United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research Report

Number 58

.•W9i^,^i

Social and Economic

Characteristics of

the Population in

Metro and Nonmetro

Counties, 1970-80

David A. McGranahan

John C. Hession

Fred K. Mines

Max F Jordan

t,a

'J--''

Ä *
Sales Information

Additional copies of this report may be purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Ask for

Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1970-80, RDRR-58. Write to the above address for price and

ordering information. For faster service, call the CPO order desk at (202)

783-3238 and charge your purchase to your VISA, MasterCard, Choice, or CPO

Deposit Account. Bulk discount is available. Foreign customers must add 25

percent extra for postage.

Microfiche copies ($5.95 each) can be purchased from the National Technical

Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. VA 22161. Include the

title and series number in your order. Enclose check or moneyorder payable to

NTIS; add $3 handling charge for each order. You can also charge your purchase to your VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or NTIS Deposit Account

by calling (703) 487-4650. Rush Orders Only: NTIS will ship your order within

24 hours for an extra $10. You can charge your rush order by calling

800-336-4700.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing.
Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1970-80. By David A. McGranahan, John C. Hession, Fred K.

Mines, and Max F. Jordan. Agriculture and Rural Economics Division, Economic

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development Research

Report No. 58.

Abstract

Rapid growth in manufacturing, increasing numbers of working women with

children, and a steep rise in single-parent families were leading changes in the

economic and social profile of rural counties during the 1970's. This report

documents changes in the economic and social characteristics of both metro

and nonmetro residents from 1970-80. Although median family income in nonmetro areas continued to improve compared with metro areas, nonmetro

median income was only 79 percent of metro income in 1979, compared with

69 percent in 1959.

Keywords: Population, metro, nonmetro, rural urban, income, employment,

household size, family, poverty, housing, education

Washington, DC 20005-4788 September 1986
Contents

Page

Text Appendix

tables

Highlights ííl

Introduction 1

County Classification 1

Population, Family, and Education 3 43-53

Population Change 4 43

Population Change by Age Group 5 44

Migration 6 45-46

Fertility 9 47

Age 10 48-49

Family Structure 13 50-51

Household Size 15 52

Educational Attainment , 15 53

Labor Force and Employment 17 54-61

Labor Force Size and Participation . 18 54-56

Commuting 20 57

Employment Growth by Industry 21 58

Service Sector Employment. 25 59-60

Occupation in 1980 26 61

Income and Poverty 28 62-67

Median Family Income 29 62-63

Poverty 30 64-66

Sources of Income. 34 67

Housing 34 68-70

Number of Units and Tenure 34 68

Housing Quality 36 69

Median Rent 37 70

Conclusions 39

Future Nonmetro Growth 39

Socioeconomic Convergence 40

Appendix Tables 43
Highlights

Rapid growth in service and manufacturing employment, increasing numbers of

working women, and a steep rise in single-parent families were leading changes

in the economic and social profile of nonmetro counties during the 1970's. This

report documents the changes in the economic and social characteristics of

both metro and nonmetro residents from 1970-80. Among the report's findings:

• The U.S. population growth rate slowed from 13.3 percent in the 1960's to

11.5 percent in the 1970's, but the growth rate of the labor force rose from

18.6 percent to 29.3 percent.

• The service sector accounted for 82 percent of U.S. employment growth

during the 1970's, and 73 percent of nonmetro employment growth.

• Manufacturing employment grew 20.4 percent in nonmetro areas during

the 1970's compared with 7.2 percent in metro areas.

• Total employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining rose about 14

percent nationwide during the 1970's compared with a 33-percent fall during the 1960's.

• The nonmetro labor force grew by one-third during the 1970's, while the

number of nonmetro women working or looking for work grew by over

one-half.

• Over half of the women with children were working outside the home in

1980 in both the most urban and the most rural U.S. counties.

• The number of working women with children grew rapidly from 40.8 percent in 1970 to 55.3 percent in 1980; this rate was the same in both metro

and nonmetro areas in 1980.

• The proportion of children under 18 not living with both parents rose from

13 percent in 1960 to 17 percent in 1970, and to 23 percent in 1980.

• Although median family income in nonmetro areas continued to improve

compared with metro areas, nonmetro median income was still only 79

percent of metro income in 1979.

• Nonmetro black families (particularly in the South) fared better in terms of

increased median income than did all nonmetro families during the 1970's,

rising over 25 percent compared with the 10.6-percent nonmetro average.

The median was still below the overall median in nonmetro areas 20 years

earlier.

• Poverty among the elderly fell nationwide from 27.3 percent in 1969 to

14.8 percent in 1979, and from 37 percent to 20.3 percent in nonmetro

areas.

Ill
• Median rents for housing nationally rose only slightly faster (5.2 percent)

than nnedian incomes during the 1970'$, but nonmetro rents rose 27.3 percent more rapidly than did medran family incomes.

• The number of housing units increased faster (28.2 percent) during the

1970's than population (11.5 percent).

• Although the percentage of all adults aver 25 years with a high school education rose from about 50 percent during the 1960's to 67 percent during

the 1970's, differences in education between metro and nonmetro areas

remained fairly marked. Nonmetro areas (59.5 percent) continued to lag

metro areas (69.1 percent) in 1980, compared with 34.5 percent for nonmetro and 43.7 percent for metro areas in 1960.

IV
Social and Economic

Characteristics of the

Population in Metro and

Nonmetro Counties^ 1970-80

David A. McGranahan, John C. Hession, Fred K, Hines^

and Max F. Jordan*

Introduction

Population grew substantially in many rural areas In

the 1970's after decades of decline. In a reversal of

earlier patterns, more people migrated into nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas from metropolitan (metro)

areas during the decade than moved in the opposite

direction. This report documents the changes in the

economic and social characteristics of the population

in metro and nonmetro areas during this period, comparing these characteristics with those of the 1960's.

The data are taken from the U.S. censuses of population and housing for 1960, 1970, and 1980, the latter

the most recently available data.

Population characteristics and trends differ not only

between metro and nonmetro areas but more generally with the extent of urban influence. Following an

earlier Economic Research Service (ERS) study based

on the same premise, metro counties in this report are

distinguished according to the size of the metro area;

nonmetro counties are distinguished according to both

the size of their urban population and their adjacency

to metro areas.^ Our first concern is whether the

• renewed rural growth was associated with a decline in

rural-urban differences. To what extent are rural and

urban areas still socially and economically distinct?

Besides the movement out of major urban areas to

small towns and rural areas, population movement

from the Snow belt Northeast and Midwestern regions

*David A. McGranahan is a sociologist and John C. Hession,

Fred K. Mines, and Max F. Jordan are economists in the Agriculture

and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Tred K. Mines, David L. Brown, and John M. Zimmer, Social and

Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metro and Nonrr)eiro

Counties, 1970, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 272, 1975.

to the Sunbelt South and West was also substantial

during the 1970's. Regional differences and trends for

both metro and nonmetro areas constitute a second

concern of this report.

In addition to exploring rural-urban and regional

differences, this report serves as a reference on rural

growth and change. All the basic data are included in

or may be derived from the appendix tables. Most of

the social and economic characteristics available from

both the 1970 and 1980 censuses are discussed. Levels and trends for blacks as well as the overall population are discussed where such information is available.

The patterns of change identified in this report have

not necessarily continued into the 1980's. Evidence

Indicates that metro and nonmetro rates of population

growth are now essentially equal and that the number

of people moving into nonmetro areas is about the

same as the number moving out. Circumstances favoring rapid smalltown and rural growth during the

1970's may have been historically unique. Although

this does not preclude rapid rural growth In the future, such growth would probably be the result of a

different set of circumstances.

County Classification

The basic geographical distinction made in this report

is that between metro and nonmetro areas. A metro

area is generally defined as an integrated economic

and social unit with a substantial urban population

nucleus. Statistically, the Federal Government defines

metro areas as central urban counties with surrounding counties linked by commuting. Thus, largely rural

counties may be designated as metro if commuting to

central counties is extensive. The specific criteria used

in designating metro areas have become somewhat

less stringent over time.
Following the earlier ERS study, we assume that urban

influence is exerted by size of the urban (or metro)

population and by proximity. Accordingly, metro

counties are distinguished according to the population

size of the metro area of which they are part. We defined three size categories: large (over 1 million residents), medium (250,000-999,999 residents) and small

(under 250,000 residents). Counties forming parts of

large metro areas are also divided into core and fringe

(suburban) counties in appendix tables.

Nonmetro counties—those not forming all or part of a

metro area—are divided into urbanized (20,000 or

more urban residents), less urbanized (2,500-19,999

urban residents), and rural (no urban residents) areas.

Each of these groups is further divided into those

adjacent to metro areas and those located away from

metro areas (fig. 1).

Although urban size and adjacency are combined into

an overall scale of urban influence, they represent

different influences and are not necessarily related to

population characteristics in the same way. For instance, larger places tend to be service centers for

people and businesses in nearby small towns and

open areas. Greater urban influence as represented by

size of urban population results in a larger proportion

of the work force in service industries. On the other

hand, urban influence as represented by adjacency to

a metro area results in a small service-sector work

Figure 1

Metro and nonmetro counties, April 1973

E

Metro counties

Urbanized nonmetro counties (20,000 or more population)

Less urbanized nonmetro counties (2.500-19,999 population)

Totally rural nonmetro counties
Population^ Family, and Education

force, as people and businesses in adjacent counties

tend to use metro area services. Throughout the

report, "more urban" and "more rural" are used to

indicate higher and lower degrees of urban influence.

The classification of counties and county equivalents

as metro or nonmetro is based on the 1970 census,

taking into account later adjustments made to the

1970 delineation on the basis of 1970 commuting patterns.^ As a result of population grov^th, increased

commuting, and changes in the statistical definition,

many nonmetro counties were reclassified as metro

during the 1970's. (A few metro counties were also

reclassified as nonmetro.) The 1980 delineation was

not used here, however, because this report focuses

^U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas, Revised Edition 1975." This publication contains

more detailed information on the statistical definition of metro areas.

on trends that occurred during the 1970's in metro

and nonmetro areas. Since changes in classification

from one status to another were largely a result of

those trends, using a 1980 delineation would misrepresent the types of locations where the change occurred.

Population^ Family^ and Education

The renewed growth of nonmetro areas during the

1970's extended to all regions and to the most rural

counties. This growth involved both a substantial

reduction in the net outmigration of young adults from

small towns and rural areas and a net inmigration of

middle-aged and older people. While all county types,

from the most urban to the most rural, had similar social trends (fewer children, more single-parent families,

more single-person households, and higher levels of

schooling) rural-urban differences were not reduced

during the 1970's.

Classification of Counties by 1970 Metropolitan

Status and Urban Orientation

I. Metropolitan (647 counties)^

1. Large metropolitan (186 counties)

— Counties part of standard metropolitan

statistical areas (SMSA's) with at least 1 million population in 1970. Examples are New

York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

a. Core (49 counties)

— Counties containing the primary central city

of large SMSA's. Examples are Cook County,

III., and the 5 counties of New York City.

b. Fringe (137 counties)

— Other (suburban) counties of large SMSA's.

Examples are Lake County, III., part of the

Chicago SMSA, and Westchester County, part

of the New York SMSA.

2. Medium metropolitan (269 counties)

— Counties of SMSA's with 250,000 to 999,999

population. Examples of SMSA's in this

category include Phoenix, Oklahoma City,

Madison, Birmingham, and Salt Lake City.

3. Small metropolitan (192 counties)

— Counties comprising SMSA's with under

250,000 population. Examples of SMSA's in

this category include Portland, Maine;

Eugene, Ore.; and Hamilton-Middletown,

Ohio.

II. Nonmetropolitan (2,490 counties)

4. Urbanized adjacent (173 counties)

— Counties with an urban population of at least

20,000 which are adjacent to a metropolitan

county, where adjacency is defined as both

touching an SMSA at more than a single

point and having at least 1 percent of the

labor force commute to the central county of

the SMSA for work.

5. Urbanized nonadjacent (154 counties)

— Counties with an urban population of at least

20,000 which are not adjacent by the above

definition.

6. Less urbanized adjacent (565 counties)

— Counties with an urban population of 2,500

to 19,999 and adjacent by definition given in

(4) above.

7. Less urbanized nonadjacent (734 counties)

— Counties with an urban population of 2,500

to 19,999 and not adjacent by definition

given in (4) above.

8. Rural adjacent (241 counties)

— Counties with no places of 2,500 or more

population and adjacent by definition given

in (4) above.

9. Rural nonadjacent (623 counties)

— Counties with no places of 2,500 or more

population and not adjacent by definition

given in (4) above.

1 Based on definition for 1970 given in the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget's "Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Areas, Revised Edition, 1975," excluding Kankakee County,

Illinois, and Benton and Washington counties in Arkansas,

which were designated metropolitan by OMB due to

post-1970 annexation or population gains.
Population Change

The nonmetro population grew faster (15.8 percent)

than did the metro population (9.9 percent) during

1970-80 (fig. 2). Among metro areas, small areas grew

Figure 2

Percent change in population

Percent

United States Metro Nonmetro

By degree of urban influence

Percent

30

20

10

-10

1970 - 80

7^-^

/ \

\^1960-70

L 1 1 1 1 1 1

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source Appendix table 1.

Nonmetro

most rapidly (18.2 percent), more rapidly even than

the fringe counties of major metro areas (16.4 percent)

(app. table 1). Core counties of large metro areas

showed almost no growth.

Nonmetro counties adjacent to metro areas grew

faster than more remote counties, indicating some persistence of an urban orientation to growth. Among the

counties adjacent to metro areas, however, growth

was greatest in completely rural counties. The level of

urbanization had little bearing on the growth rate of

counties not adjacent to metro areas.

The growth patterns of the 1970's contrasted sharply

with those of the 1960's, when growth was more

urban-oriented. The contrast is exaggerated to some

extent. Some of the nonmetro counties which grew

most rapidly during the 1960's were redefined as

metro in 1970 as a result of this growth. Their growth

was counted as metro growth. Because the 1970 definition was maintained, this type of reclassification did

not affect the 1970-80 statistics. Nevertheless, areas

that were nonmetro in 1970 experienced much more

rapid growth during the 1970's than during the

1960's. Even the less urbanized and completely rural

counties not adjacent to metro areas, counties which

lost population during the 1960's, had growth rates

well above the national average during the 1970's.

Growth rates of both the core and fringe sections of

large metro areas declined considerably in contrast.

Growth rates also varied widely among U.S. census

regions (app. table 1). The population of the Northeast

was stable during the 1970's, and the Midwest population grew by only 4.1 percent. By contrast, the populations in the South and West grew by 20 percent and

24 percent, respectively. Nonmetro populations grew

faster than metro populations in all regions except the

South. Even in the South, however, the growth rates

of metro counties dropped, while nonmetro growth

was much higher during the 1970's (17.9 percent)

than during the 1960's (3.2 percent).

