lized by
Google
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION • 61
to that received a number of migrants from outside the county, it
may be designated as a county of absorption. If a county experienced
a net loss from migration but did not suffer a decrease, i. e., did not
have a smaller population at the end than at the beginning of the
decade, it may be classified as a county of dispersion. Finally, if, in
effect, a county lost all of its natural increase and in addition some
of its base population as a result of migration, it may be called a
county of depopul,ation. This classification is valuable since it shows
at a glance where the rural population is thinning out and where it is
tending to concentrate. Furthermore, it facilitates the study of the
relation of population fertility to trends in migration.
Of the 3,059 counties of the United States 12 17 percent were classed
as counties of absorption during the decade 1920-1930, 32 percent as
counties of dispersion, and 51 percent as counties of depopulation
(appendix table 11 ). Among the divisions the Pacific led with more
than one-half (55 percent) of its counties absorbing population in
a<ldition to their natural increase and with only one-fourth (25 percent) losing rural population in excess of their natural increase. The
New England Division was second with 41 percent of the counties
classed as areas of absorption and 28 percent as areas of depopulation.
Much of this apparent absorption of population was the result of the
changed definition of rural territory adopted for the 1930 Census.
In the Middle Atlantic Division 26 percent of the counties were in
the group growing by absorption and in the West South Central
Division there were 29 percent. In each of these divisions more than
two-fifths of all counties were areas of depopulation. The two North
Central Divisions and the East South Central Division each had a
small proportion of their counties in the group growing by absorption,
the percentages ranging from 5 to 11. These were also divisions which
had a high proportion of counties in the group losing in excess of
natural increase. The percentages ranged from 46 in the East South
Central Division to 66 in the East North Central Division. The
Mountain Division also had a high proportion (53 percent) of counties
in the group being depopulated by migration.
Among the States the proportion of counties that might be classed
as areas of absorption varied greatly. Aside from Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, where the classification was
affected by definition, there were three States in which half or more
of the counties were classed as areas of absorption-Arizona, California, and New Jersey. The States also varied greatly with respect
to areas of dispersion. Only one division, the East South Central,
had approximately half of the counties dispersing some of their natural
increase, but seven States had more than ho.If of their counties in that
group. North Carolina led with 75 percent. With approximately
12
With rural population.
See footnote 18, p. 20.
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
c,.
FIG.14-AREAS OF ABSORPTION, DISPERSION, AND DEPOPULATION*
m THE
RURAL POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES
1-0
•
:10
1920-1930
C
:10
)>
r~
i::l
:10
~
0
z
z
:t
m
C
z
~
C
!!I
0
6
;.
a
~ Absorption
~
C")
0
~
Dispersion
~
Depopulation
~
r-5""
*For method of computation see appendix 8 .
AF• 2972 0 WPA
a
MIGRATION AND RURAL REPRODUCTION •
63
half of all counties (51 percent) classed as areas of depopulation, only
three States (California, Connecticut, and North Carolina), aside
from Massachusetts and Rhode Island, had less than 15 percent of
their counties in this class.
· From this classification of counties by type of migration it may be
seen that during the decade 1920-1930 the absorption of population
by means of migration occurred chiefly on the Pacific coast; in the
Wes tern Plains, Florida, and local areas in the environs of large
cities; and in rural-industrial areas (fig. 14). Areas in effect losing all
of their natural increase and a certain percentage of their base populations were located in the Corn Belt and southwestern Cotton Belt
where lies much of the best farm land of the United States; the Old
Cotton Belt; the Lake States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin;
the mountain and semiarid regions of the West and Northwest; and
the Appalachian foothills and highlands, especially in Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The direct relation of rural reproduction to counties by type of net
rural migration is slight (appendix table 11). For all counties the
average fertility ratio was highest in counties of dispersion and lowest
in counties of absorption. Among the divisions, however, the average
fertility ratio was highest for counties of dispersion in four divisions,
highest for counties of depopulation in four divisions, and highest for
counties of absorption in one division. Among the States, exclusive
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the average fertility
ratio was lowest for counties of absorption in 25 States, highest in 10
States, and intermediate in 10 States. Excluding Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, the average fertility ratio was lowest for counties of
depopulation in 19 States, highest in 14 States, and intermediate in 13
States. In the Northeastern States the tendency for fertility to be
lowest in areas of absorption was marked; but among West North
Central States low fertility was associated with depopulation.
The assumption that the lowest fertility in the rural population is
to be found in areas of absorption, intermediate fertility in areas of
dispersion, and highest fertility in areas of depopulation is not substantiated by these data. In 12 States this sequence occurred, but in
8 States the reverse occurred.
The slight relation between rural population fertility and type of
migration is further emphasized by the fact that as rural population
fertility increases there is a slight decrease in the probability that a
county will be classified as an area of absorption and a slight increase
in the probability that it will be classified as a county of dispersion
(table 18). Areas of absorption a.re likely to be located in the neighborhood of urban centers where population fertility is not high. Other
areas of low fertility, and hence low natural increase, are likely to
become areas of depopulation even though loss from migration is only
og11,edbyGoogle
64. • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
Table 78.-Counties of the United States by Rural Fertility Ratio, 1930,1 and Type of
Net Migration, 1920-1930 2
'
Children under 5 per 1,000 women 20-'4, 1930
Type or net
migration,
1920-1930
Number or
counties
Fewer
than 440--549 55<Hl59 660--7611 770--879 880-IISO
HO
990-
1,000
l,lOOor Unclosmore
sifled
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - 923
837
560
173
34
II
7
- - - - - --- - - - - - - - Absorption _________
12/l
145
120
517
19
67
25
4
1
2
Total .•......
3,059
36
478
Dispersion _________
Depopulation ______
994
1,548
I
16
248
102
265
513
268
443
245
248
58
13
17
8
2
2
3
00
Percent
Total_________
100.0
I. 2
15. 6
Absorption _________
Dispersion. ________
Depopulation ______
100.0
100.0
100.0
3. 7
0. I
1.0
24. 7
10. 3
16.0
30.1
27.•
18. 3
5. 7
I.I
0.4
0.2
26. 7
33.2
26. 9
28. 7
24. 6
16.0
9. 1
3. 7
J.3
I.I
0.8
0.1
0. 2
0. 2
-- -- - - -- - - -28.0
- -24. 4
13. 0
4. 8
0.8
0.2
0.4
Percent
Total ________
Absorption .. _______
Dispersion _________
Depopulation ______
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
32. 5
50. 6
2.8
44. 4
21. 3
51.9
28. 7
55.6
32. 0
52. 9
43. 7
44. 3
52. 0
33. 5
38. 2
60. 0
72. 7
18.2
28.6
42. g
--------211.8
- -15.-15.-I -12.-16.---9
52. 8
7
0
14. 5
11.8
II.I
28. 5
1 Unpublished data from the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Woshlngton, D. C.
• For method of computation sec appendix B.
moderate. Areas of high fertility seldom retain all of their natural
increase because as fertility increases, economic opportunity is likely
to decrease. Any net loss from migration classifies such counties as
areas of dispersion. On the other hand, as fertility increases, the
volume of loss through migration necessary to drain off all of the natural
increase rises also and tends to decrease the probability that the area
will become one of depopulation. Thus, only a slight relationship
between rural reproduction and type of net rural migration can be
claimed.
Digt1zed by
Google
Chapter IV
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the factors which supposedly are related to migration reveals that not only is there no one-way relationship of cause and effect but also that it is not profitable to assign to
one factor the responsibility for certain variations in the other. Even
if close relationships were found, the question of which factor was
dependent on the other would still be far from solved.
MECHANIZATION OF AGRICULTURE
The increased use of machinery and the greater productivity per
worker in agriculture have frequently been stressed as important
factors in the migration from rural areas and in the maintenance of a
nearly stationary farm population for a third of a century in spite of
an increasing national population. Grave concern is now being voiced
over the prospective results of increased mechanization in the production of cotton. If mechanization is rapid, those effects may be
severe. The mechanization of much of our commercial farming in the
past, however, may have been a result of the migration from farms and
other rural areas as well as a cause of such movements.
The period since the World War has seen rapid gains in the mechanization of agriculture, and the same period has been one of heavy
migration from rural areas. The need for man power during the war,
coupled with the need for increased production, sharply stimulated a
process which, in turn, bas given rise to further migration from rural
areas. Moreover, mechanization proceeds most rapidly during periods
of prosperity, which are also the periods when industry is competing
most directly with agriculture for workers. There is ample evidence
that in some agricultural areas, such as parts of the Corn Belt and
large sections of ·the Cotton Belt, where mechanization is entirely
feasible, it has been delayed because of the ready availability of cheap
labor. Should this supply of labor be depleted through migration or
any other development, mechanization would probably proceed
rapidly.
65
Digt1zed by
Google
66 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
An attempt to relate migration to increased use of machinery by
means of the statistical measures available showed very little relationship (appendix tables 12, 13, and 14). It was not pronounced within
the Corn Belt, and migration from rural areas was also heavy in those
sections in which mechanization has made very little progress and
especially in those where hoe culture is still practiced, such as the
Appalachian-Ozark Area and the Cotton Belt.
While the increased use of farm machinery may have been an
important element in rural population migration in recent years and
may continue to become more important if commercial agriculture
continues to be predominant, one important effect of the rapid introduction of machinery to do those tasks which are now largely done by
hand will be to leave many workers unemployed and stranded,1 either
directly at or near the place where last employed. Only as alternative opportunities, real or apparent, come to their attention is the
process likely to be accompanied by a large-scale migration. As has
been amply shown in recent years, stranded communities-industrial
and agricultural-are testimony to the unwillingness of people to move
unless there is some prospect of improving their condition as a result.
QUALITY OF LAND
The attempt to find a relationship between the rate of rural migration and quality of land meets with many obstacles. Recent studies
have supplied rough estimates of the quality of much of the land
actually or potentially available for agriculture. Needless to say,
the technical judgments upon which these estimates are based do not
always correspond with the local judgments concerning the value
of the land for certain purposes. But it may be assumed that over a
period of time experience will bear out these technical judgments and
that there will be some tendency for people to migrate from poor land
to better land. Few people have migrated to the deserts of the West
for agricultural purposes, and even the most densely inhabited portions
of the Appalachians have hillsides that have not been cleared or have
been allowed to revert to natural vegetation. Severely eroded soil,
which bas become unfit for agricultural purposes, is likely to give rise
to migration. The droughts in the Great Plains in recent years have
stimulated many families to move out of that area. The history of
agricultural settlement in northern New England shows much abandonment of land too steep or too poor for the traditional agriculture.'
On the other hand, rumors of openings of good lands have always
brought numerous prospective settlers, and the development of a
1 Taylor, Paul S., Power Farming and Labor Displacement in the Cotton BeU,
1937, Parts l and 2, Serial No. R. 737, U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C., 1938.
' Wilson, Harold Fisher, The Hill Country of Northern New England, Its Social
and Economic History, 1790-1930, New York: Columbia University Press, 1936.
Dig11zed by
Google
farot lftCM rili, Admi11t..t1·afi1J11
(M 11da11 , I .
A Pulenliul M igru11t Frum J>uur Lund.
G ogl
Dg1
zedbyGoogle
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS• 67
reclamation project attracts ma.ny more applicants than can possibly
be accommodated. With a change in other circumstances, such as
the introduction of new types of la.nd utilization and the development
of markets for the products of a new type of agriculture as well as
growing use of lands for recreational a.nd residential purposes, there
have been movements in many areas offsetting earlier evacuations.
Intensity of agricultural use and density of rural population are
related not only to the available resources in the form of soil fertility,
forests, minerals, water, etc., but also to the socio-economic organization for the utilization or exploitation of those resources. The fertile
soils of the Corn Belt are supporting a far less dense population than
the less hospitable slopes of the Southern Appalachians. Slow changes
in the quality of land for agriculture through erosion and depletion
are not likely to produce widespread migration. The gradual impoverishment which follows in their wake may ultimately lead to some
migration or simply to the development of another stranded community. Only when efforts at adaptation are proved to be completely
futile can any direct and large-scale migration be expected.
Disregarding such extremes, the relationships are somewhat less
clear. It may be assumed that the land classification presented by
the National Resources Board in 1934 represents not only conditions
of that time but that lands for which withdrawal from agriculture was
recommended then were generally poor during the entire deco.de before 1930. For the country as a whole the relation of rural migration
to the quality of land as shown by this classification indicates that
those counties classified as problem counties were somewhat more
likely to have experienced net losses as a result of migration of the
rural population between 1920 and 1930 than were those counties
which were classified as nonproblem. The corresponding percentages
were 87 and 82, respectively (table 19). Similar relationships were
observed in most regions. The Far West was the only region in
which as many as half of the counties reported gains by migration.
If the counties losing population by migration are classified by the
degree of loss, however, no clear relationship is found. In some cases
problem counties reported relatively large losses by migration, while
in others their losses were slight.
In general, changes in the farm population between 1920 and 1930
were not related directly to land quality as measured by this method.
Attention has been called, however, to the results of an analysis of
the movement of farm population between 1930 and 1935 in relation to
the quality of land. 3 During the depression years there was some
tendency for farm population to increase on the poorest lands, but the
most impressive aspect of the movement was the relative decline in the
migration from farms in such areas. In contrast to the nonproblem .
• See ch. II, p. 37.
Oigtized by
Google
68 •
RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
Ta&le 19.-Counties of the United States Gaining or Losing Rural Population by
Migration, 1920-1930, 1 by Region 2 and Area
Counties losing by
migration
Countir!<i gaining
Total counties
by migration
Region and area
Nurnlwr
Unit,•d 8t~tes______________________ _
Prohlt•m J ______________________ _
Nonprublem ___________________ _
2.2'.lS
100.0
100.0
100.0
517
105
412
16. 9
12. 8
18. 4
2,542
itfi
1.826
83.1
87. 2
81.ft
103
185
100.0
100.0
22
59
21. 4
31.9
81
126
7R6
68.1
Middle States_ ___ .--····-----. ___ -·--._.
Prohlem _.. ·-·-·-·--·-··-·· ···-· ..... .
Nonproblem·--·-·----··----·--···--··
736
li2
664
100.0
1()(1.0
100.0
65
7
48
7. 5
4. 1
8. 5
681
165
516
92.5
95.9
91.5
Northwest_········-······················
Problem ........................ __ ... .
Nonproblem __ ··-·········--··--······
5.14
85
449
100.0
JIH)_O
100.0
75
18
57
14.0
21. 2
12. 7
459
6i
392
86.0
7'!!.8
87_ 3
SoutheB.st. .. --··-·-. --··- ·········-·-·-·. _
Problem __ ·-··---· ..•• ·---_ ..• _..... _..
Nonproblem ••. ·-··-····-····-·--·-··-
97fl
397
579
100.0
100.0
100.0
101
34
67
10. 3
8.6
II. 6
875
363
512
89. 7
91.4
88-4
Southwcst .•. __ ...........•..•... ··-·· ·- ..
Problem_---···················-···-··
Nonprohlem ••... _•.•. -··-···--·······
37ft
20
3.~ff
100.0
129
1
128
34.3
247
19
228
84.0
Far West. __ -···--··---········-·-········
Problcm ___ ··-··--····················
N'onproblem._ •......................•
149
44
105
Northeast_ _____________________________ ._.
Problem. _________ --·_·- ____ ·------.·N~nproblem ________________ ··--------
3,059
821
Percent Number Percent Number I Pt>rl"'ent
--------- ------
= - -==--=
=
100.0
28.1
207
71.9
288
81
t
100.0
100.0
t
100.0
76
23
53
t
36.0
51.0
t
!50.5
73
21
52
85. 7
t
49.0
t
49. 5
t Percent not computed on a base of !ewer than 50 cases.
• For method of rompntat!on see appPnd!x B.
• Regions are those used by Oc!um, Howard W., South,rn Rtglon• oJ the r.,-nUed State,, Chapel Hill: Un1versity of North C'arolma Press, JY:16.
• Problem areas are those In which some or ell of the farm fond should be transferred to grazing, forests.or
other conservational uses, according to the National Resources Board.
areas and to some of the best commercial agricultural lands, the
natural increase and the failure to migrate were important factors
in the growth in number of people on farms in the problem areas generally. The back-to-the-land movement was insufficient to account
for the increases reported by the census, whereas in the nonproblem
areas the reported increases were less than they would have been had
the movement to farms been the only factor. The fact that migration
from areas of poor land resources and of little economic and cultural
opportunity has been relatively heavy should not obscure the fact
that some of the better land areas have also contributed a large
proportion of their rural population as migrants.
PROPORTION OF WORKERS IN AGRICULTURE
Despite the fact that the rural-farm population had a rate of natural
increase larger than that of any other population group, it had a net
loss of approximately 1,200,000 persons during the decade 1920-1930,4
resulting from the net loss by migration of approximately 6,000,000
persons. Since this result was so largely due to the shrinking of the
population base of agriculture, it is of interest to note that the most
' Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population
Vol. III, Part 1, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1932, p. 6.
DaltzeobyGoogle
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS• 69
agricultural counties contributed relatively more to this movement
than did the counties with a smaller proportion of their population ·
engaged in agriculture.
The greater the proportion of agricultural workers (table 20, fig.15,
and appendix table 15) the more likely was the county to have had so
large a net migration from its rural territory that it had fewer persons
at the end than at the beginning of the decade. The proportion of
the counties which gained rural population through migration was
smallest in the most agricultural counties and greatest in the least ngricultural counties. The proportion classified as counties of dispersion
remained approximately the same except in the least agricultural
group where it was less than in the other groups of counties. Thus,
the more completely a county was devoted to agriculture the more
likely it was to have experienced a heavy migration from its rural
areas. The chief exceptions to the fact that those counties which
ha.d only a. small proportion of their total population engaged in
agriculture, especially in urban or manufacturing areas, were most
likely to have gained rural population by migration were to be found
in those agricultural areas in the Great Plains in which settlement was
still going on during the 1920's. These were the areas in which the
la.st phase of the homesteading of the West was being completed, but
they accounted for only a small number of persons in comparison with
the totals involved.
Ta&le !0.--Counties of the United States by Percent of Gainful Worken 10 Yean of
Age and Over Engaged in Agriculture, 1930, and Type of Net Migration, 1 19201930
Tote.I counties
Percent or gainrul workers engaged in agriculture,
1930
Number
Tote.L __ . _________ -------·-··------- ______ __ __
3,059
Less than 10_________________________________________
10-24.9 _____ -- _--------- ------ ---------· ------ --------
188
401
Percent
100. 0
Type or net mi!(ratloo,
1920-19:!0
Absorption
Disper-
Depopu•
sion
Iation
16. 9
32. 5
50.
22. 3
31.9
33. 8
33. I
22. g
33. 4
ft
l---~---1-
25--49.9 ______ --------- -------- ----· -- _------------ -- --
50 or more___________________________________________
1
899
I, Sil
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
54. 8
34.,"
15. 7
8.5
50. 5
58. 4
For basis or classlficatton of counties see ch. III, pp. 60-61.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, Fiftee11th c,11.ru& of the United State,: 1930, Population Vol. II, cb. 10, table
1ft. and Vol. III, table 20. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
Since the poor agricultural areas lost population by migration at a
more rapid rate during the l 920's than did the better agricultural
areas, it might be inferred that rural-urban migration during that
period was pa.rt of the process of adjustment of numbers to natural
resources. Those areas where depletion of natural resources or rapid
population growth had produced maladjustments were the same ones
in which rapid emigration was working toward the establishment of a
more tolerable balance. It may be open to some question, however,
Dig11zed by
Google
.....
0
FIG. 15 - PERCENT OF GAINFUL WORKERS 10 YEARS OF AGE
AND OVER ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE
•
;,c
1930
C
;,c
)>
r
~
G)
;,c
)>
-I
0
z
z
-I
:::c
rn
C
z
=i
rn
0
~
)>
u!
i:::;
IQ
N
[ill])
/!I
C.
~
5 -
9
~ 10 -2 4
C;
Ill 2s - 49
0
0
-
00
(v
Source Bureau of lhe Census, Rf leenfh Census of
fhe United Stales 1930. Population Vol. m, U. S.Oepertmenl
of Commerce, Woshinglon, D. C., 1932 , Jobie 20.
AF · 2976, WPA
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS• 71
whether such migration is ever sufficient to correct maladjustments.
The existence of numerous stranded communities is evidence of the
difficulty of achieving a balance by this method.
AGRICULTURAL INCOME
In order to test further the relationship between migration and
socio-economic factors, per capita agricultural income was used. For
each county the total value of farm products sold, traded, or used by
the operators' families in 1929 was divided by the total number of
persons, male and female, who were gainful workers engaged in agriculture as reported by the 1930 Census (fig. 16 and appendix table
16). The direct relationship between agricultural income and migration while not close is statistically significant.6
EDUCATIONAL FAOLITIES
The proportionate migration from rural areas does not appear to
vary directly with the educational facilities which the various communities provide. Correlation of the proportion of 16- and 17-year
olds attending school in 1930 with the rate of migration from rural
areas was attempted, but no relationship, either positive or negative,
could be established (appendix tables 12, 13, and 14). The map
showing net migration from rural areas (fig. 6, p. 22) also suggests
that educational facilities are not of primary importance in determining the rate of migration.
In Ohio, where areas of depopulation during the 1920's were to be
found in both the western Com Belt counties and the hill counties of
the southeastern part of the State, only a slight relationship was found
between the migration of the rural population and an index of educational facilities based on expenditures per rural pupil. 8 The northwestern part of the State had a combination of better land, higher
income, superior schools, and more opportunities in agriculture than
the southeastern section. The comparatively high rate of migration
from the former was partly a result of the circumstance that the
superior educational facilities gave the young people of that area
familiarity with alternative opportunities and thus aided migration
from rural areas. In the southeastern pa.rt of the State the rate of
natural increase was considerably higher and, therefore, opportunities
•The coefficient of correlation is +0.23±0.03.
1 Lively, C. E. and Almack, R. B., A Method of Determining Rural Social
8ub-Areaa With Application to Ohio, Bulletin No. 106, Parts I and II, Ohio
Agricultural Experiment Station and Social Research Section, Farm Security
Administration, Region III, Columbus, Ohio, January 1938, p. 9.
nigtized by
Google
._J
r,.::>
FIG. 16 - GROSS FARM INCOME PER GAINFUL WORKER IN AGRICULTURE
•
1929
,0
C
,0
r►
~
ci
,0
►
-<
6
z
z
-<
I
m
C
z
::;
m
C,
~
~
g
C/l
<O
~ 600 -
N
"'
C.
.;!
11!1
C')
■ 1,800 - 2,399
0
0
00
rv
1,200 -
1;799
■ 2tiOO or more
Source· Bureau of the Census, Fi freen rh Census of
rhe Uniled Srar es : 193 0 , Populoloon Vol . m, ta ble 20,
and Agriculture Vol. m, county table m, U.S. Deporlment
of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
AF - 2 97 7, WPA
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS• 73
in agriculture were more restricted. Apparently this is also a situation that is favorable to heavy migration from rural areas.7
That educational opportunities may be closely related to the adjustment.a which the rural-urban migrants make at their destinations and
that they may have a considerable influence on the contributions to
society which they ultimately make is not called into question. It
may be that the migrants enter occupational and social strata. in
accordance with their training in the cities to which they go, the better
trained entering business and professional groups in the larger proportions and the others becoming primarily unskilled la.borers. 8
PLANE OF LIVING INDEX
Measures of the economic well-being of the population suggest
further that there is no simple relationship between the rate of migration and the presence or absence of a given level of income. Persons
living in areas which provide only limited incomes may be willing to
migrate because a small income at the point of destination offers
enough of a. differential to make the move attractive. On the other
hand, young people who have grown up on farms providing a. relatively
high level of living may have frequent occasion to compare their lot
~ith that of urban resident.a and desire certain advantages which
cities seem to afford.
In order to secure a. measure of economic well-being, a plane of
living index was constructed to take into account the extent to
which rural families in all counties possessed certain facilities generally
considered desirable. It is assumed that most families live in the best
house they can afford and provide themselves with modern conveniences to the extent which their incomes over a period of yea.rs will
permit. If this is correct, it is fair to assume that a. plane of living
index is a measure of economic well-being, albeit not a. perfect one.
For both rural-farm and nonfa.rm families it was possible to secure the
estimated value of dwellings and the proportion of homes having a.
radio. For rural-fa.rm families, in addition, information was available
concerning the proportions having a. telephone, electric lights, an
7 The loss by migration, expressed as a percent of the total population in 1920,
may underemphasize the loss in certain age groups. For the United States as a
whole 41 percent of the total persons in the rural-farm population aged 15-19 in
1920 migrated during the following decade. A rate of migration based on all age
groups in the population will have a somewhat different significance in a population
in which this most mobile age group is 10 percent of the total and one in which it
is 15 percent of the total.
8 Leybourne, Grace G., "Urban Adjustments of Migrants From the Southern
Appalachian Plateaus," Social Forces, Vol. 16, 1937, pp. 238-246.
Og1tzedbyGoogle
74 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
automobile, and running water in the house. 9 The several parts of
the country can be differentiated by means of such an index into areas
of varying degrees of economic well-being (figs. 17 and 18).
When the counties were grouped according to the rural plane of
Jiving index (table 21 and appendix tables 17 and 18), it was found
that as the rural plane of living index decreased, with one exception,
the net rate of migration from rural areas increased. 10 This would
indicate that there was more migration from the poorer rural areas
than from the more prosperous ones, although apparently numerous
counties are exceptions to the indicated relationship. Nevertheless,
the general contention that migration during 1920-1930 was disproportionately greater from the poorer areas is supported by the data.
Ta&le Jf.-Rural Plane of Living lndex,1 1930,1 and Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930 1
Rural
population,
l lW
Rural plane of living Index, 1930
Total ...... _______ -------------------------------------------______
Leos than 30_____________________________________________________________
Percent net
rural migration,
lU:J0-1930
• 61,368,088
-n. o
6,815,847
12. 445, 516
6,066,293
6,449,531
6,696,914
6,849, 759
3, Ml, 029
3,493,
39U
-17.4
-lft. l
-13. ft
-15- 0
1-----1-----
30-5g ________ ------·--------------------- ____ ______________ ___ _________ __
ftO-.SU ____________________________ ---------------------------- ____________
!I0-119 ___ ·------· -- _------- -- -- __ -- ___ -- ----- .. ---- _-- . -------- --- -- ----120--149. _ -------------- --------------- -- _--------- ___ -- _---- --- --- _-- ---JOO- 179 __ -------------------- ----------------. --- ------------------ -- -- __
18(!-11011.
_---------------------------------------------------------------210
or more
____________________ -----·,--·________________________________
-11. 0
-8. 0
-0.8
+13.8
1 Computed on a oounty basis.
, Bureau of the CellSUS, Fifue11tA CemlU of th, U111ted State,: lfWJ, Population Vol. VI and A.erlculture
Vol. II, U.S. Department of Commerce, \VBShlngton, D. C.
• For method or computation see appendix B.
• Excludlne Hudson County, N. J., and Yellowstone National Parle.
DISTANCE TO CITIES AND SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT
Opportunity for contact with urban areas appears to bear some relationship to the rate of migration to or from rural areas. In order to
examine this relationship further all counties were classified with
reference to the distance of the major part of their area from the
nearest city with a population of 100,000 or more. Three classifications were set up--less than 50 miles, 50-99 miles, and 100 miles or
more (table 22). It is admitted that such a measure is not an adequate one if it is intended to show the effective distance from a large
city, for air-line distance is not a good measure of the channels of communication. If migration from rural to urban areas depends on opportunities, the frequency and intimacy of contacts with the prospective
residence may be more important than distance. Proximity to cities
• For a description of the development of the index see appendix B. Two of
these items, telephone and electric lights, are more readily available where popula.
tion density is great~r. · The index is especially high in areas near cities, which
are also the areas most likely to gain by migration.
10 The coefficient of correlation is +0.25 ± 0.03.
0 g1tized by
Google
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS• 75
is related to migration also by virtue of the fact that during the
twenties there was a marked suburban development, and some of the
counties reporting increases by migration were essentially suburban
areas. The nearby counties (less than 50 miles from cities) less frequently experienced losses by migration and those which did report
losses were more likely to report a relatively smaller loss than the more
distant counties.
Tal,le !!.--Counties of the United States Gaining or Losing Rural Population by Migra•
tion, 1920-1930,1 by Distance From a City
Total counl.les
Distance from s city
Nwnber
Counties ga!Dlng
by migration
Percsnt
Nwnber
Counties losing by
migration
Percent
Nwnber
Total.-·_·-· ..••......••.. ·-··--·---
3,0S9
100.0
517
16.9
2,642
Lem! than 50 mllel! from a 18rge city '-----·
IIO--QII miles from II qe city ••.•••• ··- _____
7P.5
945
1,3111
379
4611
474
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
181
100
22.8
10. 6
17. ll
IS. 8
12. 7
24. 7
614
100 miles or morefrom a large cl~·-----·Less than 50 miles from a sm city a._
II0--99 miles from a small city ......•• __
100 miles or more from II small city .•.••
1
236
60
Sil
117
845
1,083
319
407
357
Percent
83.1
n.2
89.4
82. I
84.2
87.3
7S.3
l'or method of computation see appendl::r B.
1 Luge
clty-100,000 or more; small clty-26,000-Qll,9911,
The relationships found by this analysis suggest that in most cases
the larger cities have little effect upon the rate of rural migration
beyond a distance of 100 miles. The counties within the 50-99
mile zone showed net losses from rural migration more frequently
than those nearby, but beyond that distance no clear relationship
could be established. In order to test further the relationship between
rate of migration and distance, the counties which were 100 miles or
more from a large city were subdivided with reference to their distance from a smaller city, 1 having between 25,000 and 100,000
inhabitants. The same distance categories were used, but in this
case no clear and consistent relationship could be established. Those
counties nearest the smaller cities appeared to show a slight tendency
to gain through rural migration, but the differences found could not
be regarded as statistically significant.
Another way in which the volume of rural migration may be related
to proximity to large cities is through the attraction of people to the
rural areas adjacent to large cities. The 1930 Census outlined 96
metropolitan areas, including 1 or more central cities of 50,000 or
more, as well as adjacent or contiguous minor civil divisions with a
density of 150 or more per square mile. 11 The number of people
living in these areas in 1930 was equal to nearly half of the total
population. One-seventh of the population of these areas was classi11 Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Cemua of the United Statu: 1930, Population
Vol. II, U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, pp. 16-19.
Dgr
zedbyGooglc
~
FIG. 17- RUR AL PLANE OF LIVING INDEX
•
19 3 0
"'
"'
)>
r-
C
t
G)
:ii,
)>
:::!
0
z
z
-4
,,,I
C
z
::j
e
!!l
ITiill!I Less tha n 50
~ 50 - 9 9
111 100 -14 9
■ 150 -1 99
■ 200or more
Source Burea u of the Cen9us, Fif teenth Census of
the Un i ted Slates : 1930, Populot,on Vol. llI and Agriculture
Vol n, U. S. Deportment of Commerce , Woshmgton, D C
AF• 2978 , WPA
~
:]l
r1G. l8-RURAL·FARM PLANE OF LIVING INDEX
1930
~
G)
,ti
)>
-4
5
z
)>
z
C
,,,r,,,
,,,"
VI
-4
C
VI
0
"
5
rn
[I]!]] Less
~
c:;
~
[
I hon 50
50 • 99
0
o2
r5""'
0
~
11!1100 -149
r\
■
)>
150 -199
..,
§
~
C;
"z
0
Source: Bureou of the Census, Fifteenth Census of
the United Stales: 1930, Populolion Vol . lll ond Agricullure
Vol. n, U. S. Deporlmenl of Commerce, Woshing lon, D. C.
,ti
VI
AF - 29 79, WPA
•
-.J
-.J
78 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
fled as rural. The rural population in these metropolitan districts
reported a remarkable increase between 1920 and 1930, having
grown by 54.8 percent or more rapidly than any other part of the
metropolitan population except small cities. 12 Part of this gain by
migration was probably at the expense of the remainder of the counties
in which these areas are located. The increase for the entire rural
population during the decade was only 4. 7 percent. 13
The very high rate of migration into suburban areas is the result of
two types of movement. The one consists of former rural residents
who are coming to the vicinity of the city. The other represents
former city residents who have changed their domicile from the city
to its periphery. 14 This suburban trend, which bas been an important
element in the growth of cities, promises to continue to be of major
importance.
RELIEF RA TES
Further evidence concerning factors associated with rural migration
is found in the relation of relief rates after 1930 to rural migration
during the 10 years preceding that date (table 23). Relief rates for
the total population from July 1934 through June 1935 can only
partially reflect chronic situations in the rural parts of those areas,
however, as financial and administrative factors affect relief rates
from area to area as well as relative intensity of need. Moreover,
relief rates are subject to fluctuations resulting from acute conditions
whose onset may be sudden, such as the drought during 1934. Since
droughts exert their major influence upon agricultural areas and these,
as shown above, are likely to have experienced a heavy loss by migration, a relationship might be expected.
About 6 percent of the rural population, more than 3,000,000 persons, lived in counties in which the average relief load amounted to
30 percent or more during the year July 1934-June 1935. Many
of these counties are very poor, as measured by other criteria, and it is
safe to say that the unusually high relief rates reflected an especially
difficult economic situation which in many instances was chronic.
This same group of counties experienced a greater net migration
from rural areas than any group in which the relief rates were less, the
net rural migration being equal to 21 percent of the 1920 population.
For the groups of counties in which relief rates were less than 30 percent, the net rural migration rates were approximately 10 percent.
11 All areas classified as rural in 1920 included as rural in 1930.
Thompson,
Warren S. and Whelpton, P. K., Population Trends in the United Statu, New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933, p. 30.
11 Corrected for underenumeration.
The census figure is also 4.7 percent.
H For a description of the suburbanization movement see Whetten, N. L. and
Devereux, E. C., Jr., Studies of Suburbanization in Connecticut, 1. Windsor,
Bulletin 212, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Storrs, Conn., October
1936.
og11,edbyGoogle
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS • 79
To&le 23.-Relief Rates, 1 July 1934-June 1935,1 and Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930 1
Percent on relief (monthly avera~uly 11134-Jnne 1936)
Total..............................................................
Less than 7 .6........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5-14.9 .............. ·········· .... ·..... ·············· ...... ... .. . . .....
15.0-29.11..••.••••••••••••••••••••••.••. ··-···-···-······· ..••........ .•.•
30.0 or more.............................................................
Rural popula•
tlon, lll20
Peroont net
rural migration, 1920-1930
61,408,017
-11.0
21,678,081
16, 66.5, 1199
-10. 3
-9. II
-20. II
i------i----9, 932, 904
-10. II
3, 3311, 033
1 Average monthly number of nwdent persons receiving aid under the general relief program (direct relief
and emergency work relleO computed on a county basis. Rates based on the 1930 general population.
• Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, C'omumtT Marlett Data Handbook: 1988, U. 8. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D. C., table B.
• For method of computation aee appendix B.
In so far as this comparison is valid, that is, in so far as these relief
rates measure chronic maladjustments, they suggest the difficulty of
achieving adjustments through unplanned migration from rural areas.
The areas with high rates of migration, equivalent to more than onefifth of the 1920 rural population moving away, were most in need of
Federal aid after 1930. No estimate can be made of what would have
happened had migration not taken place. It does appear clear from
this comparison that the relatively heavy migration was not sufficient
to effect basic readjustments of numbers to natural resources.
SUBJECTIVE FACTORS INFLUENCING MIGRATION
It is ordinarily assumed that the conditions of living influence
migration and that when problems are sufficiently acute in any area
people will move to some place where conditions of living are con- ·
sidered more nearly adequate. That a certain amount of migration
occurs because people leave their former residences when conditions
become intolerable cannot be denied. But such cases are relatively
re.re, and there are few rural areas so poor that there a.re not some
people at some time who are willing to live there. The evaluation of
relative opportunities is essentially a subjective matter, and no
arbitrary evaluation of opportunities or desirable levels of living is
likely to meet with widespread acceptance. To meet the difficulty
which this fact imposes, it has been urged that the public in some oases
is justified in taking measures for the evacuation of certain areas as a
matter of policy. 16 Even if agreement upon a program of evacuation
could be secured, past experience indicates that the general characteristics of the areas selected for settlement because of better economic
opportunities should be as nearly like the characteristics of the areas
of original residence as possible.
A statement of the complicated motives which are in operation when
people move would probably have to deal primarily with differentials.
16 See, for example, Wehrwein, George S. and Baker, J. A., "The Cost of Isolated Settlement in Northern Wisconsin," Rural Sociology, Vol. 2, 1937, pp. 253-
265.
Digt1zed by
Google
80 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
People do not move primarily because the level of living in the area
where they are is low but rather because they have become aware of a
different level of living which appears more attractive. The realization that another area offers better opportunities may come about
through a marked difference between conditions at one time and
another, as through a major catastrophe like the recent droughts.
In the affected areas there is such a marked decline in income within a
short period of time that there is active dissatisfaction and a search
for something better. Migration from the area may take place even
though "the level of living is not lower than that prevailing in some
other areas where the lower level has been maintained for some time.
The controlling element in the decision whether or not to move may
not be the objective reality; rather it may be the individual's subjective
evaluation of the various alternatives which he is considering.
As a result migration occurs not only from rural areas of
relatively little opportunity; the areas which appear to offer better
opportunities, such as the Com Belt, have also experienced considerable out-migration. Here the prospective migrant compares what
appears to be a rather desirable situation w.ith the level of living prevailing elsewhere, frequently in an urban area. Thus, rural areas
which provide many of the opportunities and facilities that are ordinarily associated with urban areas appear to lose migrants in as great
volume, relative to their natural increase, as those areas which have
few or none of these advantages. The former apparently enable their
residents constantly to compare their condition with that prevailing
elsewhere and thus to develop and maintain an awareness of the
differentials which do exist. In the latter there is a much more
limited range of opportunity for the study of comparative advantages.
Although the desire to secure a larger income for the energy expended,
to secure greater security, etc., are important, the comparisons
obviously are not cast entirely in economic terms. Leisure time,
gregariousness, prestige, freedom from primary group restraints,
the glamour of the city, and more extensive community facilities
are some of the factors which have always motivated rural-urban
migrations as well as migrations from one rural area to another.
Decreased employment opportunities at the present place of residence,
as through the increased use of farm machinery, changes in the
customs of retirement and transmission of property to the next
generation, or changed ownership or tenure relations may exert a
powerful influence in the weighing of opportunities. But the choice
preceding migration is not always a rational one, involving a careful
balancing of alternative opportunities. Frequently it consists of a
comparison of poorly defined alternatives, and chance may play a
large part in the final outcome. Hence, important crosscUITents of
migration constantly occur.
Dig11zed by
Google
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS •
81
The distinction between the relative importance of el~ments that
"push" people out of certain areas and of those which "pull" them to
other areas has some significance for any program that involves the
movement of people from one area to another. Local pride and identification with the local community act as powerful reinforcements to
the desire to remain in a particular locality, and it may be futile to
wait until conditions become so bad that "people will just have to
move." On the other hand, the presentation of alternative opportunities which offer a better living in those terms which are currently
accepted in the area would probably have a much greater chance of
success. In areas in which there is a tradition of stability of residence,
there has also been developed an adaptation to resources or absence of
resources. Since a large segment of the farm and rural-nonfarm
population has ma.de this adjustment, it may be necessary to modify
quick judgments concerning the need for migration and to examine
further the possibilities of better utilization of available economic
resources as well as improved training and educational facilities.
Unless improvement of the status of the persons encouraged to
migrate can be assured, it would perhaps be better to consider other
means of alleviation of unsatisfactory local conditions.
While it may be assumed that many rural migrants leave the country to escape from what they regard as unsatisfactory conditions at
home, it may also be assumed that many leave because they are
drawn toward what appear to be more desirable conditions elsewhere.
Traditionally, the American people have believed that one should not
merely accept his station in life but should attempt to improve it.
Hence, it is probable that the relatively high rate of mobility of the
population is related to this social philosophy as well as to the ready
access to easy means of communication and transportation. Farm
families have been eager to send one or more sons into the professions;
captains of industry have been national heroes; and the schools have
suggested to pupils the possibility of achieving the presidency of the
republic. Fiction and biography have told the stories of poor boys
who rose to wealth and power, usually in the city. It is small wonder,
therefore, that the quest has resulted in unprecedented internal
migration in the direction of urban areas.
The "pull" of cities for rural youth may fairly be expressed in
terms of the fact that the city is a place of jobs, of wealth and power,
of adventure, and of restless activity and endless variety. It draws
most heavily upon nearby territory regardless of the condition of
agriculture within that territory though the range of its "pull" has
been greatly extended with modern communication facilities. Historically, in times of depressed agricultural conditions the volume of
rural-urban migration has tended to increase, giving rise to the theory
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
82 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
that agricultural depression always accentuates migration a.way from
the farms. Recent experience, however, has demonstrated that
urban depression coincident with agricultural depression may result
in a definite decrease in the volume of rural-urban migration, even to
the extent of reversing the net rural-urban trend if rural areas seem
to offer greater opportunities than depressed urban areas. Even so,
the movement toward the city does not cease. The stream flows on,
although thenetmovementmay dwindle to relatively small proportions.
The movement in the direction of apparent opportunity does not
proceed with any high degree of precision. Only at certain times and
in certain places is the location of opportunity fairly obvious to any
considerable number of people. Furthermore, as a result of movement and experience the standards of the individual with respect to
what constitutes opportunity tend to change. There is scarcely an
employment opportunity which someone is not ready to take. Many
people accept what appears to be opportunity, and, upon finding
that it is not what it appeared to be, they search elsewhere. Secondary migration may be the result of finding another opportunity that
appears to be superior to the first. Hence, we have people migrating
westward while others are migrating eastward, and people migrating
from country to city while others are migrating from city to country.
Thus, a large amount of internal movement may occur with relatively
little net change in the distribution of population.
BACKGROUND FACTORS PART OF LARGER COMPLEX
The absence of simple and clear relationships between volume of
rural migration and selected socio-economic factors does not prove
the absence of such relationships. It indicates rather that the background factors which are frequently considered to be of major importance are only part of a larger complex and that the influence of any
one of them may be modified or offset by the effect of others. The
major conclusion that can be drawn is that simple generalizations,
alleging uniform relationships between rural migration and conditions
in the rural areas affected, are not possible. Nor is the correlation
between volume of migration and general business conditions a perfect
one. Urban prosperity while agriculture is relatively depressed undoubtedly is a condition favoring large-scale rural-urban migrations.
What urban and rural areas will be affected most and why the effects
vary as they do, however, depend on the interaction of numerous
subtle factors whose influence is purely individual or local. 18
11 Heberle, Rudolf and Meyer, Fritz, Die Groszstddte im Strome der Binnenwanderung, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1937.
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
Som e Move East l\'hilr Som 1• .l/o 1w \\ '1•sl.
G
le
MIGRATION AND SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS• 83
The poverty of an area may serve to encourage migration by impelling comparisons with other areas having superior opportunities. On
the other hand, its very poverty means that the younger generation
is less well equipped to enter the competition of modem industry and
thus it may serve as a barrier to migration. Not only does lack of
knowledge of opportunities interfere with ready adjustments but there
is also an unwillingness or an inability to accept certain current notions
of desirable status or achievements. Some of the poorest areas are
also those in which there is a tradition of stable residence, of family
solidarity, of an unwillingness to move, and of an extremely low
regard for the traditional canons of material success. 17
17 Zimmerman, Carle C. and Frampton, M. E., Family and Society, New York:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1935, pp. 185-188.
Digt1zed by
Google
og,
,edbyGoogle
Chapter V
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS
DATA ON the volume and direction of migration, such as have
been presented in preceding chapters, are usefully supplemented
by more intensive studies which focus attention upon the migrants
themselves and their successive migrations. From such studies
it is possible to gain a more complete account of certain aspects
of mobility than can be gained from a comparison of conditions at
the beginning and at the end of a given period. Because considerable interest is attached to the migrations of the rural population
since the 1930 Census, comparable studies of rural population movements were carried on in eight States 1 during 1935 and 1936. In each
State the selection of sample areas and the size of the sample were
determined by local needs, interests, and resources. 2 The scattered
studies have shown considerable uniformity in their results, and it is
believed to be of some value to indicate the similaritiesanddifferences
1 All of these surveys, whether conducted under the Works Progress Administration, Farm Security Administration, or Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
uaed the schedule and instructions prepared by the authors of this monograph
when they were members of the research staff of the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration. Reports have been published by Lively, C. E. and Foott,
Frances, Population Mobility in Selected Areas of Rural Ohio, 19£8-1935, Bulletin
582, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, June 1937; Kumlien,
W. F., McNamara, Robert L., and Bankert, Zetta E., Rural Population Mobility
in South Dakota, Bulletin 315, South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station,
Brookings, S. Dak., January 1938; and Dodson, L. S., Living Conditions and Population Migration in Four Appalachian Countiu, Social Research Report No. III,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Security Administration and Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., October 1937. Reports are in preparation for Arizona, Iowa, Maryland, and North Dakota by members of the staffs
of the respective experiment stations. The data for the Arizona sample were not
available in time to be used in this report.
2 See appendix B for areas sampled.
85
Dig11zed by
Google
86 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
in the findings. The totals for the eight samples obviously give too
much weight to some areas. Nevertheless, they possess the justification that they are convenient ways of stating the tendencies revealed
by the data for individual areas.
The field surveys of rural population mobility secured information
concerning the residence history of each fa.mily head over a period of
years.~ In selecting the aspects of residential mobility which were to
be included in the surveys, an attempt was ma.de to include only
changes in residence of a relatively permanent nature. It seemed
desirable to limit the moves to be included still further in order to
eliminate short distance movements which were probably unimportant
from the standpoint of the person's integration with the social organization of the community in which he lived. Since no method wa.s
available for measuring directly the degree to which social bonds a.re
affected, it was necessary to assume that the distance covered by a
move could be used as an index of the probability that the move was
of some significance. As a practical approximation to a measure of
distance the arbitrary limits of minor civil divisions were used,' and
only those migrations which involved a change of residence from one
minor civil division 6 to another were recorded.' Obviously family
heads who had moved out of the areas surveyed could not be included.
