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 STA TES D EPA R TM E N T OF LA BO R
L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
A . F. Hinrichs, A ctin g Comm issioner
♦
W ork ers’ Experiences D uring
First Phase o f Reconversion
Bulletin ? {o . 876
For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. S. Government Printing
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 10 cents
Office
Letter of T ransm ittal
U nited States D epartment of Labor,
B ureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C., June 5, 1946.
The S ecretary of Labor:
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on workers’ experiences during
first phase of reconversion. This report was prepared ir the Bureau’s Wage
Analysis Branch by Nathan Weinberg. The data summarized here were col
lected and tabulated under the supervision of the Bureau’s Regional Wage
Analysts.
A. F. H inrichs, Acting. Commissioner.
Hon. L. B. Schwellenbach,
Secretary of Labor.
Contents
P age
Summary _______
Background and scope of study-----------------------------------------------------------Extent of employment_______________________________________
Industry shifts_________________________________________________________
Occupational shifts_________________ - __________________________________
Wages of workers______________________________________________________
Postwar migrations------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appendix A.— Effect of incomplete coverage on findings_________________
Table A.— Distribution of war workers by color, sex, and age, original
sample and resurvey sample_____________________________________
Table B.— Distribution of war workers by usual industry, original
sample and resurvey sample__________
Appendix B:
Table C.— Emlpoyment status, former war workers, by sex and
color, winter 1945-46_____________________________
Table D.— Employment status, nonwar workers, by sex, winter
1945-46_________________________________________________________
Table E.— Employment status, former war workers, by sex and age,
winter 1945-46________ ,_________________________________________
Table F.— Employment status, former war workers, by study group,
winter 1945-46______________________________________________
Table G.— Industrial distribution of former war workers, usual and
winter 1945-46__________________________________________________
Table H.— Occupational distribution of former war workers with pre
war employment experience,usual and winter 1945-46___________
Table I.— Average weekly earnings of identical former war workers,
by study group, spring 1945 and winter 1945-46__________________
Table J.— Average weekly earnings of identical non war workers, by
study group, spring 1945 andwinter 1945-46_______________
Table K.— Average weekly earnings of identical men in war industry
groups, 1941 and winter 1945-46-------Table L.— Comparison of spendable purchasing power of identical
men in war industry groups, 1941 and winter 1945-46------------------Table M.— Extent of migration among former war workers, by
color, sex, and age, spring 1945 to winter 1945-46-----------------------Table N.— Extent of migration and of return to prewar residence
among former war workers, by color and sex, spring 1945 to winter
1 9 4 5 -4 6 -_______ __________________ _____________ - ............- ............
(ri)
1
2
3
5
7
8
10
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
B ulletin 7S[o. 876 o f the
U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
[Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R eview , M ay 1946, with additional data]
Workers’ Experiences During First Phase of
Reconversion
Summ ary
In communities throughout the country reconversion to peace
time activity moved ahead after VJ-day but at different speeds and
with different effects on the men and women who had been employed
during the war. In the spring of 1945, while war production was still
at a high level, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began a study of the
work and wage experiences of workers in war industries. Early in
the winter of 1945-46 the same workers were resurveyed for the pur
pose of determining what changes had occurred in their jobs, wages,
location, and other conditions bearing on their economic status.
Based on the reports of 3,600 workers, it was found that:
A fourth of the war workers were unemployed in the winter of 194546; a considerably higher proportion of women than of men were jobless
and more older than younger workers.
Those who had jobs in the winter of 1945-46 were earning substan
tially less than in war work but as much as the average factory wage
earner.
In most cases, wages during the first phase of reconversion were
inadequate for the maintenance of living standards permitted by earn
ings in the year preceding the Pearl Harbor attack.
More than a quarter of the women in war plants in the spring of
1945 had left the labor market by the winter of 1945-46; most of
them are housewives.
Considerable geographical mobility was indicated; a fourth of the
war workers had moved out of their wartime communities, less than
half of them back to where they had lived in January 1941. In con
trast, workers who had been employed in essentially nonwar establish
ments during the spring of 1945 were in large part still employed in
the same establishments.
Added to the geographical reshuffling of workers was a redistribu
tion along industrial and occupational lines. In the winter of 1945-46
the distribution of workers among industries no longer resembled the
wartime pattern, and*—of greater importance—the prewar pattern
(l)
2
had not been reestablished. The same was true with respect to the
distribution of workers among occupational groups.
The flow of war workers tended to be in the direction of lower-wage
industries and lower-wage jobs. Although the reduced earnings
reported in the winter of 1945-46 were largely the result of a decline
in hours worked, with consequent loss of overtime and other premium
pay as well as downgrading, the redistribution of workers, occupationally and industrially, undoubtedly contributed to the diminution in
wage income.
T able 1.— Em ploym ent
Status, Earnings, and Migrations oj W ar and Nonwar W orkers,
by Sex
War workers
Nonwar workers
Item
M en
Women
M en
Women
Pc rcentage distribution
Employment status:
Employed..................................................................................
B y same employer as in spring 19451...............................
B y different employer from spring 1945...........................
Self-employed_____________________________________
Unemployed and seeking work...............................................
N ot seeking work *....................................................................
74
18
48
8
20
6
34
5
28
1
37
29
93
73
17
3
5
2
91
82
9
T otal.......................................................................................
100
100
100
100
Average weekly earnings:3
1941 < .........................................................................................
Spring 1945.................................................................................
W inter 1945-46...........................................................................
$38.15
68.60
47.70
$21.65
53.75
34.40
$46.65
63.55
58.65
$23.95
40.65
37.95
4
5
Percent of workers reporting
Migrations between spring 1945 and winter 1945-46:
N o migrations...........................................................................
Migration •................................................................................
Back to 1941 residence.......................................................
To community different from January 1941 residence. __
73
27
13
14
73
27
10
17
91
9
1
8
Total................................................................................
100
100
100
(«)
99
1
1
100
1 A change from one plant to another operated by the same company was considered a change of employer.
s Includes men in armed forces.
* Includes wage and salary earnings only. Earnings data for spring 1945 and winter 1945-46 are for identical
workers. Data for 1941 are for a smaller number of individuals since not all received or reported wages or
salaries for 1941.
3 Based on earliest weekly earnings figure reported by each individual for year 1941.
• Includes workers with whom no direct contact was made but for whom a new address was obtained
outside the community in which they were living when first interviewed in the spring of 1945.
• Less than one-half of 1 percent.
