. I .. A3898 ' JJfrr* DEFENSE MIGRATION i/ >$£ / — |i " SEP 14 1942 v i ->L / Howard B. Myers \ 3' & I Director of He sea a x\ V/-) « / * Director of Research bra^CI Work Projects Administration Eor the second time in ten years the United States is experiencing a sharp increase in worker migration. In the thirties migration was stimulated "by depression, in the forties it is "being stimulated "by the imperative.demands of war. The concentration of war orders in a relatively small number of areas is creating great demands for additional labor in some cities. At the same 0 time the growing impact of priorities and shortages of materials is squeezing large numbers of workers out of their previous jobs in many sections of the country. The result is 'a growing volume of migration of workers and their families toward war boom towns. Broadly speaking, employers with war orders have turned to four sources of labor supply! 1. The local unemployed. 2. Local workers already employed, but in n'oh-war industries.1 ; 3. Local non-workers coming of working age or 'induced to enter-v.the ■ labor market by the prospect of easily-secured jobs "at good'wages. 4. Workers and potential workers from other areas. / In most cities the workers required for war industries have been supplied largely from the first three sources—that is, from Various groups in the resident population. This is both a natural and a desirable develop¬ ment, as large supplies of actual and potential workers have been readily available in nearly all centers of war activity. ' ' tmv": » %• For example, there were nearly 8,000,000 unemployed in«-the United- States in October 1940. One year later the' number had shrunk to aoproximatcly j . • 1/ Testimony to be presented to the House Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, February 4, 1942. ' ' A3898 -2 - 4,000,000. Unemployment is still high, though less .formidable than it was. Even the most active war centers still have their unemployed—workers who, though clearly employable, are not acceptable for the available jobs because of age, race, sex, or lack of training. As the need for workers increases further, and as restrictive hiring limits are relaxed, many of the remaining unemployed will succeed in obtaining jobs. The number of workers who have shifted from non-war to war jobs in the same locality is not known but, stimulated by higher earnings in war industries, the shift is probably already very large. The rapidly growing effects of materials shortages will sharply accelerate these shifts during 1942, thus providing additional local workers for the expansion of war production. Non-workers, too, have recently been entering the labor market in substantial numbers, and this movement also is growing. New entries to the labor market, particularly students and housewives, have already offset a large part of the loss resulting from the withdrawal of workers to the armed forces. In an increasing number of war production centers, however, the primary sources of resident labor possessing the needed skills and character¬ istics are running low. In these areas local deficiencies in labor supply are being met by a growing flow of workers from other areas. Workers from out of the city are of two types: commuters, who ride back and forth between home and work each day; and migrants, who .move to the active area. This distinction is an important one. When defense industries are located in or near great population centers, commuters may supply a very large part of the extra labor needed. But when defense industries are located in a sparsely settled area, migration is required. The Ravenna (Ohio) ordnance A38S8 ,. — 3 - plant, which draws from a labor fohpe of nearly 1,000,000 workers living within a radius of 40 miles, may depend mainly upon commuters; but the Iowa ordnance plant at Burlington, with only 100,000 workers living within a 40-mile radius, 'must employ'a large proportion of migrant workers. Defense migration has been dramatized by the rapid massing of large numbers of workers in isolated army-camp and powder-plant towns, in the great hew aircraft-production centers, in the resurrected shipbuilding centers'—in such towns as San Diego, Pascagoula, Wichita, Bath, Hartford, Burlington, Shreveport, Seattle, The needs of war have transformed the disliked "transient" of the depression into the respected war-worker of today. The border patrols of a few years ago are being replaced by a variety of devices 'to encourage migration, including advertising by private contractors, expansion of the public employ¬ ment office clearance system, and defense housing and community facility programs. Poor housing, overcrowding, health hazards, skyrocketing rents and inadequate school, sewer, and wat.er systems are now matters of public concern, partly because it is feared that such undesirable.conditions may discourage the migration of needed workers. It is clear that defense migration is .