View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

U N IT E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R
L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner

+

State and Regional
Variations in Prospective
Labor Supply

Bulletin 7v£o. 893

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1947

For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. 8. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D. C. * Price 15 cents




Letter of Transmittal
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ,
B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s ,

Washington, D. C., March 4, 1947.
The S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r :
I have the honor of transmitting herewith a bulletin presenting the results of a
study of State and regional variations in prospective labor supply. The informa­
tion presented here should prove helpful to labor, business, and government
groups concerned with problems of employment, industrial location, marketing,
housing, and social security.
The study was prepared by Lester M. Pearlman and Leonard Eskin in the
Bureau’s Occupational Outlook Division. Sophia C. Mendelsohn and Mary J.
Levy assisted in the formulation of the estimating procedures and supervised the
statistical operations.
E w an C lag u e,

Hon. L. B. SCHWELLENBACH,




Secretary o f Labor.

(ii)

Commissioner.

Bulletin 7\[o. 893 o f the
U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
[Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R eview , December 1946, with additional data]

Contents
Page

Normal growth of the labor force, 1940 to 1950:
National changes__________________________________________________
State and regional variations_______________________________________
Differential fertility and natural labor-force growth_____________
Internal migration and “ normal” labor-force growth___________
Factors determining deviation of labor force from normal, 1950__________
Extra workers_____________________________________________________
Interstate migration____ ______
State estimates of the labor force, 1950_________________________________
Iowa_________________________________ ___________________________ Washington___________________________ .____________________ _____ _
Appendix A.— Technical notes on estimating procedures_________________
Appendix B.— Additional tables— --------------------------------------------------------




(in )

2
4
4
#9
11
14
15
16
17
18
23
30

PROSPECTIVE

LABOR FORCE

CHANGES, BY STATE

m

s

1 9 4 0 -1 9 5 0

DECREASE 4 %

OR MORE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS




LABOR FORCE INCLUDES ALL PERSONS 14 YEARS OF AGE
AND OVER WHO ARE WORKING OR SEEKING WORK.
LABOR

State and R egion al V ariations in P rosp ective L abor
Supply
LABOB, business, and government groups engaged in labor-market
analysis or concerned with problems of maintaining high levels of
employment need some quantitative measure of prospective labor
supply in their particular States or regions. An estimate of the total
number of persons who will be working or seeking work provides a
framework for the analysis of a variety of social and economic prob­
lems relating to employment, industrial location, marketing, housing,
and social security. This report contains basic information on past
trends and wartime developments in labor-force growth which will aid
in the preparation of such an estimate for each of the 48 States.
The Pacific Coast States and the South are expected to register the
largest relative gains in labor force between 1940 and 1950. (See map
on opposite page and table 4, p. 20.) On the other hand the Great
Plains States stretching from North Dakota to Oklahoma will prob­
ably suffer a net loss in working population. Migrants, drawn
largely from the South and the Great Plains States, accounted for
much of the rapid expansion of labor supply on the Pacific Coast
during the war. M ost of these migrants are likely to remain in their
new locations because their movements followed a well-established
long-term trend. The predominantly rural South, despite the fact
that it loses many workers through migration to other regions, ranks
second to the West Coast in the prospective rate of labor-force growth
because of its relatively high birth rate. The industrial Northeast
accounts for about half of the Nation’s working population, but lags
behind the rest of the country in prospective labor-force growth be­
cause its birth rates are relatively low and it does not characteristi­
cally draw workers from other regions.
Two types of data are presented here for use in estimating the size
of each State’s labor force in 1950, a year when short-run dislocations
of the postwar transition period are expected to be over.
First, the base figure shown is the “ normal” labor force in 1950—
the work force that would have been expected if peacetime trends in
labor-market participation and interstate migration had continued
after 1940 and if economic conditions similar to those of 1940 had
prevailed. The normal estimates, although not predictions of the
actual size of the labor force in each State, provide a basis from which
realistic estimates may be made.
Second, data are presented on the wartime changes in the labor
force of each State. This material will aid in estimating the extent to
which the actual size of the labor force in 1950 may differ from the
normal level.



(l)

2

,

Normal Growth oj the Labor Force 1940 to 1950
NATIONAL CHANGES

A brief examination of normal labor-force projections for the Nation
as a whole between 1940 and 1950 shows a number of broad trends
in population growth and labor-market participation which operate
in all States. In addition, the national trends serve as a background
against which State and regional variations can be studied.
T a b l e 1.— “ Natural? ’ and “ N orm al” Labor-Force Growth, by State, 1940 to 1950 1
“ Normal” labor-force
projection, 19504

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

(1)

Region, division .and State

“ Natural” labor-force
projection, 1950 *

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Labor
force,
1940*
(in thou­
sands)

U N ITED STATES___________________

64,778

60,830

11.0

60,830

11.0

N O RTH .......................................................

32,627

35,289

8.2

34,618

6.1

New England........................................

3,757

4,082

iTT

4,062

O

M aine--------------------------------------New Hampshire..............................
Vermont..........................................
Massachusetts.................................
Rhode Islan d .................................
Connecticut.....................................

343
215
147
1,917
335
800

384
234
161
2,077
366
860

12.0
8.8
9.5
8.3
9.3
7.5

373
242
157
2,033
367
890

8.7
12.6
6.8
6.1
9.6
11.2

M iddle Atlantic.....................................

12,249

13,233

8.0

13,074

6.7

New York.......................................
New Jersey......................................
Pennsylvania..................................

6,188
1,928
4,133

6,571
2,065
4,597

6,501
2,098
4,475

5.1
8.8
8.3

East North Central...............................

11,203

12,086

6.2
7.1
11.2
—

12,109

8.1

Ohio.................................................
Indiana......... .................................
Illinois.............................................
Michigan.........................................
Wisconsin........................................

2,865
1,379
3,485
2,202
1,272

3,089
1,494
3,697
2,418
1,388

7.8
8.3
6.1
9.8
9.1

3,071
1,516
3,677
2,495
1,350

7.2
9.9
5.5
13.3
6.1

West North Central..............................

5,418

5,888

8.7

5,373

- .8

Minnesota.......................................
Iow a................................................
Missouri..........................................
North Dakota.................................
South Dakota.................................
Nebraska.........................................
Kansas.............................................

1,142
992
1,579
244
248
519
694

1,242
1,069
1,698
277
279
569
754

8.8
7.8
7.5
13.5
12.5
9.6
8.6

SOUTH.......................................................

16,303

19,314

19,104

17.2

South Atlantic.............. ........................

7,249

8,625

5uT

8,844

22J)

Delaware.........................................
Maryland........................................
District of Columbia......................
Virginia...........................................
West Virginia.................................
North Carolina...............................
South Carolina................................
Georgia............................................
Florida.............................................

119
797
358
1,072
657
1,388
763
1,277
818

128
879
380
1,256
791
1,736
966
1,577
912

7.6
10.3
6.1
17.2
20.4
25.1
26.6
23.5
11.5

140
948
413
1,307
767
1,716
951
1,538
1,064

17.6
18.9
15.4
21.9
16.7
23.6
24.6
20.4
30.1

East South Central...............................

4,050

4,833

liT

4,645

m

Kentucky........................................
Tennessee........................................
Alabama....... .................................
M ississippi......................................

1,037
1,114
1,058
841

1,217
1,308
1,300
1,008

17.4
17.4
22.9
19.9

1,171
1,266
1,229
979

12.9
13.6
16.2
16.4

See footnotes at end of table.




~

18.5

1,218
1,007
1,599
214
221 v
463
651

6.7
1.5
1.3
-1 2 .3
-1 0 .9
-1 0 .8
-6 ,2

3
T able 1.— “ NatnraV' and 4NormaF ’ Labor-Force Growth, by State, 1940 to
4
1950 1 Continued
—

Region, division, and State

(1)

“ Natural” labor-force
projection, 19503

“ Normal” labor-force
projection, 19503

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

(2)

Labor
force,
19403
(in thou­
sands)

(3)

(4)

(5)

SOUTH—Continued.
West South Central..............................

5,004

5,856

17.0

5,615

12.2

Arkansas..........................................
Louisiana.........................................
Oklahoma........................................
Texas...............................................

704
919
834
2,547

827
1,082
983
2,964

17.5
17.7
17.9
16.4

764
1,088
820
2,943

8.5
18.4
-1 .7
15.5

W EST..........................................................

5,848

6,227

6.5

7,108

21.5

M ountain.............................. ................

1,580

1,797

13.7

1,856

17.5

Montana..........................................
Idaho...............................................
W yoming........................................
Colorado..........................................
New M exico....................................
Arizona..................................... .
Utah................................................
Nevada............................................

233
198
104
437
184
187
187
50

250
223
115
481
229
222
226
51

7.3
12.6
10.6
10.1
24.5
18.7
20.9
2.0

240
237
119
489
243
255
213
60

3.0
19.7
14.4
11.9
32.1
36.4
13.9
20.0

Pacific....................................................

4,268

4,430

3.8

5,252

23.1

Washington—.................................
Oregon-..-......... ...............................
California........................................

742
470
3,056

765
487
3,178

3.1
3.6
4.0

843
559
3,850

13.6
18.9
26.0

1 Data presented in this table cover total labor force including armed forces. All data at April seasonal
level. Annual average for total United States is about three-fourths of a million higher.
* Data from 1940 census have been revised upward for comparability with current census series. Pre­
liminary, pending release of official revision of United States total by Bureau of the Census. See Appen­
dix A, section 1.
* This projection assumes (1) continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that works
or seeks work; (2) economic conditions in 1950 similar to those of 1940; and (3) no interstate migration between
1940 and 1950. See Appendix A , section 2.
* Assumption (1) and (2) same as above, but interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 assumed to be
twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix C, section 3.

