Speech

For Release on Delivery Wednesday, September 15, 1971 10 a.m. (C.D.T.) (11 a.m. E.D.T.) REGIONAL GROWTH, MIGRATION, AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY A Convocation Address by Andrew F. Brimmer Member Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Presented At Bishop College Dallas, Texas September 15, 1971 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis REGIONAL GROWTH, MIGRATION, AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY By Andrew F. Brimmer* When I was invited to speak at this institution, I was told that I could select any topic. With such a wide choice, I could have focused readily (and easily) on the host of problems in the area of national and international economic policy. Because of my own responsibilities, I do share in the official efforts to resolve the tenacious problems of inflation, unemployment, and the persistent deficit in bur country's balance of payments. However, I decided against that route. Instead, because Bishop College is predominantly a black institution, I thought it might be useful to present the results of some work I have been doing recently on trends in economic conditions in the black community. Because this college is located in Dallas — one of the leading cities ^Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I am indebted to a number of persons for assistance in the pre- paration of these remarks. At the Board, Mr. David Wyss and Mrs. Diane Sower undertook the econometric analysis of net migration based on Census Bureau statistics. Mr. Wyss also did the analysis of gross migration patterns based on Social Security data. Miss Harriett Harper made the informal survey of welfare trends in leading cities, and Mr. Albert Teplin undertook the analysis of regional growth and income trends. In the Department of Commerce, Messrs. Robert Graham and David A. Hirschberg provided statistics on State and regional economic activity; Mr. Hirschberg also did the computer work required to obtain data from the Social Security One Per Cent Sample Survey. I am also indebted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sharing with me their 1970 data on patterns of employment in American industry by occupation, race and State. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -2- in the Southwest (but which also inherited an historic legacy from the Old South) — it might be interesting to focus particularly on the recent economic experience of blacks in the South. Almost daily, the Nation's attention is drawn to some new aspect of the social and political revolution that is reshaping the lives of Negroes and whites in the South. The further withering of racial segregation (especially in the public schools) and the widening participation of Negroes in voting and other aspects of the political process naturally receive most of the attention. Simulta- neously, however, another side of the racial revolution in the South is also of considerable importance. This is the quickening tempo of economic progress among blacks in this section of the country. From time to time, notice is taken of the wider sharing of blacks in the area's economic activity, but the breadth of the changing situation is not always fully appreciated. On the other hand, Negroes are s t i ll leaving the South at a heavy rate. The pace of out-migration has been so strong that today just over half of the black population lives in the South — compared to three-fifths as recently as a decade ago. This large net outflow of blacks is in sharp contrast to the sizable net inflow of whites to the South. It is true that blacks increasingly are finding the South a better place in which to live (and a few prominent Negroes have attracted national attention by returning home Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -3- to the South). Yet, on balance, the disincentives .inducing blacks to leave the region still seem to out-weigh the advantages inducing them to remain or to return. And when blacks leave the South -- to a greater extent than is true of whites -- they are likely to move into the heavily populated urban areas of the North and West -- areas with a galaxy of problems that need not be catalogued here. Thus, the pattern o f migration -- black and white -- in relation to economic development is interesting (and important) both regionally and nationally. Some of the results of the studies I have had underway are presented in the rest of these remarks* It might be helpful to summarize the highlights here: - During the decade of the 1960fs, the South recorded the highest rate of economic growth among the major regions of the country. As a result, its share of the nation's income rose significantly. - Blacks participated substantially in the Southfs economic progress. However, the extent of sharing was quite uneven from one State to another. There continues to be a noticeable short-fall in the proportion of nonfarm jobs held by blacks, especially in the Deep South States. Nevertheless, Negroes' share of total money income did expand during the 1960's. - Yet, net migration of blacks from the South remains exceptionally large. Between 1960 and 1970, the net outflow from Border States moderated, but it continued heavy from Deep South States -- the same States in which the short-fall in jobs for blacks remains the largest. On the other hand, a closer look at the movement of blacks out of the South -- based on gross migration rather than on net migration figures — suggests that the tendency Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -4- for blacks to leave the South is roughly the same as it is for whites• The observed differences in the rate of net migration are due mainly to the failure of the South to attract blacks from other regions. - In trying to explain the heavy net outflow of Negroes from the South, most students of the question have identified better jobs and higher incomes as the main incentives. However, some observers have suggested that the movement may be partly in response to higher welfare benefits in the North and West. Still others have suggested that differences in educational opportunities may partly account for the higher rate among blacks. The results of my own work (some of it supported by computer-based econometric analysis) indicate that brighter job and income prospects are the main factors influencing the movement of blacks from the South -- the same incentives which induce most whites to move. State difference s in educational expenditures seem to have a small but noticeable effect on the migration of blacks -- but not on the migration of whites. State differences in welfare payments also appear to be positively related to net migration rates for blacks, but not for whites. Yet, for blacks, the impact is extremely small. Moreover, the States with high welfare payments are also the States with high incomes and high outlays for education. So, one cannot readily unravel the joint effects of these factors on migration. This conclusion is reinforced by the results of an informal survey of welfare trends in 25 of the leading cities with the largest Negro population. All of them have experienced large increases in recent years in the number of persons receiving public assistance. However, the number of Negroes as a proportion of all persons on welfare appears to be unrelated to the pattern of net migration experienced by the cities during the 1960!s. Moreover, there seems to be no appreciable difference in the situation in Southern cities compared to those in the North and West. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -5- - This analysis has led me to conclude that, as economic growth in the South continues, blacks will have a chance to share even more fully in the benefits of economic development. However, to realize this potential, there must be an accelerated effort -- on the part of whites as well as on the part of blacks -- to bring about genuine equality of opportunity. In response to such an improved environment, more Negroes (especially young people) would probably remain in the South. While some observers would encourage them to stay in order to lessen further pressures in the urban areas of the North and West, I would do so for another reason: since the South is making the investment in its youth -- both black and white (and although it remains inadequate compared with the national average) -- the South itself should get a larger share of the benefits from the development of its human resources. We can now turn to a fuller discussion of these main points. Regional Economic Growth During the last decade, the South expanded faster than any other major region in all principal types of economic activity. The contours of this performance can be traced in the growth and distribution of civilian income from current production. On the basis of data in Table 1 (attached), it appears that income in the South expanded at an annual average rate of 8.1 per cent, between 1960 and 1970, compared with 6.6 per cent for all other regions and 6.8 per cent for the country as a whole. As a result, the Southfs share of income from current production rose from 15.4 per cent to 17.3 per cent of the total. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -6- In the South, as in the rest of the Nation, the highest annual rate of growth was registered in the government sector (10.1 per cent vs. 9.6 per cent), followed by services (9.7 per cent and 8.7 per cent, respectively). But, relative to the performance of other geographic areas, the Southfs widest lead in the rate of growth was in the manufacturing sector. Here the annual rate of expansion in the South was 9.0 per cent, compared with 6.0 per cent for other regions and 6.4 per cent for the country. In 1960, income originating in manufacturing accounted for 24.1 per cent of the total in the South; the corresponding figures were 30.6 per cent in other regions and 29.9 per cent in the country at large. By 1970, the South had made up a substantial part of the lag. In that year, the proportions of income earned in the factory sector were: South, 26.3 per cent; other regions, 29.0 per cent; and the United States, 28.5 per cent. Paralleling the expansion in manufacturing, the Southfs traditionally heavier reliance on farming lessened much faster than was the case in the rest of the country. In 1960, about 7.5 per cent of the Southfs income from current production arose in agriculture, compared with 4.2 per cent in other regions and 4.7 per cent for the Nation. Last year, the farm share had shrunk to 4.7 per cent in the South, to 2.8 per cent in other regions, and to 3,1 per cent in the country as a whole. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -7- Negroes Share in Regional Expansion As indicated above, Negroes did share extensively in the expansion of economic activity in the South in the last decade. But this was also true of Negroes in the North and West. Consequently, it is necessary to ask whether blacks in the South did relatively better -- or worse -- than their brothers in the rest of the country. To obtain an answer, one must examine the evidence relating both to jobs and income in each State. The ideal information for this purpose will be provided by the 1970 Census of Population. Since this will not be available for some time, I have relied on the data collected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — based on annual reports submitted by private employers with 100 or more workers. These figures were used to calculate Negro employment as a percentage of total nonfarm employment and in principal occupations in the 28 States and the District of Columbia with a substantial proportion of Negroes in their population. The calculations were made for 1966 and 1970, so one can study employment trends during the last half of the 1960fs. For comparison purposes, the percentage of Negroes in the total population in each State in 1970 was also calculated. The results are shown in Table 2. Several important aspects of blacks1 employment situation stand out in these data. The first thing to note is the rise in the Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -8- share of total jobs held by blacks in the country as a whole -- a rise from 8.2 per cent in 1966 to 10.3 per cent in 1970. Since Negroes constituted 11.2 per cent of the total population, the gap between their shares of population and jobs narrowed appreciably -- to about 1 percentage point. This relatively small spread should be kept in mind, because it will serve as a useful benchmark in the discussion below. At the national level, the position of blacks in the principal occupations differed considerably. They were greatly under-represented in the white collar fields -- and heavily over- represented in the blue collar and service occupations. In most regions, the population-jobs gap among blacks narrowed substantially between 1966 and 1970. Leaving aside Washington, D. C., Negroes1 share of population and their share of total employment reported in the EEOC statistics in 1970 differed by only one or two percentage points in all States — except in those located in the heart of the South. In these States, the population-jobs deficit was exceptionally large, with blacks1 share of population exceeding their share of jobs by the following percentage points: Tennessee, 3.3; North Carolina, 5.9; South Carolina, 9.6; Georgia, 5.3; Alabama, 7.4; Mississippi, 12.9; Louisiana, 8.9; Arkansas, 5.2. In contrast, the situation was far different in the Border States and in those making up the outer rim of the South: Virginia, 0.1; West Virginia, 1.1; Florida, 1.5; Oklahoma, 0.8; Texas, 0.9; and Kentucky, no gap at all. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -9- In these figures, one can see a large part of the explanation of why there is a continuing heavy migration of blacks from the South. Those Southern States -- and especially those in the Deep South — in which the deep jobs deficits prevail are also the States showing the largernet outflows of black population. Trends in the Level of Income The improvement in black employment has also been reflected in both their absolute and relative income positions. For example, in 1969, Negroes in the United States had a median family income of $5,998, according to figures published by the Bureau of the Census. The median was $9,793 for whites and $9,433 for all families in the country. Thus, in 1969, the black-white median income ratio was 61.0 per cent, and the black-total ratio was 63.5 per cent. In 1959, the median income of Negro families was $3,721 (expressed in 1969 prices); the median was $7,360 for whites and $7,058 for all families. In 1959, the median income of blacks was 50.5 per cent of the median for whites and 52.5 per cent of that for all families. So, over the decade, Negroes registered significant improvement in their relative income position in the Nation at large. However, the absolute gap between black and white incomes widened further. In 1959, the median for black families was $3,639 below that for white families and $2,337 below the median for all fami- lies in the country. By 1969, the margin of white over black income had risen to $3,795, and the margin for all families had climbed to $3,435. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -10- Over the last decade, income trends for blacks differed significantly among the principal regions of the country. In the North and West, blacks' relative position improved somewhat -- but to a lesser extent than it did in the South. In 1959, in the North and West, the black-white median income ratio was 71.0 per cent, and the black-total ratio was 72.1 per cent. By 1969, the black vs. white ratio had risen moderately to 72.7 per cent and the black vs. total to 74.1 per cent. In the South, the proportions were: black- white, 45.5 per cent in 1959 and 56.8 per cent in 1969; black-total, 51.1 per cent in 1959 and 61.5 per cent in 1969. Historically, the widest absolute gaps between the incomes of blacks and whites have been found in the South, and the differences were strengthened further during the last decade. For instance, in 1959, the typical white family in the South had $3,414 more in money income than the typical black family. In the North and West, the edge favoring whites was $2,245. By 1969, the margin had climbed to $3,776 for whites in the South and to $2,790 for whites in the North and West. Within each region, the trend in the income gap between blacks and whites varied somewhat, depending on the place of residence. Among families living in central cities of metropolitan areas in the South, the spread declined over the decade -- from $3,422 in 1959 to $3,317 in 1969. For similarly situated families in the North and West, the spread rose during the same period -- from $2,555 to $2,664. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -11- In both regions, the difference in income between black and white families living in the suburban rings of metropolitan areas became even greater: in the South the spread increased from $4,226 in 1959 to $4,338 in 1969; in the North and West, the increase was from $2,771 to $2,987. Again, in both regions the trends in relative incomes of blacks and whites reflected the accelerated movement of whites from central cities to the suburbs. Today — as for many years — the families with the lowest incomes are s t i ll found in the South, among both blacks and whites. For both races in the South (as in the rest of the Nation) the poor were found outside of metropolitan areas. In 1969, median family income for blacks in small Southern towns and rural areas was $3,699, and for whites it was $7,487. The highest incomes among blacks in the South ($6,256) were received by those in suburban rings of metropoli- tan areas—which was also true of whites ($10,594). So, within the black community, the ratio of the lowest to the highest incomes was 59 per cent; among whites it was 71 per cent. Trends in Regional Income Distribution During the last decade, the South made noticeable gains in its share of the Nation's total money income. This was an outcome one would expect -- given the faster pace of economic growth in the region compared with the rest of the country. Simultaneously, an Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -12- outcome that was not equally expected is the degree to which Negroes in the South shared in the overall redistribution of income. The extent of the regional shift in income shares and the division between blacks and whites can be traced in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Respectively, these tables show total money income in 1959 and 1969, total