-raising increasingly serious problems, and that these problems urgently require analysis. In an endeavor to help get at the facts, the. WPA Division of Research some months ago under¬ took a series of studies"of1 migration to defense areas. These surveys, sponsored'by the Federal-Security Agency, were designed primarily to determine how many workers and persons had moved to the area during the past year, where they had come from, what types of people they were, the occupations and ihdustries in which they had been employed, the success of various groups of A3898 _ 4 - migrants in finding employment after migration and the extent to which they had shifted to new occupations and industries after migrating. The surveys covered the activities of civilian workers only, and no attempt was made to gather information about persons who had left the survey city during the year. The information was secured through a sample census of each area, using techniques generally similar to those of the WPA Monthly Report of Unemployment. Particular attention was given to coverage of rooming houses, lower-priced hotels, defense housing projects, and tourist and trailer camps. In all, 51 areas were selected for survey. Most of the cities selected had received large war material orders or construction contracts; a number of towns with few war contracts were included as control areas. Data are now available for each of these cities, and with the permission of the Committee, will be submitted for the record. The data make possible a number of observations concerning defense migration, pre-war phase. It should be said at the outset that.generaliza¬ tion concerning the movement is hazardous. The situation varies markedly by locality, depending on such factors as the type and intensity of defense activity, the size of the resident labor supply, the economic situation in nearby areas, and the ability of the community to house and service the incoming population. Before going further, I should point out that by-no means .all mi¬ gration to defense areas is defense migration in the narrow sense. Broadly speaking, one non-defense worker moves to a defense town for every worker who comes in to take defense employment. The enticing prospect of a job draws clerical and service workers as well as skilled metal tradesmen, opera¬ tives and construction workers. Many of these workers secure jobs which iu58 98 - 5 - contribute indirectly to the war effort, others join the ranks of the resident unemployed. All contribute, however, to the social and economic problems which migration raises and, consequently, all are included in the discussion which follows: In general, defense migration has been of two main types: (1) the movement of construction -workers to camp and new facility sites, many of which have been located in rural or small-town areas; (2) the movement of workers to war industry centers, for the most part the larger cities. The industrial movement has been less spectacular, but is of longer duration and, socially and economically, is much more important. I shall discuss primarily this latter type. Perhaps the primary point to make concerning defense migration to date is that, by and large, it has flowed in smaller volume than many of the more excited newpaper and magazine stories would have us believe. This early overestimation of the volume of migration is understandable, however. It takes a relatively small number of migrants in a community to create numerous problems. For example, the District of Columbia was already so congested when the defense program first began,- that a very small in-migration would have exhausted all the available housing. There were only 3,800 habitable rental vacancies in the District last February,' In the absence' of a con¬ siderable construction program, an