In using the limited definition it was found that there was relatively
little mobility in rural sample areas. Nearly three-fourths (73
percent) of the heads of families had not moved at all during the
survey period (table 24). In the sample areas in Maryland and North
Dakota 80 percent of the family heads had not moved during the
IO years preceding January I, 1936. Areas in Iowa yielded the
smallest proportion of family heads reporting no movement, 71
percent not having moved within the 7 years preceding January I, 1935.
There were relatively slight differences between village and open
country family heads in regard to the proportions which had moved,
and the differences were not consistent. Apparently, among the
families residing in the sample areas at the time of the surveys, village
residents had moved almost as infrequently as open country residents.
•January 1, 1928, to January 1, 1935, in Iowa, Ohio, and South Dakota; January 1, 1926, to January 1, 1936, in Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and
North Dakota.
'Lively, C. E., "Spatial Mobility of the Rural Population With Respect to Local
Areas," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XLIII, 1937, pp. 89-102.
6 This term is used here to include incorporated as well as unincorporated villages and open country townships.
0 If a person moved into or out of any village, town, or city, the move was
counted. Similarly, if he moved from one township to another in the open country, the move was counted. Changes of residence from one open country place
to another within the same township or from one place to another within the same
village, town, or city, however, were omitted.
Digt1zed by
Google
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS • 87
Tahle .24.-Heads of Families Reporting Continuous Residence During the Period ol
Survey, 1 by Area and Residence
Residence
All heada of famllles
Open country
.Ana
Total
Percent
with COD•
tlnuous
nlllldence
Total
Vlllap
Percent
with COD•
tlnuoWI
residence
Total
Percent
with COD•
tlnuous
resident'$
Total_--------------....
20,083
73
12,280
76
7,763
70
Iowa•------------------------
71
Ohio•-------------------·----
2,364
12,384
1,3111
628
711
408
339
1,876
7,301
68
~~::::::::::::::::::::
N ortb Carolina __ • _____ ._. ____
1,G02
632
1,813
495
583
106
1,102
87
104
688
77
87
79
63
72
76
ll, 083
ff1
North Dakota ________________
South Dakota. - ________ . _____
443
72
80
76
80
74
72
73
80
78
83
73
76
11an~ 1, 19'ill, to 1anuary _11 11135, In Iowa, Ohio, and South Dalcota; Januar)' 1, 1928, to 1anoary I,
1918, In Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
• • counties only.
• l'arnillell establlsbed throulhout period only.
Similar results were obtained by comparing county of residence with
county where reared. 7 Of all persons in the sample areas who were 16
years of age and over, approximately one-half were living in the same
county in which they had been reared.' There was considerable variation among the sample counties in this respect, however. In Custer,
Haakon, and Tripp Counties in western South Dakota only one-third
of the persons interviewed had been reared in the county in which
they were then living. In the older parts of South Dakota, such as
Turner County, two-thirds of the youth and adults had been reared
in the county in which they were living at the time of the survey. In
the older communities in the Appalachian Mountains the proportions
which had been reared in the county of residence varied between 71
and 89 percent. In nearly every instance the proportions were higher
for persons living in the open country than for those living in villages.
Thus, it seems certain that the oldest and most isolated areas have had
the greatest degree of population stability.
FREQUENCY OF RESIDENCE CHANGES BY HEADS OF FAMILIES
The frequency of residence changes may be more significant in
relation to population mobility than distance of migration. As
cultural differences become less distinct throughout the country,
radical changes in environment following long-distance migrations
7 Data on file in the U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economioa, Washington, D. C.
• Place reared was defined as the place where the individual lived longest
between the ages of 8 and 16. For a. discuBBion of the extent to which the county
in which an individual was born was also the county in which he was reared,
see Lively, C. E., "Note on Relation of Place-of-Birth to Place-Where-Reared,"
Rural Bociolotnl, Vol. 2, 1937, pp. 332--333.
Oigtized by
Google
88 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
are less frequent. The new location may be similar in many respects
to the last residence. A household moving from the open country to a
nearby village may experience a greater change in its economic and
social environment than would occur as a result of migration to a
distant open country place. Hence, mobility should be studied with
reference to the number or frequency of moves as well as with reference
to the distance migrated.
Of the heads of households who had changed residence at some time
during the period of survey, the great majority (71 percent) had moved
only once (table 28, p. 91 ). One-fourth (25 percent) had moved two
or three times while very few had moved as many as four times.
On the average, the male heads of families who had changed residence during the period of survey had moved only 1.4 times (table 25).
Changes were most numerous in the Kentucky counties where family
heads who had moved reported an average of 1.8 changes in residence.
In most areas open country heads of families who had changed residence had moved at least as frequently if not more frequently than
village heads.
Tohle .25.-Average Number of Changes in Residence by Male Heads of Families 1
During the Period of Survey ,2 by Area and Residence in 1935-1936
Residence
Ares
Total •--- ____________________________________________________ _
Total
1.4
Open
rountry
Vlllap
1.5
Iows ________________________________________________________________ l===,l====I=
1.4
I. 4
Kentucky _________________________________________________________ _
1.8
1.9
Msryland _________________________________________________________ _
1. ~
I. 5
North Carolina ____________________________________________________ _
I. 7
1.8
North Dskota _____________________________________________________ _
I. 5
1. 4
Ohio _______________________________________________________________ _
I.
4
I. 4
South Dakota. __ . _________________________________________________ _
I. 4
I. 5
1.4
1.3
1.7
I. 7
1.6
I. 5
1.4
1. 4
1 Exclmlve of male heads of families not changing residence and unknowns.
• January I, 1928, to January I, 1935, in Iowa, Ohio, ,md South Dakota; January I, 1926, to January 1.
1936, in Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Korth Dakota.
a In the Ohio counties, Tripp County, S. Dak., and all but 4 Iowa counties lamllies established aft«
1928 are excluded.
Residence changes are affected by such factors as occupation and
type of residence. For example, although there were some exceptions, in general farm operators had changed their residence less frequently than heads of families employed at nonfarm work. 9 Male
heads of families living in villages had changed their occupation
slightly more often than their residence, and those living in the open
country had changed residence more frequently than occupation
(tables 25 and 26). In the Maryland sample, however, the heads
of families in the open country had changed residence less frequently
than occupation. This reflects the fact that living in the open
g
See pp. 112-116.
D g,, zed by
Google
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS •
89
Tcrl,le i6.-Average Number of Changes in Occupation by Male Heads of Families'
During the Period of Survey,1 by Area and Residence in 1935-1936
Re,ldence
Area
Total '··· ••••••••••••••• •.•..••.• ••• •·•• •••••••••••••••••••...
Total
Open
country
1. 5
Village
1. 4
I. 5
1.2
1.8
1. 7
1. 5
1. 3
1.4
1. 4
1.3
2.1
1. 7
1. 5
1. 5
1=== 1===
0
Iowa......... . . ........ .. ........ .. ........ . .. ...... .. . ............. .
Kentucky ..... . ........ . .... . ... .. . ..... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . ... .
~::?t.~olina ••• ••• • ••••• • •••.••. •.• •. ••• •• •• ••• •••. . . •.. •. ••••.•.
North Dakota • •••••••...•••••••••• •..••••••• •••• • .... .•••••••••• •• •
Ohio ••.••... ... ... . .. .... •.... •. . •• ••••••. • ••• • •• •. . • ..••••.••••••••
South Dakota .•.. . . • ••••••••••••• • •••••.• •••••••••••.••••••••••••••
1. 2
1. 8
1. 7
1. 5
1. 4
1. 7
1.4
2.0
1. 5
1 Exclusive of male beads of famllles not changing occupation Bnd unknowns.
• Janu&rY I, 1928, to JanuBry 1, 11135, In IowBl Ohio, and South Dakota; January 1, 1~. to January 1, 1936,
ID Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, ana North Dakota.
• In the Ohio counties, Tripp County, 8. Dal<., and all but 4 Iowa counties famWes established after 11128
are excluded.
country is not synonymous with employment in agriculture. In
North Carolina, on the other hand, changes in residence of family
heads living in villages at the time of the survey had been more
frequent than occupational changes.
RANGE OF MIGRATION OF HEADS OF FAMILIES
Physical distance of itself is not the primary factor in migration.
The emphasis upon its importance ordinarily rests on the assumption
that the intensity of social ties is in inverse ratio to physical distance.
It cannot be concluded, however, that a 50- or 100-mile migration
involves less change in the environment than a 1,000-mile migration or
that intrastate migrations involve less important changes than do
interstate migrations. A short-distance migration may involve as
definite a break in the social tics of a neighborhood, school, church, or
occupational group as a long-distance move. On the other hand, longdistance migration may involve more largely a physical transfer of
residence than a major severance of social ties. Wben a person moves
as pa.rt of a larger group, the major shift may be that of the location
of the group's activities. Many individuals, though physically remote
from an area of previous residence, are much more a part of the social
groups of the earlier than of the later residence.
Among the heads of families in the survey areas who had moved at
some time during the period of study, short-distance migrations predominated. Twelve percent of all family heads, or almost one-half
of those who had moved, had come from another residence within
the same county, six percent had come from adjoining counties, and
smaller proportions had migrated from greater distances (table 27).
The method of determining distance moved corresponds roughly
to actual measurement in terms of miles from the survey area as a
center, although the correspondence is necessarily affected by acci-
90 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
dents of location of survey areas. 10 These location factors may actually make an adjoining State nearer than nonadjoining counties in
the same State. Such discrepancies affect the results, and some
variation from the general pattern of decreasing migration with
increasing distance does occur. In the Maryland and North Carolina sample areas, for example, the proportions coming from nonadjoining counties in the same State were less than the proportions
coming from adjoining States (table 27). Also, the fact that county
or State boundaries often do not determine lines of contact or transportation is well known. In Kentucky, for example, more migrants
came from distant areas within the State than from counties adjoining
the survey areas. In addition, factors, such BB the location of relatives or friends and the reported existence of employment opportunities, may cause variations in the general pattern.
Ta&/e .27.-Range of Migration of Heads of Households I During the Period of Survey,1
·
by Area
Area
Range or migration
Total
Kentucty
3,844
100
581
100
1,694
100
474
429
100
100
2,292
100
74
74
73
80
76
81
74
73
12
16
6
6
3
8
8
2
7
4
8
3
11
12
6
3
9
4
8
4
4
Total: 1
Number •••••.••••••••.•••• 20,988
Percent•.••••••••••••••••••
100
ContlnuollS residence .••••••••••.••••
Lived In county or survey and In:
No other county .......••••••••••
Adjoining counties only •••••....
Other counties In State .••...•...
Adjoining States only .•...•.•...
Other States..••••.••........•...
North North
Caro- Dakota
Una
Iowa
6
4
3
I
M:-J"
Ian
Ohio
South
Dllkota
- -- -- - - - - -
2
1
.
6
8
4
2
2
8
4
2
I
II, 674
100
5
3
I
•r- than 0.6 percent.
• The slight differences by States between tables 24 and 'rl are due to the !act that one ls based on families
and the other on households. The complete Iowa sample Is inrluded In this table.
• Ianuary I, 1928, to Ianuary I, 1935, In Iowa, Ohio, and South Dakota; Ianuary I, 11126, to Ianuary I, 11138,
In Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
• Exclusive of migrants lrom foreign oountrles, holl8eholda establlabed after 11128, and unknowns.
Range of migration is also related to the frequency with which
changes of residence are made. As the frequency of change of residence increased, the proportion which had moved from places within
the survey area or from adjoining counties generally decreased. Thus,
the previous location of families '\\ith one change of residence was
somewhere within the county of survey in approximately one-half
of the cases (table 28). Among families moving five times or more,
however, nearly two-fifths came from adjoining States. Factors
which limited or reduced the number of changes of residence apparently operated to limit the range of movement also.
10 Lively, C. E., "Spatial Mobility of the Rural Population With Respect to
Local Areas." op. cit., pp. 96-98.
Dig t1zed by
Goog re
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS • 91
Ta&le n.-Number of Chan,es in Residence of Heads of Families During the Period of
Survey,1 by Range of Migration
Total
Number or changee ID
nstdence
Number
Lived In county or survey and In-
Other
Adjoin• Other
other Adjoin•
Percent No
county Ing coun• counties Ing States States Other•
Total 1 ••••••••••••
17, 1911
100.0
86.2
None....................
12, 1182
8,203
882
Z7
108
64
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
49.5
32. 1
26. 6
21. 3
1. •••••••••••••••••••••••
2. ···············••·••···
3. ··········-·-····--···4••...••.•...••••...•....
6or more••••••..•.......
ties only
In State
6.8
4.0
3.3
l.G
22. 3
13. 4
9.9
4.G
21. 8
27. 7
17. G
18.0
19.8
19.8
22.2
1ft. 7
17. G
16.8
22. 2
88.9
8.6
9.4
IG. 7
22. 2
7.4
only
---o.a
0.1
0. 7
0.8
L8
• 1anuary_ lJ 1928, to 1anuary 1, 1936, In Iowa and South Dakota; 1anuary 1, lVZ, to 1anuarJ' 1, 11138, ID
K:entuclty, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
• Inc.-ludes migrants from foreign countries and unknowna.
IJl:J:cluslveof tbe Ohio counties and all but 4 Iowa counties.
Possibly there is a tendency for families moving frequently to move
farther at each move. The fact that several moves have already
broken through former social ties weakens the influence of the community and facilitates the movement over greater distances. The
family has either learned to adjust rapidly to the social environments
in the new locations or to become less dependent upon social relationships outside the household. The influence of social relationships
often is a strong factor in reducing the frequency and the distance of
migration by forming a bond that families hesitate to break. The
economic advantages to be gained from more remunerative employment in another locality are weighed against the advantages of existing social relationships. The effectiveness of such relationships
undoubtedly is directly influenced by length of residence, inasmuch as
brief tenure in a community is not conducive to the building of numerous or strong social ties. 11
TYPES OF RESIDENCE CHANGES BY HEADS OF FAMILIES AND ALL
PERSONS 16 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER
Among the male heads of families surveyed who had made residence
changes, there was wide variation in the types of changes reported. 11
The most frequent movements consisted of the migration from one
open country residence to another, movements of this type comprising
40 percent of all changes in residence which were noted (fig. 19).
This shifting consisted primarily of farm families moving from one
open country residence to another, with tenants somewhat more
11 Eugenics Survey of Vermont, Selective Migration From Three Rural Vermont
T01DM and It& Significance, Fifth Annual Report, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt., September 1931, p. 31.
11 In surveys, such as these, it is possible to include only persons living in the
areas at the time of the surveys. Persons who have moved out of the areas
obviously cannot be included.
Dig11zed by
Google
92 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
Percent
0
TYPE OF CHANGE
5
10
15
20
25
()pen country to open country
Open country to villa9e
l/illa9e to villa9e
Vill09e to open country
City to vlt laQe
City to open country
Other**
FtG. 19 - MALE HEADS OF FAMILIES REPORTING A CHANGE IN
RESIDENCE* DURING THE PERIOD OF SURVEY
BY TYPE OF CHANGE
* Exclusive of those
reportin9 continuous residence.
**Includes those movin9 more than once, mi9ronts
from forei9n countries, and unknowns.
numerous than owners. The second largest movement was from the
open country to villages. This movement was particularly marked
in the survey areas of South Dakota, 13 where a series of poor crops in
recent years had forced many families from their farms. Most of the
families which moved within the State went to nearby villages.
There was slightly more frequent moving between villages than from
villages to open country areas. This was much more pronounced in
South Dakota than in the other States, while in Kentucky a strong
counter movement from villages to the open country was found. The
movement in South Dakota was affected by the poor crop seasons
mentioned above, while the situation in Kentucky no doubt resulted
from decreasing nonfa.rm employment in villages.
The movements from city to open country and from city to village
were numerically the least important types of migration. One factor
in reducing the number of these shifts in residence was the fact that
they frequently involved long distances as well as the change from
urban to rural environments. In Ohio it was found that the villages
were areas of concentration, receiving population from both the open
country and urban centers. 1' The proportion of the population living
in the villages in the sample areas in 1929 was greater than the pro11 Data on file in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, D. C.
H Lively, C. E. and Foott, Frances, op. cit., p. 12.
Digt1zed by
Google
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS •
93
portion reared there and was greater in 1935 than in 1929. The
movement from city to open country was marked only in Kentucky
and North Carolina.
Another indication of the type of movements is found in a comparison of place of residence at the time of the surveys and on January 1,
1929, by place reared 16 for all persons 16 years of age and over. A
total of 1,037 persons who had moved from city to open country was
reported (table 29). One-third of these had been reared in the open
country in the county of survey. There were, however, wide fluctuations in the proportions reported from the various areas.
Ta&le .29.-Type of Movement of Persons 16 Years of Age and Over at Date of Survey
Between January 1, 1929, and 1935-1936,1 by Place Reared and Area
Area
Type of movement and plaoe reared
Persons who bad moved from city to open
country since January 1, 1929....•••••......
Reared In open country In county of
survey .............. ·- ••••. ·---·----···
Reared in open country elsewbere___ . _•••
Other...••.•.•• ·-·--····-·---·---------·Persons who bad moved from city to vfllage
since January 1, 111211._ ..... ------·--·······
Reared ID village In county of survey--··.
Reared In village elsewhere·-·--·---·· .••.
Other •• ···--·-··-·········-··------······
Persona who had moved from village to open
country since January 1. 1929..•..• ·-·-·····
Reared in open country in county of
survey ••.... ····-··-···················
Reared in open country elsewhere.. -.....
Other_ •.•.• -----·-·-·-·-···-···--.·-· ••••
Total
~ar,r-
North North South
Caro- Dakota Dakota
Jina
Iowa
Kentucky
1,037
4liO
66
72
09
6
353
)81,
27
6
40
34
1
3
21
116
384
302
167
38
g
g
8l50
149
Zl
17
105
-16
22
4g
31
6
1
26
11
153
584
2
8
111
382
1.778
390
102
230
36
22
11911
11()4
160
62
34
16
67
19
19
6
6
10
310
319
370
292
113
482
602
98
94
136
6
46
164
17
18
10
2
1
6
f!8
160
156
522
29
• January 1, 11136, in Iowa and South Dakota; January 1, 1936, in Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina,
and North Dakota.
The movement back to the areas from which these persons had
originally gone to cities was not the only one. Although one-third of
the persons who had moved from a city to the open country had been
reared in the open country in the county where they were living at the
time of the surveys, the proportion of those who had been reared in an
open country residence elsewhere was somewhat smaller. Conversely,
almost two-fifths of the migrants from cities to the open country had
not been reared in the open country, the proportions ranging from
about one-sixth to more than one-half in the various areas surveyed.
Migration from villages to the open country was somewhat more
frequent than migration from cities to the open country. The proportions of migrants from villages who were reared in the open
country were, however, similar to those for migrants from cities.
Approximately one-third had been reared in the open country in the
16
See footnote 8, p. 87.
Oigtized by
Google
94 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
county of residence at the time of the surveys, and a somewhat smaller
proportion had been reared in the open country elsewhere. The
ratios were by no means uniform throughout the sample areas,
however.
The proportion of migrants from cities to villages who had been
reared in a village in the county of survey or in any village was only
one-half as great as the corresponding proportion among the city
migrants to the open country. Whether this was due to less migration from villages to cities or to a lesser attraction of villages as
places to which to return from cities cannot be determined from
these data.. However, if migration from an urban to an open country
residence is primarily to escape the effects of urban unemployment
by resort to a type of activity which promises subsistence, migration
to villages would seem to offer only slight advantages.
The proportion of all persons 16 years of age and over in villages
who had come from cities was somewhat greater than the corresponding proportion in the open country (table 30). Moreover, the
proportion of village residents who had come from the open country
was somewhat greater than the proportion of open country residents
who had migrated from villages. Nearly 4 percent of the persons
living in the open country at the time of the surveys had been city
residents in 1929, but almost 6 percent of the village residents had
come from a city. Similarly, 5 percent of the open country residents
had come from a village, but nearly 13 percent of the village residents
had come from the open country.
Tal,le 30.-Residence, 1935-1936, of Persons 16 Years of Age and Over in Survey
Areas, 1 by Residence and Area of Residence, January 1, 1929
Area of residence, January 1, 19211
Total
Residence, 1936-1936,
and January 1, 19~
Num•
her
Per•
cent
County of
survey
Num•
her
Adjoining
counties
only
Other
counties
In State
Adjoining
States only
Other
States
Per• Num• Per- Num• Per- Num- Per• Nnm• Percent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent
OPIIN COUNTRY,
1936-1936
Total. •.•••••.•. 40,203 100.0
orir,n country•..••••.• 36,539
V llage ....••......••.• 2,038
City_ .........•....••. 1,566
61
Other.---·············
90.9
5.1
3. 9
0.1
36,332 100.0 2,310 100.0 1,212 100.0
33,645
I, 267
420
-
95.2 1,617
3. 6
316
1. 2
377
-
-
70.0
13. 7
16.3
-
679
231
302
-
56.0
19. l
24.9
-
892 100.0
437
100.0
55.0
17. 6
27.4
107
87
61
23.4
14. 7
48.tl
13.3
270
100.0
33
43
171
23
12.2
15.11
63.4
491
157
244
-
-
222
VILLAOII, 1935-1936
Total.-··-······ 18,714 100.0
--
omn country....•.... 2,374
V llage_ ......•••.••... 15,277
City·········-··-·---· 1,040
23
Other .. ·-·--·-----···1
12. 7
81.8
5. 6
0.1
15,884 100.0 I, 187 100.0
762 100.0
1,677
14, 115
92
173
341
248
-
10. 5
88.9
0. 6
-
394
542
231
-
33. 8
46. 4
19.8
-
-
22. 7
44. 8
32. 5
-
831 100.0
97
236
298
-
15.4
37.4
47.2
-
Of Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.
Dig t1zed by
Goog re
8.6
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS •
95
DECLINE IN MIGRATION OF CHILDREN FROM PARENTAL HOMES
The migrations of children who have left parental homes as well as
the migrations of heads of families reveal trends in population movements in rural areas. The slowing down of migration or failure to
migrate 18 was determined by com paring the proportion of you th 16-24
years of age in the survey areas who were living at home in 1929 with
the comparable proportion in 1935-1936. Specifically, the households surveyed reported that 68 percent of the young men 16-24 years
of age on January 1, 1929, were then living at home (table 31). At
the time of the surveys the proportion of young men 16-24 years old
and still living at home had risen to 80 percent. For young women
the comparable proportions were 51 and 63 percent, respectively. 17
Ta&/e 31.-Percent of Children 16 Years of Age and Over Living at Home, by Age
and Sex, January 1, 1929, and 1935-1936
Percent of males living
at home
.lp
1anuary I,
111211
1113&-1938
(1)
(i)
Column(2)XlOO
Column(!)
(3)
Percent or females llv·
Ing at home
January I,
111211
11136-1938
(4)
(5)
Column(5) XlOO
Column(4)
(ti)
Total, 18-24
years .......
68
80
118
61
113
124
18-17,een.•••......
18--19 years....••••..
20-21 years ..........
~24 years..........
91
81
M
41
98
SI
ti!
Q2
41()
108
114
123
146
24
54
36
114
123
130
ltiO
16
:io
133
10
11
lll
:16 years and
over •.•..•..
Q2
79
36
75
11 It has been estimated that approximately 1,000,000 youth are on farms at
present who would have migrated if the depression of the early thirties bad not
intervened. Bee Melvin, Bruce L., Rural Youth on Relief, Research Monograph
XI, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington,
D. C., 1937, p. 61.
n The method of computation minimizes the effect of the small number of
persons who returned to the parental home after 1930. Persons who bad left
home before 1929 and returned during the depression years would, in the main,
be classified as more than 25 years of age at the later date and, therefore, would
not be included in the group considered. If a large number of persons bad left
their homes after January 1, 1929, but returned prior to January 1, 1935, they
would appear as living at home in 1929 and 1935 and the conclusion that there
bad been no migration might be incorrect. Similarly, a person not living at home
in 1929 may have returned to his home some time after 1929 and left again before
the beginning of 1935. Such a migration would also be missed by the techniques used, and there would be an understatement of migration away from the
sample households. It is not likely that either of these movements was large
enough, however, seriously to affect the conclusions relative to a slowing down of
migration.
nigtized by
Google
96 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
Similar results were found in nearly every instance when the sample
areas were analyzed separately. 18
The migration from the parental homes in the sample areas began
somewhat before the migrants had passed their sixteenth birthdays,
and most of the children had left by the time they were 25 years of age.
This was true in 1929 as well as at the time of the surveys. Thus,
the peak of mobility appeared to be reached in the early twenties followed by a gradual tapering off with advancing age.
For every age group within the 16-24 year span the proportion of
children living at home was greater when the surveys were made than
it had been in 1929 (table 31). Of the young men 16 and 17 yea.rs
of age, for example, 91 percent were living at home in 1929 in comparison with 98 percent in 1935-1936. Among young women of the
same age 81 percent were at home in 1929 but 92 percent were still
living at home at the later dates. As is usual in rural households the
proportion of young women who were living at home was smaller than
the proportion of young men for each age group.
Relatively few men and women 25 years of age and over were
living in their parental homes in either 1929 or 1935-1936, but there
were some increases in this age group as well. The proportion of
persons in this age group living in their parents' homes was also
greater among men than among women. Since the increase during
the period of survey was greater for men than for women, the sex
differences had become more pronounced by the end of the period.
Open country households retained their sons to a greater degree
than did village households (table 32). During the depression yea.rs
there were increases in the p1·oportions of young men retained in each
residence group, but village households increased their proportions
more than open country households without altering their relative
positions. Village and open country households were similar with
respect to the proportions of daughters aged 16-24 years that were
living at home at ea.ch period. From the standpoint of the persons
involved, the effects of retention of young people in the pa.rental
household may be quite different in village and open country. In
the sample areas almost every open country household was an agricultural household and failure to migrate often involved prolonging
the period of apprenticeship in agriculture for those who expected to
engage in agriculture as a vocation. For those young people who
would not enter agriculture, it meant either an opportunity for further
educational training or a period of inefficient employment or unemployment. The village youth who normally would have entered a
nonagricultural labor market found himself restrained to a larger
extent than his country cousin who was less likely to seek nonagricultural employment. The fact that many of the young women who
18 Data on file in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, D. C.
og11,edbyGoogle
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS • 97
Tahle 32.--f'ercent of Children 16 Through 24 Years of Age living at Home, by Relief
Status of Parental Household, Residence, and Sex, January 1, 1929, and 1935-1936
Percent of males Jiving
at home
Relief •tatus and
residence
January 1,
19'&
193b-1936
(1)
(2)
Column (2)XlOO
Column (1)
(3)
Percent of females
living at home
Column (5) XlOO
Column (4)
January 1,
1929
1935--1936
(4)
(6)
(6)
ULISW BT.A.TUB
RelleL _____________
Nonrelief. __________
88
88
80
80
118
118
47
M
G6
m
73
60
82
78
112
62
49
113
121
124
61)
126
llUID:ElfC.
Open ooontry _______
Villaste------- ------ -
130
Gl
leave the parental households do so to marry and hence do not become
directly dependent upon the nonagricultural labor market was probably the major reason for the differences between young men and
women with regard to the proportions which remained at home.
Age at migration and extent of migration from the parental home
might be expected to be related to the economic status of the household, particularly as that affects the possibility of providing partial or
total support for the young adult. Studies of rural relief households
have shown not only that such households were economically at a
disadvantage when compared with their nonrelief neighbors but also
that these differences dated back to the period preceding the depression.111 The families classified as relief families in the 1935-1936
surveys reported a smaller proportion of young women at home than
their nonrelief neighbors both in 1929 and at the time of the surveys
(table 32). 20 With employment possibilities reduced, there was a
slightly greater increase in the proportion of young women remaining
at home in relief than in nonrelief households. On the survey dates
nonrelief households reported that 65 percent of their young women
16-24 years old were still living at home. In relief households the
comparable figure was only 59 percent.
The factors which may have operated to create differences in the
percentages of young women in relief and nonrelief households remaining at home appear not to have been operative for the young men in
the same households. Sixty-eight percent of the young men aged
16-24 years were living at home in 1929, and eighty percent of the
group were at home at the date of survey. Percentages for relief
and nonrelief homseholds were identical in each case.
11
McCormick, T. C., Comparalive Study of Ru.ral Relief and Non-Relief Hou.se-
holda, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
• A household was classified as "relief" if it had received public assistance at
any time between January 1, 1933, and the date of the survey.
Digt1zed by
Google
98 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTANCE MIGRATED BY CHILDREN LEAVING PARENTAL HOMES
The migration of children from their parental homes during the
period studied indicated that the movement of population is not
governed primarily by distance, although as in other migrant groups
studied, the bulk of the movement of the total group was limited to
short-distance migrations. If there is a progressive adaptation to the
urban environment through migration to increasingly larger centers of
population,21 as is widely held, there should be significant differences
in the proportions of those adult children who had left their parental
homes by January 1, 1929, and who were living in the several residence
groups in 1929 and at the time of the surveys, 6 or 7 yearslater. 21 But
no significant differences in the proportions living in open country,
village, or city were found (table 33). Only in the North Dakota and
South Dakota areas was there a noticeable decrease in persons living
in the open country. The explanation is probably to be found in the
effects of the drought upon persons chiefly dependent upon agriculture.
These individuals apparently went directly to large and small cities as
well as to villages. The data suggest that direct migration from open
country to city occurs frequently and that established "channels" of
migration may be more important in directing the stream of migration
than distance itself.
If it were assumed that migration generally occurs by stages, that is,
in a succession of shifts to nearby areas, it would be expected that
adult children leaving home before 1929 would be living farther away
from their parental homes than would children who had left more
recently. Moreover, the greatest proportion of children who moved
would be found in the areas nearest the point of departure with the
more distant regions having fewer migrants. This principle of an
orderly succession of moves to adjoining areas was not supported,
however, by data for the areas surveyed. Almost one-half of the
children who had left home before January 1, 1929, had remained in
the county of survey. Excluding movement confined to the survey
areas 23 and movement outside the United States, it was found that
in 1935 the largest proportion of the migrant children consisted of
residents in counties adjoining the survey area (30 percent) with the
second largest group in adjoining States (25 percent). Approximately
the same proportions were in nonadjoining States and in nonadjoining
counties in the State of survey, 22 percent and 23 percent, respectively (tables 34 and 35, p. 101).
21 Btlcher, Carl, lndU11trial Evolution, New York: Henry Holt and Company,
1901, p. 377.
n Neither return migration nor mortality would seriously affect this group.
11 Movement within the county of survey is excluded in this particular" discussion of migration in relation to distance for purposes of clearness. This does not
change the nature of the phenomenon, although it does aid in the presentation of
supporting data. The few moves to foreign countries are also excluded as they
have little effect on the pattern of movements.
Digt1zed by
Google
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS • 99
Tol,le 33.-Children 16 Years of Age and Over in 1935-1936 Who Had Left Home
by January 1, 1929, by Area and Residence on January 1, 1929, and in 1935-1936 1
Residence
Open country
Ana
Total :
Number .... 13,708
Percent •.. •
100
IOW4
Village
Small city
Large city
Other•
Total
Janu•
ary I,
111211
111361936
Janu•
ary I,
Ul29
6,778
42
6,'5e
40
3, 802
28
--·- - -- - -
Number•• .•.. .. .... .. 2,476
Percent. • •.. ..•.. •• . .
100
8711
311
)QM-
1936
a, 783
28
t--
Janu•
ary 1,
11129
11135-1936
Janu•
ary l,
1929
193~
1936
1anu•
ary 1,
111211
1,617
II
1,646
II
2, llG7
19
2,688
19
2«
2
aa7
2
477
19
473
19
4711
20
'¥1
1
67
:I
- -- - - - --
841
34
1145
~
622
26
452
18
111361936
UXTUCll:T
Number ••..... . . •....
Percent . . . • . . .. ......
649
100
312
67
304
128
22
137
25
24
56
4
18
3
81
16
74
14
II
2
UI
I
Number . . . . •. . . ...... 1.186
Peroent .• .• ....•• . . .•
100
1118
171
14
615
44
l!08
43
56
M
418
408
14
29
5
6
36
34
2
II
8
222
:1111
78
61
18
ll'J
22
'2
10
'2
10
63
16
IIO
14
111
62
5
12
8
22
24
23
26
6
7
8
II
21
23
22
24
1
1
8
442
402
3511
34
20
18
27
22
2
1
494
7
1, 109
16
1,186
17
125
2
1811
3
KilTI.UfD
:NORTH C4ROLDll4
Number . .. . .. . . ... . . •
P - 1 . •. . .. ... ... . ..
~
100
!IO&TB Dil0T4
Number .. ..... .... .. •
Percent ... ... .. .... ...
91
100
41
35
45
39
678
720
36
428
21
480
24
485
33
8,478
49
8,107
45
1, 7111
28
I, 1121
28
453
8
omo
Number •... ..• . . ....• 2,027
Percent . . .. . .. . •......
100
24
8011TB Dil0T4
Number •• • ••.....••.. 6,966
Percent • •••••... . •••.
100
7
1 J&DWU'J' 1, 11135, In Iowa, Ohio, and South Dakota; 1anlllU'J' 1, 1936, ID Kentucky, Maryland, North
Carolina, and North Dakota.
• Includea tnlgranta to forel&D countrlee and unknowns.
Some of the individual States had more contrasting distributions.
For example, the majority of the migr8Jlt children leaving the survey
areas in North Dakota had moved to nonadjoining States, while the
smallest group had moved to counties adjoining the survey areas.
In the Kentucky areas more moved to adjoining States the.n to counties adjoining the survey areas. Other marked variations were shown
in the survey areas of Maryland 8Jld lowa. 2' The dispersions cannot
be fully explained as being the continuing movement of a closed
group which left prior to January 1, 1929. li it was a migrant group
whose source was suddenly stopped, i. e., a "closed" group, the peak
or bulk of the migrants leaving the area would have been shifted
farther from the point of departure, while the areas nearest the point
of departure would gradually have been drained of temporary resi,. Data on file in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, D. C.
D QI' zed by
Google
100 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
dents. Actually selective forces, such as the location of relatives and
friends and employment opportunities, were active in determining the
distribution of the migrant children.
The findings of the field studies reported here that distance is not
the major factor in the spatial distribution of migrants bear out those
of earlier works in a number of States. 25 The inclusion of counties
which were on the border of the sample States did not affect the pattern
of movement among areas. No relationship existed between the
number of border counties and the order or range of dispersion in any
State. If a relationship had existed, the movement of North Carolina.
and Maryland migrants and of Iowa and Kentucky migrants would
have been similar. Instead wide variations existed in these States as
far as the dispersion of adult children migrating prior to January 1,
1929, was concerned, intlicating that the geographical location of the
sample counties within aach State did not alter the character or direction of migration shown in the samples.
Type of Areas ReceMn9 Ml9rant Children
The distance covered by migration is ordinarily related to the type
of area to which the migrants a.re going. In comparing the migrations
of adult children who left their parental homes prior to and after
January 1, 1929, it was found that children migrating after January 1,
1929, were located within the county of survey more often than
those who left their homes before that date (tables 34 and 35). Fortysix percent of the group leaving their pa.rental homes before 1929 were
residing in the county of survey in 1935-1936, whereas fifty-three
26 See Eugenics Survey of Vermont, Selective Migration /t'rom Three Rural
Vermont Towm and 1"1 Significanu, op. cit., p. 31; Thornthwaite, C. Warren,
Internal Migration in the United States, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1934, p. 15; Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., The People of the Drought
States, Research Bulletin Series V, No. 2, Division of Social Research, Works
ProgreBS Administration, Washington, D. C., March 1937, p. 14; Gtle, Wilson
and Corson, John J., Rural Depopulation in Certain Tidewater and Piedmont
Areas of Virginia, Institute Monograph No. 3, Institute for Research in the
Social Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., 1929, p. 34; Anderson,
W. A., Movement of Population to and From New York State, Bulletin 591, Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., April 1934, pp.
18-24; Hoag, Emily F., The National Influence of a Single Farm Community,
Bulletin No. 984, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., December 1,
1921; Anderson, W. A. and Loomis, C. P., Migration of Sons and Daughters of
White Farmers in Wake County, Bulletin No. 275, North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Raleigh, N. C., June 1930, pp. 13-14; Anderson, W. A.,
Mobility of Rural Families. II, Bulletin 623, Cornell University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., March 1935, pp. 16-17; Beck, P. G. and Lively,
C. E., Movement of Open Country Population in Ohio, II. The Individual Aspect,
Bulletin 489, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, September
1931, p. 11; and Young, E. C., The Movement of Farm Population, Bulletin 426,
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., March 1924,
pp. 25-27.
Og1tzedbyGoogle
Far111 Securit y A d 111u1i .. trutio11 (M 11d a 11 ~ ).
Rural l'oulh in Urban Slums.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
RURAL MIGRATION IN SELECTED AREAS •
101
percent of the group who left their homes after January 1, 1929, were
still in the same county by the later date.
Tobie 34.-Residence in 1935-1936 of Children 16 Years of Age and Over Who Had
Migrated From Open Country Homes,1 by Period of Migration
Left before January 1,
Left after January 1,
1929
1929
Residence, 1936-1938
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total ______________ ------------------------------
8,052
100.0
(, 709
100.0
WoITri"~~:ia'l'1t~me::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
County of survey:
lll
1.4
7,941
98. 6
119
(,590
97.5
Open country-----------------------------___ __
Village
________________________________________
2,867
331
35.5
10.0
City _____________ -----------------------------Adjoining
counties_________________________________
only:
Open country
_
Village ________________________________________ _
City ____________ - -----------------------------Other
counties
In State:
Open
country
_________________________________ _
Village ________________________________________ _
City __________________________________________ _
Adjoining
States only:
Open country
_________________________________ _
Village ________________________________________ _
City __ -____________ --- -- - -- - ---- - - - -- - - -- - -- --- Other
States:
Open
country _________________________________ _
,·111a~e- _. ________ -----·- _________ --- ---- --- ___ _
ray
- - ---------------------------------------_
Other
•-- -______
• ___________________________________
1,842
2. 5
4-1
599
206
39.1
12. 7
4. 4
410
5-9
3,4
5.1
261
147
244
5.6
3.1
5- 2
242
228
454
3.0
2.8
5-6
95
136
269
2.0
2. 9
5- 7
282
100
604
3.5
122
102
211
2. 6
2. 2
117
1_ 5
1.6
6. 7
36
0. 8
217
1. 2
40
806
473
270
127
641
93
2. 4
6.3
63
4-5
1.3
4- 6
0. 8
The parents were living In the open country at the time of the survey.
• Children who had migrated but bad returned to their parental homes by 1936-1936_
• Includes migrants to foreign countries and unknowns.
1
Tobie 35.-Residence in 1935-1936 of Children 16 Years of Age and Over Who Had
Migrated From Village Homes, 1 by Period of Migration
Left before January 1,
Left after January 1,
1929
1929
Residence, 1936-1936
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
TotaL ____ -------- •• ------ __ ------- ___ ---- ______ _
5,6.56
100.0
2,014
100.0
~ofT::";:!:f..'l'g;m.;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
County of survey:
92
1.6
98.4
63
1,951
3.1
ge_g
13. 5
24.3
2.0
206
669
10. 2
33. 2
115
368
250
312
6.6
4.4
5-5
47
94
131
6. 5
127
204
377
2.2
3.6
6. 7
23
101
176
5.0
8-7
2. 1
3.3
19
69
165
8. 2
10
33
144
0.5
1.6
7. 2
22
1.1
Open country _________________________________ _
Village _______________ • ________________________ _
City _____ -------------------------------------_
Adjoining counties only:
~hl~country _________________________________ _
City _______________ ---------------------------Other
counties
in _________________________________
State:
Open
country
_
Village
____
•
______
- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - _City __________________________________________
Adjoining States only:
Open country
_____ ------------------------- ___ __
Village
________________________________________
City __________________________________________ _
Other
States:
Open
country _________________________________ _
Village ________________________________________ _
City __________________________________________ _
6,564
766
1,371
118
186
601
65
129
587
Other•------------------------ --- -------- - ----- -- - 1 The parents were llvln,r In villages at the time of the survey.
1 Children who had migrated but had returned to their parental
1 Inciudea
mlerants to foreign countries and unknoWDII.
88
42
s,g
1.1
2.3
10. 4
1. 6
2. 1
2. 3
4- 7
1. 2
1.0
3. 4
homes by 1936-1936.
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
102 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
Among both groups of migrating children from the open country,
those who left before January 1, 1929, and those who left after that
date, long-distance migrations were directed toward towns and cities
while short-distance migrations were toward rural areas (table 34).
The children who left home but remained within the survey area
settled primarily in the open country. Among more recent open
country migrants the proportion which settled in the open country
areas of the county of survey was greater than among those children
who had left home before 1929. Conversely, the proportion of children
migrating to the more distant open country areas showed a slight
decrease after January 1, 1929.
Among children who migrated from villages, migrations within the
county of survey were usually to other villages while those who moved
greater distances tended to go to cities (table 35). Migrations to
other villages were more pronounced among the children who left
home after January 1, 1929, than prior to that date, with the exception
of those moving the greatest distances.
A definite relationship exists between the distance adult children
migrate, the types of areas in which they settle, and their occupations.
The tendency for sons to enter the occupations common to the open
country or villages resulted in a large proportion of short-distance
migrations. The daughters sought professional and clerical positions
and were drawn toward the larger cities, and, therefore, not only predominated among urban migrants but also traveled comparatively
greater distances than the sons. 28
The most distant migrations of adult children from both open
country and village homes were principally to cities. There was
some evidence of a slight reduction in the long-distance migration to
cities among children leaving home after January 1, 1929, and a
slight increase in the proportion moving to nearby cities. The
persons going to intermediate areas tended to select villages more
frequently than those migrating greater distances. The fact that
adult children exhibited a greater range and wider differences in types
of areas selected than did the heads of families who ca.me into the
survey areas illustrates the fact that dispersion of migrants from a
particular rural area tends to be more scattered than the areas from
which incoming migrants move.
28 For comparable findings see Anderson, W. A., Mobility of Rural Familiu.
ll, op. cit., pp. 20-22; and Gee, Wilson and Runk, Dewees, "Qualitative Selection
in Cityward Migration," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXVII, 1931,
pp. 254-265.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
Chapter VI
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN
SELECTED AREAS
80TH THE extent and the direction of the migration of rural families
are related to a variety of factors. Age, sex, family composition,
employability of family, occupation, and relief status all significantly
affected the mobility of the population within the areas surveyed.
AGE OF MALE HEADS OF FAMILIES
A close relationship was found between the age of male heads of
families and the distance which they had migrated. Almost without
exception, the older the heads of families, the more their movements
during the period of survey had been restricted to short-distance
migrations (table 36). Not only had more of the younger household
heads migrated, but they had also moved greater distances.
The only exceptions to the successive decrease in the mobility of
each older age group occurred in the Kentucky and North Dakota
Ta&le 36.-Age of Male Heads of Families, 1935-1936, by Range of Migration
Durin9 the Period of Survey
Lived In county of survey and-
Total
Age, 1936-11136
Number
Per-
cent
ContlnAduous
AdNo
Joining Other
reslcoun- Joining Other Other I
coun- ties
denoe other
States
States
In
county
ties
State
only
only
TotaJ _________________ :I0,930
1()().0
68.8
11.4
6.8
8.9
8.0
1.4
4,811
5,212
4,924
3, .'\113
2,420
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
45.8
66.5
76. 0
82.2
86.5
15.4
13. 6
10.1
7.6
7. 4
8. 5
6. 7
4.0
4. 0
2. 6
1.8
1.1
2.0
1. 7
1.8
0.9
0. 6
Under~
3&--44
yearsY~-------------__________________
4!,-54 years __________________
years __________________
65 years and over ____ . ___ . _.
~
1 Includes
7.1
5.0
3.9
2. 3
4.2
3. 7
2.6
1.4
-
6.7
19. 1
2.ll
1. 3
1.0
0. 7
mlaranta from foreign OOUDtrles end famlliea established after 11128.
103
Dig,tized by
Google
104 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
samples, in which the heads of families aged 65 and over were more
mobile than heads in the age group 55-64 years. 1 The mobility in
the older age groups did not vary from one State to another to as
great an extent, however, as the mobility of younger heads of families.
In the Ohio sample more than three-fourths of the family heads under
35 years of age bad moved at least once during the period for which
records were taken, but in North Carolina less than one-third of the
family heads in this age group reported moves.
The younger heads of families were more mobile than older heads in
both the open country and villages. The older heads of families in the
open country areas had migrated greater distances on the average
than the family heads in the older age groups in villages, while in the
younger age groups the reverse was true.
Tobie 37.-Age of Male Heads of Families, 1935-1936, Who Moved Into the Survey
Area 1 During the Period of Survey,1 by Area
Area
Total
Age. l!IM--19311
Iowa
Ken•
tucky
M:;rIan
North North
Caro- Dakota
Una
- -- -- -- -- Total:
Number _______________ . __ _ 2, 9f,6
Percent_ __________________ .
100
Under 35 Y"""-·-·------------------3
- years
.. ------------------------41>-54
years .....