Background and Scope o f Study
In the spring of 1945, representatives of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics interviewed 5,100 workers to lay the foundation for a
recurrent study of the experiences of workers in the transition from
war to peace. The workers were grouped in 24 individual projects or
study units, each representing an industry or a craft in a given com
munity or area, and selected primarily with a view to the impact of
the war’s end.
For purposes of the analysis, the aircraft, shipbuilding, and ordnance
groups were considered as war-industry study units and all the others
as non war. As will appear, however, the New England small-arms
3
group 1 and the Mountain States metal-mining group have some of
the characteristics of the war units. The rate of departure from the
New England small-arms group, for instance, was greater than that
of the shipyard workers surveyed in Tacoma, Wash.
Workers in 21 12 of the original 24 groups were resurveyed by mail
or personal interview during December 1945 and the first 2 months of
1946. The 21 groups studied were as follows:3
War industry:
Aircraft— Los Angeles, Calif., Wichita, Kans., and Willow Run, Mich.
Aircraft parts— St. Paul, Minn.
Ordnance— Houston, Tex. and Mead, Nebr.
Shipbuilding—Houston, Tex., Mobile, Ala., Tacoma and Vancouver, Wash.,
and Wilmington, Del.
Nonwar industry:
Carpenters, building trades— San Francisco, Calif.
Textile spinners and weavers— Fall River, Mass., and Lewiston, Maine.
Textile loom fixers— Charlotte, N. C.
Printing pressmen— Chicago, 111.
Metal mining— Mountain States (Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and
New Mexico).
Molders and coremakers— Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Dayton, Ohio.
Compositors— St. Louis, Mo.
Sewing-machine operators on women's apparel— Cleveland, Ohio.
Small arms— New Haven and Hartford, Conn.
Steel— Pittsburgh, Pa.
Tool and die makers— Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio.
Within the limits imposed by the sample, statistical generalization
is appropriate for the entire worker groups represented by the in
dividual study units. The figures for all the war and all the nonwar
groups were combined without any attempt at selective weighting.
They may, therefore, be accepted as indicating the direction, though
not necessarily the magnitude, of the changes affecting workers at
large during the reconversion period.
The war-industry group, as established in the spring of 1945, con
sisted of 2,522 workers and the nonwar group of 2,010.4* Of these,
1,998 and 1,591, respectively, were reached during the resurvey.
Seven had died in the interval; the remainder either did not return
mail questionnaires or could not be located or reached for interview
during the time allotted for the resurvey.
Extent o f Em ploym ent
Twenty-four percent of the former war workers studied were un
employed and seeking work in the winter of 1945-46. Another 11
percent were neither working nor seeking work. Only 15 percent
were still with’the same employers6 for whom they had been working
when first interviewed. More than two-fifths (43 percent) were work
ing for different employers, and the remaining 7 percent were selfemployed.
1 This unit was included with the nonwar groups because the sample of workers was drawn from com
panies normally manufacturing small arms as a peacetime product, as well as from another company, a
prewar producer of business machines. The latter was expected to reconvert.
2 Two of the 24 groups not resurveyed included East and West Coast merchant seamen. The third con
sisted of workers drawn from a Dallas, Tex., aircraft plant.
* Except where otherwise specifically noted, the study units cover representative groups of all plant
employees.
4 Exclusive of about 600 workers in the projects not resurveyed.
8 A change from one plant to another operated by the same company was considered a change of employer.
4
Among the nonwar workers, the situation was markedly different.
Less than 5 percent were unemployed and less than 3 percent had
withdrawn from the labor market, and a little more than 2 percent
had become self-employed. Over three-fourths were still working
for their wartime employers. The relative stability of employment
among this group is attributable not only to their employment in
peacetime industries but also to the predominance among them of
skilled workmen who even under unfavorable business conditions,
tend to have greater job security.
Unemployment among ex-war workers varied widely from group
to group though, in all cases, it was substantially greater than the
5 percent of the nonagricultural labor force estimated by the Bureau
of the Census to have been unemployed in January 1946. Among
the groups studied, unemployment struck with greatest severity at
the Mobile shipyard workers, of whom 34 percent were seeking work
in the winter of 1945-46. Among the St. Paul propeller workers,
however, less than 18 percent were unemployed.
There was no apparent relationship between the severity of unem
ployment and the regional location of the war plants in which the
workers had been employed. Among the northwest shipyard workers
28 percent of those who had worked in Vancouver were without
jobs and seeking work, compared with 13 percent of those drawn
from a Tacoma shipyard. In the South, 23 percent of the Houston
shipyard workers were unemployed; in Mobile the proportion was
34 percent.
unemployment was greatest among workers whose employment
had been in communities like Mobile, Mead (Nebr.), and Wichita,
which were virtually dependent during the war on one industry.
The lesser extent of unemployment among aircraft workers in Los
Angeles and St. Paul, and among ordnance and shipbuilding workers
in Houston, reflect, in part, the greater capacity of these more diver
sified areas to absorb the laid-off wartime workers.
Involuntary unemployment fell most heavily on the older workers;
a third of the ex-war workers aged 45 and over were unemployed,
compared with only a fifth of those under 45. A third of the older
white men were unable to find work, as contrasted with only about
a seventh of the younger group. Among white women and the small
group of Negroes age was somewhat of a handicap to reemployment.
Of the white women 42 percent were unemployed in the older group,
compared with 35 percent of those under 45 years of age. In varying
degrees the relationship between age and extent of unemployment
was reflected in all the study units.
In general, Negroes in the war-industry units studied, fared about
as well as whites in getting new jobs or in holding their old ones.6
Of those still in the labor market, 75 percent of the Negroes and 73
percent of the whites were employed in the winter of 1945-46. The
proportion of self-employed whites (7 percent) was much greater
than the proportion of Negroes (2 percent).
The proportion of unemployed among women (37 percent) was
about twice as great as among men (20 percent). However, because
considerably more women than men had left the labor market, the
« Because only 179 Negroes were included in the sample studied, the findings reported here cannot be
considered typical of the reconversion experience of Negroes generally.
5
proportion of unemployed among women still in the labor force was
52 percent, compared with 21 percent for men. Late entrance into
the labor market and the resultant handicap in accumulating seniority
explains why three times as large a proportion of men as women were
still working for their wartime employers.
At the time of the resurvey only 34 percent of the women were
gainfully employed, as against 74 percent of the men. Withdrawal
from the labor market was the major factor. More than a fourth
(28 percent) of the women but only 6 percent of the men were neither
working nor seeking work;, most of the men were in the armed
services. Of the 133 women who had left the labor market, 103 or
almost four-fifths had become housewives; most of these women had
entered the labor market for the “duration” only. A few young
men and women had returned to school, several older men had retired
and others were not looking for work because of illness or unspecified
“personal” reasons. The proportion of whites who had withdrawn
from the labor market was twice that of Negroes.
