Migration of Workers to Michigan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MIGRATION OF WORKERS TO MICHIGAN JOHN N. WEBB AND ALBERT WESTEFELD * Though labor mobility is a factor of importance to many activities in the field of social security and especially to the administration of unemployment compensation, information on this subject is fragmentary. The Social Security Bulletin therefore welcomes the opportunity to publish this article, based on a special tabulation of the mobility data derived from the 1935 Michigan Census of Population and Unemployment, which was made as a cooperative undertaking of the Michigan State Emergency Relief Administration, the Michigan Works Progress Administration, and the Division of Social Research of the Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C. AN EXAMINATION of the economic, aspects of labor present problem of the unemployed nonresident. mobility in Michigan suggests that the net effect But differences appear also among interstate is beneficial both to industry and to the migrant. migrants. The industrial attachment of the The Michigan data on labor mobility indicate not migrant plays an important part in his success only the relative success and failure of migration or failure in obtaining employment. For example, as a means of obtaining employment but also workers in transportation and communication and differences in this respect among migrants accord• in the construction industries found it particularly ing to type and industrial attachment. Previous difficult to obtain employment after moving to analyses 1 based on this study have dealt with Michigan. In general, the incidence of unem• both intrastate and interstate mobility; this ployment after moving was greater among workers article singles out the interstate migrants to from industries now covered by unemployment Michigan for special treatment because informa• compensation than among those from noncovered tion on their mobility has considerable relevance industries. Workers in covered industries showed to the social security program, and particularly much less tendency to enter noncovered employ• to unemployment compensation.2 ment than did workers in, say, agriculture, for Interstate migration differs in several important whom jobs in the manufacturing industries pro• respects from intrastate migration. The Michi• vided alternative opportunity to employment in gan data show that migrants within the State their usual industry. were considerably more successful in finding Although the unemployment compensation pro• employment than were migrants from outside gram under the Social Security Act was not in the State, principally because intrastate migrants effect when the Michigan census was taken in were generally in closer touch with employment January 1935, it is believed that the problem of opportunities in Michigan. Yet when the mi• the migratory worker was not greatly different grants failed to find employment, only half as from that at the present time. Moreover, the many interstate migrants were able to obtain pertinence of this study is not confined to the assistance as were intrastate migrants. This, of State in which it was conducted, because the course, is only another way of stating the ever- wide variety of industries in Michigan gives rise to mobility problems not unlike those that exist * Works Progress Administration, Division of Research. 1 "Labor Mobility and Relief," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 48, No. 1 in other industrial States east of the Mississippi (January 1939); Michigan Migrants, Division of Research, Works Progress River. It is hoped therefore that the findings Administration, March 1939; and "Industrial Aspects of Labor Mobility," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 48, No. 4 (April 1939). presented here may provide useful information on 2 An approach to some problems of interstate migration has been made in various aspects of labor mobility related to the the Interstate benefit-payment plan, adopted by the Interstate Conference of Unemployment Compensation Agencies in March 1938 and designed to social security program. implement payment of benefits to unemployed individuals who have earned benefit rights under the law of a State or States different from that in which The Michigan Census and the Mobility Study the individual is living while unemployed. See Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 1938), pp. 18-19, and Vol. 1, No. 5 (May 1938), pp. 7-10. The Michigan Census of Population and Unem• For articles touching on various aspects of mobility in relation to social insurance see Clague, Ewan, and I.evine, I.ouis, "Unemployment Compensa• ployment was conducted as a special work project tion and Migratory Labor," Social Security Bulletin, January 1938 (processed), of the Michigan State Emergency Relief Adminis• pp. 11-16; and I.evine, I.ouis. "Unemployment Compensation Statistical Reporting," Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 2 (February 1939). tration. The enumeration