__ . __ . ______ ·- _______ _
5fr64 years __________________________ _
65 years BDd over ___________________ _
454
South
Dakota
----
55
341
100
100
1,ffl
100
29
39
39
1e
34
37
20
6
6
1e
9
133
100
238
100
72
100
35
30
23
40
28
22
18
12
6
7
5
11
3
100
Ohio
- -- - - - --- - -- -- - - 33
30
21
11
5
28
32
36
28
15
7
28
20
11
4
1 Exclusive of male heads of families reportlnit continuous residence or residence In county of survey only.
• January 1, 1928, to January I, 1935, in Iowa, Ohio, and South Dakota; 1BDuary 1, 1926, to January 1, 1936,
In Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
When the age distribution of the male heads of families who moved
into the survey areas during the period studied was considered, it was
found that almost two-thirds of the heads were under 45 years of age.
Only 1 in 20 was 65 years of age and over (table 37). In general, there
was little variation from area to area. North Dakota had the youngest migrants, however, with 75 percent under 45 years of age and
none 65 years of age and over.
AGE OF MIGRANT CHILDREN
Modern migration is primarily a phenomenon of youth. The beginning of an occupational career ordinarily involves the breaking of home
ties and frequently a migration from the place in which the parents
reside. The young adult with fewer firmly established ties is usually
less reluctant to move than an older, more firmly established person.
1 Detailed data to support this and subsequent analyses in this chapter are on
file in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
Washington, D. C.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 105
Marriage and the founding of a new household are also closely related to leaving the parental home. Naturally this would affect girls
somewhat more than boys, particularly in the case of farm families.
In most cases the establishment of a family is a restraining factor, and
young unmarried adults constitute a much larger proportion of all
migrants than of the total population.
ToUe 38.-Children 16 Years of Age and Over Who Had Leh Home by 1935-1936,
by Residence on January 1, 1929
Residence, January I, 1929
Total
Age, 11135-111116
Total•• -----------16-17 years ______________
18-20 years ______________
21-24 years ______________
2.s-34 years ______________
as-«
years ______________
46-54 years ______________
66 years and c,ver ________
Unlmown _______________
County Adjoining Other Adjoining Other
counties
States
of survey counties
States
only
in State
only
Number
Percent
20,070
100.0
61.8
12.0
8.8
9.2
7.2
1.0
177
1,073
3,165
8,793
6,003
1,669
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
76.3
83.2
6.2
7.3
7.2
12. 2
16.1
14.8
10. 6
6.6
4.2
6.2
3.4
4.1
4.0
9.2
11. 7
14.6
14.6
6.1
1.8
1.8
7.1
10.6
11. 2
14.9
0.6
o. 1
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.6
2.8
2M
t
36
82.4
60.6
61. 4
47. 2
46.3
t
t
10.0
10.2
10.6
11.4
t
t
t
Other I
-
t Percent not computed on a
1
base of fewer than 60 cases.
Includes migrants to foreign countries and unknowns.
To&le 39.-Children 16 Years of A!;!e and Over Who Had Leh Home by 1935-1936,
by Residence at Time of Survey
Total
Age, 11135-1936
Number
Residence at time or survey
Adjoining Other Adjoining Other
Percent ofCounty
States
counties
survey counties
States
only
only
In State
Total_. _____ . ______
20,070
100.0
48.9
16.0
12. 2
12. 4
10.6
16-17 years ______________
18-20 years_------- _____ .
21-24 years. _____________
25-34 years. _____________
35--44 years ______________
4&-54 years ________ -----66 years and over ________
Unknown _______________
177
I, 073
3. 165
8,793
6,003
I, 669
266
35
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
52.5
60. 2
62.0
48.3
48.8
46.6
44. 6
10. 7
15. 7
16. 6
16. I
15. 0
14.9
9.8
16. 4
14.6
11. 2
13. 0
8.6
11. 4
11.8
12.1
12.5
14. 7
16. I
11.9
7.2
8.4
10.6
11. 7
11.9
16.11
t
t
t
11.l
10.9
11. 4
t
t
t
Other I
---
0.11
0.11
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.1
1. 2
-
tPercent not computed on a base or fewer than 60 cases.
1
Includes migrants to foreign countries and unknowns.
Two-thirds of the children who had migrated were under 35 yea.rs
of age at the time of the surveys, and most of them had probably
migrated before marriage. In any case the data serve to emphasize
that the yesrs ordinarily associated with the beginning of an occupational career a.re the years of greatest mobility. Before the individual
is ready to start his active occupational career there is little occasion
for moving except as a member of the family group. The proportion
of children living outside the county of survey increased with increasing
Digt1zed by
Google
106 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
age. The greatest decreases in the proportion living in the county of
survey occurred in the groups under 25 years of age. Children who
were 35 years of age and over showed very little movement away from
the county of survey during the period between January 1, 1929, and
1935-1936 (tables 38 and 39).
The older children were more widely dispersed than the younger
ones both in 1929 and at the time of the surveys. The longer the
period available for migration from the parental home, the farther
a.way the children had moved. 2 In other words, many of them did
not become permanently settled after the first move but continued to
shift from one residence to another.
These movements were evidently continued during the depression
yea.rs, for at the time of the surveys the children were more widely
dispersed than they had been 6 or 7 years earlier. Although most
of the moves were made by young persons who had passed their
eighteenth birthdays during the period under discussion, every age
group showed a decrease in the proportion living in the county of
survey and conversely an increase in the proportion living in more
distant areas.
SEX OF HEADS OF FAMILIES
Over 90 percent of the heads of families surveyed were males, and
two-thirds of them had made no residence change during the period
of survey. Of those changing residence, two out of three had moved
within the State of survey. The families with female heads reported
slightly greater stability, more than three-fourths making no change
during the period covered, but of those who moved more had crossed
the boundaries of the State of survey.
Families located in open country areas were somewhat less mobile
than village families, regardless of the sex of the head of the household. Among the female heads of households who had changed
location, those in the open country had moved greater distances than
those in villages.
SEX AND RESIDENCE OF MIGRANT CHILDREN
Of the total persons in the rural how,eholds included in the field
studies who had passed their sixteenth birthdays,3 nearly 53 percent
were males, or, in other words, there were 111 men for every 100 women
(table 40). Among the children 16 years of age and over who were
not living at home at the time of the surveys, however, there were
more women than men, the ratio being only 84 men per 100 women.
The preponderance of women among the migrants was most marked
2 Also, the older the children the more opportunity the parents had had to
move away from them.
1 Including all children of the head of the household, living at home.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 107
Tol,le .fO.-S.x Ratio Among Pe110ns in Households Surveyed and Among Children
Who Had Migrated, by Age, 1935-1936
Bex ratio
Persons In
household
TotaL_. ·- ·······--- ········----···-·-··-·-·······---------·-··· .. _
Children wbo
had migrated
111
84
1&-lllyean._ .......•.•.. _•. ____ .•.••• -•.••• - •• --········-·-·--··-·······'=-====1=09=!=======3=6
20-24 years_-·············-·-·······-·-······-·--··········-············_
108
69
years_--··.··--··········-····-·····-···-···-········-····· .... ···-
104
87
~ year.i_ •••••• ···-·····--·-··--··-·····---··················-·· ·····66 years and over_·····•·••·····················-·······-················
106
Ill
102
117
128
129
25--34
3b-44 :vean--·································-··························
46-64 Ye&rS---············--······-····························-·········
1
(1)
1311
Includes only 8 men and 6 women. Obvlo1111ly there would be few children In either this or the pre-
ceding age group.
at the youngest ages, the result of the earlier migration of women.
In the age groups 35-44 years and over, men predominated among
those who were not living in the parental household. Thus, although young women appeared to leave the parental home earlier to
enter an occupation or to be married, women 35 years of age and
over were more likely to live with their parents than were their
brothers of the same age. In part the persons 35 years of age and
over who were living in the parental home were persons who had
returned after an occupation or marriage had ceased to provide
adequate support; in part they were persons who had never migrated;
and in part they were children who had returned to provide care or
companionship for the parents. Local conditions, such as employment opportunities, nearness to cities, the existence of previously
established channels of migration, and local family attitudes and
practices, served to introduce modifications from area to area, but
the general pattern as outlined seemed to apply.
Both young men and young women whose parental homes were in
the open country were more likely to migrate to other open country
residences than to villages. A much greater proportion of males than
of females moved from one open country residence to another, however, as sons from open country households were likely to enter farming
in nearby localities. An exception to this general trend occurred in
the Maryland sample where more children of both sexes migrated
from the open country to villages than to other open country residences.
A greater amount of movement was reported for both young men
and young women from rural areas to large than to small cities' and
women exceeded men in the migration to both types of cities. Although in general large cities received more migrants than small cities,
the reverse was true among children in the North Carolina and Ohio
samples. In the case of the migran ta from the North Carolina areas
• Small city-2,500 to 9,999; large city-10,000 or more.
og11,edbyGoogle
108 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
the employment of many women and girls in the textile mills and
other factories in the small cities of the State was probably the major
factor in producing the exception. Whether small or large cities prove
more attractive to any group of migrants probably depends upon a
set of local conditions among which proximity and employment
opportunities play a large role.
FAMILY COMPOSITION
Mobility was found to be directly related to family type. Families
consisting of husband and wife with or without children not only
were more numerous than other family types but also were more
mobile. Families composed of man and wife without children were
more mobile than those with children. Among broken families those
composed of a man and children were more mobile than those consisting of a woman and children. Also, among one-person families men
were more mobile than women.
The effoot of additional persons in the household upon the migrations
of a family varied greatly. The mobility of normal families was
decreased by the addition of nonfamily persons while that of broken
families appeared to be increased. The presence of nonfamily persons
reduced the mobility of the family group to a lesser degree than the
presence of children.
Nonfamily persons who migrated with the normal family were of
two major types, unemployable persons relying upon the norme.l
family unit for economic support and employable persons looking for
more favorable opportunities at the new location. There were, of
course, some persons with separate incomes who lived with the family
unit and who, although not employed, were self-maintaining. The
effect of such additional persons upon the mobility of the family
group varied with the nature and circumstances of the nonfamily
individual, but in general unemployable persons, whether they were
economically dependent or not, tended to decrease the mobility of the
family unit. On the other hand, employable persons seeking employment tended to increase the mobility of the unit.
I
I
I
'
I
{
GAINFUL WORKERS
In each area surveyed the average number of male workers yer
household was less in the households which had moved than in th-0se
maintaining continuous residence (table 41). The presence in a
household of more than one gainful worker both retarded the need or
desire for changes of residence to secure employment and increased
the ties which would be broken by migration.
The increased residential stability arising from the presence of gainful workers in the household was greater in the open country than in
'
)
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
t',1r111 ,Wrnr it v .:ld111i11 i.>l 1'Ul i u 11 l LU 11y• ) .
.llodern JI igrunl.,.
.,
·fr.·
.-. .
. ,.,
/
One /Juur Farm Sup11urls Tu 1u Fa111 ilfrs.
CI-IARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 109
The predominance of nonfarm employment among gainful
workers ii:i --villages partly explains this difference. Shifts of employment wi th.i.ri. the nonfarm group are usually more easily managed than
are shifts :£:r<>m one farm to another. This obviously does not apply
to farm la. borers to the same extent as to farm operators. Likewise,
in the nori. C arm group it applies more directly to laborers and skilled
workers tha.n it does to many individuals in the professional group.
villages.
Ta&le 4 1 . - - ~ verage Number of Male Gainful Worker.; in Households With Male
Heads, 1935-1936, by Area and Type of Residence Change During the Period of
Survey 1
Area
Total_ __________________________________ _
it{f))liI\\I\\I\):l:
Households
Househo1ds Households Households
with no re~f ~ ma kin~ res!- moving only movin~ rrom
dencechange dencechauge within State other States
1.6
I. 4
1.4
I. 4
1.5
I. 4
I. 7
I. 7
]. 5
1.4
I. 6
I. 6
I. 4
I. 3
I. 5
2.1
2.4
I. 5
I. 5
1. 5
J.\l
1.8
I. 4
1. 4
1.8
I. 7
1.5
1. 4
2. 2
Lil
I. 4
1.3
•January 1
~
.
lll38 in Kent' 1 a-28, to January 1, 1935, In Iowa, Ohio, an<l 8outh Dakota; January 1, 1926, to January 1,
'
U.Ck:y, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota .
. Open cou.ntry households having no gainful worker were more mobile. tha~ such households in villages end than households with workersdm either residence. The lack of a gainful worker through death
or :serti.on made migration from a farm virtually a necessity, whether
~t e honi.e of friends or relatives within the open country area or to
ag~s or towns where employment might be obtained by the mem0
the household who were not previously considered employable.
here ~ay also have been some movement toward villages through
\e :tt.,-adion of relief benefits, which would apply particularly to
0
the
-Useholds without gainful workers. Contrary to the situation in
the fl>e:n country, village households having no gainful worker were
t e keast mobile of any households studied. The absence of gainful
wofd e"l"s undoubtedly reduced the economic resources of the houseb~ s so affected and hindered migration, while the absence of immedi~tely_ elD.ployable workers apparently left nothing to be gained by
~f9:t1on
es far as employment opportunities were concerned. In
~ 1~ 1 ~n, the prospect of meeting residence requirements of relief
llU.n.istrations frequently retarded residence changes.
!;:
OCCUPATIONS OF MALE HEADS OF FAMILIES
The occupation of the head of the family is a significant factor in
detennining the extent of residential movement. The nonfarm group
as a. Whole was considerably more mobile than the farm group, and the
DaltzeobyGoogle
110 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
variations in mobility were greater among the nonfarm than the farm
group. The head of a village family who is working in a factory or
business firm can easily change his location by merely transporting his
furniture and other personal goods to another residence. If a farmer
wishes to change his residence, it almost invariably involves 8 change
of farms under operation. He frequently has also invested a good
deal of labor in the development or repair of ditches, fencing, building,
etc., that will bring no return to him except through long-term operation. The benefits of these and other improvements will be received
by the new operator. Such investments may raise the selling price,
but in recent years it has been difficult for many farm owners to secure
a price at which they were willing to sell. Hence, the greater part of
the residence changes shown to exist in the open country group is
contributed by farm tenants and laborers.
Nearly two-thirds of the heads of families surveyed were classified
as rural-farm and less than one-third as rural-nonfarm; but among the
heads of families who had moved during the period of survey, 53 percent were classed as fa.rm and 30 percent as nonfarm, with 17 percent
either of unknown occupation or not gainfully employed (table 42).
Tal,le 42.-Range of Migration of Male Heads of Families During the Period of Survey,
by Occupation and Employment Status in 1935-1936
Range of migration
Total
Occupetlon
Not
1---r-------...---1 gainfully
Farm
Total:
Number...................................
Percent....................................
Contlnuous residence ...................••••.••.•....
Lived in rounty or survey and In:
No other county .............••......••..•..•....
Adjoining counties only ..•..••.........•........
Other counties In State ......................... .
Adjolnin~ States only ..•.............•...•...•...
Other States .................••.........•........
Other 1••••••••••.•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
em-
Nonrarm Unknown ployed
1
:11, 939
JOO. O
12, 886
100. 0
6,738
100.0
33S
100.0
I, 977
100. 0
08. 8
73.1
66.8
11. I
6. 3
2.8
2.1
1.0
4.6
10.6
6.9
6.0
4, 6
2. 4
3, 7
s.o
o_g
61.1
II. 4
6. 8
- - - - - - ---~---t----
3. 9
3,0
I. 4
6. 7
0.3
17. 7
7.1
5.1
3. 8
~-8
I. 7
3. 6
Include.s I rase with employment status unknown.
• Includes migrants Crom foreign countries and heads ol lamilies established after 1928.
I
Maryland was the single State in which more than one-half of both the
migrant group and the group having continuous residence were classified as nonfarm. At the other extreme was the Iowa sample where the
proportions of farm family heads among those moving into and within
the survey areas were greater than in any of the other sample areas.
Within the farm group the proportion changing residence varied
from 13 percent of the farm owners and managers to 42 percent of the
farm tenants and 44 percent of the farm laborers (table 43). Within
the nonfarm group the range was from 25 percent among proprietors,
managers, and officials to 50 percent among professional persons
(table 44}.
0 g1tized by
Google
CHARAffiRISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 111
The migrants entering the survey areas represented the various
occupational groups in approximately the same proportions as the
nonmigrants. There was a slight tendency toward overrepresentation
of professional persons and underrepresentation of proprietors,
managers, and officials, but the differences were not statistically
significant.
Rans• of Migration
Almost two-fifths of all male heads of farm families who had moved
came from another location within the county of survey. One-fifth
ca.me from adjoining counties, while the proportion coming from the
more remote areas decreased with increasing distance (table 42).
Within the farm group laborers not only moved about most frequently
but also averaged the greatest distances (table 43).
Although rural-nonfarm families were more mobile and had entered
the survey areas from greater distances, on the average, than ruralfarm families, there were some exceptions among the several occupational groups (table 44). Although the county of survey was least
Tobie 43.--Range of Migration of Male Heads of Farm Families During the Period of
Survey, by Tenure in 1935-1936
Range of migration
Total
Owners
and
Tenants Laboren
managers
Total:
Number______________________________________________
12,886
11,814
11,~1
1131
J>ercent __ -- ___ -- _---- -- -------------------------- -- -100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
---1,----1---lf---Contfnuous resldence_ ______ ____ _____________ ________ _______ __ _
73. 1
86. 7
68. 0
lie. 1
Lived In county ofsmvey and In:
Noothercounty ___ --------------------------------------11.1
o.a
18.8
12.4
Adjoining counties only _______________ ---------------______
6. 3
2. 7
8.1
D. o
Other counties In State _________ ----________________________
2. 8
L ti
4. O
a. 2
t~~Ji!.tatesonly______________________________________
~~
U
Other'----------------------------------------------------1
4. ti
1. 7
}~
~=
7. 6
10. 1
Includes migrants from foreign countries and heads of families eetabllsbed after 1928.
Tobie <U.--Range of Migration of Male Heads of Nonfarm Families During the Period
of Survey, by Occupation in 1935-1936
Range of migration
Total:
Number_. ___________
Percent ___ .---------Continuous residence __________
Lived In county of IUl'Vey and
In:
No other county ___________
A~lnlng counties only--··
0
counties In State. __ -A~lnlng States only ______
0
r States.------------·Other'--------·-·--··-----1 lncludea
Total
Clerks
Profee- Proprietors,
managers,
and
slonal
and
kindred
penoDI
workers
officials
workers
Semistllled
workers
Skilled
tin-
stllled
worken
Ii, 788
100.0
448
100.0
l,Mtl
100.0
100.0
749
100.0
1,127
100.0
fact~
116.8
49. 7
74.6
MIi
64.8
64.1
(12.11
10. ti
6.9
6.0
4.tl
2.4
3. 7
tl.3
7.2
17. 2
7.4
7.2
1.0
7.4
II.II
6. (I
6. 6
13. ti
11.3
10.8
4.S
4. 2
Ltl
8.1
14.4
4. 6
3. 7
1. (I
8. 0
6. 2
"IOII
11.2
1.8
a. 6
ti.ti
4.11
4.1
8.1
2.11
11.1
11.1
4.1
2. 7
a. 3
ml8rants from fonip countries and beads of famllles establlsbed after 1928.
og11,edbyGoogle
112 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
important as a source of migrants for the professional group, it was the
most important source for all other nonfarm groups. Professional
workers were drawn from widely scattered localities and from considerable distances as a result of the need of a wider area for recruiting
workers with special skills and training.
The movement within the county of survey was proportionately
greatest among skilled and unskilled laborers. In the movement from
adjoining counties semiskilled workers reported the largest proportion.
Professional persons had the largest proportions from other counties
in the State of survey and from more distant regions.
The proportion of farm to nonfarm migrants varied sharply when
considered separately for each county, suggesting the need for further
studies of internal population movements in rural areas with emphasis
upon homogeneous groupings. There is need also for rating migration
among areas on the basis of special factors, such as accessibility, employment, farm lands available, and living costs in proportion to income. The distance of migration is related to the knowledge of the
migrant concerning other regions. The cost and difficulty of travel
are becoming less dominant in affecting migration, while the other
factors mentioned are increasing in importance. The analysis of
population movements cannot be confined to the truism that a
migrant is more apt to travel 10 miles than 1,000. The greatest
possible distance he can migrate will be limited somewhere by physical, economic, and even social barriers. Within these limitations he
can make his choice, and for different occupational groups the range
within which he can choose varies widely. Needless to say, many of
those who desire new locations could be greatly benefited by proper
advice and financial aid, especially among those moving during
periods of severe depression or moving from areas of intense distress.
Occupational Changes
One of the important occupational shifts in recent years has been
the change from nonagricultural to agricultural occupations with or
without a change of residence. The field surveys conducted in the
Appalachian Mountains show this movement clearly, for one of the
criteria used in selecting the sample counties in that area was a
relatively large increase in the farm population between 1930 and 1935.
In the Kentucky and North Carolina counties surveyed, approximately one-fourth of the farm operators had begun farming since
January 1, 1930 (table 45). In Garrett County in western Maryland
one-sixth of those who were operating farms at the time of the survey
had begun farming in recent years.
These figures are particularly significant because only a small
proportion of the new farm operators were young persons without
previous occupational experience, i.e., individuals who were beginning
Oigtized by
Google
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 11 3
their occupational careers. Between one-half and three-fourths of
the new farm operators reported that their last previous occupation
was at unskilled labor, including farm labor. In Avery and Haywood
Counties, N. C., farm laborers accounted for two-fifths and t,vo-thirds,
respectively, of the new farm operators. In Morgan and Magoffin
Counties, Ky., where coal mining is an important industry, farm
laborers and coal miners each contributed approximately one-third of
the new farm operators.
Ta&le 45.-Male Heads of Families in 5 Appalachian Counties Engaged in Agriculture,
1936, by Time of Beginning Farm Operations
Percent of farm operators who
began farmingCounty
Before
January 1,
1930
Garrett, Md _____ . _________ .. _______________ ._. _________________________ _
Magoffin, Ky _______________________________________________________ . __ ._
Morgan, Ky ______ . __________________ -------------· __ ·----·-_ .•• ···-·_ - __
Avery, N. C-----------··-----··--------------------·-···----·-·-·------·
Haywood, N. C. -------··-··------··---------·--------··--·---·--···---·
January 1,
1930, or later
84
75
71
75
78
16
25
29
25
22
Next to unskilled laborers semiskilled and skilled workers were most
important among the individuals who began to farm after January 1,
1930. The other occupational classifications, including professional
persons, were also represented but in considerably smaller numbers.
In these counties in the Appalachian Mountains occupational shifts
from agriculture to other occupations were relatively infrequent. 6
Although only seven-tenths of the persons in Morgan County, Ky.,
who were operating farms in 1936 had been operating farms in 1929,
92 percent of the persons who were operating farms in 1929 and were
in the survey areas in 1936 were still on farms at the later date. The
newcomers to farming in most cases were net additions to the number
of farm operators, and few of them replaced persons who had left
farming.
The new farmers appeared to find it easier to begin as tenants than
as owners, as many of them undoubtedly lacked even the small
amount of capital necessary to establish themselves as owners. 6 In
Morgan County, Ky., where the average farm contained only 65
acres in 1935, the number of new farmers was about equally divided
' Obviously this is related to the fact that the surveys were made in rural areas.
• The tenure status is given as of the time of survey and therefore the persons
who are given as having begun farming as owners may actually have started as
tenants and vice versa. Undoubtedly there were a few shifts in tenure status
between the time when the individual shifted his occupation and the time of the
survey. In the case of the data for Morgan County this probably would tend
to increase the proportion that had begun farming since 1930 as tenants.
nigtized by
Google
114 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
between owners and tenants. Yet in 1935 only one-third of the
farms in the county were operated by tenants, and in 1930 the proportion had been somewhat lower. Unskilled workers who changed
their occupation to farming were more likely to begin as tenants,
while semiskilled workers were more likely to begin as owners.
In addition to the occupational shifts which occurred, there were
also some variations in the maintenance of tenure status by farm
operators. Nine out of every ten persons who were farm owners in
1929, and for whom a report was secured in the field surveys, were still
fa.rm owners at the later date. The stability was greatest in the
Appalachian Mountain counties, Avery and Magoffin, where 98
percent of the owners in 1929 reported fa.rm ownership in 1936. The
lowest rate of stability among owners was reported from Union County
in south central Iowa, one of the less prosperous counties of that
State. There, only 80 percent of the fa.rm owners in 1929 were still
owners in 1935.
Farm tenants maintained their tenure status to a less extent than
did farm owners. Only 8 out of every 10 persons who were farm
tenants in 1929 and still living in the sample areas at the time of the
surveys were still tenants in 1935-1936. Custer County, S. Dak., with
56 percent represented the least and Somerset County on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland with 93 percent represented the greatest persistence
of tenure status reported.
The variations in the percentages reporting the same tenure status
at the earlier and the later dates were due primarily to differences in
the proportions that changed from farming to other occupations.
Without exception every sample area reported that a larger proportion
of tenants than of owners left farming for a nonfarm occupation.
Five percent of the persons who were farm owners in 1929 and were
still living in the survey area in 1935 had given up the operation of
their farms, but more than twice as many tenants (12 percent) had
gone into nonagricultural activities. This result is in accord with
the observation that ownership of real estate imposes limitations
upon the geographical and occupational mobility of the individual.
Among the farm operators who did not maintain their tenure status,
some tenants succeeded in achieving the generally desired status of
owner and at the so.me time some owners lost their ownership status
and continued farming as tenants, often on the same farm. The
relative shifting between the two tenure groups varied widely among
the sample areas. Approximately 5 percent of the fa.rm operators
in the sample areas who had been owners in 1929 were tenants in
1935-1936, and this was matched by a similar proportion of the
tenants achieving ownership status during the period. Every county
except Somerset County, Md., where tenancy amounted to only
21 percent in 1935, reported some movement from tenancy to owner-
0 g1tized by
Google
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 115
ship. On the other hand, Magoffin County, Ky., where less than
one-third of the farm opera.tors in 1935 were tenants, stood alone in
reporting no shifting from farm ownership to tenancy.
The frequency with which shifts in tenure status occurred and the
direction which they took were dependent apparently upon conditions peculiar to each of the sample areas. In the Appalachian Mountain counties, where farm ownership does not ordinarily imply a large
capital investment, there was uniformly more shifting from tenancy
to ownership than vice versa. In Iowa, however, where farm ownership requires a much larger capital investment and where farming is
predominantly commercial and more susceptible to the effects of a
business depression, the changes in tenure status were more frequently
shifts from ownership to tenancy than vice versa. In Black He.wk
County, Iowa., which normally is ranked as one of the more prosperous counties in that State, one-seventh of the persons who had been
farm owners in 1929 and were still in the county at the time of survey
had become tenants, and one-tenth of the former tenants had become
owners.
TolJle 46.-Shifts to and From Agriculture of Male Heads of Families
1929, to 1935-1936, by Area
&real
I
From January 1,
Percent of
farm operators
In l!IM-1936 I
who were not
operating farms
on 1anuary 1,
Percent of
farm operatora
OD January 1,
1929, who were
not operating
farms In 193&-
1929
19361
TotaJ ______ --------------- ----------- ------ ------------------- -- --14
8
Iowa __ __________ -------·-- _____________________________________________ _l===-==1=~--=-17
6
23
~~~k _______________________________________________________ _
O'Brien
______________ -- -. -_-_-- -- - ---- --- -- - -- ---- - -- -- -- -- - --- --- --_
Union ______________________________________________________________
Kentucky _________________________________ .. __ . ________________________ _
Magoffin ___________________________________________________________ _
Morgan __ . __________ -- -- -- _______ -_---- - --- -- -- --- --- -- -- --- --- -- ---
16
12
20
29
21
M~~tt::: :::::::: :: :::: ::::: :: :::::::::: :: :::::::::: :::::: :: ::: :::::
Somerset.
--- --- ---------------------_
North
Carolina___
___----------------------------. _____________________________________________________
A.very __________
------- ___________ ----------- -- ------- --- ----- - - - -- - _
.
Haywood
___________________________________________________________
North Dakota•- ________ . ________________________________ --- ------ _____ _
South
Dakota
__________________________________________________________ __
_____________________________________________________________
Cnater
Edmunds
_______________________________
----------------------- - ----_
Haakon ____________________________________________________________
Kingsbury ___________________________ ... ___________________________ _
Turner _____________________________________________________________ _
4
8
7
7
34
8
14
17
8
24
2e
21
11
12
1e
14
12
12
7
7
7
g
1 Based only on penona residing In the survey area when schedules were taken.
bad left the 111rver, area since January 1, 1929, are not Included.
g
a
e
3
g
6
8
17
8
6
9
7
Data for perao115 who
• For complete I st or areas surveyed, see appendix B.
• January 1, 11136, In Iowa and South Dakota; January 1, lll3tl, In Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina,
and North Dakota.
• 1.2 towusbipe.
At the same time that some persons were taking up farming or
were shifting their tenure status, some were leaving farming to enter
other occupations and others were retiring. In the predominantly
rural and agricultural areas in which the field surveys were made, a
change from farming to a nonfarming occupation often involved a
D g1, zed oy
Google
116 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
movement out of the area, and hence the family head involved
might not have been in the sample areas at the time of the surveys.
Among the persons remaining in the sample areas who had been
operating farms in 1929, 8 percent were no longer farming 6 or 7
years later (table 46).
RELIEF STATUS
The relationship between relief status 7 and mobility fluctuated
from area to area, although on the average families on relief had
moved more frequently than those not on relief. The mobility of
farm families on relief was greater than that of nonrelief farm families, while the reverse was true for nonfarm families.
The migrations of nonrelief families were more likely to be for
longer distances with the migrations of families on relief more frequently confined to the immediate vicinity of the survey areas. In
both the relief and the nonrelief families the mobility and range of
migration tended to decrease progressively from the younger to the
older age groups (tables 47 and 48).
What the basis of the relationship between relief and mobility may
be is not clearly revealed by the current figures. It may be that the
instability revealed by the relief households is itself an indication of
the need for relief. These figures do not distinguish the migrations
before receiving relief from those which took place after the relief
status was attained. Both the relief status and the greater mobility
may be simply two different manifestations of the same basic condition, lack of economic security.
The changes from one type of area to another between 1929 and
1935-1936 were more varied among the nonrelief than the relief
families, although for both types of families the most frequent movement was from one open country area to another (table 49). Among
the relief families more than one-half of the changes of residence were
confined to open country areas, while this was true of less than threetenths of the nonrelief families. Next in numerical importance among
relief families were movements from the open country to villages and
among nonrelief families, movements from one village to another.
7 All families included in the surveys which had received any public relief at
any time between January 1, 1933, and the period of survey were included in the
group defined as having a relief status. For purposes of the surveys, a relief
family was defined as one which had received aid from public funds--Federal,
State, or local. Both work and direct relief were included. Advances of money,
materials, real estate, or chatt-cls in connection with the rural rehabilitation
program were not considered as relief, although work relief in order to work out
rehabilitation advances was so considered. Employment on Public Works Administration projects was considered as employment, not relief, except where
relief labor was used. The length of time during which such relief was received
was not taken into account. For children the classification as relief or nonrelief was based upon the relief status of the parental household.
DgitzedbyGoogre
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS IN SELECTED AREAS • 117
Tobie 47.-Age of Male Heads of Relief Families, 1935-1936, by Range of Migration
During the Period of Survey
Total
Age
Total•---------Under 35 years ________
3.5-44 years _________ . __
4&-M years .. __________
55-64 years ____________
65 years and over _____
Unknown _____________
Lived in county or survey and-
Continuous
reslNum- Percent dence
her
•.\djolnOther
AdjoinNo
other ingcoun- counties ing States Other
States
county ties only in State
only
Other•
- - - - .__._
-
7,400
1,979
1,951
1,776
1,144
636
5
100.0
86.0
14. 8
6.5
3. 7
3.1
1. 3
4.6
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
46. 9
113.9
74.0
80.1
84.9
18.9
17. 3
12. 6
9. 5
9.8
9.8
7. 6
6.0
4.1
1. 7
4. 7
3. 7
3.S
2. 7
1. ft
3. 6
4.0
2.8
2. 3
1. 3
1. 3
I. 4
I. 3
1.0
0.6
14. 8
2.1
0.6
0.3
0.1
---------
t
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
tPercent not computed on a base or fewer than liO cases.
• Includes migrants from foreign countries and heads of families established after 11128.
• Exclusive of data for Ohio.
TaUe 48.-Age of Male Heads of Nonrelief Families, 1935-1936, by Range of
Migration During the Period of Survey
Lived in county of survey and-
Total
Age
Contlnuous
reslNum- Percent dence
her
-
Total•---------- 11,019
Coder 35 years ________ 2,328
a&-44 years ____________
2,727
4&-M years ____________ 2,624
M-64 years ____________ I, 963
65 years and over _____
1,383
Unknown _____________
4
-100.0
72.1
-100.0
- -48.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
t
69. 7
78. 7
83. 7
87. 2
t
AdjoinOther
AdjoinNo
other Ing conn- counties ingStates Other
States
county ties only In State
only
--
9. 5
5.1
3.9
3.0
1. 7
13.4
11.0
8. 2
6.8
6.6
8.2
6.0
4.2
3. 7
2.2
7.0
4.3
3.6
2.3
1. 2
4. 8
3.0
1.8
I. 4
0.8
O.ft
-
t
Other•
-
4.2
2.1
1. 5
1. 3
-
-
4. 7
- 15.0
3.0
1.8
1. 2
0.9
-
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than liO cases.
• Includes migrants from foreign countries and heads of families established after 1928.
• Exclusive of data for Ohio.
Among the relief families the shifts from city to village e.nd among
nonrelief families the shifts from city to the open country were least
important. The relative infrequency of movement from urban areas
to the rural areas included in this survey suggests that, as far as
these areas are concerned, the back-to-the-land movement during
the depression years was a relatively unimportant factor.
The presence of dependents under 16 or over 64 years of age apparently was associated with decreased mobility and a reduced range
of migration among the nonrelief households but seemed not to have
retarded the rate of mobility of relief households. In the latter case
the presence of dependents no doubt increased the need for adjustments through migration. For both relief and nonrelief households
the range of migration was greater among the households having no
dependents.
The relationships between frequency of change in occupation and
frequency of change in residence appear to have been affected but little
Digt1zed by
Google
118 •
RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
To&le 4P.-Male Heads of Families Reporting a Change in Residence During the Period
of Survey, 1 by Type of Change and Relief Status
Relief statllll
Type of residence change
Total
Relief
Nonrellef
Total:
:-um her _______ .. _________________________________ ..
Percent ________________ --------· __________________ _
2.189
100.0
1,050
100.0
1, 1311
100.0
Open oountry to vfllage ____________ ·---··--------------------Village to open oountry ·--------·---·------------------------City to village._.·- .... ··--·----------·······-·--·--·--·---··.
City to open country .... -. ·--------·--·---·········--··-····
Open country to open countrY----········· ... ············-···
Village to vlllage .. --·-·················-········•·············
Other •-·. ----·-·-·-·· ............. ·-· •.•.....................
16. 7
10. 0
6. 8
5. 7
39.ft
10.8
IO. 4
17. 6
9. 7
2. 5
4. 3
51.1
4. 2
JO.ft
15.8
10. 4
10. 7
7. 0
29.0
16. 8
10. 3
1 January!, IIY.?8, to January 1, 1935, In South Dakota; January I, 1926, to January 1, 1936, In Kentucky
North Carolina, and North Dakota.
• Includes those moving more than once, migrants from foreign oountries, and unknowns,
by relief status (table 50). Moreover, the proportions of any one
occupatione.l group which reported continuous residence appeared to
differ only slightlv between the relief and nonrelief groups. The
small differences that were found were overshadowed by the differences
among the severe.I occupational groups. Since certain occupational
groups are economicallv more vulnerable than others, and therefore
persons in these occupational groups are more likely to need public
assistance, this result would be expected.
To&le 50.-Number of Changes in Residence and Occupation of Male Heads of Familie-.
During the Period of Survey, 1 by Relief Status
Relief
Number of changes
Changes In
residence
Nonrellef
Changes In
occupation
Changes In
residence
Changes In
oooupaUon
Total: I
Number.----··-···-------·--·-·-····
Percent_----·.·-------·····-··--···-·
7,449
100. 0
7,449
100. O
12,322
100.0
12,322
100.0
None ••••.•• _____ .•.. _.•.•.•.•.••••••••••••••.•
I. ... -- ------- --·. -- .... - . -- ...... -............ -
69. 5
63. 7
25. I
7.1
2.2
0.9
0. 4
0.2
0. 4
75. 2
18. 3
4. 5
I. 3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
71. 3
21. 6
4. 6
I. 5
0.5
0.2
0. 1
0. 2
2 .• -----. -·· ·-··· .. - - ..•••..... - ..••••••• ······-
20. 5
6. 7
3•••••••. ·····-·····-·-····················-····
4. ......... -...... - -- .. --- ... - ....... -....... - ..
6••••••••••••• - • - •••••• - • -- --- •••••••••••• -- -- - ft •••••• - . --- ..•. -- - --- - . --- - •.•••. - . - .•.• -- ... - 7. ------- - --- -- . --· •••••••••••• --- ••••• -- - - .•...
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.0
• January I, 1928, to January!, 1935, In Iowa, Ohio, and South Dakota; Januaey 1, 11126, to January I, 1936,
ID Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
I Excludes heads of families established after 1928.
Dig,tized by
Google
Chapter VII
THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL
MIGRATION
M1GRA TION AS a social process is stimulated by the operation of
numerous economic, psychological, and sociological factors and may
in turn serve as a stimulus which sets in motion other important
processes. At certain times and in certain places population movements constitute a social problem. They may also aggravate existing
social problems or give rise to social problems which have been
nonexistent hitherto. Furthermore, the occurrence of population
movements may serve in some cases as an index of other processes.
Thus, the constant interchange of rural-urban population is coming to
be regarded as a crude index of comparative rural-urban prosperity.
EFFECTS OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION UPON RURAL LIFE
The effects of net migration from country to city have generally
been regarded as beneficial to both. For the country it has meant a
slower actual increase in population, which has postponed the day of
extreme overcrowding in agriculture. Although in some sections the
volume of emigration has been insufficient to prevent overpopulation,
the situation might have been far worse had no migration occurred.
In many areas already overpopulated, migration has been more
extensive than the natural increase, thereby reducing the total number
of persons. But while migration may be regarded as a factor of relief
for the poorer areas, it has served in the better farming areas to enable
the farm population further to improve their status. Whether mechanization of agricultural processes precedes or follows the emigration
of fa.rm population, the fact is that by means of these two developments the farm population of the superior areas has been able to
increase its income per gainful worker and hence to raise the plane of
living.
119
D g1;zed by
Goog Ie
120 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
The effects of rural-urban migration upon the age and sex composition of the rural population are well known. Since the migrants
from the country are not dnnvn proportionnlly by sex and from the
various age groups, their loss tends to upset the balance of the population that remains. The surplus of males in the form population and the
general scarcity of young adults between the ages of 15 and 35 years
are effects accruing from migration. A further effect of this situation
is the surplus of dependents (children and aged persons) relative to
the number of gainful workers.
Whether the net effect of rural-urban migrations has been a lowering
of the quality of the residual rurnl population remains a moot question.
The selection of persons who migrate is determined by an indefinitely
large number of factors operating in varying proportions in different
localities and among the various social groups within the same locality. 1
The situation seems to have been fairly stated by a recent writer who
said, "As for selective migration, it seems * * * that the use of
such a blanket term to cover migration everywhere and at all times
is entirely unwarranted. * * * The problem of selection undoubtedly varies with different communities; factors which operate in one
region or in one race may he entirely absent in another; there is no
formula which applies to them all." 2
Rural-urban migration depletes the wealth of the rural communities
from which the migrants come. This depletion occurs in several
ways. In the first place, the rural population produces and rears children to adult age only to have them migrate to urban communities.
The cost of bearing and rearing these children reaches a considerable
amount, however estimated. Even though the food costs on the farm
are low, the cost of clothing, schooling, and medical care for the first
15 to 20 years of life cannot be ignored. An average of $150 per year
per child has been suggested, making each rural migrant represent an
investment of between $2,000 and $3,000. This is possibly above the
money cost, but even at the rate of $100 per year per child the loss to
the farm population between 1920 and 1930 as a result of this gift to
Americ11n cities amounted to more than 9 billion dollars, or about $150
per farm annually.
The cost of rearing children for the cities does not represent the
only financinl loss to the former that mny be attributed to migration.
In a social system, such as ours, in which the parental property
descends to the children in equal proportions, the only way in which all
of the wealth of one generation can remain in the rural districts is for all
of the descendants of that generation to remain there also. However,
one of the heirs has customarily purchased the rights of the others and
1 This probably accounts in part for the varying results obtained in different.
localities by different investigators of this subject.
2 Klincbcrg, Otto, Negro Intelligence and Selective ltfigration, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1935, pp. 61-62.
og11,edbyGoogle
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION • 121
in so doing some of the wealth produced annually by a large number of
American farmers has migrated to cities to satisfy the claims of ruralurban migrants.
It must not be supposed though that the movement of wealth
incident to migration is entirely in one direction. Some migrants,
after a sojourn in the city, return to the country with some accumulation of wealth which they invest in farming. Others, failing to return
to the country, nevertheless assist in supporting the home farm during
periods of distress. On the whole, however, past trends suggest that
the major current has been from country to city rather than in the
reverse direction.
The effect of rural-urban migration upon rural organizations and
institutions is not thoroughly understood. Obviously, the effects are
greatest where rural depopu1ation is most severe and where it occurs
most rapidly. Rural institutions, like all institutions, are not sufficiently flexible to adjust readily to rapid population movements.
Where heavy depopulation occurs, institutions are disrupted, services
must be discontinued for lack of support, and taxes become intolerable.
Such maladjustments are inevitable, however, until a greater degree of
stabilization of the rural population occurs.
EFFECTS OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION UPON CITIES
The most obvious effect of rural-urban migration upon cities has
been the contribution to urban growth. The urban population structure has been built largely with rural materials drawn either from at
home or from abroad. Furthermore, it may be that the urban birth
rate has been bolstered by this heavy migration from the rural districts.
While available data do not permit any generalization regarding the
birth rate of rural migrants 3 living in cities, it seems probable that for
some groups at least it is higher than that of the native urban population.
That the future growth of cities is dependent largely upon the
volume of rural-urban migration can hardly be doubted. Even in
1930 only 3 cities of 100,000 inhabitants or more were producing
enough children permanently to reproduce the population. In two
others the number of deaths among whites already exceeded the
number of births in certain years. 4 As a class cities of 10,000 inhabitants or more were failing permanently to reproduce their population.
Since 1930 the birth rate has declined still further. If urban growth
depended entirely upon natural increase, it would shortly cease. It
is estimated that without the aid of migration the urban population
1 See Woofter, T. J., Jr., "The Natural Increase of the Rural Non-Farm Population,'' The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 1935, pp. 311319.
4 National Resources Committee, Population Statistics, S. Urban Data, Washington, D. C., October 1937, pp. 3 and 25.
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
122 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STA TES
in 1960 would be about the same size as in 1930.6 It seems clear,
therefore, that the future expansion of cities must be based largely
upon the extent of rural-urban migration.
A second effect of rural migration has been its influence upon the
sex and age composition of the urban population. Since females
leave the country in larger proportion than males, they tend to
predominate in the cities. This is particularly true of those cities in
which the surplus of women in the rural-urban migration is not offset
by a surplus of men through foreign immigration and in which the
clerical occupations and lighter industries predominate. In cities
devoted chiefly to the heavy industries a surplus of men tends to
persist.
With respect to age composition the urban population exhibits a
surplus of persons in the economica.lly productive ages. The proportion of persons aged 2Q-49 years in the urban population in 1930
was equal to 48 percent. In the farm popuJation it was only 36
percent. Moreover, the ratio of dependents to gainful workers is
relatively low in urban areas. Because of migration the cities have
been at no expense for rearing or educating a large proportion of their
man power,0 and often the supply is such that many workers may be
employed at near subsistence wages. This abundance of man power
has contributed to an elaboration of a.11 occupations and to an unprecedented development of service occupations.
Probably a third effect of rural migration upon the city has been
the maintenance of a degree of continuity between country and city.
With such a high percentage of the urban population originating on
the farms and in the villages, the degree of understanding of rural
life and its problems that occurs is bound to be greater than would
be the case if all of the urban population originated in the city. In
addition, the large number of temporary migrants from city to
country annually and the number of urban dwellers with previous
farm experience who purchase farms are evidence that rural life is
highly valued by a large proportion of the urban population.
MOBILITY WITHIN AGRICULTURE
Much of the difference of opinion regarding the desirability of
population movements within the field of agriculture itseli could be
resolved if the volume and types of mobility essential for the promotion of the normal economic and social processes of agriculture
and rural life could be ascertained. The social significance of population mobility within agriculture attaches chiefly to three types of
movement: (1) parent-child succession in the occupation; (2) move6 National Resources Committee, The Problem, af a Cha.n,ifl{I Populanon,
Washington, D. C., May 1938, p. 112.
e This situation is changing in those States where education ia now largely supported by Stllte funds, thereby reducing the proportion of local rural support. .
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION •
123
ment of families from farm to farm; and (3) movement of farm
operators and their families up and down the socio-economic scale.
One of the most common types of population mobility in agriculture
is associated with the fact that agriculture is chiefly an individual or
family occupation. A certain proportion of all farm-reared youth
becomes established upon the parental farm and incurs no mobility
except that of change of occupational status. Those who do not
begin operations on the pa.rental farm do not migrate far as a. rule
from the parental home. This tendency is significant in view of the
marked differentials in the rate of natural increase of the farm population in various sections of the United States. Children reared in
poor agricultural areas are not likely to leave merely because their
economic a.nd social status is low. It is only when supposedly attractive opportunities elsewhere are brought to their attention and
it is not too difficult to take advantage of these opportunities that a.
general exodus from poor areas may begin.