Black population growth rates did not reverse, instead

continuing to grow more rapidly in metro (20.2 percent) than in nonmetro (8 percent) areas during the

1970's (fig. 3). The difference was especially pronounced in the South, where half the black population

resides. The southern black population grew by 24.1

percent in metro and only 7 percent in nonmetro areas.
Population, Family, and Education

Although blacks continued to move from more rural

to more urban counties during the 1970's, their rate of

urbanization slowed. During the 1960's, the growth

rate of the metro black population was 30.3 percent,

while the number of nonmetro blacks actually deFlgure 3

Percent change in black population

Percent

«60-70

194 17.5 30.3 20.2 8.1

United States Metro

-7.%B

Nonmetro

By degree of urban influence

Percent

40

^

30

\

20

X \J970 - 80

10

Nw ^^

^V I960 -70 ^*^^y^

0

^V ^^^^

\^

-10

^^-\

-20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix table I

Nonmetro

dined by 7.3 percent. The change was most pronounced in large metro areas, where the black population grew by 39.3 percent during the 1960's, but

only 18.3 percent during the 1970's. Growth in the

core counties of large metro areas during the 1970's

was 14.1 percent, less than the overall rate of black

population growth (17.5 percent). Also, while the less

urban and completely rural counties lost about 10 percent of their black population during the 1960's, these

county groups retained their black population levels

during 1970-80. These figures reflect a decline in the

black migration stream from the rural South to the

large metro areas of the Northeast and Midwest.

For the general population, the population growth rate

in the suburban fringe counties around large metro

core counties declined, but the black population continued to grow rapidly. Three blacks lived in these

fringe counties in 1980 for every two in 1970. Even

with this growth, however, blacks still constituted only

6 percent of the fringe county population although

they made up about 15 percent of the population of

large metro areas in 1980.

While the total nonmetro population grew relatively

rapidly in the 1970's, the percentage of the U.S.

population living in nonmetro areas increased by only

1 percentage point, from 26.8 percent to 27.8 percent.

The percentage of blacks living in nonmetro areas fell

from 22.5 percent to 20.7 percent. The black population is considerably more urban than the population

as a whole.

Population Change by Age Group

Past changes in birth rates and increasing longevity

have resulted in widely varying growth rates for different age groups. The post-World War II baby boom

resulted in a 39.1-percent increase in young adults

(ages 18-34) during 1970-80. These young adults had

relatively few children during the 1970's (see page

10), however, and the population of children and

youth (ages 0-17) actually fell during the 1970's by

8.8 percent. The middle-aged population (35-64) increased by 8 percent, while the elderly population (65

and over) grew by 26.8 percent, over twice the rate of

overall population (table 1).

The reversal in the relative rates of metro and nonmetro growth between the 1960's and 1970's involved

all age groups, but was most pronounced among chil-
Table 1—Age distribution of population change, by metro/nonmetro residence

1970-80 1960--70

Non- Nonmetro/ metro/

Age United Non- metro United Non- metro

group States Metro metro diff. States Metro metro diff.

Percent

Under 18 -8.8 -11.1 -2.8 8.3 8.7 14.0 -3.2 -17.2

18-34 39.1 37.2 44.9 7J 25.6 29.2 16.0 -13.2

35-64 8.0 6.9 11.3 4.4 7.6 9.9 1.6 -8.3

65 and over 26.8 25.9 28.8 2.9 24.0 26.7 18.5 -8.2

Total 11.5 9.9 15.8 5.9 13.3 17.0 4.4 -12.6

Source: App. table 2.

dren and young adults. During the 1960's, when

metro population grew faster than nonmetro population, this was especially true of the two younger age

groups. During the 1970's, the difference in favor of

nonmetro areas was greater for the younger age

groups. Because younger people tend to be geographically more mobile than older people, changes in

metro-nonmetro migration patterns involved young

people more than old. Contributing to the low growth

of the metro population under 18 during the 1970's

was the initially lower and slightly greater percentage

decline in birthrates in metro areas.

The contrasting growth patterns of the 1960's and

1970's are even more apparent when the counties are

grouped according to degree of urban influence

(fig. 4). During the 1960'S/ the greater the urban influence, the higher the growth rate. This pattern was

strongest for young adults and children and weakest

for the elderly. Between 1970 and 1980, the pattern

was almost completely reversed for the younger age

groups. The decline In population under 18 was most

pronounced in large metro areas. The number of

young adults, which grew by less than 10 percent in

rural nonmetro counties during the 1960's, increased

by over 50 percent In these counties during the

1970's, a rate higher than in any other county group.

The population reversal affected all age groups in all

regions except the South, where nonmetro growth

rates were higher during the 1970's than during the

1960's, but still marginally lower than metro growth

rates (app, table 2). The greatest contrasts were between the metro Northeast and nonmetro West. The

population under 18 declined by over 20 percent in

the metro Northeast, for example, but grew by over

10 percent in the nonmetro West during the 1970's.

While the population aged 18-34 grew by over 22

percent in the Northeast's metro areas, the increase

was almost 72 percent In the nonmetro West between

1970 and 1980.

Migration

Changes In migration flows between rural and urban

areas were major reasons for the shifts in population

growth between the 1960's and 1970's. Two measures

of migration are included here, each with Its own limitations. One measure, taken directly from the census,

is the proportion of residents over 5 years old who

were living in another county 5 years before. This

measure indicates the Importance of newcomers in a

population, but is limited as a migration measure because it reflects only Inmigration, not outmigration,

and refers only to the last half of the decade.

The second measure estimates net (in minus out)

domestic migration for age group cohorts. People

aged 18-34 in 1970 were aged 8-24 in 1960 and

make up a cohort. Changes in the size of this cohort

between 1960 and 1970 for a given area were the result of mortality, migration to and from abroad, and

migration to and from other areas of the United

States. Assuming that area differences in mortality

rates and migration to and from abroad are fairly

small, effects on area cohort size can be estimated on

the basis of changes in the size of the cohort in the

Nation as a whole. The remaining change In an area
Population, Family, and Education

Figure 4

Percent change In population of various age

groups by degree of urban Influence^

Percent

20

10

0

-10

-20

60

40

20

20

10

0

-10

40

30

20

10

-

IJnder 18

-*^960 -70

^

1 « ^^^ ^"*s^

^^»^ ig7Q_gp ^~'' "'^''Ni^

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

18-34

1970 - 80

35--64 1970--80 >..

^ 1960 -70 lH^^^

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1970 - 80

1960 -70

65 and over

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

1/ Age at end ol decade.

Source: Appendix table 2.

Nonmetro

is an estimate of net domestic migration. Thus, nationally there were 0.3 percent fewer people aged 18-34

in 1970 than there were aged 8-24 in 1960. Assuming

that this change would otherwise have occurred In all

U.S. areas, changes of greater or less than -0.3 percent in any area were the net result of migration to

and from other areas of the United States.

More precisely, the net (domestic) migration rate of a

cohort for a given group of counties is estimated as:

cohort size, end of decade

cohort size,

beginning of

decade

U.S. total size of cohort,

beginning of decade

U.S. total size of cohort,

end of decade

-1

Three cohort age groups are considered, those 18-34,

those 35-64, and those over 65 at the end of the decade. Because mortality rates vary considerably by age,

estimates were first made separately for cohorts

65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, and 85 and over and

then summed to arrive at a total for those over 65 at

the end of the decade.

The predominant migration flows reversed between

the 1960's and 1970's (table 2). During the 1960's,

more adults (persons aged 18 and over at the decade's end) moved into than out of metro areas (table

2); the predominant movement was into nonmetro

areas during the 1970's.

The change in migration patterns between the 1960's

and the 1970's varied among age groups. During the

1960's, the net outflow of youth and young adults resulted in a 1970 nonmetro population aged 18-34

Table 2—Estimated change in cohort size due to net

migration between metro and nonmetro areas

Age of cohc)rt (years)

End of

decade

1960-70 1970--80

Beginning of

decade Metro Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro

PerQen\i%e change

8-24

25-54

55 and over

18-34

35-64

65 and over

8.4

.8

-1.0

-18.8

-2.1

2.4

1.2

-2.8

-2.9

-3.1

8.5

6.8

Total, 8 years

and over 18 and over 3.2 -7.9 -1.2 3.3

Source: App. table 3.
which was 18.8 percent lower than it would have

been without migration. There was relatively little net

movement among the middle or retirement age groups.

The net outflow of youth and young adults from nonmetro areas did not reverse during the 1970's, but

continued at a much reduced rate, 3.1 percent.

Among those who were of middle (35-64) and retirement (over 65) age in 1980, there was a net migration

into nonmetro areas during the 1970's. Only for the

middle-aged could this be called a reversal, however.

The reversal of migration trends affected all nonmetro

county groups (fig. 5). The excess of outmigration over

inmigration during the 1960's resulted in about 17

percent fewer adults (age 18 and over) than if migration had not occurred. The cohort of 1980 adults in

these counties grew by about 3 percent, in contrast,

during the 1970's, due to net inmigration. The reversal

was less marked in more urbanized nonmetro counties. Among metro counties, the reversal was confined

to large areas. Net inmigration to small metro areas

was higher during the 1970's than the 1960's.

The reversal across the urban-rural spectrum of counties was largely the result of (1) the almost complete

halt of net outmigration of young adults from more

rural counties to the more urban counties, and (2) the

start of net movements of middle-aged (35-64 at the

end of the decade) adults out of large metro areas and

into more rural nonmetro counties, especially those

adjacent to metro areas. The net loss from rural counties due to outmigration was substantial during the

1960's for the cohort aged 18-34 in 1970, so that the

size of this cohort decreased by nearly 40 percent in

rural nonadjacent counties. Other data suggest that the

reduction in this net outmigration to less than 10 percent during the 1970's was the result of both less

movement out of rural counties and greater inmigration.

Net migration added to the 1970 adult population

only in the metro areas of the South (6.9 percent) and

West (13.4 percent) (app. table 3). The greatest percentage losses were in the nonmetro South (-9.8 percent) and Midwest (-7.9 percent), where the net

outflow of young adults was particularly high during

the 1960's, owing partly to fewer agricultural opportunities. The movement out of the metro areas of the

Northeast and Midwest to the South and West during

the 1970's was pronounced, with both metro and

nonmetro areas of the South and West gaining adult

population through migration.

Figure S

Estimated net domestic migration by degree

of urban infiuence^

Percent

40

20

-20

-40

10

-10

18 and over

18-34

1970 - 80

1 1 1 1

\_1960 -70

1 1 1

1970-80,,^' ^>v^^^- —

/^ 65 and over

1 1 \—

1960 -70

1 1 1 1

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

1/ Age at end of decade.

Source: Appendix table 3.

Nonmetro

8
Population, Family, and Education

Recent Migrants. More than one of every five people

in 1980 had moved across county lines in the previous 5 years. The proportion of these recent-migrant

residents remained fairly stable in metro areas between 1960 and 1980, but increased in nonmetro

areas. Nonmetro residents in 1980 were slightly more

likely to be recent migrants (21.9 percent) than were

metro area residents (21.1 percent) (fig. 6). Recent

migrants consistently account for a relatively large

share of the population of both small metro areas and

urbanized nonmetro counties located away from

metro areas. Except for small metro areas in the

1970's, these counties have not had high net inmigration. This suggests that they have high population

turnover, with people moving both in and out, and

may serve as intermediate locations for people moving

to more urban or rural settings.

Recent migrants make up an increasing proportion of

the residents of less urbanized and completely rural

counties. Residents of rural nonadjacent counties in

1980 were just as likely to be recent inmigrants as

were the residents of large metro area counties. The

residents of rural areas can no longer be described as

"the people left behind" as in 1969.

Regional differences in inmigration are consistent with

patterns of net migration. Metro areas of the Northeast

and Midwest have had low inmigration, while about

one in every four 1980 residents in the South and the

West had moved into the county during the previous

5 years (app. table 4). The nonmetro West has consistently had high inmigration, with one in every three

residents a recent inmigrant in 1980.

Fertility

The population under 18 declined during the 1970's

because the growth in the number of women of childbearing age was more than offset by the drop in the

fertility rate (the rate at which women have children).

Fertility may be measured by dividing the number of

children ever born to women in certain age categories

by the total number of women in those categories.

Measures are included here for both women aged

25-34, and aged 35-44. Since few women have children after the age of 35, the number of children ever

born to women aged 35-44 approximates their lifetime fertility. The rates presented are not strictly comparable over time. The 1960 and 1970 censuses

include the number of children ever born only for

women reporting that they had ever been married,

while the 1980 census reported children born to all

women. This tends to raise the reported number of

children ever born in the 1980 data compared with

1970 and 1960.

Figure 6

Percent of residents aged 5 and over who

have moved into county during past S years

Percent

1970 1980

1960

19.0 20.8 21.3 19.7 21.1 21.1 17.3 20.0 21

United States Metro Nonmetro

By degree of urban influence

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix table 4.

Nonmetro
Women aged 35-44 in any given year are essentially

the same women aged 25-34 10 years before. Thus a

comparison of the number of children ever born to

v^omen aged 35-44 in 1980 with the number born to

women aged 25-34 in 1970 indicates the number of

children this group (cohort) had during 1970-80.

For the women aged 35-44^ the number of children

ever born generally reflects childbearing of 15-20

years earlier, when these women were in their 20's,

The rise in the average number of children ever born

per woman from 2.47 in 1960 to 2.96 in 1970 reflects

the post-World War 11 baby boom which peaked during the late 1950's (fig. 7). While the average lifetime

fertility of women aged 35-44 in 1960 was much

higher in nonmetro areas (2.92) than in metro areas

(2.31), the baby boom was more pronounced among

metro women. The average number of children rose

by 24 percent for the metro 35-44 age group during

1960-70, to a level of 2.86. For nonmetro women, the

corresponding rise was only 11 percent, to 3.25 children per woman.

The cohort of women aged 35-44 in 1980 had slightly

fewer children, largely because they had fewer children during the 1970's than women this age in 1970

had during the 1960's. This decline in fertility was

about the same in metro and nonmetro areas.

The final cohort, women aged 25-34 in 1980 (who

will be aged 35-44 in 1990) had far fewer children by

1980 than the earlier cohorts had when they were

aged 25-34. This decline was notably greater among

metro women than among nonmetro women. Nonmetro women aged 25-34 had borne an average of

2.41 children in 1970, 17.6 percent more than the

average of 2,05 for metro women. Nonmetro women

aged 25-34 in 1980 had borne an average of only

1.72 children, but this was 31 percent higher than the

metro average of 1.31.

Given current mortality rates, an average lifetime fertility of about 2.1 children per woman would result in

zero-population growth. This would be reached if the

women aged 25-34 in 1980 had an average of 0.6

more children during their lifetime. The low birth rate

of the 1970's was to some extent postponement of

childbearing, but it is not clear whether the women

aged 25-34 in 1980, especially those in metro areas,

will achieve an average lifetime fertility of 2.1 children

born per woman.

The drop in fertility was fairly even across all county

types, although the percentage decline was greater in

more urbanized counties than in more rural counties.

Women aged 25-34 living in nonadjacent rural counties in 1980 had had an average of 39 percent more

children than their counterparts in large metro areas.

The same percentage for 1960 was only 34 percent,

indicating that differences were actually greater in

1980 than in 1960. It is not currently possible to tell

whether rural families have been slower to adopt the

trend of smaller families, or whether these rural-urban

differences will be maintained. It is possible that metro

women are simply having children later in life than

women living in more rural areas.

Fertility was lower in metro than nonmetro areas in all

census regions (app. table 5). The average number of

children ever born to women 25-34 was particularly

low in the metro Northeast, leading to low population

growth in this region. The nonmetro West, which

previously had the highest fertility, had the greatest

decline between 1970 and 1980. Women aged 25-34

in 1980 in the nonmetro areas of both the Midwest

and the South had higher fertility rates than their

counterparts in the nonmetro West.

