MICHIGAN
MIGRANTS
MARCH
19 3 9
t r 13
works progress administration
division of research
M-1767
14309
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
F, C. Harrington, Administrator
Corrington Gill, Assistant Administrator
DIVISION OF RESEARCH
Howard B, Myers, Director
MICHIGAN MIGRANTS
By
Albert Westefeld
Under the supervision of
John N. Webb
Chief, Urban Surveys Section
Washington: March 1939
14309
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
The Michigan Census... 4
The Mobility Study 5
Personal characteristics 7
Age 7
Color or race 8
Education 9
Marital condition ' 10
Family relationship 10
Social-economic class 11
Age, sex, and marital condition in urban-rural inter¬
change 13
Tables
Table
1. Age 16
2. Color or race 17
3. Education 18
4. Marital condition: all ages 19
5. Marital condition: age 20-24 20
6. Marital condition: age 25-44 21
7. Marital condition: age 45-64 22
8. Marital condition: age 65 and over 23
9. Family relationship: all ages 24
10. Family relationship: age 20-24 ....................... 25
11. Family relationship: age 25-44 26
12. Family relationship: age 45-64 27
13. Family relationship: age 65 and over 28
14. Social-economic cla.ss 29
15. Urban-rural interchange, by sex and age 30
16. Urban-rural interchange, by marital condition: all
ages 31
17. Urban-rural interchange, by marital condition: age
15-24 32
18. Urban-rural interchange, by marital condition: age
25-44 33
19. Urban-rural interchange, by marital condition: age
45-64 34
20. Urban-rural interchange, by marital condition: age
65 and over 35
14309
INTRODUCTION
The growing literature on migration is evidence that increas¬
ed attention is being given to this important social phenomenon.
The present interest is in large part a result of the social and
economic problems growing out of the depression. Many people who
found it impossible to obtain employment in their home community
migrated in the hope of finding employment or maintaining themselves
elsewhere. The failure of some part of this group to find work has
created serious problems of relief and rehabilitation that are too
great to be solved by many of the localities affected.
In this situation the Federal Government went to the aid
of distressed migrants by initiating such measures as the Transient
Relief Program, which operated from 1933 to 1935. For a time also
the Government actively encouraged certain kinds of migration in
an effort to assist the individuals concerned to achieve security.
Perhaps tho best known example of this phase of governmental interest
in migration was the Resettlement Administration's program of assist¬
ing distressed farmers to move to farms where they had a bettor
chance to make a living.
With migration again playing an important part in current
thought and action, as it has at times past in American history,
there has arisen a demand for further information about migration
and migrants. An opportunity ox obtaining such information was
provided in 1938 by a special tabulation of the mobility material
from the schedules of the Michigan. Census of Population and Un-
14309
- 2 -
employment which was taken in 1935.
The material obtained, from this census covers the period
April 1930 to January 1935 and therefore provides information about
migration during both the decline and the first stages of improvement
in economic activity. The material from the Michigan census illustrates
also how migration operates in different types of communities,
since Michigan includes within its borders not only large manu¬
facturing cities and prosperous farming areas in the southern
part of the State, but also chronically depressed mining and
lumbering communities and submarginal agricultural areas in the
cutover lands of the northern part of the State.
The present bulletin supplies basic information on one
aspect of migration in Michigan, namely the personal characteristics
of workers who moved during the survey period. Two other reports
based on the special tabulation have already been published, and a
fourth will appear after the release of this bulletin.
The first report dealt with the relationship between
relief and labor mobility.-^ It found that, while some movement
occurred either to obtain relief or to insure eligibility for
relief, most of the moves made by recipients of public assistance
had no immediate connection with relief. In general, the more
moves a worker made, the less likely were those moves to be pre¬
ceded or followed by relief. Furthermore, unemployed workers did
not "shop around" in search of the most liberal relief grants.
1/ Webb, John N., and Westcfeld, Albert, "Labor Mobility and
Relief," Monthly Labor Review. January 1939.
14309
- 3 -
The conclusion of this article was that relief and the movement
of workers have a common cause in unemployment.
The second report dealt with some industrial aspects of
labor mobility.fi/ This report found that the most mobile workers
wore those who usually worked in the extractive industries, such
as forestry and mining, while workers continuously unemployed
during the study period were among the least mobile. There was
a pronounced movement of industrial workers into agriculture dur¬
ing the recession phase of the depression, while during the period of
business improvement many workers moved from agriculture into the manu¬
facturing industries. The seasonal movements of workers were
found to be related to seasonal changes in the activity of the
industry they entered.
The report that is to follow the present bulletin deals
with certain aspects of interstate migration that concern the
administration of unemployment insurance. The migration to
Michigan from other States is examined to see what proportion
of persons were unemployed after moving, and what shifts occurred
between industries covered by unemployment compensation laws and
industries not so covered. The report also deals with the United
States census region of origin of migrants entering specified
industries in Michigan.
Before presenting the findings of the present report, a
short description of the Michigan census and the nobility study
27 Uobb, John 1J., and Wostefcld, Albert, "Industrial Aspects
of Labor Mobility," Monthly Labor Review. April 1939.
14309
- 4 -
is necessary to permit proper interpretation of the tables.
The Michigan Census
The Michigan Census of Population and Unemployment was
conducted during the early months of 1935 as a special work pro¬
ject of the Michigan State Emergency Relief Administration.^/
The enumeration was conducted on a 20 percent sample basis for
some types of communities, and on a complete enumeration basis
for others. Where less than the total population was enumerated,
care was taken to secure a cross-section of the population that
was representative of the whole. About 522,000 census schedules,
each representing a household, were taken; these covered about 40
percent of the total population of the State.
The /schedule used in the Michigan census included a per¬
sonal characteristics section and a work history section. The
latter showed, for all persons over 15 on the enumeration date
(January 14, 1935), each job and each period of unemployment or
not seeking v/ork lasting a month or more since April 1930. In
addition, there was entered the place of work corresponding to
each employment period, and the place of residence corresponding
to each period of unemployment or not seeking work.