Opportunities for continued employment with the companies that
operated the war plants were meager. Two-fifths of the Northwest
shipbuilders and a third of the Los Angeles aircraft workers were still
with the plants that had employed them in the spring of 1945. The
Houston shipyards still employed 21 percent, the Mobile yards 12
percent, and the Wichita aircraft plants 10 percent. In Wilmington
only 5 of 155 workers reporting still held jobs in the shipyard. The
remaining war plants studied had ceased operations and the few
workers who remained acted as caretakers.
The Willow Run workers suffered less dislocation than most. Of
the 121 men employed at the time of the resurvey, 58, or 48 percent,
had been able to shift to other plants operated by the Ford Motor Co.7
As already noted, job displacement was considerably greater among
the war than among the nonwar workers studied. Five times as
many nonwar workers were still in the same plant as in the spring of
1945; the proportion of unemployment was only a fifth as great as
among war workers. Most of the nonwar study units showed even
greater stability of employment than is indicated by the over-all
figures (75 percent with the same employer and 5 percent unemployed
for all the nonwar groups combined). In this relatively stable group
the greater part of both separations and unemployment was accounted
for by the Connecticut small-arms unit, representing plants which
experienced great wartime expansion, and by the Mountain States
metal-mining unit.
Industry Shifts
With war production over, it was to be expected that in the winter
of 1945-46 the distribution of workers among industries would differ
sharply from that of the war vears. Only 52 percent of those gain
fully employed at the time of the resurvey were in manufacturing,
though all had been engaged in factory work in the spring of 1945.
Of greater interest was the finding that the pattern of distribution
7 The high proportion able to shift is prbbably not representative of the experience of all former Willow
R un workers. The original survey at Willow Run was made after lay-offs were well under way and those
who remained were the longest-service employees, many of whom had retained seniority after transferring
to W illow Run from other Ford plants.
6
was still far removed from that of the prewar years. In contrast
with the 52 percent still attached to manufacturing, only 35 percent
of the workers normally in the labor market had reported manu
facturing as their usual field of industry.8
The spring-to-winter drift away from manufacturing was apparent
in all the study units. Among the workers from the Mead ordnance
plant, which was situated in the midst of an agricultural area, only 16
percent had continued in factory work. At the other extreme were
the workers of the Willow Run plant, 67 percent of whom were still
in manufacturing. The Northwest shipbuilders and the Los Angeles
aircraft workers, each had 65 percent continuing in factory work.
These last three groups had suffered less dislocation than any of the
other war units, because many of the workers continued to Work for
the same companies.
The proportion of men and women, whites and Negroes, who were
employed dining the resurvey and had remained in manufacturing
industry was remarkably uniform. Fifty-two percent of both sexes
were still employed in factories; the ratio for whites of both sexes
was 53 percent and that for Negroes 48 percent. Because of the
heavier unemployment and larger labor-market withdrawals among
the women, however, only 18 percent of the total resurveyed were in
manufacturing employment as compared to 39 percent of the men.
There was an apparent absence of any substantial back-to-the-land
movement. When first interviewed, 14 percent of the ex-war workers
had reported agriculture as their usual industry. At the time of the
resurvey, only 4 percent of those gainfully occupied were engaged in
farming. Most of those found on farms had been farmers before
the war.
Three explanations for the limited return to farming may be
suggested. First, the farmers who went into the war plants came
largely from the marginal group who were unable to extract a good
living from their land even under favorable wartime conditions.
Secondly, it is probable that the return to the land had not yet been
fully realized, because major war-plant lay-offs did not occur until
the late summer and early fall of 1945. With the coming of spring,
some of the workers may have returned home in time to plant next
year's crops. Finally, it is possible that among those not reached for
resurvey were individuals who had returned to farming.
Mining also lost substantially to other industries. Almost 3
percent of the workers had been miners before taking on war work,
but only 1 percent had returned to mining at the time of the resurvey.
Construction, the service industries, transportation and other public
utilities also employed relatively fewer workers in the winter of 194546 than before the war. Losses in these industries, however, were
considerably smaller than in agriculture and mining.
The new pattern of employment by industry found during the first
phase of reconversion involved a much greater reshuffling of individual
workers than is suggested by the total figures, because, to some extent,
movements of individuals across industry lines were compensatory.
8 B y “usual industry” is meant the industry in which an individual had his longest period of employ
ment. However, if he was employ ed for relatively long periods in more than o le industry, the one in which
he was most recently employed was considered his usual industry.
7
Workers in the nonwar industries generally remained at their jobs
and, at least for the time being, did not have to shift to new fields.
The exceptions, relatively few in number, involved mainly workers
employed during wartime expansion who were dropped when con
traction began. Such was the case in the Connecticut small-arms
group.
Occupational Shifts
In the winter of 1945-46 the occupational distribution was in
sharp contrast to the wartime pattern and substantially different
from that of the prewar years.9 Reflecting the increase of employ
ment in manufacturing, the proportion engaged as craftsmen and
manual workers increased from 53 to 62 percent between January
1941 and the time of the resurvey. Within this group, there appears
to have been a redistribution of workers with respect to skills. Before
the war, the skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled accounted for 45, 39,
and 16 percent, respectively, of those who worked with their hands
in nonagricultural activities. The corresponding percentages at the
time of the resurvey were 43, 34, and 23.
This was not entirely the consequence of the inability of ex-war
workers to find new jobs at their prewar skill levels, though there
was some evidence of that. To a more important degree the changes
were caused by the entrance of new individuals as craftsmen and
manual workers and by the exodus of some who were in this group
before the war.
Except for manual work, the only occupational category which
reclaimed from the wartime labor pool relatively more workers than
it had put in was the groups of proprietors, managers, and officials.
This group accounted for 8 percent of the workers at the time of the
resurvey, as compared to 6 percent before the war. The proportion
not in the labor market also increased from 7 to 11 percent.
Aside from farming, in which 3 percent were employed in the winter
of 1945-46, as compared to 13 percent before the war, the largest
declines were in the professions (from 4 percent prewar to 2 percent)
and in the white-collar occupations (from 12 to 9 percent). During
this first phase of reconversion there seems to have been a strong
resistance to returning to traditionally low-paid clerical and sales
jobs. Service occupations, similarly, showed a drop, though a small
one.