Estimates of normal labor force for the United States have been
constructed by projecting 1920 to 1940 relationships between popula­
tion and labor force through the decade 1940-50.1 The decennial
increases in the labor force and population from 1920 to 1940 and the
normal increase from 1940 to 1950 are shown in the following tabu­
lation!
Increase (in thousands)
1980-40

1940-60
(normal)

Population, 14 years of age and over: Total________ _ 14, 957
Male.................................................................................. 7,134
Female.................
7,823

12,002
5,466
6,536

9, 205
3,920
5,285

Labor force: Total___________________________________ 1 7,359
Male................................................................................... 15,110
Female...............- ..........................- ............................. 1 2, 249

5, 895
3,276
2,619

6,052
2,570
3,482

1920-80

1Since data for 1920 are not available on a “ labor force” basis, the 1920-30 change refers to “ gainful workers.”
1 Labor-force projections for the United States as a whole appearing in this article represent preliminary
revisions by the authors of estimates prepared by the Bureau of the Census and published in Population,
Special Reports, Series P-44 N o. 12, Bureau of the Census (W ashington), June 12, 1944. The revisions
are designed to be consistent with current Census estimates which are based on a revised interviewing
procedure adopted in July 1945. See Bureau of the Census, M onthly Report on the Labor Force, especially
M R LF N o. 39, September 20,1945.




4
Despite the expected decline in the rate of population growth and
an assumed continuation of past trends toward longer schooling and
earlier retirement, the projected increment to the labor force during
this decade is somewhat larger than the increase during the 1930’s.
The long-term trend toward an increasing number of women work­
ers is the major factor supporting the large normal labor-force growth
during the current decade. Over the years, it has been possible for
a larger proportion of women to work outside the home because of
greater mechanization of household and industrial processes, increasing
urbanization, decline in the birth rate, and social attitudes more
favorable to the employment of women.
On the basis of peacetime expectations, the national labor force in
1950 would number about 60.8 million persons—43.6 million men
and 17.2 million women.2
STATE AND REGIONAL VARIATIONS

The rate of expansion of the national labor force during the decade
1940-50 represents the net effect of widely varying rates among
the States. Differences in the birth rate and interstate migration
play the leading roles in causing these variations.
Differential Fertility and “ Natural1 Labor-Force Growth
9

In the absence of migration, the South would be expected to have
the fastest growing labor force in the Nation between 1940 and 1950.
This is attributable to the high birth rates which prevail in the
predominantly rural Southern States. Rural areas throughout the
country have significantly higher fertility rates than urban areas.
Regional differences in the “ natural” rate of labor-force growth 3 are
as follows:
Natural growth in the labor
force, 1940-60 (percent)

United States_________________________________
North.........................
South..............
West________

11
8
18
6

In the broad region called the South,4 the labor force of only two
States, Delaware and Maryland (which are not typical of the
other Southern States), would be expected to grow at a slower rate be­
tween 1940 and 1950 than the 11-percent natural increase anticipated
for the Nation as a whole (table 1, column 3). The labor force in
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama would be
8All data presented in this article cover total labor force including the armed forces. Projections are
made at April seasonal level (the time of year when the decennial census is usually taken). On an annual
average basis, the United States total labor force would be about three-fourths of a million higher
* The “ natural” rate of labor-force growth is here defined as the projected rate of growth, assuming no
interstate migration.
4Regional classifications used in this article are the same as those used by the Bureau of the Census. See
tables for States included in each region




5
expected to grow more than twice as fast as the national labor force.
In 24 out of 32 States in the North and West, the natural rate of laborforce growth would fall below the corresponding rate for the Nation.
The lowest rates of labor-force growth in the country would prevail
in the geographic division embracing the trio of Pacific Coast States—
California, Oregon, and Washington.
In every State the natural rate of increase in the labor force is very
much greater for women than for men. This reflects the increasing
participation of women workers as well as the declining proportion of
boys and older men in the labor force. In the absence of interstate
migration, the number of male workers in the Pacific Coast States,
Nevada, and the District of Columbia would be expected to decline
between 1940 and 1950, but these decreases would be more than offset
by gains in the number of women workers. (See Appendix B, tables
1 and 2.)
Replacement rates.—Thus far natural labor-force growth has been
dealt with only in terms of net changes between 1940 and 1950. But
these net changes result from differences between the number of
persons who enter the labor market and the number who leave. The
accessions to and separations from the labor force are analyzed in this
section, not only to indicate their magnitude, but also to highlight
State differences in the competitive position of new entrants to the
labor market. The analysis is confined to male workers because the
movements of women in and out of the labor market are complicated
by changes in marital and family status.
Areas of relatively high birth rates and comparatively young popu­
lation will have more new workers entering the labor force and fewer
older workers leaving than areas where the population is relatively old.
In the South, for example, some 3,895,000 young men (exclusive of
in-migrants) would be expected to enter the labor force between 1940
and 1950, whereas only 2,321,000 would leave because of death or
retirement.6 (See table 2, columns 1 and 2.) This means an average
of 168 accessions for every 100 separations— a replacement rate of 168.
In other words, if there were no migration into or out of the South,
every 100 men leaving that region's labor force between 1940 and 1950
would be replaced by 168 new male workers. This rate is much higher
than the rates for the North (118) or the West (107). Replacement
rates for individual States tend to cluster about the regional average
(see chart 1), but there are some exceptions, such as New M exico,
Arizona, and Utah, where replacement rates more nearly resemble
those of the South than those of the West. On the other hand, the
pattern of labor-market accessions and separations in Delaware,
Maryland, District of Columbia, and Florida is more like the North
than like the South.*
* Figures exclude accessions and separations of seasonal or intermittent workers.
727883°— 47------ 2




6
The differences in the relation between labor-market accessions and
separations are reflected in the composition o f the labor force at any
one time. If there were no interstate migration between 1940 and
1950, 28 percent of the South's male labor force in 1950 would have
less than 10 years' labor-market experience as compared with 24 per­
cent in the North and 23 percent in the West. In South Carolina,
one out of every three men in the 1950 labor force would be a new
worker added after 1940; in California the corresponding figure would
be only one out of every five.
T able 2.— “ Natural” and “ Norm al” Accessions, Separations, and Replacement Rates
fo r the M ale Labor Force, by State, 1940 to 1950
“ Natural” 1

Region, division, and State

“ Normal” *

Replace­
Replace­
ment rate Accessions * Separa­
ment rate
Separa­
Accessions
(accessions (in thou­ tions * (in (accessions
(in thou­
tions (in
per 100
per 100
thousands) separa­
sands)
sands)
thousands)
separa­
tions)
tions)
(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(6)

U N ITED STATES..............

10,974

8,404

131

10,974

8,404

N O R TH ..................................

6,033

5,102

118

6,250

5,818

107

New England_____ _____

664

566

117

740

653

113

Maine.........................
New Hampshire.........
V erm ont....................
Massachusetts............
Rhode Island..............
Connecticut.............. .

72
39
30
332
58
133

57
35
25
287
47
115

126
111
120
116
123
116

84
56
39
379
74
186

75
48
36
362
62
148

112
117
108
105
119
126

M iddle Atlantic................

2,150

1,819

118

2,332

2,126

110

New York...................
New Jersey................
Pennsylvania.............

983
321
846

911
277
631

108
116
134

1,158
430
913

1,151
364
780

101
118
117

East North Central..........

2,109

1,797

117

2,470

2,143

115

Ohio_______________
Indiana------------------Illinois.........................
Michigan....................
Wisconsin...................

547
277
588
436
261

471
234
541
339
212

116
118
109
129
123

664
368
764
577
293

602
307
735
424
271

110
120
104
136
108

West North Central.........

1,110

920

121

1,138

1,326

86

Minnesota..................
Iowa............................
Missouri......................
North Dakota............
South Dakota.............
Nebraska.......... .........
TTnnsim __ _

227
207
296
61
59
113
147

188
175
259
43
42
90
123

121
118
114
142
140
126
120

278
243
369
54
56
113
171

254
256
404
83
84
169
222

109
95
91
65
67
67
77

SOUTH...................................

3,895

2,321

168

4,219

2,781

152

South Atlantic__________

1,654

988

167

2,021

1,178

172

Delaware....................
M aryland...................
District of Colum bia..
Virginia-....................
West Virginia.............
North Carolina______
South Carolina...........
Georgia.......................
Florida........................

21
145
40
248
186
364
201
298
151

18
114
43
151
100
172
94
167
129

117
127
93
164
186
212
214
178
117

36
236
115
355
210
408
226
356
305

25
154
101
211
142
224
129
242
176

144
153
114
168
148
182
175
147
173

8ee footnotes at end of table.




131

7
T able 2.— “ NaturaV9 and “ Normal” Accessions, Separations, amf Replacement Rates
fo r the M ale Labor Force, fey State, 1940 to 1950 — Continued
“ Natural” 1

Region, division, and State

“ Normal” *

Replace­
Replace­
ment rate Accessions* Separa­
ment rate
Separa­
Accessions
(in thou­
tions (in (accessions (in thou­ tions* (in (accessions
per 100
per 100
sands)
thousands)
sands)
thousands)
separa­
separa­
tions)
tions)
(2)

0)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(6)

SOUTH—Continued.
East South Central...........

1,034

595

174

1,096

789

139

K entucky. .................
Tennessee...................
Alabama.....................
M ississippi.................

271
271
282
210

159
162
148
126

170
167
191
167

305
316
298
234

226
238
214
168

135
133
139
139

738~ "

164~

1,306

1,018

128

Arkansas.....................
Louisiana....................
Oklahoma...................
Texas..........................

189
220
217
581

114
133
131
360

166
165
166
161

219
272
226
712

192
177
267
505

114
154
85
141

W EST.....................................

1,046

981

107

1,830

1,130

162

M ountain.........................

371

256

144

580

418

139

M ontana...................
Idaho..........................
W yoming....................
Colorado.....................
New M exico...............
Arizona.......................
U ta h ........................
Nevada.......................

47
48
22
91
54
46
55
8

41
34
16
73
26
28
29
9

115
141
138
125
208
164
190
89

71
87
46
151
91
99
64
27

72
61
36
128
52
56
48
21

99
143
128
118
175
177
133
129

Pacific................................

675

725

93

1,393

855

163

W ashington..............
Oregon........................
California....................