3/ The population and unemployment data obtained by the census
were published in 1936 in a series of bulletins by the
Michigan State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission.
14309
- 5 -
The Mobility Study
The labor mobility study was based upon a sample of 120,247
schedules, approximately 23 percent of those taken in the Michigan
census. These schedules were carefully selected to yield a repre¬
sentative sample of the population of the State as a whole.
The definition of mobility was largely determined by the
nature of the information on the census schedule. A move was re¬
corded whenever the work history showed a change in community under
one of the following circumstances: (l) Between places of work when
the person was employed both before and after moving, (2) between
places of residence when the person was unemployed both before and
after moving, or unemployed at one end of the move and not seeking
work e,t the other, or (3) between place of work and place of resi¬
dence when the person was employed at one end of the move and unem¬
ployed or not seeking work at the other, provided in this case that
the move ?;as longer than between adjoining counties. The last
restriction was adopted in order to eliminate short-distance "com¬
muting" type moves which did not involve a definite transfer of
workers within the labor market.
4~[ The tabulation of the mobility data from the Michigan census
schedule was a cooperative undertaking of the Michigan State
Emergency Belief Administration, the Michigan Works Progress
Administration, and the Division of Social Research of the
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
The results of an earlier experimental tabulation of the
mobility data were described in a bulletin Mobility of Labor
in Michigan, by John N. Webb, Albert Westefeld, and Albert H.
Huntington, published in 1937 by the Michigan State Emer¬
gency Welfare Belief Commission. The data of the earlier report
and those of the present report are not strictly comparable,
chiefly because the experimental tabulation revealed that a
change in the definition of mobility was desirable.
14309
- 6 -
One other restriction must he noted. In all of the tables
presented here in which the individual worker is the unit of tabula¬
tion, only those persons are reported who were in the labor market,
i.e., working or seeking work, for the full 57-month period studied.
This procedure was adopted to secure a group that had uniform "ex¬
posure" to labor market :mobility. Of. the 188,757 workers included
in the mobility study, 149,379 were in the labor market for the full
period studied.
In the following tables in which the individual worker
is the unit of tabulation, a uniform system of measuring mobility
is used. In the first place, the workers are classified according
to the longest move made during the study period. The total of the
workers moving one or more times serves as a further concise measure
of mobility. Finally, account is taken of the number of moves made
by workers who moved; this is expressed by the mobility rate, i.e.,
the number of moves per 100 workers moving. Each table presents
data separately for male and female workers.
14309
- 7 -
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Age - Table 1
The age classification in table 1 relates to the worker's
age at the end of the survey period. Therefore, many of the moves
occurred at a somewhat earlier age than that recorded in the table.
For the entire group of workers represented in this table,
the percentage making one or more moves was 11.9. One reason for
this relatively low proportion moving is that short-distance "com¬
muting" type moves were excluded from the study. Furthermore,
since this group was in the labor market for the full period studied,
it included a large proportion of older, and less mobile, workers.
Another reason is that during the period covered by the study,
industrial activity was at a comparatively low level in Michigan.
This caused a small net movement out of the State, §/ and, since the
persons who did not return to Michigan before Jamiary 1935 could
not be included in the study, the amount of mobility recorded was
therefore somewhat reduced. Finally, it should be noted that there
was some loss of information from the failure of workers to remember
all moves made during the earlier part of the census period.
Table 1 shows a marked tendency for mobility to decrease
as age increases. This tendency is especially evident in the case
of male workers, not only in all classifications of longest move
completed, but also in the mobility rates. Among female workers
17 See above, page 5.
6/ Tne population of Michigan declined by 2.8 percent from April
1930 to January 1935. See Michigan Census of Population and
Unemployment, Age, Sex and Employment Status of Workers in Five
Types of Communities. Lansing 1936, p. 1.
14309
- 8 -
the decline in mobility with increasing age was less marked, a slight
tendency for mobility to rise in the later age groups being observ-*
able in both the percentages moving and the mobility rates#
At all ages males were more mobile than females, but the
differences were greatest in the earlier age groups#
Color or race ~ Table 2
"Other" races included Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, Japanese,
etc. The group of "other" races (of which Mexicans were the most
numerous) had the largest proportion of workers moving, especially
of workers making interstate moves, and also had the highest mobility
rate.
For both males and females, whites were more mobile than
Negroes, the higher mobility of the white workers being due chiefly
to movement between counties in Michigan# One reason for the low
mobility of Negroes is that they were concentrated in a few areas
of Michigan and presumably had fewer employment opportunities than
whites in other parts of the State. Furthermore, it was especially
true of Negroes that many who had shown high mobility by migrating
to Michigan during the prosperous 1920's left Michigan during the
depression, and, if they did not return before the census date, could
not be included in this study#
It is noteworthy that among whites approximately twice as
high a proportion of males moved as did females, while among Negroes
the two sexes moved in approximately equal proportions. The probable
explanation of this finding lies in the occupational attachment of
white and Nogro workers# Both male arid female Negro workers engage
predominantly in unskilled occupations; this tends to narrow the
14309
- 9 -
differential in mobility between the sexes. Among white workers,
however, a relatively larger proportion of women than of men work
in clerical occupations, in which mobility is low; this tends to
increase the differential in mobility between the sexes.
Education - Table 3
Education was measured in terms of the last school year
successfully completed as of the census date.
While there is some indication that the proportion of work¬
ers moving rises with increasing amounts of education, the findings
in table 3 are by no means conclusive on this point. The low mobil¬
ity of those persons who had the least education is in part due to
their greater age.
For both males and females the highest proportion of work¬
ers moving was found among those who attended but did not complete
college, and among those who attended but did not complete high
school. Apparently the completion of a college course or the stop¬
ping of formal education upon graduation from high school is related
in some way, possibly through successful occupational adjustment,
to stability. Or, looked at in another way, the same forces that
cause an interruption of education beyond the grade school level
are likely to cause a worker to shift about more upon entering the
labor market.
The nobility rates indicate that the frequency of movement
was greatest among persons who had started but not completed high
school.