In the nonwar groups, most of the workers remained at the same
jobs they had held during the war and in the period immediately
preceding the war. In a few of these study units, however, the end
of the war was followed by a reduction in employment; some who had
been employed relatively recently were laid off and downgraded.
Despite the fact that many of the industry and occupational changes
made by ex-war workers were compensatory, there was a noticeable
tendency for workers to move toward lower-wage industries and
lower-wage occupations. Income opportunities were, therefore, less
attractive in the winter of 1945-46 than during the war.*
* The discussion of occupational changes refers only to workers with prewar employment experience.
Except where otherwise noted, percentages for the winter 1945-46 are computed on a base excluding the
unemployed and those in the armed forces.
698254°—46--- 2
8
Wages o f Workers
The end of the war meant reduced earnings for most of the workers
surveyed and, for many, living standards lower than before the war.
All the war-industry groups 101showed sharp declines in average weekly
earnings between the spring of 1945 and the winter of 1945-46. In
the nonwar groups, reductions tended to be less severe and workers
in some of the units averaged more per week when resurveyed than
during the spring of 1945.
The ex-war workers who were employed in the winter of 1945-46
averaged $46.01 per week, or 31 percent less than in the spring of 1945.11
Those who had been employed in 1941 earned $47.13 per week when
resurveyed, or 27 percent more than in 1941. Meanwhile, however,
prices of living essentials had risen even more, and the tax collector
had dipped more deeply into their pay envelopes.
Between the two surveys, the decline in the earnings of .the war
workers ranged from 23 percent for the Los Angeles aircraft workers
to 41 percent for the St. Paul propeller makers.
On the average, workers who remained in the war plants showed a
decline of 26 percent in weekly earnings. Those who found employ
ment elsewhere had an average decrease of 33 percent. A decrease,
though not necessarily of the magnitude found in this survey, was to
be expected, since in the recruitment of workers for war plants an
attractive wage had to be offered.
In the nonwar groups, the average drop in weekly earnings between
the two surveys was 10 percent. Only the small-arms workers, with a
T able 2.— Average
W eekly Earnings o f Identical Workers, by Study Group, Spring o f
1945 and W inter o f 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Study group
All war-industry study groups1_____________________
Aircraft and parts:
Los Angeles—___________________________-__
St. P a u l- ...............................................................
W ichita________ ____ ____ _______ __________
Ordnance:
Houston___________________________________
M ead.............. ........... ..........................................
Shipbuilding:
Houston. __________________________________
M obile...................................................................
Northwest_______________ __________________
W ilmington________________________________
All nonwar-industry study groups............................ ......
Carpenters, San Francisco______________________
Compositors, St. Louis_________________________
M etal mining, Mountain States_________ ________
Molders and coremakers, Ohio__________________
Printing pressmen, Chicago_____________________
Sewing-machine operators, Cleveland____________
Small arms, N ew England______________________
Steel, Pittsburgh_______________________________
Textiles, N ew England _
_________ ___ .
Textiles, Charlotte........................ ..............................
Tool and die makers, Ohio____________ _________
Number of
workers
Average weekly
earnings
Percent of
change
Spring of
1945
Winter of
1945-46
919
$66.70
$46.01
-31
141
102
63
60.47
70.31
67.57
46.65
41.61
40.26
—23
—41
-40
88
40
80.73
51.79
52.40
35.19
—35
-32
107
86
211
81
1,374
36
75
348
75
60
143
176
91
145
137
88
69.79
58.50
68.83
63.53
59.96
82.31
59.74
56.55
69.27
101.34
54.07
64.63
53.38
38.39
39.31
103.09
50.42
37.56
50.98
43.49
54.29
67.91
65.11
53.68
60.74
86.13
55.20
48.53
42.68
39.24
37.83
87.22
-28
-36
-26
-32
-10
-18
+9
-5
-12
—15
+2
—25
-20
+2
—4
-15
1 W illow Run study group omitted because hours of work had already been reduced to 40 at the time of
the original survey. W eekly earnings were therefore not representative of the wartime situation.
w The Willow Run study unit is omitted from this discussion of changes in weekly earnings between
the spring of 1945 and the winter of 1945-46, since hours had already been cut to the peacetime level of 40
per week when the workers involved were first surveyed.
11 All period-to-period comparisons are for identical workers.
9
decrease of 25 percent, experienced an earnings loss within the 23- to
41-percent range of the declines of the war-industry study units.
Workers in three of the nonwar groups were earning more when resur
veyed than when first interviewed.
Weekly earnings losses of the nonwar workers were due primarily to
reductions in hours worked. In the war-industry groups this factor
was supplemented by lower wage rates associated mainly with changes
of employers, though there was also some evidence of rate reductions
affecting workers who remained in the same plants as at the time of
the earlier survey. The 41-percent decline in the earnings of the St.
Paul propeller makers involved a reduction in average weekly hours
from 50.5 to 45.1 between the spring of 1945 and the winter of 1945-46;
straight-time hourly earnings12 fell from $1.26 to $0.87. The Wichita
aircraft workers’ 40-percent decline in weekly earnings resulted from an
average of 5.2 horn's’ less work per week, accompanied by a decline of
36 cents per hour in estimated straight-time hourly earnings (from
$1.15 to $0.79 per hour).
In some instances weekly earnings declined sharply, despite increases
in hours worked. The 12 women among the Mead ordnance workers
reinterviewed took a drastic 52-percent cut in their average weekly
earnings, from $41.88 to $20.29, though their hours of work had in
creased from 48.0 to 49.6 per week.
Though workers in all units, nonwar as well as war, reported shorter
hours on the average than at the time of the spring survey, prewar
levels had not yet been restored. Only the Cleveland sewing-machine
operators, whose usual scheduled workweek is 35 hours, were working
less than 40 hours per week. Metal miners averaged 49 hours per
week. Textile workers in Charlotte, employed in a reconversion
bottleneck industry, were working 48.5 and 43.7 hours in the case of
men and women, respectively. The Houston ordnance workers, who
were working alternating 60- and 70-hour weeks when first surveyed,
still averaged 49 hours per week—longer hours than those of any of the
other war-industry groups, despite the fact that they had practically
all scattered to new, peacetime jobs.
Though hours had not yet receded to prewar levels, in only 2 of the
10 war-industry units were m en13 receiving spendable earnings
greater in purchasing power than those earned in 1941.14 Compared
with the earnings of identical workers in that year, increases ranged,
project by project, from 3 to 56 percent. The average increase for
men in all the war-industry study units combined was 26 percent.