Age

Age structure of a population reflects both past and

current fertility and migration patterns. Two commonly

used summary measures are the median age, the age

where half the population is older and half younger,

and the dependency ratio, the number of people

generally either too young (under 18) or too old (65

and over) to work full-time per person of prime working age (18-64). The dependency ratio is somewhat

misleading as an indicator in the present context since

the people over 65 do not generally depend financially or otherwise on the local working age population. Social Security, pension, and other income of

retirees in fact constitute an important part of the economic base of many small communities. The dependency ratio is relevant, however, in that both youth,

who need schools, and elderly, who need health facilities, place relatively high demands on public services.

Historically, nonmetro areas have had both higher

birth rates and more outmigration of young adults

than have metro areas, resulting in relatively high

proportions of both children and elderly in 1960 and

a higher dependency ratio than in metro areas (fig. 8).

10
Population, Family, and Education

Because the differences were at both ends of the age

distribution, the median ages for metro and nonmetro

areas are not markedly different. The proportion of

elderly in both metro and nonmetro population increased during the 1960's and 1970's, but as the birth

rate fell, the proportion of people under 18, and, thus,

the dependency ratio, fell. As these trends affected

both metro and nonmetro populations, the proporFigure 7

Average number of children ever born

Number

4

Women aged 25-34

United States Metro

Women aged 35-44

Nonmetro

9

2.96

2.24

2.64

2.14

1.48

2.86

2.56

2.31

2.13 2.05

1.39

3.25

2.92

2.53 ^

1

t

1.72

Age of 35-44 in; 1960 1970 1980

Cohort 25-34 in: 1960 1970 1980

1960 1970 1980

1960 1970 1980

1960 1970 1980

1960 1970 1980

By degree of urban influence (Women aged 25-34)

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Adj Nadj

Less urban Rural

Metro

Information unavailable for 1950 and 1990. Sowce: Appendix table 5.

Nonmetro

11
lions of youth and elderly remained higher in the nonmetro areas in 1980 than in metro areas.

Less urbanized and completely rural counties, in spite

of the growth in young adults during the 1970's, still

Rgure 8

Age distribution and dependency ratios

had higher proportions of children and elderly in their

populations than did other county types, and relatively

high dependency ratios. Urbanized nonmetro counties

had age structures similar to those of small metro

areas, as reflected in their similar dependency ratios.

Percent 81.5

100

80 -

60 -

40

79.5 65.1 77.7 77.1 62.3

20

1960 1970 1980

United States

8.6

34.3

9.3 1

32.2

10.7

31.3

i

30.3

1960 1970

1

1980

Metro

91.4 86.7

9.9 10.3

324 30.9

20.0 24.3

3 1

72.7

11.9

30.1

1960 1970 1980

Nonmetro

Dependency ratio

65 and over

35-64

18-34

Under 18

Percent 60.9

100

80

60

40

20

10.6

32.0

:.30.2

63.9 64.5

Laige M«d

Metro

Source: Appendix tables 6 and 7.

By degree of urban influence, 1980

67.5 66.1 754

10.7

30.8

1

10.7

29.5

31.3

1

11.9

30.1

29.5

Small

1

11.0

28.8

Adj Nad]

Urbanized

13.3

30.6

264

^9.7

76.0 77.7

13.5 13.7

30.0 31.1

26.8

^1 29.7

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Nonmetro

Adj Nadj

Rural

Dependency ratb

65 and over

30.8 35-64

18-34

Under 18

12
Population, Family, and Education

The nonmetro population of all regions had high proportions of both children and elderly and high dependency ratios compared with the metro population

(app. tables 6 and 7). The Northeast, which had relatively low birth rates and a declining population during the 1970's, had a high proportion of elderly in

1980 but a relatively low proportion of children under

18. The South, with the highest proportion of children

and a low proportion of elderly, had the youngest population in 1960. By 1980, however, the West, with its

high levels of inmigration, had the youngest population.

Family Structure

Fewer children are living with both parents. The percentage of the population under 18 living with only

one natural or step-parent or with no formally recognized parents rose from 13.2 percent in 1960 to 17.3

in 1970 and to 23.3 percent in 1980, almost onefourth of the population of children and youth (fig.

9).' The proportion not living with two parents rose

more quickly in metro than in nonmetro areas. In

1960, metro areas' proportion was slightly lower (12.9

percent) than in nonmetro areas (13.9 percent), but by

1980 reached 24.7 in metro areas and 20 in nonmetro

areas. There were relatively few differences by county

type in 1960, but differences increased during the

next two decades. The large metro areas stand out in

1980, with over 26 percent of the population under

18 living with only one or neither parent.

Regionally, this measure was historically highest in the

nonmetro South (app. table 8). Since 1960, however,

the proportion of children living with one or neither

parent increased more rapidly in metro areas, so that

in 1980 the proportion was about the same in metro

areas in general as in the nonmetro South.

The proportion of children not living with both parents is not available by race for 1980. A related measure, however—the percentage of family households

with children under 18 with only one parent presentis available. This measure shows much the same pattern over time and by county type, and indicates that

the percentage growth of single-parent families was

greater in metro than in nonmetro areas (fig. 10). The

percentage of black single-parent households rose

from 33.2 in 1970 to 45.9 in 1980. Comparable figures

for the total population are relatively low—12.7 percent in 1970 and 18.7 percent in 1980, but the increase to the percentage of single-parent households

was not confined to blacks. For nonblacks, this percentage was 10.3 in 1970 and 14.9 in 1980.

Figure 9

Percent of population under 18 not living with

botli parents

Percent

1980

13.2 ' 17.3'^H 12.9 17.5

United States Metro

13,9 17.0 20.(

Nonmetro

By degree of urban influence

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

'Subfamilies, where a parent is not the head of household, are

excluded.

Metro

Sourc« Appendix table 8.

Nonmetro

13
The proportion of black single-parent family households was high across all rural-urban types of counties

in 1970. The proportion increased in all areas during

the 1970's, but especially in metro counties. About

half of the black family households with children in

large metro areas in 1980 were headed by one parent—substantially higher than the corresponding 33.1

percent for rural nonadjacent counties. Black singleFigure 10

Percent of families with children headed by single parents by race

Percent

50

40

30

20 K

10

0 L

Total population

1980

^Ka 20.3 11.2^1

Black population

United States Metro Nonmetro United States Nonmetro

Percent

50

40

30

20

10

By degree of urban influence

•»»«

•• .,

••»••»,

'*** ...."• ' ß'äcks 1980

**«

«ft•*» .«.•••• Blacks 1970

_i_

United States 1980

United States 1970

Laige Med Small Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Adj Nadj

Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix table 9.

Nonmetro

14
Population^ Family^ and Education

parent family households accounted for 52.3 percent

of all black family households in the metro Northeast

in 1980, higher than in any other regional area (app.

table 9).

Household Size

Changes in age and family structure during the

1970's resulted in a growth in the number of households which was considerably faster (26.5 percent)

than the overall population growth rate (11.5 percent)

(table 3) during the ^970's^ Much of the difference

can be explained by the decline in the number of

children. The growth rate in the adult population (age

18 and over) was much nearer (22.5 percent) the

growth in number of households. The remaining

difference represents the growth in single-person

households. The growth rate of households of two or

more was 21.7 percent, while the rate of growth of

single-person households was 46 percent during the

1970's. The average household size fell from 3.1 persons to 2.74 persons over the decade, and the proportion of all households that were single-person

households rose from 19.6 percent to 22.6 percent

(table 4). These changes reflect the larger numbers of

single, widowed, and separated or divorced persons in

the population.

The patterns of change were much the same in metro

and nonmetro areas and across the entire rural-urban

spectrum of counties (fig. 11). The average household

"^Households occupy separate living quarters. In 1970, this meant

living and eating separately and having either 1) direct access from

outside the building or a common hallway, or 2) complete kitchen

facilities. In 1980, direct access was required. In 1970, six or more

unrelated people living together were classified as group quarters

(rather than households). In 1980, this requirement was raised to

10 or more unrelated persons. These changes appear to have had

little effect on the number of households.

Table 3—Change in population and households, 1970-80

Item United States Metro Nonmetro

Total population

Population 18 years and over

Households

Single-person households

Percentage change

11.5 9.9 15.8

22.1 20.8 25.9

26.5 24.9 30.7

46.0 44.2 51.7

Source: App. tables 1, 2, and 10.

size was quite similar across the various county groups

in 1980 and, even in the most rural counties, about

one in five households had only one person in 1980.

While these statistics show few differences across

county groups, it is likely that a higher proportion of

single-person households is elderly in the more rural

counties, while nonelderly single and separated or divorced people make up more of the single-person

households in the more urban counties.

The trend toward smaller household size meant that

the number of households in the Northeast grew by

12,6 percent even though the population declined

(app. table 10). This growth in household numbers

was still quite low compared with the growth in the

South (37.1 percent) and West (39.4 percent), however. In the nonmetro West, there were over three

households in 1980 for every two in 1970. The number of single-person households grew by over 60 percent in both the South, which had a large number of

elderly inmigrants during the 1970's, and in the nonmetro West, which attracted migrants of all ages.

Educational Attainment

The measure most commonly used to assess the educational level of a population is the median number of

school years completed by people age 25 and over

who have generally finished schooling. According to

this measure, nonmetro areas have overcome their lag

in educational attainment, and with a median education of 12.3 years in 1980, were about equal with

metro areas' median of 12.6 years (table 5). The 1970

educational levels were much lower in the more rural

nonmetro areas, but by 1980, were nearly equal across

all county groups (fig. 12). Median education is now

somewhat misleading as a social indicator, however.

The tendency to discontinue formal education after

high school has created a situation where the median

stays between 12 and 13 years even when substantial

differences exist. It is more useful, then, to focus on

the percentages completing high school and college.

The percentage of the population that completed high

school has risen considerably in the past two decades

in both metro and nonmetro areas, but there has been

little convergence. In 1960, 43.7 percent of the population age 25 and over in metro areas and 34.5 percent of this population in nonmetro areas had completed high school, a difference of about 10 percentage points. In 1980, the corresponding percentages

15
were 69.1 (metro) and 59.5 (nonmetro), still a difference of about 10 percentage points. The percentage

completing high school rose substantially during the

1970's in all county groups, but the pattern of differences across county types remained much the same

(fig. 12). The increase during the 1970's was greater

than the increase during the 1960's, primarily due to

the relatively large number of people who reached the

age of 25 during the later decade.

The percentage of population age 25 and over that

completed college also increased more between 1970

and 1980 than during the previous decade. Those

completing college accounted for 18 percent of those

25 and over in metro areas in 1980, but only 11.5

percent in nonmetro areas. Less urban and completely

rural nonmetro counties continue to lag behind both

metro and more urban nonmetro counties in the percentage of population completing 4 years of college,

in spite of their rapid growth in the number of young

adults. Percentage point differences have actually increased since 1960.

Regional disparities have remained much the same

over time, with the nonmetro South having the lowest

educational attainment, and the metro West the highest (app. table 11). in spite of general increases in

educational levels, the percentages completing high

school and college in the nonmetro South in 1980

were below the corresponding figures for the metro

Figure 11

Growth in households and population,

1970-80 by degree of urban influence

Percent

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix tables 1, 2, and 10.

Table 4—Household size and single-person households, metro and nonmetro areas

Nonmetro

Item

United States

1970 1980

Metro

1970 1980

Nonmetro

1970 1980

Average household size

Single-person households

3.1

19.6

2.7

22.6

Number

3.1 2.7

Percent

20.2 23.3

3.1

18.0

2.8

20.9

Source: App. table 10.

Table 5—Educational attainment of the population age 25 and over

Year Median education

United States Metro Nonmetro

Completing high school Completing college

United States Metro Nonmetro United States Metro Nonmetro

Years - - Percent

1980

1970

1960

12.5

12.1

10.6

12.6

12.2

11.1

12.3

11.2

9.3

Source:

16

App. table 11.

66.5

52.3

41.1

69.1

55.0

43.7

59.5

45.0

34.5

16.2

10.7

7.7

18.0

11.9

8.6

11.5

7.4

5.3
Labor Force and Employment

Figure 12

Educational attainment by degree of urban

influence for population 25 and over

Median years completed

20

10

1980

Completed 4 years college

•••«••••••■♦»^

1970

• • ••. •• •• "••»• •• ••••», •••»»••••••"'

1960 ..'.v:;;;.',

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: ApperKJix table 4.

Nonmetro

West in 1960. In contrast, educational attainment in

the metro South in 1980 was roughly comparable to

that of other metro areas.

For the black population, educational attainment is

substantially lower than for total population, and there

are greater differences between metro and nonmetro

areas (table 6). The percentage of blacks age 25 and

over in large metro areas who had completed high

school in 1980 was roughly the same as the corresponding percentages for the overall population in

these areas in 1970 (fig. 13). For blacks in rural counties, however, the percentages completing high school

in 1980 corresponded to the 1960 percentages for the

overall population in rural counties.

Labor Force and Employment

As the baby boom generation reached adulthood and

the tendency for women to enter and stay in the labor

force continued to rise during the 1970's, the work

force grew rapidly in both rural and urban areas.

Overall, labor force participation rates remained lower

the more rural the area, primarily because of the high

proportions of retirement-age adults in rural counties.

Labor force participation rates of women with children

differed little from rural to urban areas in either 1970

or 1980.

Most of the employment growth during the 1970's in

both rural and urban areas was in the service sector.

Because agricultural employment stabilized during the

1970's after falling substantially during the 1960's,

rural-urban differences in industrial composition

declined less during the 1970's than during the

1960's. Although the proportion employed in household-oriented services such as health and education in

1980 differed little from rural to urban areas, rural

Table 6—Educational level of the black population age 25

and over

Year Com

United

States

pleted high

Metro

school Completed college

United

Nonmetro States Metro Nonmetro

1980

1970

51.3

31.4

55.2

35.2

Percent

35.2 8.4

17.6 4.4

9.1

4.7

5.4

3.3

Source: App. table 11.

17
counties had relatively higher production sector employment (agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction), while urban counties had higher

business-oriented service employment. In general, the

more rural the county, the lower the white-collar employment and the higher the blue-collar employment,

especially low-skill blue-collar employment.

Figure 13

Educational attainment by degree of urban

influence for black population 25 and over

Percent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Completed high school

1980

Completed 4 years college

1980

' •••••■■■■■■I,a

••• ••■■■I

*•" ..,.,„

1970 • "...:•.:: .: ,'.:::

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix table 11.

Nonmetro

Labor Force Size and Participation

The U.S. labor force grew 29.3 percent (24 million

persons) during the 1970's (table 7), considerably

faster than the population as a whole (11.5 percent),

due mainly to the sizable increase (39.1 percent) in

the population of young adults and the increase in female labor force participation. The proportion of

women age 16 and over working or looking for work

rose from 41.4 percent in 1970 to 49.9 percent in

1980. While there were 19.2 percent more men in the

labor force in 1980 than in 1970, there were 46.2 percent more women. By 1980, women made up 42.1

percent of the labor force.

The growth rate of the labor force was about 50 percent higher during the 1970's (29.3 percent) than during the 1960's (18.6 percent).= Although the number

of women in the labor force during the 1960's expanded considerably (37.5 percent), growth in the

number of men in the labor force was relatively small

(9.7 percent). The increasing female participation of

the 1970's was a continuation of a long-term trend.

The major difference between the two decades was

the entry of the post-World War II baby boom cohort

into the labor market during the 1970's.

