Demographic Characteristics and Job Mobility of Migrants in Six Cities

Abstract

T HIS paper reports the characteristics of the migrant population and compares them with those of non-migrants in six cities: Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Paul, and New Haven.1 The data on migrants and nonmigrants are based on a sample survey of some 4,000 to 5,000 persons 14 years and older in each of the six cities in January 1951. For the most part these persons were located in about 1,900 households in each city which were enumerated in the 1950 Census of Population and Housing.2 The estimates of total males and females 14 years and older are based on a combination of data from the survey and the 1950 Census. All other estimates were obtained by inflating weighted sample results to the estimates of total males and females 14 years and older.3 The six cities for which findings are reported differ considerably in their occupational and industrial structure.4 Characteristically, Chicago and Philadelphia are referred to as mature metropolitan centers with a relatively stable population and as industrial centers with a diversified economic base where employment in manufacturing is predominant (but less than 50 percent of all employed), while employment in wholesale and retail trade, though second in importance, is substantially below that in manufacturing. New Haven has a similar economic base, though it is much smaller in size. By comparison, San Francisco and Los Angeles are relatively young metropolitan cities with a diversified economic base where employment in wholesale and retail trade is more or less equal to employment in manufacturing and together these industries employ about one-half of all workers. St. Paul, though an older and smaller city, has a similar economic base. These differences in major economic activity are reflected in the occupational structure of the cities. Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Haven, where employment in manufacturing predominates, show a greater concentration of blue collar workers, while Los Angeles, San Francisco and St. Paul, where employment in retail trade is about equal to that in manufacturing, show a greater concentration of white collar workers.5 The same patterns in occupational structure hold for both men and women. However, superimposed on this pattern is the expected pattern of substantially higher proportions of white collar among women than among men. These structural differences among the cities help to explain certain of the migrant differentials which follow. The rapid growth of urban centers in the * Read at the annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Ames, Iowa, March 20-21, 1952. 1 The paper summarizes data from the Occupational Mobility Survey conducted by the Social Science Research Council in cooperation with six university centers (University of Chicago; University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Berkeley; University of Minnesota; University of Pennsylvania; Yale University) and the Bureau of the Census. The Six-City Occupational Mobility Survey is one of the industrial manpower research studies sponsored by the United States Air Force under Project SCOOP (Scientific Computation of Optimum Programs) to determine the manpower feasibility of military programs. The research findings are exclusively the responsibility of the authors. 2 The remainder were located in large quasi-households and in units constructed subsequent to the 1950 Census. These types of places were sampled separately to insure adequate coverage and eliminate possible biases from the sample. 3 Since the estimates are based on sample data, they are subject to sampling variability. Estimated percents are of course relatively more reliable than the corresponding absolute estimates. All percents appearing in tables in this paper for which the coefficient of variation is greater than .15 are marked with an asterisk and footnoted. No percents are indicated in the tables if the 100 percent base is less than 20 sample cases; a dash is used to indicate either that a base is too small to compute a percent or that the category is not applicable. 4The classification used below is adapted from Grace M. Kneedler, Functional Types of Cities, Public Management, 27 (July 1945), pp. 197-203. 6 White collar workers are defined as persons employed as professional, technical and kindred workers; managers, officials and proprietors; clerical and kindred workers; and sales workers. Blue collar workers are defined as persons employed as craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers; operatives and kindred workers; service workers; private household workers; and laborers.