Houston ordnance workers averaged only 10 percent more than in
1941, though still working an average 49-hour week. The TacomaVancouver shipyard workers, with a 34-percent increase in their
average earnings, had barely kept pace with the rise in the cost
of living.
If there be added to rising prices the effect of sharply increased
income taxes, even the Wichita and Los Angeles aircraft workers, who
earned 54 and 56 percent more, respectively, than in 1941, had
12 Straight-time hourly earnings were roughly estimated by dividing weekly earnings by an hours figure
representing actual average hours worked plus 60 percent of the excess over 40. It was assumed that all
workers reporting were paid time and a half after 40 hours per week, though some, at the time of the resurvey,
were in industries not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
13 The discussion of changes in earnings of the former war workers from the prewar period is based on
reports of the men only, since the number of women reporting 1941 wages or salaries is too small to justify
comparison.
141941 average earnings were computed from the earliest figure reported by each individual for that year.
10
enjoyed far less improvement in their real income than the figures
seem to suggest. The Los Angeles workers averaged $52.00 per week
when resurveyed. Based on their average of two dependents, $3.50
per week was deducted for income-tax purposes. Considering the
increased cost of living essentials, the remaining $48.50 was equal to
about $36.50 in terms of early 1941 purchasing power, or a little over
$3 more per week than the $33.36 which these same workers earned
at that time. The Wichita aircraft workers, whose earnings of $28.23
in 1941 were lower than those of any of the other war-industry groups,
averaged $43.47 when resurveyed. Allowing for tax deductions and
adjusting for price rises, their spendable income was equivalent to
about $31 of 1941 earnings.16
By and large the earnings of the war workers studied did not reflect
the 55-percent rise of average weekly earnings in manufacturing
industry as a whole which had occurred between January 1941 and
the resurvey. This is to be expected in view of the fact that many
of the workers found jobs outside of manufacturing where the increase
in earnings was smaller. For those who found other jobs in manufac
turing plants, it is probable that the change sent many to the bottom
of the line of promotion in their new plants and brought them the
minimum of the rate range on jobs for which “ spread rates” prevailed.
Some of the sharpest wage cuts, however, were taken by workers who
returned to their usual lines of work, in a number of instances to their
prewar employers.
In relation to 1941 earnings, the Negro men studied fared just about
as well or as poorly as the whites. The 81 Negro men in the warindustry groups who reported weekly wage or salary earnings for both
1941 and the winter of 1945-46, showed an increase of 26 percent for
the period. Throughout the war and to the time of the resurvey,
however, they had averaged considerably less than the white workers.
When resurveyed they were earning $37.77 per week, as compared
with $49.43 for the white men.
Workers in the nonwar group fared better than the ex-war workers.
The improvement in their earnings over 1941 levels was great enough
to meet the rise in consumer prices, though not enough to maintain
their purchasing power in the face of both higher prices and increased
income taxes. Considered as a unit, the nonwar workers studied
had increased their gross weekly earnings by 34 percent from 1941 to
the time of the resurvey. Their weekly hours of work, however, were
still above prewar levels.
Postwar M igrations
An extensive geographical redistribution of workers was essential
in the mobilization of the economy for war. In response to the de
mand for labor from mushrooming war production centers, thousands
of men and women migrated, frequently threatening to engulf the
facilities available to provide for their needs. By the time of the
resurvey, the tide was rapidly ebbing.
t* The Mobile shipyard workers, whose earnings were 34 percent higher than in 1941, had an average
of 3 dependents and earned $37.53 per week when resurveyed. An individual worker with those earnings
and that many dependents would be exempt from taxation and therefore about as well off as in 1941. How
ever, those workers who deviated’from the average by having fewer dependents or greater earnings would
have had to pay income taxes. Thus, in actuality, the Mobile workers, like most of the others, had suffered
depreciation of their purchasing power.
11
In the winter of 1945-46 more than a fourth of the war workers
reporting 16 (27 percent) had already left the communities where they
were living during the spring of 1945. From nine States, they had
scattered to 36 States and the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii.
For the most part, they did not retrace their steps. Less than
half (46 percent) returned to States in which they had resided in
January 1941. The majority had broken ties with their former
homes and were exploring opportunities in new locations.
Of the 325 war workers who did not return to their 1941 homes,
almost half (47 percent) remained within the States where they had
worked in war plants; of the remainder, California drew more workers
than any other State. Only in 1 of the 10 war-industry study units,
the Mead ordnance group, were there no workers who had gone to
California.
Negroes and whites moved in approximately equal proportions—
slightly more than a quarter of the total reporting in both cases.
Similarly, the percentages of men and women who had moved were
almost identical. Negro men, however, with nearly a third moving,
were the most mobile group and Negro women the least. Of the
latter, only 3 of the 49 reporting had migrated.
Age appeared to be closely associated with the tendency to move;
the differences among the age groups were suprisingly uniform as
between men and women. Among those under 20 years of age,
about two-fifths of each sex had moved since the spring of 1945.
Somewhat over a quarter of both men and women from 20 to 45 were
no longer living where they were first surveyed. Among the older
workers, about a fifth each of the men and of the women had left
their wartime homes.
The extensive migration of workers in the war-industry study units
are in marked contrast to the stability of the nonwar workers. Of
the 1,591 workers from the latter units reporting, only 115, little more
than 7 percent, had moved from the communities in which they were
first surveyed. The great majority of these, 85 in number, came from
a single study group, Mountain States metal mining. If these are
excluded,17 the proportion of migrants among the nonwar workers
falls to less than 2 percent. Of these, in turn, a majority came from
the San Francisco building-construction carpenters who, because of
the nature of their work, are accustomed to move to the sites of big
construction jobs.
Among the nonwar workers who moved during the first phase of
reconversion 96 were found living in places different from their 1941
residences. Of the remainder, 14 were from the metal-mining study
unit. Excepting the metal miners, most of those who did move
traveled relatively short distances and tended to remain within the
areas where their occupations were in demand.l
l« For purposes of this study a new address obtained for a worker outside the community in which he
was living when first surveyed was considered equivalent to a report that he had moved to that address,
even though no direct contact was established with him.
w The peculiarities of the metal-mining group would perhaps justify its inclusion among the war-industry
study units for purposes of analyzing migration experience. The acute shortage of manpower in the nonferrous-metal mines forced the armed services early in the war to release experienced miners. This fact
of itself brought in men who in January 1941 had lived in many different States. A total of 46 veterans,
41 from the Army and 6 from the N avy, were included among those originally surveyed for this study unit.