Differences in the labor force growth rates between

metro and nonmetro areas have generally mirrored

differences in population growth rates. Metro labor

force growth was higher (21.6 percent) than nonmetro

growth (10.6 percent) during the 1960's, but during the

1970's, labor force growth was higher in nonmetro

areas (33.2 percent) than in metro areas (28 percent).

Metro area labor force participation rates have exceeded nonmetro rates in all three censuses for both

men and women. In large part, this has reflected the

relatively high proportion of people aged 65 or over

living in nonmetro areas. Metro-nonmetro differences

'Changes in the definition of the labor force preclude exact comparisons of 1960 with 1980. In 1980, the minimum age to be considered a member of the labor force was raised from 14 to 16 years

old. Judging from the 1970 census, which provided information for

persons both 14 and over and 16 and over, the change in definition

had little effect (less than 1 percent) on the reported size of the

labor force. Few 14- and 15-year-olds work or look for work. The

change did affect statistics on participation rates, however (table 7).

18
Labor Force and Employment

Table 7—Labor force growth and changes in labor force participation by sex

United States Nonmetro Item

Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females

Thousand

Total labor force:

1970' 82,049 51,502 30,547 61,564 38,353 23,211 20,485 13,149 7,336

1980' 106,085 61,416 44,668 78,797 45,196 33,602 27,287 16,221 11,067

Absolute labor force growth:

1960-70^ 13,020 4,609 8,411 10,993 4,470 6,523 2,027 139 1,888

1970-80' 24,036 9,914 14,121 17,233 6,843

Percent

10,391 6,802 3,072 3,731

Percentage change:

1960-70^ 18.6 9.7 37.5 21.6 13.1 38.9 10.6 1.0 33.4

1970-80' 29.3 19.2 46.2 28.0 17.8 44.8 33.2 23.4 50.9

Labor force participation rate:

1960^ 55.3 77.4 34.5 56.8 78.9 36.2 51.8 73.8 30.3

1970^ 55.5 72.9 39.6 56.8 74.4 40.8 51.9 68.8 36.1

1970' 58.2 76.6 41.4 59.5 78.2 42.7 54.5 72.4 37.7

1980' 62.0 75.1 49.9 63.4 76.5 51.6 58.1 71.6 45.5

'Persons 16 years old and over.

^Persons 14 years old and over.

Source: App. tables 12 and 13.

in female labor force participation declined slightly

during the 1960's but not the 1970's. The metro-nonmetro difference in 1980 (6.1 percentage points) was

about what it had been in 1960 (5.9 percentage

points). Female labor force participation tended to be

lower in more rural counties and while participation

increased in all types of counties between 1960 and

1980, metro-nonmetro differences remained much the

same (fig. 14).

Female labor force participation is generally highest

for young women without children, dropping when

women have children, then rising as children get

older (table 8). While the increase in female labor

force participation during the 1970's was somewhat

associated with a decline in fertility, the labor force

participation rates for women with children at home

rose considerably between 1970 and 1980, from 40.8

percent to 55.3 percent. Participation rates for women

with children did not differ between metro and nonmetro areas in 1970, and both areas experienced similar gains. Because of the higher fertility of nonmetro

women, women with children constituted a slightly

larger proportion of the nonmetro female labor force

(42.6 percent) than of the metro female labor force

(36.4 percent).

The pattern of labor force growth across regions during the 1970's was similar to the pattern of population

Figure 14

Labor force participation rates

by degree of urban influence

Percent in labor force

100

80

60

40

20

Males

""»"«"««•...«,„,

Females

1980 1970

1960

J._. 1 L 1 L 1 1

Large Med Small

Metro

Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

Persons aged 16 and over. Estimates based on formula: 1960 rate (16 and over)

: 1960 rate (14 and over) + 1970 rate (16 and over) - 1970 rate (14 and over).

Source: Appendix tabie 13.

19
Table 8—tabor force participation aird labor force growth by sex and presence of children, metro and nonmetro counties

Item

Labor force

participation rates

1970 1980

Absolute

chartge

Labor force growth

Percent

change

Percent of

total growth

United States

Mates, total

Females, total

with children—

under 18 years old

under 6 years old

6-17 years old

Metro

Males, total

Females, total

with children—

under 18 years old

under 6 years old

6-17 years old

Nonmetro

Males, total

Females, total

with children—

under 18 years old

under 6 years old

6-17 years old

Percent ——-

58.2 62.0

76.6 75.1

41.4 49,9

40.8 55.3

30.8 45.7

50.1 63.0

59.5 63.4

78.2 76.5

42.7 51,6

40.3 55.5

30.0 45.3

50.0 63.4

54.5 58.1

72.4 71.6

37.7 45.5

42.0 54.9

33.0 46.5

50.4 62.0

Source: App. tables 12 — 14.

growth (app. table 12). The smallest rate of gain was

in the metro Northeast (11.7 percent), while the highest rate was in the nonmetro West (54.9 percent).

Nonmetro labor force growth rates exceeded metro

labor force growth rates in all regions except the

South. In all regions, however, both maJe and female

1980 labor force participation rates remained lower in

nonmetro areas than in metro areas (appy table 13).

Commuting

The labor force comprisses armed services personnel,

the civilian employed, and the unemployed. Armed

services personnel are a smafi share of the total U.S.

labor force, falling from 2.4 percent to Î.5 percent of

the labor force during 1970-80, The civilian labor

force grew more rapidly than the overall labor force

as a result—30.5 percent, compared with 29.3 percent

(table 9). Givilian employment rose by only 27.5 percent at the same time, resulting in a rise in unemployment. Metro and nonmetro areas had similar patterns,

Mi!, people

24.0

9.9

14.1

5.4

2.0

3.4

17.2

6.8

10.4

3.7

1.3

2.2

6.8

3.1

3.7

1.6

.7

1.0

Percent

29.3

19.2

46.2

46.3

47.1

45.8

28.0

17.8

44.8

44.1

43.7

44.3

33.2

23.4

50.9

52.3

55.9

50.1

100.0

413

58,8

22.3

8.3

14.0

100.0

39.7

60.3

21.7

77

13.9

100.0

45.2

54.8

24.0

9.7

14.3

Table 9—Labor force and employment

Item 1970 1980 Change, 1970-80

.— Thousand Percent

Total:

Labor force 82,049 106,085 24,036 29.3

Civilian labor force 80,051 104,450 24,399 30.5

Civilian employment 76,554 97,639 21,0S5 27.5;

Armed forces employment 1,998 1,635 - 363 -18.2

Metro:

Labor force 61,564 78,797 17,233 28.0

Civilian labor force 60,019 77,543 17,524 29.2

Civilian employment 57,460 72,682 15,222 26.5

Armed forces employment 1,545 1,254 -291 -18.8

Nonmetro:

Labor force 20,485 27,287 6,802 33.2

Civilian labor force 20,033 26,907 6,874 34.3

Civilian employment 19,094 24,958 5,864 30,7

Armed forces employment 452 380 -72 -15.9

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

20
Labor Force and Employment

with nonmetro growth rates always somewhat higher

than metro rates during the 1970's.

Like other census information, employment is tabulated by place of residence. The level and growth of

county residents' employment does not necessarily

mean these residents are employed in the county itself. The percentage of those employed who commuted outside their county to work rose only slightly

from 17.8 percent in 1970 to 19 percent in 1980.

While the rate remains higher in metro areas (19.4

percent) than in nonmetro areas (17.8 percent), the

gain in commuting was greater in nonmetro areas

(fig. 15).

Within nonmetro areas, counties adjacent to metro

areas and more rural counties had the greatest gain in

and the highest level of commuting in 1980. About

half the gain in employment in rural counties adjacent

to metro areas went to commuters (app. table 15),

with over one-third of the employed residents commuting outside the county to work in 1980. Commuting was also high in nonadjacent rural counties in

1980, with over one-third (36.4 percent) of the

employment growth involving work outside the

county, and over one in five of those employed commuting to another county to work. Although some of

this commuting may be from one rural county to

another, these data suggest that many rural counties

are becoming residential areas for people working in

more urbanized counties.

Commuting was high in the metro Northeast, where

over one-fourth worked outside their county in both

1970 and 1980. Commuters made up over one-third

of the employment growth in the nonmetro areas of

the South and the Northeast, raising the proportions

who commute across county lines to over one-fifth in

both areas in 1980. Commuting outside the county to

work has been relatively low in the West, where geographic size of the counties is relatively large.

Employment Growth by Industry

Expansion of the service sector dominated national

employment trends during the 1960's and 1970's, increasing by about one-third between 1960 and 1970

and one-third again by 1980 (table 10).'' Overall, of

• The service sector includes communications and utilities,

transportation, finance, insurance, and real estate, wholesale and

retail trade, and public administration, as well as professional,

personal, business, and repair services.

the 33.8-million increase in people employed during

1960-80, 29.4 million worked in the service sector.

Manufacturing employment grew by a relatively slow

10 percent, about 2 million people, during both decades. With the large growth in the number of houseFigure 15

Percent of employed commuting across

county lines to work

Percent

United States Metro Nonmetro

By degree of urban Influence

Large Med Stnall

Metro

Source: Appendix table 15.

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Adj Nadj

Rural

Nonmetro

21
Table 10—Employment change by industry

Item UiTited States Metro Non metro

1960-70^ 1970-80^ 1960-701 1970-80^ 1960-70^ 1970-802

Thousand

Total

Agriculture, forestry,

fishing, and mining

Manufacturing

Construction

Service sector

12,670

-1,657

1,827

519

11,981

21,086

471

2,078

1,167

17,370

10,710

-348

826

349

9,883

15,220

287

1,084

763

13,088

1,959

-1,340

1,000

170

2,098

5,864

184

993

404

4,283

Percentage change

Total

Agriculture, forestry,

19.6 27.5 22.7 26.5 11.3 30.7

fishing, and mining

Manufacturing

ConstructFon

Service sector

-32.2

10.0

13.1

32.2

13.6

10.4

25.5

35.7

-22.4

5.8

12.2

34.6

23.3

7.2

23.3

34.5

-36.4

25.5

15.2

24.0

8.2

20.4

31.0

40.1

1 Persons 14 years old and over.

^Persons 16 years old and over.

Source: App. table 16.

holds and the overall expansion of jobs, construction

employment grew 25.5 percent (1.2 million) during

the 1970's after rising 13.1 percent (0.5 million) during

the 1960's.

At the national level, a major difference between the

1960's and 1970's was that employment in the primary sector (agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining),

after declining by about one-third during the 1960's,

grew by nearly 14 percent between 1970 and 1980.

Agriculture, which accounted for almost all of the employment decline in this sector during the 1960's, had

stable employment during the 1970'$.^ The expansion

of the primary sector during the 1970's was almost entirely due to a gain in mining employment of 0.4 million jobs, a 70-percent increase.

Service-sector growth was particularly important in

metro areas during both the 1960's and 1970's, constituting about 90 percent of the total employment

growth in both decades. Percentage gains in other

sectors were greater during the 1970's than the 1960's,

but still added relatively little to total employment.

^Detail from published U.S. census volumes. Many of those

working in agriculture do not live on farms. While agricultural employment was stable, the farm population declined.

For nonmetro area residents, the nature of employment growth changed between the 1960's and the

1970's. First, stabilization of primary sector employment was most relevant in nonmetro areas, where employment in this sector had declined by over 1.3

million between 1960 and 1970. Second, service sector employment growth doubled from 2 million during

the I960's to 4 million during the 1970's, Nearly 75

percent of the employment growth during the 1970's

was in the service sector. Manufacturing employment

grew by about 1 million during both decades. Manufacturing contributed substantially (16.9 percent) to

employment growth in nonmetro areas during the

1970's, especially compared with metro areas, where

manufacturing contributed only 7 percent.

Rural-urban differences in employment growth were

quite marked during the 1960's: the more rural the

county, the faster the rate of manufacturing employment growth and the lower the rate of service-sector

growth (fig. 16). During the 1970's, however, this

growth pattern was less evident. Manufacturing employment growth was somewhat less rural oriented,

and service sector growth reached 50 percent among

residents in rural adjacent counties. (Given the high

rate of commuting from these counties, however,

22
Labor Force and Employment

much of this growth may have represented new jobs

in metro suburbs.)

The proportion of service-sector employment rose

from 60.4 percent of the metro total in 1960 to 70.3

Figure 16

Growth in manufacturing and service sectors

by degree of urban infiuence

Percent growth

40

Manufacturing

1960 -70 /

30 -

1 y^

20 ¿X^iH 1970 - 80

10

/

•

0

7 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1

60

50 -

40

30

20

10

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix table 16.

Nonmetro

percent in 1980 (fig. 17). Manufacturing employment

fell from 30.3 percent of the total in 1960 to 22.1 percent in 1980. Service sector employment also increased in importance in nonmetro areas, rising from

50.2 percent of the 1960 total to 60 percent in 1980.

The proportion In manufacturing remained fairly stable,

and by 1980, the proportion employed in manufacturing was higher among nonmetro residents (23.5

percent) than among metro residents (22.1 percent).

Twice as many nonmetro residents were employed in

manufacturing as in the primary sector.

Across the rural-urban spectrum of counties, primary

sector employment in 1980 was higher in the more

rural counties, reaching 18 percent of the employed

residents in the completely rural, nonadjacent counties. Even in these counties, however, manufacturing

was a more important source of employment than the

primary sector.

Service-sector employment was somewhat lower in

more rural counties and in counties adjacent to metro

areas in 1980, suggesting a tendency for residents and

businesses to use the services of nearby, more urbanized areas. Even given this tendency, however,

service-sector employment never fell below half of

total employment in any of the county types. Although it is less true for rural than urban residents, the

service sector has been the largest and most dynamic

of all sectors everywhere.

Regionally, manufacturing employment declined in the

Northeast during the 1960's (app. table 16). During

the 1960's, manufacturing growth was relatively high

in both the nonmetro (38.3 percent) and metro (23.4

percent) areas of the South. The shift in manufacturing

employment during the 1960's was not simply one of

movement from Frostbelt to Sunbelt, however, as

manufacturing employment also grew by 23.5 percent

in the nonmetro Midwest, an area which like the nonmetro South was experiencing a major decline in agricultural employment. During the 1970's, manufacturing employment growth slowed to 16.6 percent in the

nonmetro Midwest and 24.5 percent in the nonmetro

South, but rose from 3.6 percent in the nonmetro

West to 35.5 percent. In spite of this shift, the proportion employed in manufacturing in 1980 remained

considerably higher in the nonmetro Northeast (26.8

percent), Midwest (23.5 percent), and South (26.3 percent) than in the nonmetro West (12 percent).

23
The sharpest contrasts in employment growth during

the 1970's were between the metro Northeast and the

nonmetro West. This was especially true in the case of

Figure 17

Employment by industry sector

construction employment, which declined by 10 percent in the metro Northeast but increased by 81.7

percent in the nonmetro West.

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

0 L

57.7

63.6 67.7

1960 1970 1980

United States

60.4

6.0

66.1

sM

70.3

26.1

S.5

22.1

2.1

1960 1970 1980

Metro

50.2 56.0 60.0

1960 1970 1980

Nonmetro

Services

Construction

23.5 Manufacturing

Agriculture and

mining

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

71.5

5.2

21.9

14

68.5

23.0

2.6

Large Med

By degree of urban influence, 1980

69.2

20.6

Small

Metro

Source: Appendix table 16.