population in 1960 and 1970, and the percentage distribution of income and population -- all by region, race and, metropolitan or nonmetropolitan residence. In broad terms, of the $605 billion of total money income in 1969, residents of the South received $161 billion, and $444 billion were received by residents of the North and West. I n the Nation as a whole, Negroes got $38.7 billion, whites received $561 billion, and the remainder accrued to other races. Other details describing trends in the distribution of income are shown in the tables. However, the essence of the story is told by compar- isons of population and income distributions among regions and between blacks and whites. The results are shown in Table 5. These data indicate clearly the sizable shift in the distribution of income that occurred over the last decade. For example, the South had about the same proportion of the Nation's total population (30.5 per cent) in both 1960 and 1970. Yet, its share of total money income rose from 24.4 per cent in 1959 to 26.6 per cent in 1969; a gain of 2.2 percentage points . The North and West with the residual population Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -13- (69.5 per cent) experienced a shrinkage in its income share from 75.6 per cent to 73.4 per cent, a loss of 2.2 percentage points. While these may appear to be relatively small statistical changes, they represent a shift of over $13 billion of total money income to the South. This shift was equal to about 8 per cent of the region's total income in 1969. The other noticeable shift in income distribution was the rise in the share of total money income received by Negroes. They received 5.1 per cent of the total in 1959 and 6.4 per cent in 1969, a gain of 1.3 percentage points. This percentage change was equivalent to $5 billion — equal to 13 per cent of Negroes1 total money income in 1969. Within the black community, however, the bulk of the relative gain (three-fifths) accrued to Negroes in the North and West, and only two-fifths accrued to blacks in the South. At the beginning of the decade, three-fifths of the black population were in the South, and two-fifths were in the North and West. However, the division of income between blacks in the North and West and those in the South was 57 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively, in 1959. The same proportionate division in income prevailed in 1969. On the other hand, high net migration rates had changed drastically the distribution of the black population between the two regions -- Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -14- reducing the fraction in the South from 61 per cent in 1960 to 53 per cent in 1970. Thus, a sizable improvement occurred in per capita as well as in total income of blacks in the South. For them, the change meant that their share of the Nation's total money income rose from 2.21 per cent in 1959 to 2.74 per cent in 1969. This represented a shift of about $3.2 billion in their favor over the course of the decade. In summary, these figures indicate that, during the 1960's, the Nation saw a significant redistribution of income with respect to both regions and racial groups. The North and West lost to the South 2.2 percentage points in relative income shares. Within the South, that gain was split roughly 25-75 per cent between blacks and whites. At the same time, however, blacks in the North and West also improved their relative position -- raising their share of the Nation's total money income from 2.87 per cent in 1959 to 3.66 per cent in 1969. Thus, there seems to have been a redistribution of relative shares from whites located in the North and West to Negroes of that region and to both whites and blacks living in the South. Having noted these improvements, however, we should also note that blacks as a group are s t i ll lagging considerably behind whites in the Nation at large in terms of their overall share of income. In 1969, Negroes constituted 11.3 per cent of the total pop- ulation, but they received only 6.4 per cent of total money income. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -15- In 1959, the population and income proportions were 10.3 per cent and 5.1 per cent, respectively. So, while a moderate narrowing of the gap occurred over the decade, the absolute short-fall suffered by blacks remains large -- and poses one of the strongest challenges s t i ll facing the United States. Net Migration From the South As I indicated at the outset, the continued heavy net migra- tion of Negroes from the South is one of the most striking characteris- tics of the contemporary economic scene in the United States. Between 1960 and 1970, the net outflow of blacks from the region amounted to about 1,380,000. (See Table 6.) Over the same period, net migration added 1,807,000 to the area's white population. The large out-migration of blacks during the decade as shown in the 1970 Census of Population came as a surprise. In fact, the Census Bureau had been projecting a sharply reduced annual rate of outflow during the decade. The Bureau's estimate had put the annual rate a t approximately 80,000, or substantially below the annual net outflow o f 147,000 in the 1950-60 period and 160,000 in the 1940-50 years. As it developed, the annual rate of net migration of blacks from the South was about 138,000 between 1960 and 1970 — not appre- ciably different from the rate recorded in the previous two decades. Actually, the reported figures on net migration of blacks from the South as a whole fail to show the great diversity of experience Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -16- among different States. The situation in individual States is described by the statistics in Table 6, showing net migration in each of the last three decades. The general picture which emerges is easily understood: in a number of Southern States, the expected slowdown in the rate of net migration of Negroes did occur in the 1960!s. In fact, the moderating trend was already evident in the 1950's. Nearly all of these were Border States. In contrast, there was virtually no slackening in the rate of outflow of blacks from the Deep South. Seven of these States (North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and, West Virginia) lost more than 15 per cent of their 1960 population through net migration during the decade of the 1960!s. In five of these, the loss was nearly equal to one-quarter of their 1960 Negro population. The rate of loss was much smaller in Tennessee, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas. Kentucky had a small net gain through migration of blacks, and Texas almost broke even. While the Southern States continued to lose a sizable share of their black population in the last decade, about a half dozen Northern and Western States (New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Illinois, and California) were adding substantially to their Negro population through the net inflow of migrants. All of these (except Maryland) gained more than 100,000 new citizens on this basis. These inflows represented expansions in their respective 1960 black population of nearly one-third in California, about one-quarter in New York and New Jersey, and one-sixth in Maryland and Michigan. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -17- In contrast, while blacks were moving into these six States in great numbers, whites were leaving them (except for Maryland and California) in even larger numbers. In percentage terms, the net out- migration of whites was fairly small, but the pattern was comprehensive and unmistakable. Public Welfare and Migration The reasons why blacks leave the South in such large numbers seems fairly obvious to most students who have studied the question; they move in search of better employment opportunities and higher incomes. These are the same factors that induce whites to migrate -- and which induce blacks to move from one area to another within the North and West. However, some observers have suggested that many blacks move from the South into large cities of the North and West in order to obtain more generous welfare benefits. In view of the lack of evidence supporting this notion, one might have thought that it would have ceased to be current. In fact, several studies (including a compre- hensive one recently published by the Urban Institute) have produced findings which cast doubt on the validity of the argument. Yet, the idea continues to flourish. The matter is of more than passing academic interest. It has been urged by a number of influential spokesmen that public welfare policies be refashioned to reduce the incentive that may be provided low income groups (meaning mainly blacks) to move into large urban areas. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -18- As I was preparing these remarks, I thought another effort should be made to determine whether a connection can be established between the pattern of black migration and the availability of welfare benefits. The task was undertaken in two parts. The first involved an informal telephone survey of the 30 leading cities with the largest Negro population. The second involved a computer-based econometric analysis of the principal factors influencing net migration rates. In the informal telephone inquiry (in which officials in 26 cities were finally reached-^) information was requested on the total number of persons receiving public assistance and the approximate percentage which Negroes represented of the total in mid-1971. The same information was requested for five years earlier. In all 26 cities, figures were provided for the total number of persons on the welfare roles in mid-1971, and in 17 cities a rough estimate for the proportion of blacks was also obtained. The reports for earlier years (mainly 1965-1966) were less complete, and very few figures were available showing blacks as a percentage of the total. The statistical information obtained is shown in Table 7. For comparison purposes, the table also shows for each of the 26 cities 1/ For a variety of reasons (such as vacations and misplaced messages) successful contact was not made in four cities: Philadelphia, Pa.; Richmond, Va.; Jacksonville, Fla.; and Milwaukee, Wise. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -19- the Negro population in 1970, the change during 1960-70, and the ratio of Negro to total population in 1970. Net migration during 1960-70 in 2/ each of the cities for Negroes and other races is also indicated.—' Several conclusions are suggested by these results: in each of the 17 cities reporting information, blacks do make up a substantial proportion of the total number of persons receiving welfare assistance. The smallest proportion (about one-fifth) was reported by Boston. In New York City and Buffalo, blacks represented about two-fifths. They were around one-half in Columbus, Ohio, Los Angeles, California, and in Houston and Dallas, Texas. In the remaining cities (except Washington, D. C.) the ratio was in the 70~90 per cent range. In the Nation's Capitol blacks made up virtually all of the welfare rolls. Another striking feature of these data is the substantial variation by region and net migration experience. The cities in the South showed as much diversity as cities in the North and West. Cities which lost population by the net out-migration of blacks had propor- tionately as many blacks on the welfare rolls as did cities which gained population. These data suggest that, if there is a relationship between welfare benefits and black migration, it is far from obvious. 2/ Figures were not available for Negroes separately. In the country as a whole, Negroes constitute 92 per cent of this group. However, in particular citie s (especially on the West Coast where many Orientals live) the Negro percentage would be smaller. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -20- The same conclusion is suggested by the results produced by the computer-based econometric analysis of net migration mentioned above. The objective of the analysis was to identify and to measure quantitatively the main factors which affect interstate net migration rates of black and white people. It was assumed that the most important incentive for both races was provided by income differentials among States -- that is, migrants would move to the location of the more favorable economic climate. In addition, an attempt was made to account for migration patterns which may be in response to factors that are not purely economic -- such as racial discrimination (for blacks) or retirement conditions (for whites). The statistical methods used are described in the appendix 3/ (attached) and need not be discussed here.— The key statistical tests performed related net migration rates to state differences in per capita personal income, welfare benefits, and expenditures on elementary and secondary education. An effort also was made to capture the effects of an observed tendency for Negroes to leave the South at above-average rates and for whites to move at abave-average rates into a few states (Florida, Arizona, amd Nevada) offering strong retirement and recreational incentives. The analysis was carried out with the assistance of several members of the Board's staff. 3/ — For those with a technical interest in the subject, the estimating technique used in this study was multiple regression analysis. Tests of the models were performed using data for the continental United States and the District of Columbia for the Census decades 1950-1960 and 1960- 1970. These data appear in Appendix Table 1. The regression statistics are shown in Appendix Table 2. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -21- In general, I wanted to know the answer to the following question: By how much should one expect net migration rates to vary in response to differences in per capita personal income among states. The answer can be stated in terms of changes in the ratio of per capita income in a given state to average per capita income in the nation as a whole. The tests based on 1950-60 migration data suggested that a 1.0 percentage point change in the income ratio might induce a parallel change of 0.76 per cent in the net migration rate for blacks and of 0.31 per cent in the rate for whites. The tests based on 1960-70 data yielded roughly the same estimate (0.70 per cent) for blacks, but the second estimate for 4/ whites was much smaller (0.08 per cent).— In other words, a relative improvement in a state's income position would induce both blacks and whites to migrate into its territory -- but the response of blacks would be much stronger than that of whites. To estimate the effects of welfare payments on the direction of migration, payment per recipient under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was added to the basic test. The results suggest that black migrants, in fact, may respond positively to state differences in welfare programs, whereas whites may not. A 1.0 percentage point change in welfare payments per recipient may be associated with a 0.17 per cent change in the net migration rate for blacks and with a -0.11 per cent change in the rate for whites. 4/ In technical terms, the 1960-70 estimate for whites is not statistically significant, and may be underestimated. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -22- In interpreting these results, extra caution is required. Welfare benefits may be positively related to per capita income, since States with high incomes also typically have high welfare benefits. Moreover, it will be noted even for blacks the estimated influence of income substantially outweighs the influence of welfare (about 0.70 per cent vs. 0.17 per cent). So, given the necessary limitations of data and the statistical estimating techniques, I assign much more importance to income as a factor affecting net migration rates among blacks than I assign to welfare payments. A second variation in the basic test was made to estimate the effects of State differences in educational opportunities on net migration rates. For this purpose, educational expenditures per pupil in elementary and secondary schools were used instead of welfare payments. Again, it appears that black migrants might respond positively to State differences in educational outlays, but whites may not. A 1.0 percentage point change in educational outlays per pupil may be associated with a 0.19 per cent change in the net migration rate f6r blacks and with a -0.15 per cent change in the rate for whites. How- ever, in this case also, I must repeat the cautionary comment made above. High education expenditures and high incomes are generally found in the same States, and the statistical tests may be attributing effects to education which are actually due to differences in income. In summary, these several statistical tests indicate that most people (both black and white) seem to move more in response to Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -23- economic conditions than to differences in either welfare benefits or educational advantages. In fact, the statistical measures suggest that there is steady pressure for people to move out of any given state unless it is counter-balanced by a strong growth in income. Gross Migration and Income Gains As I indicated at the outset, it is necessary to look beyond the net migration figures if one is to get a clear understanding of the direction and cause of movements. The Census Bureau's statistics on net migration are the most readily available, so they are the ones relied on by most analysis. Fortunately, however, there is another set of statistics which a few other investigators have used to examine migration patterns. These figures are contained in the one per cent sample of Social Securit y records, and I have been able to draw on them for the present study. In the first quarter of 1970, the sample contained records on appromixately 800,000 individual workers, of whom more than 80,000 were Negroes. The Social Security records yielded a rich harvest of information, including data on race, sex, age, income, and region of employment. I was also able to obtain data from the sample for the first quarter of 1965. Since workers keep the same*. Social Security numbers throughout their lives, information from the sample can be used to answer a variety of questions relating to migration. I have summarized in Tables 8, 9, and 10 gross and net migration rates for men by region, age, and race for the period 1965-1970. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -24- Several aspects of black-white migration patterns, which were hidden by the Census Bureau figures on net migration, stand out most dramatically. In the first place, it is clear from Table 8 that the tendency for blacks to leave the South is not greatly different from the propensity of whites to migrate. For example, among men age 25-44, the gross out-migration rate was 15.9 per cent for blacks and 12.8 per cent for whites. On the other hand, the gross in-migration rate for blacks was far below that for whites (6.1 per cent vs. 14.1 per cent). The result was a net outflow of black men (-9.8 per cent), compared with a small net gain (1.3 per cent) for white men. On the other hand, the pattern of migration did vary considerably with age. In both races, men 45 and over had much lower migration rate s (gross and net) than was the case in the younger age group. Thus, it is the Southfs failure to attract black people from other regions -- rather than an exceptional tendency for its black citizens to leave -- that accounts for the high net outflow reported in the Census statistics. As one would expect, when blacks do leave the South, they are likely to move to the same Northern and Western states that already have large Negro populations. This expectation is strongly supported by the data in Table 9, showing origin and destina- tion of men who migrated in the 1965-70 period. For present purposes, however, the most valuable information from the Social Security sample relates to migration and income, presented in Table 10. In all eight Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -25- regions, the incomes of black migrants were below those of black workers who did not move. The same was true of white migrants in four of the regions, but not including the Southeast where migrants1 incomes were one per cent above the incomes of those who remained at home. In all race and age categories, wages of migrants from the South increased more over the five-year period than did incomes of non-migrants. This was especially noticeable in the 25-44 age bracket, where black male migrants averaged wages 18.5 per cent below non- migrants in 1965 and 14.5 per cent above in 1970. This represented an improvement relative to non-migrants of 33 percentage points.-- the largest gain recorded for any group. White male migrants from the South increased their relative income from one per cent above the incomes of non-migrants to 14 per cent above -- a relative increase of 13 percentage points« In summary, the foregoing analysis strongly suggests that Negroes are not leaving the South in abnormally high numbers. About as great a proportion of whites as of blacks leave the region. The difference in net migration is caused by the fact that blacks do not migrate into the South at the same pace. Concluding Observations In conclusion, the analysis presented here has convinced me that, as economic growth in the South continues, blacks will have a Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -26- chance to share more fully iri the benefits of economic develop- ment. However, to realize this potential, there must be an accelerated effort -- on the part of whites as well as on the part of blacks -- to bring about genuine equality of opportunity. In response to such an improved environment, more Negroes (especially young people) would probably remain in the South. While some observers would encourage them to stay in order to lessen further pressures in urban areas of the North and West, I would do so.for another reason: Since the South is making the investment in its youth -- both black and white (and although it remains inadequate compared with the national average) -- the South itself should get a larger share of the benefits from the development of its human resources. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Civilian Income from Participation in Current Production, by Industry, and Region, 1960 and 1970. (Billions of Dollars) INDUSTRY UNITED STATES SOUTHEAST ALL OTHER REGIONS Change Change Change Annual Annual Annua 1 Average Average Average Growth Growth Growth 1960 1970 Amount Rate 1960 1970 Amount Rate 1960 1970 Amount Rate Total 319.3 617.4 298.1 6.8 49.3 106.8 57.5 8.1 270.0 510.6 240.6 m Farms 14.9 19.1 4.2 2.5 3.7 5.0 1.3 3.1 11.2 14.1 2.9 2.3 Mining 4.3 6.6 2.3 4.4 1.1 1.9 0.8 5.6 3.2 4.7 1.5 3.9 Contract Construction 21.0 38.6 17.6 6.3 3.4 7.2 3.8 7.8 17.6 31.4 13.8 5.9 Manufacturing 94.6 176.1 81.5 6.4 11.9 28.1 16.2 9.0 52.7 148.0 65.3 6.0 Wholesale and Retail Trade 62.4 105.5 43.1 5.4 9.7 18.3 8.6 6.6 52.7 87.2 34.5 5.1 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 16.2 33.2 17.0 7.4 2.4 5.2 2.8 8.1 13.8 28.0 14.2 7.3 Transportation, Communi- cation, and Public Utilities 24.8 44.9 20.1 6.1 3.8 7.8 4.0 7.4 21.0 37.1 16.1 5.9 Services 41.7 96.3 54.6 8.7 6.1 15.3 9.2 9.7 35.6 81.0 45.4 f^B W Government 38.2 95.2 57.0 9.6 6.8 17.8 11.0 10.1 31.4 77.4 46.0 9.4 Other 1.0 1.9 0.9 6.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 7.2 0.8 1.5 0.7 6.5 Source: Survey of Current Business, Vol. 41, No. 8, August, 1961, Table 70, p. 19, and Vol. No. 51, No. 8, August, 1971, Table 70, p.37. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Negro Employment as a Percentage of Total Employment in Principal Occupations in Selected States, 1966 and 1970 Negro As Per Cent of Total To tal Offi cials Sa les Off ice Ser vice Pop. Emplo yment White Collar & Mana gers Profes sional Tech nical Wor kers & Cle rical Blue C ollar Craf tsmen Opera tives La bo rers Wor kers State 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 1970 1966 197# \ L'nited States 11.2 8.2 10.3 2.5 4.8 0.9 1.9 1.3 2.5 4.1 6.2 2.4 4.4 3.5 7.4 10.7 13.2 3.6 5.6 10.8 14.2 21.1 21.9 23.0 26.6 New England Massachusetts 3.1 2.9 3.7 1.3 2.3 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.4 2.0 3.1 0.7 1.8 1.8 3.6 3.5 4.3 1.7 2.3 3.7 4.7 6.1 6.2 3.6 1100..00 Connecticut 6.0 5.3 7.3 1.8 3.4 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.4 2.6 4.1 1.7 2.5 2.8 5.7 7.2 10.0 2.7 4.5 8.1 12.5 13.4 13.7 13.9 18.8 Mideast New York 11.9 7.6 10.7 4.4 8.2 1.3 2.7 2.0 3.9 5.9 8.4 2.8 5.0 6.6 13.3 9.2 11.7 3.9 6.0 9.5 12.4 17.4 19.2 21.7 26.6 New Jersey 10.9 9.8 11.3 3.1 5.1 1.3 2.2 2.1 2.7 5.2 7.3 2.7 4.1 4.0 7.7 14.3 16.1 5.4 7.2 15.3 17.9 23.7 22.9 23.6 27.5 Pennsylvania 8.7 6.2 7.5 2.5 4.4 0.8 1.6 1.2 2.1 4.1 6.6 2.7 4.0 3.2 6.7 7.1 8.0 3,6 4.6 7.0 7.9 13.0 13.7 20.1 23.8 Delaware 14.2 11.0 12.9 1.7 3.5 0.7 1.7 0.5 1.6 2.6 4.0 3.1 4.6 2.2 5.4 18.6 21.9 4.5 5.7 17.0 19.3 43.0 45.0 27.1 31.9 Maryland 17.9 16.0 18.6 3.7 7.3 1.6 3.7 1.6 3.2 6.0 9.9 4.6 8.1 4.6 10.2 22.0 26.5 6.4 11.5 21.6 26.5 47.2 49.3 43.8 46.7 District of Columbia 71.0 24.4 33.1 10.3 20.6 4.2 9..0 6.2 10.3 17.5 26.8 9.3 25.1 13.7 28.8 33.6 43.5 10.9 17.6 42.7 55.1 68.1 73.9 65.1 72.6 North Central Michigan 11.2 10.6 13.7 3.1 6.6 1.0 2.7 1.3 3.5 3.9 7.2 3.7 5.9 4.5 10.8 14.2 17.2 3.3 5.0 17.9 21.1 16.5 21.9 22.7 28.5 Ohio 9.1 7.1 9.0 2.2 4.2 0.8 1.7 1.0 2.2 4.6 6.3 2.4 4.0 2.7 6.1 8.4 10.4 3.0 4.5 9.4 11.7 13.7 15.9 25.1 28.2 Indiana 6.9 6.1 7.9 1.6 3.3 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 3.2 6.3 1.8 3.4 1.9 4.3 7.6 9.3 3.1 4.2 8.2 10.4 11.1 12.6 17.7 23.2 Illinois 12.8 11.0 13.0 3.9 6.8 1.2 2.5 1.7 2.8 4.1 7.6 2.9 6.4 6.2 10.6 15.1 17.3 5.4 7.8 15.8 18.8 24.9 25.7 25.7 26.5 Wisconsin 2.9 3.2 3.8 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.2 1.0 1.9 0.9 1.4 1.0 2.2 4.3 5.0 1.5 2.0 5.2 6.2 5.4 5.6 7.0 8.0 Missouri 10.3 8.2 11.0 2.5 5.7 0.8 1.8 1.6 6.0 6.6 9.4 2.6 5.0 2.8 6.9 9.3 12.2 3.1 5.5 9.6 12.4 18.8 22.2 31.4 37.3 Southeast Virginia 18.6 16.0 18.5 2.9 5.6 1.6 2.8 1.2 3.7 o.O 8.6 3.5 6.3 3.0 7.0 20.8 24.8 7.2 11.4 16.4 23.3 48.7 46.2 43.2 47.7 West Virginia 4.3 3.1 3.2 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.4 1.4 1.0 0.8 2.2 1.2 1.8 0.9 2.2 3.1 3.2 1.4 2.0 3.4 3.5 5.1 4.5 15.7 14.0 Kentucky 7.5 6.9 7.5 1.6 3.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 2.3 4.2 5.5 1.7 3.4 1.7 4.1 7.5 8.2 2.8 3.3 5,8 8.7 16.1 12.7 25.5 26.2 Tennessee 16.1 10.5 12.8 2.0 4.2 0.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 5.9 8.2 2.0 4.1 1.9 5.4 12.0 15.5 3.8 6.2 10.4 15.1 26.1 28.8 37.1 39.8 North Carolina 22.4 12.6 16.5 2.3 5.0 0.8 1.8 1.8 4.1 6.7 6.9 2.6 6.2 2.2 6.4 14.5 19.7 4.7 8.5 10.5 18.2 42.0 41.1 45.8 50.1 South Carolina 30.4 14.4 20.8 1.8 4.1 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 4.3 7.9 2.9 7.3 1.7 4.6 17.2 25.3 5.9 10.7 13.3 24.6 47.0 50.2 38.7 54.5 Georgia 25.9 15.9 20.6 2.9 6.6 1.0 2.4 2.8 4.8 2.3 9.0 4.5 7.3 3.1 8.8 20.5 26.7 5.8 10.0 16.8 25.8 46.1 50.4 43.8 54.0 Florida 15.5 13.3 14.0 1.7 3.9 1.1 2.0 0.7 1.7 4.1 4.8 1.8 4.3 1.6 5.3 22.9 23.2 4.6 6.6 19.5 23.3 49.3 44.0 24.3 31.9 Alabama 26.4 16.5 19.0 3.0 5.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 3.4 8.7 12.9 4.1 6.3 2.0 5.6 20.0 23.6 6.1 9.8 17.1 22.3 49.2 48.5 49.5 52.5 Mississippi 36.8 17.9 23.9 1.6 4.9 1.0 2.6 1.8 6.6 2.6 7.2 2.2 5.6 1.5 4.7 22.3 30.1 6.3 12.5 18.5 28.6 52.8 54.8 47.4 57.9 Louisiana 30.1 18.2 21.2 2.4 6.1 1.0 2.6 1.1 3.3 4.9 6.8 3.2 9.2 2.7 7.6 26.2 28.4 7.0 10.3 24.8 32.3 59.6 55.7 50.1 60.2 Arkansas 18.6 10.9 13.4 1.1 3.1 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.8 5.0 6.8 1.6 4.3 0.9 3.4 13.2 15.8 4.0 5.7 11.8 16.8 21.8 22.5 30.9 35.9 Southwest Oklahoma 7.0 3.6 6.2 0.9 2.