A second type of mobility within agriculture that to some degree
may be regarded as normal is that of the movement offarm operators
from farm to farm. In an agricultural system in which owned farms
are held in fee simple absolute and in which there is a tradition favorable to the buying and selling of farm land, considerable movement
of owners from farm to farm is to be expected. If in addition the
tradition is one of exploitation, one may be fairly certain that the
movement incident to the change of owners from farm to farm will be
greater than is desirable for conservation purposes and that it will
continue until the tradition has been definitely modified. Furthermore, in a system in which some farms are operated by tenants, some
shifting of tenants from farm to farm is necessary to promote and
maintain satisfactory landlord-tenant relations. Yet it seems clear
that when a considerable percentage of tenants moves every year to
a different farm, the volume of movement is more than is necessary
to promote desirable landlord-tenant relations. Also, it may aggravate the serious problem of soil conservation.
A third type of mobility occurring in the farm population is that
of tenure changes. Traditionally, our society is one of free and open
classes. To keep these classes open and not only to permit but also
to facilitate movement from one to another has been considered a.
necessary aim of democracy. The classes based upon occupation a.re
generally designated as farm owners, tenants, croppers, and laborers.
The normal vertical movement of workers up and down among these
classes has been styled movement up and down the "agricultura.l
ladder."
In years past the agricultural ladder has served as a road to farm
ownership for many operators. Numerous investigations have showed
that a considerable percentage of farm owners climbed from farm-
Dgr
zedbyGooglc
124 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
reared boy to farm owner-operator via the hired-man and tenant
stages. It is true that not all such owners stepped upon all the rounds
going up; still, the utility of the "ladder" seemed apparent. But with
the passing of time, it has gradually become more difficult to make the
climb to the ultimate round of unencumbered ownership by means of
agriculture alone. More and more farm ownership has passed into
the hands of institutional agencies, such as banks and insurance companies, or into the hands of farm-reared persons who have risen by
means of nonagricultural occupations to a financial competence
sufficient to permit them to own farm land. The percentage of
tenancy has grown steadily and with it the average age of tenants. 7
Not only does a smaller proportion climb beyond the round of tenancy,
but it requires an increasing percentage of the working lifetime to
accomplish the ascent. More and more farm owners tend to be the
children of farm owners, while the children of tenants become tenants
or drift into nonagricultural occupations as laborers.• During periods
of economic distress the agricultural ladder may be used almost as
much for descent as for ascent. 0 It is under such circumstances that
farm tenants and croppers, struggling to improve their economic and
social positions, fall victims to excessive mobility. Many eventually
become habituated to frequent moves from farm to farm. 10 In this
manner, shifting about at the same occupational level becomes a substitute for movement up the agricultural ladder. The effects upon
the soil are devastating in the long run, while the effects upon the
families of these chronic movers are undesirable. They become
habituated to movement, to a low plane of living, and to a family life
which is poorly adjusted to the community of residence. When the
children become adults, they are ill-equipped to assume the responsibilities of citizenship.
With the disappearance of free or cheap land and the growth of
urban unemployment, the potential farm laborer often has little
choice but to accept whatever the agricultural industry has to offer
him. The continued progress of farm mechanization tends to reduce
his opportunities. Fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops still
offer considerable opportunity to the farm laborer, but the demand
7 Turner, H. A., A <kaphic Summary of Farm Tenure, Miscellaneous Publication
No. 261, U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., December 1936,
pp. 44-45.
1 Beck, P. G. and Lively, C. E., Movement of Open Country Population in Ohio,
11. The Individual A8ped, Bulletin 489, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station,
Wooster, Ohio, September 1931, pp. 13 and 46; and Hamilton, C. Horace, Recent
Changu in the Social and Economic Statua of Farm Familiu in North Carolina,
Bulletin No. 309, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, N. C.,
May 1937, pp. 74--77.
0 Hamilton, C. Horace, ibid., p. 88.
10 Vance, Rupert B., Human Factors in Cotton Culture, Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1929, pp. 134--135 and 308.
D1g11zedbyGoogle
. -.
.. .
-.
s;.~::
.-~- ~. --.
., ' ,•f!~ . . ..
..~~1~'.
- : ,·:. •' ,,,:. ·,~.-..,r--JII!..~
•
~
••.
a> ........
.
/
.
I
\'.
,,.
,
M ,grants.
.
t it/any
~
Seasonal Lab or Altra cs
Dig tized by
Goog Ie
~
Digt1zed by
Google
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION • 125
is highly seasonal and spotted in location. Hence, his earnings are
low, his mode of living poor, his position in the community precarious, and much energy and time are spent in moving about from one
area of employment to another. To even a greater degree than the
farm tenant, the seasonal and casual farm laborer lacks community
status and responsibilities. 11
Although some movement of population within the occupation of
agriculture must be regarded as normal and necessary as a means
of making occupational adjustments and readjustments, the rate of
occupational turnover is relatively low. To farm successfully requires
highly specialized knowledge and the farm operator is usually trained
by the apprenticeship method. The farm-reared child not only grows
into the occupation but also lives among farmers occupationally segregated to a marked degree and is familiar with other occupations
to a very limited extent. In addition to that he sometimes receives a
considerable amount of formal agricultural training of a technical
nature. Thus, his knowledge of the occupation represents ~ educational investment.
It follows that the supply of farmers is determined primarily by
the number of farm-reared youth who select fanning as a life work.
But whatever the situation with respect to occupational selection
among farm-reared youth, it is clear that in the past unguided migration has not been sufficiently effective to remove from the farms the
surplus youth not needed in the fanning industry. 12 Moreover, it is
in the poorer agricultural areas where farming is already overcrowded that redundant population has been most pronounced.
While the pull of apparent opportunity elsewhere is a powerful stimulus to migration, the reluctance of country people to migrate is such
that a social policy which is calculated to adjust population to resources
more effectively in overcrowded rural areas must.rely upon some other
means than the uncertain pull of dista.nt cities.
MIGRATION AND AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITY
Viewing the farm population solely from the point of view of the
number of workers necessary for commercial agricultural production,
11 See, for example, Webb, John N., The Migratory-Ccuual Worker, Research
Monograph VII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1937; Landis, Paul H ., Rural Immigrant., to Washington
State, 1982-1958, Rural Sociology Series in Population, No. 2, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman, Wash., July 1936; and Taylor, Paul S.
and Vasey, Tom, "Contemporary Background of California Farm Labor," Rural
Sociology, Vol. I, 1936, pp. 401-419.
12 See Woofter, T. J., Jr., "Replacement Rates in the Productive Ages," The
Milbank Memorial Fund Quarurly, Vol. XV, No. 4, 1937, pp. 348--354; and
Lively, C. E., Replace11Ulnt Requiremenu of Gainful Workera in Agriculture in
Ohio, 1980--1940, Mimeograph Bulletin No. 109, Ohio State University and Ohio
Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbus, Ohio, June 1938.
D1gt1zedb,Googlc
126 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
there are undoubtedly too many people living on farms. Since the
World War the market for e.gricul tural products a broad has been greatly
curtailed, and since 1929 the limited purchasing power of the nonfarm
population has reduced its effective demand for food and fiber.
Although a considerable proportion of the nonagricultural population
is underfed from a nutritional standpoint, to make the diet adequate
would require either sharp reductions in the cost of food or sharp increases in the incomes of the people. 13 The outlook suggests, therefore, that if agricultural production is balanced with the pi:esent demand, there will be no sharp increase in commercial production within
the immediate future.
The amount of cropland required to meet the probable demand for
agricultural products in 1940 has been estimated at approximately
350 million acres. Allowing another 50 million acres of land for crop
failure and land lying fallow and 460 million acres for pasture lands,
a total of 860 million acres of farm land is indicated for production in
1940. This amounts to 87 percent of all land in farms and 154 percent
of the ar~ble land of the United States, whether included in farms or
not. According to these estimates 1' and in view of the trends toward
a stationary population and more intensive cultivation, there is an
adequate amount of farm land to meet the requirements for agricultural production for some time to come.
But although there is a sufficient supply of farm land in the United
States for productive purposes, the quality of that land varies greatly
from place to place. Recently all arable land has been classified into
four grades as follows: 16
MIUlon aae,
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
1
2
3
4
(Excellent) _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
(Good)_____________________________________
(Fair)______________________________________
(Poor) _________ -------________ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ __
TotaL _____________________ ----------------
IO 1
211
346
363
1,021
Rough estimates indicate that about 90 percent of all arable land
classified as "Excellent" is located in the Corn Belt, while about 75
percent of the 312 million acres classified as "Excellent" or "Good" is
to be found in the Corn Belt, on its margin, and in Oklahoma and
Texas.
It is recognized that because of its peculiar properties and because
of geographical position and climatic factors, much of the poorer land
11
National Resources Committee, The Proble1Tl8 of a Changing Population, op.
cit., pp. 114-115.
\ 4 National Resources Board, A Report on National Planning and Public Worka
in Relation to National Resourcu and Including Land U3e and Water Resources with
Findings and Recommendations, Part II, Report of the Land Planning Committee,
Washington, D. C., 1934, pp. 126-127.
11 Ibid., p. 127.
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION • 127
is almost indispensable for productive purposes and should be improved
as much as possible. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that
as a long-time policy of conservation of agricultural resources, it is
desirable to utilize land resources after the manner to which they are
best adapted. Such a policy would result in a greater concentration
of crop production upon the best agricultural land.
At present the fa.rm population is not distributed in a manner determined only by productivity of the land resourees. Estimates indicate that in 1930 at least two-thirds of the farm population was upon
"Fair" or "Poor" fa.rm land. Even when allowance for differences
in type of farming is ma.de, the variation in ratio of fa.rm population
to arable land is significant. In Iowa, the State possessing the largest
block of first-grade land, there were 36 acres of arable land per capita
of the farm population. Other States possessing much good land had
similar acreages per capita. On the other hand, in some States where
the major portion of the arable land is of third- and fourth-grade
quality, the acreages per capita were much smaller. In some sections,
notably in the Appalachian-Ozark Highlands, in 'lihe Lake States
Cut-Over Area, and on the Great Plains, the land is now regarded as
overpopulated from the standpoint of best use of the agricultural
resources. In addition, large acreages are regarded as ·too poor and
eroded for cultivation. 18
Not only is much of the poorer farm land of the United States overpopulated from the standpoint of the best use of agricultural resources and from the sto.ndpoint of the possibility of realizing a
reasonably satisfactory plane of living for the people on such lands,
but also it would appear that a large proportion of these people is not
needed on farms for purposes of commercial agricultural production.
According to figures compiled from the 1930 Census one-half of the
farms of the N a.tion produce little more than one-tenth of the commercial agricultural products. These farms are self-sufficing or parttime farms, or they operate upon such a small scale that they could
all cease operations without reducing the volume of commercial farm
products more than 11 percent. Without doubt the remaining 50
percent could expand operations sufficiently to compensate for the
loss of these farms. Since these farms with low volume of commercial production are concentrated markedly in the poorer land
areas, any such shift in operations would be a move in the direction of
effecting a greater concentration of agricultural production upon the
better lands.
Looking at the problem purely from the standpoint of productive
possibilities, it seems probable that the least productive half of the
present farm population could be removed from agriculture without
19 Goodrich, Carter and Others, Migration and Eco1iomic Opportunity, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936, pp. 79, 156, and 243; and National Resources Board, Report of the Land Planning Committee, op. cit., p. 127.
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
128 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
endangering the Nation's supply of food and fiber produced, except
for that which they consume. There is scarcely any possibility of
accomplishing such an end, however. Most of the people who live
on farms know no other occupation or mode of life. Even if they
were able to adapt themselves to other ways of living, urban industry
has no place for them. Hence, it would be extremely difficult, circumstances as they ai:e, to remove them from farming to any other
occupation or situation in which they would be better off. In other
words, the agricultural industry must reckon with an oversupply of
farmers, and the commercial farmer must reckon with the marginal
farmer, the subsistence farmer, and the part-time farmer, who stand
ready to produce more for sale if the state of the market appears to
warrant it.
When urban prosperity is the rule, the matter of overpopulation
of the rural districts causes little concern because of the extensive
migrations to urban occupations and because of the relatively high
prices paid for farm products. But urban prosperity fluctuates.
With the relatively high birth rate that prevails in the rural districts
in general and upon the farms in particular, the failure of a large
percentage of the rural natural increase to migrate cityward is soon
reflected in a sharply increasing rural population. Too often these
rapid rates of increase are to be found in the poorer land sections
where the ratio of farm population to the land is already too high.
On the whole, the evidence appears adequate to warrant the conclusion that the future economic salvation of the American farm
population under our present system does not lie merely in the
direction of commercial farming. Already a large proportion, perhaps
an increasing proportion, of the farm population dwells upon mediocre
or poor land and conducts farming operations under conditions which
place those people hopelessly out of the race for success by means of
commercial production. Under present circumstances they can
scarcely be expected to crowd into cities nor can they with confidence
be settled elsewhere upon land under conditions that will with certainty
improve their lot. Resettlement projects conducted upon a small
scale and under certain circumstances may be successful in improving
the lot of those resettled. Such treatment of the disadvantaged
rural classes as a whole is impracticable, however. The gradual
retirement of the poorest agricultural lands from cultivation and the
removal of a share of the population will help, but, even so, it must be
admitted that for the great majority of people farming on such lands
economic and social improvement must come to them, if at all,
where they are.
In formulating a policy for the future welfare of the farm population, therefore, it is well to remember that, although in the interests
of conservation of agricultural resources it may be advisable further
to concentrate commercial agricultural production upon the better
Digt1zed by
Google
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION • 129
lands, it does not follow that such concentration of production will
necessarily be accompanied by a. similar concentration of fa.rm population. The trend toward mechanization of agricultural processes
upon the better land and the birth rate differentials which occur in
the fa.rm population may prevent any such concentration in spite of
the slight tendency for people to migrate more heavily from the poorer
agricultural districts. It is well to remember also that when dealing
with overpopulation in the poorer areas only certain alternative
policies a.re possible. It is possible, first, to leave the people of these
less favored districts alone in the hope that unguided migration will
relieve the congestion of overpopulation. Unfortunately, the history
of unguided migration does not offer evidence that this policy is
likely to succeed. It is more likelv to result in continued redundant
population and a progressive decline in the plane of living of the
people.
A second possible policv consists of attempting to relieve overpopulation by encouraging reduction in size of family and by stimulating heavy emigration. While birth rates may be reduced in these
areas, a. decreased birth rate does not become effective in reducing
the number of gainful workers for nearly 20 yea.rs. Any relief within
that time would have to come by means of heavier emigration. This
in turn involves the obligation to assist the population in locating
areas to which they may migrate with the probabilitv of improving
their situation.
A third possibility consists of using the combined knowledge of the
sciences to enable the people of the so-called "overpopulated" areas
to support themselves to better advantage where they now a.re. This
could undoubtedly be done if the problem were approached from the
standpoint of giving support to the local population rather than from
the point of view of making commercial farmers. In such a. program,
pa.rt.time farming, a greater production of home-consumed products,
the development of community industries for local consumption, and
the expansion of service industries would all have a pa.rt. In any case,
the encouragement of emigration should be a definite part of such
policy in all areas where the birth rate appreciably outruns the requirements for maintaining a stationary population. By such means it
may be possible to improve, or at least to maintain, the status of the
large number of people who live upon the land but who have little or
no chance of success as commercial farmers.
RELATION OF RURAL MIGRATION TO PUBLIC WORK PROGRAMS AND
RELIEF
Although migration from one rural area to another and from rural
areas to cities has been the chief method of adjusting population to
resources in this country, the migration has been characterized by
individuals moving independently of each other. Each individual
o g11 ,ed by
Goog Ie
130 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
has been free to make his own choice and to move from areas of lesser
opportunity to areas of apparently greater opportunity. The fact
that a large proportion of migrants to cities has been recruited from
the relatively poorer areas has, even in prosperous times, made for
difficulties of adjustment. These migrants, reared and educated in
areas with meager and poor schools and other social facilities, have
had to compete for jobs with individuals trained under more favorable
circumstances. As a result they have tended to obtain the inferior
and less secure positions. They have been more willing to live under
substandard housing and sanitation conditions and frequently have
contributed to the relief loads in the areas to which they have gone.
Even though the migration from 1920 to 1930 was extensive,
amounting to more than 20 percent of the resident population in 1920
in some areas, it wa.s not sufficient to accomplish needed adjustments
between population and resources. Many of the less productive
farmers were living on poor lands and in areas with meager resources,
including those areas where exploitation had drastically reduced the
resources available. Among these people levels of living were low
and earnings precarious. Had there been any large-scale organization
for public relief in the late 1920's, these areas would have been the
scene of much of the activity of these organizations. A number of
small voluntary agencies had begun to work in such areas, but their
resources were clearly insufficient to cope with the need. ·
Since 1930 there has been both a considerable decline in the migration away from farms and some movement back to the land. This
has led to an increase in farm population, with some tendency toward
concentration in the areas with the poorest resources. It has resulted
in the piling up of rural youth, which has in tum been the be.sis of
much of the rural youth problem with which public relief agencies
have been concerned. The prospects for migration from farms in the
immediate future suggest that many of these young people who would
have migrated since 1930 had conditions been more favorable may not
have the opportunity of shifting later. Their problems now and in
the future constitute a challenge to public agencies concerned with the
welfare of rural people.
The retardation of migration after the beginning of the depression
has had another serious effect upon relief needs in rural areas. The
onset of the depression delivered the final blow to many struggling
industries in areas where natural resources had been most completely
exploited. Numerous surveys in areas formerly supporting forest
industries have shown that since 1930 the sawmills have disappeared,
and there are no prospects for resumption of forest operations.
Similar conditions exist in a large number of mining areas and in
areas depending on other rural industries as well. With alternative
economic opportunities largely cut off, the migration normally to be
expected under those circumstances did not occur. Stranded com-
nigtized by
Google
hr"' Security A d111 i r1 is tra t iu11
Fresh Fro m the Co1111lry.
DOit zed by
Google
Digt1zedbyGooglc ,
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION • 1 31
munities appeared in many parts of the country. There was striking
evidence of the role of migration in adjusting population to resources
and of the need for public aid when "normal" processes of migration
were interrupted or brought almost to a standstill. The reduction in
the migration from rural areas since 1930 has been one of the most
important factors in intensifying rural relief needs. Emergency
programs have dealt with these needs, but the problems require longtime planning and be.sic attacks on fundamental causes which are not
implicit in such programs.
Much attention has been given to the role of the back-to-the-land
movement in relation to relief needs and relief policies. Before the
establishment of the FERA in 1933, many urban areas had considered the possibility of a back-to-the-land movement as a relief
measure, but it soon became clear that this was not likely to be
successful. Even so, the idea has tended to persist. Although there
·had been a striking suburban trend before 1930 and this trend apparently continued after that date, many of the relief clients were not
suited to the development of part-time or subsistence farms. In
some areas, however, there was a movement to the land. This
movement involved individuals and families whose resources had
been largely exhausted. They sought shelter and the possibility of
producing their own food and fuel in localities where little or no
capital investment was required. Under the circumstances many
of these efforts were doomed to failure, and relief agencies were called
upon for a.ssistance. The best agricultural land, that on which commercial farming has been most highly developed, experienced much less
of the back-to-the-land movement than did poorer areas. In some
localities, notably in those where rates of population growth were rapid,
the combination of retarded migration and a back-to-the-land movement created serious population pressure and intensified relief needs.
During the depression years when the demand for urban industrial
workers was markedly reduced, many prospective migrants looked
a.bout for other opportunities. The large majority of rural-urban
migrants are available for unskilled work only and with the decline in
opportunities for industrial employment an attempt ·was made to
secure agricultural employment. The Pacific Coast States and the
Southwest with their widely advertised climatic advantages and their
need for seasonal unskilled agricultural workers proved extremely
attractive. Families which had little or nothing to lose by leaving
their ~artier residences might find themselves no worse off by going
to these Western States, and by the movement they might improve
their condition. Severe droughts in the Great Plains stimulated
some migration farther west. At the same time throughout the
Great Plains and in parts of the Cotton Belt there was a rapid increase in the use of power machinery accompanied by displacement
of farm families.
DaltzeobyGoogle
132 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
The volume of the movement to the West coast and other States
was so great that the States were unable to absorb these migrants.
Serious relief problems arose and continue-problems which the
States alone have not been able to meet. Unless there is some striking
reversal of the trend of migration to these States, public assistance
will be needed for a long time to come. The recent migrants have
little desire to go back to their earlier residences. Many of them have
no facilities for returning and no alternative opportunities which would
draw them back. Relief agencies are faced with the problem of facilitating their adjustment in their new residences, and even though there
are some prospective large-scale developments which will make
hitherto unused resources available, these are still far in the future.
The development of a Nation-wide work and relief program has had
significant, though unmeasurable, effects upon the volume of rural
migration. Prior to the widespread acceptance of public relief as an
element of everyday life, residence and settlement laws probably had
little effect upon the behavior of the average citizen, although requirements of residence as affecting eligibility for relief have been on the
statute books of most States for many years. As long as public assistance was not an important element in the calculations of the average
citizen, the fact that a continuous residence of 1 to 5 years might be
required to establish eligibility for relief was hardly an item worth considering. In recent years, however, public relief has become a major
fact in the lives of millions of persons, and the importance of residence
requirements has been forcibly impressed upon them. These requirements undoubtedly have been a bar to some migration and may have
served to prevent some desirable emigration from problem areas.
Differences in policies of distributing relief also have undoubtedly
affected currents of migration. Rumors of such differences may have
been even more effective. Thus, reports in late 1933 and early 1934
indicated that in some areas there was a considerable shift from open
country to villages because it was reputedly easier to secure CWA
employment in villages. But there is little evidence that migrants
have gone to large cities because of higher standards of relief. On the
other hand, analysis of differential migration from certain severely
affected areas suggests that areas with liberal relief policies were less
likely to experience as much out-migration as those areas where relief
policies were regarded as less liberal.
The establishment of a large-scale public work and relief program
has obviously reduced the amount of migration, particularly the
amount of aimless migration of those individuals and families for
whom any change might be for the better and would certainly not
entail any loss. The fact that a public agency was ready to assist
people in distress enabled many to remain at their earlier residences
and in some cases to reestablish themselves later. This result is not
controverted by pointing out that in some areas relief policies may
og11,edbyGoogle
SOCIAL SIGNIACANCE OF RURAL MIGRATION • 133
have served to postpone desirable long-time population adjustments.
Analysis of the migrations from the drought areas indicates that in
some of the most severely affected areas relief funds have served to
retard fundamental adjustments in the agricultural economy which
a.re now deemed to be necessary. In these and similar cases emergency
funds have certainly alleviated immediate distress, but they might
have contributed to long-time solutions had it been possible to put into
effect more flexible policies of public assistance.
Since migration has played so large a role in American history, it is
not surprising that the movement of people should be widely accepted
as a major technique for the solution of many problems. Exhaustion
of resources, stranded communities, settlement that was too dense for
the Great Plains, population pressure in the Southern Appalachians,
the rapid increase in numbers of rural youth-these are situations
which appear to require migration from rural areas.
Promoting migration as a matter of public policy requires more
careful analysis than this, however. It is comparatively easy to
outline problem areas and to find that some of the people now
living there should be encouraged to move elsewhere. But such
a recommendation is obviously incomplete. Unless the analysis
goes on to point out areas to which these migrants could go and
to suggest how they may make the necessary adjustments, it has
failed to meet the issue. The welfare of an area has meaning only
in terms of the welfare of the people living there. To move people
from a problem area without regard to this simple fact may involve
the creation of problems as acute as those which were to have been
solved. In all parts of the country relief agencies have had to deal
with the results of migrations which were ill-advised, as judged by
subsequent developments. The freedom of the individual to change
his residence can be of major value in effecting adjustments if the
individual can make the sound choices which this process assumes.
In the process of adjusting population to resources, however, migration provides only one of the techniques, and in any specific situation
others may be more efficient. In the work of relief agencies guided
migration can be an effective part of the program, but other approaches
to the rehabilitation of individuals and areas must also be used.
Careful consideration of the alternatives may lead to the conclusion
that a more efficient utilization of available resources would in many
instances prove more effective than migration. It must be recognized that large-scale migration offers no panacea for meeting relief
needs. Rather, the scale on which planned migrations are carried
out is a significant element in their ultimate possibilities of success.
In general, a combination of directed migration, reduced birth rates,
and improvement of basic social and economic conditions within
overpopulated areas seems to offer the soundest approach to solving
the long-time problems of widespread rural destitution.
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
Appendixes
135
Google
D1gt1zedbyGooglc
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Ta&le 1.--Counties of the United States by Percent Change in the Rural Population in
Relation to the Average Change in the Total Rural Population, 1 by Geographic
Division and State, 1<Jro-1910, 1910-1920, and 1920-1930
Number of counties
Geographic division and
State
1900-1910
1910-1920
1920-1930
Increase
increase
Increase
9.2
Total per·
ceut
or
more
Less D&3.2
than crease Total per•
9.2
cent
per•
or
cent
more
Less D&4.7
than crease Total per•
3.2
ceut
per•
or
ceut
more
Less
0..
than crease
4.7
per•
cent
---------- - -253 1,505 3,002 1,029
M4 1,095 2,887 1,129
414 1,5511
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 21
8
24
5
12
38
6
9
14
38
16
7
16
11
16
3
6
3
2
4
6
6
-- -4 -10 -14 - -1 -13 -14 -1 -5 -8
-- -- -- -- - - -- - - -6 -8 - -8 -4 -3 --1
2
2
4
8
United States..•.... 2, 797 1,158
New England'······-····
Maine ...•.......•....
New Hampshire .•...
Vermont •............•
Massachusetts ...•••..
Rhode Island .•.•.•.•.
Connecticut ••••......
38
16
Middle Atlantic .•••••••..
New York ...•.•••••..
New Jersey ...•...••..
Pennsylvania•••••.•..
143
57
20
66
30
4
11
16
34
14
5
16
79
39
4
36
143
57
20
66
39
7
13
19
East North Central .......
Ohio .......•..........
435
88
92
102
83
70
71
7
2
11
28
23
86
18
15
19
19
15
278
63
75
436
88
92
102
83
71
93
201
West North Central •..... 582
82
Minnesota ........••..
24
Iowa ..................
99
3
Missouri .....•........ 114
13
North Dakota .•......
39
33
South Dakota ••••....
53
41
Nebraska .....••.•....
90
40
Kansas ............... 105
47
See footnotes at end of table.
84
21
9
16
2
6
18
12
297
37
87
85
4
6
32
46
h'l?n~~:::::::::::::::
Michigan ...•.•.......
Wisconsin .•..••...••.
14
8
72
36
32
606
86
99
114
49
61
92
105
14
7
16
21
35
224
57
26
14
29
39
37
22
12
3
92
47
7
38
143
57
20
66
58
24
14
20
21
11
1
9
64
22
6
37
33
14
310
93
23
16
12
25
17
287
19
11
9
9
8
46
83
82
58
27
436
88
92
102
83
66
2
4
4
9
65
11
19
6
4
6
11
8
317
18
64
133
6
9
12
16
28
124
27
26
6
17
19
18
11
361
53
64
96
20
21
53
64
-9
60
94
16
16
44
75
71
618
86
99
114
53
68
93
105
22
40
65
81
49
46
137
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
138 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
To&le 1.-Counties ol the United States by Percent Change in the Rural Population in
Relation to the Average Change in the Total Rural Population,1 by Geographic
Division and State, 1900-1910, 1910-1920, and 1920-1930-Continued
Number of counties
Geographic division and
State
1900--1910
1910-1920
1920--1930
Increase
Increase
Increase
J)&3.2
9.21 than
!Ass crease
Total perTotal percent 9.2
cent
or
peror
more oont
more
----
South Atlantlo ...•. _______
Delaware _____________
Marv land ____________
Vlrglnfa_
····-·------West
Virginia
.. ______
North Carolina.·····South
.. ····GeorgiaCarolina
_______________
Florida _______________
East South Central. ____ •.
Kentucky. ___________
Tennessee._
•...•.•...
Alahsms _____________
Mississippi.._····---West South Central. _____
Ark,1nsas._____________
_••. ·------Louisiana
Oklahoma ____________
Texas _________________
Mountain _____________ ._.
Montana _____________
Idaho .. ·-···---·-·····
Wyoming
_____________
Colorado _____________
New Mexloo
••• _______
Arizona
_______________
Utah_-------····-····
Nevada•••••••••••....
Paclllc .••.•.•.••••••••••..
W a.sh lngton •••••.•...
g~w~~nl&~:::: ::::::::
1
616
3
23
100
55
134
29
47
22
60
31
1«
1
9
37
9
34
9
37
8
6
43
146
47
355
119
95
66
75
129
35
24
34
36
Sil
31
27
16
16
137
53
«
16
24
360
119
95
67
79
431
7-~
58
55
272
411
33
25
166
611
90
10
16
14
12
188
24
21
13
57
19
13
27
14
1311
20
125
36
33
66
89
33
25
31
liOO
222
3
23
100
55
97
40
137
4li
1
4
243
28
Ill
11
38
14
12
15
10
I
10
35
17
16
9
40
98
1.-. D&4.7
Less
than crease Total per• than
3.2
cent 4.7
peror
percent
more cent
-4
216
2
23
16
5
9
5
12
1
120
37
27
35
21
216
247
1
4
38
29
66
24
62
52
911
9
12
12
25
16
10
8
4
28
7
3
2
132
39
36
57
91
21
20
206
31
36
36
103
468
75
84
14
15
6
19
12
2
5
11
M
IR
14
23
1
113
13
8
7
37
13
11
:Ml
4
-2
-
H
22
129
38
34
57
69
17
20
32
-2
1
4
17
267
51
44
21
62
29
14
29
17
33
205
28
23
14
59
26
13
27
15
2
4
8
192
48
21
36
87
364
120
95
67
82
48
2
50
263
228
19
36
33
138
201
69
52
25
M
37
3
1
2
16
3
1
8
3
-4
188
81
54
311
13
16
7
3
12
1
1
-3
57
12
17
15
13
46
21
23
14
72
23
30
40
19
37
!:Ml
119
27
24
25
43
204
1
8
455
75
59
76
245
11
18
m
27
66
1
3
13
6
14
3
II
7
636
3
23
100
55
100
46
155
54
4
4
3
22
8
1
-1
3
1
6
3
I.~
D&cre&'IO
63
77
23
25
75
9
36
50
8
6
8
28
6
-1
6
8
8
4
4
-
1
12
64
24
11
34
110
20
27
21!
143
35
211
7
31
13
3
15
10
33
14
12
7
The national svel'!ll(eo for ntml population lncrtl888 were 9.2 percent for lll00--1910, 3.2 peroent for 1910-
11120, and 4.7 percent for 1920-1930.
• Exclusive of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, Fourlttnth Cemm of/he UnUtd Stat,.: 1910, Population Vol. I, 1921, tables
49 and 50, and Fifteenth Ctn•u• of the United State,: 1930, Population Vol. III, table 13, U. 8. Department
of Commerce, Washln&ton, D. C., lll32.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 1 39
Tol,le !.-Net Gain or Loss 1 Through Migration to the Rural Population 2 of the United
States, by Geographic Division and State, 1920-1930 1 (Estimated)
Rural population •
Increase or decrease,
1920-1000
Net gain or loes through
migration, 1920-1930
Oeotirapblc dtvt&doa and State
lll'JO
11130
Number
Percent
Number
Percent of
1920 rural
population
+u
-!I, 'IM,200
-11.1
1,541, llOO
470,300
163,800
243,400
202, goo
15,300
«&, 200
1, 8112, 600
478,300
193,000
242,000
419,goo
62,300
-l77, 100
+320, 700
+8,000
+211,200
-1, 400
+217, 000
+37.000
30,goo
+20.8
+1.7
+17.8
-o.n
+ul6.9
-t-241.8
+145, 500
-40, 600
+16,400
-23, 500
+176,000
+30,600
-13,400
+9.4
-8.e
+10.0
-9. 7
+86. 7
+200.0
-3.0
11,816, 100
1,802,200
683,500
3,129,400
11, 8114, 300
2,074,800
705,000
3,114,500
+m,200
+272.600
+21,500
-14, goo
+a.o
+1a.1
+a. I
-0.6
-«a, 400
-7.9
+5.4
-7.3
-16. 7
11:ast N onb Central .. - -- ... - -- -- 8,468,100
Ohio._._.____________________
____ - • - • - --- - ---- - • 2,092,300
Indiana.
1,454,100
Illlnol•. ___________ -- • ------ _ 2,091, 600
M lchlgan_ ------- -- -- -- -- - -- I, 433,800
Wisconsin_.------------·-· - 1, 3114, 300
Weet North Central. ___________ 7,854, llOO
MIIIDl80ta
.. ----···-·-----·· 1,342,600
Iowa
________________________
8, MZ -lOO
2, 149, -lOO
1,449,200
2,003,000
1,547,000
1,31IZOOO
+711. 300
+67, 100
-4, 000
-87, 700
+114, 100
-2,300
~-11
2. 7
-0.3
-4.2
+8.o
-0.2
-899,400
-181, 300
-154,900
T, 7711. 500
1,312,000
1,498,800
I, 778,900
570,800
565,000
896,400
1, 156, 700
-711,400
-29, 700
-36, f100
-46, 900
+8,800
+21, liOO
+1,100
-2.2
-2.4
-2.n
+1.6
+5.1
+o.1
-207, 400
-212, 900
-261, 900
-92, 200
-63, 700
-122, 000
-139,800
-14.0
-15.4
-13.9
-14.3
-16.4
-11.9
-13. 7
-12.1
10,188, 100
115,900
661,100
1,650,300
1,246,600
2,383,900
I, 383,300
2,032, 700
714,300
+142, 100
+13, 500
+76, 900
+300
+1«. 300
+294,300
-25, 400
-159,000
+o;,200
-H.5
-l,4M,OOO
+2,500
-10. 500
-279, 400
-118, ,',()()
-206, 500
-298,000
-510,600
-13,000
-14. 7
+2.4
-1.8
-16.9
-10.8
-9.9
-21.2
-23.3
-2.1
1,794,300
I, 740. 000
I, 856, 500
1,667,000
7,171,000
1,827,800
I, i32. 500
I, P21. 300
1,690,300
+214, 100
+33, 500
-7, 500
-!-64, 800
+123, 300
+3.1 -1. 097, 200
-313, 300
+1.9
-31r., 000
-0.4
-300, 200
+3. 5
-167, 700
+7.9
-15.8
-17.5
-1~.2
-16.2
-10. 7
7,325,300
1. 473,900
I, 181. 300
1,498, 100
3. 172,000
7.816, 700
1. 484,200
I. 2'!1,400
1, -~5. 900
3,465,200
+491,400
+10. 300
+IOI', 100
+87, 800
+293,200
-t-6.7
+o.7
+s.5
+5.9
+9.2
-922, 700
-2.~. 000
-136, 700
-214, 700
-316, 700
-12.6
-17.3
-11.6
-14.3
-10.0
2, 21\8.000
358,400
317,nl
l/;6, 300
518. 000
319, (JOO
288,100
243,200
-t-125, 700
-~. 500
+2. 500
+19,000
+30. 000
+21, 900
+70.31)(]
+7,800
-6,300
+11.11
Idaho
... --·----------------Wyoming
___________________
Colorado._ •.• _. ____ • __ -- - - _.
New Mexico ________________
•.\rizona ______ ----- --- • ·- ••..
Utah.----·-·----··--··---··
Nevad'l
___ __________ . ____ .. _
2,132,300
378,900
314, 700
137,300
488,000
297,100
217,800
235,400
62,:A)()
-5.4
+o.8
+13. 8
+6. I
+7.4
+32. 3
+3. 3
-8.5
-258,900
-71,000
-00,nl
-6, 100
-00,400
-43. 600
+17.300
-«. 500
-10,400
-12.1
-18. 7
-16.0
-4.4
-10.3
-14. 7
+7.9
-18.9
-16.7
Paclflc
.... ·-·-·--------·----·-··
Washlnirton
________________
2,103,200
610,400
Ore,ion ..•.•.
··---··--------···
Califomls
_. ______________
304,000
2,671, 700
681. 700
466,000
1,524, (JC)()
+568. 500
+71.31)()
+12.000
+27.0
+11.1
+18.3
+38. 7
+276, 700
-2, 400
+22. 800
+256,300
+13.2
-0.4
+5.8
+233
United Btatee_____________ 61, 70,600
N•w England ___________________
Maine.
___ ...• -------------New
Hampihlre
____________
Vermont-------····-·---·Ma..-.'l&cbmetui. _____________
Rhode Island ___________ -·-·
Connecticut •• ---·-·--·--··Middle
------·------NewAtlantlo_.
York __________________
New Jer.,ey _________________
Pennsylvania_______________
Mt.>url ..... _______ --·----North Dakota __ .··-·- ____ .•
South Dakota _______________
Nebraska._._·-------------Kansas .. _-----------------South Atlantic__________________
Delaware. __________________
M~and __________________
VI
la __ ---------------···
West
Virginia
••• ____________
North Carolina. ____________
Bou th Carolina. __________ ••
Georgia. ______ - - •• -- • --- -- -Florida_·-··---·-----------Ea,,t South OentTaJ. ____________
Kentucky __ ._.-----------·Tennessee ___ -------·- ____ -·
Alahama. ______ - -----------·
Ml.ssl.sslppL _. -------------West South Central ____________
A
rkanSBL.-.••• ·---------Louisiana
_____________
-----_
Texas
_______________________
Oklahoma __ ----·-·-·------Mountain •• ____________________
Montana. __________________
1,535,400
1,825,800
[162. 000
537,400
89.~, 300
1, 156, -lOO
9,746,000
102,400
584,200
1,650,000
I, 102,300
2,089,600
1,408, 700
2, 191, 700
617, 100
!I, 957,800
1,098,800
M, 1116,200 +2,442,600
66,900
+300
-t-42/i, 2(NI
+u
-t-98, 100
-50,100
-491,400
-303,
"°°
-78, 000
-180, llOO
-LO -1, 100,800
-
+1a.2
+13.2
-
+13.1
+14. i
-1.8
-7.3
+15. 8
-10.n
-8. 7
-10. 7
-14. 5
-5.5
-13.0
Minus (-) Indicates a loss.
lncludl"• only persons living In 1920 whose ages were reporred.
For method of computation see appenrlix B.
t <'onected for underenumeration of children under 5 years of age.
1
I
I
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
140 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
TolJle 3.-Net Gain or Loss I Throus_h Migration to the Rural Population of the United
States, by Geographic Division, State, and Residence, 1920-1930 1 {Estimated)
Net gain or loss through migration, I lr.ll---1930
Geographic dlvl.slon
and State
Total rural
Number
Rural-nontarm
Rural·flll'Dl
Percent of
1920populatlon
Number
Percent or
1920populatlon
Number
Percent or
1920population
United Statai•..••
-6,7M.:IJO
-11.1
-G,OM,800
-111. 3
+ll,I0.400
+1.7
New England •...••••.••
Maine •...••...••.••
New Hampshire ....
Vermont •••.........
Mt1888Chll!etts ••....
Rhode Island ......•
Connecticut ..•....•
+us. 500
+16. 400
-23, 500
+176.(IOO
+:JJ.600
-13, 400
+11,4
-8.G
+10.0
-9. 7
+86. 7
+ZJO. 0
-a.o
-89,800
-39,:!Xl
-10. 600
-22, 000
+13, :!XI
+4, l'IO
-18.0
-:ll. 7
-Ul.4
-18.3
+21.2
+77.1
-th.II
+216,300
-1,400
+27,000
+21 .•
-0.6
+27.3
-0.5
+us.5
+2611.8
+o.3
Middle Atlantic ••...•.•
New York ••...•..••
New1eniey ••.....••
PenDllylvanla.••.•..
-..a,400
+98.100
-Sil, 100
-4111,400
-7.11
+u
-7.3
-J.h.7
-349,000
-127, 400
+226. 500
-11111, 300
-18.7
-1G.2
-18.4
-20.8
-2.6
+22.2
-411
-IS.II
East North Central .••.•
Ohio••••••••••......
Indiana •••••.•.•••..
Illinois..••••••....••
Ml~hlgan ___________
Wisconsin ..........
-800, 400
-181, 300
-154, 900
-303, 400
-78, 900
-l!ll, 900
-10.G
-8.7
-10.T
-14.6
-11.6
-18.0
-11811, 900
-232, 300
-181, ZlO
-228, 500
-158, 300
-189,800
-111. 7
-:ll.4
-20.0
-:ll.8
-18.6
-18.4
+70.600
+51,000
+21l.300
-74, 900
+79,400
-11,300
+u
-7.6
West North Central •...
Minnesota ..........
Iowa ................
Mi.s.sourl. ...•..•.•. _
North Dakota ... _.•
South Dakota ••••.•
Nebraska .••..•.••••
-1, 100, !llO
-:m,400
-212.000
-261, 900
-92, ZlO
-H.O
-16.•
-13.9
-14.3
-16.4
-63. 700
-122. 000
-189, 800
-ta. 7
-12.1
-IIOG,600
-142. 500
-165.000
-246,300
-74, ZlO
-45, 400
-100, 400
-133, 700
-17.6
-16. g
-16.8
-20. 2
-18.7
-12.6
-17. l
-18.1
-1114, 300
-64. 900
-47, 900
-16. 600
-18,000
-18. 300
-22. 500
-a.100
-7.a
-14.6
-8.7
-2. 7
-10.11
-10.G
-7.3
South Atlantlc•.. _••..••
Delaware •......••••
Md,land ••..•....•
Vtr nla ••••••••..•.
West V lrgl11la. __ .•• _
North Carolina ... __
South Carolina ... __
Oeorttfa •••••••.•.•••
Florida •••••.••..•.•
-1,434,000
+2.500
-10, 500
-279, 400
-us. 500
-1,GUI, 100
-9,000
-71. 400
-:m,400
-105, 300
-242.400
-343, 700
-632,600
-25.0
-19.2
-~6
-:ll.8
+1ss.100
+12. 400
+ffl. 000
-13,000
-14.7
+2.•
-1.8
-IG.9
-10.8
-9.11
-21.2
-23.3
-2.1
-'8,400
-IG.O
-31.6
-31.3
-17.2
+s.6
+24.4
+211.0
-2. 4
-2.1
+6.3
+14.3
+4.s
+10.s
East South Central..._.
Kentucky ••••....••
Tenneaaee ...•••••.•
Alabama ••••.•..••..
Mississippi. ....•.••
-1,007,:IJO
-313, 300
-316,000
-300, 200
-167, 700
-16.8
-17.6
-18.2
-16.2
-10.7
-1,0311,400
-346,000
-273, 400
-261, 000
-165, 100
-111.8
-26.4
-21.4
-111.4
-12.1
West South Central ••••
Arkansas ...........
Loul.slana•••.......•
Oklahoma.••.••...•
Texas .••••••••••.•..
-1122, 700
-12.6
-17.3
-11.G
-14.3
-10.0
-IIOG, 400
-237, 700
-ll7, 500
-197, 500
-363,700
-17.3
-:ll. 6
-14.8
-19.3
-16.6
Mountain ••••••••••••••
Montana ...••••.•.•
Idaho...•••.•••..•••
Wyoming ..•......•.
Colorado.•••....•••.
New Mexico •.••.•.•
Arizona..•...•••..••
Utah ....••••. __ •••••
Nevada••.••.•.••.••
-258,900
-71, 000
-60, 200
-6, 100
-60, 400
-43,600
+17,300
-224,600
-62, 000
-43,300
-G,300
-30, 100
-33, 400
-9,900
-47, :llO
-1,400
-111.4
-23.3
-21.9
-9.3
-ll.3
-:ll. i
-10.Q
-10,400
-12.1
-18.7
-16.0
-ol.4
-10.3
-14. 7
+7.11
-18.9
-16. 7
Pacific•.••••••••••••..••
W ashlngton •••• __ ••
O~on ••••...••....
Cal fomla .•....•....
+276, 700
-2,400
+22.soo
+266. 300
+1a.2
-0.4
+5.8
+23.3
-3,000
-12, 000
-12, 600
+21,600
Kansas .............
-40, 600
-IJl6, 500
-298,000
-610,600
-265,800
-136, 700
-214, 700
-316, 700
-44,600
-11.9
-14. 400
-25,300
-:ll.O
-600
+1112.soo
+26.500
+1,000
-114.400
-24,800
-2116, 100
-14,000
-13, :!XI
+35. 000
-H5. 700
+22.000
+as,400
-II0,800
+32. 700
-42.600
-38, 300
-12. 600
-111,300
-17,900
+2.0
+6.4
+1a.6
-2.4
-LS
-a.s
+6.8
-11.2
-7.6
-4.4
-Ill, 200
-17, 200
+ss,ooo
-0.8
-6.6
-s.o
-8.G
+4.a
-36.5
-8.9
-34,400
-18, 100
-6, 000
+:llO
-20,300
-10, :llO
+27,200
+2,100
-11,000
-3.6
-11.11
-5.11
+o.3
-II.I
-7.6
+21.,
+2.6
-111.4
-0.3
-4.3
-6.9
-H.3
+m,700
+9,600
+as. 300
+234,800
+211.1
+2.11
+111.11
+as.g
Minus (-) Indicates a loss.
• For method of computation see appendix B.
1
Dgr
zedbyGooglc
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•
141
ToLle 4.-Counties of the United States by Net Gain or Loss Through Migration to the
Rural Population, by Geographic Division and State, 1920-1930 1 (Estimated)
Number of counties
Gained rural population,
1920-1930
Lollt rural population, 1920-1930
Geocn,phlc dlvlalon e.nd
State
Number of persons
Total
4,000
1,000-or more 3,9911
Number of persons
Fewer
than
1,000
Total
Fewer
than
1,000
1,000-1,9911
2,000-3,91111
4,000
or more
Ml
----
United States.........
517
113
201
203
2,642
{50
639
1193
New England ...••••••••••.