126
79
470

137
83
505

92
95
93

247
178
1,063

194
128
628

127
139
169

West South Central

1,207

i Assumes no interstate migration between 1940 and 1950. See Appendix A, section 6.
* Assumes interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 to be twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A,
section 7.
* United States, regional, and divisional totals are less than the sum of their components because they
exclude accessions and separations due to migration between States within the United States, region, or
division.

State variations in replacement rates should not be interpreted
without reference to variations in economic opportunity. A State
with a rapidly expanding economy may easily absorb 200 replace­
ments for every 100 persons leaving the labor force, whereas a less
fortunate State might have difficulty providing employment oppor­
tunity for say 110 replacements. Given equal employment oppor­
tunity for two States, however, jobs would be harder to find in the
one with the higher replacement rate because on the average more
workers would be competing for each job opening. The difficulty of
finding jobs would be greatly accentuated in a State with both a
relatively high replacement rate and relatively low employment
opportunity.
Actually, the areas with the highest replacement rates and the
greatest rates of natural labor-force growth tend to be the ones where
economic opportunity is below par. This disparity between labor



CHART I

NATURAL REPLACEMENT RATES FOR TH E MALE LABOR FORCE
1940-1950

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP LABOR
BUREAU OP LABOR STATISTICS




0
supply and economic opportunity has resulted in a consistent pattern
of internal migration. The South and Great Plains characteristically
have been losers in the give and take of population between regions.
The West, on the other hand, has been able to draw large numbers of
people from other regions of the country, while losing few. The effect
of large-scale migration on State variations in labor-force growth is
shown in the next section.
Internal M igration and “ Normal” Labor-Force Growth

Because of the extreme importance of population movements to the
supply of labor in a given State, the estimates of “ normal” labor-force
growth include an assumption with respect to interstate migration.
For this purpose, the rate of interstate migration between 1935 and
1940 was projected through the decade 1940-50. The “ normal”
labor force for each State, therefore, consists of a projection of migra­
tion movements as well as trends in labor-market participation. In
the procedure employed no attempt was made to estimate the actual
magnitude of migration. But the prewar population movements do
reflect a migration pattern that prevailed dining the war and is likely
to carry over into the postwar period.6
Since these normal labor force estimates by State assume a prewar
migration pattern, there is also implicit the assumption that the
prewar distribution of employment opportunity will not shift radi­
cally. In view of the past stability in the geographic distribution of
economic resources and opportunity, both in years of war and peace,7
there is a strong likelihood that this distribution will not change
significantly in the next 5 years.
Estimates of normal labor-force growth and replacement rates
between 1940 and 1950 by State and region including allowance for
interstate migration are shown in tables 1 and 2. The introduction
of the prewar migration pattern exerts great influence on the State
and regional rates of labor-force growth as a comparison of these
rates with those computed on a no-migration basis readily indicates
(see chart 2).
•See Demographic Aspects of W orld War II: Migration. Paper delivered before the American Socio­
logical Society (Cleveland, Ohio, March 1,1946), by Henry S. Shryock, Jr., and Hope Tisdale Eldridge.
It should be reemphasized at this point that the so-called normal labor-force projections assume economic
conditions similar to those of 1940. Their main function is to serve as a base upon which more realistic
projections can be made and not to estimate the size of the labor force under ideal economic conditions.
This is especially true with regard to the migration assumption. The 1935-40 experience was chosen simply
because (1) it reflected a general pattern that has prevailed in the past and is likely to continue in the future,
(2) the time reference is close to the 1940 conditions to which the “ normal” projections apply, and (3) there
are more data available on the characteristics of migrants during the 1935-40 period than during any other
period.
7 On this subject see National Resources Committee, Structure of the American Economy, Philadelphia,
1939; Is Industry Decentralizing? by Daniel Creamer, Philadelphia, 1935; Growth of American Manufac­
turing Areas, by Glenn E. McLaughlin, Philadelphia, 1935; Regional Distortions Resulting from the War,
in Survey of Current Business, October 1943.




EFFECT OF MIGRATION ON NORMAL LABOR FORCE GROWTH
1 9 40-195 0
SOUTH AND GREAT PLAINS, WHERE NATURAL GROWTH OF LABOR FORCE
OUTSTRIPS OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT, SUPPLY LABOR TO EXPANDING WEST COAST

PROJECTED
LABOR FORCE GROWTH
PERCENT

WITHOUT
MIGRATION

1
0

WITH "NORMAL*
MIGRATION




NORMAL MIGRATION
ASED ON 1935*1840 MIGRATION RATE

IN

OUT
MORE THAN g.S%F % 3
LESS THAN 2.5% B

3

11
Although the West has the slowest rate of natural increase in
working population, the great inflow of migrants causes this region to
have the fastest growing labor force in the Nation. California's rate
of labor-force growth increases from 4 percent to 26 percent when
allowance is made for migrant workers. The South, which had the
highest rate of natural labor-force growth, runs second to the West
when the migration factor is taken into account.
Perhaps the most striking effect of migration on labor-force growth
is shown in the Great Plains States where the labor force will actually
decline between 1940 and 1950, if the exodus of workers equals or
exceeds the prewar rate. And the heavy migration from this region
during World War I I * leaves little doubt that by the end of this
8
decade there will be in fact fewer workers in the area from North
Dakota to Oklahoma than there were in 1940. Wartime migration,
although creating some new local problems of overcrowding and
Expansion of populations beyond the peacetime capacities of local
economies to support them, was in general a movement from areas of
low or declining opportunity to more favorably situated places.
However, there is typically not enough migration from areas of low
economic opportunity to drain off the surplus labor supply. Many
workers are reluctant to leave familiar surroundings and family ties.
The uncertainty and fear attending migration are reinforced by its
cost. This is particularly significant, for it is precisely those who
should move who usually lack the means to do so. Added to these
factors is the general ignorance as to where employment opportunities
lie. The war stimulated migration not only because new job oppor­
tunities arose but also because they were dramatized and publicized
to an unusual degree.
There has been a noteworthy trend toward the development of
industry in areas o f surplus labor supply. During recent decades, for
example, industrialization of the South has been proceeding more
rapidly than in the country as a whole. Nevertheless, it appears that
the resulting shift in the distribution of employment opportunity has
been relatively small. Internal migration will have to continue if all
workers are to be afforded useful employment opportunities.9

,

Factors Determ ining Deviation o f Labor Force from Norm al
1950

The 1950 labor force in a given State may differ from a normal
based on projection of prewar trends for two principal reasons:
(1) the proportion of the population that works or seeks work may
8 See Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Beports, Series P-46, N o. 3 (W ashington), February 12,
1646. Migration data for the war and prewar periods are presented in Appendix B, table 3.
8 See Internal Migration and Full Employment, in Journal of the American Statistical Association,
September 1946.




12
differ from that yielded by the normal projections; and (2) the actual
volume of interstate migration may deviate from the assumed volume.
National labor-force growth will be affected primarily by only the
first of these factors; State labor-force growth will be influenced by
both factors, but principally by the second.
T able 3.— Estim ated Deviation o f Labor Force From “ N orm al” b y State, A p ril 1 9 4 5 1
[In thousands]
Deviation of estimated labor force
ft*om “ normal

Region, division, and State

Estimated “ Normal”
actual labor labor force
projection*
force*

Total

Caused by Caused by
“ abnormal” participa­
tion of
migra­
“ extra”
tion*
workers

(1)

(2)

(3)

U N ITED STATES...................................

65,986

58,000

*7,986

N O R TH ......................................................

38,619

33,781

4,838

New England........................................

4,386

3^926~

460~

Maine..............................................
New Hampshire..............................
Vermont..........................................
Massachusetts.................................
Rhode Island..................................
Connecticut.....................................

398
229
147
2,225
387
1,000

358
227
151
1,985
354
851

40
2
-4
240
33
149

M iddle Atlantic....................................

14,069

12,737

New York.......................................
New Jersey......................................
Pennsylvania-...............................

6,920
2,339
4,810

6,378
2,028
4,331

East North Central. ............................

13,883

11,705

2,178

Ohio.................................................
Indiana............................................
Illinois.............................................
M ichigan....................................... .
Wisconsin........................................

3,689
1,776
4,200
2,747
1,471

2,983
1,452
3,600
2,356
1,314

706
324
600
391
157

124
29
40
98
-3 3

582
295
560
293
190

W est North Central..............................

6,281

5,413

868

-172

1,040

Minnesota.......................................
Iowa................................................
M issouri--......................................
North Dakota.................................
South Dakota.................................
Nebraska.........................................
Kansas............................................

1,308
1,103
1,865
254
257
602
892

1,184
1,002
1,589
231
236
496
675

124
101
276
23
21
106
217

-8 6
-6 6
-8
-1 9
-1 7
0
24

210
167
284
42
38
106
193

SOUTH.......................................................

19,660

17,730

1,930

-440

2,370

South Atlantic.......................................

8,868

8,067

801

-5 4

855

Delaware.........................................
Maryland........................................
District of Columbia......................
Virginia...........................................
West Virginia.................................
North Carolina...............................
South Carolina................................
Georgia...... ....................................
Florida.............................................

144
1,087
510
1,399
800
1,574
884
1,465
1,005

130
874
387
1,191
712
1,553
859
1,423
938

14
213
123
208
88
21
25
42
67

3
82
77
52
-5 8
-121
-6 2
-4 4
17

11
131
46
156
146
142
87
86
50

East South Central...............................

4,705

4,350

355

-225

580

K entucky.......................................
Tennessee................................... .
Alabama..........................................
Mississippi......................................

1,162
1,349
1,302
892

1,103
1,191
1,143
913

59
158
159
-21

-109
-1 2
-2 1
-8 3

168
170
180
62

See footnotes at end of table.