62.2

6,1

26.0

67.1

6.5

19.8

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

56.1

26.7

59.2

21.7

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Nonmetro

54.5

88

23.4

55.5

18.4

Adj Nadj

Rural

Services

Construction

Manufacturing

Agriculture and

mining

24
Labor Force and Employment

Service Sector Employment

The service sector includes a diverse set of employment activities, ranging from teaching to banking to

public administration. As a means of summarizing

some of the trends, the 11 service industry categories

are divided into three general groups: those oriented

almost entirely toward households (health, education,

retail trade, and personal, entertainment, and recreation services); those more oriented to business (business and repair services; finance, insurance, and real

estate; wholesale trade; and other professional services); and a residual group (communication and utilities, transportation, and public administration). The

analysis is confined to 1970 and 1980, as the 1960

data were not available in comparable detail.

Employment in household-oriented services grew by

more than 34 percent during the 1970's, constituting

over 40 percent of total growth in both metro and

nonmetro areas (table 11). With the growth in the elderly population; the expansion of medicare, medicaid,

and private health insurance; and a more complex

medical technology, health care was the fastest growing service industry. For every 10 employed in the

health care industry in 1970, there were 17 working in

1980. Employment in education was 44.1 percent

higher in 1980 than in 1970, in spite of the decline in

school-age population. One contributing factor was

that more high school graduates, especially women,

went on to higher education during the 1970's.

The decline in personal entertainment and recreation

resulted from a 40-percent drop in private household

employment. Unfortunately, recreation and entertainment services employment, which grew by 60 percent

nationally, cannot be tabulated separately for metro

and nonmetro areas from our data sources. The decline in this combined employment was greatest in

the nonmetro South at -20.1 percent (app. table 17).

Table 11—Service sector growth in metro and nonmetro areas, 1970-80

United States Metro Nonmetro

Service sector Employment Employment Employment

Percent as percent Percent as percent Percent as percent

of of of of of of

Growth total total 1980 Growth total total 1980 Growth total total 1980

rate growth employment rate growth employment rate growth employment

Percent

Household oriented:

Health care 70.7 14.3 7.4 69.8 15.0 7.7 74.1 12.2 6.8

Education 44.1 12.2 8.6 42.9 11.9 8.3 47.2 12.8 9.4

Retail trade ^29.7 17.1 16.1 ^28.2 17.1 16.3 ^34.5 17.1 15.6

Personal, entertainment, recreation -2.0 -.4 4.2 .5 .1 4.2 -9.0 -1.7 4.0

Total, household oriented 34.5 43.1 36.3 33.9 44.1 36.4 36.1 40.4 35.8

Business oriented:

Business and repair services 70.4 8.0 4.2 68.8 9.1 4.7 79.1 5.1 2.7

Finance, insurance, real estate 53.7 9.8 6.0 50.3 10.9 6.8 73.6 6.9 3.8

V\/hoIesale trade ^29.7 4.6 4.3 128.2 4.8 4.6 134.5 3.8 3.5

Other professional services 21.2 3.5 4.3 20.8 3.8 4.7 23.1 2.5 3.2

Total business services 42.1 25.8 18.8 40.7 28.7 20.8 48.8 18.3 13.2

Other:

Communication and utilities 19.3 2.2 2.9 15.5 1.9 2.9 33.2 2.9 2.7

Transportation 234.0 5.1 4.4 230.6 5.2 4.6 247.6 5.0 3.6

Public administration 234.0 6.2 5.3 230.6 6.1 5.5 247.6 6.4 4.7

Total service sector 35.7 82.4 67.6 34.5 86.0 70.3 40.1 73.0 60.0

'Combined for calculation of growth rate because of reclassification of farm equipment and supply employment from retail to wholesale

trade in 1980. Percentage of service sector growth based on 1980 classification.

2Combined for calculation of growth rate because of reclassification of post office employment from public administration to transportation

in 1980. Percentage of service sector growth based on 1980 classification.

25
Employment In business-oriented services generally

grew more rapidly (42.1 percent) than householdoriented service employment. Over 70 percent more

people were working in business and repair services

at the end of the 1970's than at the beginning.

Finance, Insurance, and real estate employment also

grew by over half. In spite of their high growth rate,

however, business-oriented services contributed substantially less to overall growth than did household

services—25.8 percent compared with 43.1 percent.

As a group, business-oriented services employ fewer

people, and the impact of their growth on total employment is less substantial.

Nonmetro employment growth was faster than metro

growth in all service-sector industries except personal,

entertainment, and recreation services. While household services were about equally important sources of

growth in metro and nonmetro areas, however, providing 44.1 and 40.4 percent of new employment,

respectively, business services provided a much higher

proportion of new metro employment (28.7 percent)

than of new nonmetro employment (18.3 percent).

In 1980, 20.8 percent of metro employment was In

business industries, but only 13.2 percent of nonmetro

employment.

Household services contributed about 40 percent of

employment growth across all county types during the

1970's (fig. 18). The major rural-urban difference was

that business services were more important to metro

growth, while the production sector, including agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and construction, was

more important for rural growth. Thus, about twice as

much growth (30 percent) In completely rural counties

came from expansion of production employment as it

did from business services employment (16 percent).

Business services contributed 32.5 percent to employment growth and production industries contributed

only 11.2 percent in large metro areas.

In 1980, 30-40 percent of employment across all

county types was in household services. The proportion was higher (39.6 percent) in small metro areas

and in urbanized nonmetro counties located away

from metro centers. Small cities serve important functions as service centers for area residents. Business

services were most important In large metro areas,

and their importance decreased as rurality increased.

On the other hand, the percentage employed in the

production Industries was higher in more rural counties. National business conditions and world trade

relations affect manufacturing, construction, and agriculture more directly than they affect the service sector, and nonmetro employment levels have recently

been more sensitive to business and international conditions than have metro employment levels.

Household-oriented service sector employment was

fairly even between the metro and nonmetro areas of

all four regions in 1980, while employment in business services is concentrated in the metro areas (app.

table 17). The nonmetro South has a relatively low

proportion of employment (57 percent) in the service

sector, especially compared with the nonmetro West

(67.7 percent). Both business and household-oriented

service employment are relatively low in the South.

Occupation in 1980

Occupations of the employed work force in 1980 reflected the large percentage of workers in service industries.ö Over half were in white-collar jobs—22.7

percent as administrators and professionals, and 30.3

percent as technical and administrative support staff

and salespeople (fig. 19). People in service occupations ranging from police to household staff accounted

for an additional 12.9 percent of the employed. This

left only 31.2 percent as blue-collar workers and 2.9

percent as farmers.

The proportion working in white-collar jobs was

higher among the metro employed In 1980 (56.6 percent) than among nonmetro employed (42.2 percent),

ranging from 59.2 percent in large metro areas to

about 36 percent in rural counties. Over one-fourth of

the employed residents of large metro areas were administrators or professionals. For rural nonmetro counties, only about 16 percent of the employed were in

these highly skilled white-collar jobs in 1980. Nonmetro areas, however, had a relatively high proportion

employed in blue-coHar jobs, especially low-skill bluecollar jobs. Less than 16 percent of the large metro

areas' employed had low-skill blue-collar occupations,

but just over 25 percent of the less urban and completely rural adjacent county employed were in lowskill blue-collar work. While the high proportion in

white-collar occupations in metro areas reflects the

importance of service industries in these areas, the

proportion In white-collar occupations is higher than

^Substantial changes in the categorization of occupations in 1980

preclude comparisons with 1970 and 1960.

26
Labor Force and Employment

expected. White-collar jobs tend to be urban and

blue-collar jobs tend to be rural within industry sectors.

The nonmetro South is notable for its high proportion

(26.1 percent) of low-skill blue-collar occupations, especially compared with the nonmetro West, where

only 15.7 percent of the employed were in low-skill

blue-collar occupations in 1980 (app. table 18). This

reflects the higher proportion of manufacturing in the

nonmetro South.

Figure 18

Service sector shares of employment growth 1970-80 and

employment 1980 by degree of urban influence

Percent

100

80

60

40

20 -

0

«.0

12.3

32.S

Large

44.8

144

26.0

Metro

43.1

13.3

22.6

Growth

44.2

14.3

19.9

43.2

13.6

20.0

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

36.8

14.2

17.6

39.2

13.8

17.6

314 29.5

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Nonmetro

364

17.3

164

39.7

164

15.7

Service sector

Household-oriented

TCU and public

administration'

Business-oriented

29 9 I 29.2 I— Production sector

Adj Nadj

Rural

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

36.6

13.2

22.7

28.6

37.0

12:9

18.7

314

39.6

12.6

17.1

30.8

Employment

37.2

11.0

14.0

37.8

m

40.0

12.1

15.1

32.8

Large Med Small Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Metro

V TCU = tmn(port«tloa communicatlont, «nd puHc utHtie«.

Sourc« Appandbt ttble 17.

33.3 36.8

10.6 10.8

124 12.7

1

40.7

J

43 8

31.3

11.9

11.3

gg^

45.5

33.1

11.0

114

44.5

Service sector

— Household-oriented

TCU and public

administration'

Business-oriented

Production sector

Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

27
Figure 19

Occupational distribution

Percent

1980

1UÜ

-

22.7

2.9

24.2

14

18.2

White collar

Administrators,

professionals

80

24.2

30.3 60 32.4

Clerks, sales, olhta

Blue collar

Skilled

40 - K '' '

22.7

20

18.3 16.8

_

m 13.3

12.9

Service workers

iP 7.1 r0 rarmers

Uniiea üiates Metro Nonmetro

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

25.5

33.7

22.7

31.1

22.1

30.0

By degree of urban influence

20.1

264

20.7

27.6

16.6

22.8

174

23.0

15.5

20.6

25.2 I 22 9 ^^-^

I

8.6 14.2 H1HH14.3

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Ad]

Urbanized Less urban Rural

WNte collar

Administrators,

professionals

Clerks, sales, other

Less skilled

Service workers

Metro

Sowcs: Appendix table 18.

Income and Poverty

Family incomes after inflation rose only slightly between 1969 and 1979. While the rural-urban differences in income and poverty diminished, rurality

NonmetTD

remained associated with low income. Rural-urban

convergence was substantial for blacks as real incomes fell in large metro areas but rose significantly in

smalltown and rural areas in the South. The greater increase in single-parent families in large metro areas

28
Income and Poverty

has also contributed to rural-urban convergence.

Higher Social Security payments and broader coverage

and higher income from property and other assets

raised the income of the elderly, especially in more

rural counties, and reduced the importance of wages

and salaries as a source of personal income.

Median Family Income

Median family income is the level at which half the

families have higher incomes and half have lower incomes.' Although app. table 19 includes actual income at the time of the censuses, the income statistics

may be misleading because of high inflation rates during the 1970's. To account for inflation, income data

were adjusted to 1979 dollar values using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Text tables and most of the

discussion are based on adjusted income figures.

U.S. median family income more than doubled between 1969 and 1979, but prices doubled as well. The

gain in real income after inflation was only 5.1 percent (table 12). Real median family incomes rose by

35 percent during the 1960's in contrast. Education

levels and female labor force participation rose slightly

more during the 1970's than the 1960's. Although the

increase in female-headed families contributed to the

lower income growth rate during the 1970's, much of

the slowdown in growth must be ascribed to changing

economic conditions.'"

Nonmetro median family income rose more quickly

than metro income during both decades, reducing but

not eliminating the disparities between the two types

of areas. The ratio of nonmetro to metro median fam-

'The concepts of household and household income have become increasingly appropriate with the greater incidence of nonrelatives living together in recent years. Household income was

tabulated for the first time in the 1970 census (1969 income), but

its use was only limited. Household income was used in the 1980

population reports (1979 income) in some places where family income was used in the 1970 population reports. In 1980 reports,

household income replaced the 1970 report "income of family or

primary individual," which excluded the income of anyone unrelated to the householder. Due to concerns about comparability

between census years, this portion of the analysis focuses on

median family incomes rather than median household incomes.

'°With the reduction in fertility, average family size was smaller

in 1980 than in 1970. Gains in family income per family member

were therefore higher than 5.1 percent. At the same time, with increases in female labor force participation, day care and other

costs increased, tending to reduce income available for nonessential purposes. Overall per capital income rose by 18 percent between 1969 and 1979.

ily incomes rose from 69 percent in 1959 to 79 percent in 1979.

The equalizing trend was most notable in the less

urban and completely rural nonmetro counties, which

had extremely low incomes relative to the national average in 1959 (fig. 20). In spite of these gains, less

urbanized and rural counties continued to have markedly lower incomes. The median family income was

only 71 percent of the national average in 1979 in

completely rural counties located away from metro

Table 12—Real median family income, metro and nonmetro

areas

Item 1959 1969 1979 Change

1959-69 1969-79

(979 dollars Percent

Total:

United States 14,044 18,957 19,920 35.0 5.1

Metro 15,488 20,711 21,357 33.7 3.1

Nonmetro 10,672 15,222 16,837 42.6 10.6

Blacks:

United States — 12,405 12,295 — 4.2

Metro — 13,769 13,678 — -.7

Nonmetro — 8,025 10,072 — 25.5

Not available.

Source; App. tables 19 and 20.

Figure 20

Ratio of median Income to national median

(x100) by degree of urban influence

Large Med Small

Metro

Source: Appendix table 19.

Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

29
areas. These disparities reflect differences in industrial

and occupational composition to some extent. Rural

counties tended to have relatively few people in managerial and professional occupations and a high

proportion in agriculture and low-skill blue-collar occupations. Lower educational levels and a higher

proportion of elderly also contribute to lower incomes

in more rural counties.

Regional disparities fell during 1959-79 (app. table

19). Median family incomes in the nonmetro areas in

the Midwest and especially the South gained relative

to the national median. The metro South also gained

faster than average, although median family income in

the metro South in 1979 continued to be lower than

in metro areas of other regions.

Black median family income rose only 4.2 percent in

real terms during 1969-79 and actually fell in metro

areas. The increase in single-parent family households

and the economic decline in the metro Northeast contributed to the decline. Black median family income

rose considerably (25.5 percent) in nonmetro areas

during the 1970's. The 1979 level ($10,072), however,

remained lower than the overall median family income in nonmetro areas 20 years earlier ($10,672).

Overall, the median family income of black families

was only 61.7 percent of the national median in 1979.

Poverty

Families and individuals are classified above or below

the poverty level by comparing their total income to

an income cutoff or poverty threshold. Such a threshold reflects a minimum income need based on the

USDA's Economy Food Plan and the different consumption requirements of families of varying sizes and

composition."

Because the poverty income thresholds are revised annually to reflect changes in the CPI, and because the

impact of the definitional changes is minimal, the

1980 poverty figures based on 1979 incomes for the

total population are reasonably comparable with 1970

"The reduced complexity of the 1980 census definition of

poverty compared with the 1970 definition reflects the addition of

thresholds for larger families, and an elimination of differentials for

both sex of household head and farm residence. The net effect of

these three changes was an increase of about 380,000 (1.5 percent)

in total number of poor. The elimination of the farm differential

alone in 1980 increased the farm population classified as poor by

approximately 174,000 persons (about half the total net increase

due to definition changes).

data. The poverty count in the more rural nonmetro

counties, however, was more significantly affected by

elimination of the farm differential in 1980, and

1970-80 comparisons should be made with caution.