Maine .•....•.••••••••••
New Hampshire••••••••
Vermont •••••..•••••••••
Mauachusetts••••••••••
Rhode Island .••••••••••
Conruietlcnt ••••••••••••
26
14
8
4
1
38
12
6
10
6
2
-12
4
1
-5
-
2
-l
I
10
4
3
2
-3
--2
Middle Atlantic•••.•••••.••
New York ..••••••••••••
New Jeney ..•••••••.••..
Pennsylvania .•.•.••••••
37
20
10
7
16
10
6
16
8
-
a
Bast North Central•••••.••.
'48
14
7
7
16
4
14
18
6
3
Ohio•.••..•.....••......
Indiana.................
Illinois...••••.••.•...•.•
Michigan •..••••.....•.•
Wlllconsfn ••...•.....•.•
West North Central ••••••••
Minnesota .•••••••••••••
Iowa....................
Missouri. ...............
North Dakota ••••••••••
South Dakota.. •..•••••••
Nebraska ...............
Kanas ...............•.
South Atlantic. •••••••••••••
Delaware ...............
~i:rn~~:::::::::::::::
West Vlrglnl& .....•.••••
North Carolina •..•.••.•
South Carolina •••••••.•
~:················
1
7
4
63
1
1
6
I
14
ll
13
~oC!:::::::::::::::
New Mexico .•••••••••••
Arlrona•.••••••••••••••.
Utah•.•....•••••••••••••
Nevada.................
-
I
I
4
7
13
14
4
I
ll
29
136
8
15
16
Idaho...................
3
78
West South Central..•••.••.
Arkllnsu ... ...•........
Mountain •.••••••••••.•.•.•.
Montlln& ••.••.••.•.••••
-8
22
East South Central .•••••••.
Kentucky ....•.•..•.••••
Tennessee ..•..•.•••••.••
Alabama .....••••••••.•.
Mississippi. ••.••.••••••
Oklaho11111 •.•••••..•••••
Tuas....•••.•••••••.•••
4
2
2
--I
18
6
3
Loulalana ..•••••...••..•
-I
-8
I
8
3
--
16
8
23
10
2
11
l!O
9
4
37
Ill
12
30
20
16
13
171
37
74
39
31
211
17
6
31
7
13
200
35
42
16
31
24
228
45
I
6
2
106
-4
37
17
10
10
8
111
388
74
815
95
67
62
67
13
12
M7
86
88
98
4
4
2
4
38
1
1
1
I
10
7
17
38
'El
-I
477
2
19
3
6
6
93
4
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
1
--12
2
-4
--6
8
-8
69
'
8
14
5
3
109
52
6
65
22
84
83
25
I
7
30
6
134
153
11
4
20
26
8
33
29
11
22
1
31
ll
6
46
8
170
55
-2
-5
6
3
7
2
2
1
2
II
346
114
92
611
74
23
7
6
10
69
25
10
5
Ill
23
'48
2
-
4
-1
I
2
l
4
-
-4
114
17
1
g
6
20
76
38
-
39
46
69
15
9
20
24
11
-2
36
36
23
-1
-22
I
13
2
-
4
23
14
16
3ll
54
4
~
27
ll,~
22
23
37
37
8
123
30
18
62
3
6
6
3ll
81
3
8
8
42
333
67
48
81
157
49
1
7
2
3ll
57
6
7
17
'El
104
30
16
16
42
49
17
1
2
'El
I
5
5
8
2
3
228
104
26
88
46
15
9
1
5
8
--3
3
2
4
4
1
I
a
-
-
-
Pacific. ••••••••••••.•.•.•.••
Wublngton.. ••..••....••
73
15
21
2
8!.rr:01a................
14
5
34
10
4
44
14
20
18
3
5
JO
1
--6
16
ll7
8
11
7
ll
2
4
-7
--
2
2
2
3
16
7
2
--
15
3
14
42
86
45
152
2
-I
-
-5
3
54
ll
37
15
51
24
5
28
14
30
7
1
69
24
22
1.3
11
13
19
3
13
6
26
10
3
2
2
I
9
10
3
I
6
2
-
31
12
10
16
6
7
4
3
-
11
g
ll
2
-
5
3
2
For method of computation see appendix B.
Oigt1zed
byGoogre
142 •
RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
To&le 5.--Counties of the United States by Percent Net Gain or Loss Through Migration
to the Rural Population, by Geographic Division and State, 1920-1930 1 (Estimated)
~um her or countl~
Geo1traphk rth·lsion
an rl S tate
N ew E ngland . .... . .. .
Maine . ..... .. . .
:\'ew Hampshire . ..
\ ermont. . . . . __ _
Mos.."ll~husctt.s . . .
R ho<le l slnnrl .. .. .
0flin0( 1 run1.l p11pulntion, 19:?u- rn:m
2t\
11
l
2
8
I
3~
15
22
14
9
5
4
3
14
3
-
12
4
2
2
r onnecr.icm t ___ _... _
2
Middle Atlnntlc .. . . ... .
New Yor k .. . .. .. ..
N ew Jerse:r . __ __ __ _
P ennsylvania .. .. _.
37
20
10
7
4
2
2
20
11
8
I
F.ns t. N orth Central. .. .
Ohio . .. . .. ..... . . .
l nrt lano . . .. .... .
11lfnois .. ... . .. .. . .
l\·fichi~an .. .. . ... .
\ Visconsin . _. . .. . .
48
~
13
H
I
4
7
7
10
4
3
I
W est North Cent ra l. .
M innesotl\ ... -- •- ·
.'i.1
l
2
6
13
l
I
6
l
I
32
fi
JOO
37
9
18
5
I
I
-
6
10
,19
26
0
3
5
5
4
388
74
,.1
95
67
67
29
M,7
M
-
I
~outh CA.rolinn .
Oeorrta . . .
}' lor lrta.. . •. •.
.. .
En• t South Central. . ..
Kentucky ... .. _.. ..
2
0
29
3
3
A In hom o. __._ . . . __.
M ississi ppi.. .. .. .. .
I
R
\\·es t 1'ou th f'f' nt.rnL . . .
Arkt.u~~s .. . . . .. ____
!~fl
Lomg1nn:1 . . . . ... . . .
l ti
M
Oi
Ok lnhonrn ..... . ... .
T cxn~-- - - -- - ~-- - · -·
~f ountain __ _____ ___ __ _
Mon tana .• •. .... •..
J,faho ...... ... ..
Wyoml n~ . .... .... .
Colnr,vlo . . . . . ... .
:S-ow M e., ico . .. ..
Ari zona .. . .. .... .
Utah ... ... ... ..
Nevada _______ ... .
Pariflc . .. .. __ ....... .. .
\Vashin~too . ___. ___
Ore~on ... .. .... . ..
fla!Hornln .. . . . . .. . _
'
48
2
38
20
18
49
477
87
mo
4
11
37
I
3
10
2
3
5
346
IH
92
fiA
i4
40
3.,
333
-
~I
48
1.19
127
12
42
45
57
39
R
7
18
2
26
38
34
13
I
121
105
42
11
15
19
31
37
21
3P
41
8.1
7
2
30
12
.'\4
1
17
5
7
II
2
20
3
10
~l
6
,r;n
28
12
7
21
11 I
21
5 I
Z2
13
27
21
M
24
.I
2R
14
4 I
~
44
4
i
~,
I
5
2
5
I
1
36
10
:;
4
38 I
.~ij
m
I
5
a.1
11
32
20
2s
I
3
,1
2
I
2
18
9
157
li4
II
'I
I
2
2
s
37
15
.I
2
5
19
5
I~,
s
IP
~
67
48
3
5
47
44
r,J
l
20
3
I
14
32
fl
11
6
I
JR
10
3
14
14
7
7
4A
s
115
7
12
9
11
I
51
2
l
8
12
12
IS
9
109
R
3
,I
R
73
!.I
H
377
62
82
49
40
44
.
61
2
37
0'
7
IQ
,I
23
II
18
44
93
42
86
45
152
JR
5
2
I
14
15
I
I
II
6
3
2
2
3
2~
29
IO
3
7
12
I
3
6
n
18
Tennos...-me. _____ ___
13
10
.12
.'i.l
81
S.1
33
14
1
49
57
1()1)
78
I
35
21
2
3
2
2
12
R4
I
6
5
14
12
I
22
2'13
10
1
\.I
9
22
JO
87
21
AA
,I
4
7
13
-
12
Nort h Dakota . .. .
f'o11 th D akota . . .. ..
NehrnskR .. . ... ... .
Kansa.111 __ .. .. .. .. .
27
6
l
To\\·a . .• . . . . •.. . . . .
l\ ffs.qouri .
Rou th Atlantic ..... .. ..
Delaware . .. .. ... ..
Marylan rt ... ... ..
Virginia ... .. .. . .. ..
W est V ir~lnh .
Nort h 1 ornli nJ1 ...
1
J.os t ru ral population, 1~ 1930
I
3
fl
8
1
9
I
I
11
6
10
15
50
16
6
I
JO
7
I
7
13
5
3
I
4
12
2
rn
3
8
2
7
I
I
For method of oomputatlon see appendi1 B.
Oigt1zed
I
byGoogre
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 143
Tal,#e 6.-Migrants Remaining on Farms, January 1, 1935, Who Lived in a Nonfarm
Residence 5 Years Earlier, by Geographic Division and State
Geographic division and State
United States.....................................................
Migrants remaining on
farms, Janu•
ary 1, 1935
Migrants as
percent of
total farm
population,
January 1,
1935
1,005,253
6, 3
New England .•..•.......•..........................•........•.......... !----8-1,-80-8·I-----I-L-5
Maine...............................................................
17, 148
Q, 3
New Hampahlre.....................................................
11,206
14. 7
Vermont............................................................
12,275
10. o
Massachusetts.......................................................
20,356
12. 5
Rhode Island............... . . • . • . • . . . . . . . • . • . . . • • • . • • • . • • . . . • . • • . . . .
2, 638
12. 1
Connecticut.........................................................
18, 186
12. 7
Middle Atlantic. ••••••.•.•..•.•.....••...•........••.•..•••••.•••••.....
New York .•••••.••••••...•.......................•..•.........•.•...
New Jersey ..•.•.••.........•.....................•..•.•..•••.•......
Pennsylvania._ •••.••.••••.•...•.............•.•...••••.•.•..•.....•
195, 881
81,514
18,609
95. 758
10, 4
12. 9
9. 8
East North Central •••.•....•.•....•.•...•.•..•..•.•....•.••••.••••.•.•.
Ohio ...•••••••.•..••...•........•••.......•.........••.•......•.•...
414,604
105,297
74,518
61,019
110,413
63,357
8. 7
9.3
8. 7
6.0
13.1
&. 8
279,008
49,676
51, 168
81,958
11,562
12,950
6. 3
Bl~~~"·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Michigan ••••..•.••••••.•••.....•.•.•.•........••...••••••.•.•..•.••.
Wlscoll!!ln •••••••••••••.•••••.•••.•.•..••••.•••••.•..•••••••••••••. _.
West North Central. ..........••......••...•.......••.................. _
Minnesota ............•............................•................
Iowa .........................•......................................
Ml....ourL .......•...••••...•.•.•.•••••.................•...•.•......
North Dakota ..•.•..•.....•..•...•...•...••.......••.•..............
South Dakota ..•....................................................
Nebraska ...........................•.......................•........
10, 3
6. 5
6. 4
6. 9
3. 0
3. 6
23,200
Kanau .... ·················· .... ······ ............................. .
48. 395
4.0
6. 9
South Atlantic ...•...•.•................••..•.....•....•...•...•••......
Delaware ...•.•.•...• _•.•.•. _..•.... _..•..........•.••....•.•...... _.
Maryland .••.•.......•.•......•••..•.•••.....•...•.....•.••..•......
District or Columbia ••••...•..•.•.•..•••.........•..................
Vil'lOnia .....................•.....•..........•.....•.....•..........
West Vlrl(lnla ................•.......•..............................
North Carolina..•..••••..•.•.•..•••.....••.................•........
South Carolina...•............•......•..............................
264, 773
4. 3
000!'106•.....••.•.•••.......•........•.•..•......................•.••
Florida.•••••..••.....•••.•...•.••.•.•......•..••.•..•• ··· •••••••• •••
3,304
11,570
00
40,053
47, 150
50. 227
32,510
57,582
22,287
6. 8
4. 8
16. 9
3. R
8. 4
3, 1
3. 4
4. 1
7. 0
East South Central ........................•.•..•.•.............•...•....
Kentucky .........•.•••••••..•.......•...•..•••..•.•..•.••••...• _...
Tennel""Je .........•.....•.•..•.•.•.•.•.•......•....•...•...•....•...
Alabama ............•...••............•••..•....•.••.•.•.•......••..
Misslsslpp!. •..••........•......•...•.•••••.•.•.•..••••.•..••.•••.•..
214. 067
61,326
69,400
63, 665
West South Central. .......••....................•......................
Arlrnns,.s ...........•.........•..•...•.•..... ·.....................•.
Louisiana ...••........•.............................•................
Oklahoma...••.••••..•........•....•...•.•.•...•...•.....•..•.••.•..
Texas ..•..•••••••••..•••..•..•••••.•.•..••..••...•...••.••••••..•••.
266,009
51, 763
31,186
71,186
112, 774
4, 8
Mountain ....•.......•.•....•.•..•........•••.••....•.....•....•........
Montana ....•••......•..•..•...•.......••.•... -·····················
Idaho._ ............•...•••.•.•..........•..•........................
Wyomln,: .....•................••..........•........................
Colorado .........•...................•..•••..•.•.........•..........
New Mexico ...........•.......................••...................
Ar!•nna.....................•........................................
Utah ..............••....•..................................•........
Nevada •••.••.•....•.....•..•......•...•.......•...........•..••..••
114,166
15. 6i4
17,060
8. R40
9. 6
8. 0
8. 6
11, 9
24. 745
10, OR2
9,198
1,647
13. 1
10. 1
Paclflc ..................•.....•.........................................•
164, 037
47,818
45,141
71,078
13, 7
14, 2
18. 1
11. 7
Wa.sh!ngton ........•...•.•....................................•.•...
0!1'~on ......•..••..•.•.......•....................•..•.••.•..•..•.••
California .........•••........•................................•.••.•
29,676
26,020
4. 0
4. 7
4. 5
4. 6
2. 2
6.0
4. 4
3. 6
7. 0
9. 7
6. 7
10. 7
Source: Buresu or the Cemus, United State, ~ of Agriculture: 1~6, Vol. II, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. 0., 19311, table XIII.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
144 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
Tal,le 7.-Farm Population, 1930'- and Changes in Farm Population, 1930-1934,1 by
Kegion
Region and area
I
and Area
Percent in•
Percent or
crease In
Jan. I, IOU,
l930farm
Percent population
Percent of farm
Percent of change
In
total farm
lat on
mlnants
of
popu• becawie
population, whlchwa.s to farms, farm
migrants
latlon,
11130
not on
1930-1034
from
non1930--1034
farms in
farm terr!1030
tory, 1930-
fo:PU·
1034
Percent
change in
farmpopulation, exclUBlve of
migrants
from nonfarm terr!tory, 193011134
UNlT.D l!T AT.I
Total •...••.....•••.... _
100.0
6. 3
100.0
+4-5
+6.6
-2.1
Nonsroblem._. _--··---------Prob em•--------------------Lam than 20 percent. _____
20-MI percent ______________
60 percent or more ________
75. 2
24.8
10.6
12. 1
2.1
6. 2
6. 5
6. 3
6. 7
6. 4
73. 4
28.6
10.8
13. 5
2. 3
+3.3
+8.o
+5.4
+9.4
+13.11
+6.4
+1.0
+6.6
+7.3
+7.3
-3. 1
+1.0
-1.2
+2.1
Total .................. -
100.0
II. 8
100.0
+15.1
+11.3
+3.8
~':,~~::::::::::::::::::
Lam than 20 percent ____ ..
116.8
33. 2
18.0
15.2
9.6
10. 3
10.1
10. 5
64.1
U.11
18.9
17.0
+13.4
+18.5
+17.3
+111.8
+10.8
+12.2
+11.8
+12. 7
+2.5
+6.3
+5.5
+1.2
Total.------········----
100.0
7.6
100.0
+5.0
+s.o
-3.0
~irei:~::::::::::::::::::
Less than 20 peroent. _____
82.6
17. 4
4. 5
9. 7
3.2
7. 4
8. 8
11.3
8.5
8. 7
78.8
21. 2
5.8
II. 6
3. 8
+3.6
+11.4
+9.9
+12.8
+10.2
+1.6
+9.8
+10.2
+9.6
+o.6
-4.0
+1.6
Total.---··············-
100.0
6. 0
100.0
-1.1
+5.V
-7.0
NonS:blem ••.. _.-·---------Prob em•--------------------Lam than 20 percent .. ---·
20-MI percent. ---- -• -•. -- . 60 percent or more .••.•• __
84.5
15. 5
10.4
5.0
0.1
6. 3
4.3
4.0
4.8
4.8
89. 2
10.8
6. 7
4.0
0.1
-0. 7
-3.4
-4.0
-2.3
+2.0
+6.2
+4-1
+4.0
+4.7
H.11
-6.11
-7.5
-8.0
-7.0
-2.11
Total .•... ·-············
100.0
3.9
100.0
H.2
H.l
NonS:blem •. ----·---·······Prob em'···--------------····
Less than 20 percent .... __
20-Mlpercent._ •. ------····
60 percent or more ••••••••
65.7
34.3
14.3
17.1
2.11
3.6
4.5
3.9
4.9
4.6
60.0
40.0
14.1
22. l
3.8
+a.I
+6.3
+2.11
+7.3
+17.9
+3.'
H.8
+4.1
+5.3
+5.4
100.0
6.0
100.0
+o.1
+6.0
-5.11
93.8
6.2
1. 0
4. 4
0.8
6.0
6.0
3. 7
6.6
6.11
93. 5
6. 5
0.6
5.1
0.8
-0.2
+4.Q
-6.Q
+6.7
+o.3
+6.0
+6.4
+3.4
+7.0
+6.1
-6.2
-1.5
-10.3
-0.3
+3.2
¾8
NORTH.Aft
20--69 percent-----------···
60 percent or more_·-·····
-
-
-
-
-
-
JIIDDLS l!TATIII
20--119 percent ___________ -·.
60 percent or more ••.... __
-I.I
+3.2
+o.6
NO•TBWSff
IOUTIIJIAff
+o.1
-----
-0.6
+1.5
-1.2
+2.0
+12.s
80U'l'BWSff
Total. •. ·-·····-········
Nonproblem. ________ ····----Problem•------------------·-Less than 20 percent. _____
»-fill percent ______________
60 percent or more ••.•••..
rAR Waft
Total. __________________
100.0
13. 7
100.0
+a.7
+14.2
-10.5
Nonproblem._ .. _········---··
Problem•-----····-------·---Less than 20 percent... ___
20--59 percent. •..• ·- _____ ..
60 percent or more_. __ •..•
68.1
31. g
22. 7
7.6
1.6
14. 2
12.6
II. 5
14. 8
17. 7
70.5
29.5
19.3
8. 4
1.8
+a.5
H.2
+5.3
+4.0
-10.0
+14.7
+13. I
+12.1
+1.~.4
+15.9
-11. 2
-8.11
-6.8
-11. 4
-2/i.ll
1 Ba.sed upon tabulations from National Resources Committee, PopulatlOfl Statiatir,: I. NaJlonal Da/a,
Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 63--M.
• Regions are those used by Odum, Howard W., Sotdilffn Regfom oftlit Unlud Statu, Chapel Hill: Uni•
verslty of North Carolina Press, 1936.
• Problem areas are those In which some or all of the farm land should he transferred to nazlng, fofellU,
or other conservat.lonal usea. The subclasses refer to the percent of farms which should be transferred.
D g,, zed by
Google
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES
• 145
Table 8.-Counties of the United States by Number of Children
1 Under 5 Years of Age
per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years of Age in the White Rural Populat ion , by
Geograph ic Division, State , and Res idence, 1930
RuraHarm
GE'O!<'t ap hlc dh·bion
and State
Rura l-nonfar m
Children urnler ,5 per 1,000
C hildren u n der S per 1,000
women ZC}-44
wome n 20-44
T o•
T otal
ta!
I
I
'
councou nl' n I
880 I Un- ties F'ewer 1 44 I 6/lO- I xso
ties Fewer
6
t han 44
or
clasthan
I
W
O
•
,
or
d as•
8 9
659
440
-.,;,
'
I m ore sifie,J 2
440 I
i 8-7 ~ I more ifled '
0-
0- 1 60- 1
Uni ed St ates .. •.. 13, 0511
4 1 l1, 097
New E ngla nd •. . . __ _____
M aine ___ ___________
N ew H am pshire ____
Vermon t ____ __ ___ __ _
M BSSBchusetts. _. __•
R hode Island. _. _. _.
Connect icut. ___ • • .•
64
16
JO
M iddle Atlantic • • • . .. . .
New York . . . . .. .. . .
N ew J er,,ey _____ ___.
P ennsylvania .. . . . __
143
57
20
East Non h Cen tral.. ...
Oh io .•. - - ·-·· · · - --- Indians __. . . . . . .. . . .
Illinois •. .• .. . • . . _. __
M lcbiean . . . . .. . . . . .
Wisconsin . .. · · ·· · - -
436
3
88
92
102
83
71
2
I
West North Central. • . .
M innesota .. . . . . _. __
Iowa ... .. . ----- · - - - M issourL •... . •• . .•
N orth D akota _-· ···
South D ak ota . _... .
Nebraska . . . . . . . .. . .
K ansM _. . . . . . . . . . . .
ff:,)
2
Sout h Atlan tic ••.. • _. _•.
D elaware . -.- - - -- · - M ar yland . - · - ··· - · .
V irginia_ . _______ ___
555
West Virginia . •. . · -North Carolina . _. __
Sout h Carolina . ..• •
Georgia . . . . • .• •• -. - Florida_ --· ·· · · · · · · ·
3!17
14
2
I
l
i7 3, (159
l
~ 1, 9m
665
1
,55
~
If,
2
4
3
7
8
2
6
143
57
16
91
-15
JO
3
8
3
11
82
44
15
23
6
5
66
87
09
114
3
23
100
55
100
46
161
67
469
75
63
3
23
16
49
46
8
4
3
28 1
24
67
2&l
.59
32
33
33
44
48
3
3
I
2
38
13
18
8
I
5
124
3
15
293
120
15
35
52
1
9
49
ZI
95
13
7
2
78
I
3
4
70
14
71
16
13
9
21
3
6
29
17
3
2
l
44
23
62
3]
132
39
36
57
rn I
3 '
1~
I
I
23
:?.
21
120
276
56
3
107
33
33
41
4i
24
23
51
31
39
7
94
34
2
34
7
11
214
51
IO I
113
19
36
64
24
303
49
46
57
22
151
66
25
14
16
11
126
49
36
JO
I
10
11
31
16
5
7
I
3
2
11
5
3
1
1
42
16
3
18
1
32
31
2
324
i8
4
f>-1
76
18
9
4
2
7
102
14
4
45
55
34
13
2
71
I
3
84
8,1
620
116
437
41
4
87
99
12
114
23
17
fi7
72
69
40
4~
59
82
8
2f,
5M
3
23
100
55
100
4R
16 1
67
26
241
I
4
16
43
4
37
34
I
1
40
50
23
88
22
364
120
95
67
82
22
182
2
5
63
39
36
44
469
75
30
2
5:l
2
69
93
105
12
24
19
15
2M
24
28
2
2
276
56
ig
62
31
14
I
4
I
7
I
4
2
1
29
229
22
4
9
1
1
3
2
8
9
3
40
17
6
30 I
:
I
22 ;
12
17
8
40
40
118
34
34
29
11
1
34
16
16
2
10-1
8
5
1
2
21
311
4
21
44
29
33
,53
181
25
20
29
3
171
44
2S
20
4x
10
12
56
20
10
5
3
3
99
34
32
33
2
19
2
8
2
g
17
132
39
36 I
57 I
1
18
26
22
44
23
3
3
4
!:
2
29
77
1
34
14
63
8
11
4
430
88
92
66
12
813
g
8
31
15
77
2M
43
I
9
6
1
20
68
8
67
82
r.
157
2
15
45
62
3
49
261
63
66
2
53
69
93
105
10
JI
I~~
- - - - - - - -- --- - - -
f,-j
8
W est Som h Cen tral . • . _
Arkansas • . . . • . •... Loul~lana _____ .•• . . .
Oklahoma_ .. •. _. . __
Pacific _____ _ __. • _. _____
Wash lnl!ton . . . . . ___•
Oregon __·--- - - ·- - · - ·
Calffomia _••• ... • ___•
1. 44;
13
10
12
JO
364
Texas. · -· -· · ·- · · -· -·
44
13
14
12
4
14
12
Easl South Central • • . . •
Kent uck y . . . . . _. .. • .
T ennCSSN' ... . •• • .. • .
Alab111Da ___ _· - --· -· ·
M ississippi.. . . - ·- - .
Mountafn __ · -··-·--· - -· Montana. · -· ·····-·Idaho . •• · - ·· · · - -·· - Wyoming .•... . • • •••
Colorado •.. -. . · - - . . _
New Mexico . .. . •• __
Arizona ___· · · ·· ·-· ··
Utah
. · -·_.· ·___
· · ··
··- -- -•
Nevada
_______
4
6
16
2
3
I
1~
3
10
I
2
2
2
' Number not corrected for underenumeration.
1 Counties with fewer t han 100 white women 20-44 years or age.
Source: Unpublished data from the Bureau of the Census, U . S. Department or Commerce, 'W ashlnglon,
D.O .
Digt1zed by
Google
146 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
TalJle 9.-Counties of the United States by Number of Children 1 Under 5 Years of Age
per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years of Age in the Colored Rural Population, by
Geographic Division, State, and Residence, 1930
R urnl- rnrm
Geo~raphl ,th·l•fon
nnd State
I
11itt·d ~t st ••s
Rout h At lantic... .. . ...
Delaware. . . . .. . . ..
v
r
~WU
han
i t HO
I
I
I
I
H Or.
O..·:iV .
:i
5,\~
21
:l
-
I
-
Virg1nll\ . .. . . ••..
\V()_.'- t VirJ?inin
HIii
5-.r,
-
2
3
N ort h <'ar olin11 . .
Sou th <'nrollun . . . .
Oenr~i a - - - ~
!OIi
Flori,la. . ... . .
E a.c:.t Sout h C tmtrsl
Ken tucky .... . . ::
T ennr~:o-C"e.. ___ • . .. _
Alabama •.. •
-- -
, u s.~ i~•.:ii,rt.
-- ..
W <1• t South C"rnt ral
Arka.nsn..c. . . _____ ___ _
L on L1:;fann.
Oklahoma .. . ... .••.
T Px~· - - - · -
·•• & •• -
M oun tai n ....
'.\1ont sna . ::::::: ::
I<laho ..• .... ••...•
" yom!n~ . .... . .. . .
Colora,lo . .. . .... . . . .
N ew '.\loxleo . .. .. . •
."..ri:wna .. .• . . . • . .• • .
't nh .. . .
N'e,·n<ln ..
Pacific.
Cnltrorn·i~-
Uncla.o;slflc"fl
I
111\1)..
... .
,Y
-
ir,
mt
6,
3f,4
120
1
2
I
.~
9
171
2
!,
23
11~1
!i;~
lil<I
46
6[;
21
91
14
3~
I
'.?t\
I Hi
13
411
3
1/J
\!ll
2~
6
14
3\J
13 1
7!'1
('3
17
12
2~
41
Ztl
I
fl\
5
I
I
2:~
fi:l
3
170
M•
\l
67
~ti\i
iO
75
2.~
24
11.1
,,!\
H
~··
tl :?
1,
II
:!!i
17
'l:!
\I
ll
HI
5
:_~J
i::
14
34
:.!7fl
1
10
2
R2
H
-
24
2ll
3
4
12
i
b:!
I
9
1
10.~
:.?-11)
24
2"
3;
fi3
8
"
2,H
~-1
3
H
138
3H4
121)
g,1
121
2
3
41
,16
2
2,
ill
41
25
4
2,
,\,
12!'<
73
39
:..>\1
6i
~~~
22
Ill
1111
3'.,
!,
I
880
enor
rla!t•
m or e sifled 1
fi,
lll7
3
Ill
I
rn
214
3
i
8_' 9
lf\l
r,
I
4S
I 660--
32
14
◄I
4
I '2
f\tO
1
3
I
20
3n
I
H()..
2()--.44
!fl
J.1
32
30
24
31
14
2H
1.3:ll<
~!,[,
14
21
4ilV
271\
M
H
It-I
35
.,t-1
H
~
1.11; ~- O!,tl
-
~/l
"
I
s
21
43
:1,1
2."~
I,,
-
-
fii
\15
I
~
2.1
5
.I
I
women
T o-
I
ta!
1 1·
C"OIJ O·
,o I J nI le$ F ewer
or
ela~t ha n
mc-,rt• sit1N1 1
440
~[--.,-, -;[~~I·!.
;/;l
Mar v lan ,I. .
Children u nder 5 per 1.000
"'hiMrf'" D u ud r .'i IH'r l,IX)()
womrn 2!_} •H
To•
I 111
COl UI·
t ies
Rur1\l -nonrarm
I
20
1~
20
39
2•
U3
10
21
12
.so
2
M
1
13
g
13
27
2{,
3
41
Jr,
224
311
2
5
20
3
43
139
232
[12
44
1
10
1:1
I.:\.,~ I. 33s
91
~i
4
:n
[17
,17
5
3
22
!;2
16
12
H
29
17
I
I
I
22
22
29
29
I. ,1.1.S
Number not corrected for underenumeration.
• Counties with fewer than 100 colored women 20-44 yea!'! of age.
Source: Unpublished data from the Bureau of the Census. U. S. Department or Commeroe, Wasblngton.
D.C.
1
Digt1zed by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 147
Tol,le 10.~ounties of the United States by Number of Children 1 Under 5 Years of
Age per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years of Age in the Total Rural Population,
by Geographic Division and State, 1930
Children under 5 per 1,000 women 20-U
Geographlo division and State
Total
counties
Fewer
than 44()
MO-ffi
Unclas.•i•
fled I
880or
more
United State&.•••••.••••••••••••••••
3,069
36
1,401
1,307
218
New England••·-----·-·······-----------·
Maine •••••••••••...•.•..... ___ .•.....
New Hampshire•.•••.•.•••.••.......•
Vermont•••.•••••.•••••••••••••.•....•
M8S118Chnaetts .••••••••••.•••..•.....•
Rhode Island ••••••••••••••.•.......••
Connecticut .••••••••••••••••.•.......
64
2
56
5
1
1
1
Middle Atlantic ••••••••••••••...••.•••...
New York ••••••.••••••••..•.•..•.•...
143
~'rv8~::::::::::::::::::::::::
16
10
14
12
14
10
10
4
4
7
8
57
20
66
East North CentraL.••.•••..••••....•.••.
Ohio ••.•••••••••.••••••.•• _.•. _..•..•.
Indiana•.•••••.•.•..•••.•••.••...• ___ .
Dllools•••.••••• -- ••••••.••..••.•.•.••.
Michigan .••••••••.•••••.•.•.•...•.••.
Wlsoonsln. _••••••.•••.• __ .•••••..••••
436
88
W•t North Central •••.•.•...•••••...••••
Minnesota•••.••.••.••••.•••.•.....•..
620
87
Iowa............ -- .................. -.
Mlleourl.. •..••. -- ....... - ........ - ... .
North Dakota ••.•••••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•••
Booth Dakota ••••.•••••••••••.•.••••.
92
13
6
89
47
40
4
6
1
28
38
2
310
119
1
1
64
102
83
71
99
114
4
11
4
14
77
95
31
43
400
M
1
3
14
7
8
49
27
187
32
1
28
1
87
11
70
10
35
6
11
i
93
105
68
78
32
28
24
25
South Atlantic•.••.•.••.••.••.•.•.••..•.•.
Delaware ... __ ..................... __ .
11M
112
373
1111
North Carolina •••••....•...••..•.••.•
Booth Carolina•..•.•..••.•. __ •.•••..•
23
100
55
100
46
161
67
16
22
1
3
4
5
62
40
74
39
26
37
123
30
2
16
14
23
3
Nebraska ............................ .
Xaoas. -·········-·---·-·-·-----·-·--
Fv~~--:~:::::::::::::::::::::
=-=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
53
69
5
1
22
33
8
3
1
2
11
][entacky. - -- --··. -· --- . --- - . - . - . ·---
364
120
79
39
10
4
17
226
44
62
57
63
IIO
37
14
6
W•t Sooth Central •..•.•.•••••••••.•.•..
469
Loalslana.. ........................... .
Arkao8al........... ·········· ....... .
Oklahoma ••••••••••••••••••.•••.•..•.
75
63
77
127
9
15
13
321
63
43
62
19
3
5
2
Tau. ... -·-·········-·· ... ·-···. -·- ..
2M
90
153
9
2
Mountain ............................... .
276
106
124
29
14
8
26
22
10
13
86
3
Bat Booth Central ••••• -- ..•• --·. - --· - . - .
-·
-- ·-- -·
~ --· ·· · ·· ·· · -· -- · · · ·
Alabama. - ·--··············· ·········
MfsslsslppL .•.•••••••••••.•••.••.••••
Montana ............................ .
Idaho
05
67
82
56
............................. .
44
~J:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
New Mnico••••••••••••••••••••••••.•
23
Arl&ona...... ·--·. ---- ..•. - ... - -· -· ....
Utah ............................. -- ..
Nevada.............................. .
Paelao.. ............... -· .. -· ·- .. -· -· ..... .
WISblngton • •.•.•..•...•.............
8:mr°orn1a............................ .
7
4
23
62
31
23
15
31
1
14
2
211
17
132
39
36
57
2
11
2
7
122
38
34
2
1
2
5
2
2
7
3
8
2
15
1
60
Number not corn1Cted for underenumeration.
• Counties with fewer than 100 women 20-44 years or age.
Source: Unpabllabed data from the Bureau of the Census, U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington,
D.C.
1
Digt1zed by
Google
148 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
Tcr61e 11.--Counties of the United States by Type of Net Migration,• 1920-1930, and
2
Average Fertility Ratio
and State
I
of the Rural Population, 1930, by Geographic Division
Type of net mll!'lltlon
Absorption
Dispersion
Depopulation
Geotlraphlc division and State
Number
of
United S&atea....... ... .............
New England.............................
Maine................ . ............. ..
;::.,:i~~~.~::::::::::::::::::::::
MBSIIBChUMtta ..•.•.................. •
Rhode Island ....•• •. .. .... . . ..... ...•
Connecticut •••••..........•...... . . ..
Middle Atlantic ••••••... .. ........... ....
New York ..••••.••• ...•........•.•..•
Avera,:e
fertility
ratio
Number
of
counties
Average
fertility
ratio
Number
oounUea
617
8:1'7.11
111M
714.4
1, MS
871. 8
:
:u
of
counties
1
7
6211.U
1141.7
9
Q.1
8
847. 2
~•
12
4
2
eoCJ. 4
5111. 4
448. 2
a
'75. •
17
504. 9
482. 9
454.4
42
15
598.0
540. 7
510. 8
85.1. 0
37
814. 0
:1117
20
a
10
7
839.8
22
But North Ceou.l .. ...•....•........•••.
Ohio ..•..••• . •..• . .• •. ....•....... • •.•
Indiana. •••••••..•.•••......•.•...•.. •
[Ulnols......••• ...••.... ... . ..........
Michigan ...••....•• . ....•..••.•.•... .
48
14
7
7
18
4
GOO. I
623.0
631.6
ft60. 4
813. 0
101
28
20
14
W111t North Central ••••••..•••••••..••.••
Mlnneaota••••.•.•.... ... .......••....
Iowa .....•••••••.•...•.......•...•....
Missouri .•••••••••••• •..••• ..•.•.••. • •
North Dakota ••.•...•.•......•......•
South Dakota •••• . ..•.......... . .....
Nebraska ....•.•..••..........•.......
68
1
1
GOS.8
590. 8
5e0. 2
658. 4
846.2
18
'83. 0
84
22
6
48
821. I
814. 5
MS.8
7311. 1
983. 0
21
1199. 4
684. 7
575. 8
1121.0
1,0M.5
777. 0
1182. 4
m.1
ll04
ll02
1
7
18
771. 9
7111. 8
1()8
1111
983. a
4113.3
11811.9
1113. 8
820. 4
774. 11
870. 5
678.6
11416. I
770.1
812.4
821. 7
739.4
722. 8
177
790.a
Alsbama..•••. •. ••••. . .........•••.••••
M19i11Mlppl •••••••••••.•••.•••••••••• .
18
8
3
1
8
169
81
37
26
W• South Central ••••••....•••.••••..• .
138
718. I
141
18
a
1
14
9
Kansaa ...••.•. •••••.•.•....•.•..•.•.•
22
Sooth Atlantic .•.•••••• •••.•.•.•...•.•.•••
Delaware ............................ .
Maryland ••••••••.•. .... ......•••..••
Virginia ••••••••• •• •.......••........•
78
1
4
7
13
14
I
North Carolina ••••• •....•...•.•......
South Carolina ••••...••. •. ..•..... ..•
Georgia ...••• • ••••••...... ··•·•·••·•·•
Florida ..••••.••••••....••.•.••.•••.••
Kut South Central •. •••...•......••.•. . ..
Kentucky ••••. •••• ...........•••.•...
T"n"-····························
Arkanas . • •.... .• . ............... ... .
Louisiana••••••••••••.••••••.....•....
Olrlahoma •••.•.•• •• •. ......••••••••••
Tell!.••..••••.•.•..................•.
Mnuntaln ••.••...••••••.....•.•....•... . .
Montana ••••••.••...........•.••.... .
Idaho•••..••••••.•.•.......•........••
Wyoming•••••••.•• . •. . ...••..........
Colorado••••••... •••.. -···- ...••. . ..••
New Mei:leo•••..•.•••......•••..•..••
Arlrona •........• •...•. . ......••....••
Utah •••••••..••.•. . ...•••..•..•......
Nevada•••••....••••......••.•.•....••
l'llcltle•..•.•...•••.. ...•••...••••.•.......
!i1i.::~.~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::
1
II
8
16
18
117
48
2
7
8
11
7
9
1
3
73
16
14
44
fflM. 2
708. 0
724. 1
721. 2
689.8
610. II
830. 4
1123. :1
637. 7
819. 2
788. 3
837. 2
603. 2
628.0
M2.1
633.0
621. 11
32
34
13
32
34
31
28
19
75
10
44
3113
80II. I
841.11
572.11
810.1
716. 0
823. II
51111. 7
ma
:1'76
1
12
811
747. 1
576.8
823. 8
1131.1
873. 1
775. 1
793.4
748-6
33
as
41
48
722.11
7112. ll
786. 8
738. 11
892.11
718. 2
870.0
778.6
847.4
892.0
840. 6
721. 8
920. 0
624. 2
519. 7
628.4
661. 8
639.11
'IT
2.~
71
81
16
8
10
111
II
2
13
4
•
10
10
8
1188..
11119.8
848. 8
810. 3
732. 4
7811. 6
!!80. 5
1134. 7
ea2. a
629. 7
888. 0
7711. 1
832.4
28
1134.8
580.8
501 . 4
702.11
65
81
411
48
503.11
W eat Virginia ••••••••................•
fertility
ratio
1~---1----1-----1----11-----1---510. 8
~
20
M7. 8
1:
70II. o
~::n:=ia:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Wisconsin ••••• • •• ••...•.. •..•.•...•.•
AYerap
M
84
IHI
:JO
21
63
611
21
11
35
:JO
•
1D2
411
21
38
!Ml
147
38
29
6
82
16
3
16
10
33
14
12
7
M7. 0
IMl8.'
7153.8
813. I
833.8
757. 11
742.0
IIIIIU
742. 4
740. 7
744. ,
778.8
70U.8
717. 2
'192.11
716. 8
763. 7
1178.4
891 . 2
1134. 8
710. 0
837. 8
637. 3
818. 11
7118. 2
8118. 2
113&. 4
Ml. I
4112.11
534.8
608.1
For b1111hl of clusltlcatlon of counties aee ch. Ill, pp. IICHII
1 Arithmetic mean.
1 Children under 6 Jean
ol age per 1,000 women 20-44 years ol age. Not OOITf'Cted for underenumeration
of children under 6 years ol !lge.
Bourres: Bureau of the Census, unpublished data and FiJteenlA een.u, 01 1M Utllud Stai,.: 19tJll, Population Vol. m, tables 13 and 14, U. B. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. O.; and Ille tatiiel
tbrouch the courtesy of the Metropolitan Life Imuranoe Company.
ed
G
gl
To&le 72.--Estimated Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930, and Seleded Sacio-Economlc Fadon in 99 Corn Belt Counties
1
Rank on spoolnod !actor
Pemmt
estimsl.ed
net rural
County a nd State
mll(T&·
l ion,
1020- 1930
- -- - - -- - - -- -
~ ( o . . . . .. . . . .. • ...
8t. Clair , Mo . .... _• ... .• • .
Putnam , Ohio . • .. • ... •• ..
Pulask i, Ind ...
Brown , 111. •. __ ..... • .. .
DrJ1ton , l\lo . __ _ __ _. - ·-- ·
Franklin , Nt•hr . . . . . . . • •• ..
8chu~·l,' r , 111. ... . . . ... __ _
·-· • ·- · '" ····
Par ke, l n• L
J ••wt•ll, Knns ____ • •• ...
~mi l h, K ru:1:- . __ ____ _
fl ow:1r d, Neb r .... . .. . .
<lreeley, Nebr .. . .. . . .. .
~(cr c,'r, 111... . • . . . .. . • .
II icknry, :\lo _ . . . __ . . _. _
F'rnn t h• r, Nchr _ ___ . • . • .
Scott , 111. ... . .. . . . • . •.•.
Jlnn~on, ::. I> iik ____ •• .• •.••••
Holt , ~lo ..... .
0
rQ
\\'chst,' r. ~ehr .. .
l'olk, ~ t'hL .
~1cnanl , Ill..
. . . . . ... .
. . • ... .
Osc(1n)n, Iuwn ___ _________ ____ _
2
i
R inggold, Iow n __ . . . . . _.. __
Iown, Iowa . .... . ___ . . • • ___ _
!l
Mine r , 8 . Dok .. . .• . .. . • ..
Lyon, Iowa . ·- - - --- ----·--- -·
Wnrrco . l n •I. .......... .. .. .
Valley, Nchr __ __ __ ___________ _
0
0
0
00
-n
I
Percent
on roller,
July IY34l ion ,
l 9al--lQ3U 1Juno 19351
Farm
plane
of living
ln<lex,
1930
Percent
or
gainful
workers
in agrlc-ulture,
1930
Income
i:iS::tul
workor
In ngriculture,
I
I
Fertility
ratio,
1930
C lns, lficat lon byPercent Value or Per cent
Perce,a l -- - - ~ - - !11rm
or 10P orcent
populap~rou~aand 17mnchlnorrarm
lion
t.onancy, ;vear olds er i· pe r Jncroose, lncroaso, Distnnc-e
L nnd
from
farm,
m school .
IOal
prohlem •
1020- 1030 1910--1020
cit y I
103
1930
IQ29
,___ _ ,____ ,_ ___
1 - - - -1 - - - l - - - -l - - -- i-- --l - - - - ,- - - -i -- - - l- - -- l -- ----i
Put nom, Ill ..•. . • . .. .. . . . . ....
Gallatin, 111.. . . ........ ... . ... .
Pau l<l in~. Oh io . .. . ........ . . . .
B oyd, Nebr .
Ce<lar,
Rural
mb:m-
\VabaunsC'<', Kans __ __________ _
See footnotes at end of table.
- 37. S
I
- 30. 9
- 27. 0
2
3
- :w. 3
-24. Y
- 21. V
4
5
17
13
~
11
"
ft
~
7
ITT
01
72
~
8
20
3
25
I
3
17
11
00
13
14
5
23
6
IV
N
-21. 3
- 20. ;;
- 20. j
- 20.5
- 20. 3
- w. 7
- 19. 6
- 19. 5
- 19. ;,
- 19. 2
- IV. I
- 18. :l
- 18. 2
- IS. 2
- 18. l
21
- l i .,'i
- li.·1
-17. 2
22
23
25
- 17 . 2
-1 7. 2
·- 17. I
- 17. 1
25
25
27. 5
27. ,'")
~
-lf>.9
29
30
31. 5
31. 5
33
QI
0
38
I
N
M
34
50
39
M
29
87
- 16. 7
- lfJ. :l
- rn. a
- 16. 2
- rn. 1
8
9
10
II
12
13
11. 5
l •I. 5
16
17
18
IY. !°l
19, /"1
n
~
u
w
u
IK
u
~
n
IV
n
~
ms
58
25
6
l l;. 5
II
50
60
92
I
w
5
~5
n~
g
97
90
91
4i . r,
~
93
~5
5!",
~
16
TT
4
33
4~
AA
84
54
34
93
41. 5
~5
lt5
~5
61
33
H
ny
n
47
~
rn
51
5'2
II
39
7
H
9
42
85
45
8n
17
71
93
29
79
lH
57
2
00
M
2
4
i
2
25
2
24
6.1
84
50, r.
M
8
~5
:-t.i
57.