(5)

(4)
0
—

7,986
£778

68~

402

-1 1
-1 0
-1 4
34
13
46

51
12
10
206
20
103

1,332

-8 4

1,416

542
311
479

-154
70
0

696
241
479

258~

1,920

13
T able 3.— Estim ated Deviation o f Labor Force From “ N orm al” b y State, A p ril 1 9 4 5 1
—
Continued
[In thousands]
Deviation of estimated labor force
from “ normal”

Region, division, and State

Estimated “ Normal”
actual labor labor force
projectioni
*
3
force*

(1)

(2)

Total

(3)

Caused by
Caused by participa­
“ abnormal”
tion of
migra­
“ extra”
tion 3
workers
(4)

(5)

SOUTH—Continued.
West South Central..............................

6,087

5,313

774

-161

935

Arkansas..........................................
Louisiana........................................
Oklahoma......................... ..............

826
1,054
944
3,263

733
1,003
830
2,747

93
51
114
516

-8 2
-1 1
-7 1
3

175
62
185
513

W EST..........................................................

7,707

6,489

1,218

380

838

Mountain...............................................
Montana..........................................
Idaho...............................................
W yoming........................................
Colorado..........................................
New M exico....................................
Arizona............................................
Utah................................................
N evada...........................................

1,848
247
217
118
493
202
259
245
67

1,719
237
217
112
463
213
221
201
55

129
10
0
6
30
-1 1
38
44
12

-5 7
-3 1
-3 0
-6
-1 5
-2 9
23
23
8

186
41
30
12
45
18
15
21
4

Pacific....................................................
Washington.....................................
Oregon.............................................
C alifornia--.....................................

5,859
1,028
624
4,207

4,770
796
515
3,459

1,089
232
109
748

437
78
33
326

652
154
76
422

i Data presented In this table cover total labor force including armed forces.
3 Includes members of armed forces in States from which they were inducted. Preliminary, pending
release of Bureau of the Census official estimate of United States total on basis comparable with current
census series. See Appendix A , section 4.
* Assumes interstate migration between 1940 and 1945 to be equal to the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix
A , section 3.
3 Estimate includes only migrants who would be in labor force on basis of prewar patterns of labor-market
participation. Any migrants who were in the labor force in April 1945 but who would not have been workers
under normal peacetime conditions are counted in column 5. See Appendix A_, section 5.
« Revised slightly from United States total of 8.1 m illion published in M onthly Labor Review for
November 1946.

Analysis of the differential impact o f the war on the labor force of
each State gives insight into the probable postwar deviation of the
actual labor force from normal. The wartime expansion of the Na­
tion’s labor force to a level approximately 8 million above peacetime
expectations was distributed very unevenly among the States. The
extent to which these State variations in wartime excess of labor force
over normal were .caused by differences in degree of recruitment of
new workers and by “ abnormal” migration is shown in table 3. The
two factors may supplement one another or offset each other. For
example, the fact that California’s wartime labor force exceeded
normal by approximately 750,000 workers resulted from the larger
than usual inflow of migrants as well as from the more complete utiliza­
tion of its prewar labor supply. In contrast, out-migration o f large
numbers of North Carolina’s working population offset the “ extra”
workers drawn into its labor force, so that very little increase over
normal took place.
727883°— 47-----8



14
The degree to which wartime change in the labor force of a given
State came about through migration rather than through more
extensive utilization of the resident labor supply will play a major
role in determining the future size of the State's labor force. In
general, the effects of migration are likely to fbe more lasting than
;
the effects of drawing extra workers into the labor force from the
resident population.
EXTRA WORKERS

Some indication of the extent to which extra workers will remain
in the labor market may be obtained by examining the picture for the
Nation as a whole. During the war, some 8 million persons who
ordinarily would have been housewives, students, retired men, or
others not in search of gainful employment were drawn into the
Nation's labor force.1 These included about 4 million youths of
0
school and college age, % million young women aged 20-34; 2 million
women over the age of 35; and 1% million men over 25.
Two-thirds of the wartime excess labor force caused by the prema­
ture entrance of school- and college-age youths into civilian jobs or the
armed forces has already disappeared. Further reductions in the
number of young workers are expected within the next few years as
the prewar trend toward staying in school longer is resumed. With
favorable employment opportunities, however, the teen-age labor
force may be expected to continue somewhat higher than a projection
of prewar trends would indicate, because a greater number of students
will probably take advantage of opportunities for part-time and
summer work.
About 1K million young women aged 20-34 years quit working'
during the first year of peace, chiefly because their husbands returned
from the armed forces or they married returning veterans. The
number of young women workers is now actually below the level
expected from prewar trends because of the unusually large numbers
of marriages and births since 1940. Continuation of a generally high
rate of economic activity would keep the number of young women
workers below the level anticipated by the normal projections because
young women with family responsibilities would not have to work or
seek work to the same extent as in 1940.
Among men over 25 years old and women over 35, the wartime ex­
pansion in the labor force was a response to a full-employment situa­
tion as well as to the Nation's war needs. Jobs were available to
those who had previously been considered virtually unemployable and
others who had previously preferred retirement or homemaking were
io For more complete discussions of the characteristics of extra wartime workers and the factors affecting
their continued labor-market participation, see Sources of Wartime Labor Supply in the United States
in M onthly Labor Review, August 1944; “ Extra” Workers in the Postwar Labor Force, in M onthly Labor
Review, November 1946; and The~Labor Force in^thejFirst Year of Peace, in M onthly Labor Review,
November 1946.




15
brought into the labor market by the availability of attractive work at
good pay. As long as employment opportunities remain substan­
tially better than those of 1940, the number of workers in the middle
and upper age groups is likely to exceed the level indicated by a pro­
jection of prewar trends, though not to the same extent as during the
war.
When the surplus of middle-aged and older workers is balanced
against the deficit of young women workers, however, it is likely that
the national labor force will not exceed normal by more than 1%
million, or 2 to 3 percent, in 1950. Thus, in most States, the carry­
over from the more complete utilization of labor supply during the
war will probably be relatively small. In some States, however—
especially those with a large proportion of older men and middle-aged
women in the labor force—failure to take account of the extra workers
remaining may result in a fairly significant understatement of the avail­
able labor supply.
INTERSTATE MIGRATION

The extent to which the rate of interstate population movement be­
tween 1940 and 1950 will differ from the 1935-40 rate assumed in the
normal estimates presented here is far less predictable than the extent
to which wartime extra workers will remain in the labor market. Al­
though the 'pattern of wartime migration was very similar to that
which had prevailed for some time before the war, the volume of
1940-45 civilian migration alone was considerably greater than that
of total migration for the 5 prewar years used to compute the “ normal”
estimates.
The effect of this relatively heavy civilian migration in causing the
labor force of each State to deviate from the assumed normal in 1945
is shown in table 3. The deviations from normal arising from mi­
gration are much more likely to persist through 1950 than are the
deviations caused by the participation of extra workers during the
war. Of course, there will be State variations in the extent to which
gains and losses through “ abnormal” migration are retained. Under
certain circumstances the gains and losses may be not merely retained
but increased. Whether deviations from normal because of migration
are increased, retained, or decreased between 1945 and 1950 will
depend on the net result of several opposing forces.
The pent-up migration plans of servicemen have been a major force
exerting an upward pressure on the volume of postwar migration.
The estimates of actual labor force in April 1945 (table 3) include
armed forces in their State of origin, and there may have been con­
siderable migration of ex-servicemen following demobilization. Ac­
cording to an Army survey in the summer of 1944, 1 out of every 10
servicemen did not intend to return to the State in which he lived be­



16
fore the wax.1 The survey further indicated that the migration of
1
demobilized servicemen would be expected to follow the pattern of
prewar and wartime movements of civilians.
If employment is maintained at the current high levels, migration
will be further stimulated. There is typically more net interstate
population movement in good times than in bad. The existence of
opportunity elsewhere generally creates a stronger impetus for mi­
gration than the lack of opportunity at home. And in times of
depression, the relative security of even a bare subsistence on a farm
may be more attractive than the insecurity of going jobless in the
city. Moreover, during depression periods there is considerable move­
ment from cities back to farms which is against the prevailing direction
of migration. This tends to hold down the net interchange of popu­
lation between States. In view of the large volume of unemployment
that existed during the period 1935-40, the volume of migration during
that period (used as a basis for the “ normal” estimates) is probably
below par for more prosperous times.
On the other hand, migration between 1945 and 1950 may be slowed
down by virtue of the large-scale movement during the first half of
the decade. The capacity of certain areas to absorb in-migrants
may be glutted, at least temporarily, by the tremendous inflows of
population during the war. In addition, overexpansion of population
in relation to postwar opportunities may cause some reverse migration.
The occurrence of a severe depression would also retard the character­
istic flow of population from farm to industrial areas.
On balance, if conditions of high employment prevail, the volume
of migration between 1945 and 1950 will probably equal or exceed
the volume assumed in the “ normal” estimates. Even if the rate of
migration were to fall below the “ normal” rate, during the second
half of the decade, the decline would probably not nearly offset the
unusually large flow of migrants between 1940 and 1945. In either
case, therefore, the volume of migration for the entire decade, 1940-50,
would exceed that based on the prewar experience; allowance for this
factor should be made when adjusting the “ normal” labor-force
estimates for 1950.

,

State Estimates o f the Labor F orce 1950
As indicated in the introductory paragraphs of this article, the
State estimates of normal labor-force growth and wartime deviations
from normal will aid in evaluating the prospective labor supply in
each State. The insight which this material provides, however,
should be supplemented by other information that is available on
the work force of the individual States.
1 See Postwar Migration Plans of Army Enlisted Men, in The Annals of the American Academy of
1
Political and Social Science, March 1045.