14309
- 10 -
Marital condition - Tables 4-8
Marital condition was reported as of the census date.
Some of the movement recorded in tables 4-8 therefore occurred
at a time when the worker's marital condition was different from
that at the end of the survey period. Since the proportion of
persons of a given marital condition varies greatly with age, the
marital condition tables are presented separately for different age
classes.
At all ages, divorced males and females showed the great¬
est tendency to make one or more moves. Except in the case of male
workers aged 20—24, marriage wa.s a stabilizing influence for both
sexes and at all ages. Again \vith the exception just noted, single
and widowed males and females were at all ages more mobile than
married persons and less mobile than divorced persons.
Family relationship - Tables 9-13
Family relationship was reported as of the census date
and therefore, as in the case of marital condition, was in some
cases not descriptive of the worker's status at the time of moving.
A family head was defined in this study as the economic
head of a multi-person family unit. (A family unit in the Michigan
Census was defined as a husbanjl and wife with or without children,
or a man or woman with children.) The family head might have been
the head of either a primary or a secondary family living in the
household. Family members were defined .as other workers in the house¬
hold related to their respective family head. Unattached workers
were persons living alone, or single persons living in a household
14309
11
in which they were not related to any member of the family; they
included single lodgers, servants, friends, etc. Since family re¬
lationship varies according to age, the findings are presented
separately for the different age groups.
With the exception of one class, namely males over 65,
unattached workers at all ages were more likely to make one or more
moves than were family heads or members. Undoubtedly, many of the
moves of male family members over 65 occurred at the time of moving
in with the family with which they were residing at the time the
census was taken.
Among males aged 20—24 more family heads moved than did
family members, while at ages of 25 and over, more male family mem¬
bers moved than did heads. Female heads and family members were
about equally mobile at ages 20 to 44, but at ages 45 and over
family members wore more mobile than family heads.
Those data indicate that for both males and females family
support was a stabilizing influence. Although the need for employ¬
ment is greatest for the chief breadwinner of a family, his family
ties limit him more definitely to the local labor market.
Social-economic class - Table 14
The social—economic class was based upon the worker's
usual occupation, i.e., the occupation at which he worked longest
during the census period. Persons who had no employment during this
period, but who were in the labor market, were classified as Unem¬
ployed in table 14. The remainder of the social-economic classifi¬
cation follows the usage established in the United States Bureau
of the Census.
14309
— 12
Male agricultural workers, especially farm laborers, showed
a greater tendency to move than did nonagricultural workers. In
the case of female workers, however, the nonagricultural group was
more mobile than the agricultural. For both males and females, the
frequency of movement, as indicated by the mobility rates, was
slightly higher among nonagricultural than among agricultural workers.
Among the white collar classes, professional persons showed
a greater tendency to move than proprietors and clerical workers.
Male proprietors and clerical workers were equally mobile, but fe¬
male proprietors were more mobile than female clerical workers.
The high proportion of women workers in the clerical class is an
important reason for the low mobility of women shown by the other
tables in this report.
For both male and female urban manual workers, the highest
mobility was associated with the lowest level of skill. Part of
this relationship is explained by the greater age of the skilled
workers, but part is probably due also to the greater insecurity of the
less skilled workers.
Workers continuously unemployed during the survey period
fell into two groups as far as mobility was concerned. As shorn
by the mobility rates, the group that moved did so as often as the
employed groups. However, a much smaller proportion of the continu¬
ously unemployed group made one or more moves than did the employed
groups. Part of this relationship is explained by the greater age
of a longtime unemployed group. In addition, long-continued uncm-
14309
- 13 -
ploymont malcos the worker less able to seek a labor-market adjust¬
ment. Finally, many of those persons received relief, which normal¬
ly tends to hold population in place. 2/
Urban-rural intorchange - Tables 15-20
In these tables the unit of tabulation shifts to the indi¬
vidual move* It is therefore possible to combine the moves of per¬
sons who were continuously in the labor market during the study period
with the moves of persons who were in the labor market for only part
of that period* Since the Michigan census ascertained the urban
or rural character only of places in the State of Michigan, inter¬
state moves are excluded from tables 15 - 20. Furthermore, only
those intrastate moves are included for which the urban or rural
character, and the age and marital condition of the person moving,
were known* Finally, it should be noted that urban places were de¬
fined in the Michigan census as communities of 3,000 or more popu¬
lation, and rural places as communities of less than 3,000 popula¬
tion or open country locations.
Three—fourths of the intrastate moves wore made by male
workers. 'The excess of males over females was greatest in the move¬
ment between rural communities and least in the movement from urban
to rural communities*
More than half of the moves of rale workers wore made by
persons aged 25 to 44, while more than two-thirds of the moves of
female workers were made by persons aged 15 to 24. The explanation
7] For a fuller discussion of this point see Webb, John N. and
Westofold, Albert, "labor Mobility and Relief," Monthly Labor
Review, January 1939.
14309
- 14 -
of this result is that the group of women here surveyed included
a large number of persons who worked for a short tine while young
and then withdrew from the labor market.
The most important shifts of male workers were as follows:
From rural areas to cities at ages 15 to 24; between cities at ages
25 to 44; and between rural areas, or from cities to rural areas,
at ages 45 and over. For female workers the most significant shifts
were as follows: From rural areas to cities, or between rural areas,
at ages 15 to 24; between cities at ages 25 to 44; from cities to
rural areas at ages 45 to 64; and between rural areas at ages 45
and over.
In tables 16-20 the urban-rural interchange is investi¬
gated in terms of the marital condition and age (both as of the
census date) of the migrants.
Single males and females accounted for the largest pro¬
portion of moves made by persons aged 15-24. The preponderance of
single persons was greatest in the movement from one rural area to
another, and least in the movement from one city to another.
At ages 25 to 44 most of the moves were made by married
persons. Among males the proportion of married persons was highest
in the movement between cities, while among femaleg the proportion
was highest in the movement between country areas.