:rn
/"1
3~
.'>3
.'i(I
~I
30
20
14
n
M
11
u
~
G
N
H
25
I
3 1. -~
67. 5
~
~
5~5
36
8
20
2<J
2
02
82
78
~
w
-~
:!f1
61
%
2'2. ;,
SI.,,
~
~
:!3
00
-ts. ii
54 . 5
47 [,
~5
•n
32. 5
~
w
~
M
12
2{i
~
w
88
Oll
SI
M
fl.:',
~
u
57
~~
97
32
3~
If>
~ 5
I
.~o..,
! 7. 5
n
~
8-1
TT
-
69
\)~
II
•12
00
~
77
M
3
~
w
40. r,
63
15
~
10
4
47
IR
H
0.1
-
2
23. 5
i 2. :,
64
14
u
2
11. S
u
ro
91
4
15
13
2
3
6i
18. 5
u
ri
~
72
I~
72 . .\
93
5 1. 5
-13. b
I
"
II
2
2
2
17. ~
,jfj
{13 . •')
5
82
:17
I
5~. 5
311
5
111
M
17. 5
62
IS
m
I
4~
!O
3
II
14 . .'i
27
4
H
2
2
2
21
12. 5
.I
m
~
2
2(1
,.,
.:17; _,\ I
e
~
n
2
2
4
27
21i
43
5V
3
f1
14. [)
9
w
n
92
18
13
M
~
61
3
6
17. r.
17. 5
5
20
33 . .'i
TT
:J9
7
12
28 . .s
65
22. 5
25
32
48. .'i
62
31
3Y. 5 I
0a
56
2
2
2
5
2
·I
2
.'i
2
I
4
12. !\
91
2
2
2
.J
7•1
y
67
3
2
5
5Y.•\
VI
C
"ti
"ti
i'"
I
2
2
2
.,
2
2
2
2
2
2
"2
IT1
~
IT1
z
-t
►
::0
-<
-t
►
a,
i'"
IT1
VI
•
......
t
_.
Table f2.-Estimated Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930, and Selected Socio-Economic Factors in 99 Com Belt Counties 1-Continued
U1
0
-
1
•
Ran k on ~peciflod Cn.c·tor
l'Nt't' llt
e.st imated
nel rural
Farm
P ercen t
Rural
plune
m lirrnmh:.'T'fi· on relic!, ol li,·ing
tion,
tlon ,
J uh· 19.14111".ll--1 930
in<
hu:,
1920-1930 J u ne 103.'il
1930
Count y an.l St.ate
----
S iollx, Iowa
n ix on , Nebr :. :::::· .: .• : . . •
Ce<.lnr, l\chr. ______ __ .•••. ... .
'\\'ort h. lo\,a .
Murray, :\(in n _·_ : _:::
--~ --::
Lonlsn, Iowa
. . . •••.••••
Republic, Knns ... __ ______ ...
A ntf'lnpe. Ne.hr _ • · - ·
g
<O
i'J
"'a.
~
C')
0
an
-MO
-1.1 .R
- 15. 6
- II~
- 15. 4
- II. 3
··-·-
JFt.rk ~on, ~{inn
Kenrncy , N chr. . .•
rsrroll , ln•L .. ___ ____ ______ __
NanN', Nehr ....
1.I ntchtnson , S . llak . ___ ______
C harles Mi x, S . Dak
T hayer, Nebr ___ ___
__ ::::: : :
Lac 'IHI Parle, M inn . _.. ... .••
ll s r lan , K ebr.
Kin gs bury, S . P nk . _. __ _:: :: : :
Benton
. I nd
.. ______
·· __
···___
-· ····
Ne
maha,
K ons
____ ·
I
Turner, S. Dak . . .. .• •• .•. . ... •
flu t ler, :s;e br. __ --- -·· ·- ------ •
C ha<e, K ans ............ . . . . ...
Grundy, Iowa _ ·· · ---- - - -- -· -Dou glas, R. Dak .. . . • ..• . ••. . • .
C ottonwood, M in n ____ ______ __
Ph il lips, Kan~ .. .. . . .•• . . •..•• •
Moody, S . Vak _______________ _
1etferson, Kans • ..... •• .. . ••• ••
Butler, Iowa _____ ______ ____ ____
N ewton , Ind . . .... . . .. . .. . . - - ·
M cCook, S. Dak ______________
Rayes! K ebr . _... •.• .•• •. ...•• •
Renvl le, M fn n ________ __ . . •• • .
Osage, Kans ___ . __ __ ___ ____ •. ••
35
36
37
38
- I!, 3
- I [, 2
- ) !', '.?
39
4n . 5
40. 5
42. 5
42. 5
- 1.r;, 11
H. ,5
---- ----
I
79
1\.1
45
93
51
76
42
99
89
75
- 1:. ()
H~
.-;;
-11 0
46
47
49
74
- 1~
~
- 11 7
-14 . 7
- 14. 7
-1 4 fi
- 14. 3
- 14. I
-1 4. 0
-13. 8
-13, i
-13. 7
-13. 5
-13, 4
- 13. 3
-1 3. 3
- 13. 2
- 13. 2
-13. 2
- 13. 1
-13. l
-13. 1
- 13. 1
- 13. 1
49
49
,II
!)2
53
54
55
5ft. 5
5ft. 5
58
59
60. 5
60. 5
63
63
63
67. 5
67. 5
07. 6
67. 6
67. 6
12
ZI'
r,
67
4
70. ,I
1\2
29
98
46
92
l
55
22
g
18
80
114
8
60
:w
77
7~
79. ,I
81
Perren!
ol
galnr ul
ti9
49 5
30
fl()
74
30
7R
37
69. 5
76
46. 5
41
12
72
26
77
49
79. 5
~ .5
68
65
21
95
43
23
8
52
20
40
69. 5
44
45
27
31
F ert1llty
rn tlo,
~aln lul
wor ker
in srri•
In ll!!'f iru lt ure , cult.ure,
1929
1930
---- ----
51
35
.',6
C
I I ncome
P<'r
wor k ~rs
!,6
24. 5
14..1
5i . .\
93 . .~
37 5
:?X
21. .I
R4
14 5
75
46
8R
70
45
55
g5
53. 5
13
JUI
21. 5
31 . 5
67. 5
9i
4r 5 1
24. 6
82
1930
Pr r cent
of Illnf farm
nn<l 17te nnnc)' , y•ar olds
rn~
In •choo l,
Percent
1030
- - - - - - - - - - --
S-1
91
73
~2
30
5~
43
6i
61
26
2"
6
2.1
13
!ii
,I
12
9\l
33
43
9~
7~
24
21
77
49
~
6-1
00
24
65
47. 5
62
«
27
78
30
69
17
46
74
50
99
81
3i
47. 5
31
69
20
34
76
55
88
33
40
;o
I
58
53
51
92
rn
29
91
87
79. 5
55. 5
55,
31 5 1
2
38
811
5
51. 5
14
V al ue of
Cu.r m
marhinery pt'r
!arm ,
19.10
----
96
28
14
40
(I()
32
21
27
40
68
61
2.1
4R
RI
42
79. 6
37. 5
4S. 5
YI
12. 5
15. 5
44
46
11. 5
62
ZI. 5
40
87
R. 5
I
76
88
Q.I
12
69. 5
22
43
17
18. 5
3
61
40. 5
49
5i. 5
4
76
51. 5
65, 5
69
42
RR
15. ~
33
50
IO
95
16
9
15
71
74
94
Pru-ren t
population
increase,
~
·
H
3"
8:1
87
30
15
11
69. 5
57
45
50
87
76
43
9
99
77
60
57
10
8~
8
59
811
116
4
36
23
88
9
92
35
60
22
5
13
91
9:,
f¥,
73
79
9ft
33
57
lff
67
6
city 1
7:1
6.1
i7
7~
33 5
24
72
10
inrren.___.., l)lstallL~,
f rom
n
2
Ii
~4
t ion
1ft
47
Rf.
ll4
32
-~
113
40
79. 5
34
J.I
75
85
94
8
92
55
36. 5
5i
39. 5
i~
67.5
2 8. 5
I
2
"2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
4
2
2
3
2
«. ,\
)>
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
2
2
4
.~
41
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
23. 5
I
2
71. 5
43
71. 5
89
2
I
2
2
3
2
5
2
2
2
114
27
2
I
l
2
r
;o
2
4
)>
G)
3
4
;o
~
La nd
problem
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
78
75
6 1. 5
30
.'i(), .",
flOJJll ln-
C la.,siflca!lon b y- - - -- - - - -
1921H930 rn111- rn2n
M
30
21
69 5
X.1 . 5
81
4R ..~
IIO . .I
41
67. 5
41U
39
PerC'f"'n t
-4
az
z
-4
I
m
C
z=;
m
0
~
)>
-4
m
Vl
Calhoun, lowt1 .•• . _ - -· - ·· · ·-
Yellow Mr<lldue, Minn . . •.• .
Hancock, Ill . • . ...• • .•. .. . •. .••
Pottawatomie, Kans . •. •. . .• •••
Cedar, lowR . .• . . ____ . .••. •.• ••
Pawnee, Nebr . • •. .• . • . .. • . •• . .
Sherman, Nebr •••• . . . •• . •• . . ••
Taylor, Iowa . •..• .. •..•• •. . •. .
Adan1s, IowA . . •• •••• . •• .• . •.••
Woodford, m.. .... .... .. . .. ...
Adair, lows• .. . •. . . •.• .•.. . . . •.
Merrick, Nebr .. .... . . . ..... • •.
Guthrie, Iowa .... . . . .. .. . .. . . .
Fremont. Iowa • • . . . .• •.. ... . ..
Humboldt, Iowa . . . . . . . .. . •. . .
noonc, Kehr . . . . ... . . . . . . .. ... .
Cuming, Nci hr ___ ___ __ ____ __ ___
Brule, S. Tlnk .. ... ..... ... .. . •.
Tlnlon, S llak . .• . ..• •. . .. •. . .
Id11, Iow a ... .• .. ... .. ... . .•. . . .
Thurston, Nebr .... . . . . .. ·- ····
Atchison, M o. .. . . .... . . ... ...
Johnson, Nehr . . ... . . .. . . •. .. . .
f'hnse. N ebr. ·-- ---- --- ---- -Furnas , 'Kebr . .
Doniphan . K,rns .. _. . . .. . . . . . . .
~~i,~ti1.~ribr_: : : : :: : : : : : : ::: ::
Sarpy, N r hr . . . • .•. . ..• •. __ . -1
C lwyr nn r, Kuns. · · - -· ···-· ··
Han gr . - .. ···· ····· -·· ••I
-1 3. 1
- 13. 0
- 13. 0
- 12.9
- 12. 0
- 12. 7
- 12. 7
-12. 6
-12. 6
-12.6
- 12.2
-12.1
-11 . 8
- 11.6
-11.6
6
;.
a
~
C")
0
~
r-5""
84
10
M
34
83
44
21
78
81
86
66
90
53
54
88
30
95
5
84
84
86. 5
86. -~
88
89
00
91
Q2
93
94. 5
94. 5
-1 1.fi
-11.2
- 11.2
- I I.I
- IU.8
-IO. 7
-I0. 3
- 9.3
-8. fi
..
-~ ~
- S. 5
gf,
- 7. r.
- 4. 8
97
I. 7
98
-1.r. = = 90
-
-·-·-··•·I{
,\ vrrn~e • _ ... .. .. . . . . . / .... . _
0
67. 5 ·
71.5
71. 5
73. 5
73. 5
75. 5
75. 5
78
78
i8
80
81
82
84
I
- '.H. 8
to
- lfi
- 11
I
71
Q4
63
22
34
10
57
59
90
83
M
ii
66
f,J
i3
31. 5
97. 5
17
53
Oi. 6
7
82
62
10
73
32
9
- ~
58. fi
tu
('1
06
gr,
- 3•: . =
6To. 6
j
rn
i2
26
65
36
41. 6
71
49. 6
90
C.7. 5
Si
23
15
56
83
35
16
41
83. 6
48
97
39
98
07
66
92
36
89
51
96
99
80
11 . 5 _ _ _94 = 8
$4,ll~l
1,,8 4
60 i
$1,9ll<1
80
118
53
69. 5
83
72. 5
II. 5
31.5
59. 5
45
39
27
37. 5
36
06
2'!1fi
75
22
98
21
63
g7
78
70
27
$78~
03. 5
32
86
4
4!l
611
7
60
M
3
86
13
95
72
30
- 1 _ __ oo
53
82
36. 5
63
43
4ij_ 6
57
54
72
n
91
89. 5
88
86
79
g5
83. 5
80
96. 5
80. 5
92
98
93
90. 5
90
7
41
31
2
62
47
43
26
59
25
85
fl.I
G6
83
52
3/i
55. 5
27
37
I
71
22. 5
I
11
82
08
41
58
30
43. 5
46. 5
i2. 5
60
_
24
18
42
28 _
4733 1
214
1
387
$224
I
-30. 9
to
+244
/ili8 9
41
s
J
mY
$1 ,037 1
- 2.0
62. 7
to
I
~
35
67. 5
34
6!1. 5
60, 5
8
20
87
78
16
69
71
74
45
46
38
62
50. 5
44
62
32. 5
3
35
12. 5
.'i4
87
18. 5
7
21
28
771. 5
tu
17
86
22. 5
21
46. 5
34
80. 6
14
6
70. 5
88
52
86
76
71
59
45
4.2
2tl
68
53
75
95
59
60
82
79. 6
to
3113
to
15
66
49. 5
80
43. 5
Si
78. 5
89
R5
97
16
49
31
63
37
82
f,8
RO
~i
33
12
85. 5
27
02
80
n
27
=
90
28
tl4
24
1
~O. 6
to
to
$1. 792
to
70
79. 5
22
19
49
14
78
36
39
30
50. 5
68
61
50. 5
i6
81
2
I
I
2
4
55
2
90
5
3
2
2
66
88
38
6
2
g9
42
23. 5
97
27
50. 5
us
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
og
_
2
4
2
2
3
2
5
2
2
I
_ _
2
5
5
2
5
I
I
5 ,-
2
2
2
2
2
2
}· · · · · ·· · ·'· · ·· • •·· · ·
~r
- I I
J······ . ,... . ....
m
+ 36. 7
I
V)
to
-19. 5
• Counties ranked on each factor, number one In each case being 8"Slgned to the ftnt ftgure l!lvea In the "range."
• Based on .1930 population.
• Distance rrom city: 1-less the.a 60 miles from city of 100,000 or more; 2-50-99 mllee from city ol 100,000 or more; 3-lea!t than 60 mllee from city of 25,000-99,999:
miles from city of 25,000-90,009; 5-100 miles or more from city of 25,00<HKl,999.
• Land problem : I-problem county; 2-aoaproblem count,'.
I Median.
m
?
~
•-so-w
)>
,0
-<
....)>
a,
r
~
....•
....
UI
Ta&fe 13.-Estimated Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930, and Selected Socio-Economic Factors in 99 Appalachian-Ozark Counties
.....
1
VI
tO
•
R11nk on sp<.'<.'ifu>d f•<'lor
I
Pere(\nt 1~
----
r slinrnt,•rl
n<'t rurnJ
-
I
I
Perc't'n(
Fnrm
or~alnrnl
Rural
l'crr,•n r
lone
workers
mi~rnon r••ll<'f, oftivln~
in n~ri•
. ti nn,
tlon, I_ Jnly 1!•~ ~~ Index,
,•ultnrr,
t!•~~l •J\130 I rn:in-19.JI! June JU 3·'
1030
1930
County Rnd ~tatftl
mll!rn-1
1
I
I
,
~
I
Im-omc
t)(llr
gainful
worker
in ~.,-icultnre.
0
1929
11;1~1P•rr-ent
or farm
l'()l'I
rntfn .
m:u>·
fflnnnry,
19:?0
.;o
P~rr'ftnl
o(Hl-
,m,l 1'7·
·1 Vnhrn or
rarm
C
,c
)>
rtus!'ll1<i:1ol lr111 l,yPor<"flnt
JWlfltllJ\ •
t!on
P11rt"\•rH
JK1Jn1ln-
t lori
yPar old:c marhln · inrn•1\:;f'. it111't'-:\:::f'I. )>Islam,•
J..n111t
ery per
rrom
in S(·hool. (arm,
prnhlrm
J!J~I l\12O· 1\l:~I rn10 rn211
rit )' I
19:10
.-◄
.I
Senn·y, Ark ... .
L~<•, Ky . • . . . . .
1'ur k<-r, W, \"a ..
Elllotl, Ky . . . . • .
:!\frnlf,•<', Ky . . .... .
l'ushnrnlRha, I/kin
Franklin, Ark
Jnrkson, Ky ..
Rwnin, N. C . . • ...
Pmwll, K)' .. . . . .
Jlutl~r. Ky • ....
. :~"" · j
:\
·:'.. I
Hirknmn, Tf"nn .
Rrynol<ls , :Ila
O!lm,,r, On . . .
Omyso n, Ky
\fnrion, Ark ...
Hnrw0t·k. 'rrnn . .... _. __
Wirt,W.\"a
. .. ,•• ..
Sl\vic-r, Tf'lrn . ........ . .
C")
0
a
- 41.0
- :~~- :1
- :~; I)
- :1-1. 4
:1:1. R
• :1.1 II
-· 32. ,rl
•-• :\2 .ir.
- :t~. ~
Mo . ... .
' .I
~~- ,I
)>
12
73
- :,?tJ , 4
lfi
17
M
30
IS
•n
·· 211. 6
- 2fi. fl
19
20
21
22
23
24
fl
w
n
~
I
3. 5
fl.l
r,7
r,
I
42. ,I
n
~
- 26. 0
25
71
M
- 25. 9
- 25. 7
26
27
~
M
M
00
- 2,t 5
- 2,t3
-25. 0
-2◄ . i
-24. 5
-24. 2
-23. 7
-23. 0
-23. 5
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
311
m
I
00
w
M
«
13
~
n
w
3
u
29
u
n
n5
30
83
◄R
~
~
,I
45
41. 5
2"
rn
12
50
41
&i
RO
7fl
71
AA , !'i
21 . :;
n,,
10
12
4
RO
91
91
7R
4(,
!15
SI
s4
,n
I~
!t:\
1
fl! 5
fl.I
5
15. S
7
;4-..;
32
2:1
72
7S
70
2
\ I. 5
i:-1 . 5
I
/iO
20
If\. 5
11
rn. 5
fl.1
51
:~9
-11. 5
31
27
all
40
19
~'9
00
n
u
fl()
71
45
I~
205
2
ftQ
n
~
w
~5
M
M
II
f,>,
ffl
~
~
78. 5
/ii. .1
1,
~5
71
12
16
2fi. ,)
2
12
15. -~
117. 5
m
14
66
m
2
0
3. 5
49
14
I
74
2,>
I
2
I
30
54. 5
61
21. 5
!17
~
31
n6
M
~
~
~
w
311
H
~
~
ll
R5
n ..1
47
2!)
~
I
2
10
42
2'l
43
9~
14
73
92
«
91
M
~
r,o
95
as
03
63. 5
72
ll5
83
67. ~
66
30
~5
311
56. S
74
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ill
'!.I
RI. ,I
311
12
45
30. 5
4
~5
00
68
5g
7
18
~
s
4 '
n
n
51
27
9-1
52
29
70
◄R
,,
~
RI
12
37
ffO
so
01
0
!Kl
.'I.I
75
26
4
Kf>
~I
11
2
93
I
s.,
"'
c·
n
f\9. 5
II~
39
:!fl.-~
M
74 .•I
29
M
~- 5
~ft
I
20
22
TI
10
~
,II
4
,'-.7
~5
51J
1,
51
10
49
4R
25
13 5
43
39 ;,
73
;i2
Ii
38
ms
15
ft
11
12
M
',!,,
21
27. 5
M
37 . .~
21
~
fi3
H4 5
II~
M
M
~
11
15 .,
9
20
7
4f>
I
86
fl7
I◄
~\'<. 0
5
8
2
1.1
- 2(1.1
- ~ .7
- ~"<. 2
3S
:Iii
4
• ~~J. g
-:m.11
- :.:!R.~
Wayne, Ky . . .. . .. .
2.~
19
ff
. :II. 4
- 31. I
- nn
- ~i' . r.
Drnt,
K
8.1
Bollln~er, \lo .. . . ... . . . . . •••
Po1••• Ill. . .. . . ... .. . ... ... ... .
PPrry, Trnn ... .. .. ... .. . .. . .
Morm,r, KY ... .. •.. .. . .. . . . . •.
Cr•i~, \'a •.. . •.•. ... .. ...• . . . • .
l'atrlek, Vn ... . . •...•• • •• .. ....
Le~lie. Ky.
Floy,!, VB • • •
Ca.'K'y, Ky .. ... •.• •... •.. . . . .••
Llnroln, W. Vn ... ... . • . • .. • . ••
Braxtonl W. Vn ... . . .... •• .. . .
Cumbernnrl, Ky • . . . • •• . ...
14
69
10
11
12
13
~tf'WA.rt, Tt•nn .. . . . . .. . . . .... .
Humphreys, Trnn
I
2
3
4
C)
,c
-
1
Curt,•r, :!\lo .. .
~
13
37
; 11
12
4'J
:i,;
~
f,
s
24
32. 5
3~
32. 5
:m
H
62. 5
fl
37
77
M
Zl
20
50
82
5.1
42
47
62
22
,
26
M
79
17. !'1
Ill
2
2
1
4
I
3
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
ii
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
I
I
l
~
0
z
z
-I
J:
m
C
z
:::j
a
~
)>
-I
m
(/)
~:::::::::::::::::
"-iatl, W. Va••••••.•...••.
E······················
'I •••.•••••••..... .....
~.~~====::::::::::
ADlln,
Adair,
t~t::~::::::::::::::::::::
Buchanan, Va .................
Soott, Va .......•.... .... ......
Crawford, Mo............ • ...
Bento~ Tenn •••••..•.........
Boott, enn•.•••••• •.•.•.......
Wblte, Oa••. •••••••.•.... .• .•.
Pocahon~ W. Va ............
Madison, . 0 ................
:: :: :::::
~ttir~'JF.llll::::::::
Ritchie, W. Va ....... . ........
Tenn••• ••.•••........
M::::J::,
Mar n,Tenn •..••... . .. ... .. .
0
co
"';..,
~
CY
'<
CJ
0
a
ro
Alleghany, N . C •.•.. . ........ .
Fentress, Tenn ..... . ..........
Rapri:.annock, Va . •. . ........
Mar In, Ky ...• .. ... ... ........
Gilmer, W. Va .•••.. . ..........
CllntonKKy •..••............•.
Laurel, {V'· ·········· ·········
Hardy, . Va ..• ........... ...
Cherokee, N . C .. .•.. . . . . ......
Polk, Tenn ...•... . . .. .........
Page, Va ....•••••. . . . ..........
Morgan, W. Va ..•• ...... ......
Iron, Mo .•.•..... ... ... .... ...
Franklin, Tenn ••. .... .........
Cannon, Tenn •... . .. ..... . ....
Grundy, Tenn .•• ... . .. ........
Lewis, Tenn ..••.... .. . ... . ....
White, Tenn ....... ...... ......
Iefferson, Tenn •• •... ..........
g:J,;.~a~~:::::::::::::::::::
Preston, W. Va .• .. . .. .... . ....
Barbour, W . Va • . ...... .. .....
Oltes, Va .....••.•.. .. .........
Towns, Oa ...••• . .. .. . . . ......
Avery, N. C .. ••..... .. .. . . ..•.
Watauga, N. C .•.. . . .... ... . ..
See footnotes at end of table.
-23.1
37
-23.0
-23. 0
-23.0
-22. 7
31)
31)
-22.6
-22.6
-22.5
-22.3
-22. 2
-22.0
-22.0
-21.6
-21. 5
-21.1
-21. 0
-21.0
-20.6
-20.0
-Ul.7
-19 ..•
-19.4
-19. 2
-19.J
-19. 1
-19. J
-IP. O
-18. 3
-17.4
-17.3
-17.2
-17.1
-18.11
-16.11
-16.6
-18.5
-15.8
-15.8
-15.8
-15.8
-16.8
-15. 7
-15. 7
-15. 4
-14.8
-14.2
-13.8
-13.1
-12.7
-12. 7
39
41
42
43. 5
43. 5
45
4(1
47.5
47. 5
49
llO
61
62.5
62.5
64
M
66
57
68
611
81
81
61
83
64
86
66
67
68
69.5
811.5
71.5
71.5
76
76
75
76
711
78.5
78. 5
80
81
82
83
84
86. 5
86. 5
~
86
28
18
1111
82
1111
32
80
211
90
74
70
49. 5
Cl6
77
91
34.6
15. 5
66
64.5
47
73
36
30.5
~2
34. 5
86
24
60
89
90
49
34
72
97
24
96
70
82
42
79
u
64
52
69
48
88
37
119
3
2!I
21
23
29
54
78
111
68
11
80
87
6
61
66
Cl6
17
43
40
33
66
&7
311
60
60
63. 5
23
17
92
26
10
13. -~
30.
113
113
45
27.5
54
17
27
:n
2. 5
57. 6
&'I
77
113
33
84
82
66
34
9
64
96
80.6
8
I
118
36
39. 6
57.5
64
94
81
40.5
62
94
117
20
77
78
6
40
41.6
44
11
411
68
72
811
88
2.6
81
23.5
46
1111
18
37
90
82
19
89
2
84
34
15.5
95
16.5
4(1
117
81
711
71
68
33
6a
47
74
44
311
1111
88
118
32
78
68.5
84
87
76
8
119
78
89
64. 5
80
70
112
85
79
13
58
32
43
38
96
88
81 . 6
72
87
48.5
22
35
87
23.5
48. 5
112.5
117
89
8
18
86
64
88
118
96
119
M
89
41
49
92
3
63
82
96
16
42
68
38
30
83
86
20
76
83
111
27
4
80
46
26
67
58
36
IIO
81
40
78
lie
44
59
72. 6
113
5
34
711
74
47
39
23
33
16
64
6.5
76
18
66
23. 5
64.5
4(1
69
80
43
58. 5
17
M
6. 6
118
27
3
8
116
112
34.6
87. 5
26. 6
89
78
40
38. 6
114. 5
116
80
RI
66
63
II
4(1
94
86. 5
71
13
41 . 5
78
63. 5
82
23
36
43.5
16
71
51. 5
20
5
56
38. 6
28
UI
20. 5
77
67
78
98
18
13
78
33.5
70
6
87.6
27
48
112
70
87
74
10
14
86
83
113
22
II
73
48
13
32
24. 5
28
36.5
74
31
611
99
118
119
88
57
49
36.5
78. 6
94
26
33. 5
64. 6
26.6
82.6
1111
36. 5
33
62.6
f\l . 6
711
17
JO
26. 5
88
7
91
81. 5
36. 5
28. 5
39
40
36
2G
21
28
46
211
44
41
3ft
!11.5
61
30
38
71
66
48
82
69
56
43
66
117
81
411
73. 5
46
8ft
24
11
66. 5
47
70
76
Cl6
76
83
69. 5
69. 5
64
72
16
57
34
54
63
89
73. 6
22
26
64
1
32
80
89.5
4
82. 5
39
8
8
28. ~
9
58
31
34
68
3
68
20. 5
12
78
76
411
67
79
84
88
87
33
75
16
13
116
06. 5
61
69
2
4
4
31
92
82.5
11. 5
34
2
60
88
54.5
45.5
66
113
15
87
17. 5
30
116
48.5
68
21.5
89
44
66.5
77
52
66
74
81
51
26
3
26
54. 5
43
83
28
73
86
57
47
-u
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
a
1
1
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
a
2
l
2
2
2
1
I
1
2
2
1
3
l
2
2
3
2
a
3
2
2
1
I
I
1
2
2
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
2
1
2
I
1
2
1
l
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
l
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
2
C/1
C
=8
r-
m
~
m
z
.....
)>
XI
-<
.....
)>
11:1
,.,
r-
VI
.....•
V1
w
.....
Table 13.-Estimated Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930, and Seleded Socio-Economic FadoB in 99 APt>C1lachian-Ozarlc Counties L-Continued
.,.
UI
•
Ran k on specified !actor
::ilJ
I Percent
estimated
ne t rural
ml~aUo n,
Farm
P ercent
on relief, o!plane
llv lng
July 19341920--1930
!92tH 930 June 1035' Index .
1930
County and State
Ru ral
mlgrsl ion.
---- ----
Rowan , Ky . . ........• • ........
Lincoln, Ky . . •.... . .... . ......
Ada ir, Ok hL . . .• .. . .. ... . . ... .•
McCreary, Ky . •. . .• •••.••.• • . .
T aney , Mo .. . . . ....... .. .. . . ..
Graha m, N. C . .. ... • . . .•... . . .
Lee , Va . .. .•• . . .... .•.. •. .• •• .•
Delaware, Okla . ........• • . •. ••
Knot t, K y ... .. .. ............ . .
M itchell , K . C ..... . ... ...... ..
Vnn B uren, Ti:nn.
~. ... - ..
M c Dowell , N. C ..
Greenbrier , W . V a ..... ::: :: :::
~
-
12. 5
II. 0
11. 5
10. 6
87
88
89
- 9.'
-9. r.
- 9. 2
- li. 0
- 7. 5
- 5. g
+ 3 ..1
9.
61
35
78
31
43
5.'I
'27
22
00
63. 5
II
IJ I
61
49. r,
4
83
Z:l
33
66
67
96
96
y~
119
S4
'"
(,~. ,I
[
24
48
01
=·====
o
··1 +\~o
{
Range .. .
62
10
45
8.',
15
31
82
18
'¥1
+1 0 O
6
90
113
· ··· ••· -· . . .
.>. vern~e • ....... . . . . ... .. ::-:-~
- ti
73 o
;~8
I
Income
~al':ru 1
wor ker
In B!UI•
cultu re.
I
I
Fert ility
ra tio,
1030
Percen t
or 16Percent
an,1 17of far m
year
olds
ter:i~zr ' in school,
1930
1921!
Value or Percent
!nrm
populam~,·h lnlion
ery per in<·roose.
r,-,m.
Perc.'l>n t
pop ulalion
inc:rea!'e,
1920--19'.lO 191fl-1U20
19;!0
- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - --
9
91
92
91
05
+I -~
Percent
1
gal~ rnl
workers
in agrl·
cul ture,
19:IO
I
5.8
J~o
·~---;:;-;-1~
19
92, 5
I
«
4
79
25
6 1. 5
~3
13
20
12
H .5
'il."1
91.0
to
=~
I
17
67
70
8
73
50
14
~4
47
If
26
37
2
24
9
19
30
2.;
85
91
77
58. 5
29
40
S-1 . 5
3/i
33
90
HO
41
R. 5
97
19
61. 5
~
82. 5
44
~ .5
to
$1.112.1
14
114
96
96
45
114
59
81. 5
19
ll.~
..,.
2
2
2
3
I
2
2
.52. ~
96
M .~
OH
!>I
119
5
63 6
$507
to
to
~~=1=
to
5. 9
34. 2
S42. 0
24. 8
48. 6
-
8
~~
11:1
g7
115
593 fi
·----
7R
80
= = = ----1.2.>17
.",f, 4
674
$221
25 4
r-
2
119
!!S
::ilJ
)>
]) L-stnr1C'l0
Land
!rom
pro hlem ◄
r!t y •
48. 5
3
31
Sf. 5
90
21
I C las;;illm t l~~ hy ~
00
92
C
89
7H
I
24
90
71
---I
I
I
I
I
l
I
1
I
4
~
2
I
3
4
--=-- - - - - - - - -
=
I
1
I
1i: :! ::E }·-······· -··· ·
0
:
s 12s [
-2 1
+ o 3 . .•.
..j .
IQ
2
~
~
C")
0
ar-o
1 Counties ranked on eech !actor, number one In each csse being Bll!llgned to the first figure given ID the "range."
• Based on 1930 population.
• Distance from city: 1-Jesa than 50 miles from city n! 100,000 or more; 2-60--llemllea from city of 100,000 or more; 3-lma than 50 miles from city of 25,00l>-OII.M; 4-ao-ull mlle,r
from city of 2ii,OO(H9,W9; 6- 100 miles or more from city of 2ii,OOO-W,IIUD.
• Land problem: I-problem oounty; 2-nonproblem county.
•Median.
~
Gi
::ilJ
)>
-4
0
z
z
:I...,
C
z
e
~
u!
Ta&le 74.-Estimated Net Rural Migration, 192~1930, and Selected Socio-Economic Facto11 in 99 Cotton Belt Counties
1
Rank 011 spooln11<l f1w lor
P orcent
es timated
I not rural
Farm
mll(l'llRura I
Percen t
plane
.
ml gra- on relief,
f
•
lion ,
lion,
July 1934 _ o 11 v mg
1920-1~30 I020-!930 Jun e 1935' iudex.
c OUll h . a n,! S. tate
1930
- - - --- Chuttuh()(l() ht't', Ga _. _.... . ....
Taliaferro, Oa_. _ .. _. . . . __. . . •.
Ilanevek, G a . .. .• . .. · - · · ··· · ··
Pt•rr y, Ark .... . ___. .. • . . . •. . . . .
Madison , Ga .. . ..... ... •.. . . - ·
Vi1y,, t 11•. Ga . . -- ·. . . . .. .. . .. . .
E tl ~l' tlel.J, S. !' .. · - . ... . . .
M l'f' nrmk k , S . f' .. .. .. . . . . . .. .
Frank lin , n a . .. _. ... .•. . .
C'ln;-,A ln ...... _. -·· · ··• · · · · ··
C' olu mbi11, <l a ...... . .. . ... _...
H,•nry, <la ..... .. · - · - • . . .. . .. . . 1
Le,•, On __ ___ . . _. ____ • · · ·-· , . ..
Salw la, S . C .... . ••. . ..... •• . .
D awso n, Cla.,.. . .. .... .. .. . . ..
Issiu1u,,nu, ".\IIs.s ·- ·•·· · -Il art .Ua . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
B n m lier ~. :-. C . .. .. -· · -- .•• • •
··-1
····I
t;~):
~r.:'.·•;;;~~ ·: : ·····
B lt•f'klry , ,
i: t . . _.
P oint,· C u111•···· La
H tun pt o n , :4 . C . __
0
"'
Q._
_ __ _
•• • . . .. .
- 53. I I
- 39. I
- 3-~. ◄
- 37. 7
- 35. 4
- 3o 3
- :J.1. I
- 35. I
·- 3o. l
- 35. 1
- :!5. 0
- 32. 6
- 32 3
- 32. 2
- 31. 7
- 31.0
- :H. 0 ,
- :~1.5
II
=t~:~
- '2i . 7
•• 2f.. 4
- :?!.i U
- 2.",. !J
. .. • . . . ..
I
I
2
3
4
5
8. 5
8. 5
8. 5
8.51
II
12
13
14
15
11; !,
lfl. fi ·
~;2 1
22
- 2.~1.
- 2fi. 7
2tl
- '25. 2
2;
llo11 µlns , O a _ .. __ _ . _••• _• .. ___
C nlho1111 , :<. C' •.. _ ··-·• • ·---Hn n, lol1>h, A rk..
11 :tr<l in , '1'1•11n
Emamll'l,l i ll .__ _
M11 rr:1,·,011 ____ .
JelTc• rs.;11 , <l a .. ..
,
~ et• roo tnot p:-: at l'llll of tnble,
- 24. S
:I'<
- '! 4. -1
2'J
311
I
I
- :!:I. V
- 2:i. ~
- 234
-:?'J . 4
- 2.1. 3
'.?!)
:u
:i2. 5
:12.s
34. 5
60
I
48
19
41
11
50
77. 5
23
so
73
12
7
H5
67
97.5
.~6
28
,,
61
5
SI
6i .!,
~
1
1~i
37
9K
g
IS r,
n
23 ;,
nrnn t, .\r k . . . . ____ ___ . ....
)o\
l
18
2:i . .~
43
10
7
17. 5
48
41. 5
03
68. !,
72
97.5
55
47
~
,,· t1t•d1•r, On______ ______ __ ___ __
Bibb . .\ la..... .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .
Turrn·r, f hL . ___ __ _____ ___ _
-- ·1
71
1·
4i4
,ti!
f.-1
a
21'
4
10
:13
1
I
6
51
4r,
72
-· - - - -
Port'ent
of
gainful
. k
wor e~s
in Bl(l'I·
cuf~~e,
·
Income
,,.,r
~sinful
worker
in &!il'f'i•
&1. :.
-.
H
I
I
1
39
31. 5
IS
Hl. 5
44. ,1
:!5
14
31. 5
2\J.,I
5.5 .I
9 ~
\1 . •1
f.s
1:,
~~
l~
kO
I
9tl
54
5.1
16
31
47
27
fi5
r.2
34
~2
79
I!>!
37
411
9~
tl3
I\U
~~
I
G.'i
11
,,
~o
44
f,.j _ ,I
X.)
4
20
ri-Y
H5
Si
21. .~
s•)
!)(i
; 11
72
01
G4
41
91
t K ,I
71l
43
4Y
9
26
71
2
SI
or.
x3
tH
4tl
26. r,
78.5
30
,5
2:i
•l:l
79
aS
49
8i
s
I
I
42.5 1'
21. 5
41
18
87
02
78
2
SM
73
35
-11
fil
9
70
~"
Jg
I
j
1
I
I
78
22
21
24
20
40
74
31
23
,
11. 0
iMI
'!.i
4,,. ,5
!i i
2,1
49
I
Hi
:.2
I
!J~
\Ill
Ill. 5
fi3
i'tl
-t f,
71
25
:i:1
70
r.2
30
63
12
I
~~- ,I
,:u\t 5
!10
I
I
V3
411
7/i
S
I
I
'..!~
,;s
f,
:!7. "
- - - - - -; - - - - -
-- --- -
I
5
JI
S'.2
., 1. !i
fi.~- .r..
!'I I
--·--1-·---
Fertility
rat Io,
1930
c11i1i ~e,
-- 99
21
62
63
16
O. ,I
50
47. ~
30. 5
45
32
36
3·1
20
12
5
18
· ·
1
·Perc" ut Value of
Clnsslllcutlou h yp
ol 16Perc-ent P ercent
ercon t
a 11d 1·1 farm
popula,or,u la •
of farm
d
machin,
I
tenancy, year o 1 s er~· per
1100
ton
D ist!lfic'tl
In school,
!arm
Increase. ID<.Tease,
from
Lancl
1920
1930
!920-1930 11/1()-1920
city I
problem •
1030 •
.~5. !J
68
3
1
J
1
94
,,2
31
311 . .\
SI
r.5
76. ,I I
V
I
99
98
79
91. 5
87
30. 5
Ill . 5
95
·IK
38
I
flO
5
21
7fl
l
II
99
I. 5
3
8
12
6
14
I. 5
13
II
4
9
41
13 .I
I
4
fl[,
.r~H
i
Stl
:Ml
117
rn 5
25. 5
3''
s.1 . .;
13. .
HS
25
26
41
36
33. r.
46
28. 5
4
:l
4
~~
33 . .'>
22. fi
z-i . f"> I
\j
3
I
4
3
I
.I i
14
3
m). 5
o0. 5
5
:LI
1;2
2
27
◄Ii
1fi
:~. 5
19. a
IS
· - - -- --2
2
2
2
I
3
3
2
72. 5
15
.51
~~
--
26
43
29
50
74
52
9
2:,
5
17
32
'\,::, ft
-- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
v,
2
C
2
"ti
1,:,
I
2
i:;;
l fflt
2
3·1
:
3
3
6
•
2
~
1:,
!ll
4
I
4
l
I
~
Y
~
a
1
I
3
4
2
4
I
3
I
2
2
I
2
I
2
-..: ·1
s;
71
2-1
3.1 .\
4, ,1
31
61
J
2
Z
-,,_
-I
),
li!Z
~
•
~
VI
....
Tal,le 74.-Estimated Net Rural Migration, 1920-1930, and Selected Socio•Economic Factors in 99 Cotton Belt Counties L--Continued
U1
0-
•
"'C
"'
)>
RRn k on sJ.-•Jfle<I t>IC'!Or
Per<1mt
estimRte(I
roet .rural
County anr! State
JUJL'Ta-
I
I
I
Rurnl
I n1i~a-
I
I
Percent
Farm
on rfllld.
pla~e
- 23.3 - ~ . ~
- 23. I
31\
- Z:!. 0
37
- 22. 4
31<
- 22. 3
39
-21. 7
40
- 21. 5
41
-21. 1
42
- ?I. 0
··1
0
~
r,)
9
-20. ,
- 20. 8
- 20. 7
- 20. 2
- 20, 1
- W. 5
- 19. 4
- .'11.
<'a n.,ll~r. Ga . • . . . . . . . ..... - ..
Lo" o,lcs, Aln . . . . . . . .•• . . ••• . • .
Clay, Ark .• .. . . . . . . . ·· ·· · · • ·- ·
Atewnrt, Cl11 •. . • •• • . • .• ••• .• .• ,
Warren, On . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
C")
ga!nrul
worker
A voyl'lles, L11 . . . . . . • •
•. •
Oarroli, M!.'I., . _. . . . . . . . •• •• ••
'l'l'lfolr, <la . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .
l.amur, :\H<s .
. . . . . •• . . . . . .
Covington, :\li~'- ··· . . . • . . ... . .
Wilklrc, on, 011 . . . ... . . • • • " .
Fnyette, A la
... . .. .
Jnsp,•r, Mis.,
. .. . . . .• .•.
PkkPn.,, Ala . . . •··· · ···· · · · - ···
Winston, Ala .... • ·· · · • ·· · - · ··
Choctaw, Ala.. ... . ...... . .. .. .
H,•nton . Miss
.. . .. • . .
Rhelh y, .~ln..
. . .. .. • . ...
C'lnih~rne, Miss.. . .. . . . . • . . . • .
Ran km, Ml,s.• . . . • . . . . . . . . .. . • . .
<'rcnshnw, Ala . . . . . . . . ••• . . . . .
ConPeuh,Aln . . ... .• . . . .. ...• .
Lonokr, Ark . . . ... .. . . . . . .. . . . .
Clenl11nd, Ark ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Monroe,Aln .. . . . . •. . .. . . ... •. .
Lincoln, Ark. .. . . ... . . .... . . . . .
Sharkey, MLs., . .. .. -·-· · --· · -· _I
43
I
- 19. 4
- 19. 1
- 18. I
- 19. II
- IS. 3
- 1~. l
-l'<. 0
-17. 9
-17. 4
- 17. 2
~I
-tff ..
-15. 8
-15. r,
- 15. 6
-15.5
-15. ·I
-1,1. 4 1
l -14.
-11.91
8
-H. 3
44
4.~. .~
45. 5
47
4S
40
50
51. ,I
51. 5
5.1. 5
.~. 5
55
,',/',
,17
58
59
/ill
61
31
"3
%
~
~ I
2
n
~
~
~
~
u
21
m
a
M
«
w
II
~
w
ITT
n
•
~
ITT
rn
ff2
~
11.1
17
ff4. 5
6-1. 5
611
ff7. ,I
67. 5
69
70
71
•
00
3.'i
75
91 I
511
13
4ll
11
91. 5
ii
10
14
51
14
41.
71
[>ll.
s
I
51
33. 5
9-1. 5
82
fU
I
fi
J.51
:in.
5
f,3
33. 5
23
n
5
30. 6
2
24
11
4
•
~
ft
3
ffl
ffl
ii . f.
5J. 5
n
13
73
/l)j.
~
~
3
"3
I
~
5
15
~ .s I
~
n
12
~
~
m&
w
70
~
8
w
~
w
,,,;
25. !'1
M
1.5
u
~
89 .•~
VfJ
lY
!~·42 r,
#J
51
K4
2
\IR
.5a
611
,56. 5
39
46
n .5
67
9. 6
8
@
~
23
ns
I,
I
I fpruu1cy ,
192<J
,· .. 1ue or ~
and 17•
m~'c~t~in-
year old~
in srhool,
l!l:m
~
~
4
~
ITT
7
73
~
«
u
42
37
M
fil
1.~
93
II
·"'
3.~
(I.I
,r,/1
4
r.s
1ft I
H
lS
M
~
~
2
~ I
30 ..~
R ft
,\S
3
4
~
9,~
~
~
k2
,S3
~
7
~
g.f .
.~:i
SIi
31
~
ITT
~
~
Ai
34 . I
5.l
111 a
,C[i 5
llli
77. r,
-3
i
w
!I><
57
~
~
"u
~
7fl
w
29
~
~9
10
ff4
M l
fll
79
43
K,~
~
51!
32
~
2
•
,1\J.1
4.~ I
; .~
fl,~ .~
w
u s
~
II
I
~
~
~
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
.~1
~
11
2
1
4
5
u
~~
M
w
49
7.\. 5
"'
67
n
~
;,
:1
Ill .~
ti:! .~
~
~ 5
,;;
91
ITT
~
4
'J2
1111
112
5:!
•
~
90
48
N
H
m
Sil
A ft
~
w
na
w
Lantl
protil~m •
~
~
~
~
r-
I
75
45 [,
17
23
M
from
oily 1
i 7 :,
5'
RI
rn 11Ho:.J1
D lstan"'
19
~
,4
ft
tion
in{TM..~.
00
!JO
n
'~\~~B~
I lnrreB~.
rsr m , 1t1:«J w20- H•:lil
PerN'nt
JW1JJIJla·
54. ,5
2"
54 . 5
~
~
i
l
err,,nt
rry ,,,.r
511
~
w
00
M
A 5
R5
<'lr.<<
. lflt1llio n hy- •
PPr(·ertt
or 111-
~
G)
"')>
M
3.~
~-11
ratio,
1930
5.1
~,
4~
culturo,
1929
'J2
5
Ij Fert illty I Percent
of lnrm
in al'"ri-
19:J{l
'
~
Mllle r,Oa .. .
. • • . . . .-. ]
Irw in, On . .. . ... .... ••• .. •••
Cheroke<', Aln .· - · ·· · ••• - • · ••
(!or.J o n, 011 . . . . . . . • . . •• . . .
Haker, 011 . . .. . . .. . . ••• .. . • . •. .
!'harp, Ark .. ... ... . . . .. . . . . .. .
Fnyl'tll', 1'1•011 . .. ... . ••• .. . • . . .
Lnmar, Ala . . . . . . . . . •••••••••
" '.il~in:;on_, ~fis.• . . . • . •. •• . . • .