annual migrant rate of only 2 or 3 per¬ cent would have.exhausted these vacancies by November. The actual migrant rate for the District was 7.8 percent. It is no wonder that in-migration to the District seemed even greater than it was; This.is ngt to say that recent migration has not been tremendous in some areas. The movement to large construction jobs has been impressive, A38S8 - 6 - but most "of- this has been temporary. It is true-, further, "that a few industrial towns have experienced a hectic mushroom growth. Migrants into San Diego, California, total 27 percent of the 1940 population—the highest rate among the 51 areas surveyed. Wichita, Kansas, a booming air¬ craft center, is second, with a 20 percent migration rate. While the rate of migration is lower, some of the larger cities have experienced truly astounding in-movenents. For example, more than 150,000 persons moved into Los Angeles and its satellite towns during the year following October 1940. In the same period, more than 50,000 persons have moved into Washington, D. C,, and more than 40,000 to Seattle, Washington. These cases are exceptional, however. In half of the 51 nre-'S for which data are available the migration rate has been 5 percent or less, »nd in only 10 of the 51 cities has it been 10 percent or more. Chart 1 shows, in array, the migrant rates of all the cities included in the VP A surveys. At the top of the chart are the "hottest" war-boom cities: San Diego and Wichita (aircraft), Newport News (shipbuilding), and Long Bench and Seattle (aircraft and shipbuilding). The active construction centers also appear high on the chart; note in particular the position of Burlington, Wichita Falls, Corpus Christi, and Fort Smith, cities which were in the midst of large-scale war construction programs when they were surveyed. Some of the cities at the bottom of the chart are cities with little or no war-stimulated activity, "such as Newburgh, Washington, Pa., and Brockton, for example. Many, however, are active war centers which have been able to expand production without much migrant labor. St. Louis, with war contracts valued at more than a quarter of a billion dollars, is seventh ASByB _ 7 - from the bottom; Pittsburgh is third from the bottom; and Philadelphia, with a billion dollars in contracts, is at the very bottom of the array. Most of < , these cities had large numbers of resident unemployed workers when the rearma¬ ment program began, and in most cases, the local unemployed population is still large, even today. Our estimates show that approximately 2,250,000 persons and 1,000,000 workers living in cities of over 25,000 population October 1941, had entered these cities after October 1, 1940. The overall migrant rate for cities over 25,000 population was 4.3 percent. It is important to note that these figures refer to in-migration only, not to net population gain. As a matter of fact, it seems clear that some of the cities suffered a net population loss during the first year of the defense program. Terre Haute, for example, had a higher proportion of housing vacancies late in 1941 than in April 1940, and almost certainly lost population. There may be several other such cities in the list. Even in the most active cities, there was doubtless some out-migration during the period covered by the surveys. On the other hand, the surveys indicate that the rate of migration has been increasing in most areas. It is probable that migration will grow even more rapidly during the coming months, stimulated by the marked intensifi¬ cation of the war effort, by the near-absorption of the resident labor supply in certain "hot" areas, and by rapidly-growing priorities unemployment. The rubber shortage will inevitably make commuting more difficult, so that cities like Bridgeport, Bristol, and Ravenna, which are now dependent on a large number of commuters, must be prepared to house great numbers of migrants when large- scale commuting is no longer possible. During the first year of war, migration A3898 - 8 - should exceed by a considerable margin the volume during the pre-war period. Second, it is pleasing to report that defense migration thus far has been, on the whole, strikingly successful. In half of the areas surveyed the unemployment rate for all migrant workers is 7 percent or less; in a fourth of the areas it is 4 percent or less. Only one city