17
Table 4 presents three separate estimates of the 1950 labor force
in each State, based on the data presented in tables 1 and 3, but
computed on the basis of varying assumptions as to future interstate
migration movements. (See p. 20.)
In order to demonstrate the manner in which the data presented in
tables 1 and 3 can be used to appraise the wartime experience and
postwar prospects of the labor force in individual States, two States
with substantially different labor-market characteristics have been
selected for more detailed analysis. Assumption B, table 4, is used
for purposes of illustration, but it is not necessarily the most reasonable
assumption for the particular States involved.
IOWA

In 1940, approximately 992,000 Iowans were working or seeking
work. Wartime pressures brought the labor force (including armed
forces personnel from the State) to a total of 1,103,000 in April 1945—
an 11-percent rise. Nevertheless, by 1950, the work force is expected
to number less than 970,000— actually below the 1940 level.
The wartime expansion in Iowa's working population represented
the net effect of several opposing forces. The main reason for the rise
in the labor force was the increased participation of housewives,
students, retired persons, and others normally not working. Approxi­
mately 167,000 of these “ extra” wartime workers entered in response
to unusual labor demands. This number was supplemented by about
42,000 entries that would have been expected from natural population
growth and continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the
population that works or seeks work. The total inflow of 209,000
into the labor market during the war was partially offset by a net
migration from the State of 98,000 civilian workers who might other­
wise have participated in Iowa's war effort. The end result was an
increase of 111,000 in the labor force between 1940 and 1945.
There is reason to believe, however, that the effect of the wartime
out-migration will be more lasting than that of the wartime accessions.
Many who left the State during the war are unlikely to return, unless
a severe depression should strike the areas to which they moved.
Iowa, being a farm State, has customarily exported labor to the ex­
panding industrial areas. Moreover, mechanization of farm processes
has made it possible to plant and harvest larger crops with fewer
workers. Between 1935 and 1940, the number of persons moving
out of Iowa exceeded those moving in by 61,000, and between 1940
and 1945 the State sustained a net loss of an additional 228,000
civilians (including the 98,000 workers mentioned above). These
figures do not include any members of the armed forces, originally
from Iowa, who may have decided to settle in other States after their
discharge. Iowa is likely to continue to lose population to other
States, though to a lesser extent than during the war.



18
M ost o f the extra workers drawn into the labor force from the res­
ident population of the State are likely to drop out by 1950. In the
Nation as a whole, two-thirds of 8 million extra wartime workers quit
the labor force during the first year of peace. It is likely that by
1950 those remaining will make up not more than 15 to 20 percent of
the wartime total.
Normally, the labor force in Iowa would be expected to grow from
the 1940 level of 992,000 to a total of 1,007,000 by 1950. It seems
likely, however, in view of the considerations noted above, that the
work force in 1950 will be approximately 970,000.
The tabulation which follows summarizes the derivation of the
statistics used in the analysis of labor-force developments in Iowa.
Number
(in thousands)

992
1940 labor force____________________________
1945 labor force____________________________ 1,103
(1) normal labor force______________ ___ 1,002
(2) deviation from normal_____________
101
(a ) caused
by participation of
“ extra” workers.____________
167
(b) caused by “ abnormal” migration_________________________ - 6 6
1950 labor force____________________________
966
(1) normal labor force_________________ 1,007
-4 1
(2) deviation from normal_____________
(a) caused by participation of
25
“ extra” workers_____________

(b) caused by “ abnormal” migration_________________________

-6 6

Source

Table
Table
Table
Table

1.
3.
3.
3.

Table 3.
Table 3.
1 + 2 (below).
Table 1.
a + b (below).
Assumed to be 15 per­
cent of 1945 extra
workers (2a above).
Assumed same as in
19451 (see 2b
above).

i It is assumed that the net number of workers who move oat of Iowa between 1945 and 1950 will be the
same as would be expected on the basis of the 1935-40 experience.
WASHINGTON

In response to high wartime demands for labor, the working popula­
tion of the State of Washington increased by 286,000 between 1940
and 1945 to a total o f 1,028,000 (including armed forces personnel
from the State). By 1950, the labor force is expected to number
roughly 950,000, which is considerably above the 1940 level of 742,000,
though short o f the wartime peak.
Several factors combined to cause the wartime expansion in Wash­
ington’s work force. Increased participation of housewives, students,
retired persons, and others normally not working accounted for
approximately 154,000 o f the additional workers. In-migration of
workers from other States resulted in a net gain o f another 119,000.



19
The remaining increment o f about 13,000 workers is the gain that
normally would have been expected from natural population growth
and continuation of prewar trends in the percentage o f the population
that works or seeks work.
It is likely that the great m ajority o f the workers who moved to
Washington during the war will remain in the State. Washington
has typically been an importer o f labor. Between 1935 and 1940,
the number of persons moving into the State exceeded those moving
out by 80,000. This movement was accelerated between 1940 and
1945 as the State gained an additional 273,000 civilians (including
the 119,000 workers mentioned above) through in-migration. These
figures do not include any members o f the armed forces from other
States who may have decided to settle in. Washington after their
discharge.
Judging from the national experience and prospects, added partici­
pation o f workers normally outside the labor force will not account
for more than 2 or 3 percent o f the 1950 labor force in Washington.
On the basis o f prewar trends, the labor force in Washington would
have been expected to increase from 742,000 in 1940 to 843,000 in
1950. It seems likely, however, in view o f the increase during the
war that the 1950 labor force will be approximately 950,000.
The following tabulation outlines the derivation of the statistical
material used in describing past and prospective labor-force changes
in Washington.
Number
(in thousand*)

742
1940 labor fore©_________ ________ ____ _____
1945 labor force____________________________ 1,028
(1) normal labor force__________________
796
(2) deviation from normal______________
282
(a) caused by participation of
“ extra” workers_ ___________
_
154
(b) caused by “ abnormal” migration__________ _____ ________
78
1950 labor force ______ ______ _______________
944
(1) normal labor force__________________
843
(2) deviation from normal_____ ________
101
(a) caused by participation of “ extra” workers_________________
23

(b) caused by “ abnormal” migration_________________________

78

Source

Table
Table
Table
Table

1.
3.
3.
3.

Table 3,
Table 3.
1 + 2 (below).
Table 1.
a + b (below).
Assumed to be 15
percent of 1945 ex­
tra workers (2a
above).
Assumed same as
in 19451 (see 2b
above).

i It is assumed that the net number of workers who m ove into Washington between 1946 and 1960 will
be the same as would be expected on the basis of the 1936-40 experience.




20
T able 4.— Estim ated Labor Force, 1940 and 1945, and Projections, 1950, Under Three
Assum ptions as to Volume o f Interstate M igra tion 1
[In thousands]
Estimated labor force
Region, division, and State

Projected labor force, 1950 *

1040*

1945*

Assump­
tion A

Assump­
tion B

Assump­
tion C

(1)

(2)

<3)

(4)

(«>

U N ITED STATES___

64,778

65,986

62,028

62,028

62,028

N ORTH .........................

32,627

38,619

35,732

35,395

35,455

New England...........

3,757

4,386

4,190

4,181

4,239

Maine.................
New Hampshire.
Vermont............
Massachusetts__
Rhode Island___
Connecticut.......

343
215
147
1,917
335
800

398
229
147
2,225
387
1,000

375
230
146
2,120
383
936

370
234
145
2,098
383
951

359
224
131
2,132
396
997

M iddle Atlantic.......

12,249

14,069

13,281

13,202

13,118

New York-------New Jersey------Pennsylvania—

6,188
1,928
4,133

6,920
2,339
4,810

6,486
2,187
4,608

6,451
2,204
4,647

6,297
2,274
4,547

East North Central.

11,203

13,883

12,644

12,655

12,913

Ohio...................
In d ian a............
Illinois................
M ichigan...........
Wisconsin..........

2,865
1,379
3,485
2,202
1,272

3,689
1,776
4,200
2,747
1,471

3,292
1,578
3,810
2,599
1,365

8,282
1,589
3,801
2,637
1,346

3,406
1,618
3,841
2,735
1,313

W est North Central.

5,418

6,281

5,617

5,357

5,185

Minnesota_____
Iowa...................
M issouri............
North D a k o ta South D akota...
Nebraska...........
Kansas...............

1,142
992
1,579
244
248
519
694

1,308
1,103
1,865
254
257
602
892

1,176
996
1,683
232
238
636
756

1,164
966
1,634
201
209
479
704

1,078
900
1,626
182
192

SOUTH..........................

16,303

19,660

19,125

19,019

18,679

South Atlantic.........

Jg

7,249

8,868

8,810

8,918

8,864

Delaware....................
M aryland...................
District of Columbia.
Virginia.—.................
West Virginia............
North Carolina..........
South Carolina..........
Georgia.......................
Florida.......................

119
797
358
1,072
657
1,388
763
1,277
818

144
1,087
510
1,399
800
1,574
884
1,465
1,005

139
1,016
481
1,356
743
1,626
910
1,526
1,013

145
1,050
497
1,382
781
1,616
902
1,507
1,088

148
1,132
574
1,434
673
1,495
840
1,463
1,105

East South Central..........

4,050

4,705

4,600

4,507

4,282

Kentucky......... .
Tennessee..........
Alabama............
Mississippi........

1,037
1,114
1,058
841

1,162
1,349
1,302
892

1,111
1,300
1,270
919

1,087
1,280
1,235
905

978
1,268
1,214
822

West South Central.

5,004

6,087

6,715

5,594

5,433

704
919
834
2,547

826
1,054
944
3,263

739
1,083
859
3,034

708
1>08(|
777
3,023

626
1,075
706
3,026

Arkansas..
Louisiana.
Oklahoma
Texas.......

See footnotes at end of .table.




21
Table 4.— Estim ated Labor Force, 1940 and 1945 , and Projections, 1950 , Under Three
Assum ptions as to Volume o f Interstate M igration 1 Continued
—
[In thousands]
Estimated labor force

Projected labor force, 1950 *

1940*

1945*

Assump­
tion A

Assump­
tion B

Assump­
tion C

(1)

Region, division, and State

(2)

(3)

(4)

(*)

W EST..........................................................

5,848

7,707

7,171

7,614

7,994

M ountain..............................................

1,580

1,848

1,796

1,827

1,770

Montana.........................................
Id a h o .............................................
W yom ing........................................
C olorado.........................................
New M exico....................................
A rizon a ........................ .................
Utah................................................
Nevada............................................

233
198
104
437
184
187
187
50

247
217
118
493
202
259
245
67

220
204
113
477
209
263
245
65

215
211
115
481
217
280
239
69

184
181
109
466
188
303
262
77

Pacific....................................................