During 1959-69, the nonfarm threshold for a fourperson family increased from $2,974 to $3,745, or

25.9 percent. Approximately comparable thresholds

during 1969-79 increased from $3,745 to $7,356, or

96.4 percent.12

During 1969-79, the number of persons in poverty

households increased slightly from 27.1 million to 27.4

million (fig. 21). In comparison, the population in poverty during the 1960's declined by 11.6 million, or 30

percent. The decline represented a reduction in the

incidence of poverty of 8.4 percentage points from

22.1 percent in 1959, compared with the 1.3 percentage point decline in the 1970's. The pattern of more

significant declines in poverty in nonmetro areas than

in metro areas has prevailed over the last 20 years.

The turnaround in the last decade in metro areas is a

new phenomenon, however. The nonmetro poverty

population fell by 12.6 percent during 1969-79 (1.3

'^The average threshold for all four-person households including

farm and nonfarm would have been approximately $3,715 in 1969,

but this average threshold was not published due to the existence

of the farm differential. The $3,745 figure was for a nonfarm family

of four. The CPI adjustment factor for converting 1969 current income figures to constant 1979 dollars is 1.98. The poverty income

analysis in this report excludes inkind income.

Figure 21

Number of people in poverty

387 million

Nonmetro

Metro

1959

Source: Appendix table 21.

1969 1979

30
Income and Poverty

million persons), compared with the increase of nearly

10 percent (1.6 million persons) in metro areas. The

share of the Nation's poor living in nonmetro areas

declined from 39 percent in 1969 to about 34 percent

in 1979. Nonmetro areas had a constant proportion of

Figure 22

Persons in poverty

Percent

1

22.1

1969

137

1979

12.4"

United States Metro Nonmetro

By degree of urban influence

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Metro

Source: Appendix table 21.

Nonmetro

the U.S. population—approximately 27 percent—in

both 1979 and 1969.

The most significant reductions in poverty in 1969-79

among county groups occurred among the most rural

nonmetro counties, in spite of the definition changes

adding to the incidence of poverty (fig. 22). Totally

rural counties adjacent to metro areas realized the

greatest reduction in the incidence of poverty (8.7 percentage points) during 1969-79. At the other extreme,

the core counties of greater metro areas recorded a

1.6-percentage-point increase in incidence of poverty,

from 11.7 percent in 1969 to 13.3 percent in 1979

(app. table 21). The relatively larger declines in

poverty in the more rural counties stem partly from

the greater magnitude of poverty in these counties at

the beginning of the decade. In spite of changes over

the previous two decades, poverty rates were still substantially higher in the more rural counties than in

more urban areas.

Noteworthy regional changes in the incidence of poverty were found in the Northeast and South, paralleling changes in median family incomes. The poverty

rate in the Northeast increased in the metro counties

(from 9.8 percent to 11.1 percent), overshadowing a

modest reduction in the nonmetro counties (from 12.3

percent to 11.2 percent). The U.S. metro population

in poverty was five to six times greater than the nonmetro poor population in the Northeast.

The South's poverty rate dropped dramatically between 1969 and 1979, especially in nonmetro counties. The rate fell from 20.3 percent to 15.4 percent

across the region, and from 27.9 percent to 19 percent in nonmetro counties. These improvements in

the South's relative poverty situation were particularly

significant because the region's population increased

20.5 percent overall—21.9 percent in metro counties

and 18.2 percent in nonmetro counties.

The percentage of persons 65 years old and over in

poverty in 1979 was 14.8 percent for the United

States, ranging from 12.3 percent in metro counties to

20.3 percent in nonmetro counties (table 13).'^

'3 Poverty thresholds for households headed by persons 65 years

of age or older are lower than those for younger heads, since past

capital accumulations can be used to maintain the same level of

living. For example, debt-free real estate occupied by an aged

owner may substitute for some of the housing costs in a poverty

budget. Also, food budgets for these older households are reduced

somewhat to account for more sedentary activity levels.

31
Table 13—Changes in incidence of poverty by metro and nonmetro counties, 1969-79

Item

1969

United States

1979

Point change,

1969-79 1969

Metro

1979

Point change,

1969-79 1969

Nonmetro

1979

Point change,

1969-79

Total persons

Persons > 65 years

Persons under 65 years

Percent

13.7 12.4 -1.3 11.4 11.3 -0.1 20.2 15.2 -5.0

27.3 14.8 -12.5 22.9 12.3 -10.6 37.0 20.3 -16.7

12.2 12.1 -.1 10.2 11.2 1.0 17.8 14.5 -3.5

Source: App. table 21.

Overall reductions in the incidence of poverty among

the elderly during the 1970's were most notable ¡n

nonmetro areas (-16.7 percentage points compared

with -10.6 percentage points for metro areas). The

poverty rate among nonmetro elderly in 1979 was as

high as 27 percent in the South. The most dramatic

reduction in poverty among the elderly also occurred

in the South's nonmetro counties—a decline of 18.6

percentage points from 45.6 percent in 1969.

The incidence of poverty among blacks dropped 5.2

percentage points during the 1970's, compared with a

1.3-percentage-point decline for all U.S. residents

(fig. 23)^"^ Nonmetro blacks accounted for most of the

overall decline. The incidence of poverty among

metro blacks fell only slightly, while poverty in large

metro areas increased overall. Even with these black

gainS; poverty among blacks was still more than three

times higher than among whites in 1979. The incidence of poverty in totally rural areas was about IVz

times that among whites (17,4 percent and 42.6 percent for whites and blacks, respectively, in rural areas

not adjacent to metro areas). The drop in the poverty

rate during the 1970's among blacks in more rural

areas averaged 17-18 percentage points, while that in

metro areas averaged less than 2 percentage points.

The incidence of poverty during the 1970's among

blacks in the Northeast and Midwest increased (app.

table 21). The small concentrations of blacks in the

nonmetro portions of these regions gained little from

the nonmetro advances in the war on poverty. The

South had major gains during the decade as did the

West to a lesser extent.

Poverty is highly related to family structure. In 1979,

9.6 percent of all family households were classified

poor (table 14). Among families with children, the

poverty rate was 13.2 percent—40.3 percent where

the households were headed by women with no

spouse present.

Poverty rates during the 1970's fell for families without

children at home as the incomes of older families improved. Poverty rates also declined slightly for both

male- and female-headed families with children. The

poverty rate among all families with children, however, rose from 11.8 percent to 13.2 percent. One

explanation is that the number of families (with children) headed by women increased by over 59 percent

during the decade, while the number of families

headed by men rose by only 1 percent (app. table

22). The poverty rate for families with children was

higher in 1979 than in 1969 because the proportion

of these families which were headed by women

Increased.^ ^

The poverty rates for all types of families declined in

nonmetro areas during the 1970's. The greatest decline was among nonmetro families with no related

children in the household, a result of both the improved incomes of many elderly and the movement of

higher income elderly into nonmetro areas. Poverty

among nonmetro families with children, on the other

hand, declined only marginally from 16.7 percent in

1969 to 14.9 percent in 1979, reflecting the increase

in female-headed families. The increase In female-

^^Comparable measures of poverty across all racial/ethnic groups

are not available for both 1969 and 1979 from the accessible Census files. Thus, the 1970's trends described here are only for blacks.

^^This is a statistical explanation / not a sociological explanation.

The formation of female-headed families may be increasingly a

response to low income. It cannot be assumed that families headed

by women tend to be poor only because they are headed by

women.

32
Income and Poverty

headed families with children was greater in metro

areas and was associated with an increase in poverty

rates among metro families with children, from 10 percent in 1969 to 12.5 percent in 1979.

Figure 23

Blacks in poverty

Percent

United States

By degree of urban influence

Large Med Small

Metro

Source: Appendix table 21.

Adj Nad) Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

The decline in poverty among elderly families and the

increase in female-headed family households in poverty altered the composition of low-income families.

The proportion of families in poverty which did not

include children dropped from 36.4 percent to 25.7

percent during the 1970's, while the proportion which

was female-headed with children rose from 27.3 percent to 39.2 perccent (fig. 24).

The differences between metro and nonmetro lowincome families in 1979 were substantial. Femaleheaded families with children made up 45.7 percent

of the metro low-income families, but only 27 percent

of the nonmetro low-income families. On the other

hand, while 41.3 percent of the nonmetro low-income

families had a male parent present, the comparable

metro statistic was only 31.9 percent. Although

metro-nonmetro differences in poverty rates diminished somewhat during the 1970's, the composition of

families in poverty remained quite different.

These differences extend across the rural-urban continuum of counties. The proportion of low-income

families which were female headed with children

ranged from 49 percent in large metro areas to 17.2

percent in rural, nonadjacent counties. The proportion

with a male parent present was only 29.8 percent in

large metro areas, but 46.5 percent in rural nonadjacent counties.

Across regions, there was relatively little change in the

overall poverty rates for families except in the nonmetro South, where the rate declined from 22.8 percent in 1969 to 14.9 percent in 1979—still higher than

in any other region. Again, the lack of overall change

disguises the decrease in poverty among older families

and the increase in poverty among families with children. The poverty rate for families with children in the

metro Northeast was significantly higher in 1979 (13.5

percent) than in 1969 (8.7 percent). Poverty rates rose

substantially for female-headed families with children

(from 39.7 to 45 percent); the number of these families in poverty in the metro Northeast increased over

70 percent during the decade. In 1979, 52 percent of

the poor families were female-headed families with

children, up from 37 percent in 1969.

Poverty rates were somewhat lower in the metro areas

of the Midwest, but the proportion of poor femaleheaded families with children was also over half. Only

in the South were there fewer poor families in 1979

33
Table 14—Famtiy household poverty rates, metro and nonmetro areas

Family type United States Metro Nonmetro

1969 1979

Point change,

1969-79 1969

Point change,

1979 1969-79 1969 1979

Point change,

1969-79

Percent

Total 10.7 9.6 -1.1 8.6 8.7 -0.1 16.2 11.7 -4.5

With related

children < 18 years 11.8 13.2 1.4 10.0 12.5 2.5 16.7 14.9 -1.8

Female-headed 43.2 40.3 -2.9 41.1 39.4 -1.7 50.2 43.7 -6.5

Male-headed 7.6 7.5 -.1 5.6 6.3 .7 12.9 10.4 -2.5

With no related

children 9.2 5.3 -3.9 6.7 4.3 -2.4 15.6 8.1 -7.5

Source: App. table 22.

than ¡n 1969, and only in the nonmetro South were

there fewer poor families with children than at the beginning of the decade. Even in the nonmetro South,

however, there were 22 percent more poor femaleheaded families with children in 1979 than in 1969.

Although the proportion of female-headed families

with children is particularly high for blacks, the information on family poverty is not yet available by race

for the various county groups.

Sources of Income

Earnings as a proportion of total household income

declined during the 1970's from 87.5 percent in 1969

to 83 percent in 1979, in spite of the increases in

labor force and labor force participation (app. table

23). Conversely, income other than earnings (interest,

dividends, rents. Social Security, pensions, public assistance, and other transfers) made up an increased

proportion of the total. The drop in earnings as a

proportion of total income was greater in nonmetro

areas (87.2 percent in 1969 compared with 80.9 percent in 1979) than in metro areas.

The proportion of income from self-employment

dropped dramatically across all residence categories

during the 1970's, but was most notable in the more

rural areas (fig. 25). In totally rural counties not adjacent to metro areas, the proportion of income derived

from self-employment was 15.7 percent in 1979, down

from 22.5 percent in 1969. The proportion of household income from farm self-employment in those same

counties dropped from 12.5 percent in 1969 to 7.4

percent in 1979, while the proportion of income from

wages and salaries remained essentially unchanged.

Off-farm employment is now common; thus increased

numbers of farm households currently report incomes

from wages and salaries, and to a lesser extent, from

nonfarm self-employment.

Housing

The number of housing units rose considerably during

the 1970's, somewhat faster in nonmetro than metro

areas. The percentage of residents owning their own

homes or apartments rose in more rural counties, especially those adjacent to metro areas. Housing quality (as measured by kitchen and bathroom facilities)

improved, especially in rural counties. Rural-urban

differences were reduced. Rural-urban differences in

rents were also reduced, however, as rents rose most

rapidly in more rural counties.

Number of Units and Tenure

The Nation's stock of year-round housing increased by

19 million units (28.2 percent) between 1970 and

1980, from 68 million to 87 million (table 15). This increase was slightly greater than the increase in the

number of households, with the difference representing an increase in the vacancy rate. The number of

34
Housing

units grew somewhat faster in nonmetro areas (31.4

percent) than in metro areas (26.9 percent), paralleling

the greater increase in the number of nonmetro

households. The vacancy rate remained higher in nonmetro areas. This may reflect units suitable for yearround residence but used seasonally, because vacancy

was highest in the most rural counties and in the nonmetro West (app. table 24).

Figure 24

Types of families In poverty

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

1969 1979

United States

1969 1979

Metro

1969 1979

No children under 18

Children under 18,

male spouse present

Children under 18,

female headed,

no spouse present

Nonmetro

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

Metro

By degree of urban influence, 1979

32.7 36.3

ki I

43.2

36.3

'••» ^ j 46.5

Large Med Small Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

No children under 18

Children under 18,

male spouse present

Children under 18,

female headed,

no spouse present

Source: Appendix table 22.

35
Figure 25

Household income from self-employment

Figure 26

Owner-occupied housing units

Percent

Large Med Small

Metro

So«irce: Appendix table 23.

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Adj Nadj

Rural

Nonmetro

Large Med Small

Metro

Source: Appendix table 24.

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Adj Nadj

Rural

Nonmetro

Table 15—Housing and tenure in metro and nonmetro areas

Unit United States Metro Nonmetro

1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980

Year-round housing units' Thousand 67,699 86,759 49,142 62,373 18,557 24,386

Percentage change 1970-80 Percent — 28.2 — 26.9 — 31.4

Percentage vacant do. 6.3 7.3 5.0 6.3 9.7 9.9

Occupied units Thousand 63,445 80,390 46,693 58,420 16,752 21,970

Percentage owner occupied Percent 62.9 64.4 60.2 61.3 70.3 72.6

-Not applicable. 'Includes vacant mobile homes in 1980 only. Source: App. table 24.

The percentage of occupied housing units owned by

their occupants rose in spite of the large increase in

new, young adult households who might be expected

to rent—from 62.9 percent in 1970 to 64.4 percent in

1980. Ownership was higher in nonmetro areas, and

the 1970-80 gain in nonmetro areas (2.3 percentage

points to a level of 72.6 percent) was greater than in

metro areas (1.1 percentage points to a level of 61.3

percent). Ownership rates were higher in the more

rural counties, especially those adjacent to metro

areas, and showed the greatest gain in ownership during the 1970's (fig. 26). Ownership rates did not

change in medium and small metro areas. Rural-urban

differences in ownership rates increased slightly overall during the 1970's.

Ownership rates increased in all regions, with the

greatest increase in the nonmetro South, from 68.3

percent in 1970 to 72.8 percent in 1980. This was

probably associated with a decline in tenant farming

as well as the relatively high income gains in the

South compared with other regions.

Housing Quality

Two measures of housing quality were examined:

kitchen facilities and bathroom facilities.'* The percentage of units lacking complete kitchen facilities was

almost halved between 1970 and 1980, failing from

4.2 percent to 2.5 percent (fig. 27). The decrease was

"Complete kitchen facilities possess all of the following: an installed sink with piped water, a range or cookstove, and a mechanical refrigerator. All kitchen facilities must be located in the

building or structure, but they need not all be in the same room.

Complete bathroom facilities include a flush toilet, bathtub or

shower, and a washbasin with piped hot and cold water for the exclusive use of the occupants of the housing unit.