out of nine has a migrant unemployment rate of 15 percent or more. Chart 2 shows the migrant unemployment rates'for all the survey cities. Important war-industry centers fall at both ends of the array shown in chart 2. Highest unemployment was reported in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, where large numbers of workers had flocked in anticipation of the start of work on a new army camp. Very high unemployment was also found in Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Wichita. In San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, and Corpus s Christi, unemployment was relatively high, indicating that workers were arriving faster than they could be absorbed. But in Bristol, Baltimore, Washington, D. C., Burlington, South Bend, Warren, and Bridgeport, which are likewise important centers of war activity, migrant unemployment was exceptionally low. In view of the almost completely unguided nature of the movement, and considering the fact that the surveys included considerable numbers of migrants who had very recently arrived in the area and had had little oppor¬ tunity to adjust themselves, the unemployment rates reported among migrants are surprisingly low. In terms of obtaining employment defense migration presents a welcome contrast to the tragic experiences of migrants during the depression. Not only have the great majority of the" defense migrants obtained jobs, large numbers of them have got better jobs than they held before migrating. Occupational upgrading has been widespread. Shifts among manual A3898 - 9 - workers from unskilled to 6emi—skilled, and from semi-skilled to skilled have been especially frequent. As a result of this process the proportion of migrants working at unskilled occupations is surprisingly small—in the great majority of towns less than 10 percent. Incdme data were not obtaine'd, "but in view of the occupational upgrading reported and the relatively high wages and full employment in most war industries, it seems clear that the incomes of a large proportion of the migrants have risen. Although migrants in general have "been quite successful in finding jobs', certain groups have1 fared less well than others. Women have been far less successful than men in obtaining jobs—in most areas their rate of unemployment is 3 or more time's" that for men. Negroes, too, have been rela¬ tively unsuccessful as migrants—their unemployment rate is 3 or more times the rate for whites in most areas to which Negroes have migrated in appre¬ ciable numbers. Young workers have been generally more successful than their elcers. The very young group is a striking exception. In the £reat majority of areas workers under '20 reported the highest unemployment rate of any age grot;,; Most of these youth have, of course, entered the labor market recently, and have ,had little or no ^previous work experience. Workers 45 years and over reported, in general, 'consistently higher unemployment than"average. (see appendix tables.) As would be expected the migrants who have been in the area longest tend to have the lowest unemployment rates". In general, migrants who have come from nearby areas tend to report "less unemployment than those who have traveled far, probably because the former group more often return home if they fail to get a job. A3898 - 10 - In nearly all areas skilled manual workers and professional and technical workers have the lowest unemployment rates among the migrants. The least successful occupational groups are nearly always the service workers, particularly domestics, who often report extremely high rates of unemployment, Negroes make up only a small proportion of the migrants to war industry centers. In half of the survey cities, 3 percent or less of the migrants are Negroes, and even in the South, migration rates for Negroes are much lower than for whites. This is understandable, in view of the wide¬ spread discrimination against Negroes in war industries. It contrasts sharply with experience in the first World War, however, when a large scale migration of Negroes to Northern industrial centers took place. As the demand for labor increases and present employment restrictions are relaxed, it is probable that Negroes will begin to move in greater numbers. Chart 3 shows the proportion of Negro migrants in each of the survey cities. As the chart indicates, the highest proportion of Negroes was found in Macon, followed by Wichita Nails and Atlanta. Among northern cities, the highest proportions were found in Baltimore, Washington, Pa., Pittsburgh, Washington, D. C., Johnstown, and Battle Creek; in these, cities, however, Negroes made up only 7 to 11 percent of the migrants. There were relatively few female workers among the migrants. Half of the cities reported 18 percent or less females among the migrants, and only nine cities reported more than one-fourth of the workers to be females. (See appendix tables.) Contrary to popular impression, relatively few of the, mi .