4,288

5,859

5,375

6,787

6,224

Washington.....................................
Oregon.............................................
California................... *...................

742
470
3,056

1,028
624
4,207

905
566
3,904

944
603
4,240

1,022
636
4,566

* Data presented in this table cover total labor force including armed forces. A ll data at April seasonal
level. Annual average for total United States is about three-fourths of a million higher.
* From table 1, column (1).
* From table 3, column (1).
<A ll three projections assume that the 1950 labor force of each State will include some “ extra” workers
who would not be in the labor force on the basis of the prewar patterns of labor-market participation assumed
in the “ natural” and “ normal” projections (table 1). Participation of “ extra” workers in each State is
assumed to be 15 j>ercent of the wartime extra-worker total (table 3, column 5). All three projections take
account of net civilian interstate migration between 1940 and 1945. None of the projections make allowance
for migration from foreign countries between 1940 and 1950. Assumptions with respect to interstate migra­
tion between 1945 and 1950 are as follows (see Appendix A , section 8):
Assumption A. Whatever new interstate migration takes place between 1945 and 1950 will be offset by
return of wartime migrants to their prewar States of residence so that interstate migration in the last half of
this decade will have no net effect on the size of the labor force in each State.
Assumption B. The net number of workers who move between States during the period 1945-50 will be
the same as would be expected on the basis of 1935-40 experience.
Assumption C. Net interstate migration of all workers between 1945 and 1950 will be equal to the net
interstate migration of civilian workers between 1940 and 1945. Migration of workers on this scale during the
second half of the decade could come about With a considerably smaller total population movement than
occurred during the first half because wartime civilian migrants included large numbers of servicemen's
dependents and a relatively small proportion of men of working age.







A ppen dix A .— T echnical N otes on Estim ating Procedures
The State labor-force estimates presented in this bulletin are con­
sistent with current national totals from the Bureau of the Census
Monthly Report on the Labor Force (M RLF) which are based on a
revised interviewing procedure adopted in July 1945. The effects on
the Census series resulting from the introduction of the new inter­
viewing techniques are described in Bureau of the Census M RLF No.
39, September 20, 1945. National totals for April 1940 and April
1945 appearing in this bulletin are preliminary pending release of official
revisions for these dates by the Bureau of the Census.
The methods used in deriving the estimates presented in tables 1
to 4 and in Appendix B, tables 1 and 2, are outlined below.
1. L abor F orce, 1940.

(Table 1 and Appendix B, tables 1 and 2.)

State labor force estimates for 1940 were based on the Sixteenth
Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Vol. I ll, The Labor
Force. These data by age and sex were adjusted to preliminary
national labor-force figures for 1940 designed to be consistent with
the revised M RLF series.
2. “ N atural” L abor F orce, 1950.
tables 1 and 2.)

(Table 1 and Appendix B,

a. 1940 State population figures by age and sex (and color for the
South) were obtained from the Sixteenth Census of the United States,
1940, Population, Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, Part 1,
United States Summary, table 26; and Vol. IV , Characteristics by
Age, Parts 2 to 4, table 1.
b. To obtain a 1950 population aged 14 years and over classified by
age and sex (and color for the South), the 1940 population 4 years
and over was aged by 10 years. Survival rates, based on Census life
tables for 1939-41, were used to decrease the population by the
number of deaths expected between 1940 and 1950.
c. 1940 State worker rates by age and sex (and color for the S outh)1
were then applied to the corresponding 1950 population groups to
obtain a 1950 labor force, unadjusted for trend.*
2
3
1 1940 worker rates, i. e., the proportion of labor force to population in given groups, were obtained from
the Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Vol. I ll, The Labor Force.




(23)

24
d.
Finally, these projected labor-force figures by State were ad­
justed to national “ normal” labor-force estimates, by age and sex,
for 1950 to take account of long-term trends in worker rates. The
estimates of “ normal” labor force were those of the Bureau of the
Census2 adjusted to be consistent with the current Census M onthly
Report on the Labor Force series.
3. “ N ormal” L abor F orce, 1945 and 1950.

(Tables 1 and 3 and

Appendix B, tables 1 and 2.)
а. For 1950, the base population figures by age and sex (and color
for the South), assuming no migration, are those obtained in section
26. The corresponding population figures for 1945 were derived in
a similar manner by aging the 1940 population 9 years of age and over
by 5 years.
б. Shifts through migration were accounted for by using the 193540 volume of net interstate migration by age and sex (and color for
the South) for the 1940-45 period.8 For the 10-year period 1940 to
1950, the figures were doubled.4 Total populations by age and sex
for the years 1945 and 1950, assuming migration, were obtained by
adding the volume of assumed migration 1940-45 and 1940-50 to the
survived populations in 1945 and 1950, respectively. While the
procedure employed does not attempt to estimate the actual magnitude
of migration changes during the current decade, it is consistent with
the migration 'pattern that prevailed during the war and is likely to
carry over into the postwar period. An analysis of wartime and
prewar migration patterns by Shryock and Eldridge.of the Bureau of
the Census shows a close similarity between the war and prewar
periods.5 The correlation coefficients between annual average net
interstate migration for the period 1940-45 and the corresponding
annual averages for three earlier periods for which data are available
are as follows:
1940-45 correlated with—
Coefficient
1935-40................. ........................................................— .9 2
1930-40................... ...............................................................79
1920-30_________________ __________________________ _ 81*
2 Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-44, No. 12, Normal Growth of the Labor
Force in the United States: 1940 to 1960, by John D . Durand and Loring W ood.
* Migration data obtained from Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Internal Migra­
tion, 1936 to 1940, Age of Migrants.
<This procedure is conceptually not the best that could be devised, inasmuch as the age composition of
migrants who moved during a 6-year period would be expected to differ from that of migrants who moved
during a 10-year period. Because of the approximate nature of the entire migration assumption, however,
it was felt that the use of a more intricate and time-consuming method, which would have in turn involved
additional assumptions as to the timing of migration over the 10-year period, would not be justified.
•Demographic Aspects of W orld War II: Migration. Paper delivered before the American Sociological
Society (Cleveland, Ohio, M ar. 1,1946).




25
c. The 1945 and 1950 normal labor forces, unadjusted for trend,
were computed by applying 1940 State worker rates to the population
estimates computed in section 26.
d. The labor-force figures for each year were then adjusted to
national normal labor-force totals by age and sex (see section 2d) for the
corresponding years in order to adjust for trend.
4. E stimated A ctual L abor F orce, A pril 1945.

(Table 3.)

An actual labor force for April 1945 by State was estimated by
distributing preliminary estimates of the United States total (on the
revised M RLF series basis) in the following manner:
а. M R LF nonagricultural wage and salary workers (except domes­
tics).— Census State totals in 1940 were moved by the percentage
change in the Bureau of Labor Statistics State estimates of non­
agricultural employees for April 1940 to April 1945. The 1945 State
distribution thereby derived was used to distribute the M RLF
national total.
б. Nonagricultural self-employed, proprietors, domestic servants, and
unpaid fam ily workers.— The most recent distribution of this group
by State is found in the 1940 census. In order to take account of
subsequent changes it was assumed that the distribution would shift
between 1940 and 1945 by only half as much as did the distribution
of employees in nonagricultural establishments. The State distri­
bution obtained was applied to the M RLF national figure.
c. Agricultural employment— M RLF agricultural employment figures
for family labor (self-employed plus unpaid family workers) and hired
workers (wage and salary workers) in April 1945 were separately
distributed by major geographic divisions. This was done by moving
the 1940 census components for each geographic division by the rate
of change in the corresponding Bureau of Agricultural Economics
(BAE) components between 1940 and 1945 and applying the distribu­
tion obtained to April 1945 M RLF totals. Each division's family
labor was, in turn, broken into State figures by the distribution of
farms in 1945.6 The two variables, when correlated from 1940 data,
showed a very high relationship (.98887). Hired labor was distributed
by State according to BAE State employment figures for hired labor
in April 1942.
d. Unemployment.— M RLF unemployment figure for April 1945 was
distributed by State according to the distribution of continued claims
for unemployment compensation in April 1945.7
*
* Bureau of the Census, Preliminary Compilation of Number of Farms and Acres in Farms in the United
States, by Counties: 1945 Census of Agriculture (November 30, 1945).
» Social Security Board, Bureau of Employment Security, Employment Security Activities, Vol. 1,
No. 5, M ay 1945.




26
e.
Armed forces.— State figures for the armed forces in April 1945
were obtained by distributing the total for that month according to
the distribution of inductions and enlistments from each State for
the period April 1940 to July 1945 as shown in Bureau of the Census,
Population, Special Reports, Series P-46, No. 3.
/ . Total actual labor-force estimates for the States were derived by
summing a through e.
5. D eviation of A ctual from “ N ormal” L abor F orce C aused
b y A bnormal M igration, 1945.
(Table 3.)

The difference between each State’s normal labor force (section 3d)
and actual labor force (section 4f) for April 1945 was divided into two
parts: That due to extra participation of persons who normally would
not work or seek work and that due to actual migration being greater
or less than the assumed “ normal” migration.
a.
The deviation from normal attributable to migration was derived
as follows:
(1) Estimated net interstate migration of the civilian population
between 1940 and 1945 was adapted from Bureau of the Census,
Population, Special Reports, Series P-46, No. 3. (See Appendix B,
table 3.)
(2) An over-all “ normal” worker rate for civilian migrants between
1940 and 1945 was computed as follows: The 1945 “ normal” ageand sex-specific worker rates were applied to the age and sex distribu­
tion of all civilian interstate migrants for the period December 1941
to March 1945 8 to obtain an estimate of civilian migrants who would
normally be in the labor force.9 The ratio of this figure to the total
number of civilian migrants for the period gave an over-all normal
worker rate for migrants.
(3) This over-all normal worker rate for civilian migrants was
applied to the net civilian migration estimate for each State ((1)
above) to obtain an estimate of the net number of civilian migrants
to or from each State, 1940-45, who would normally be in the labor
force.
(4) The net number of migrant workers included in the 1945 normal
labor-force estimate for each State (i. e., computed on the basis of
1935-40 migration— see section 2) was subtracted from the figure for
each State derived in step (3) to obtain the deviation of actual labor
force from normal caused by “ abnormal” migration between 1940 and
1945.•
•Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-S, No. 5.
•Data from the 1940 Census of Population indicate that interstate migrants (1936-40) had the same worker
rates age for age as nonmigrants. The worker rate for all interstate migrants 14 years of age and over ex­
ceeded that for the corresponding group of nonmigrants, but this was entirely attributable to differences
in the age composition of the two groups.