At ages 45 to 64 married migrants again predominated,
but widowers were about as numerous as single men, and widows were
nearly four times as numerous as single women. The proportion of
married and widowed men was largest, and the proportion of single
14309
- 15 -
moil smallest, in the movement from country to city. In the case
of women, there was'a preponderance of widows in the rural-urban
movement.
Married persons made up the largest group in the move¬
ment of persons aged 65 and over. Widowed persons, especially
among female migrants, were also important. The data for the dif¬
ferent typos of rural and urban movement are too scanty in this
age class to permit comparisons of the marital condition of migrants.
Finally, it should be noted that at all ages divorced
persons accounted for relatively little of the movement recorded
in these tables.
Table 1—Mobility and Age. ^
vo
Longest move completed Age
and sex
Total
20-21+
25-3k
35-1^
05-50
55-6O
65 and over
Both sexes
1^9,379V
15.882
bo,78k
39,528
29,833
16,713
6,560
Male
127,209
11,832
33,767
3l+,687
26,302
l0,752
5,772
Female
22,170
0,050
7,017
l+,8la
3,091
l,96l
788
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
11.9
19 .0
15.1
10.8
8.9
8.0
5.2
Intracounty
2.8
0.1
3 -k
2.8
2.0
2.0
1.0
Intercounty
5.7
10.3
6.7
k.9
0.3
0.1
2.7
Interstate
3-0
5.o
5.0
3.1
2.2
1.9
1.1
Not moving
88.1
80.6
80-9
89.2
91.1
92.0
90.8 ,
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I—1
100.0
Moving
12.8
22.5
16.9
11.5
9.6
8.3
5.2 '
Intracounty
3.1
b. 7
3.8
3.0
2.5
2.1
1.5
Intercounty
6.1
12.2
7.6
5.2
0.7
0.3
2.6
Interstate
3.6
5.6
5.5
3.3
2.0
1.9
1.1
Hot moving
87.2
77.5
83.1
88.5
90.0
91.7
90.8
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
6.8
9.9
7.1
5.3
0.9
6.0
0.9
Inc racounty
1.5
2.1
1.1+
1 .k
1.3
1.0
1.0
Intercounty
3.2
1+.6
3.k
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.8
Interstate
2.1
3-2
2.3
1.6
1.1
1.8
1.1
Not moving
93.2
90.1
92.9
9k-7
95.1
9O.0
95.1
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
105
152
150
ll+l
1O0
135
121
Male
107
156
152
11+2
1O1
135
121
Female
126
127
126
122
132
128
*
* Mobility rate not calculated on base of fewer than 50 cases,
a/includes 79 cases for"which age was not ascertainable.
Table 2 - Mobility and Color or Race
Longest move completed Color or race
and sex Total White Negro Other
Both sexes
149,379
143,470
5,389
520
Male
127,209
122,553
4,180
476
Female
22,170
20,917
1,209
lih
Percent
Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
11.9
12.1
6.7
16.8
Intracounty
2.8
2.9
2.0
2.3
Intercounty
5.7
5.8
1.8
8.5
Interstate
3.4
3.4
2.9
6.0
Not moving
88.1
87.9
93.3
83.2
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
12.8
13.1
6.9
17.2
Intracounty
3-1
3.1
2.0
2.5
• Intercounty
6.1
6.3
2.1
8.4
Interstate
3.6
3-7
2.8
6.3
Not moving
87.2
86.9
93-1
82.8
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
*
Moving
6.8
6.8
5.6
*
Intracounty
1.5
1.5
1.9
-
Intercounty
3.2
3-3
0.7
*5^
Interstate
2.1
2.0
3.0
*
Not moving
93.2
93-2
94.4
*
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
145
145
132
160
Male
147
147
135
163
Female
126
127
119
*
* Percentage or mobility rate not calculated
on base of fearer than 50
cases.
Longest move completed
and sex Last grade completed
Total 0 1-4 5-7 8 9-11 12 13-15 16 & over
Both sexes
149,379V
4.3W*
10,205
24,643
47,504
26,810
22,788
5,178
7,292
Male
127,209
3,932
9,420
22,221
42,107
22,538
17,104
3,771
5,570
Female
22,170
412
783
2,422
5,397
4,272
5,684
1,407
1,722
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
11.9
8.0
9.5
11.8
12.2
13.8
11.3
14.3
10.5
Intracounty
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.2
2.5
1.4
Intercounty
5.7
3.2
4.5
5.8
5.8
6.7
5.3
6.7
5.0
Interstate
3.4
1.8
2.0
2.8
3.3
4a
3.8
5.1
4.1
Hot moving
08.1
92.0
90.5
88.2
87.8
86.2
88.7
85.7
89.5
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
12.8
8.6
10.0
12.4
13.0
15.1
13.0
16.0
11.7
Intracounty
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.2
2.6
2.8
1.6
Intercounty
6.1
3.4
4.7
6.1
6.2
7.4
6.0
7.2
5.4
Interstate
3.6
2.0
2.1
2.9
3.5
4.5
4.4
6.0
4.7
Not moving
87.2
91.4
90.0
87.6
87.0
84.9
87.0
84.0
88.3
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
6.8
3.7
4.8
6.7
6.6
7.1
6.3
9.8
6.4
Intracounty
i.5
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.1
1.8
0.8
Intercounty
3.2
2.2
1.8
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
5.3
3.5
Interstate
2.1
0.5
1.7
2.0
1.8
2.3
2.1
2.7
2.1
Hot moving
93.2
96.3
95.2
93.3
93.4
92.9
93.7
90.2
93.6
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
145
139
138
144
147
152
1.42
142
127
Male
147
139
139
145
148
153
145
147
128
Female
126
♦
129
125
138
124
117
121
* Mobility rate not calculated on base of fewer than 50 cases*
a Inclu.des 617 cases for which last grade completed was not ascertainable..