-.rants A3898 - 11 - are coning from agriculture. This is rather surprising in view of our large agricultural labor reserve. The proportion of workers drawn from agriculture is shown for each- city in Chart 4. In half of the survey cities, 9 percent of the migrants or less are farm workers. Even in the South, the proportion is usually below 15 percent, and in the industrial East, the proportion is in most cases negligible. War industry centers thus far have secured their workers primarily from urban areas. Most of the rural migrants have come from villages; the proportion from the open country is very small. Eew of the migrants have traveled far; in most centers the average distance is less than 125 miles. The California cities are outstanding exceptions to the general rule. Migrants to Long Beach have moved an averag of more than 1000 miles, while Los Angeles migrants havo averaged nearly 1,300 miles. In order to illustrate the patterns of geographical movement traced by recent migrants maps have been prepared showing the place of origin of the migrants interviewed in six cities in different sections of the country. The short distance traveled by migrants to most cities is woll illustrated by the maps for Bridgeport, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, and St. Louis. Philadelphia migrants, for example, moved predominantly from New York City, Scranton, and Wilkes Barre. Bridgeport migrants came prin¬ cipally from the same three cities, plus Westchester County. Practically none of the Bridgeport migrants had moved from south of Philadelphia, and A3898 - 12 - moved principally from Tulsa, Seminole, Shava.ee, and. numerous county seats within half a day's automobile drive* Most of ,the St. Louis' migrants came from Southeastern Missouri and Southern Illinois. In Seattle, the distance traveled is somewhat greater; a substan¬ tial number of migrants had moved from the Twin Cities, and. from numerous small towns and. rural places across Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota*.• Many others came from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Even so, the. bulk of the Seattle migrants had moved from Portland, Spokane, Tacoma and from the small cities within the State of Washington. Lqs Angeles County migrants provide one of a very few exceptions, among the 51 cities surveyed, to the general rule that recent migrants have been drawn from the immediate neighborhood of the receiving area. Most ox the Los Angeles migrants originated in a strip running north and south through the Midwest from the Twin Cities to Dallas,, and including Sioux City, Omaha, Lincoln, St. Joseph, Kansas City, St. Louis, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. The Bridgeport and Philadelphia maps well illustrate, the influence of depressed areas on defense migration, since a particularly large proportion of migrants in both cities had 'formerly lived in the Pennsylvania anthracite region. Neither the Oklahoma City nor Los Angeles maps, however, show any great migration from the poorer counties in the Oklahoma Ozarks, whose outmi¬ gration during the 1930's was dramatically brought to the Nation's attention. Finally, the maps show that the great bulk of recent migration to cities is from cities, rather than from rural places. In Philadelphia, and Bridgeport, migration from rural.places is negligible, and in Seattle, Los Angelos and" Oklahoma City it is far outweighed by urban migrants. St. Louis reported the highest proportion.of rural migrants, nearly two-fifths of the total. A3898 - 13 - Migrants as a group, are young, as Chart 5 shows. In half of the cities the average age of all migrant workers is 29 years or less; in no city does the average riso as high as 35 years. The figures reflect both the