In addition, national publicity on the shortage of manpower for mines attracted others from great distances.
W ith the end of the war, the forces which had brought these men to the Mountain States mines disappeared.
12
Appendix A.—Effect of Incomplete Coverage on Findings
The tabulations on which this report is based did not include all
of the workers in the original, spring 1945 samples. By coincidence
the coverage was 79.2 percent for both the war and the nonwar groups.
Failure to obtain complete coverage did not appear to bias signifi
cantly the results of the resurvey. Tables A below and table B, on
page 13, show a close correspondence between distributions of work
ers, by race, sex, and age and by usual industry, in the two surveys.
With respect to these characteristics, therefore, the workers resurveyed
are representative of those in the original sample. Moreover, exam
ination of 253 schedules received after tabulations were completed
indicated that their inclusion would not have altered the findings.
The data on the proportion of workers engaged in farming deserves
special attention since it might be supposed that the relative inaccessi
bility of farms resulted in under-representation of such workers. While
this may have been the case to some extent, the number of such
individuals not resurveyed does not appear to be sufficiently large to
affect the conclusion that there has been no significant back-to-the
land movement. Those who reported their usual industry as agricul
ture, forestry, and fisheries were not seriously under-represented in
the resurvey. As compared to 13.7 percent of the original sample,
they accounted for 12.8 percent of those included in the resurvey
tabulations.
Of those in farming at the time of the resurvey, 27 reported farming
as their usual industry and 23 came from other industries. The former
accounted for 10.6 percent of all the ex-farmers resurveyed and the
latter for 1.1 percent of the total of all workers resurveyed. These
proportions could be substantially increased among those not reporting
without affecting the conclusion with respect to the baek-to-the-land
movement.
T able A.— Distribution
o f W ar Workers by Color, Sex , and A g e , Original Sample and
Resurvey Sample
Number
Color, sex, and age
Original
sample
Percentage distribution
Resurvey
sample
Original
sample
Resurvey
sample
T otal........ ...... ...................................................................-
2,522
1,998
100.0
100.0
W hte workers......................................................................
M en.............. ...............................................................
Under 20 years......................................................
20-44 years ............................................................
45 years and over..................................................
2,269
1,720
49
1,118
553
1,819
1,391
31
912
443
90.0
68.2
2.0
44.3
21.9
91.0
69.6
1.6
45.6
22.4
W om en ......... .............................................................
Under 20 years......................................................
20-44 years— .......................................................
45 years and over.................... .............................
549
26
444
79
423
22
342
64
21.8
1.0
17.6
3 .2
21.4
1.1
Negro workers....................................................................
M en..............................................................................
Under 20 years.......................................................
20-44 years.............................................................
45 years and over...................................................
253
205
5
156
44
179
139
4
106
29
10.0
8.1
.2
6.2
1.7
9.0
7.0
.2
5.3
1.5
W omen.........................................................................
Under 20 years_____________________________
20-44 y ea rs............................................................
45 years and over...................................................
17.1
3 .2
48
40
1.9
2.0
46
38
1.8
2
2
.1
1 .9
.1
13
That conclusion is, in fact, supported by data available from other
sources with respect to recent changes in farm population. There has
apparently been an increase in the number of persons on farms, but
most of it seems to be attributable to the return of war veterans.
T able B .— Distribution
o f W ar W orkers b y Usual Industry, Original Sample and
Resurvey Sample
Number
Industry
Original
sample
Percentage distribution
Resurvey
sample
Original
sample
Resurvey
sample
Total....................................................................................
2,522
1,998
100.0
100. a
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries— .............................
M ining................................................................................
Construction................................ ....................................
Manufacturing....................................................................
Wholesale and retail trade...............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate....... ........ .................
Transportation, communication, and other public utili
ties.................................................................... ............
Services (business, personal, entertainment, etc.)..........
Government (Federal, State, and local)..........................
Industry not reported......................................... ...............
N ot gainfully employed............................... .....................
346
81
246
709
315
21
255
52
194
629
253
20
13.7
3.2
9.8
28.1
12.5
.8
12.8
2.6
9.7
31. &
12.7
1.0
151
318
53
49
233
132
229
30
20
184
6.0
12.6
2.1
2.0
9.2
6.6
11.5
1.5
1.0
9 .2
Appendix B
T able C.— Em ploym ent Status, Form er
W ar W orkers, b y Sex and Color, W inter 1 94 5 -4 6
Number
Employment status
All
work
ers
P ercent1
Women
Men
M en
All
Wowork
ers White Negro m e n i2*
W hite Negro White Negro
1,998
1,391
139
428
40
100
100
100
100-
E m ployed.........................................— 1,299
B y same employer as in spring
298
1945..............................................
B y different employer from
862
spring 19458...............................
Self-employed
_ ._
139
477
Unemployed and seeking work______
222
N ot seeking work................................
1,026
112
147
14
65
74
81
34
252
20
24
2
15
18
14
5
644
130
279
<86
89
3
24
<3
117
6
155
126
12
43
7
24
11
46
9
20
6
64
2
17
2
28
1
37
28
T otal____________________________
T able D .— Em ploym ent
19
7
Status, Nonwar Workers, b y Sex,5 W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Number
Employment status
All
workers
Men
Percent1
Women
All
workers
Men
Women
T otal..............................................................
1,591
1,235
356
100
100
100
Employed....................................................
B y same employer as in spring 1945___
B y different employer from spring
19458....................................................
Self-employed ____ _
Unemployed and seeking work..................
N ot seeking work.................................. ......
1,473
1,197
1,149
907
324
290
93
75
93
73
91
81
240
36
75
43
207
35
60
<26
33
1
15
17
15
2
5
3
17
3
5
2
4
5
9
i Discrependes in percentages due to rounding.
* Percentages not shown separately for Negro women because of small numbers.
8 A change from one plant to another operated by the same company was considered a change of employer.
8 Includes men in the armed forces.
• N ot broken down by color since there were only 38 Negroes reporting in the entire nonwar group.
14
T able E .— Em ploym ent Status, Former W ar W orkers, by Sex and A ge, W inter 1 94 5 -4 6
Number
Women
Men
All
workers
Employment status
Under
45
45 and
over
Under
45
45 and
over
Total................................................................................
1,998
1,053
477
402
66
Em ployed—......... ....................................................... .
B y same employer as in spring 1945......................
B y different employer from spring 1945 L ._.........
Self-employed
___ _____________________
Unemployed and seeking work.................................. .
N ot seeking w ork2.........................................................