27
b.
The estimated deviation from normal due to participation of
extra workers in each State was derived by subtracting the deviation
due to migration from the total deviation.
6.

“N
L

atural”
abor

F

A

c c e s s io n s

orce,

to

1940-50.

and

S e p a r a t io n s

(Table

prom

the

M

ale

2 .)

The two basic sets of figures used in estimating accessions and
separations were the 1940 male labor force by age and the “ natural”
1950 male labor force by age for each State. (See sections 1 and 2d.)
a. Accessions.—All of the workers aged 14 to 23 in 1950, too young
to have been counted in the labor force of 1940, were counted as acces­
sions to the labor force between 1940 and 1950. Part of the 24- to 34year-old labor force in 1950 was in the 1940 labor force as the 14- to 24year-old group; the rest are new additions during the 10 years. There­
fore, new labor-force entrants aged 14 to 34 in 1950 were obtained by
subtracting the number of workers aged 14 to 24 in 1940 (adjusted for
mortality between J.940 and 1950) from the labor force aged 14 to 34
in 1950. No allowance was made for new workers over 35 years of age
in 1950, but their number is not significant.
b. Separations.— Separations from the labor force during the 10year period are the sum of the expected deaths and retirements. They
are computed in three parts:
(1) The major part of the separations occurs among workers who
were 35 years and older in 1940. This is estimated as the difference
between the 1950 labor force 45 years and over and the 1940 workers
who were 35 years and over.
(2) For the group 14 to 24 in 1940, the estimated number of deaths
is counted as total separations since there are very few retirements
from the labor force among the young men in this group.
(3) There remains the group aged 25 to 34 in 1940. This is a very
stable group so far as labor-market participation is concerned. Very
few men enter the labor market after age 25 and very few are sepa­
rated before age 44 except in case of death. Total separations were
estimated by subtracting the estimated labor force aged 35 to 44 in
1950 from the labor force aged 25 to 34 in 1940. This procedure
understates the number of separations by a small amount equal to
the number of accessions after age 25. Thus in a few States the net
separations were smaller than the expected number of deaths. In
such cases the expected number of deaths were considered to be the
total separations and the excess of deaths over net separations was
added to accessions.
The sum of groups (1) to (3) comprises the total number of
separations for each State.




28
c.
Replacement rates.— The replacement rate is the number of acces­
sions per 100 separations.
7. “N ormal” A ccessions to and Separations prom the M ale
L abor F orce, 1940-50. (Table 2.)

Accessions were considered to be composed of the 1940-50 in­
migrants in a Stated labor force as of 1950 plus the new entrants dur­
ing the decade from the nonmigrant population; separations, the
sum of the 1940-50 out-migrants who were in the State’s 1940 labor
force plus separations from the 1940 nonmigrant labor force during
the decade.1
0
а. Migrants.—As previously indicated (section 36) the number of
interstate migrants in each age and sex group between 1940 and 1950
was assumed to be twice the corresponding number between 1935 and
1940.
б. In-migrant labor force, 1950.— The in-migrant male population
by age for each State in 1950 was multiplied by age-specific worker
rates to derive the in-migrant male labor force of each State as of 1950.
These workers would be accessions to the State’s labor force during
the 10-year period.
c. Out-migrant labor force.—The number of 1940-50 out-migrants
from each State who had been in the 1940 labor force was estimated
by applying the 1940 age-specific worker rates to the out-migrant
population. Since the out-migrants were distributed by their 1950
ages, worker rates for age groups 10 years younger were applied in
order to estimate how many were in the 1940 labor force. For ex­
ample, the 1940 worker rate for men aged 35 to 44 was applied to the
group of out-migrants aged 45 to 54 as of 1950.
d. Nonmigrant labor force.— The 1940 out-migrant workers, by age
(computed in 7c above), were subtracted from the corresponding age
groups of the State’s 1940 labor force to estimate the 1940 nonmigrant
labor force.
e. The 1950 nonmigrant labor force was computed by subtracting
from the State’s projected 1950 labor force by age, assuming no
migration (section 2d), the number of workers who would be expected
to leave the State between 1940 and 1950. The estimate of total outmigrant workers was obtained by applying age-specific worker rates
to the 1950 out-migrant population.
These two basic sets of figures on a nonmigrant basis were then used
to obtain the accessions and separations from among nonmigrant
workers. The same procedures as outlined for computing accessions
to and separations from the total male labor force on the assumption
i° Persons who would both enter and leave a given State’s labor force during the decade are not counted
either as accessions or separations for that State.




29
of no migration were applied to these nonmigrant workers of 1940 and
1950.
8. P

r o je c te d

L

abor

F

orce,

1950.

(Table 4.)

a. All three projections assume that the 1950 labor force of each
State will include some *
'‘extra’’ workers who would not be in the labor
force on the basis of the prewar patterns of labor-market participation
assumed in the ‘“ natural” and “ normal” projections (table 1). Par­
ticipation of extra workers in each State is assumed to be 15 percent
of the wartime extra-worker total (i. e., 15 percent of column (5),
table 3).
b. Assumption A .— To the natural labor-force projection for 1950
(table 1, column (2)) was added (1) the allowance for extra workers
(section 8a), and (2) the net number of civilian migrants between
1940 and 1945 who would normally be in the labor force (section 5a
(3)).
Thus, it was assumed that migration between 1945 and 1950‘would
have no net effect on the size of the labor force in each State.
c. Assumption B .—To the normal labor-force projection for 1950
(table 1, column (4)) was added (1) the allowance for extra workers
(section 8a), and (2) the deviation of labor force from normal caused
by abnormal migration between 1940 and 1945 (table 3, column (4)).
Thus the labor-force changes due to abnormal wartime migration
were retained and it was assumed that interstate migration of workers
between 1945 and 1950 would revert to the 1935-40 volume and pat­
tern assumed in the normal projections.
d. Assumption C.—To the labor force obtained under Assumption
B was added an amount equal to the deviation of labor force from
normal caused by abnormal migration between 1940 and 1945 (table
3, column (4)). Thus, it was assumed that interstate migration of
workers between 1945 and 1950 would be the same as between 1940
and 1945 (i. e., would exceed normal by the same amount as the 194045 volume).




A ppendix B
T able 1.— “ N atural”

and "N o rm a l” G rowth o f the M a le L a bor F orce ,

Region, division, and State

by State, 1940 to

19501

(1)

“ Natural” labor-force
projection, 1950 *

“ Normal” labor-force
projection, 1950*

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

(2)

Labor force,
1940 2
(in thou­
sands)

(3)

(4)

(5)

UNITED S T A T E S ..................................

41,036

43,606

6.3

43,606

N O R T H .......................................................

24,222

25,153

3.8

24,654

1.8

New England........................................

2,618

2,716

3.7

2,705

3.3

Maine..............................................
New Hampshire..............................
Vermont.........................................
Massachusetts.................................
Rhode Island...................................
Connecticut.....................................

253
153
113
1,314
226
559

268
157
118
1,359
237
577

5.9
4.4
3.4
4.9
3.2

262
161
116
1,331
238
597

3.6
5.2
2.7
1.3
5.3

Middle Atlantic....................................

8,822

9,153

3.8

9,028

2.3

New York.......................................
New Jersey................................. .
Pennsylvania.... .......................... ..

4,365
1,371
3,086

4,437
1,415
3,301

1.6

3.2
7.0

4,372
1,437
3,219

4.8
4.3

East North Central-............................

8,540

'8,852

iTT

8,867

£8

Ohio..................... ...........................
Indiana............................................
Illinois.............................................
Michigan.........................................
Wisconsin......................... ............ .

2,183
1,079
2,571
1,713
994

2,259

2,245
1,140

2.8

2,618
1,810
1,043

$.5
4.0
5.7
4.9

2,000
1,866

8.9

West North Central............................

4,242

4,432

M innesota.....................................
Iowa................. ...................... ........
M issouri--......................................
North Dakota___^..........................
South Dakota.................................
Nebraska.........................................
Kansas....... .....................................

885
792
1,200
202
201

924
824
1,237

411
551

SOUTH.......................................................
South Atlantic.......................................

1,122

2.6

1.8

6.3

6.8

.2

5.7
1 .1

1,016

2.2

4.5

4,054

-4 .4

218
434
575

220

4.4
4.0
3.1
8.9
8.5
5.6
4.4

909
779
1,165
173
173
355
500

2.7
- 1.6
-2 .9
-14.4
—13.9
-13.6
-9 .3

12,323

13,897

12.8

13,761

11.7

5,284

5,950

12.6

6,127

16.0

Delaware.........................................
Maryland............ ...........................
District of Columbia......................
Virginia..........................................
West Virginia.................................
North Carolina...............................
South Carolina................................
Georgia............................................
Florida.............................................

87
583
217
817
539
1,015
533
918
575

90
614
214
914
625
1,207
640
1,049
597

3.4
5.3
-1 .4
11.9
16.0
18.9

98
665
231
961
607
1,199
630
1,032
704

18.1
18.2
12.4
22.4

East South Central...............................

3,132

3,571

14.0

3,439

9.8

Kentucky........................................
Tennessee........................................
Alabama______________ _________
Mississippi......................................

846
855
800
631

958
964
934
715

13.2
12.7
16.8
13.3

925
933
884
697

9.3
9.1
10.5
10.5

West South Central..............................

3,907

4,376

12.0

4,195

7.4

Arkansas............... ...................... .
Louisiana-.................... .................
Oklahoma........................................
Texas..............................................