greater mobility of young workers and the low hiring age limits in many war industries. In the aircraft town of Wichita, Kansas, where hiring restrictions are unusually severe, the average age ef ell migrant workers is under 25 years. In Bristol, the Los Angeles satellite cities, Baltimore, San Diego, Bridgeport, and Seattle—all important war-industry manufacturing cities—the average age was also very low, ranging from 25 years to 27 years. In practically all the war-construction centers, on the other hand, migrant workers were older, averaging 31 years to 33 years. The migration surveys provide evidence that the rising demand for labor in centers of war activity is drawing non-workers into the labor market in considerable numbers. In half of the cities surveyed 14 percent or more of the migrant workers had never had p. jeb at their previous residence; and in four cities, Wichita, St. Louis, Bridgeport, and Nashville, this group made up one-fifth or more of the migrant workers. Most of these persons were student; and housewives entering the labor market for the first time. The employment record of this group is often poor; in more than half of the cities the pro¬ portion who have obtained jobs is smaller than for migrants with work ex¬ perience. The proportion of rne-person families among the migrants at their new locations is extremely high, ranging from 30 to 50 percent for most areas and reaching a peak of 77 percent for Washington, D. 0. It is well known, of course, that single persons are highly mobile. Large numbers of these one- person families are incomplete, however; in many towns the proportion is more A3898 - 14 - than one—third of all one—person families. In half of the towns, 15 "percent or more of these workers left their families behind when they migrated. In part, this separation reflects the normal instability of the migration pro- cess-i-the bread winner leaving his family behind until he settles in a new location. In part, however, it results from the serious housing shortages ex¬ isting in many areas with large war contracts. A striking relationship"between the proportion of migrant families which are incomplete and "the availability of housing is afforded by a com¬ parison of the migration data with the findings y///777\ A/////A////77Z\ Y////////////////?//////////////////>/A Y77777777777777777777777777777777777\ 7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA Y//////////77777 77//////7/////A 7ZZZZZZZZZZZZA Y///////////A 7ZZZZZZZZZZZA 7ZZZZZZZZZZZ7 vA/a//a/>/aa y///////Y/A Y//A////7/A Y///////7/A YY/Y/Y/7/A '///////A V/A/////M tA 52 Y7//////A '///////A ////////A '///////A '//////A //////A 7777A 7/777 777A 7A 7ZA U Surveyed September 1941 2/ Surveyed October 1941 2/ Surveyed November 1941 41 Surveyed December 1941 21 Surveyed May 1941, adjusted to October 1941 Chart 2 EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS (PERCENT DISTRIBUTION) R9999S/yyyyyy>yyyyyyy//yyyyyy/y/yyyyyy/ (/777////////////y///////y////////y///yyyY' mM7y/>yyyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyyyyySy/. WZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZL z mMZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZWZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZi mm?//////////////////. 'mwy )$$myy>yyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyy//y/yyyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyy//y/yyyyyyy/>yyyyyyy>yyyyyyyy r/777//////////////////////////////////7 Wmy/y//yyyy///y//////s/yy//y//(//yy///{/yyy//yy///y//yA(yyyy//y)>/yy//yyy/////yyA ?TWM/y///////y////////////////////////////////y///////////777777, V///////////777, vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyys yyyy&y>yyyyyyy;yyyyyyy/yyyyyyyy>yyyyyyy}yyyyyyy/yyyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/. WM&yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/y77z#7, *yyyyyxyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy7777y7? yzzzzzyyzzzzzzzzzzzzzyzzzzzyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz^ ■>yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyJyyyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyyyyy^yyyyyyyyWyyyyy/. yyyyyyyyyyyyy777, y///yyyyy/yyyyy///yyyy//y/yyy/yyy///yyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyy/y////777. vyyyyy/fyyyyyyy;yyyyyyyyWyyyyyy>yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyy>yyyyyyy>yyyyy7y/ yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/y, wyyyyyy>y/yyyyy?yyyyy/y;yy/yy/yy>/yyyyyy>/yyyyyy/Wyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy///////x wzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz WPA 40*9 Chart 3 PROPORTION OF NEGROES AMONG MIGRANTS Macon, Go. Augusta, Ga. Atlanta, Ga. Hampton Roads Area, Ms. Baltimore, Md. Washington, Pa Muskogee, Okla Nashville, Tenn Pittsburgh, Pa. Battle Creek, Mich. Houston, Tex Washington, D. C. Johnstown, Pa Dayton, Ohio Corpus Christi, Tex. Philadelphia, Pa. Wichita Falls, Tex. Greenville, S. C. Hackensack, N J. Warren, etc. Ohio Detroit, Mich. Indianapolis, Ind. La Fayette, Ind. St. Louis, Mo. Kalamazoo, Mich Los Angeles, Calif Quincy, III. Saginaw, Mich. Wichita, Kan. South Bend, Ind Newburgh, N. Y. Oklahoma City, Okla. Terre Haute, Ind. Bridgeport, Conn. San Diego, Calif. Glendole, etc Calif Long Beach, Calif Ft. Smith, Ark. Appleton, Wise. Brockton, Mass Marion, Ohio Bloomfield, N J San Francisco, Calif. Oakland, Calif. Seattle, Wash. Portland, Me Des Moines, Iowa Burlington, Iowa Bristol, Conn. Percent 10 15 20 yyyyYY/YYy//Y//Y/YYY>/Yyyyyyyyyy/YA/AY/YY)yyyJyYyyYyyY>YYyyYyyyWy/>YyYYYyyyy/yy/77A vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yy/yyyyyyyy vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/ ll 7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ AyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyA/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/t TZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZa A//yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyy7i yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyfyyyyyYZA vzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzmzzzza 7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA ^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyJyyy//y/A yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyA W m yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyA Z/////////////77777A WZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ V////////////777A '////////////777A /////////////777A '///////////A V//////////A ////////////A '///////A VYYYYYYA V//////A y//////A yyyyyy/A * * * * * * * * * * * * Less than 0.5 percent WPA 4090 Chart 4 PROPORTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE AT THEIR LAST RESIDENCE Percent 9 12 15 18 21 Detroit, Mich. Nashville, Tenn. Wichita, Kans. Hampton Roads Area.Va. Macon, Ga. Bristol, Conn. St. Louis, Mo. Baltimore, Md. Indianapolis, Ind. Glendale, etc., Calif. Dayton, Ohio Atlanta, Ga. San Diego, Calif. La Fayette, Ind. Houston, Tex. Marion, Ohio Battle Creek, Mich. Quincy, III. Augusta, Ga. Ft. Smith, Ark. Corpus Christi, Tex. Wichita Falls, Tex. Greenville, S C. Oklahoma City, Okla. Burlington, Iowa Los Angeles, Calif. Seattle, Wash. Kalamazoo, Mich. Long Beach, Calif. Appleton, Wis. Oakland, Calif. Warren, etc., Ohio South Bend, Ind. Muskogee, Okla. San Francisco, Calif. Pittsburgh, Pa. Portland, Me. Des Moines, Iowa Terre Haute, Ind. Bloomfield, N. J. Washington, D. C. Bridgeport, Conn Newburgh, N Y. Washington Pa. Johnstown, Pa. Brockton, Mass. Hackensack, N.J. -Philadelphia, Pa. Saginaw, Mich. v////////>///////////////////W/////////////////>/////////>//A ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA ZZZZZZZZZZZZ y/////////zZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi ZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Y//////////Z1 Y/////////Y72 ZZZZZZZZ^^^^WZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA ZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzza zzz 222 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ1 vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYyyyyyyyyYyyyyyyyyyYyyyyyyyyyy zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Y////////y/////////Y////yy///W/////zzzz YZZZZZZZZZ v////////>///////////////////yyyyyy)yyy///y///yyyyy{yyyyy/y/A£yAA Yxwyyy>yyyyyyJ/yyyyyy>yyyyyyJyyyyyyyWyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyArysys6yssss. TO*Jbiy^yyy>yyyyyyyWyyyyy>yyyyAy/yyyyyyy//yy////Yy///////y^/y/yM^ WWSWW///////////"///////////////////////JUS/////////// \&&3^yyyyyWy/yyy>///y/y//yyyyyytyy//yy/yyy/yYy//y/////Y////A :' yyyyy>^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyMjyyyyyyy//yyyyy/^^^ ///////// ss ST7Y///////////////s/////s///ss; A.