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.1 2.2 5.1 1.0 1.6 0.9 3.4 4.3 6.9 1.4 2.7 4.2 7.3 10.9 14.6 19.5 26.4 Texas 12.7 9.3 11.8 1.7 3.9 0.7 1.4 1.2 1.7 4.5 6.6 1.4 4.5 1.7 5.3 13.1 16.6 2.9 6.7 13.0 18.5 30.7 30.1 30.4 37.2 Far West California 7.0 5.5 6.8 2.4 4.1 0.7 1.6 1.1 1.9 3.7 5.5 2.3 3.9 3.5 6.2 7.5 8.7 3.2 4.7 8.7 10.3 12.8 12.3 16.3 17.9 Source: U.S. Squal Employment Opportunity Commission Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 3. Total Honey Income in 1969 and 1959, by Region, Race, and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence: 1970 and 1960 (In Millions of 1969 Dollars) 1969 1959 Metropolitan Metropolitan Inside Outside Inside Outside Central Central NNoonnmmeettrroo-- Central Central NNoonnmmeettrroo-- RReeggiioonn aanndd RRaaccee TToottaall Total Cities Cities ppoolliittaann TToottaall Total Cities Cities ppoolliittaann UNITED STATES Negroes 38,680 31,420 24,950 6,469 7,265 20,740 16,670 13,860 2,810 4,070 Whites 560,800 394,800 155,600 239,100 166,000 386,900 275,100 133,000 142,050 111,8^ All Races 604,900 430,800 183,100 247,700 174,100 410,500 293,900 148,400 145,500 116,350 SOUTH Negroes 16,570 10,645 7,760 2,881 5,936 9,080 5,439 4,326 1,116 3,543 Whites 143,700 85,800 36,700 49,000 57,900 90,700 53,900 29,470 24,380 36,880 All Races 160,800 96,700 44,600 52,100 64,100 99,932 59,400 33,800 25,900 40,500 NORTH AND WEST Negroes 22,110 20,780 17,090 3,590 1,350 11,760 11,230 9,532 1,696 535 Whites 417,100 309,000 118,900 190,200 108,100 296,200 221,200 103,500 117,700 74,900 All Races 444,140 334,100 138,400 195,600 110,000 310,500 234,500 114,600 119,900 Source: Derived from U«S. Bureau of the Census, "Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and I96011, Current Population Reports, P-23, No. 37, June 24, 1971. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 4. Distribution of the United States Population, by Region, Race, and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence: 1970 and 1960 (Thousands) 1970 1960 Metropolitan Metropolitan Inside Outside Inside Outside Central Central NNoonnmmeettrroo-- Central Central NNoonnmm^^^^pp-- RReeggiioonn aanndd RRaaccee TToottaall Total Cities Cities ppoolliittaann TToottaall Total Cities Cities ppoollrrwwnn Population UNITED STATES Negroes 22,807 16,122 12,587 3,536 6,685 18,391 11,910 9,480 2,430 6,481 Whites 177,429 113,628 45,088 68,539 63,802 158,698 99,431 47,638 51,793 59,267 All Races 202,534 131,519 58,635 72,883 71,015 178,677 112,367 57,785 54,582 66,310 SOUTH Negroes 12,243 6,301 4,505 1,797 5,942 11,135 5,072 3,738 1,334 6,063 Whites 49,385 25,438 10,780 14,658 23,947 43,202 21,029 11,155 9,874 22,173 All Races 61,884 31,855 15,328 16,527 30,030 54,541 26,173 14,915 11,258 28,3^ NORTH AND WEST Negroes 10,564 9,821 8,082 1,739 743 7,256 6,838 5,742 1,096 418 Whites 128,044 88,190 34,308 53,881 39,855 115,496 78,402 36,483 41,919 37,094 All Races 140,650 99,664 43,307 56,356 40,985 124,136 86,194 42,870 43,324 37,942 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and I960", Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 37, June 24, 1971, Table 2, p. 19. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Tabic 5. Percentage Distribution of Population, 1970 and 1960, and Total Money Income, 1969 and 1959, by Region, Race, and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence 1970 1960 Metropolitan Metropolitan Inside Outside Inside Outside Central Central Nonmetro- Central Central Nonmetro- Region and Race Total Total Cities Cities politan Total Total Cities Cities politan UNITED STATES Negroes Population 11.26 12.26 21.47 4.85 9.41 10.29 10.60 16.41 4.45 9.77 Money Income 6.39 7.29 13.63 2.61 4.17 5.05 5.67 9.34 1.93 3.50 Whites Population 87.60 86.40 76.90 94.04 89.84 88.82 88.49 82.44 94.89 89.38 Money Income 92.70 91.64 84.98 96.53 95.34 94.25 93.60 89.62 97.63 96.09 All Races Population 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Money Income 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 SOUTH Negroes Population 6.04 4.79 7.68 2.47 8.37 6.23 4.51 6.47 2.44 9.14 Money Income 2.74 2.48 4.24 1.16 3.41 2.21 1.85 2.91 0.77 3.04 Whites Population 24.38 19.34 18.38 20.11 33.72 24.18 18.71 19.30 18.09 33.44 Money Income 23.76 19.92 20.04 19.78 33.26 22.10 18.34 19.86 16.76 31.69 All Races Population 30.56 24.22 26.14 22.68 42.29 30.52 23.29 25.81 20.63 42.78 Money Income 26.58 22.46 24.36 21.03 36.82 24.34 20.21 22.77 17.80 34.80 NORTH AND WEST Negroes Population 5.22 7.47 13.78 2.39 1.05 4.06 6.09 9.94 2.01 0.63^^ Money Income 3.66 4.82 9.34 1.45 0.78 2.87 3.82 6.43 1.16 0.46 Whites Population 63.22 67.06 58.51 73.93 56.12 64.64 69.77 63.14 76.80 55.94 Money Income 68.96 71.73 64.94 76.79 62.09 72.16 75.26 69.75 80.89 64.38 All Races Population 69.44 75.78 73.86 77.32 57.71 69.48 76.71 74.19 79.37 •57.22 Money Income 73.42 77.55 75.59 78.97 63.18 75.64 79.79 77.22 82.41 65.24 Source: Tables 3 and 4. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 6. Estimated Net Migration of the Negro and White Population of Major Regions and Selected States, 1960 to 1970, 1950 to 1960, and 1940 to 1950 (Numbers in Thousands) Negro Population White Population 1960 to 1970 1950 to 1960 1940 to 1950 1960 to 1970 1950 to I960 1940 to 1950 Region and St-ate plumber Per Cent—/ Number Per Ponf1' Numhor Per Cenfci' fit Hither Per Hen^/ Nnmher Pai» rpnfi' Number Per Cen UNITED STATES -85 -0.5 -131 -0.9 -180 -1.4 2,284 1.4 2,668 2.0 1,522 1.3 northeast!/ 612 20.2 496 24.6 463 33.8 -520 -1.3 -211 -O.d -173 -0.5 New England 72 29.5 60 42.1 29 28.7 205 2.0 -52 -0.6 68 0.8 Middle Atlantic 540 19.4 436 23.2 434 34.2 -724 -2.3 -159 -0.6 -242 -0.9 NORTH CENTRAL?^ 382 11.1 541 24.3 618 43.5 -1,272 -2.6 -690 -1.6 -948 -2.5 East North Central 356 12.3 504 27.9 573 53.6 -617 -1.9 173 0.6 ' 75 0.3 West North Central 26 4.6 37 8.8 45 12.7 -655 -4.4 -863 -6.4 -1,023 -7.8 SOUTH!' -1,380 -12.2 -1,473 -14.4 -1,599 -16.1 1,806 4.2 57 0.2 -538 -1.7 South Atlantic -538 -9.2 -556 -10.9 -545 -11.6 1,807 9.0 1,189 7.4 604 4.6 East South Central -560 -20.8 -622 -23.0 -596 -21.4 -153 -1.6 -346 -9.6 -694 -8.7 West South Central -282 -10.2 -296 -12.2 -459 -18.9 152 1.1 -286 -2.4 -448 -4.2 WEST!' 301 27.7 305 53.5 339 198.3 2,269 8.8 3,512 18.7 3,181 23.8 Mountain 16 12.6 27 40.6 21 58.5 295 4.5 547 11.3 155 3.9 Pacific 286 29.7 278 55.2 317 236.2 1,974 10.2 2,965 21.3 3,026 32.3 NEW ENGLAND Massachusetts 33 29.5 20 26.9 12 22.4 23 0.5 -122 -2.6 8 0.2 Connecticut 38 35.4 37 69.2 15 45.8 166 6.8 195 10.0 98 5.8 MIDEAST New York 396 27.9 255 27.7 266 46.6 -638 -4.2 -72 -0.5 -6 (Z) New Jersey 120 23.3 107 33.5 61 26.8 -336 6.1 466 10.3 231 5.9 Pennsylvania 25 2.9 75 11.7 107 22.8 -423 -4.0 -552 -5.6 -467 -4.9 Delaware 4 6.6 6 13.4 4 10.9 32 8.4 57 20.8 17 7.2 Maryland 79 15.2 31 8.1 37 12.4 290 11.3 284 14.6 231 15.2 District of Columbia 36 8.7 51 18.3 61 32.8 -137 -39.7 -213 -41.2 -14 -3.0 NORTH CENTRAL Michigan 124 17.3 122 27.5 186 89.4 -124 -1.7 28 0.5 146 2.9 Ohio 45 5.8 129 25.2 131 38.7 -191 -2.1 274 3.7 110 1.7 Indiana 32 12.0 42 , 24.3 39 32.1 -58 -1.3 17 0.4 57 1.7 Illinois 127 12.2 182 28.2 203 52.3 -215 -2.4 -64 -0.8 -142 -1.9 Wisconsin 27 36.1 29 101.5 14 112.6 -29 -0.8 -82 -2.4 -96 -3.1 Missouri 14 3.7 24 8.2 31 12.7 -25 -0.6 -161 -4.4 -222 -6.3 SOUTHEAST Virginia -79 -9.7 -74 -10.0 -29 -4.4 206 6.5 85 3.3 194 9.6 West Virginia -20 -22.2 -41 -35.4 -17 -14.0 -247 -14.0 -406 -21.5 -219 -12.3 Kentucky 1 0.5 -16 -8.0 -18 -8.3 -158 -5.6 -375 -13.7 -349 -13.3 Tennessee -51 -8.7 -59 -11.0 -48 -9.4 1 (Z) -217 -7.9 -97 -4.0 North Carolina -175 -15.7 -204 -19.4 -164 -16.7 81 2.4 -121 -4.0 -95 -3.7 South Carolina -197 -23.8 -218 -26.5 -208 -25.5 44 2.8 -4 -0.3 -24 -2.2 Georgia -154 -13.7 -205 -19.3 -243 -22.4 198 7.0 -8 -0.3 -49 -2.4 Florida -32 -3.6 96 16.0 12 2.4 1,340 33.0 1,516 70.0 564 40.8 Alabama -231 -23.6 -224 -22.9 -204 -20.8 -5 -0.2 -145 -7.0 -140 -7.6 Mississippi -279 -30.4 -323 -32.7 -326 -30.3 10 0.8 -110 -9.3 -108 -9.7 Louisiana -163 -15.7 -93 -10.5 -147 -17.3 26 1.2 43 2.4 -2 -0.2 Arkansas -112 -28.7 -150 -35.1 -158 -32.6 38 2.7 -283 -19.1 -259 -17.6 SOUTHWEST Oklahoma -3 -2.1 -21 -14.2 -47 -27.8 -4 -0.2 -193 -9.5 -361 -17.1 Texas -4 -0.3 33 -3.3 -107 -11.6 92 1.1 147 2.2 173 3.2 FAR WEST California 272 30.7 255 55.2 289 232.4 1,528 10.6 2,788 28.1 2,373 36.0 NOTE: JL/ Base is population at beginning of period. V Regions and divisions as defined by U.S. Bureau of the Census. (Z) Less than 0.05 per cent or 500. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Preliminary Intercensal Estimates of States and Components of Population Change, 1960 to 1970", Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 460, June 7, 1971, Table 7, p. 17. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 7. NEGRO POPULATION TRENDS, NET MIGRATION, AND TRENDS IN WELFARE ASSISTANCE-' IN SELECTED CITIES^7 (Nuabers in Thousands) TRENDS IN WELFARE ASSISTANCE—1/ POPULATI ON TREN DS NET MIGRATI ON, 1960 TO 1970 .MID -1971 MID-1960'S CCHHAANNGGEE::: MID-I960'S TO 1971 Negro Population 1970 Change 1960-1970 Negro and Other Races Negro and Other Races Hearo and Other Races Negro an1d O ther Birpi Avg. An. Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Total Persons PPeerr CCeenntt Per Cent of Per Cent Sate of Total of State of 1 Total of Total Avg. An. ooff TToottaall Avg. An . Area and City Number Total Nuaber Change Growth Nuaber Per Cent—' Persons Total Nuaber (Est.) Total Year Persons Nuaber (Est.!I Total Nuaber Rate Nuaber (Est.) CChhaannggee Race New Ensland Boston, Mass. 105 16 42 66.7 5.3 26 39 76,963 28.5 17,009 **//2222 1965 25,465 51,498 20.0 - Mid B N e e u a w f s f Y t a o lo r , k , N N .Y .Y . . 