580
694

655
781
752
2,188

12.9
12.5
12.9

607

4.7
13.7
- 6.2
10.5

See footnotes at end o f table.




666

1,967

(30)

20.1

14.3
3.8

11.2

789

625
2,174

12.6

14.1
6.5
17.6
12.6

31
T able 1.— “ N atural”

and

“ N orm a l”

G row th o f the M a le L a bor F orce , b y State , 1 9 4 0 to
1 9 5 0 1 Continued
—
“ Natural” labor-force
projection, 1950 3

Region, division, and State

(1)

“ Normal” labor-force
projection, 1950 *

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

(2)

Labor force,
1940 1
2
(in thou­
sands)

(3)

(4)

(5)

W E S T ..............................................................

4,491

4,556

1.4

5,191

15.6

M ountain............. ....................................

1,270

1,385

9.1

1,432

12.8

M ontana.............................................
Idaho. .................... .........................
W yom ing........ ................................
Colorado.............................................
New M e x ic o .....................................
A rizon a..............................................
U tah........ .................... ......................
N eva d a .......................................... ; .

191
166
86
338
150
147
151
41

',!

180
92
356
178
165
177
40

3.1
8.4
7.0
5.3
18.7
12.2
17.2
-2 .4

190
192
96
361
189
190
167
47

-.5
15.7
11.6
6.8
26.0
29.3
10.6
14.6

3,221

3,171

-1 .6

3,759

16.7

583
365
2,273

572
361
2,238

- 1 .9
- 1 .1
-1 .5

636
415
2,708

9.1
13.7
19.1

Pacific....................................................—
Washington........................................
Oregon........... ....................................

California................... ....................

1 Data presented in this table cover total labor force including armed forces. All data at April seasonal
level. Annual average for total United States is about 400,000 higher.
2 Data from 1940 census have been revised upward for comparability with current census series. Pre­
liminary pending release of official revision of United States total by Bureau of the Census. See Appendix
A, section 1.
* This projection assumes (1) continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that
works or seeks work; (2) economic conditions in 1950 similar to those of 1940; (3) no interstate migration
between 1940 and 1950. See Appendix A, section 2.
<Assumptions (1) and (2) same as above; (3) interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 assumed to be
twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A, section 3.




32
T able 2.— “ Natural” and “ Norm al9 Growth o f the Fem ale Labor Force, 6r Slate, 1940
9
to 1 9 5 0 '
“ Natural” labor-force
projection, 19503
Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

(1)

Region, division, and State

“ Normal” labor-force
projection, 19504

Labor force,
1940*
(in thou­
sands)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

UNITED STATES..

13,742

17,224

25.3

17, 224

N ORTH....................

8,405

10,136

20.6

9,964

18.5

New England.

1,139

1,366

19.9

1,357

19.1

90
62
34
603
109
241

116
77
43
718
129
283

28.9
24.2
26.5
19.1
18.3
17.4

111

23.3
30.6

3,427

4,080

19.1

4,046

18.1

1,823
557
1,047

2,134
650
1,296

17.1
16.7
23.8

2,129
661
1,256

20.0

2,663

3,234

21.4

3,242

21.7

682
300
914
489
278

830
372
1,079
608
345

21.7
24.0
18.1
24.3
24.1

826
376
1,077
629
334

25.3
17.8
28.6

L176

1,456

23.8

1,319

12~2

318

23.7
22.5

309
228
434

20.2

Maine..................
New Hampshire..
Vermont..............
Massachusetts....
Rhode Island......
Connecticut........
Middle AtlanticNew York___
New Jersey___
PennsylvaniaEast North Central .
Ohio...........
Indiana___
Illinois____
Michigan...
WisconsinWest North Central. .
Minnesota........
Iowa.................
Missouri...........
North Dakota..
South Dakota..
Nebraska_____

257

81
41
702
129
293

25.3

20.6

16.4
18.3
21.6

16.8
18.7

21.1

20.1

379
42
47
108
143

245
461
57
61
135
179

SOUTH______ . . . .

3,980

5,417

36T

5,343

3A2

South Atlantic.

1,965

2,675

36.1

2,717

38.3

32
214
141
255
118
373
230
359
243

38
265
166
342
166
529
326
528
315

18.8
23.8
17.7
34.1
40.7
41.8
41.7
47.1
29.6

42
283
182
346
160
517
321
506
360

31.2
32.2
29.1
35.7
35.6
38.6
39.6
40.9
48.1

918

1,262

37.5

1,206

31.4

191
259
258
210

259
344
366
293

35.6
32.8
41.9
39.5

246
333
345
282

28.8
28.6
33.7
34.3

1,097

1,480

34.9

1,420

29.4

124
225
168
580

172
301
231
776

38.7
33.8
37.5
33.8

157
299
195
769

26.6
32.9
16.1
32.6

Delaware....................
Maryland...................
District of Columbia.
Virginia......................
West Virginia............
North Carolina..........
South Carolina..........
Georgia-.....................
Florida______ ______
East South Central___
Kentucky.
Tennessee...
Alabama___
MississippiWest South Central.
Arkansas...
Louisiana...
Oklahoma...
Texas...........
See footnotes at end o f table.




200

21.6

35.7
29.8
25.0
25.2

41

48
108
151

14.0
14.5
-2 .4
2.1
.0

5.6

33
T able 2.— “ N atu ral”

and “ N orm al” G rowth o f the F em a le L a bor F orce , b y State , 1 9 4 0
to 1 9 5 0 1 Continued
—

“ Natural” labor-force
projection, 19508
Labor force,
1940 3
(in thou­
sands)

Number
(in thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

Number
(jin thou­
sands)

Percent
change
from 1940

(1)

Region, division, and State

“ Normal” , labor-force
projection, 1950 1
4
*

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

W EST..........................................................

1,357

1,671

23.1

1,917

41.3

Mountain...............................................

310

412

32.9

424

36.8

Montana.............................. - .........
Idaho...............................................
Wyoming........................................
Colorado...................... - .............—
New Mexico....................................
Arizona............................................
Utah................................................
Nevada............................................

42
32
18
99
34
40
36
9

53
43
23
125
51
57
49

26.2
34.4
27.8
26.3
50.0
42.5
36.1

11

22.2

50
45
23
128
54
65
46
13

19.0
40.6
27.8
29.3
58.8
62.5
27.8
44.4

Pacific........... .............. .........................

1,047

1,259

20.2

1,493

42.6

Washington.....................................
Oregon.............................................
California........................................

159
105
783

193
126
940

21.4

207
144
1,142

30.2
37.1
45.8

20.0
20.1

1 All data at April seasonal level. Annual average for total United States is about 300,000 higher.
* Data from 1940 census have been revised upward for comparability with current census series. Pre­
liminary pending release of official revision of United States total by Bureau of the Census. See Appendix
A, section 1.
8 This projection assumes (1) continuation of prewar trends in the percentage of the population that works
or seeks work; (2) economic conditions in 1950 similar to those of 1940; (3) no interstate migration between
1940 and 1950. See Appendix A, section 2.
4Assumptions (1) and (2) same as above; (3) interstate migration between 1940 and 1950 assumed to be
twice the 1935-40 volume. See Appendix A, section 3.




34
T able 3.— N et Interstate M igration, 1 9 3 5 -4 0 Compared W ith 1 9 4 0 -4 5
Net interstate
migration (in
thousands)
Region, division, and State

Region, division, and State
1935-40 1940-45
(total) (civilian)
UNITED STATES.................

0

0

N O R TH ....................................

-615

-641

New England____________

-1 6

110

Maine_______________
New Hampshire...........
Vermont. T....................

-9

—32
(i)
25

-3 9
-1 5
-3 9
27
33
143

Middle Atlantic__________

-131

-383

New V nrk
N aw Jersey
Pennsylvania..............

-5 6
29
-104

East North Central_______
Ohio.............. ................
Indiana___________ _
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin

26
—19
76
-3 2

Rhode Island................

Wg.st Noft-h OAntral
Minnesota___ ________
Iowa______ __________
M issouri____________
North Dakota________
South Dakota...............

1935-40 1940-45
(total) (civilian)
SOUTH—Continued
South Atlantic—Continued
District of Columbia.. .
Virginia
V1 gLLia
1 JJL
West Virginia.............._
North flftrolirift
li ut til VO
l
South Carolina______
Georgia..........................
Florida..........................

44
—27
—15
—16
—33
147

1L1
JQ
o
I
—163
—O
il/
—162
—149
219

East South Central.............

—195

Kentucky
Tennessee____________
Alabama....................
Mississippi______

_55
—39
-7 3
—28

—751
_Oo
A
—O O
U
—79
-134
-230

-143

West South Central............

-270

-657

41

632

-10

271
94
69
320

Arkansas.......................
Tunisian a
Oklahoma.....................
Texas...... ......................

—75
Q
—184
—20

—265
_IQ
—lsf
—356
—17

W EST........................................

887

1,915

65

-6 9
_Q
—4
—54

6
-6

-442
202

-12 2

-509

- 1,000

—18
—61
—85

-230
-228
-136

-6 6

—120

—61
—107

Mountain
Montana
Idaho...... ......................
Wyoming......................
Colorado.. _________
New Mexico
Arizona.............. ..........

— 10

Pacific......... ............................

822

1,984

Washington____ ______

80
77
665

1,551

S O U T H .........................................

-272

-1,274

South Atlantic.......... ............

193

134

Delaware_____________
M aryland........... ............

10

21

California........................

274

_21
16
3
9
14
38

220

—12
8

-107
—115
-6 4

61

22

—26
—53
91
38
29

—111

Nebraska______________
Kansas ______________

Net interstate
migration (in
thousands)

Utah...............................
Nevada..........................

Oregon

273
t f iO
JLOU

1 Less than 500.
Sources: 1935-40—Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, Internal Migration, 1935-1940,
Color and Sex of Migrants; 1940-45—Bureau of the Census, Population, Special Reports, Series P-46, N o. 3
(adjusted to exclude immigrants from other countries).