was on the basis of a 20-percent random sample in some types of com• Therefore, with the exception of some moves that munities and a 100-percent coverage in others. occurred near the State border—"commuting" About 522,000 schedules, each representing a moves which did not involve a definite transfer household, were taken; these covered about 40 of workers from one place to another—interstate percent of the total population of the State. The mobility in this study means changes of residence labor-mobility study was in turn based on a as well as changes in the place of work. sample of 120,247, or 23 percent, of the schedules The 120,247 households covered by the study taken in the Michigan census. These schedules contained 188,757 persons who worked or sought were carefully selected to yield a representative work during all or a part of the 57-month period cross section of the State's population. studied. These persons made a total of 10,146 interstate moves of the following types: into Table 1.—Employment status and industrial attach• ment before and after migration to Michigan Michigan, 7,348; out of Michigan, 2,265; between other States, 533. It is not intended that these Number of figures supply an estimate of the gross or net persons in Percentage specified sta• distribution volume of migration to Michigan from 1930 to tus— Employment status and industry 1935. From the quantitative point of view there Before After Before After are limitations arising out of the fact that move• migra• migra• migra• migra• tion tion tion tion ment out of Michigan could be recorded only in cases in which the person returned to the State Total 7,348 7,348 100.0 100.0 Employed before the census date. Furthermore, the basis 58.3 5.436 4,283 74.0 for including persons in the study was labor- 3,763 Covered industries 2,930 51.2 39.8 market participation during all or a part of the Mining 121 85 1.6 1.2 Construction 329 124 4.5 1.7 census period; the results therefore cannot be Manufacturing 1,245 1,627 16.8 22.0 Transportation and communica• compared with census figures or the findings of tion 798 177 10.9 2.4 Trade 710 556 9.7 7.6 other studies. However, the 7,348 moves into Finance 122 52 1.7 .7 Service 438 309 6.0 4.2 Michigan do furnish unbiased information about Noncovered industries 1,673 1,353 22.8 18.5 certain qualitative aspects of labor mobility across Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 783 770 10.7 10.5 a State line. It is this migration that is analyzed Public and professional service 506 321 6.9 4 4 Domestic and personal service 384 262 5.2 3.6 in this article. Unemployed 1,237 2,319 16.8 31.5 In the industrial classification in the accom• Not seeking work 675 746 9.2 10.2 panying tables, the original census classes used in the mobility study have been regrouped to The mobility data were obtained from the work- correspond as closely as possible to the classifica• history section of the census schedule. The work tion established in the Social Security Board.3 The history was filled in for each person in the house• study includes under the construction industry hold who was over 15 years of age at the date of both building and highway construction. Finance enumeration—January 14, 1935. The following comprises banking, brokerage, insurance, and information, covering the period April 1930 to real estate Covered service industries include January 1935, was entered: each job lasting a recreation and amusement; semiprofessional pur• month or more, and similarly each period of un• suits; hotels, restaurants, and boarding houses; employment or period of "not seeking work," the and laundries, cleaning, dyeing, and pressing corresponding place of work or place of residence shops. Forestry and fishing, because of the very for periods of unemployment or "not seeking small numbers of workers involved, are combined work," and the dates of each activity. An un• with agriculture. Unemployment includes a few employed worker, it should be noted, was defined cases of casual work or employment in nonascer• as one seeking work but having less than 4 full tainable industries. days of employment with the same employer in a given month. 3 For a general description of the development of this code, see Sogge, An interstate move was recorded whenever the Tillman M., "Industrial Classification in Relation to Unemployment Compensation," Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 1, Nos. 1-3 (March 1938), work history showed a shift across a State line. pp. 19 22. Employment Status and Industrial Attach• qualification. If, however, they displaced Michi• ment Before and After Migration gan workers, the claims lead in Michigan would Interstate migration redistributes workers ac• rise. Finally, it should be noted that the higher cording to opportunities for employment in the incidence of unemployment after migration than new locality. A general idea of the redistribution before is evidence of the largely undirected nature that resulted from the migration of workers to of migration during the period studied.