1,299
298
802
139
477
222
833
172
572
89
151
69
306
100
161
44
152
20
141
20
115
6
147
114
20
6
14
22
19
Percent2
Total...............................................................................
100
100
100
100
100
Em ployed.......................................... ...........................
B y same employer as in spring 1945 L . . ..............
B y different employer from spring 1945................
Self-emnloyed
__ _________________________
Unemployed and seeking work........ ...........................
N ot seeking w ork2_________________ ____________
65
15
43
7
24
11
79
16
54
8
14
7
64
21
34
9
32
4
35
5
29
1
37
28
30
9
21
41
29
1 A change from one plant to another operated by the same company was considered a change of
employer.
2 Includes men in armed forces.
3 Discrepancies in percentages are due to rounding.
T able F .— Em ploym ent
Status, Former W ar W orkers, by Study Croup , W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Number
Study group
All study groups............
Aircraft and parts:
Los Angeles.............
St. P a u l...................
Wichita ...................
W i l l o w Run
Ordnance:
H ouston....................
M p ftd
Shipbuilding:
Houston....................
M obile......................
N orthwest................
Wilmington-............
Total
worker
reporting
1,998
B y same
employer
Total
as in
employed
spring
1945
1,299
B y dif
ferent
employer
Selffrom
employed
spring
1945 i
Unem
ployed
and
seeking
work
N ot
seeking
work 2
298
862
139
477
222
244
233
174
277
158
164
106
159
81
5
18
61
136
69
153
16
23
19
6
51
41
50
66
35
28
18
52
157
91
104
57
2
91
52
11
5
35
26
18
.8
163
187
317
155
121
106
232
92
35
22
130
5
72
69
82
77
14
15
20
10
37
63
66
42
5
18
19
21
Percent
All study groups............
Aircraft and parts:
Los Angeles..............
St. Paul..... ........... —
W ichita....................
Willow B un _____
Ordnance:
H ouston....................
Moad
Shipbuilding:
Houston....................
M obile......................
Northwest................
W ilm ington........ .
100
65
15
43
7
24
11
100
100
100
100
65
70
61
57
33
2
10
25
58
40
55
7
10
11
2
21
18
29
24
14
12
10
19
100
100
66
63
1
58
57
7
6
22
28
12
9
ICC
100
100
100
74
57
73
59
21
12
41
3
44
37
26
50
9
8
6
6
23
34
21
27
3
9
6
14
1A change from one plant to another operated by the same company,Vas cons dered a change of employer.
2 Includes men in armed forces.
15
T able G .— Industrial Distribution o f Former W ar Workers, U su al1 and W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Usual
Industry
Winter
1945-46
Percent of those em
ployed 12
Winter
1945-46
Usual
T otal_____________________________________________
Total employed___________________________________
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.............................
M ining.........................................................................
Construction.......... .....................................................
M anufacturing., ....... ..................................................
Wholesale and retail trade.........................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate..........................
Transportation, communication, and other public
utilities......................................................................
Services (business, personal, entertainment, etc.)—
Government (Federal, State, and lccal)...................
Industry not reported__________________________
N ot employed *..................... .............................................
1,998
1,998
255
52
194
629
253
20
50
8
103
683
193
11
100
14
3
11
35
14
1
100
4
1
8
52
15
1
132
229
30
20
184
77
128
46
7
13
2
6
10
4
699
i
The industry in which the individual had worked longest was considered his usual industry except if he
was employed for extensive periods in more than one industry. In the latter case he was considered as usu
ally attached to the industry in which he was most recently employed for a relatively long period of time.
* Excluding those for whcm industry was not reported. Discrepancies in percentages due to rounding.
3 Includes these net seeking work, and for winter 1945-46, the unemployed and men in the armed forces.
T able H .— Occupational
Distribution o f Former W ar Workers W ith P rew ar 1 Em ploy
ment Experience, Usual and W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Occupational group
Usual
Winter
1945-46
Percent of those em
ployed or not seeking
w ork2
Usual
T n t*l
_______
.
....
...
Total employed and not seeking work 2______________
Professional and semiprofessional________________
Proprietors, managers, and officials______________
Farmers and farm laborers__ _____ ______________
niAfinftl, sftlfts a n d lrindrp.d w o r k e r s __ .
Service workers3_______________________________
r.raftsnr>An a n d m a n u a l w o rk e rs
Skilled* . . . ............................................................
fiA m iskillpd
Unskilled _________________________________
N n t so a k in g w o r k •_.
_
N of. rapn rtad
Unemployed_____________________________ _________
1,816
1,816
68
101
228
220
116
953
433
369
151
120
10
25
104
40
122
80
869
378
293
198
168
11
397
100
4
6
13
12
6
53
24
20
8
7
Winter
1945-46
100
2
8
3
9
6
62
27
21
14
12
1 Before January 1,1941.
2 The base for calculation of the percentages shown excludes those who were unemployed and whose
occupational group was not reported. Discrepancies are due to rounding.
3 Includes protective, domestic, and personal service workers, also building service workers and porters.
* Includes foremen.
* Includes men in armed forces.
16
T able I.— Average W eekly Earnings o f Identical Former W ar W orkers, b y Study Groups,l
Spring 1945 and W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Average weekly earnings
Number of
workers
Study group
All Study groups ,
T
Aircraft and parts:
Los Angelas_____
_ _
___
pt Paul
_________
____
_____
Wichita _____
_____
__ _ _ __
Ordnance:
TTrmston. . .
_
__
_ __
Mead
Shipbuilding:
JTouston . . . ,
IV/Tohila
_„
'
Northwest-____________________________________
Wilmington
- -
Spring
1945
Winter
1945-46
Percent of
change
919
$66.70
$46.00
-31
141
102
63
60.45
70.30
67.55
46.65
41.60
40.25
-23
-41
-40
88
40
80.75
51.80
52.40
35.20
—35
—32
107
86
211
81
69.80
58.50
68.85
63.55
50.40
37.55
51.00
43.50
—28
—36
—26
-32
i W illow Run study group omitted because hours of work had already been reduced to 40 at time of original
survey and weekly earnings were therefore not representative of the wartime situation.
T able J.— Average
W eekly Earnings o f Identical N onwar W orkers, by Study Group,
Spring 1945 and W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Average weekly earnings
Study group
All study groups..
T
•Carpenters, San ‘Francisco
___
_ _ _
Compositors, St, Lonis
.. _
__
_
Metal mining, Mountain States
_ _
Mnlders and coremakers, Ohio__ ___________________
Printing pressmen, Chicago
............. _
Sewing machine operators, Cleveland _
__ _
Small anns. N ew England,
_
Steel, Pittsburgh
_
_
Textiles, N ew England.