Table h - Mobility and Marital Conditions All Ages
Marital condition
Longest move completed
and sex
Total
Single
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Both sexes
149,379 a/
36,302
100,050
8,496
4,498
Male
127,209
25,563
94,208
4,6l6
2,803
Female
22,170
10,739
5,8/(2
3,880
1,695
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
11.9
ll+. 2
11.4
8.5
13.6
Intracounty
2.8
.2.7
3.0
2.0
2.8
Intercounty
5.7
7.1
5.J
4.2
6.0
Interstate
3«4
4.4
3.1
2.3
4.8
Not moving
88.1
85.8
88.6
91.5
86.4
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
12.8
16.7
11.8
10.8
17.0
Intracounty
3.1
3.2
3.1
2.5
3.3
Intercounty
6.1
8.4
5.5
5.5
7.5
Interstate
3.6
5.1
3.2
2.8
6.2
Not Moving
87.2
83.3
88.2
89.2
83.0
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
6.8
8.1
4.3
5.9
8.3
Intracounty
1-5
1.6
1.1
1.4
2.1
Intercounty
3.2
3.8
2.2
2.7
3.7
Interstate
2.1
2.7
1.0
1.8
2.5
Not moving
93.2
91.9
95.7
94.1
91.7
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
145
151
143
137
141
Male
1/4.7
156
143
140
145
Female
126
127
121
130
128
a/ Includes 33 cases for which marital condition was
ascertainable.
not ascertainable,
end 79 cases for which age
was not
Table 5 - Mobility and Marital Condition: Age 20-2U
Marital condition
Longest move completed ~~ ~~
and sex Total Single Married TTidowed Divorced
Both sexes
15,832 a/
11,554
4,085
43
195
Male
11,832
8,207
3,521
18
85
Female
1L,050
3,3-47
564
25
110
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
♦
100.0
Moving
19.li.
17.9
23.0
*
22.5
Intracounty
4.1
3.5
5.6
4.1
Intercounty
10.3
10.0
11.0.
♦
9.7
Interstate
5.0
4.4
6,4
*
8.7
Not moving
80,6
82.1
77.0
♦
77.5
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
*
100.0
Moving
22.5
21.0
25.6
*
36.5
Intracounty
4.7
4.0
6.4
7.1
Intercounty
12.2
12.1
12.2
♦
17.6
Interstate
5.6
4.9
7.0
*
11.8
Not moving
77.5
79.0
74.4
63.5
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
*
100.0
Moving
9.9
10.5
6.9
♦
11.8
Intracounty
2.1
2.3
1.1
1.8
Intercounty
4.6 -
4.9
3.5
*
3.6
Interstate
3.2
3.3
2.3
♦
3.4
Not moving
.90.1
89.5
93.1
*
88.2
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
152
152
151
*
*
Male
156
157
153
♦
*
Female
127
129
♦
♦
♦
bJ Includes 5 oases for v/hich marital condition vias not ascertainable.
Percentage or mobility rate not calculated on base of fewer than. 50 cases.
Table 6 - Mobility and Marital Condition: Age 23—Uh
Marital condition
Longest move completed
and sex Total Single Married "Widowed Divorced
Both sexes
80,512 a/
19,430
56,113
2,017
2,737
Male
68,454
13,498
52,448
939
1,560
Female
11,858
5,932
3,665
1,078
1,177
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
13.0
13.1
13.0
10.1
14.2
Intracounty
3-1
2.5
3.3
2.8
2.8
Intercounty
5.9
5.9
5.9
4.5
6.0
Interstate
ij-.o
4.7
5.8
2.8
5.4
Not moving
87.0
86.9
87.0
89.9
85.8
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
111-. 2
15.6
13.6
15-4
18.5
Intracounty
3.4
3.°
3.4
4.3
3-3
Intercounty
6.4
6.9
6.2
7.3
7.7
Interstate
4.4
5.7
4.0
3.8
7.5
Not moving
85.8
84.4
86.4
84.6
81.5
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
6.1}.
7-4
4.3
5.5
c.5
Intracounty
1-1+
1.3
1.2
1.6
2.2
Intercounty
3-0
3.5
2.1
2.0
3.7
Interstate
2.0
2.6
1.0
1.9
2.6
Not moving
93.6
92.6
95-7
94.5
91.5
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
ln.6
152
145
139
139
Male
lLj.8
157
146
i4o
142
Female
125
126
121
119
129
a/ Includes 15 cases for -which marital condition was not ascertainable.
Longest move completed
and sex
Marital condition
Total Single Married Widened Divorced
Both sexes
2+6, 52+6 a/
M30
35,351
2;, 902
1,201
Male
2+1,092+
3,2+85
33,850
2,69k
1,057
Female
5,2+52
1,32-5-5
1,501
2,208
39b
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
8.7
9.6
8.3
8.9
12.1
Intracounty
2.3
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.8
Intercounty
h. 3
2i-9
2+.1
24.5
5.9
Interstate
2.1
3.0
1.9
2.2+
3.2;
Not moving
91.3
90 .2+
91.7
91.1
87.9
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
9.1
11.5
8.5
11.1
13.9
Intracounty
2.2*
1.9
2.2+
2.3
3.1
Intercounty
k.5
6.0
2+.1
5.9
6.6
Interstate
2.2
3.6
2.0
2.9
k.2
Not moving
90.9
88.5
91.5
83.9
86.1
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
5.3
5.0
3.2;
6.3
7.1
Intracounty
1.3
l.l
1.0
1.5
2.0
Intereounty
2.6
2.3
2.1
2.9
3.8
Interstate
1.2-!-
1.6
0.3
1.9
1.3
Not moving
9k.7
95.0
96.6
93.7
92.9
Mobility
Rates
Both sexes
138
120
137
138
li+6
Male
139
124-7
137
139
12+8
Female
150
119
122
137
A
a/ Includes 12 cases for rdiich marital conditions was not ascertainable.
T Mobility rate not calculated on base of fever than 50 cases.