1,66 9 7 4 2 21 0 57 2 9 3 3 5 2 3 . . 4 2 4 2 . . 4 8 436 9 3 1 8 2 84 5 0 3 , , 3 1 9 2 5 2 6 4 5 . . 2 7 I135 2 8 0 , , 0 5 0 5 8 8 6/3 4 9 3 1 1 9 96 6 5 0 1 3 9 1 3 , , 1 6 8 8 1 9 _ _ _ 6 2 4 1 6 , , 9 7 4 0 1 6 1 9 4 . . 3 3 A Newark, N.J. 207 54 69 50.0 4.1 32 23 ,.95,100 21.4 - 1965 41,694 53,406 14.7 Pittsburgh, Pa. 105 20 4 4.0 0.4 -6 -6 — 84,586 13.9 _ _ 19_65_ 51,3_96 _ 33,190 8.7 Baltlaorc, Md. 420 46 94 28.8 2.6 32 10 31,000 18.1 Washington, D.C. 538 71 126 30.6 2.7 38 9 75,871 100.0 73,974 1/98 1960 21,225 - - 54 , 646 12.3 Great Lakes C C C C D In o h l i e e n d l i t u c v c i r a a a e i o n g b n l i a o u n t a n , , s a p d , t o , M 1 i l , O 1 i i s O c 1 h , O h . h i o . h i o I io n d. 1,1 6 2 1 1 1 0 6 8 2 3 0 3 0 8 5 4 0 4 3 2 3 1 1 4 8 8 3 8 9 2 1 9 3 7 3 2 1 0 7 8 6 3 6 3 3 3 1 2 1 6 5 6 4 4 9 . . . . . . 7 7 7 9 7 9 3 3 2 3 1 1 . . . . . . 2 7 2 1 4 4 1 - 9 1 - 1 3 3 9 8 3 5 - - 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 5 2 4 i 1 1 1 i 1 £ ' 5 1 { / / 2 4 4 4 4 2 0 5 2 0 8 , , 4 , , , 7 0 0 8 8 5 0 3 7 3 2 8 5 7 4 2 3 1 1 7 2 2 2 1 2 9 . . . . . . 6 3 1 3 3 3 — ^ ! . £ ,1 9 ' / 3 2 2 2 7 4 8 2 5 , 8 , , 5 - , , 1 3 2 l 9 6 4 3 9 1 4 5 7 3 li 22 / // 7 77 8 - 6 5 1 99 1 7 5 1 1 1 1 1 I9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 5 5 5 6 6 1 1 i 1 ^ 1 1 5 / / / / 1 2 2 5 6 0 2 3 0 7 8 6 . , , , . , 2 5 8 7 3 6 1 9 8 6 1 6 8 2 7 8 9 8 8 _ _ _ 3,9 48 12/7 _ _ 9 I 1 1 1 ? 2 1 ^ / / / 1 3 2 1 / 6 2 0 3 0 8 9 3 4 4 ^ , , , 2 , , 6 5 1 4 2 6 6 3 6 1 0 7 4 4 2 6 9 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 0 8 6 3 . . . . . . 0 6 1 7 8 9 264,345 7799 13.8 Gary, Ind. 93 53 24 34.8 3.1 10 14 !§/ 33,147 26.1 - 1965 H/11,528 - 16/21,619 19.3 - Plains K S a t. n s L a o s u C is i , t y, M o M . o. 2 1 5 1 4 2 4 2 1 2 4 2 0 9 3 1 4 8. . 7 9 3 1. . 7 0 - 1 I 3 1 - 6 12/ 3 7 1 1 , , 7 4 8 4 9 0 3 1 8 7 . . 2 0 17{ 6 2 2 5 , , 8 7 6 4 7 9 8 8 8 1 1 1 9 9 6 6 5 5 11/1 3 3 6 , , 1 4 6 4 7 6 H/ 2 9 9 ,8 ,5 7 2 5 1 8 7 1 5 17/1 3 8 4 , , 6 9 2 9 2 4 1 15 1 . . 8 9 12/1 3 5 3 , 8 3 7 4 4 6 9 8 5 5 1 17 3 ^ .4 3 Southeast M A H B e t l e r l w o a a p n l O n h t r g l a l s e h , , a a n G T c, e s a , n . n A L . l a a . . 2 2 2 1 6 5 2 4 7 5 6 3 4 4 3 5 2 5 9 1 6 - 3 5 9 9 3 9 3 3 - 1 6 2 7 4 . . . . 7 1 1 1 -0 33 2 11 . .. . .. 7 22 8 33 - - 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 -1 - 1 1 5 7 2 8 18/5 9 2 5 9 2 4 6 , , , , 1 0 4 7 0 5 4 1 7 8 1 8 2 3 3 1 9 0 3 4 . . . . 4 4 4 1 JJ/5 4 6 1 1 8 , , , - 9 3 8 7 7 0 1 7 4 8 7 - 7 8 3 5 1 1 1 9 9 9 6 6 6 5 5 5 15/1 4 1 6 3 1 , , , 4 7 0 _1 6 2 5 4 6 2 6 _ 9 , , 7 7 2 6 6 0 6 6 61 8 1 1155//44 4 4 22 8 5 ,, , , 66 3 4 44 4 1 33 3 5 22 3 1 44 1 3 .. . . 00 0 2 3 3 9 4 ,0 6 * 5 4 1 f 'b i 1 1 J 5 i.O .0 Nashvllle-Oavldson, Tenn. 88 20 12 15.8 1.5 2 3 15,710 8.9 1965 4,414 11,296 24.0 Southvest H D o a u ll s a t s o , n T , e T x e a xa s s 3 2 1 1 7 0 2 2 6 5 1 8 0 1 2 4 6 7 2 . . 4 8 3 5. . 0 9 4 5 7 6 2 3 6 6 1 1 1 2 / 7 5 6 3 2 , , 6 5 0 6 4 0 1 14 7 . . 7 1 AA22//33 2 22 8 ,, , 77 0 11 3 99 5 1 11 9 22 / // 5 5522 2 1 1 9 9 6 6 5 5 !£/7 8 , , 21 m 0 19/ 4 5 5 5 , 1 4 3 4 9 6 4 4 3 4 7 . . 0 0 • ar West ' os Angelas, Cj. 3d-. 18 169 50.5 4.1 120 29 652,619 39.8 311,299 22/48 1965 12/188,084 464, 535 23.0 Oakland, Ca. 125 35 41 48.8 4.1 29 30 i^/88,545 5.4 1965 33,943 54,602 17. 3 J San Francisco, Ca. 96 13 22 29.7 2.7 37 28 64,742 4.0 - - 1965 26,837 37,905 I >. 8 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 7. NEGRO POPULATION TRENDS. NET MIGRATION, AND TRENDS IN WELFARE ASSISTANCE^' IN SELECTED CITIES^/ FOOTNOTES JL/ Aid to families with dependent children. 2/ The 30 cities with the largest Negro population in 1970, according to the Bureau of the Census, except for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Richmond, Virginia, Jacksonville, Florida, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where welfare officials could not be contacted. 3/ Base is population at beginning of period. 4-/ From sample taken September 1969. Ratio may have declined to 20 per cent nonwhites to 80 per cent whites, as whites are getting on welfare irt increasing numbers. j)/ Based on actual distribution of welfare rolls as of June 1969. Puerto Ricans included in whites; whites 57.4 per cent. In 1968, family aid case load was 13 per cent white, 40 per cent Puerto Rican and 47 per cent nonwhite. J3/ Openings of cases. Distribution 61.3 per cent white to 38.7 per cent nonwhite. Thought to reflect current situation. Usually in past ratio was 50:50. New applications running 64 per cent white to 36 per cent nonwhite. Closings, 61.8 per cent white to 38.2 per cent nonwhites. 7/ Allegheny County; two-third population within the city. I8/ As of January 1970. Probably higher now. j)/ 1970 cases. Estimate is that whites are getting on faster now than non- whites and ratio may be 78:22 or 77:23, nonwhites to whites. 10/ 1964 data. Families with fathers at home. 11/ For all welfare programs. Distribution was 70.9 per cent Negroes, 24 per cent white, 0.1 per cent American Indian, 0.4 per cent Mexican- American, and 4.6 per cent not classified. 12/ Cuyahoga County. 13/ Hamilton County. 14/ Franklin County. 15/ Marion County. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -2- TABLE 7. FOOTNOTES (Continued) 16/ Lake County. 17/ Jackson County. 18/ Shelby County. 19/ Harris County. 20/ Statewide survey as of July 1, 1971: Race of Payee (by family). Distribution was Anglo 14.7 per cent, Negro 52.3 per cent, Latins 32.9 per cent, American Indian 0.05 per cent, Other and Unknown 0.05 per cent. Increases in new recipients have slowed markedly in last few months of 1971. Officer in Austin could not give an explanation. 21/ Dallas County. 22/ December 1967, family groups and unemployed fathers programs. Distribution 30.44 per cent white; 47.68 per cent Negro; 20.37 per cent Mexican-American; 0.52 per cent American Indian; and 0.60 per cent Other. 23/ Los Angeles County. 24/ Alameda County. Sources: Population and Migration. "The Social and Economic Status of Negroes in the United States, 1970,11 Special Studies, B.L.S. Report No. 394, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 38, U.S. Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics, Tables 11 and 12, pp. 17 and 18. Welfare estimates: Telephone survey of responsible welfare offices. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 8. GROSS AND NET MIGRATION RATES FOR MEN, BY REGION, AGE AND RACE, 1965-1970 (Per Cent) Age 25-44 Age 45 and over Negro White Negro White Out In Net Out In Net Out In Net Out In Net Region Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration 1 ligratioi New England 21.5 28.2 6.7 13.0 12.3 -0.7 8.9 12.6 3.7 6.9 7.5 0.6 Mideast 9.0 12.3 3.3 10.6 10.0 -0.6 4.2 5.3 1.1 5.8 5.7 -0.1 Great Lakes 8.2 19.1 10.9 11.5 11.4 -0.1 3.9 5.8 1.9 7.2 5.8 -1.4 Plains 21.3 22.0 0.7 17.7 14.5 -3.2 7.4 11.1 3.7 10.0 8.4 -1.6 Southeast 15.9 6.1 -9.8 12.8 14.1 1.3 5.7 3.1 -2.6 7.6 10.4 2.8 Southwest 13.1 13.1 0.0 15.9 19.1 3.2 7.3 6.9 -0.4 9.5 11.8 2.3 Rocky Mountain 38.2 52.9 14.7 23.9 21.3 -2.6 12.5 28.1 15.6 14.6 10.5 --44..11 Far West 13.2 22.9 9.7 14.4 14.8 0.4 7.1 9.2 2.1 8.8 8.1 „ AVERAGE 12.7 _ 13.1 5.3 _ « 7.6 Source: Social .Security Administration, One Per Cent Sample Survey. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 9. ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF MALE MIGRANTS, TO AND FROM THE SOUTHEAST, BY REGION, AGE AND RACE, 1965-1970 (Percentage Distribution) Age 25-44 Age 45 and Over Orig in Destination Orij in Destination ? RReeggiioonn Negro White Negro White Negro White Negro White New England 7.2 5.3 5.0 5.1 3.1 5.6 6.8 5.6 Mideast 48.5 28.0 38.6 28.3 45.4 29.3 37.1 33.4 Great Lakes 20.2 30.1 34.4 31.8 20.8 26.9 24.1 27.6 Plains 3.3 6.0 4.0 7.0 2.3 5.9 8.9 6.3 Southwest 12.1 11.2 8.7 16.2 16.9 10.5 15.2 15.5 Rocky Mountain 0.7 1.5 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 Far West 8.1 17.8 8.3 10.2 10.8 20.4 6.8 10.4 TOTAL* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Social Security Administration, One Per Cent Sample Survey * Totals may not add to 100.0 due to rounding. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE 10, INCOME GAINS FROM MIGRATION, 1965-1970 A. Income Differentials Before and After Migration, by Region and Race Migrant vs. Nonmigrant Males 25-44 Per Cent BEFORE MIGRATION AFTER MIGRATION GAIN FROM MIGRATION REGION NEGRO WHITE NEGRO WHITE NEGRO WHITE New England -16.2 0.8 -8.2 10.8 8.0 10.0 Mideast -13.9 1.3 -13.8 5.8 0.1 4.5 Great Lakes -22.7 -4.5 -20.5 -1.5 2.2 3.0 Plains -6.2 1.0 -6.3 10.8 -0.1 9.8 Southeast -18.5 1.0 14.5 14.0 33.0 13.0 Southwest -10.9 -3.3 1.2 6.1 9.7 9.9 Rocky Mountain -15.2 -9.2 -13.1 9.0 2.1 18.2 Far West -20.4 -1.5 -15.7 -0.9 4.7 0.6 B. Income of Migrants from Southeast Relative to Non-Migrants INCREASE RELATIVE II HCOME IN: RELATIVE TO 1 965 1970 NON-MIGRANTS NEGRO WHITE NEGRO) WHITE NEGRO WHITE Males 25-44 81 101 114 114 33 13 Males 45+ 95 117 100 122 5 5 Females 25-44 84 92 108 99 24 7 Source - Social Security Administration, One Per Cent Sample Survey Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis APPENDIX: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF NET MIGRATION RATES This statistical analysis represents an attempt to identify and to quantify the factors which affect domestic interstate net migration rates of black and white people. It was assumed that the most important incentive for both races was provided by income differentials among States -- that is, migrants would move to the location of the more favorable economic climate. In addition, an attempt was made to account for migration patterns which may be in response to noneconomic factors — such as racial discrimination (for blacks) or retirement conditions (for whites). The estimating technique used in this study was multiple regression analysis. Tests of the models were performed using data for the continental United States and the District of Columbia for the Census decades 1950-1960 and 1960-1970. These data appear in the Appendix Table 1. The basic model relates per capita income differentials and a dummy variable designed to approximate both economic forces not specified in the equation and noneconomic factors which have contri- buted to migration patterns. For black migrants, the disincentives to remain in the Southeastern region were specified as the dummy variable with values of 1.0 for the Southeastern States (excluding Florida) and 0.0 elsewhere. White migration rates were related to a dummy variable which assumed values of 1.0 for the retirement and recreational areas of Florida, Arizona, and Nevada and 0.0 elsewhere. In all cases, the regressions were weighted by the black, white, and total populations for the respective net migration rate equations. The results appear in Appendix Table 2. What the basic model (Equation (1)) shows for the two time periods i s that migrants of both races respond to income differentials as measured by the per capita income ratio, and to other forces approximated by the dummy variables. Relatively high income states appear to attract migrants as well as maintain their own population. However, it should be noted that Equation (3) for white migrants in the 1960-70 decade shows an income coefficient which is not statistically significant at the 5.0 per cent level of confidence. This is probably the result of statistical biases and the coefficients magnitude may be underestimated. Aside from the attraction of income, black migrants were motivated to move out of the Southern region at above average rates. This effect is shown by the negative and statistically significant coefficient on the Southern disincentive variable. White migrants responded to retirement and recreational incentives and moved in that direction at above average rates. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -A2- To test the effects of welfare payments on the direction of migration, payments per recipient under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program was added to the basic model. Equation (2) shows that black migrants responded positively to State differences in welfare programs whereas whites did not. However, welfare may be positively related to the income variable, and it may also be coincident with the trend of black movement out of the South, a low payment area, to other parts of the nation. A second variation was tested by replacing the welfare variable with educational expenditures per pupil (as shown in Equation (3)). Again, black migrants appeared to respond positively to expenditures and whites did not. However, per pupil costs are generally lower in the South relative to the rest of the Nation. Replacement of the welfare variable with educational expenditures appears to show no significant difference in the regression results. The constant terms in most of these equations are large and negative. These indicate that there is steady pressure for people to move out of most States, which -- unless counterbalanced by a strong income response -- will result in net out-migrations among both races. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Appendix Table 1. Net Migration, 1960 to 1970, and Personal Income, Welfare Payments, and Expenditures on Education, by Region and State Ratio of 1P er Capita Personal Income in State to 1P er Capita Personal Aid to Families With Net Mig \ ration Income for U.S. Dependent Children - Annual Current Expenditure Rate (Pe :r Cent) 1969 Payments Per Recipient Per Pupil (Elementary and Region and State Negro White (Per Cent) (Dec. 1970) Secondary Schools, 19 70) U.S. Average 100.0 $49.50 $812 New England 109.0 68.58 853 Maine 0.0 -7.2 83.0 40.40 723 New Hampshire 0.0 11.2 92.0 61.35 687 Vermont 0.0 3.5 88.0 61.35 1008 Massachusetts 29.5 0.5 111.0 71.50 841 Rhode Island 12.2 0.5 100.0 61.85 915 Connecticut 35.4 6.8 124.0 65.30 916 Mideast 114.0 67.08 1067 New York 27.9 -4.2 122.0 77.90 1247 New Jersey 23.3 6.1 117.0 62.60 1054 Pennsylvania 2.9 -4.0 100.0 63.10 892 Delaware 6.6 8.4 110.0 36.25 891 Maryland 15.2 11.3 109.0 43.65 888 District of Columbia 8.7 -39.7 137.0 55.25 971 Great Lakes 104.0 51.32 825 Michigan 17.3 -1.7 104.0 53.80 890 Ohio .5.8 -2.1 101.0 43.85 729 Indiana 12.0 -1.3 96.0 35.95 731 Illinois 12.2 -2.4 115.0 58.55 872 Wisconsin 36.1 -0.8 94.0 64.20 930 Plains 94.0 50.55 804 Minnesota 33.3 -1.2 98.0 72.05 971 Iowa 6.0 -6.9 94.0 52.30 902 Missouri 3.7 -0.6 94.0 30.50 710 North Dakota 0.0 -15.2 76.0 61.50 665 South Dakota 0.0 -14.0 81.0 53.40 680 Nebraska 7.3 -5.6 96.0 41.60 653 Kansas -0.9 -6.7 98.0 55.75 731 Southeast 81.0 27.03 628 Virginia -9.7 6.5 92.0 47.45 753 West Virginia -22.2 -14.0 77.0 27.15 598 Kentucky 0.5 -5.6 78.0 30.80 580 Tennessee -8.7 0.0 79.0 29.65 571 North Carolina -15.7 2.4 82.0 30.90 607 South Carolina -23.8 2.8 75.0 19.70 615 Georgia -13.7 7.0 85.0 28.45 615 Florida -3.6 33.0 93.0 23.85 728 Alabama -23.6 -0.2 73.0 15.20 463 Mississippi -30.4 0.8 66.0 12.10 495 Louisiana -15.7 1.2 78.0 20.10 747 Arkansas -28.7 2.7 71.0 25.00 549 Southwest 89.0 30.78 637 Oklahoma -2.1 -0.2 84.0 37.25 659 Texas -0.3 1.1 90.0 28.95 599 New Mexico -24.7 -13.8 80.0 32.50 751 Arizona -10.2 21.2 92.0 32.00 768 Rocky Mountain 90.0 48.43 707 Montana 0.0 -8.7 86.0 45.85 819 Idaho 0.0 -6.6 83.0 50.60 595 Wyoming 0.0 -42.2 91.0 42.25 884 Colorado 40.9 11.0 97.0 52.15 735 Utah 0.0 -1.9 82.0 42.85 611 Far West 110.0 53.77 859 Washington 20.0 8.0 102.0 60.25 826 Oregon 20.9 8.4 94.0 46.85 875 Nevada 48.0 51.5 116.0 30.85 756 California 30.7 10.6 113.0 53.95 866 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis APPENDIX TABLE 2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NET MIGRATION, 1950-60 AND 1960-70. (See Description of Models Below) Personal Southern Retirement . Welfare Educational Standard Race Incomer^ Disincentives!' Incentives—' Benefits^ Benefit^' Constant Error 1950-1960^ Negro Equation (1) 75.59 -12.97 -59.38 .82 11.2 -- -- — (5.80) (-2.16) (-4.17) White Equation (1) 30.90 -- 67.09 — — -29.80 .67 9.3 (4.25) (9.18) (-3.98) Both :: Equation (1) 39.79 57.71 -38.44 .69 8.7 — -- (6.11) (8.71) (-5.78) 1960-1970i/ Negro :: :: Equation (1) 69.87 -11.48 60.99 .82 8.1 -- (6.55) (-2.95) (-5.29) Equation (2) 33.29 -12.66 — 0.35 — -40.10 .85 7.5 (2.12) (-3.49) (2.98) (-3.15) Equation (3) 23.49 -12.96 0.024 -52.15 .84 7.8 — (2.53) (-3.41) (2.20) -(4.43) -- White Equation (1) 7.79 31.43 -7.12 .54 6.1 -- -- (1.25)* (7.35) (-1.13)* Equation (2) 29.39 27.18 -0.23 -17.18 .61 5.7 -- -- (3.03) (6.35) (-2.77) (-2.48) Equation (3) 16.42 31.09 -0.020 -12.20 .60 5.8 -- -- (2.79) (7.65) (-2.47) (-1.93)* Both Equation (1) 22.40 26.53 -- -21.31 .55 5.7 (3.97) (6.67) (-3.72) Equation (2) 40.09 23.15 -0.188 -29.70 .60 5.5 (4.31) -- (5.70) (-2.33) -- (-4.54) Equation (3) 23.81 26.21 -0.018 -25.90 .66 5.4 -- -- (4.36) (6.94) (-2.46) (-4.51) NOTE: Model I: Effects of Income; Equation (1) Model II: Effects of Welfare; Equation (2) Model III: Effects of Education; Equation (3) (t-statistics in parentheses) * insignificant at 5 per cent level of confidence -- not used in equation NOTE: Footnotes are on next page. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis APPENDIX TABLE 2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NET MIGRATION, 1950-60 AND 1960-70. FOOTNOTES 1/ Net migration rates for each State during the decade. 2/ Ratio of each State's per capita personal income to per capita personal income for the United States, 1969. 3»/ Proxy for the complex of factors beyond differences in personal income which induce a high rate of net out-migration of Negroes from the South, excluding Florida. 4/ Proxy for the complex of factors beyond differences in personal income which induce a high rate of net in-migration of white persons into three states: Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. These States are generally retirement and recreational areas. 5/ Payments per recipient under program of aid to families with dependent children in each State, December, 1970. 6/ Annual current expenditure per pupil -- average daily membership, elementary and secondary schools, 1970-71. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Andrew F. Brimmer (1971, September 14). Speech. Speeches, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/speech_19710915_brimmer

@misc{wtfs_speech_19710915_brimmer,
  author = {Andrew F. Brimmer},
  title = {Speech},
  year = {1971},
  month = {Sep},
  howpublished = {Speeches, Federal Reserve},
  url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/speech_19710915_brimmer},
  note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}