36
Housing

Figure 27

Housing units iacking complete

Icitchen facilities

Percent

Metro Nonmetro

what except for core metro counties, where the percentage of units with incomplete kitchens increased

slightly from 1.7 percent to 1.9 percent (app. table

25). Totally rural counties adjacent to a metro area

improved their kitchen facilities the most. Eighteen

percent of units in this classification lacked complete

kitchen facilities in 1970, but only 7.6 percent in 1980.

The South had the highest percentage of units lacking

complete kitchen facilities in both time periods—7.6

percent in 1970 and 3.4 percent in 1980. Less than 3

percent of units in all other regions had incomplete

kitchen facilities in 1980. The Northeast had the

fewest incomplete kitchens—1.8 percent ofthat

region's total—which remained unchanged between

1970 and 1980.

By degree of urban influence

Large Med Small

Metro

Source: Appendix table 25.

Adj Nadj

Urbanized

Adj Nadj

Less urban

Adj Nadj

Rural

Nonmetro

most dramatic in nonmetro areas, with 9.7 percent of

units lacking complete kitchen facilities in 1970 but

only 4.4 percent in 1980—a decline of over 50 percent. The figure for metro areas fell slightly from 2.1

percent to 1.7 percent. All county groupings fell someSimilar trends were evident for bathroom facilities.

The percentage of units lacking complete bathroom facilities dropped from 7.5 percent in 1970 to 3.3 percent in 1980 (fig. 28). Nonmetro areas showed the

greatest decline, from 15.6 percent to 5.8 percent.

The percentage for metro areas also declined but at a

much lower rate, 4.5 percent to 2.3 percent.

All county groupings had lower percentages of units

lacking complete bathroom facilities. Generally,

nonmetro areas showed greater improvement than

metro areas, although the former still possessed a

larger percentage of units with incomplete bathroom

facilities. In metro areas, small metro counties, for example, showed the greatest improvement. Their

percentages dropped from 7 percent in 1970 to 2.6

percent in 1980. The 1970 and 1980 figures for totally

rural counties adjacent to a metro area were 27 percent and 10.1 percent, respectively.

The South had the greatest improvement in the

percentage of units lacking complete bathroom

facilities, falling from 12.4 percent in 1970 to 4.2 percent in 1980. Other regions also improved their housing quality. The West showed the smallest decrease,

although it had the smallest percentage of units lacking complete bathroom facilities in both periods. All

regions reported less than 5 percent of their units

defective with regard to this measure in 1980.

Median Rent

Real median monthly rents increased by about 5.2

percent between 1970 and 1980 (fig. 29), about the

37
Figure 28

Housing units iacking compiete

bathroom faciiities

Percent

Figure 28

Median monthiy rents

1980 dollars

1980

1970

United States Metro Nonmetro

United States Metro Nonmetro

By degree of urban Influence

Percent By degree of urban Influence

30

25 r^

20 1

ig/o^

15 /

10 J y^

^yi^*^ 1980 ^^

5 y^'"^^^^^^^

0 1 1 1 1 1—1—1—

1980 dollars

300

250

^

\^*^^^^1980

200 X^ig/O ^^^

150

\._^_

100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

Large Med Small

Metro

Source: Apperxjix table 25.

same rate as median family income (5.1 percent).

Neither rents (2.8 percent) nor income (3.1 percent)

showed much gain over the decade in metro areas. In

nonmetro areas, the rise in median rent was considerable (27.4 percent) and far outpaced the growth

Large Med Small

Metro

Source: Appendix table 26.

Adj Nadj Adj Nadj Adj Nadj

Urbanized Less urban Rural

Nonmetro

in median family income (10.6 percent). The ratio of

median rent to median family income in 1970 was

about 13 percent lower in nonmetro areas than in

metro areas. This ratio was about the same in both

types of areas in 1980. These rises in nonmetro rents

38
Conclusions

reflected not only higher demand due to inmlgration,

but also improvements in the quality of housing.

Because housing represents a major household

expenditure, the increase in rents suggests the cost of

living may have risen more in nonmetro than in metro

areas during the 1970's,

The increases in median rents were greatest in the

more rural nonmetro counties. Although these counties continue to have much lower median rents than

urban counties, some of their initial advantage has

been lost. While rents rose most rapidly in the South

(the region with the greatest improvements in both income and housing quality), the West remained the

region with the highest rents in 1980 (app. table 26).

Conclusions

Reversing a long historical trend, the population grew

more rapidly in nonmetro areas than in metro areas

during the 1970's. This turnaround was extensive.

Large metro areas, the fastest growing during the

1960's, became the slowest during the 1970's. The

turnaround included not only nonmetro counties

bordering on metro areas, but also the less urbanized

and completely rural counties located away from

metro areas. It included all regions except the South,

although nonmetro growth increased considerably

there as well, and involved all age groups.

While the increased longevity of the elderly, who constitute a large share of the nonmetro population, contributed to the rapid growth of nonmetro areas, the

reversal of the rural-to-urban migration flows was

clearly the major factor in the turnaround. The net

outflow of young adults from nonmetro areas decreased considerably between the 1960's and the

1970's. The middle-aged, who showed little net movement during the 1960's, moved out of large metro

areas of the Northeast and Midwest into both smaller

metro areas and nonmetro counties during the 1970's.

Finally, the tendency for the retirement age population

to move out of major metro areas and into nonmetro

counties increased.

The regional distribution of nonmetro growth was

uneven. Although the contrast was not as sharp as for

metro areas, nonmetro growth was higher in the

South and West than in the Northeast and Midwest.

Growth in the nonmetro West was particularly high

during the 1970's. Here, the population grew by more

than one-third, the number of households by one-half,

and the labor force by more than half. Given the relatively low rates of growth during the 1960's, these

statistics suggest an unprecedented demand for new

services and infrastructure in the nonmetro West during the 1970's. Although growth was seen favorably in

most nonmetro areas, the question of growth was less

one of promotion than of management and control in

at least some sections of the West.

Manufacturing was a major source of nonmetro employment growth during both the 1960's and 1970's.

The number of nonmetro residents employed in

manufacturing increased by over 1 million (26 percent)

between 1960 and 1970, a period when national manufacturing employment increased by only 1.8 million,

or 10 percent. Manufacturing continued to expand

into nonmetro areas in the 1970's at about the same

rate, and the percentage employed in manufacturing

was higher in nonmetro than in metro areas by 1980.

The two decades differed the most in sectors other

than manufacturing. First, the dramatic decline in

primary-sector employment (agriculture, forestry,

fishing, and mining), which had exceeded the gain

from manufacturing during the 1960's, leveled off during the 1970's. Second, employment gains in the

services-producing sector rose from about 2 million

during 1960-70 to 4 million during 1970-80. Thus, as

in the country as a whole, the expansion of serviceproducing industries was more important for nonmetro employment growth in the 1970's than was

manufacturing expansion.

Future Nonmetro Growth

Will nonmetro growth continue into the 1980's?

Estimates of population change between 1980 and

1984 indicate that metro and nonmetro areas were

growing at much the same rate, suggesting that urbanto-rural migration has slowed. While the recession undoubtedly inhibited migration, it is not clear that

economic recovery will bring a renewed urban-to-rural

net migration. Many factors which encouraged this

migration pattern appear to have lost salience.

First, the interstate highway system, which facilitated

the decentralization of manufacturing and population,

has been operating for over a decade. Most firms en39
couraged to relocate by this systenn likely have already

done so. Second, manufacturing decentralization was

also encouraged by a lack of unionization and lower

wage rates in non metro areas, Some natiorial unions

are now shifting their concerns from wage rates to job

security, however, a trend which could reduce the

labor cost advantage of nonmetro areas where unions

have been relatively weak and wages low, Nonmetro

manufacturing has also been affected by competition

from abroad. And, nonmetro growth has been

prompted in part by urban crime and social unrest.

The riots of the late 1960's have not continued,

however, and crime rates have recently abated, partly

due to a decline in the teenage population.

A fourth consideration is the industrial mix of

nonmetro areas. In spite of the recent grovvth in the

services-producing sector, nonmetro areas continue to

specialize in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing,

all of which have little prospect for rapid growth.

Within the services sector, nonmetro areas tend to

specialize in household service, including education,

retail trade, personal services, and, to a lesser extent,

health care. Education and health care were among the

more rapidly growing industries during the 1970's,

with their growth constituting about one-fourth of all

nonmetro employment growth. Neither seems likely to

expand at the same rate during the 1980's, With the

reduction in the population of youth and chHdren,

and the constraints on FederaJ, State, and local

budgets, employment growth in education will probably be limited. Health services expanded during the

1970's due to growth in the elderly population, major

users of health services, the availability of funds

through Medicare and Medicaid, and the expansion of

medical schools. While nonmetro areas will continue

to have a targe and growing elderly population, the

growth in health services funds will probably not

continue to substantially outpace the growth in the

elderly population.

Finally, one may speculate on the association between

the relatively rapid growth of nonmetro areas during

the 1970's and the baby boom generation's entry into

adulthood. Fertility rates have historicaliy been considerably higher in small towns and open-country

areas than in cities and suburbs, which produced a

surplus of entrants into the labor force from rural

areas and enhanced rural-to-urban migration. Because

the baby boom was more pronounced in metro than

in nonmetro areas, nonmetro areas no longer had a

surplus of entrants compared with metro areas in

1970, slowing the movement of young adults out of

rural areas. The subsequent baby bust has been initially stronger in metro areas; during the present

decade, at least, nonmetro areas should again have a

relative surplus of new entrants.

While these considerations suggest a slowdown in

nonmetro growth, they do not necessarily indicate a

return to the historicai pattern of rural-to-urban migration, at least not so far as major metro areas are concerned. The farm sector, a major source of outmigration in earlier decades, is again under economic

pressure, but fewer people are now making their living or growing up on farms. Many families remaining

have one or more members in off-farm employment,

reducing the likelihood of their migration.

More people preferred living in nonmetro and rural

settings during the 1970's, which will probably continue to influence migration patterns. One must also

remember that the turnaround itself was largely unanticipated. Changes in banking structure, communications and computer tecJinology, and other spheres

may have unanticipated ramifications for nonmetro

growth. What is apparent is that the 1970's patterns of

change which were different from the patterns in the

I960's cannot be expected to continue into the 1980's.

SocioeconoTnîc Convergence

The 1960's were a period of social and economic convergence between urban and rural areas. Fertility differences were reduced. Metro-nonmetro female labor

force participation rates became more similar. With

the decline in agriculture and the expansion of nonmetro manufacturing, differences in industriai composition were reduced. Gains in median income and

reductions in poverty were greater in nonmetro areas,

particularly in the relatively poor, less urban, and

compieteiy rural counties and in the nonmetro South.

With the turnaround in migration and the greater

growth of nonmetro areas during the 1970's, an even

greater rate of rural-urban convergence between these

might have been expected. This was clearly not the

case for social characteristics. There were substantial

changes in the family during the 1970's. The baby

boom cohort, a product of high fertility, had extremely low fertility. The drop in fertility was partly

40
Conclusions

associated with a rapid gain in the proportion of

females in the labor force. At the same time, the proportion of children living in single-parent families increased markedly, particularly among blacks. Associated with the decline in childbearing and the increase

in single-parent families was a rise in female labor

force participation. All three of these changes were

greater in the more urban counties, particularly those

that were part of large metro areas, and resulted in

larger rural-urban differences over the decade for fertility, single-parent families, and female labor force

participation. It is not possible to tell if this reflects a

permanent cultural divergence, or a situation in which

social change occurs first in highly urban areas and

then diffuses into more rural settings. Nuclear families

probably tend to select small towns more frequently

than do people who are single, divorced, or married

without children, but this would not explain the extent of the divergence.

Non metro-metro convergence in industrial structure

was more limited during the 1970's than the 1960's,

despite the large increase in non metro service sector

employment during the 1970's. One reason that convergence was limited during the 1970's was that

nonmetro employment in agriculture and mining,

which had declined by 35 percent between 1960 and

1970, increased during the 1970's. The rapid growth

of nonmetro manufacturing employment also created

a situation where the proportion employed in manufacturing was higher in nonmetro than in metro

areas—that is, a situation of divergence.

The national growth in real median family income

slowed from 35 percent during the T960's to only 5

percent during the 1970's. This slowdown occurred in

both metro and nonmetro areas, but especially in the

metro Northeast where family income was lower in

1979 than in 1969. Metro and nonmetro incomes continued to converge, but for the less urban and completely rural counties, the rate of convergence was

slower than in the previous decade, perhaps in part

because agricultural employment was no longer

declining. Metro-nonmetro disparities in incomes and

poverty were substantially reduced during the 1970's,

however, for blacks and families with children.

Black incomes, which appear particularly sensitive to

changes in national and local economic conditions,

showed considerable convergence between nonmetro

and metro areas during the 1970's, when metro blacks

fared poorly. Black real median family incomes declined in metro areas over the decade, particularly in

the metro Northeast, where median family income

was 10 percent lower in 1979 than in 1969. in contrast, black family income rose about 27 percent in

the nonmetro South, much faster than for southern

nonmetro families as a whole (16 percent). As a result

of these changes, the nonmetro-metro ratio of black

median family incomes rose from 0.58 in 1969 to 0.74

in 1979, about what it is for the population as a

whole (0.79). Moreover, the ratio of black to overall

median family incomes in 1979 was about the same

(0.65) in the nonmetro South as in the metro Northeast. Relative black disadvantage no longer appears

greater in the nonmetro South than elsewhere.

Metro and nonmetro poverty rates for families with

children also converged during the 1970's, partly due

to improved opportunities, particularly in the

nonmetro South. The growing proportion of metro

families headed by women was associated with increases in poverty rates for families with children, as

families headed by women tend to have considerably

lower incomes than those headed by men. Thus, the

convergence in poverty between metro and nonmetro

areas was partly a result of divergence in family structure between the two areas.

The prospects of further income convergence between

nonmetro and metro residents may be somewhat

limited. The educational level of nonmetro residents,

particularly in more rural counties, remains low compared with that of metro residents. With relatively few

administrative and professional jobs, the nonmetro occupational mix limits the income opportunities of nonmetro residents. The lower cost of living in nonmetro

areas somewhat compensates for lower incomes, but

the rise in median rents in nonmetro areas suggests

that some of this advantage was lost over the decade.

Finally, while elderly incomes rose during the 1970's,

the current pressures on Social Security and Medicare

make it unlikely that national programs for the elderly

will expand at the same pace during the 1980's.

In retrospect, it may no longer be useful to think of

rural areas as becoming economically and socially

more like urban areas. The growth of nonmetro areas

during the 1970's was not a part of a process of convergence so much as an indication that small towns

41
and rural areas were playing a new set of roles in

American society—as locations of industry production,

as areas for retirement and recreation, and as social

and natural environments for raising a family. These

new roles brought opportunities to smalltown residents, but vulnerabilities as well. In the recent recession, for instance, unemployment rates rose faster and

stayed higher in nonmetro than in metro areas.

Although the evidence is stilt incomplete, indications

are that labor-intensive rural manufacturing is particularly susceptible to foreign competition. Mining,

agriculture, and forestry, more traditionaf rural pursuits, are still extremely important in some areas, and

have not fared well in recent years. Nonmetro areas

have a relatively high proportion of poor children and

elderly. Changes in the national budget directing

funds away from social programs and education affect

rural more than urban residents. Defense spending is

rising, but defense

metro areas.

industries tend to be located in

While urban and rural communities now share much

the same fate, differences remain. Changes at tJie national level in trade relations, government programs,

business conditions, and other situations may have

substantially different geographical impacts, with costs

and benefits distributed unevenly across both regions

and levels of urbanization.