Table 8 — Mobility and Marital Condition: Age 65 and Over
£-
Marital condition
Longest move completed
o
VD
and sex Total Single Married TTidcnved Divorced
Both sexes
6,560 a/
455
4,465
1,528
ill
Male
5,772
357
4,353
963
98
Female
788
98
112
565
13
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
5.2
6.8
4.9
5.3
8.1
Intracounty
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.8
Intercounty
2.7
4.4
2.4
2.8
4.5
Interstate
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.8
hot moving
94.8
93.2
95.1
94.7
91.9
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
5.2
7.2
4.9
5.4
8.1
Intracounty
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.1
2.0
Intercounty
2.6
5.0
2.4
2.6
4.1
Interstate
1.1
0.8
1*0
1.7
2.0
Not moving
94.8
92.8
95.1
94.6
91.9
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
♦
Moving
4.9
5.0
2.7
5.4
*
Intracounty
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
-
Intercounty
2.8
2.0
0.9
3.2
*
Interstate
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.1
-
Not moving
95.1
95.0
97.3
94.6
■a.
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
121
A
119
122
JL
Male
121
*
120
121
A
Female
♦
*
*
t
*
a/ Includes 1 case for vrhich marital condition iras not ascertainable.
* Percentage or mobility rate not calculated on base of fevrer than 50 cases.
Table 9—Mobility and Family Relationship: All Ages
Longest move completed Family relationship
and sex Total Heads Members Unattached
Both sexes
l49,379a
103,12U
28,793
17,462
Male
127,209
98,917
16,674
11,618
Female
22,170
4,207
12,119
5,8144
Percent Distributi
ons
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
11.9
11.3
12,0
15.9
Intracounty
2.8
3.0
2.4
2.7
Intercounty
5.7
5.3
6,0
7.8
Interstate
3.4
3.0
3.6
5.4
Not moving
88,1
88.7
88,0
84.1
Male
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
Moving
12.8
11.6
17.2
17.9
Intracounty
3.1
3.1
3.4
2.8
Intercounty
6.1
5.4
8.7
8.8
Interstate
3.6
3.1
5.1
6.3
Not moving
37.2
88.4
82.8
82,1
Female
100,0
loo.cr
100,0
100.0
Moving
6,8
4.3
5.2
11.8
Intracounty
1.5
1.2
1.2
2J4
Intercounty
3.2
1.9
2.4
5.8
Interstate
2,1
1.2
1.6
3.6
Not moving
93.2
95.7
94.8
88.2
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
si45
143
152
143
Male
147
344
158
147
Female
126
119
126
129
a Includes 79 oases
for Tfhich age was not asc
ertainable.
Table 10——Mobility and Family Relationship: Age 20—2I4.
NO
Longest move conflated Family relationship
and sex Total Heads Members "Unattached
Both sexes
15,882
4,242
9,930
1,710
Male
11,832
4,011
6,922
899
Female
4,050
231
3,008
811
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
ioo.o
100*0
100.0
100,0
Moving
19.4
23.7
15.7
29.8
Intracounty
4.1
6.0
3.2
4.6
Intercoimty
'10*3
11.5
8.7
16.3
Intel-state
5.0
6.2
3.8
8.9
Hot moving
80*6
76.3
8^.3
70.2
Male
100,0
100.(3
100.0
100.0
Moving
22*5
247
19.5
36.0
Intracounty
4.7
6.3
3.8
4.8
Intercoimty
12*2
12.0
11.3
20.2
Interstate
5.6
6,4
ll ©M-
11,0
Not moving
77.5
75.3
80.5
64.0
Female
100*0
100*0
100.0
100*0
Moving
9.9
6.9
6.8
23.0
Intracounty
2.X
1.7
1.6
4.3
Intercounty
4.6
2.6
2*8
12.0
Interstate
5.2
2.6
2.4
6.7
Not moving
90,1
93.1
93.2
77.0
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
152
152
156
l4l
Male
156
153
160
148
Female
127
*
127
128
* Mobility rate not
on
base cf fovrer than 50 cases*
Table 11—Mobility-and Family Relationship? Age 25-44
Longest move completed
Family relationship
and sex
Total
Heads
Members
Unattached
Both sexes
80,312
56,aL.3
14,647
8,822
Male
68,454
54,688
7,852
5,914
Female
11,858
2,155
6,795
2,908
Percent
Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
*\oo.o
100.0
100.0
Moving
13.0
'' 13.0
10.8
16.4
Intraoounty
3.1
3.3
2.2
2.7
Intercounty
5.9
5.9
4.8
7.5
Interstate
4.0'
3.8
3.8
6,2
Not moving
87.0
87.0
89.2
83.6
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100,0
Moving
14.2
13.3
16.1
18.9
Intraoounty
3.4
3.4
3.2
2.9
Intercounty
6.4
6.1
7.1
8.5
Interstate
4.4
3.8
5.8
7.5
Not moving
85.8
86.7
83.9
81.1
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
6.4
4.9
4.6
ii.4
Intraoounty
1.4
1.3
1.0
2.2
Interoounty
3.0
2.1
2.2
5.4
Interstate
2.0
1.5
1.4
3.8
Not moving
93.6
95.1
95.4
88.6
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
.146
li+6
151
145
Male
li+8
l46
158
150
Female
125
120
124
128
Table 12—Ilobili-fcy and Family Relationship: Age 1*5-614
Longest move completed Family relationship
and sex Total Heads Members Unattached
Both sexes
9-6, 586
37,082
3,819-
5,650
Male
9-1,099-
35,9.87
1,669.