\\ R} hi', :\tiSS..
. . . • . ... . , .. .
!!
lDC'OlllO
J>(_lf
~"1nru1
workPrs
In aJ"Il·
r t1lft1rP,
or
llon,
!Ion,
!July 1!134 - 1 o( livtn~
193H~30 1920- 1\130 llune 103.'\l m<Jex,
I 19;10
:!.
Percent
4
2
5
1r,
~
39
~5
:lf)
2
3
2
l:!
l
l
~
~
i<-1. 5
4
~ 5
13
4
7Y
2
H
75. 5
i8
2
I I
J '
u
a
as
ITT
M
~
r,i
,;o. 5
40
2
I
J
~~. l lI
m
H .~
II
M
30
41
5
3
411. ,I
82
u
~5
IO
3
00
35. 5
3
4
3
4 '
as
~
n
li l. ,'!,
HI
02 . •~
411. 5
n
1ft. 5
H
I
75
~
~ 5
83
~5
AA
H
20. 5
ro
62. 5
H
112
~
10
:I
:I
I
2
I
I
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
I
I
2
I
I
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
I
:::!
0
z
z
-4
:I:
m
C
z
@
~
m
H onry, Ala . . .
E,·anKelino, Lil . . ..
Schle y, <la ..•...• ..
M cNnlr>·, 'l'enu .. ... ... . . .
Smith, M is.• .•.••••...• • . •. •• • .
W oodruff, Ark ... .. . . . . .. . .. .
PrcntlM, M IA., . •. .. • ...••.... ,
Montgoniory, N. C . . ..... . . .
Fronklln, N . C .. .... .. . . . . .. .
Coldwell, La • .••... . . •• .. • ...
M ontgomer y, Ga . .. . .. .. . . . .
Cnlhouo, Oa ... •.
Chester, 1'e nn • . ...
Newton, M IM .... .. . . . .. .... .
J etTcrsou Dn ,·i., M Is., . .• • . ..
Grunt, La . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .
~?ltman, Oa A .. ..
nshmgton, In . .. . . . .. .. .. .
P ickens, Oa .. ... .... .. ... . . . . .
1
!
t,
!;:,·r..'if-s::::·::: ::::::::::
Gree ne, .'.la . •• • ... .. ... .• . . ....
Tippah . Miss . .
Lake, T enn . •. . . . . . • .•••. ••.. . .
Lea ke, :'-ft ilS .•• . . . • • • • ••• . .••
R iehla n,J, I.a .... .
Tensn.•. La . . .... . .... . .. . . .. . .
West Carroll , l .n .
Rsn ~1..~ ..• - ---- --- -·······
A,·ernJ?1• 1• •
- H. 1
- 1:1. 7
-12. 7
- 12. 1
-12. 1
-11.5
- lU
-JO. II
- 10. 6
- 10. 5
-10.2
- 9.7
-9. 3 I
-9, 2
-8. 0
- 8. 8
-8. 7
-7.6
- 7. 4
-6. G
- 6. 0
-4. 3
- 3. 5
-2. I
+!. 4
+4 . 4
JO. 5
+ 22. 4
+
1
·
=
{
-- - - ---- --
. .. .• • ••.. . ........ .
72
;3
74
7,'I. 5
7-LI
i7
7~
79
!IO
HI
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
01
92
93
94
95
77.5
\If\
42
58
14
3.\
24
:Z0
75
84
40
65
M
53
18
25
70
38
30
611
87
99
15
43
51
97
98
00
7R
07
AA
53.5
60
74
IIO
2'1. 5
17. 5
00
99
811. 5
76
51.5
3A. 5
IM. 5
5/i.5
21.5
58
87
65. 5
38
90
3
I
45
84
21. 5
JO
8
IS
32. s
to
1u
to
Mil
~. 1
to .
+ 22. 4
- 10..1
• CouDtlee ranted OD each rac:tor, DDDlber ooe ID each • B8'1ed OD 11130 populatloll.
0. I
11. 21
35. 4
I
21. s
~
H
211
23. 5
'Tl. 5
30. 5
fill
41
112. 6
f,0
87. 5
74
71
37. 5
61
7
9i
77 5
92.5
114
87. 5
I
23. 5
11
17
33
4i . 5
,S2
51;.,1
I
I
oo. ;
to
15. 0
36
311
00
25
3
78
67
36
211
41
58
02
M
51
10
86
30
17
13
24
119
90
23
95
5
8,5
03
13
88
52
70
67
03
76
62
77
!S6
84
~4
94
flO
711
48. 5
40
10
24
H.5
27. 5
2
~ -5
M.5
81
R2
95
99
I.
74. ◄ /
$230
to
I
$8fj5
~;, i
:Ill
60
30
72
96
g
M
118
4D
HI\
47
6
H7
01
K.1
7i
3g
116
81
HII
I
13
73
5
H2
28
3
44
1,,,2., J
to .
H4. 4
7.5R.S
I
·
0:1.2
1· .
to
21. S
~
3 '
7fi. 5
74
YI
29
14
28
1ft
43
5.1
21
85
97
?8
6
1
15
84
69
42
33
71
AA
11 . 5
90
4
39. 5
60
45. 5
42.6
6
60
23
36. 5
24
25. 6
12
34 . 5
45. 5
00
57
11
18
71. 5
50
22
, n.;
to
28. 4
m~
to
.~ u
~
84
71. 5
RO
03
29. 5
2
16. 5
29. r,
32
32
,
$(ii
,
i12r.
I
73
77
66
76
80
72
HI
H6
M-1 . ,I
!l2
HI)
fii. 5
11.1
~4. 6
88
79
87
\JO
93
Q2
71
78
94
111
07
00
9~
9~
- :10~
t11
+ 11.s 9
- 1.0
47. 6
4~
TT
32
114
53
:13
66
69. 5
I
Ii
62. 5
15
38
JR
4
37
20. 5
M6
fi7
8
4
I
-.'\.l:I
I}.
+ 41. 7
+ 2. 11
I
I
2
I
2
2
I
2
2
I
4
5G
22
03
2
\14
to
2
2
2
3
l
2
3
3
3
f,0
1
2
4
J
1
4
2
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
I
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
2
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
I
I
I
C
i
''"
~
be1J11 um,ned to the llrst llcure pveo ID the "range."
• Distance from city: I• l81S thall l!O mn.. from city of 100,000 or more; 2 • ~ mllel from city of 100,000 or more; a-ie. than l!O mllel fl:om c,ky of 28.000-II0.91111; 4•»-119 milll
from city of 21!.IJOO-II0,91111; 5•100 miles or mon frvm city of 28,IJOO-II0,098.
I
I
Land problem: l•prob1-m eouotT, 2•DODprobleJII OOWlt:,.
Medlall.
"'
. . . . . . . .... . .. .. .
~
'"z--4
)>
::0
-<
--4
)>
a,
r-
rn
....•
&
VI
-.J
158 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Tal,le 15.-Counties of the United States by Percent of Gainful Workers 10 Years of Age
and Over Engaged in Agriculture, by Geographic Division and State, 1930
Percent or gainful worken enppd In agriculture
0BOll'aphlc dlvt.ton and State
Total
oountles
Lesa
than &
11-11.Q
10-:IU
26-411.11
liOor
more
United StalAII •.......•.......•......
8,069
71
117
401
899
New England ••.•.•.•.....................
9
II
:I
36
New Hampshire ••.•••••••..••.....•..
Vermont ............................. .
MB!188ChUSl'tts •••..............•......
Rhode Island ••••••...................
Connectlout •.•••.••.•......••.•......
M
16
10
3
10
H
12
4
8
ll
I
2
2
Middle Atlantic •••••...•....•............
New York .•••••••....................
143
&7
lJJ
66
111
:Ill
7
4
17
88
24
JCut North Centn1L .•...................
Ohfo_ ••••••.•.•......................
Indiana ...................•...........
ffllnola •.•••••••••..••••......•......••
Mlchlpn •••••••••.•••..••.•••..••....
Wlaoonsln •••••••..•••••••••••••••....
4,18
12
7
2
1
z
IIO
23
18
16
21
18
204
42
1114
M
32
28
Wm North Centnil .•...•.....•..........
Mlnn880ta.
~
14
4
412
61
64
2
8
11111
lJJ
34
26
8
10
22
46
M
161
31111
6
6
10
7
2
II
17
12
38
lJJ
26
z
28
88
32
121
H
86
278
11
10
118
153
118
Maine •.•••••.•.....•.................
~:,,~;~ia:::::::::::::::::::::::::
88
92
102
83
71
87
gg
2
6
7
6
I
I
6
4
2
114
83
Xam1111 •.••••••••••.••.•••••••........
g3
106
South Atlantic •••••••••.••.......••.•.....
Delawllll! •.•.•••••.•.....•............
5M
3
10
23
100
1
1
M
2
~!ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Eut South Central ..••..•...••...........
Xentuclcy •••.•••..•••••...••........•
Tennessee •••••••••..•.•...•.......•••
Alabama ............................. .
Mlaaiaalppl. ••••••.••.•...••.•.•••.•..
4
4
8
8
2
Iowa........ . . .
. ... .
Missouri ..•••••••.••.••.••••••........
North Dakota..•.....................
South Dakota ••......................
Nebraska ••••••••.••.•.•••••.•..•..•.•
South Carolina ••..•....•.•.......••••
2
1
1
2
11
8
ll
•
•
lJJ
1
2
8
z
10
8
57
118
48
6
56
15
87
a
3M
8
7
I
2
11
I
I
8
11
29
l
2
ll
ll
14
109
6
18
22
113
316
88
IIO
Ill
16
7
18
1215
32
22
11
211
14
llJJ
96
2
tJ7
82
6
6
2
1
Mountain ••.•••••••••....••.....•...•....
Montana .•••••••.••••..••........••..
Idaho ..•..••.••.••...•................
271!
56
6
7
411
6
6
6
12
2
g~~tii···························•
78
~
a
8
Pacific....••.••••••••..•.•..........•.•.•.
Washington •••••....•.....•.••.......
21
30
1
II
Utah •••••••••••••.•................••
Nevada ..•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••
26
12
18
2
100
46
161
6
Amona ...•...•..•.•...............•.•
so
1
8
1
4eG
75
63
77
264
-~:xi:!~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
New Mexloo •.•••....•..............•.
37
lJJ
I
16
2
West Routh Central ••..•••••.•.••........
Arkanau ••••••••.••••••.•.•••••......
Louisiana ............................ .
Oklahoma •.••••••.•••••..•••.........
Tena....••....•••.•..................
7
2
2
ell
l, 571
~
23
I
I
62
31
14
29
17
3
132
3
1
I
1
3fl
36
57
3
I
6
12
21
23
12
6
I
3
6
4
11
7
4
6
40
2
I
R
58
13
al
26
2
14
lJJ
811
38
47
1114
1
13
3
.,g
8
II
Source: Bureau or the Census, Fl/fttfltA Cemm of tlte Unlud State,: l'J/10, Population Vol. III, U. s.
Department or Commerre, Washington, D. C., 1G32, table lll.
Google
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 1 59
To&/e 16.-Counties of the United States by Gross Farm Income I per Gainful Worker
1 0 Years of Age and Over Engaged in Agriculture, by Geographic Division and
State, 1929
Income per gainful worlrer engaged In agrkult u re
Total
counties I Less than $600$1.200II ,81l0·
$'.Uilll
$600
Sl.l!l!l.W !l.7111U1\I $2,31111.00 or m1>re
lr ------.- --,--- ----.---.---- - -
Oeoeraphlc division and Slate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - -1-- - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - l nlted 8tatM. ----- - ------ -· - · -- - · - -
N ew F.ngland __ . __ ••. •. -· _-·· - _____ ·- - _• • _
!'.! aloe __.• •• . · - · -· · · ·· -·- • - _-· ___. _-· ·
:-;.,.. HamJ>"hlre_ •• • • • --· --· -· ·-· • - · -·
Vennont . •• · -·· - · -·· · • - ·--- -- · ·- · -Massachu.sel!!! --·- -• • -·--·--· --·· -· ·
M 1 lo11e Allantlc __• _____ _••• • . ---· -· · · -- --
64
1'~
-·1
8
2
M
32
39
35
62
I~ !
71 I
1
v.·e,t North Central • . • • . •• • -·-· · - ·· • ·- - · I
'.\flnne,ota •. .•. . --- · - · -·- ·-•• · ---- -- - 1
11211
I
87 1
I~
lr&m1111 . . -·· · -···· ·•• ··•·· ---·- . .. --.
53
811
113
105
Sout h At!nntk .. - • - · -·· ••· - · - -- - - · -- · ··- ·-
M5
North Carr,Hna _. . · - ·-· - -----···- .. ·- ·
S<>uth Carolina __ · · ··· •· · -·- -· · ··· · _
(leor,la _____ ___ ·• --- · --- __ ___ .. .. . - -·
Florida _• . __· ---· • ...•• •. - -·------·-- ·
IIIO
92
- ,
j
11
11
8
2
1
VI
f3
10
38
1114
M '
I
48
45
1
7
83
~ I
43 I
6
:l08
44
lllil
15
61
36
I
11
:n
40
a,
31
a:,
18
41
36
230
27
3
H
2
11
9
2
24
66
55
100
16
37
55
28
32
6
2
E a,t South Central--··--·- - · -- - ·- ·- · .
364
236
123
2
2
Tennemiee . __ - -··----- ___ _- . •• . ·-- - . . .
Alabama_. -· -- --- · -··- - ··-- •- •---· '.\ft,i_•IMlppl. _. ·-·- __ -· ·- --· - · - -·- •••••
1111
a
a
Louisiana •. -·· ·- · · - -- -- ---·· -- .. _ . ___
Oklahoma . ___ • ____ _ -- ---- --- •-- - ---Teu•-- - ··-···--- · --- ---- - · ----- · ·····
62
63
12(1
67
t69
75
I
161
45
171
41
21
36
85
30
116
25
101
12
63
Mountain •.. -- · --- --.- · --- · •- --· · · · -- · - . . .
Montana ____ -- · ·· ·· . . __ . . . . __--·· _-· ·
Idaho_•. __ • -· · -- ----· ----- · · •- -- · --- ·
. .
New Meilco _______ . _· - -- ---- . . .. . .. .
Ariu>n•·- · · -- - · __ __.. ·· -- ______ __ _.. •
t'tah . _- - -- ···- · ·. -· . . - . •.. · · · · - .
Ne-1•-- · ······· · -- · --·--· -· -· -··--··
• 276 I
11
1
Paclllc........ ·· ·- ____ __· -· ___·• -. _-·. --· ·
Wuhlngton ____ -· -· -· - ___. _-· --· _•• ••
132
39
36
57
g~~~ia_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
™i
56
44
23
162
31
14
:zg
17
83
42
8
10
n
82
34
511
~I
~{:~~::::-::::::::-:::::::::· ::
2t\
2
J
35
40
45
I
45
127
'W•t !'ontb Central_ . ____ · · · --- · - ... . . __
_.\rkaDS11S __• .. ___. · · -· -· --- · --· • · .. · -·
10-I
I
l
3
23
100
4ft
161
67
'Kentucky _____ · - - ___ - · ___ __ . ___ _. . _-· ·
224
3
6
11
27 1
20
---
18
I
,
Wisconsin . • _--· · . ·- __ •. -···· - · - -- -•• •
~~~7ni:~_·:.
--::::::::::: .-:::·::: ::::::
Virginia ___ · · ·- · -··- ·· • ··· · . ,
42(1
9
12
II
I
l~ j
W e,t
51
2
4: I
IJ~la..-are _. -· · -· _. __ .. -- . .. - · - -. - . -· - -
II
2
3
-1
l:M I :S:~ r tb CentraL·-- · - ·· ··- · - ·- - · · - -· ·,
<Jhin •. _. ____• • - -· ·· · -- ···•·- · ____ ___
lo••· · · ·-· ·- ---·· · --·- --- · ··· · · - ·- · ·
Missouri •• _. . .. . __ . •• • --· · -· · . ..• -- . N<>rth Du:.ota ____· ·· · -· · --· -··- ___ _,
South Dllkota . -· - · · · ·--· · • - --- · · · •·-Nebra.slra _·· -·•·---·· · · -- - . . -· · -· - · _·-
7114
10
14
12
4
143
57
New Yotk · -···- ----- -- · · -·· · ·· ··-- - ·
New J~rsey -· -·· · · - - - - -·· - __ _. __ . · -- -·
i~:~~:!~
:--:·:: :::::::: :::::::::.::::::
Michii•n· -- · •· -- -- -• · • · · -- · -- · · __ ___
Vl6
- - - - - - - - - -~- - - •1- - - -
Rh"lle Island_ · •· ---·_ . · ·- -· · -· ---- · -ronnrcticut . . __ . . . . . ... ----------· __ _
P • n nsyh-anfa • • _.•• • • -···· · -· · ··· ·· -
704
• 3,0511
7
I
29
3
3
-
1
=I
211
44
22
3
63
23
4
40
77
1
I
21
8
24
40
6
3
14
9
6
IV
7
11
1
6
2
25
g
6
13
6
5
'
3
4
11
48
41
32
4
4
18
14
HI
5
12
10
26
12
6
7
3
3
7
~
I Value of Cann producta S<>ld, traded, or used by the operat.<,rs lamtliea In 1m dl vicle<I by the total
number of persons engaged In agriculture as reported by the 1930 Census.
• Includes I county for which no data were avallahle.
Sollral!I: Bureau oflh• Census, FiJtufl111 Ceu11• •ftltt U nJJttl Statu: 19'0. Population Vol. III. table 20 ,
and Acriculture Vol. III, county table III, G. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D . C'.
160 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Ta&le 77.--Counties of the United States by Rural Plane of Living Index, by Geographic
·
Division and State, 1930
Rw-al plane or II vlng index
Oeocrapblc dtvlalon and State
Total
oountleo
1than llO
IIO-W.11
100-1411.9 UIO·ltlD.11
200or
mon
--------------1----l---l--- - - - ---- ---United Btatee _______________ ·--·-·--
3,111!8
870
811
741
513
124
37
8
10
19
----1-----4----1----1----1-
New England-·----·-···-··-···--·--··-··
Maine. __________ ·-·----------------·New Hampshire_._.__________________
Vermont. ___ ----------·------------·-Massachusetts
__ ._____________________
Rhode Ialand--------------------·-···
Connecticut_·---·······-·------·---··
Middle Atlantic •••••••••• _•• _•••••• ______
New York •••••••. ·-··--·-··--··-·--··
:~~::::::::::::::::::::::::
-..i
18
10
14
12
143
67
:
Ohio.•••••• -··-·············..........
JndJana_________
___ -- - -·-----···---·--··---··
---·
Illlnola
_____________
__ .••_
88
112
102
~:=ii::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ri
Weet North Centnl •• -·-·--···--··---·---
112>
Iowa ················-··-----·------·
tlD
114
1111
113
Miaaourl.. ••••..•••• -•-··-···--------·
North Dakota•••...••.•.• --··-----··-
South Dakota •..•.....•••...•..•• ____
Nebraska_ ... ·······-· .......... _. __ ..
Kan.'IU- -·········-···-·-·········-···
South Atlantlo••• -··-·--··--·---··-·--····
Delaware ••••••• --······-·--··-····-·-
2
8
438
MiDDeeota.. •••. -•• ·-·- ---·-·-- ··-- -··-
14
4
Oentnl.-................... -.
North
8
8
M
2
53
~~i~i=.=~~~~~::::~:::::::::::: !
81
34,
38
18
37
5
22
15
2
107
13
29
:Ill
172
1211
38
IO
II
~
278
218
17
34
18
36
111
I
38
II
12
12
63
38
211
3
11
211
31
67
73
21
178
211
2
8
12
6
31
6
78
43
148
63
42
22
13
8
4
2
2
11
3311
3
1
42
6
30
106
666
North Carollna--·------·--·-·-·----··
South Carolina.--------·----·---·--··
100
Florida •.. -·····- __ -··-···.-···- ____ ••
ft7
31
36
2
1
Eut South CentraJ_·•·-·-····---···---···
Kentucky •• ················-·----····
Tenn-··················--·····--·
AJabama. ·····················--- --··
3M
280
M
77
3
Mississippi.-·······················..
87
82
M
81
Weet South Central .. _._·················
-lllll
210
Artanaas ••• ·- --·· --···-- - ···--···-- ••
LouJalana .• _·- -·---···-·-·-- -··· ··-. ••
76
113
Oeoridll ••••• -... ······--. -·- ----·-- -- •
46
181
t:lO
95
71
Tems ••••• ·-······-··-·---···•-•·---··
77
2M
:1111
70
67
26
67
Mountain.·········-·-····-······------··
278
111
Olr:lahoma .••.... _. _______ ·····-······
Montana •• ·-·-·--···--···-·······-···
Idaho.• _.•••••.•...• ·········-_-··- .. _
~J::X::·::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::
New Mesloo .....• --···········-···- ••
Arir.ona ..•.•.. -··- .•...•..........••••
Utah •••.. ···------•-•·-····-···-.·- .•
Nevada .• ·-·-·-·--·-······-······--···
Pacific ..•..•••• ___ •••••• ··- -. -·· -· .••• -· ••
Washington •• _•••.•. -·•-·············
8~ft~1a... -·-··-··-······••·········
M
44
31
14
29
17
132
39
38
67
2
14
2
1
6
7
18
2
32
10
16
:M
7
78
3
3
4
8
1
4
1
2
•
1
2
I
3
60
23
3
2
1
a
3
1
,11
II
8
44
8
1M
41
138
101
18
211
40
16
II
23
112
6
2
32
42
33
34
31
87
12
2
3
24
14
31
18
2
'
II
17
11
1
12
8
7
7
8
1
7
2
81
17
42
'
26
111
7
19
18
a
22
I
2
111
Sources: Bureau of the Census, Flfteffllll Cmnil of the United State,: 19'0, Population Vol. VI and
Agriculture Vol. II, U.S. Department of Commerce, Waablngton, D. C.
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 161
TofJle 18.-Counties of the United States by Rural.Farm Plane of living Index, by
Geographic Division and State, 1930
Rural•farm plane of living Index
Geographic division and Btate
Total
counties
Less
100-1411.9 160-1119.9
than 50
United Btatea.......................
New England ••.••..•••.•••••.•••..•••••••
Maine ..•••••••••••.••••..•.••.•••••••
New Hampshire •.....•.•.••...•.•••••
Vermont ..•.•....••.••••....•..•.•••••
MBSSBChusetts ....•.••.•.•.•..••••••••
Rhode Island .••••••.•..•.•••.•.••••••
Connectlcnt ••••••••••.•••••.••••.••••
Middle Atlantic .•...••••..••...••••.•••••
New York •.•••..•••••.•••••••••••••••
New Jeney .•••••••••..•.•••••••••••••
Pennsylvania •••••••••••••••••••••••••
East North Central•••••••••••••••••••••••
Ohio••••••...•••.•.•••.••••.•.••..••••
Indiana. ••••••••••.•••.•.•••••••••••••
Illinois••••••••••••..••••.••••••••.••••
Mlchlpn••.••••• ·- •••. - ••••••••••••••
Wisconsin ••••••••••••.•••.•••••••••••
West North Central ••..••••..••••..•.••••
Mlnneeota••••••••..••...••••••...••••
Iowa........................ ••········
Mia,ourl. •••••••.•.••••.......••...•••
North Dakota ••••.•••....••..•••..•••
Booth Dalcota.. ••••.•••••...•.•••••.•••
Nebraslca ••••••••••. -· ••..••••••••• • ••
t
3,059
622
243
17
12
46
14
4
12
1
..•..........................
204
31
24
18
3
16
60
211
82
8
2
20
58
28
44
10
4
6
2
1
1
69
8r111111a.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
3«16
23
27
26
112
37
13
131
2
11
45
33
85
14
6
15
7
1
48
153
32
8
20
2
13
2
3M
120
96
87
82
298
58
76
78
38
6
6
2
2
80
2
409
234
73
&I
168
2
8
37
71
124
46
67
75
44
Washington ...•..••••..••••••••••••••
25
I
7
3
23
Idaho .••••••••••••••••.••.•.••••••••••
Paelllo........ ............................
33
I
240
41
11
1278
NeTllda.............................. .
47
13
3
18
4
9
110
19
Mountain................................ .
N- Medco •••..•••••.••.••.•••••••••
Arlmna. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Utah .••••.••••.••••••....•.•••.•.••••
143
41
31
34
15
22
33
Olclahoma ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
Tena••...••..•...•.........•....••.••
~= : : : : : : : : : : : : :
142
23
33
26
34
211
&l!O
87
119
114
53
«13
77
254
Montana•••••••••••••.•.••.••••••••••
3&
119
11
24
20
30
14
Ult
~
5
-&2
19
17
11
4
a-sia. ............................. .
West Booth Central ••••••.•••••••••••••••
Arll:11118a .•• •...•..... ········· ..•••••
2
67
32
3
22
8
102
83
71
t~;nla.........................
Alabama. •••••••••.•.•......••••••••••
MIIIIISldppl ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••
C
I
100
M
100
............................
2
-92-
11M
Kentucky ••••••••.•••..•••••• ······-·
4
M
438
88
3
10
10
11
8
143
67
20
South .Ulantlo...•••••.••••...•••••.••••.•
Delaware .••••••••.•••...••••••••.••••
~
692
4
8
93
106
ll'lorlda •• ·••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Eaat Bouth Central •••••••••.•••••••••••••
«139
more
M
16
10
KIIDNI •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••
North Carolina .••...•.••••..•••••••••
South Carolina •••••.•••..••.•••••••••
962
200or
56
66
211
2
23
182
31
14
29
17
132
39
36
67
3
16
2
2
I
16
2
34
211
I
5
1
1
1
1
61
12
2
6
"3
4
12
4
120
36
15
16
23
13
6
ft
6
92
17
21
7
24
I
8
Ill
27
7
2
5
8
5
4
4
21
5
13
3
2
I
I
1
6
53
18
Ii
,~
2
8
2
M
14
6
35
Includes 1 county for which no data were available.
Sources: Bureau or the C'enrus, Fi/ttffllll C,11..,, efth, Unit,d Stntt1: 19$0, Population Vol. VI and Agriculture VoL Il, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
1
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
162 •
RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED
ST ATES
Tobie 19.-Estimated Net Migration of the Rural Population of the United States,
1920-1930, Using 2 Methods, by Geographic Division and State
Net rural mli:ratlon, ID201930
Difference
Geographic division and State
First
method•
Semnd
method 1
-6, 734,200
Number
Perrent
-5, 1133, 300 ,
100, \j()()
1.8
+145, f>()()
-40, f,00
+rn. ◄oo
-23, ,100
+17f., 000
+3o,r.oo
-13, 400
+.!~t .~: I
12, 400
8. 5
9. 6
11.6
Ml<l<lle Athmtlc.--·-·-- ---·-·····-·- ····-----·--·····
Xew York_·-------·-·-··-·····---·····---···-·-NP\\' Jl'rscy ______________ .. --- -- --- .. -- --- ... -- . Pennsylvania. __ ._. ________ • ______ • _____________ _
-443,
+08,
-50.
-491,
400
100
100
400
-42~. 500
East North Central. ... ·---·---···-···-···-··--·····Ohio ________ • ____ ._ ... _.•. - •• ·-· -·- ·· ·-· -·· --····
Inrlinna ____________________________ .•. __ . ______ ..
-899, 400
-1~1. 300
-l!H,IJOO
-30-1, 400
-78, 000
-180, 000
-1, 100, ROO
-207, 400
-212. \100
-201, \100
-92,200
-11.1, 700
-122, {,00
-139, 800
-1, 112. 900
-208, 300
-217, 400
-266, ,IO()
-IIO, 200
-1, 434,000
+2,.100
-10, ,IO()
-279, 400
-118,!,00
-1,364,500
119, 500
+2, 300
200
1,000
13. 000
2,400
16,400
15,000
18,100
2,600
20.0
0. 9
2- 4
United States ___ ------------------------------New En~land _______________________________________ _
;\11\ine __________________________________________ _
:Xew Hampshire __________ --··-···--·······-·····
\-rermont_. ______________________________________ _
~fa.,.~mrhusetts ____ - __ . -- ____ . ______ ---- ---- ---- -Rhode lshn<I .•.. •- ·--··- ·-· ·---· -· •... - .... ··- -·
Connecticut..·-···-- --- -- - ·-- --- -- .•.• ·-· ·- -.....
Illinois __ -----------·--------- -- . -- ----. -- . - -- . - . -
~~~~~~rn_·_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West North Central. _______ ·---·-··-----·---------·-:\rinnesota •----. ---- - . ------·. - .. - . _. -- ·---. - ....
lo\\~n_ -------------------------------------------1\1 issoltrl. ___ •• _____ •••• __ .•..••.• __ • _. _. _. ___ . __ _
North D3kota_ .. __ ..... ···-·-·· ·-·· ··-·---··--· _.
Routh Dakota•._----·----··-----·---·---·--_·-··
'!\/ehrB-ska
____________ . ________ ... _.. __ .... _.... __
Kansas--.-----------------------·---------------Bouth Atlantic _______________ ._ --- .. _. ____ . ___ ---·. __
Delnware ____________
------------ --- -------__ . ___
Mnryland
__________ . ___________________
. ___ . ____
Virginia. __ .·- _______ . ______ . ___ ...... __ ._ ...... __
West Vlr~lnla ______ . ·------------ -· -·. __________ .
North f'llrolina. __ ----·· ·------·- -· ...... ·-··-· ..
Routh Carolina. __ .. ··-----·------.--·-----·--··-·
Oeorgln •·-----·--------·-----·---- -··----· -·- ___ _
Florldn •- ____________ ------------------- _______ ·-
+14. r,oo
-2,1.ROO
+174.\100
+211.1100
-15, 600
3,900
1,900
2,300
], 100
1,000
2,200
9. ~
0. 6
3. 3
16.4
17,900
14,000
34,000
1,500
4_0
14. 9
67_ 9
0.3
-027, 000
-190,200
-100, 400
-309, 400
28, ,IO()
8,900
5,500
•. 9
8,000
-84, 200
2.0
5,300
2,800
6. 7
12, 100
+!JOO
4,500
4,600
2,000
000
1, 100
1.1
0.4
2. 1
1.8
2. 2
I. 4
0.9
2.8
+83. ,IO()
-rn. 100
-49'l. 000
-183, 700
-62, 800
-124, 000
-143, 700
-8,\1()()
3,000
3_ 2
3. 6
1.5
4-8
8.0
15. 2
•. 7
2-0
7. g
5. 2
3. 5
-200, ,l00
-211~. 000
-510, r,oo
-13,000
-200, 400
-116, 100
-100. 100
-282, 400
-492, 500
-10,400
-1, 097, 200
-313, 300
-3Jf,, 000
-300, 200
-167, 700
-l,Oll7, ROO
-310,f>OO
-308. 300
-288, 700
-160, ::00
29,400
2,700
7,700
-022,700
-2.1,I. ROO
-rnr., 700
-214, 700
-315, 700
-800. 100
32, ROO
4, iOO
6. 400
3. ll
1. 8
4. 7
17,500
5. 5
Mountaln.---------·--·-·------------------·-------·l\fontana •·------ ______________________ ---·- _____ _
Idaho_ -··--------------·-----------------··-·-·Wyoming•-·--__________________ . _____ . _____ ._._
-2.18, 900
-71,000
3,000
1.2
I. 3
2.0
Colornclo. ___ -------------------------·----------New Mexico•----·--------------·-----------···-A.rl7nna ................................ ________________ _
Utah ______________ . ______________________ . ___ ._._
Nevada ____________ . ____________________________ _
-50,400
-43, 1100
+17,300
-44,500
-10, 400
-2.1.1, 900
-70, 100
-49. 200
-R, 000
-.52. 000
-42, 900
+1s.r.oo
-4~. 700
-10, fl(I()
Pacific __ . _________________ --------------------------,,.
3-shlngton
____________ -- -- - - --- - -- -- -- - -- - -- - - --_
0re~on
.. ________________________________________
California ____ ------------_ - _______________ ... ___ _
+216, 700
+278, 200
-1.400
+22. ~00
+257, 300
1,500
1, <IOO
EastKentucky
South Central
___ -----------·-·-···-·-----·---·______________
. _____________________ .. _.
Tennessee
•• -------------------------------------Alahnma _______________________________________
._
Missis.sippL -----------------------------------·
West South Central. __ ----------------------------·Arkansa.•-·-- _. ____ . -----· __________ . ______ . _. __ ..
Loui~iana. _____ . _......... ______ ........ _.. __________ _
Oklahoma_______________________________________ _
Texas•-- ________________________________________ _
-50,2(XI
-6, 100
-2, 400
+22. SO()
+250, 300
-2[,0, 900
-130, 3110
-210, 700
-298, 200
11, .'i()()
7,500
f,om
900
l,O<Xl
100
I, 600
700
I, 300
800
200
,'j()()
I, 000
2. 7
3.11
4.5
1.11
1. 6
3. 2
1-6
7.5
1-8
I. g
0.5
41. 7
2. 2
0.4
• State total calculated with a J0_25-yenr surYlrnl factor appllocl hy 5-year age p:roups to rursl·farm and
r,ra).nonfarrn popullltion of each St3te. See appenrll< B for mntho<l of computation.
'State total calculated with a 10.2,;-year s11rYirnl factor applied by JO-year age groups to rural population or each county. See sppen,ii, R for method of computation.
• Containing counties that changed boundaries or were organized between 1920 and lll30.
Dalt zed by
Google
Appendix B
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES
1. ESTIMATES OF NET RURAL MIGRATION, 19t0-1930
TO
ESTIMATE net rural migration, 1920-1930, calculations were
based upon the census enumerations of 1920 and 1930. To correct
for the underenumeration of children under 5 yea.rs of age, in both
1920 and 1930, 5 percent was allowed for a.11 white children and 11
percent for colored children in the North, 13.5 percent in the South,
8 percent in the West, and 13 percent in the United States as a.
whole. 1 Survival factors were applied to the 1920 population to determine the number of survivors in 1930 had there been no migre.tion. 2 The results were compared with the population enumerated
in 1930, and the differences were attributed to migration. The estimated net rural migration was based upon those persons living in
1920 with no attempt made to estimate the net migration of children
born after the 1920 Census enumeration. Because of the differences
in degree of completeness of the census reports on population for the
various political subdivisions, it was necessary to use different methods for counties from those used for the United States as a whole and
for the individual States.
United States a, a Whole and the lndlvfdual Stata
Since for the Nation e.s a whole and for the individual States both
the 1920 and 1930 rural populations were tabulated by age groups, a
JQ1'W<I,rd method of estimating net migration, beginning with the rural
1 Whelpt.on, P. K., "Geographic and Economic Differentials in Fertility," The
Annal& of the American Academy of Political and Social Scien~, Vol. 188, November
1936, pp. 37-55.
1 The life tables used were made available through the courtesy of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
163
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
164 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
population of 1920, was used.
clear:
A type illustration will make the steps
Data given:
1920 rural population _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l, 000
1930 rural population _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
850
Children under 10 years of age in 1930_
200
Calculations:
Total survivors in 1930 of 1920 population (1,000 x survival factor) _
900
Survivors in 1930 of 1920 population and living in county (850-200) _
650
Net survivors of migrants (900--650) _ _ _
250
Deaths:
To 1920 population _ _ _ _ _ _
100
To nonmigrants
(:x 100) _ _
_ ___ _
72
To migrants (100-72) _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One-half deaths to migrants _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Net 1088 from migration (250+ 14) _______ _
28
14
264
The a.hove example indicates the procedure when a. net loss from
migration occurred. A similar procedure was followed when a. net
gain from migration occurred. It was assumed that migration was
not selective with respect to death rates and that the net result of
migration was distributed evenly throughout the decade. Therefore, one-ha.If of the deaths occurring to migrants were charged to the
area. of origin and one-ha.If to the area. of destination.
Counties of the United Stat..
For estimating net rural migration by counties the a.hove procedure
had to be modified somewhat. In 1920 the rural population of counties was not tabulated by age and hence the forward method of calculation could not be used. A backwa-~d or reverse method was followed
instead. By this procedure the example cited above takes the following form:
Da1;a given:
1920 rural population _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1930 rural population _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Children under 10 years of age in 1930 _
Calculations:
Survivon1 of 1920 population !itill living in area (850-200) _ _
l, 000
850
200
Potential migrants (1,000-722) _
Deatha:
To 1920 population ____
To nonmigrants (722-650) _
To migrants (100-72) __ _
One-half deaths to migrants
Net loss from migration (278-14)
650
!
722
_
278
_
100
6 0
1920 base of 650 survivors: surviv ractor -
72
28
_ _
_
14
264
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES • 165
Survival Facton
The life table used in estimating deaths of the white rural population was computed by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on
the basis of the death registration States of 1930. Using this table,
which gives slightly higher survival rates than for the United States
as a whole, survival rates for 10.25 years 3 were developed by 5-year
age groups. These were used for estimating deaths by States and for
the United States as a whole. In making county estimates survival
factors based upon 10-year age groups were used for calculating the
number of potential migrants by the backward method. Since the
1920 age distribution of the rural population was not available by
counties, the number of migrant deaths was estimated by using a
composite survival factor for all ages.
For estimates by race two survival factors were used, white and
colored. Colored ra.ces other than Negro were grouped with Negroes
for survival purposes. Since no rural Negro life table was available,
one was constructed by assuming that rural-urban differences in
Negro mortality were proportional to rural-urban differences in white
mortality. The white and colored survival rates for 10.25 yea.rs used
to estimate deaths for the intercensal period, 1920-1930, a.re given in
table A.
Tol,le A.-Survival Rates in the Rural Population, by Age and Color, 192~1930
Number of survivors In 1930 per
1,000 persons In 193'.l
White rural
population
Under 5 years .•.........................................................
IHI years .••••.••••..••••.•.•••.•..•......•.••..........•.•.•••••••••••.•
10-14 years ....••.•••••••••.•.•..•..••......•..•........•.•....•••..••...
15-19 years ..••...•••••••.•.•.•.•.•....•......................•••.•.•..••
:I0--24 yelll'II ••••••.•.•••.....•.•.••••••••.••..........•..........•••.•.•.•
25--29 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. • •••••••••••••••••
3(Hl4 years ..••.•..••.•.......•.•...•••...•....•.•.....•.................
35-39 years ..•.•.....••............•.•.•..........•.•••....•...•...•......
4o-44 years ....••..............••....•.•••........•.•..........•..........
45-49 years ..•.•.•..................•.•.•.••.•.••......................•.
50-54 years .•..•.•..•.••.............••••••..•..•.••.•....•..............
M-59 years ......•...•..................•.•.••...........•...•...•.......
!I0-64 years ...•.........................•....•.•..••.....•.••...••.......
M-69 years .......•.................•.•.•.......•.•.......................
'10-74 years .•.•••••......•....••..•...••...••.....•.........•...•••..•...
75-79 years ....•.•.........•..•..•.•.•••.••....•..•.•...•....•••.....•...
80--84 years ....•..........••......•...••••.•.•..•.....•......•...•....••..
85 years and over •.......•...•...•.•.•.•...••..•.•......•...•.•.•••..••..
geg_n
986. 4
979.4
970. 5
9M.9
961.1
955.4
945. I
928. 7
902. 4
860. 5
792. 5
694. 5
560.3
397. 5
242. 4
l:Jl.9
42.0
Colored rural
population
952. 2
970.2
941. 5
911. 6
894. 2
879.3
883.5
835.9
80~. 4
758.8
711. 0
661.1
5114. 5
505. 8
405. 7
288.0
189.0
90.4
These survival factors were combined in the weighted proportions
of the two racial groups in 1930 in the rural-farm and rural-nonfa.rm
populations by age groups. The biracial net migration was then
estimated for the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm populations separately
1 To take account of the fact that the 1920 Census was taken as of January 1,
and the 1930 Census as of April 1.
DaltzeobyGoogle
166 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
and the results added to obtain the net rural migration. This procedure was followed for States and for the United States as a. whole,
except that in States where the colored races a.mounted to less than
5 percent of the total in either the rural-farm or rure.1-nonfe.rm population, white survival factors alone were used.
For counties only net rural migration could be estimated. Here
the racial combination was handled somewhat differently. The
States were chtssified with respect to the percent of colored population in 1930. In the 25 Northern and \Vestern States having less
than 5 percent colored in the total rural population, only white survival factors were used for all counties. In the remaining 23 Southern
and Western States all counties were classified according to the percent of colored in the rural population in 1930. For counties with
less than 5 percent, survival factors based upon the rural population
of Missouri were used since it had a.bout 3 percent colored in 1930.
For counties having 5-9 percent colored, survival factors based upon
the rural population of Kentucky were used, and so on to Mississippi
which served for those counties having 40-49 percent colored. Counties with 50-59 percent colored were treated with a. survive.I factor
weighted to 55 percent Negro and 45 percent white assuming e.n even
age distribution for the two racial groups. Counties with 60-69
percent colored were treated with e. survive.I factor weighted to 65
percent colored and 35 percent white, and counties with 70-79 percent
colored were treated with a survival factor weighted to 75 and 25
percent, respectively.
Reliability of County Estimate, of Net Migration a, Compared With
State Estimates
The estimates of net rural migration by States may be regarded as
sufficiently reliable to indicate general trends inasmuch as they check
closely with the estimates for the United States e.s e. whole. Their
reliability rests chiefly upon the completeness of the census enumerations, the accuracy of these enumerations by age, e.nd the reliability
of the estimates of mortality. The estimates of mortality a.re based
upon careful computations by 5-year age groups weighted for white
e.nd colored elements. The county estimates, however, a.re based
upon less precise estimates of mortality. Furthermore, in a number
of individual counties, chiefly suburban in nature, the estimates did
not appear reasonable. Such counties were Kings, W a.sh.; Maricopa.,
Ariz.; and Bergen, N. J. Finally, in a number of States where county
boundaries had changed importantly during the decade or new counties had been created, the estimates for two or more counties had to
be made as one and the average result assigned to each. This introduces further error.
Appendix table 19, p. 162, compares the estimates by States and
by counties. Although the estimates of total net migration for the
United States obtained by the two methods are surprisingly similar,
DaltzeobyGoogle
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES • 167
there a.re glaring differences in certain States. These sharp differences arise from the unusual results obtained in a few counties.
t. APPLICATION OF A NET REPLACEMENT QUOTA TO INDICATE GROWTH
IN A POPULATION
As an illustration of the application of a net replacement quota to
indicate growth in a population if there is no migration, the computation for the native white rural-farm population is given below (table B).
The ratio of children under 5 years of age to women 20-44 years of age
in the rural-farm population in 1930 was 752, as given by Whelpton.'
This indicates a net replacement of 71 percent in one generation.
By using survival rates as computed for rural whites by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and assuming that at the end of each
5-year period the ratio of children to women is the same, the increase
during a 30-year period will amount to 77 percent.
Ta&le 8.-Native White Rural-Farm Population in 1930 and Estimated for 1960, by
Age and Sex
Age
Native whit<> rural-farm
population, 1930
Male
TotaJ_ - __ ------ ---------- ---------- -- ----
Under
5 yeBl'll
__ --------------------------------_
6-9
yeBl'll
______________________________________
10-14 years _______________ -- ___ ----------------~19 years_-----------------------------------20--24
years ____ --- _______________________ --- ___ _
2.S-29 years ______ --------------------------- ___ _
30-34
years
------------------------- _____ _35-39 years ______
____________________________________
40-44 years _____ - - ----- - ------ -- -- ------ ---- - -- -
1,364,000
l,Ml,000
1,563,000
1,485,000
1,055,000
748,000
1582,000
717,000
11%,000
to-.U rear, ________ ------ ___ -------------------4HII yeBl'll
ye8l'll_____________________________________
---- - ---- ----- ---- ---------------- --_
50---M
5(,-59
60--64
~9
70--74
75--79
yean_____________________________________
----------------------------------- _years
years _______________ _____________________ _
years ________ ----- _________ ---- __________ _
years ____________________________________ _
80-84 years_-----------------------------------85-89 years_-------------- _____________________ _
9o--94
years__ -_-------------- ------- ----- ----.
115
years
and-over
______________________________
Female
Estimated native white
rural-farm population, 1000
Male
11,252,000
21,4113,000
20,648,000
1,316,000
1,473,000
1,455,000
1,257,000
871,000
694,000
676,000
702,000
626,000
2,713,000
2,500, OllO
2,273,000
2,057,000
1,766.000
1,488,000
1,260,000
1,413,000
1,404,000
2,617,000
2,417,000
2,201,000
1, 1194, 000
1,716,000
1,450,000
1. 231,000
1,370,000
1,330,000
l,669,000
829,000
577,000
481. 000
382,000
284,000
208,000
112,000
47,000
15,000
3,000
1,000
Female
562,000
477,000
374,000
282,000
201,000
143. 000
82.000
40,000
16,000
4,000
1,000
1,097,000
1,299,000
891,000
606,000
612,000
475,000
359,000
244,000
132,000
49,000
11,000
1,000
1, 12.~, 000
761,000
586,000
537,000
503,000
375,000
249,000
128,000
46,000
11,000
1,000
1. METHOD USED IN COMPUTING COUNTY PLANE OF LIVING INDEX
The rural-farm plane of living index was based upon six factors
which were available in the 1930 Census for each county of the United
States. They included the following:
1. Average value of farm dwelling.
2. Percent of farms reporting telephones.
3. Percent of farms reporting automobiles.
-•-Whelpton, P. K., op. cit.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
168 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
4. Percent of farms reporting electricity.
5. Percent of farms reporting running water.
6. Percent of farms reporting radios.
For each of these six factors the arithmetic mean for the United
States was obtained. For each factor the position of each county
was then computed as a percent of the mean. This gave six relatives
for each county. Giving each factor the weight of one, these six
relatives were averaged to obtain the average relative position of
each county in terms of the mean for the United States.