_____ r
___ _
___
Textiles, Charlotte
_„
Tool and die makers, Ohio
..
_ _
T able K.— Average
Number of
workers
Spring
1945
Winter
1945-46
Percent of
change
1,374
$60.00
$54.29
-10
36
75
348
75
60
143
176
91
145
137
88
82.30
59.71
56.55
69.2f
101.35
54.05
64.65
53.40
38.40
39.30
103.10
67.90
65.10
53.70
60.75
86.15
55.20
48.55
42.70
39.25
37.85
87.20
—18
+9
—5
—12
—15
+5
—25
—20
+2
—4
-15
W eekly Earnings 1 o f Identical M e n 2 in W ar Industry Groups
1941 and W inter 1 94 5 -4 6
Gross weekly earnings
Study group
All men................................................................................
Aircraft and parts:
Los Angeles..................................................................
St. Paul........................................................................
W ichita....................................... .................................
Willow R un.................................................................
Ordnance:
Houston........ .......................... -............. ....., ..............
M ead............................................................................
Shipbuilding:
Houston____ __________________________________
Mobile...........................................................................
N orthwest........... ......................................................
W ilmington..................................................................
Number of
men
1941*
Winter of
1945-46
686
$38.15
$48.05
26
74
68
43
97
33.36
43.65
28.25
43.85
52.00
44.90
43.45
49.75
56
3
54
13
63
21
47.40
31.95
62.10
41.00
10
28
88
59
111
62
37.85
28.05
39.05
36.80
50.15
37.55
52.15
45.40
33
34
34
23
* Includes only men working for wages or salaries during both periods.
3 Women excluded because too few reported wage or salary earnings in 1941.
3 Based on earliest weekly earnings figure reported by each individual for year 1941.
Percent of
increase
17
T able L .— Comparison o f Spendable Purchasing Power o f Identical M en 1 in W ar
Industry Groups, 1941 and W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6
Gross weekly
earnings
1941
Winter
1945-46
Average
number
of de
pend
ents*
(1)
(2)
(3)
Study group
A ll m e n ........................
Aircraft and parts:
Los Angeles............
St. Paul... ...............
Wichita...............
Willow R un______
Ordnance:
Houston__________
Mead____________
Shipbuilding:
Houston__________
Mnhilfi
Northwest________
Wilmington.......... .
N et
earnings
adjusted
for rise
in cost
of liv in g 4
Percent of
change in
purchasing
power of
spendable
earnings,
1941 to
1945-46«
(5)
(6)
(7)
$45.25
$34.05
-11
Estimated
N et
average
earnings
after
income tax
deductions deductions
for 1945-46 for income
earnings *
tax
(4)
$38.15
$48.06
2
33.35
43.65
28.25
43.85
52.00
44.90
43.45
49.75
2
2
2
2
3.50
2.10
2.00
3.00
48.50
42.80
41.45
46.75
36.45
32.20
31.20
35.15
+9
-26
+10
-20
47.40
31.95
52.10
41.00
3
2
1.70
1.60
50.40
39.40
37.90
29.60
-20
-7
37.85
28.05
39.05
36.80
50.15
37.55
52.15
35.40
2
3
2
2
3.20
3.50
2.30
46.95
37.55
48.65
43.10
35.30
28.20
36.60
32.40
-7
+1
-6
-12
$2.80
1 Women excluded because too few reported wage or salary earnings for 1941.
2 The average (median) number of dependents is for all men surveyed in the spring of 1945 including
some who were not resurveyed.
3 Based on withholding deductions in effect in 1946 for workers earning the amounts shown in column 2
and having the number of dependents shown in column 3. Variations in taxes paid by individuals earning
different amounts and having different numbers of dependents would cause the actual average deductions
to differ somewhat from those shown.
4 Assumes 33 percent rise in cost of living. The figures shown in this column were obtained by dividing
those in column 5 by 1.33.
5 This column shows percentage differences between figures in column 1 and column 6. N o allowance
is made in either case for the 1-percent social security tax deduction in effect during both period.
‘T able M .— Extent o f M igration
Am ong Former W ar W orkers, b y Color, Sex, and A ge,
Spring 1945 to W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6 1
Color, sex, and age
Total
Number
migrating
Percentage
migrating
All workers reporting..........................................................
2,234
1605
27
W hite workers.....................................................................
Negro workers.....................................................................
2,007
227
546
69
27
26
Under 20 years...................-..................... ....................
20-44 years.....................................................................
45 years and over........ ................................. ................
W omen.......... ......................................................................
Under 20 years....... -.....................................................
20-44 years.................................................................. —
45 years and over..........................................................
1,718
48
1,158
512
516
25
424
67
465
19
332
114
140
10
116
14
27
40
29
22
27
40
27
21
1 Includes workers with whom no direct contact was made but for whom a new address was obtained
soutside the con munity in which they were living when first interviewed in the spring of 1945
18
T able
N .—
Fxtent o f M igration and o f Return to P rew ar 1 Residence Am ong Form er
W ar W orkers, by Color and Sex , Spring 1945 to W inter 1 9 4 5 -4 6 i*
Number
White workers
Total
Men
Negro workers
Women
Men
Women
All workers reporting8.................................
2,234
1,540
467
178
49
Reporting no migration................................
Reporting migration.....................................
Sack to 1941 residence...........................
In same State as war plant.............
In othei* State..................................
To community different from 1941 res
idence............................................... .
Tn same State as war plant______
In other State..................................
1,629
605
280
112
168
1,131
409
204
86
118
330
137
50
18
32
122
56
24
7
17
46
3
2
1
1
325
153
172
205
99
106
87
44
43
32
10
22
1
1
Percent8
All workers reporting...................................
100
100
100
100
100
Reporting no migration................................
Reporting migration *...................................
Back to 1941 residence............................
In same State as war plant.............
In other State...................................
To community different from 1941 res
idence......... .........................................
In same State as war plant_______
In other State...................................
73
27
13
5
8
73
27
13
5
8
71
29
11
4
7
69
31
13
4
9
94
6
4
2
2
15
7
8
13
6
7
19
10
9
18
6
12
2
2
i January 1941.
* Includes workers with whom no direct contact was made but for whom a new address was obtained out
side the community in which they were living when first interviewed in the spring of 1945.
* Discrepancies are due to rounding.
V. S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I 9 4 «
@FedFRASER