3,99-3
Female
5,9-52
1,595
2,150
1,707
Percent
Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
0.7
8.0
8.3
12.7
Intracounty
2.3
2.3
1.5
2.9-
Intercounty
9-3
3.9
9-.0
6.5
Interstate
2.1
1.8
2.8
3.8
Hot moving
91.3
92.0
91.7
87.3
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
9.1
8.2
13.5
19.5
Intracounty
2.9-
2.9-
2.2
2.6
Intercounty
9-5
9-.0
6.3
7.6
Interstate
2.2
1.8
5.0
9-3
Hot moving
90.9
91.8
86.5
85.5
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
5.3
3.5
9-2
8.2
Intracounty
1.3
1.1
0.9
2.0
Intercounty
2.6
1.8
2.2
3.8
Interstate
1.9-
0.6
1.1
2.9-
Hot moving
99-7
96.5
95.8
91.8
Mobil
ity Pates
Both sexes
130
137
lij.2
19.1
Male
139
137
l9-6
19-2
Femal e
130
118
131
135
Table 13 — Mobility and Family Relationship: Age 65 and Over
Longest move completed Family relationship
and sex
Total Heads Members Unattached
Both sexes
6,560
k, 911
588
l,26l
Made
5,772
1i-,692
229
351
Female
788
219
159
bio
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
5.2
1+.6
6.7
7.0
Intracounty
1.1-
1.5
1.3
1.1
Intercounty
2.7
2.2
k.6
3.8
Interstate
1.1
0.9
0.8
2.1
Hot moving
9h.8
95.b
93.3
93.0
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
5.2
b»8
7.9
6.8
Intracounty
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.1
Intercounty
2.6
2.3
5.7
3.6
Interstate
1.1
o»9
0.9
2.1
Not moving
9h.8
95.2
92.1
93-2
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
b. 9
0.5
5.o
7.3
Intracounty
1.0
0.5
1.8
1.2
Intercounty
2.8
-
3.1
1^.1
Interstate
1.1
-
0.6
2.0
Not moving
95.1
99.5
95.o
92.7
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
121
122
*
120
Male
121
122
*
121
Female
*
*
*
*
* Mobility rate not calculated on base of fewer than 50 cases.
Table 11+ - Mobility and Social-Economic Class
Longest move
Nonagricultural
As
ricultural
Unem-
rjl avaH
completed
Total
Profes¬
Propri¬
Cler¬
Semi¬
Un¬
Propri¬
Un¬
and sex
Total
sional
etor
ical
Skilled
skilled
skilled
Total
etor
skilled
[Both sexes
li+9,379
118,751
7,982
12,953
22,168
22+,3 31+
33,82+9
17,2+85
23,527
16,023
7,502+
7,101
Male
127,209
98,872+
2+,969
12,359
15,209
22+,035
28,773
13,529
22,382
15,512
6,870
5,953
Female
22,170
19,877
3,013
59h
6,959
279
5,076
3,956
1,12+5
511
632+-
1,12+8
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
11.9
11.3
12.2
10.7
8.9
11.2+
11.7
13.2+
17.0
12.6
26.5
5.6
Intracounty 2.8
2.7
1.8
2.3
1.6
3.1
2.9
3.7
2+.2+
3.5
6.2
0.8
latere ourrty 5*7
5.0
6.0
5.0
2+.1
2+.8
5.2
5.6
9.5
7.0
15.0
1+.2
Interstate
3 .2+
3.6
2+.2+
3-2+
3.2
3.5
3.6
2+.1
3.1
2.1
5.3
0.9
Not moving
88.1
88.7
87.8
39.3
9l.l
88.6
88.3
86.6
83.0
87.2+
73.5
92+.2t
1
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.
vC
Moving
12.8
12.2
12+.3
10.8
10.8
11.5
12.6
12+.2
17.6
12.9
28.2+
6.2
1
Int rac aunty 3*1
2.9
2.0
2.3
1.9
3.1
3.1
2+.0
1+.5
3.6
6.6
0.6
Inter county 6.1
5.2+
6.7
5.1
5.0
2+.9
5.6
5.9
9.9
7.2
16.1
2+.7
Interstate
3.6
3-9
5.6
3.2+
3.9
3.5
3.9
2+.3
3.2
2.1
5.7
0.9
Not moving
87.2
87.8
85.7
89.2
89.2
68.5
87.2+
85.8
82.2+
87.I
71.6
93.8
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Moving
6.8
7.2
8.7
6.1
2+.5
3.2
6.9
10.8
5.1
2+.0
6.0
2.5
Intracountj
1.5
1.6
1.2+
1.5
0.7
1.2+
1.7
2.9
1.6
1.2
1.9
0.3
Intercounty 3*2
3.2+
2+.9
2.9
2.3
1.2+
3.3
2+«3
2.1
1.0
3.0
1.3
Interstate
2.1
2.2
2.2+
1.7
1.5
0.2+
1.9
3.6
1.2+
1.8
l.l
0.9
Not moving
93.2
92.8
91.3
93-9
95.5
96.8
93.1
89.2
92+. 9
96.0
92+. 0
97.5
Mobility Rates
Both sexes
12+5
12+5
138
131
131
li+8
152+
150
12+2+
139
12+9
12+5
Male
12+7
li+8
12+3
131
133
12+8
157
152+
H+I+
139
150
ii+7
Female
126
127
125
*
118
*
129
132
122
*
*
*
* Mobility rate not calculated on base of fewer than 50 cases.
Table 15 - Urban-Rural Interchange, lay Sex and Age
Urban-rural character of move
Sex and age of workers making move
Total
Urban-
urban
Urban-
rural
Rural-
urban
o
. vO
Rural-
rural
Both sexes
24,052.2/
6,323
6,416
5,158
6,155
Male
18,040
4,802
4,580
3,796
4,862
Female
6,012
1,521
1,836
1,362
1,293
Percent
Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Male
75.0
75.9
71.4
73-6
79.0
Female
25.0
24.1
28.6
26.4
21.0
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
15-2I.
31.0
24.9
30.5
39.0
31.2
25-bh
48.7
59.8
45.8
46.1
U2.3
45-64
18.2
14.1
21.4
13.3
23.1
65 and over
2.1
1.2
2.3
1.6
3.4
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
15-24
18.9
14.1
16.4
26.5
19.9
2 5-hh
56.8
67.8
54.4
55-7
49.3
i!.5-6!+
22.5
17.2
27.2
16.7
27.7
65 and over
1.8
0.9
2.0
l.l
3.1
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
15-24
67.5
59.0
65.5
73-9
73.7
25-44
24.0
34*4
24.7
19.0
15.9
45-64
5.3
4.2
6.7
3-9
6.0
65 and over
3.2
2.4
3.1
3.2
4.4
Includes only intrastate moves for which the urban-rural oharacter of the move, and the age and marital condi¬
tion of the person moving, were ascertainable.