Only two of the above factors were available for the rural-nonfarm
population, average value of dwelling and percent of families reporting
radios. To get the average value of the dwelling it was necessary to
convert rental value into actual value by assuming the yearly rental
to be equal to IO percent of the value of the dwelling. Rented and
owned dwelling values were then combined in weighted proportions
for each county. The same procedure was used with the two factors
as was used with the six rural-farm factors in order to secure the ruralnonfarm plane of living index by counties.
The rural plane of living index was devised by combining the ruralfarm and rural-nonfarm indices, weighted according to the proportions
of rural-farm and rural-nonfarm population in the respective counties
in 1930.
-4. RURAL POPULATION MOBILITY FIELD SURVEYS
In order to provide more detailed data on rural population movements and the characteristics of migrants than are available from
census data, special studies have been carried on in eight StatesArizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, and South Dakota-since the beginning of 1935. Within each
State the selection of the sample areas and the size of the sample were
determined by local needs, interests, and resources. In some cases
the sample was considered representative of rural areas of the State
in general. In others the survey was limited to some significant
situation within the State. However, schedules and instructions to
enumerators were identical and editing and tabulating of schedules
were centralized. To this extent the data from the several surveys
are comparable, and the scattered studies have shown considerable
uniformity in their results.
Data on mobility were secured for the period from January 1, 1928,
to January 1, 1935, or January 1, 1926, to January 1, 1936, in the
various States. Only changes in residence of a relatively permanent
nature were included. In order to eliminate short-distance movements, unimportant from the standpoint of the person's integration
with the social organization of the community, recorded migrations
were arbitrarily limited to those which involved a change of residence
from one minor civil division to another.
nigtized by
Google
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES • 169
In each interview information was secured concerning a.II members
of the household and all living children of the head of the household,
regardless of their whereabouts at the time of the survey. In most
instances the members of the family who were still in the survey area.
were able to give the desired information concerning those who had
left, including a statement concerning their residence and employment on January 1, 1929, a.swell as at the time of the survey. Thus,
the field surveys yielded information concerning two types of movement with reference to the survey areas: (1) the in-migration of persons
who were there when schedules were ta.ken and (2) the out-migration
of adult children of persons who were still in the areas.
In Iowa, North Carolina., North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota
the sample areas were enumerated completely. In Kentucky and
Maryland the rural population mobility schedule was alternated with
a standard of living schedule, resulting in a 50 percent sample. The
survey was also carried on in Arizona but the schedules were received
too late for inclusion in the present report. Excluding Arizona,
approximately 22,000 cases were enumerated.
COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS a SURVEYED
State and county
Arizona:
Graham
MarlcoJ)II
Yuma
Iowa:
Allamakee
Appanoose
Black Hawk
Boone
Buena Vista
Cnlhoun
Cass
Cerro GOl'd0
Clay
Decatur
Humboldt
Iowa
Keokuk
Madison
Marshall
O'Brien
Poweshiek
Story
Union
Webster
Wright
Kentucky:
Magoffin
Morgan
Township
Center
JefferBOn
Rellnlr
Dougla11
Franklin
Lincoln
Pleasant
Sharon
~ow: Rakldsj
ke Cree
Franklin
Lincoln
Grove
Hilton
Plank
Monroe
Marlon
Pleasant
Indian Creek
Elkhorn
{Dayton
NOl'Way
State and county
Martand:
arrett
Somerset
North Carolina:
Avery
Haywood
North Dakota:
Burke
Divide
Golden Valley
McKenzie
Morton
Mountrail
Sioux
Slope
Ward
Williams
Ohio:
Adams
Ashtabula
Medina
Morgan
Muskingum
Union
Van Wert
Warren
South Dakota:
Custer
Edmunds
HBBkon
Klnf(Shury
Township
Leaf Mountain
De Witt
{Beach
Elk Creek
Charbon
Flasher
Fertile
Morristown
{Crawford
Independent
Freedom
Missouri Ridge
'l'npp
Turner
1 Where townships are not specified, the entire county was included in the
rnrvey.
D g1;zed by
Goog Ie
I
I
I
I
i
I!
I II ::
11
l
I
: I
I
!
!l
I
IiI '
' ''
II
I
~
I
rI· I
Je!-
t
l
i~
, ...:
.,!
I.,!
I
'
i
.,!
,~
I'
,~
I
11
I
:1 ...:
I
!
I .
I~
'
\'d
!1
l'
...:
I
e!-
I11
I !
!
I:!
I l l l l I l I I Ill
!
1 70 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
I
I
l
I
I
I
,.,,. I
I
!~•
If P., I
;I
I
'' I
I
•~I•
I
i I
•
A
I
I
I
:; I
••
t
I
Ji
•
fl
• I
J
I !lit
~
h
J
l mm
i
•
I I"
!Jl;l
"II
~
u
t
j •IJ'!a•
f• 4
! 11!1
j
Ill!
.: l1il I
ogl
I
I
1
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 1 1
I
I
I
1 1
I
I
I
I I
1
I
I !
I
l
I
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES • 171
I I
!
11
i
11 I I
!
I
I
I
I
1
j
I
i I
11
i
I
I
;
I II I
I
I
Google
I
I_ Lj-_J_ _
I_
t-----+-++.
l--:
I
I
II
I I
III
Dig 11zed by
Dig tized by
Goog Jc
Appendix C
LIST OF TABLES
TEXT TABLES
Tab~
Pag,
1. Counties of the United States by percent change in the rural popula-
tion, by geographic division, 1900--1910, 1910-1920, and 19201930______________ _____________________________ _____________
2. Net gain or loss through migration to the rural population of the
United States, by residence, color, and sex, 1920--1930 (estimated)__
3. Net gain or loss through migration to the rural population of the
United States, by age, residence, color, and sex, 1920--1930 (estimated)_____________________________________________________
-&. Percent net gain or loss through migration to the rural population
of the United States, by age, residence, color, and sex, 1920--1930
(estimated)__________________________________________________
5. Counties of the United States by net gain or loss through migration
to the rural population, 1920--1930 (estimated)___________________
6. Movement to and from farms, 1920--1937_________________________
7. Farm population, 1930, and changes in farm population, 1930--1934,
in counties with specified rates of net rural migration, 1920--1930 __
8. Age of the farm population, 1930 and 1935 (estimated)_____________
9. Migrants from cities, towns, and villages to farms, 1930--1934, and
migrants remaining on farms, January 1, 1935 _________________ ·__
10. Farm population, 1930, and changes in farm population, 1930--1934,
in 375 selected counties_______________________________________
11. Farm population, 1930, and changes in farm population, 1930--1934, in
industrial and agricultural counties in agricultural problem areas__
12. Farm population, 1930, and changes in farm population, 1930--1Q34,
in 6 rural problem areas_ ,.. _ _ __________________________________
13. Farm population, 1930, and changes in farm population, 1930--1934,
by counties having specified percent of farms with products valued at
less than $600 in 1929 _ _ __ _____ _________ ___ __ ___ ____ _____ _____
14. Farms reporting persons on January 1, 1935, who had a nonfarm
residence in 1930 and number of persons reported________________
15. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of
age in the rural population, by geographic division, State, and residence, 1920 and 1930_ _______ ________ _________ ___ ____ ________ _
16. Counties of the United States by number of children under 5 years of
age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of age in the rural population, by color and residence, 1930 ________ . ___ _________ ________
6
14
15
17
21
26
27
33
33
37
39
41
42
44
49
50
173
D g1;zed by
Goog Ie
174 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Table
Page
17. Fertility ratio, 1930, and percent gain or loss through migration, 19201930, of the rural population in 765 sample counties______________
60
18. Counties of the United States by rural fertility ratio, 1930, and type of
net migration, 1920-1930 _ _ _ _ ______________ __________ ____ _____
64
19. Counties of ihe United States gaining or losing rural population by migration, 1920-1930, by region and area__________________________
68
20. Counties of the United States by percent of gainful workers 10 yeara of
age and over engaged in agriculture, 1930, and type of net migration,
69
1920-1930___________________________________________________
21. Rural plane of living index, 1930, and net rural migration, 1920-1930__
74
22. Counties of the United States gaining or losing rural population by migration, 1920-1930, by distance from a city______________________
75
23. Relief rates, July 1934-June 1935, and net rural migration, 1920-1930_
79
24. Heads of families reporting continuous residence during the period of
1urvey, by area and residence__________________________________
87
25. Average number of changes in residence by male heads of families during the period of survey, by area and residence in 1935-1936_______
88
26. Average number of changes in occupation by male heads of familiea
during the period of survey, by area and residence in 1935-1936_ __ _
89
27. Range of migration of heads of households during the period of survey,
by area_____________________________________________________
90
28. Number of changes in residence of heads of families during the period of
91
aurvey, by range of migration_____ ___ ___________________ __ ___ _
29. Type of movement of persons 16 years of age and over at date of survey
between January 1, 1929, and 1935-1936, by place reared and are&-93
SO. Residence, 1935-1936, of persons 16 years of age and over in aurvey
areas, by residence and area of residence, January 1, 1929_ ______ ___
9,
31. Percent of children 16 years of age and over living at home, by age and
sex,January 1, 1929,and 1935-1936____________________________
95
32. Percent of children 16 through 24 years of age living at home, by relief
status of parental household, residence, and sex, January 1, 1929,
and 1935-1936_______________________________________________
97
33. Children 16 years of age and over in 1935-1936 who bad left home by
January 1, 1929, by area and residence on January 1, 1929, and in
1935-1936___________________________________________________
99
34. Residence in 1935-1936 of children 16 years of age and over who bad
migrated from open country homes, by period of migration________
101
35. Residence in 1935-1936 of children 16 years of age and over who bad
migrated from village homes, by period of migration______________
101
36. Age of male heads of families, 1935-1936, by range of migration during
the period of survey__________________________________________
103
37. Age of male heads of families, 1935-1936, who moved into the survey
area during the period of survey, by area________________________
104
38. Children 16 years of age and over who had left home by 1935-1936, by
residence on January 1, 1929__________________________________
105
39. Children 16 years of age and over who bad left home by 1935-1936, by
residence at time of survey_ ___ ___ _____________________________
105
40. Bex raf;io among persons in households surveyed and among children
who had migrated, by age, 1935-1936__________________________
107
41. Average number of male gainful workers in households with male
heads, 1935-1936, by area and type of residence change during the
period of survey_________________________ ___ ____ _______ ______
109
42. Range of migration of male heads of families during the period of
survey, by occupation and employment status in 1935-1936______
110
DaltzeobyGoogle
LIST OF TABLES • 175
Table
Page
43. Range of migration of male heads of farm families during the period
of survey, by tenure in 1935-1936______________________________
111
44. Range of migration of male heads of nonfarm families during the period
of survey, by occupation in 1935-1936__________________________
111
45. Male heads of families in 5 Appalachian counties engaged in agriculture, 1936, by time of beginning farm operations_________________
113
46. Shlfts to and from agriculture of male heads of families from January 1,
1929, to 1935-1936, by area___________________________________
115
47. Age of male heads of relief families, 1935-1936, by range of migration
during the period of survey____________________________________
117
48. Age of male heads of nonrelief families, 1935-1936, by range of migration during the period of survey__ _ _____ ___ ______ _________ _ __ __
117
49. Male heads of families reporting a change in residence during the
period of survey, by type of change and relief status_____________
118
50. Number of changes in residence and occupation of male heads of families during the period of survey, by relief status__________________
118
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
1. Counties of the United States by percent change in the rural population in relation to the average change in the total rural population,
by geographlc division and State, 1900-1910, 1910--1920, and 1920-1930_ _ _ _____ ___ ______ __ _____________ _____________________ __
2.
8.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Net gain or loss through migration to the rural population of the
United States, by geographlc division and State, 1920--1930 (estimated)_____________________________________________________
Net gain or loBB through migration to the rural population of the United
States, by geographlc division, State, and residence, 1920--1930
(estimated)_________________________________________________
Counties of the United States by net gain or loBB through migration to
the rural population, by geographlc division and State, 1920--1930
(estimated)_________________________________________________
Counties of the United States by percent net gain or loss through
migration to the rural population, by geographic division and State,
1920--1930 (estimated)________________________________________
Migrants remaining on farms, January 1, 1935, who lived in a nonfarm residence 5 years earlier, by geographic division and State___
Farm population, 1930, and changes in farm population, 1930--1934, by
region and area______________________________________________
Counties of the United States by number of children under 5 years of
age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of age in the white rural
population, by geographic division, State, and residence, 1930_____
Counties of the United States by number of children under 5 years of
age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of age in the colored rural
population, by geographlc division, State, and residence, 1930_ __ __
Counties of the United States by number of children under 5 years of
age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of age in the total rural
population, by geographlc division and State, 1930_______________
Counties of the United States by type of net migration, 1920--1930, and
average fertility ratio of the rural population, 1930, by geographlc
division and State____________________________________________
Estimated net rural migration, 1920--1930, and selected socio-economic
factors in 99 Corn Belt counties_______________________________
Dg,
137
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
zedbyGoogle
176 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Table
Page
13. Estimated net rural migration, 1920-1930, and selected socio-economic
factors in 99 Appalachian-Ozark counties_______________________
152
14. Estimated net rural migration, 192o-1930, and selected socio-economic
factors in 99 Cotton Belt counties______________________________
155
15. Counties of the United States by percent of gainful workers 10 years
of age and over engaged in agriculture, by geographic division and
State, 1930__________________________________________________
158
16. Counties of the United States by gross farm income per gainful worker
10 years of age and over engaged in agriculture, by geographic divi159
sion and State, 1929____ ___ __ ____ ____ __ ____ __ __ ___ ___ __ ____ __ _
17. Counties of the United States by rural plane of living index, by geographic division and State, 1930_ ___ ________ __ __ ______ __ ___ ____
160
18. Counties of the United States by rural-farm plane of living index, by
geographic division and State, 1930____________________________
161
19. Estimated net migration of the rural population of the United States,
1920-1930, using 2 methods, by geographic division and State____
162
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
Appendix D
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, W. A., Living Conditiom Among White Land-Otoner Operators in Wake
County, Bulletin No. 258, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Raleigh, N. C., June 1928.
- - - , Mobility of Rural Families. I, Bulletin 607, Comell University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., June 1934.
- - - , M ooiJ.ity of Rural Families. I I, Bulletin 623, Com ell University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., March 1935.
- - - and Loomis, C. P., Migration of Sons and Dau.ghters of White FartMrs in
Wake County, 19!!9, Bulletin No. 275, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station, Raleigh, N. C., June 1930.
Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R., Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation,Research
Monograph VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1937.
Baker, 0. E., A Graphic Summary of the Number, Bite, and Type of Farm, and
Value of Products, Miscellaneous Publication No. 266, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1937.
Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Six Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Ruour~
Rehabilitation, Research Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics, and
Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
- - - and Lively, C. E., Movement of Open Coumry Population in Ohio, II. The
Individual ABpect, Bulletin 489, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster,
Ohio, September 1931.
Breithaupt, L. R., Preliminary Data Concerning an Immigrant Family 8ur11ey in
Oregon, January 1980 to November 1986, Circular of Information No. 164,
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg., January 1937.
- - - and Hoffman, C. S., Preliminary Information Concerning Immigration
into Rural Districts in Oregon, January 1983 to June 1986, Circular of Information No. 157, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg.,
August 1936.
Brunner, Edmund deS. and Lorge, Irving, Rural Trends in Depression Years,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1937.
- - - , Hughes, Gwendolyn S., and Patten, Marjorie, American Agricultural
Villages, New York: George H. Doran Company, 1927.
Clark, Dan E., "The Westward Movement in the Upper Mississippi Valley
During the Fifties," in Schmidt, Louis Bernard and Ross, Earle Dudley,
Readings in the Economic History of American AgricuUure, New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1925.
177
D g1;zed by
Goog Ie
178 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST ATES
Creamer, Daniel B., [If [nd'Ulltry Decentralizing? Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1935.
- - - and Swackhamer, Gladys V., Cigar Makers--After the Lay-Off, Report
No. L--1, National Research Project, Works Progress Administration, Philadelphia, Pa., December 1937.
Dickins, Dorothy, Occupatiom of SOn8 and Daughters of Mississippi Cotton
Farmer&, Bulletin No. 318, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, State
College, Miss., May 1937.
Dodson,. L. S., Living Conditiom and Population Migration in Four Appalachian
Countiea, Social Research Report No. Ill, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Farm Security Administration and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., October 1937.
Eugenics Survey of Vermont, Selective Migration From Three Rural Vermont
Towna and !ta Significance, Fifth Annual Report, Burlington, Vt., September
1931.
Farm Population Estimate&, January 1, 1988, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., June 16, 1938.
Farm Tenancy, Report of the President's Committee, National Resources Committee, WMhington, D. C., February 1937.
Fedde, Margaret and Lindquist, Ruth, A Study of Farm Families and Their
Standards of Living in Selected Districts of Nebraska, 1931-198.'J, Research
Bulletin 78, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station, Lincoln, Nebr., July
1935.
Galpin, Charles .J. and Manny, T. B., Tnterstate Migratiom Among the Native
White Population as l ndicated by Difference8 Between State of Birth and State of
Residence, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
Washington, D. C., October 1934.
Gee, Wilson and Corson, John J., Rural Depopulation in Certain Tidewater and
Piedmont Areas of Virginia, Institute Monograph No. 3, The Institute for
Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.,
1929.
Gillette, John Morris, Rural Sociology, Third Edition, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936.
Goodrich, Carter and Others, Migration and Economic Opportunity, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936.
- - - , Allin, Bushrod W., and Hayes, Marion, Migration and Planes of Living,
19t0-1934, Bulletin No. 2, Study of Population Redistribution, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1935.
Hamilton, C. Horace, Recent Changea in the Social and Economic Statua of Farm
Families in North Carolina, Bulletin No. 309, North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Raleigh, N. C., May 1937.
- - - , Rural-Urban Migration in North Carolina, 191!0 to 1930, Bulletin No. 295,
North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, N. C., February 1934.
Hart, Hornell N., Selective Migration as a Factor in ChiW. Welfare in the United
States, First Series No. 53, Vol. 1, No. 7, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa,
September 1921.
Hathway, Marion, The Migratory Worker and Family Life, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1934.
Heberle, Rudolf and Meyer, Fritz, Die Groszstddte im Stro~ der Binnenwanderung, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1937.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY • 179
Hill, George W., Rural Migration and Farm Abandonment, Research Bulletin
Series II, No. 6, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Wa.i;hington, D. C., June 1935.
Hoag, Emily F., The National Influence of a Single Farm Community, Bulletin
No. 984, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., December 1, 1921.
Jerome, Harry, Migration and Bulline,1 ()yclea, New York: National Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc., 1926.
Kiser, Clyde Vernon, Sea laland t.o City, New York: Columbia University Press,
'1932.
.
Klineberg, Otto, Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration, New York: Columbia
University Press, 1935.
Kumlien, W. F., McNamara, Robert L., and Bankert, Zetta E., Rural Population
Mobility in South Dakota, Bulletin 315, South Dakota Agricultural Experiment
Station, Brookings, S. Dak .• January 1938.
Landis, Paul H., Rural Immigranta t.o Waahington State, 1932-1938, Rural Sociology Series in Population, No. 2, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station,
Pullman, Wash., July 1936.
Lewis, Edward E., TM Mobility of the Negro, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1931.
Lively, C. E., Replacement Requirement, of Gainful Workers in Agriculture in
Ohio, 1930-1940, Mimeograph Bulletin No. 109, Ohio State University and
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbus, Ohio, June 1938.
---and Alms.ck, R. B., A Method of Determining Rural Social Sub-Area, With
Application lo Ohio, Bulletin No. 106, Parts I and II, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station and Social Research Section, Farm Security Administration,
Region III, Columbus, Ohio, January 1938.
- - - and Beck, P. G., Movement of Open Country Population in Ohio, I. The
Family Aspect, Bulletin 467, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster,
Ohio, November 1930.
- - - and Foott, Frances, Population Mobility in Selected Area, of Rural Ohio,
19f8-1935, Bulletin 582, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio,
June 1937.
Lorimer, Frank and Osborn, Frederick, Dynamic, of Population, New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1934.
McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-R~ief Houaeholda,
Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
Mathews, Lois Kimball, TM &panaion of New England, Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1909.
Melvin, Bruce L., Rural Youth on Relief, Research Monograph XI, Division of
Social Research, Works Progreee Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937.
Migratory Labor in California, California State Relief Administration, San Francisco, Calif., 1936.
Moore, H. E. and Lloyd, 0. G., TM Back-to-the-Land Mooement in Southern Indiana, Bulletin 409, Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Lafayette, Ind.,
April 1936.
National Resources Board, A Report on National Planning and Public Work, in
Relation to National Resources and Including Land Use and Water Resource.i
With Findings and Recommendatiom, Part I I, Report of the Land Planning Commiltee. Washington, D. C., 1934.
D1gt1zedbyGooglc
180 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED ST A TES
National Resources Committee, Population Statistica, 1. National Data, Washington, D. C., 1937.
- - - , Population Statistia, ~- Urban Data, Washington, D. C., 1937.
- - - , The Problems of a Changing Population, Washington, D. C., May 1938.
Odum, Howard W., Southern Regiom of the United Statu, Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1936.
Oyler, Merton, Cost of Living and Population Trend& in Laurel County, Kmtudcy,
Bulletin No. 301, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington, Ky.,
March 1930.
Paxson, Frederic L., "Frontier," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciencu, Vol 6,
pp. 500-503.
Purcell, Richard J., "Connecticut in Transition 1775-1818," in Schmidt, Louie
Bernard and RoBB, Earle Dudley, Readings in the Economic Hiatory of Afflffican
Agriculture, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925.
Rankin, J. 0., Nebrai,ka Farm Tenancy, Bulletin 196, Nebraska Agricultural
Experiment Station, Lincoln, Nebr., October 1923.
- - - , The Nebr<U1ka Farm Family, Bulletin 185, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Stat.ion, Lincoln, Nebr., February 1923.
Rosenberry, Lois Kimball Mathews, Mi(ITatiom from Connecticut After 1800,
Historical Publication LIV, Tercentenary Commission of the State of Connecticut, Yale University Press, 1936.
Rossiter, William S., Increase of Population in the Uniud Statu, 1910-19mJ,
Census Monograph I, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D. C., 1922.
Sanders, J. T., The Economic and Social Aspects of Mobility of Oklahoma Farmers,
Bulletin No. 195, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater, Okla.,
August 1929.
Schuler, E. A., Social Status anrl Farm Tenure-Attitudes and Social Conditions
of Corn Belt Farmers, Social Research Report No. IV, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Farm Security Administration and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., April 1938.
Scott, Emmett J., Ne(ITo Migration During the War, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1920.
Segner, Freda P., Migrant Minnesota, Works Progress Administration, St. Paul,
Minn., November 1936.
Sorokin, Pitirim, Social Molnlity, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927.
- - - and Zimmerman, Carle C., Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology, New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1929.
- - - , Zimmerman, Carle C., and Galpin, Charles J., A Sy.~tematic Source Book
in Rural Sociology, Vol. III, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1932.
State and Special Censuses Since 1930, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D. C., May 29, 1937.
Stauber, B. R., The Farm Real Estate Situa,.on, 19.'Jli-36, Circular No. 417, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington,
D. C., October 1936.
Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., The People of the Drought Staus, Research
Bulletin Series V, No. 2, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, We.shington, D. C., 1937.
DaltzeobyGoogle
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY • 181
Taylor, Carl C., Wheeler, Helen W., and Kirkpatrick, E. L., Disad1Jantaged
Clauu in American AgricuUure, Social Research Report No. VIII, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Farm Security Administration and Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., April 1938.
Taylor, Paul S., Potoer Farming and Labor Duplaument in the Cotton Bell, 19S7,
Parts 1 and 2, Serial No. R. 737, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Washington, D. C., 1938.
Thomas, Dorothy S., Ruearch Memorandum on Migration DijJerentiala, Bulletin
43, Social Science Research Council, New York, 1938.
Thompson, Warren S., Ratio of Children to Women, 1920, Census Monograph XI,
U. 8. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C.,
1931.
- - - , Ruearch Memorandum on lntMnal Migration in the Depru1Jion, Bulletin
30, Social Science Research Council, New York, 1937.
- - - and Whelpton, P. K., Population Trend& in the United Statu, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933.
Thomthwaite, C. Warren, Inwnal Migration in the United Statu, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934.
Truesdell, Leon E., Farm Population of the United Statu, Census Monograph VI,
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C.,
1926.
Turner, Frederick JackBOn, The Frontier in American History, New York: Henry
Holt and Company, 1920.
Turner, H. A., A Graphic Summary of Farm Tenure, Miscellaneous Publication
No. 261, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., December 1936.
Vance, Rupert B., Human Factorll in Cotton Culture, Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1929.
- - - , Rellearch Memorandum on Population Redilltribution Within the United
States, Bulletin 42, Social Science Research Council, New York, 1938.
Vasey, Tom and Folsom, Josiah C., Sur!JeY of AgricuUural Labor Conditionll,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Security Administration and Bureau
of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., 1937.
Warren, G. F. and Pearson, F. A., The Agricultural Situation, New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1924.
Webb, John N., Migrant Families, Research Monograph XVIII, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938.
- - - , The Migratory-Ca/lual Worker, Research Monograph VII, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937.
- - - , The Transient Unemployed, Research Monograph III, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
Webb, Walter Prescott, Di!Jided We Stand, New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc.,
1937.
- - - , The Great Plains, Boston: Ginn and Company, 1931.
Whetten, N. L. and Devereux, E. C., Jr., Studies of Suburbanization in Connecticut, 1. Windllor, Bulletin 212, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Storrs,
Conn., October 1936.
Williams, Faith M. and Others, Family LilJing in Knott County, Kentucky, Technical Bulletin No. 576, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.,
August 1937.
Wilson, Harold Fisher, The Hill Country of New England, Its Social and Economic
Hilltory, 1790-1930, New York: Columbia University Press, 1936.
Og1tzedbyGoogle
182 • RURAL MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, Research
Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1936.
Young, E. C., The Movement of Farm Population, Bulletin 426, Cornell University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N. Y., March 1924.
Zimmerman, Carle C. and Frampton, M. E., Family and Society, New York:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1935.
ARTICLES IN PERIODICALS
Baker, 0. E., "Rural and Urban Distribution of the Population in the United
States," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sci=,
Vol. 188, November 1936, pp. 264-279.
- - - , "Rural-Urban Migration and the National Welfare," Annala of the
Association of American Geographers, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 1933, pp. 59-126.
Beecroft, Eric and Janow, Seymour, "Toward a National Policy for Migration,"
Social Forces, Vol. 16, 1938, pp. 475-492.
Cance, Alexander E., "The Decline of the Rural Population in New England,"
Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association, Vol. XIII, New
Series, No. 97, 1912, pp. 96-101.
Dorn, Harold F. and Lorimer, Frank, "Migration, Reproduction, and Population
Adjustment," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, Vol. 188, November 1936, pp. 280-289.
Galpin, Charles J., "Returning to the Farm," National Republic, Vol. XVI,
April 1929, pp. 20-21.
Gee, Wilson and Runk, Dewees, "Qualitative Selection in Cityward Migration,"
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXVII, 1931, pp. 254--265.
Hamilton, C. Horace, "The Annual Rate of Departure of Rural Youths From
Their Parental Homes," Rural Sociology, Vol. I, 1936, pp. 164--179.
Hoffman, Charles S., "Drought and Depression Migration into Oregon, 1930 to
1936," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1938, pp. 27-35.
Leybourne, Grace G., "Urban Adjustments of Migrants From the Southern
Appalachian Plateaus," Social Forces, Vol. 16, 1937, pp. 238--246.
Lively, C. E., "Note on Relation of Place-of-Birth to Place-Where-Reared,"
Rural Sociology, Vol. 2, 1937, pp. 332-333.
- - - , "Spatial and Occupational Changes of Particular Significance to the
Student of Population Mobility," Social Forces, Vol. 15, 1937, pp. 351-355.
- - - , "Spatial Mobility of the Rural Population With Respect to Local Areas,"
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XLIII, 1937, pp. 89-102.
Ravenstein, E. G., "The Laws of Migration," Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Vol. LIi, 1889, pp. 241-305.
Reed, Lowell, Jr., "Population Growth and Forecasts," The Annala of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188, November 1936, pp. 159166.
Rowell, Edward J., "Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to California in
1936," Monthly Labor Rev-iew, Vol. 43, No. 6, 1936, pp. 1355-1363.
Dalt zed by
Google
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY • 183
Satterfield, M. Harry, "The Removal of Families from Tennessee Valley Authority Reservoir Areas," Social Forces, Vol. 16, 1937, pp. 258-261.
Smith, T. Lynn, "Recent Changes in the Farm Population of the Southern States,"
Social Forces, Vol. 15, 1937, pp. 391-401.
Spengler, Joseph J., "Migration Within the United States," The Journal of Heredity, Vol. 27, 1936, pp. 2-20.
Taeuber, Conrad and Hoffman, Charles S., "Recent Migration from the Drought
Areas," Land Policy Circular, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Security
Administration, Division of Land Utilization, Washington, D. C., September
1937, pp. 16-20.
- - - and Taeuber, Irene B., "Short Distance Interstate Migrations," Social
Forces, Vol. 16, 1938, pp. 503-506.
Taylor, Paul S. and Vasey, Tom, "Contemporary Background of California Farm
Labor," Rural Sociology, Vol. I, 1936, pp. 401-419.
- - - and - - - , "Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to California, JuneDecember 1935," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1936, pp. 312-318.
Trimble, William J., "The Influence of the Passing of the Public Lande," Atlantic
Monthly, Vol. CXIII, June 1914, pp. 755--767.
Truesdell, Leon E., "Trends in Urban Population," The Municipal Year Book,
1937,pp. 129-136.
Wakefield, Richard and Landis, Paul H., "Types of Migratory Farm Laborers
and Their Movement into the Yakima Valley, Washington," Rural Sociology,
Vol. 3, 1938, pp. 133-144.
Wehrwein, George S. and Baker, J. A., "The Cost of Isolated Settlement in
Northern Wisconsin," Rural Sociology, Vol. 2, 1937, pp. 253-265.
Whelpton, P. K., "Geographic and Economic Differentials in Fertility," The
Annala of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188, November 1936, pp. 37-55.
Wilhelm, Donald, "Exodus, i933," New Outlook, Vol. 161, No. 9, 1933, pp. 43-45.
Woofter, T. J., Jr., "Replacement Rates in the Productive Ages," The Milbank
Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XV, No. 4, 1937, pp. 348-354.
- - , "The Natural Increase of the Rural Non-Farm Population," The Mil,.
bank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 1935, pp. 311-319.
r
Zimmerman, Carle C., "The Migration to Towns and Cities. II," The American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXIII, 1927, pp. 105--109.
- - - , Duncan, 0. D., and Frey, Fred C., "The Migration to Towne and Cities.
III," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXIII, 1927, pp. 237-241.
Dg1tzedoyGoogle
D1gt1zed by
Google
Index
185
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
INDEX
Age. See Children of families in survey areas; Heads of families in survey
areas; Population, farm.
Page
Agricultural production:
Commercial___________________________________________________
127
Cropland requirements for______________________________________
126
Land, quality of, and (see alao Land, farm)__ ___________________ 126--127
Agriculture, gainful workers in, percent, 1930 ______________________ 69, 70,158
Allin, Bushrod W ________________________________________________ 36n,37n
Almack, R. B_____________________________________________________
71ri
Anderson, W. A_______________________________________________ 100n, 102n
Asch, Berta_______________________________________________________
41n
Baker, J. A_______________________________________________________
79n
Baker, 0. E ____________________________________________________ 14n, 18n
Bankert, Zetta E_ ___ __________ __ _____ ______________ ____ _______ ____ 85n
Beck, P. G ___________________ - _____ ------- ___________ 40n, 41n, 100n, 124n
Birth rate, decline in (see also Fertility ratio; Reproduction rate, rural)___
4
Breithaupt, L. R ________ - - _____ - ___ - --- __ __ __ ______ _________ ______ 30n
Bucher, CarL_ ___________ ___ __ ______ __ __ _ ___________ ______ ____ ____
98n
Census, Bureau of the:
Agriculture __ 27n, 28n, 33n, 37n, 41n, 42n, 43n, 44n, 45n, 72n, 74n, 76n, 77n,
143n, 159n, 160n, 161n
Population __ 4n, 6n, 7n, 9n, 17n, 41n, 49n, 68n, 69n, 72n, 74n, 75n, 76n, 77n,
138n, 148n, 158n, 159n, 160n, 161n
State and special oensuaes_ ------------------------------------27n
Children of families in survey areu:
Migrant:
Age and sex ratio ________________________________________ 104-108
Age, by residence, 1929 and 1935--1936 _____________________ 104-106
Distance migrated, by residence and area ____________________ 9S-100
Residence:
Change, typeaof ____________________________________ 107-108
In 1935--1936, by period of migration __________________ 100--102
Percent living at home, 1929 and 1935--1936:
Age and sex_______________________________________________ 95--96
Relief status, reaidence, and aex _____________________________ 96--97
Children, rural:
Financial 1088 to farm population because of migration of (see also
Children of families in survey areas, migrant) _________________ 120-121
Rearing, estimated cost of_ _____ - - - _- - ______ - _- _________________
120
Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic, consumer market data of__
79n
Col'IIOn, John J __________________________________ --------- _________ 100n
187
DaltzeobyGoogle
188 • INDEX
Page
Dodson, L. 8_____________________________________________________ _ 78n
85n
Drought:
Migration and _________________________________________ 30-31, 42, 131
Relief problems related to _____________________________________ 78,133
Devereux, E. C., Jr _______________________________________________ _
Educational facilities, and migration _________ 71, 73, 149-151, 152-154, 155-157
Employment. See Heads of familiee in survey areas, occupation and.
Eugenie11 Survey of Vermont, fifth annual report ___________________ 91n, 100n
Famili88 in survey areae:
Composition__________________________________________________
108
Mobility, and:
Dependents in____________________________________________
117
Gainful workers, by area and type of reBidenoe change _______ 108-109
Families, nonfarm. See Heads of families in survey are&B.
Farm:
Income and migration ______________________________________ 71, 72, 159
Laborers:
Mechanization and________________________________________
124
Mobility, effects of_ ______________ - ___ ____ _____ ___ _____ __ 124-123
Land. Su Land, farm.
Operators. See Heade of famili88 in survey are&B.
Population. See Population, farm.
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, delimiting problem are&B-----40
Fertility ratio (au al,o Migration, net rural)__________________________
47
Fertility, rural population (au al,o Reproduction, rural):
Replacement needs and:
Variation in counti88, by color, region, reBidenoe, and State _____ 47-59,
145-157
Foott, Franoea ___________________ - - - - ___________________________ 85n, 92n
Forster, M. C ___________________________________________________ 40n, 41n
Frampton, M. E _______ ---- ____ - - - - ---- - --- -- --- ------ ___ - - _-- __ - 83n
Gee, Wilson __________________________________________________ 100n, 102n
Gillette, John Morris _________ -------------_________________________
13n
Goodrich, Carter _________________ --------------------- 36n, 37n, 60n, 127n
Hamilton, C. Horace __ ----------------------------------------- 14n, 124n
Hayes, Marion ______________________ - ___ -- _________________ - ____ 36n, 37n
Heade of families in survey ar888:
Age:
By area, distance migrated, and residence __________________ 103--104
By relief status. Su Relief status.
And members:
Migration, type of, by place reared and area __________________ 91-94
Residence change, 1929 to 1935-1936_ _ __ ___ _____ _______ __ ___
94
Farm operators:
Percent, by county and time of beginning farm operations ____ 112-113
Tenure status:
By range of migration ________________________________ 110-111
Changes in, 1929 to 1935-1936 ________________________ 113--115
0 g1tized by
Google
INDEX•
189
Heads of families in survey areas-Continued.
Migration (see also specific subjects):
Page
Range of, by area _________________________________________ _ 89-90
And residence change, frequency of _____________________ _ ~91
Mobility:
Occupational change, by area and residence______ __________ ___ 88-89
Residence change, by area and residence ______________________ 87-88
Nonfarm families, occupation, by range of migration _________ 110, 111-112
Oooupation and:
Employment status, by range of migration __________________ 109--112
Residence change, frequency of_ ___________________________ 117-118
Shifts to and from agriculture, by area, previous occupation, and
tenure ________________________________________________ 112-116
Relief status:
Age, by range of migration _______________________________ 116--117
Residence change, type of_ _______________________________ 117-118
Residence:
Change of, by type _______ ---- __________ ---------- ________ _ 91-92
Percent with continuous, by area and residence _______________ _ 86--87
Sex and mobility _____________________________________________ _
106
Heberle, Rudolf __________________________________________________ _ 82n
Hill, George W ___________________________________________________ _ 30n
Hoag, Emily F ___________________________________________________ _
100n
Hoffman, C. S ___________________________________________________ _
30n
Income.
See Farm, income; Migration, net rural.
Kirkpatrick, E. L_________________________________________________
Klineberg, Otto ___________________________________________________
42n
120n
Kumlien, W. F _________ - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - __ - - - - -- _- ______ _____
85n
Land, farm (see also Migration, net rural; Migration, to farms):
Quality and utilization related to population distribution ___ 66--67, 126--127
Landis, Paul H _________________________________________________ 30n, 125n
Leyboume, Grace G _________________ - _- _--- -- _________ - ______ __ ___ 73n
Lively, C. E ________________ 36n, 71n, 85n, 86n, 87n, 90n, 92n, 100n, 124n, 125n
Loomis, C. p ______________________________________________________ 100n
Lorimer, Frank __________________________________________________ 47n, 55n
McCormick, T. C _______ - ____ -- - -- - -- _- ___ - - - - - - _--- --- _______ - _- _ 97n
McNamara, Robert L____ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ __ ____ __ _____ ____________
85n
Mangus, A. R_____________________________________________________
41n
Mechanization. See Farm, laborers; Migration, net rural.
Melvin, Bruce L___________________________________________________
95n
Methodology:
Migration, net rural, 1920-1930:
Method of estimating ____________________________________ 163-166
Reliability __ - _____ - ____________ - ___________ _____ 162, 166--167
Type illustration __ -----------------------------------164
Migration, types of, included in study ___________________________ 86, 169
Objectives of study____________________________________________
XIII
Plane of living index, county __________________________________ 167-168
167
Population growth, net replacement quota indicating_______________
Dig t1zed by
Goog re
190 • INDEX
Methodology-Continued.
Population mobility, rural, studies of:
Page
Field surveys ____________________________ ---- ____________ 85, 168
Sample:
Cases and persons included___________________________ XIII, 169
Counties and townships surveyed________________________
169
Period covered________________________________________
168
Representativeness of_ ___________ ----------- __ ----_____
168
Stat.es included in study __________________________________ xm, 168
Schedule, sample _____________________ ------------ ___________ 170-171
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company _______________ 55n, 148n, 163n, 165, 167
Meyer, Fritz______________________________________________________
82n
Migrants (see also Migration; Population; Population, farm; Population,
rural):
From fanns, decrease in __________________________________ --- __ _ 32-33
Number, 1920-1930, to and from farms __________________________ _
23
Rural, number by color, residence, and sex _______________________ _ 13-15
To farms, 1930-1934:
From nonfarm areas:
Color and tenure _____________________________________ _
45
Farms reporting, by region ____________________________ _
43
Number on farms, January 1, 1935 _____________________ _ 43-44
Number per farm, by States ___________________________ _ 43-45
Location of, in relation to cities ____________________________ _ 35-37
Number:
By region and State ___________________________________ 33-35
Percent remaining on farms _________________________ 33-35, 143
Migration (Bee also Migrants; Population; Population, farm; Population,
rural):
Agricultural opportunity as a factor in _________________________ 125-129
Economic and social planning and __________________________ XI, XIII, 133
Factors influencing __________________________________________ 112,119
Net rural:
Distance from city and __________________________________ 74-75, 78
Educational facilities, and __________ 71, 73, 149-151, 152-154, 155-157
Farm population changes related to __________________________ 27-28
Fertility ratio related to types of, by county, region, and State__
5964, 148
Gain or loss, 1920-1930:
By age, color, residence, and sex _________________________ 14-17
By farm and nonfarm residence, region, and State_ 17-19, 139-140
Counties showing, by region and State ___________ 2o-23, 141-142
Gainful workers in agriculture related to types of, by county,
region, and State ____________________________________ 68-71, 158
Land, quality of, related to _______________________ 37-40, 66-68, 144
Mechanization in agriculture related to, by county and region __ 65-66,
149-151, 152-154, 155-157
Method of calculating ______________________________________ 12-13
Plane of living related to, by county, region, and State ________ 73-74,
76-77, 160--161
Relief rates and ___________________________________________ 78-79
Relief and (see also specific subjects) ___________________________ 129-133
Dig11zed by
Google
INDEX • 191
Migration-Continued.
Page
Rural, factors influencing _______________________________________ 79-83
Rural-urban:
Effects of, on:
Cities ______________________________________________ 121-122
Institutions, rural_____________________________________
121
Rural population ____________________________________ 119-120
Urban population______________________________________
122
Wealth, rural, depleted through_____________________________
120
To farms, 1934-1935:
Drought and. See Drought.
Farm income, gross, and ____________________________________ 41-43
Land, quality of, as factor in ________________________________ 37-40
Relief, incidence of, and ____________________________________ 40-41
Within agriculture (see also Farm, laborers) _____________________ 122-125
National Resources Board:
Delimiting problem areas __________________________ - ___________ 37, 68n
Land classification by__________________________________________
67
Report of land planning committee __________________________ 126n, 127n
National Resources Committee, report on population_ 39n, 121n, 122n, 126n, 144n
Occupation. See Heads of families in survey areas.
Odum, Howard W ______________________________________________ 68n, 144n
Osborn, Frederick _______________________________________________ 47n,55n
Paullin, Charles◊---------------------------------------------- 2n, 3n, 4n
Population:
Density, changes in, 1790-1930__________________________________ 2-3, 4
Fertility. See Fertility; Fertility, rural population.
Movement:
To and from farms (see also Migrants) _______________________ 31-32
Extent, by region and State _____________________________ 28-30
Number, annual and total net ___________________________ 25-28
Types of, variation in______________________________________
XI
Redistribution:
Effects of_ _______________________________________________ XI, XIII
Study of__________________________________________________
36
Trend, 1920-1938_____ ______ ________________ ________ ____ __ _____
XII
Population, farm:
Age composition, estimated change in, 1930-1935 __________________ 32-33
Births, excess, number of_______________________________________
_25
Change in, 1930-1934:
By areas ______________________________________________ 39,4o-41
In selected counties ________________________________________ 36-37
Related to net rural migration, by counties ___________________ 27-28
Change in, 1920-1930__________________________________________
68
Estimated, January 1, 1937____ __________ _________________ _____ _
25
Trend, 1920-1938 ____________________________ ._ __ ___ _________ ___
xn
Welfare of, factors influencing _________________________________ 128-129
Population, rural:
Change in, 1900-1930, by county, State, and region _________ 4-12, 137-138
Fertility ratio. See Fertility, rural population.
Dig11zed by
Google
192 • INDEX
Population,
rural-Continued.
Growth,factors
in ____________________________________________ _
Increase, 1820-1930___________________________________________ _
Page
4
1
Movement, surveys of, in st>lected areas. See Methodology.
Problem areas ________________________________________ 37, 40-41, 67-68, H4
Relief:
Family, definition_____________________________________________ 116n
Heads. See Heads of families in survey areas, relief stat\18.
97n
HoUBehold, definition ____ - - - - - - - _- - - _____ - _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _
Mobility related to. See Migration and relief; other specific subject.a.
Programs:
Drought, effects of, on. See Drought.
Population movements affected by __________________ XI, XIII, 130-132
Status. See Heads of families in survey areaa.
Relief and migration, rural:
Back-to-the-land movement___________________________________ 130-131
Policies affecting____________________________________________ 132-133
Residenoe requirements affecting _________________ --------------132
Reproduction, rural (,ee allo Fertility ratio; Fertility, rural population):
Variation in, by color, county, region, residence, and State _________ 48-M,
li6, 57,146,146,147,148
Rowell, Edward J_________________________________________________
80n
Runk, Dewees____________________________________________________ 102n
Taeuber, Conrad _______________________________________ 28n, 80n, 42n, 100n
Taylor, Carl c _________________________________________ 28n, 80n, 42n, 100n
Taylor, Paul S _____________________________________________ 80n, 66n, 125n
Thompson, Warrens _____________________________________ ln, 39n, 49n, 78n
Thornthwaite, C. Warren _______________________________________ 1411, 100n
Turner, H. A_____________________________________________________ 124n
U. S. Department of Agriculture:
Farm population and rural life activitlea_ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _
33n
Farm population estimates _______________ 23n, 25n, 26n, 28n, 31n, 32n, 33n
Vance, Rupert B ________________________________________________ XI, 124n
Vasey, Tom ___________________________________________________ 30n, 125n
Webb, John N ____________________________________________________
125n
Wehrwein, Georges_______________________________________________
Wheeler, Helen W __ __ _ _______________ _ _______ _ _ __ ____ __ _____ _ _ __ __
Whelpton, P. K _________________________________ ln, 4n, 18n, 78n, 163n,
Whetten, N. L____________________________________________________
Wilson, Harold Fisher______________________________________________
Woofter, T. J., Jr _________________________________________ 47n, 121n,
79n
42n
167n
78n
66n
125n
Workers, gainful. See Agriculture; Families in survey areas; Migration,
net rural.
Young, E. c ______________________________________________________
100n
Youth:
Number on farms, estimated _______________________________ ----_
95n
Problems, rural_____________________________________________ 130, 133
Zimmerman, Carle
c_______ ___________________ __ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __ __ _
0
Dg,
zedbyGoogle
83n
@FedFRASER