-. YWYYYY <-xvyyyv> *xyyyyy/yyyyyyy* yy/yyyJyy/yyyyyy/yyyyyAy/yyyy/////y//Y///• • x • x:: • x •: Wyyyyy>yyyAv/yyyyyyJyyyyyyyfyyyyyy/(yy//yyy/yy/yy/{///////frYYYYYy vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/Ayyyyyyy-------- XXXXXXX X>OTOO< '/////////////.' ///////////////////////////////////////////A'■■ Wyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyM- 'yyyyyyyyyyyy-vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy TOSTO vyyyyy/yyyyyy/&yy/&yjyyyy//y}yyyyy/£yyyyyy&yyyyyy?yyyyyyy, ixxxxxxx toto^ TOOTO- syyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyy Ayyyyy>yyyyyyyWyyyyy>yyyyyyyWyyyyy>yyyyyyyWyyyyy>yAyYy- yyyyyyyyyyyyyy vyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyMyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyA ■■■■■,■.■ yyyyyyy^yyyyyy^/yyyy^yyyyyy^yyyyy^yyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyAyyY.- vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyA YyvyyAV/yyyyyy/yyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy\YyyyyyY- \yyy^/f/yM//y//AMYyy¥yyy/^yyyyyytyyyyyyfyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyAyY- ^////////^/^ <&w/[yyyyyy/fyyyyyyy/yy/fr//y//&/>yysyyy>/y/yyy/yysyy*y>/yyyyy\- yyy^/Y//////4//////K//////?///////>//y/yy^////y/>/y////^//////y Yyyyyy/^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy)/yyyyy/yyyyyyy)yyyyyy/yyy\,- wwYyyyyy/y/yyyyyyy>yy^.-y-, kro?/yy^,-,', )&^y/yyyyyyWyyyyy}yyyy/yJyyyyyyy>yyyyyy;yyyyyyy>yyyyyySyyy7yr?. wyxyyy/yyyyy/yyyyyyyy/yyyyyy/yyyyy^yyyyyy>yyyyyyyyyyyyy/yAy:y,-- yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy* yyyyAyyyyyyyAyy////////A////////////.j. ^^y/(yyyyY/>/yyyyy/SsyYyy/yyyyyy/y/yyyy//yyyyyyy/yyyyyyyyA-vs.yt yyyyxyyy/yyyy/y/yyyyyy/yyyy/yy/y/yyy//yy/y///////y/>yyyyyy/y^--^. \yyyxyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyfyyyyy/yy/yyyy>yyyyyy)/////y/yy/x-,-?y. \m^yyyyyyyyyy/yyyyyyYyyyyyy//y//yy)/yyyy/yyyyyyyyyyyyyy77>777r^x- \yyyyyyyy/yyyyyy/yyyy^yyyy///yy/y////y/y/y//>////yy/yyy/yyy>yyyyyA,. >yw/yyy/yyyyy//yyyyyyyyyvy//y/ysyy/yyyyy/y/yyyyyyy>yyyyyy/yAyYy,v, <££X////^//2ijiidyj(yyyy/yy/yyyyY/yy//yy/?//yyyy/y//yyyy)yyyyA. - x -tt1 \yy/yyysWyyyy/y/yyyyyy/y/yyy/////yy//////yyyyyyyy//y////AY\:Y^y ..... ' WPA 4052 Chart 6 HABITABLE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND PERCENT OF WORKERS MIGRATING WITHOUT THEIR FAMILIES Percent 20 30 40 Oklahoma City, Okla. Son Francisco, Calif. Los Angeles, etc., Calif. Houston, Tex. Wichita Falls, Tex. Terre Haute, Ind. Nashville, Tenn. Kalamazoo, Mich. Portland, Me. Long Beach, Calif. Oes Moines, Iowa Wichita, Kans. Augusta, Ga. St. Louis, Mo. San Diego, Calif. Corpus Christi, Tex. Atlanta, Ga. Seattle, Wash. Battle Creek, Mich. Saginaw, Mich. Washington, D C Philadelphia, Pa. La Fayette, Ind. Pittsburgh, Pa. Oakland, Calif. Indianapolis, Ind. South Bend, Ind. Burlington, Iowa Hampton Roads Area, Va. Baltimore, Md. Mocon, Ga. Dayton, Ohio Bridgeport, Conn. Warren, etc., Ohio Bristol, Conn. Y////A Habitable vacancy rates - (number of rental units in good condition per 100 units in the city) Percent of workers migrating without their families WPA 4053 Chart 7 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF MULTI-PERSON MIGRANT FAMILIES (PERCENT DISTRIBUTION) X////A In separate dwelling KXXXXXI Sharing a dwelling L\\\\\l In tourist and trailer camps Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 E 3 In hotels 90 100 Wichita Falls, Tex. Bridgeport, Conn. Greenville, S C. Washington, Pa. Marion, Ohio Burlington, Iowa San Diego, Calif. Warren,etc., Ohio Kalamazoo, Mich. Baltimore, Md. Wichita, Kans. Battle Creek, Mich. Washington, D C. Detroit, Mich. Pittsburgh, Pa. Augusta, Ga. Dayton, Ohio Hampton Roads Area.Va Bristol, Conn. Corpus Christi, Tex. Indianapolis, Ind. South Bend, Ind. Portland, Me. Philadelphia, Pa. Glendale.etc., Calif. Atlanta, Ga. Seattle, Wash. Quincy, III. Los Angeles, Calif. Macon, Ga. Newburgh, N Y. Houston, Tex. Hackensack, N. J. Oakland, Calif. Long Beach, Calif. Saginaw, Mich. St. Louis, Mo. San Francisco, Calif. Ft. Smith, Ark. La Fayette, Ind. Des Moines, Iowa Brockton, Mass. Oklahoma City, Okla. Nashville, Tenn. Muskogee, Okla. Terre Haute, Ind. Johnstown, Pa. Appleton, Wis. V////////////////////////////////////////////ZZZ V///////////////////////////////////////////7777, ^y////////////////////y///////y/////////////////>. ?ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ£ T , v/////y//////>//////>//////>//////>//////>//////>///vyy&y////y//y/A