Table l6 - Urban-Rural Interchange, by liar it al Conditions All Ages
£
o
vo
Urban-rural charactor of
move
Sex and marital condition
Urban-
Urban-
Rural-
Rural-
Total
urban
rural
Urban
rural
loth sexes
2k,0522/
6,323
6,L\l6
5,158
6,155
Hale
l8,0lj.0
1*, 802
4,580
3,796
4,862
Female
6,012
1,521
1,836
1,362
1,293
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
36.6
29.7
36.3
hi. 7
39.5
Married •
56.5
63. h
56.2
52.1
53.6
Widowed
3.8
3.2
4.2
3.5
4.4
Divorced
3.1
3.7
3.3
2.7
2.5
fc.lo
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
28.5
22.5
26.6
33.0
32.5
Married
6k, U
70.6
6 5*4
60.9
60.2
"Widowed
h.O
3.2
4.6
3.4
4.6
Divorcod
3.1
3.7
3.4
2.7
2.7
.emalc
100.0
100. c
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
60.9
52.5
60.5
65.8
66.1
Married
32.7
ho, 6
33.1
27.8
28.2
Widowed
3-k
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.7
Divorcod
3.0
3.6
3.2
2.9
2.0
/ Includes only intrastate moves for vrhich the urban-rural charactor c\f the movo, and the ago and marital condition of
lac person moving, were ascertainable.
Table 17 - Urban-Rural
Interchange,
by Martial Condition:
Ago 15-2[|.
Urban-rural character
of move
Sex and lmrital condition
Urban-
Urban-
Rural-
Rural-
Total
urban
rural
urban
rural
*
Both sexes
7 ,h59
1,573
1,955
2,011
1,920
Male
3,l!.0l
676
753
1,005
967
Female
l+,058
897
1,202
1,006
953
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
7U.5
65 .If.
76.3
75.5
79.0
Married
2h.b
32.7
22.8
25.6
20.5
Widowed
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Divorced
0.9
1.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
68.5
58.6
69.2
69.il
7U.1
Married
50.3
58.6
29.6
29.6
25.6
Widowed
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
mm
Divorced
1.0
2.7
0.9
0.7
0.3
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
79.6
70.7
80.7
81.6
8U.2
Married
19.6
28.2
18.5
17.6
lii.9
Widowed
0.1
-
0.2
0.1
0.3
Divorced
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.7
0.6
Table 18 - Urban-Rural Interchange, by 2 Jar it al Condition: Age 25-1.!h
Urban-rural character of move
Sex and marital condition Urban- Urban- Rural- Rural-
Total urban rural urban rural
Both sexes
11,696
3,778
2,939
2,376
2,603
Hale
10,295
3,255
2,1*86
2,117
e,397
Female
1,1M
523
b53
259
206
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
25.5
20.2
23.2
2U.2
27.1
Harried
70.7
73.7
70.3
69.5
67.9
Vf id owed
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.3
Divorced
3.8
4.0
h.3
k*3
2.7
Halo
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. c
100.0
Single
22.7
18.7
22.2
23.9
27.6
Harried
72.1
76.0
72.2
70.9
67.9
Widowed
2.0
1.8
2.3
1.8
2.1
Divorced
3.2
3.5
3.3
3-h
2.1*
Female
100.0
100. c
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
27.8
29.8
28.7
27.0
21.1*
Harried
60.6
59.3
6c.o
59.1
67 jl
Widowed
3.3
3.8
2.0
3.1
k.9
Divorced
8.3
7.1
9.3
10.8
6.3
£-
t /s ^
Table 19 - Urban-Rural Interchange, by Marital Condition: Age L\5-014. 9
Urban-rural character of move
Sex and marital condition Urban- Urban- Rural- Rural-
Total urban rural urban rural
Both sexes
k9m
892
1,371
686
1,1+21;.
Male
it,056
828
l,2l:-8
633
1.2&7
Female
317
6[|.
125
53
77
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
1C0.G
100.0
Single
10.5
9.1
10.6
7.6
12.8
Married
72.9
7k.h
72.9
71+.9
71.1
Widened
11.8
11.1
11.6
34.3
11.2
Divorced
L.,8
5*k
h.9
3.2
5.1
Male
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
10.9
9.1
ll.l
7.9
15.2
Married
73.6
75.7
73.^
76.3
71.2
Widened
10.8
10.1
10.6
12.3
10.7
Divorced
1-I-.7
5.1
1+.9
3.5
i;..9
Female
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
6.3
9.1+
6.5
3.8
5.2
Married
63.7
57.8
66.6
58.5
67.5
Widened
2i<.,3
23.b
22.0
37.7
19.5
Divorced
5.7
9.k
1^.9
mm
7.8
Table 20 - Urban-Rural Interchange, by Marital Condition: Age 65 and over o
Urban-rural character of move
Sex and marital condition Urban- Urban- Rural- Rural
Total urban rural urban rural
Both sexes
517
79
1hi
83
208
Male
32.li
bZ
91
ho
151
Female
193
37
56
6-3
57
Percent Distributions
Both sexes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Single
8.7
6.3
6.1
3.6
13.5
Married
59.6
58.3
60.5
56.7
60.6
TJldotved
28.2
31.6
28.6
3h. 9
2L.0
Divorced
3.5
5.8
6.8
2<.8
1.9
Male
100.0
*
100.0
*
100.0
Single
10.5
t
8.8
-
15.9
Married
65.1
6k. 8
*
62.2
YFidor/od
21.9
4
25.1
4
19.9
Divorced
2.5
4
3»3
-
2.0
Female
100.0
*
100.0
*
100.0
Single
5.7
4
1.0
■*
7.0
Married
50.2
53.6
*
56.1
vridovred
38.9
4
37.5
+
35.1
Divorced
5.2
*
7.1
1.8
* Percentages not computed on base of fever than 50 oases