42
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 1—Population change of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Item Total 1Slacks

Population

Percent change

in population Populiîtion

Percent change

in population

1970 1980 1970-80 1960-70 1970 1980 1970-80 1960-70

Thousand Percent- Thousand Percent

U.S. total 203,213 226,546 11.5 13.3 22,539 26,482 17.5 19.4

Metro 148,809 163,526 9.9 17.0 17,479 21,014 20.2 30.3

Large metro

Core

Fringe

84,887

59,839

25,047

90,000

60,847

29,153

6.0

1.7

16.4

17.3

11.8

33.2

11,209

10,029

1,180

13,265

11,440

1,825

18.3

14.1

54.7

39.3

39.2

40.6

Medium metro 46,449 52,873 13.8 17.0 4,594 5,661 23.2 19.3

Small metro 17,473 20,653 18.2 15.4 1,675 2,088 24.7 10.6

Nonmetro 54,404 63,020 15.8 4.4 5,061 5,469 8.1 -7.3

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

12,650

8,395

14,802

9,594

17.0

14.3

12.5

7.9

804

860

932

982

15.9

14.2

4.3

-3.1

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

13,092

13,634

15,350

15,529

17.2

13.9

3.9

-.4

1,483

1,263

1,582

1,320

6.7

4.5

-8.5

-12.0

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

2,268

4,365

2,737

5,008

20.7

14.7

0

-4.0

318

332

318

334

0

.6

-11.1

-14.5

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

49,044

42,465

6,579

49,135

41,716

7,419

.2

-1.8

12.8

9.8

10.0

8.4

4,337

4,248

89

4,850

4,747

103

11.8

11.7

15.7

43.2

43.8

19.2

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

56,566

39,090

17,476

58,866

40,037

18,828

4.1

2.4

7.7

9.6

13.0

2.7

4,558

4,315

244

5,333

5,037

296

17.0

16.7

21.3

32.3

34.1

7.4

South

Metro

Nonmetro

62,793

39,341

23,452

75,372

47,722

27,650

20.0

21.3

17.9

14.2

22.2

3.1

11,955

7,294

4,661

14,039

9,050

4,989

17.4

24.1

7.0

5.7

17.4

-8.6

West

Metro

Nonmetro

34,809

27,913

6,896

43,172

34,050

9,122

24.0

22.0

32.3

24.1

28.2

9.7

1,689

1,623

67

2,261

2,179

82

33.8

34.3

22.4

55.6

58.2

11.7

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

43
4^ Appendix table 2—Population change by age group of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Age 0-17 Age 18-34 Age 35-64 Age 65 and over

Item Popul

1970

ation

1980

Percent change

1970-80 1960-70

Popul

1970

1 ation

1980

Percent change

1970-80 1960-70

Population

1970 1980

Percent change

1970-80 1960-70

Popul

1970

lation

1980

Percent change

1970-80 1960-70

—Thousand— —Percent- —Thousand— —Percenf— —Thousand— —Percent— —Thousand— —Percent—

U.S. total 69,930 63,792 -8.8 8.7 48,230 67,099 39.1 25.6 64,952 70,156 8.0 7.6 20,102 25,498 26.8 24.0

Metro 50,926 45,326 -11.0 14.0 36,135 49,578 37.2 29.2 47,899 51,182 6.9 9.9 13,849 17,441 25.9 26.7

Large metro

Core

Fringe

28,617

19,479

9,138

24,485

16,094

8,391

-14.4

^17.4

-8.2

16.1

10.8

29.1

20,406

14,607

5,800

27,138

18,672

8,466

33.0

27.8

46.0

30.2

24.7

46.3

27,889

19,681

8,208

28,801

19,157

9,644

3.3

-2.7

17.5

8.6

2.1

28.2

7,974

6,073

1,901

9,576

6,924

2,651

20.1

14.0

39.5

25.9

22.1

39.7

Medium metro 16,229 14,961 -7.8 12.2 11,272 15,981 41.8 28.2 14,721 16,284 10.6 12.0 4,226 5,647 33.6 28.3

Small metro 6,080 5,880 -3.3 9.4 4,456 6,459 44.9 27.0 5,289 6,097 15.3 10.8 1,648 2,218 34.6 26.8

Nonmetro 19,004 18,467 -2.8 -3.2 12,094 17,522 44.9 16.0 17,052 18,974 11.3 1.6 6,253 8,057 28.8 18.5

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,359

2,911

4,218

2,766

-3.2

-5.0

6.9

-.9

3,068

2,180

4,365

3,012

42.3

38.2

25.5

23.6

3,909

2,500

4,457

2,763

14.0

10.5

7.4

3.8

1,315

802

1,762

1,052

34.0

31.1

22.0

20.5

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,599

4,785

4,561

4,607

-.8

-3.7

-3.2

-8.4

2,765

2,823

4,057

4,158

46.7

47.3

14.2

9.4

4,148

4,349

4,695

4,666

13.2

7.3

1.6

-2.1

1,580

1,678

2,038

2,097

28.9

25.0

17.1

16.8

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

803

1,548

822

1,493

2.4

-3.5

-8.4

-12.2

445

813

688

1,241

54.6

52.7

8.6

1.3

730

1,417

852

1,541

16.7

8.7

-.8

-4.2

290

588

374

733

29.0

24.8

17.6

16.7

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

16,092

13,856

2,236

13,092

11,023

2,070

- 18.6

-20.4

- 7.5

9.2

9.9

4.9

11,097

9,618

1,479

13,861

11,783

2,079

24.9

22.5

40.6

20.3

20.5

19.2

16,646

14,539

2,107

16,119

13,824

2,295

-3.2

-4.9

8.9

2,1

1.9

3.3

5,210

4,452

758

6,062

5,087

976

16.4

14.3

.7

18.2

18.7

15.2

Midwest

Metrp

Nonmetro

19,911

13,893

6,018

16,933

11,505

5,428

-15.0

-17.2

-9.8

7.1

11.5

-2.0

13,130

9,37Q

3,760

17,290

12,122

5,168

31.7

29.4

37.5

21.8

24.5

15.4

17,791

12,320

5,471

17,957

12,321

5,636

.9

0

3.0

3.0

5.6

-2.6

5,735

3,507

2,228

6,686

4,089

2,597

16.6

16.6

16.5

15.7

18.6

11.3

South

Metro

Nonmetro

21,941

13,690

8,251

21,655

13,450

8,205

-1.3

-1.8

-.6

5.5

15.2

-7.3

15,230

9,961

5,269

22,281

14,733

7,548

46.3

47.9

43.3

25.2

32.0

14.5

19,568

12,236

7,332

22,967

14,591

8,377

17.4

19.2

14.2

11.7

18.0

2.5

6,053

3,454

2,600

8,470

4,948

3,521

39.9

43.3

35.5

35.0

44.0

24.7

West

Metro

Nonmetro

11,987

9,487

2,500

12,112

9,348

2,764

1.0

-1.5

10.6

17.8

22.9

1.8

8,772

7,185

1,587

13,667

10,940

2,727

55.8

52.3

71.8

40.7

46.0

20.9

10,947

8,805

2,142

13,112

10,446

2,667

19.8

18.6

24.5

17.9

20.6

7.9

3,104

2,436

668

4,281

3,317

964

37.9

36.2

44.3

31.6

33.4

25.2

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 3—Percentage change in size of cohort to net migration of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Item

Age of cohort at end of decade (years)

18-34 35-64 65 and over Total 18 and over

1960-70 1970-80 1960-70. 1970-80 1960-70 1970-80 1960-70 1970-80

Percent

U.S. total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Metro 8.4 1.2 .8 -2.8 -1.0 -2.9 3.2 -1.2

Large metro 12.1 -.2 .7 -6.1 -3.6 -8.0 13.9 -4.1

Core 10.1 -1.3 -3.9 -10.5 -6.2 -10.7 .4 -6.9

Fringe 17.6 2.1 13.8 4.1 5.6 0 14.1 3.7

Medium metro 4.2 1.9 1.4 .8 1.8 2.8 2.5 1.6

Small metro 3.0 5.5 -.5 4.4 4.7 7.5 1.6 5.4

Nonmetro -18.8 -3.1 -2.1 8.5 2.4 6.8 -7.9 3.3

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area -3.4 1.3 .3 6.8 3.9 9.1 -.5 4.8

Not adjacent -4.5 -.4 -6.2 2.0 .1 4.0 -4.6 1.2

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area -22.9 -4.3 -.4 11.7 3.2 8.5 -8.5 4.5

Not adjacent -27.6 -6.3 -3.6 8.0 1.5 5.0 -12.0 1.5

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area -31.9 -4.1 -.1 18.7 2.6 8.2 -12.1 7.5

Not adjacent -37.8 -9.2 -2.9 13.3 2.3 6.0 -16.8 2.8

Northeast .4 -9.2 -1.7 -7.1 -6.7 -8.8 -1.8 -8.2

Metro 2.1 -10.2 -1.9 -12.5 -7.8 -11.4 -1.6 -9.8

Nonmetro -9.3 -2.6 -.1 5,9 .7 7.3 -3.3 2.6

Midwest -3.5 -8.2 -3.1 -6.2 -4.5 -5.7 -3.5 -7.0

Metro 3.9 -7.7 -3.1 -9.5 -7.6 -10.3 -1.3 -8.8

Nonmetro -18.0 -9.5 -3.2 1.9 .8 2.7 -7.9 -2.7

South -4.4 4.8 1.3 7.7 7.7 9.3 0 6.7

Metro 9.8 10.0 3.6 5.7 10.5 9.6 6.9 8.1

Nonmetro -23.2 -4.1 -2.3 11.4 4.1 8.8 -9.8 4.4

West 14.7 16.4 5.9 6.2 7.4 6.7 9.3 10.6

Metro 23.2 16.8 7.7 3.7 8.5 5.5 13.4 9.4

Nonmetro -12.7 14.7 -1.0 17.4 3.5 11.3 -.5 15.3

Source; Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

45
Appendix table 4—Percentage of population not living in

same county 5 years prior to Census, by metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Item 1960 1970 1980

Percent

U.S. total 19.0 20.8 21.3

Metro 19.7 21.1 21.1

Large metro

Core

Fringe

19.0

16.4

27.8

20.7

18.2

26.6

20.3

18.0

25.3

Medium metro 19.1 20.7 21.0

Small metro 23.0 24.4 24.9

Nonmetro 17.3 20.0 21.9

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

19.2

22.3

21.0

24.8

22.8

25.1

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

15.6

16.0

18.2

18.4

20.9

20.5

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

14.7

14.6

17.5

17.1

21.9

20.9

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

14.7

14.7

15.0

17.0

16.8

18.2

16.0

15.4

19.2

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

16.2

16.1

16.5

18.2

17.6

19.6

18.2

17.2

20.3

South

Metro

Nonmetro

20.5

23.9

15.8

22.7

25.4

18.1

23.6

25.5

20.3

West

Metro

Nonmetro

28.0

28.1

27.7

27.0

26.5

29.2

27.9

26.7

32.4

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

46
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 5—Children born per woman age 25-34 and 35-44, by metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Children born per—

Item Woman age 25-34 Woman age 35-44

1960 1970 1980 1960 1970 1980

Number

U.S. total 2.24 2.14 1.48 2.47 2.96 2.64

Metro 2.13 2.05 1.39 2.31 2.86 2.56

Large metro

Core

Fringe

2.03

1.97

2.19

1.96

1.91

2.08

1.31

1.30

1.35

2.19

2.12

2.38

2.77

2.72

2.89

2.48

2.47

2.49

Medium metro 2.24 2.17 1.47 2.44 2.95 2.64

Smalt metro 2.36 2.24 1.54 2.60 3.06 2.72

Nonmetro 2.53 2.41 1.72 2.92 3.25 2.87

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not ajacent

2.37

2.45

2.31

2.33

1.61

1.63

2.65

2.79

3.10

3.16

2.77

2.81

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

2.54

2.61

2.44

2.47

1.79

1.80

2.96

3.03

3.26

3.33

2.89

2.93

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

2.65

2.73

2.51

2.55

1.83

1.82

3.20

3.26

3.39

3.50

2.94

3.01

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

1.95

1.90

2.29

1.97

1.92

2.32

1.33

1.29

1.56

2.18

2.13

2.57

2.73

2.68

3.06

2.50

2.46

2.75

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

2.33

2.25

2.53

2.24

2.16

2.45

1.54

1.46

1.74

2.53

2.40

2.83

3.11

3.03

3.31

2.75

2.68

2.92

South

Metro

Nonmetro

2.35

2.24

2.54

2.19

2.10

2.37

1.56

1.45

1.77

2.68

2.44

3.07

3.00

2.89

3.22

2.67

2.58

2.85

West

Metro

Nonmetro

2.30

2.20

2.70

2.11

2.03

2.51

1.42

1.35

1.70

2.46

2.33

2.98

2.96

2.86

3.38

2.60

2.51

2.93

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

47
CO Appendix table 6—Population age distribution of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Item 1960 1970 1980

0-17 18-34 35-64

65 and

over Total 0-17 18-34 35-64

65 and

over Total 0-17 18-34 35-64

65 and

over Total

Percent

U.S. total 35.9 21.4 33.7 9.0 100 34.4 23.7 32.0 9.9 100 28.2 29.6 31.0 11.3 100

Metro 35.1 22.0 34.3 8.6 100 34.2 24.3 32.2 9.3 100 27.7 30.3 31.3 10.7 100

Large metro

Core

Fringe

34.0

32.8

37.6

21.7

21.9

21.1

35.5

36.0

34.0

8.8

9.3

7.2

100

100

100

33.7

32.6

36.5

24.0

24.4

23.2

32.9

32.9

32.8

9.4

10.2

7.6

100

100

100

27.2

26.5

28.8

30.2

30.7

29.0

32.0

31.5

33.1

10.6

11.4

9.1

100

100

100

Medium metro 36.4 22.2 33.1 8.3 100 34.9 24.3 31.7 9.1 100 28.3 30.2 30.8 10.7 100

Small metro 36.7 23.2 31.5 8.6 100 34.8 25.5 30.3 9.4 100 28.5 31.3 29.5 10.7 100

Nonmetro 37.7 20.0 32.2 10.1 100 34.9 22.2 31.3 11.5 100 29.3 27.8 30.1 12.8 100

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

36.3

37.8

21.7

22.7

32.4

31.0

9.6

8.6

100

100

34.5

34.7

24.3

26.0

30.9

29.8

10.4

9.6

100

100

28.5

28.8

29.5

31.4

30.1

28.8

11.9

11.0

100

100

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

37.7

38.2

19.2

18.9

32.4

32.5

10.7

10.5

100

100

35.1

35.1

21.1

20.7

31.7

31.9

12.1

12.3

100

100

29.7

29.7

26.4

26.8

30.6

30.0

13.3

13.5

100

100

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

38.7

38.7

18.1

17.7

32.4

32.5

10.9

11.1

100

100

35.4

35.4

19.6

18.6

32.2

32.5

12.8

13.5

100

100

30.0

29.8

25.2

24.8

31.1

30.8

13.7

14.6

100

100

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

33.0

32.7

35.1

20.6

20.7

20.4

36.5

37.0

33.6

9.9

9.7

10.8

100

100

100

32.8

32.6

34.0

22.6

22.6

22.5

33.9

34.2

32.0

10.6

10.5

11.5

100

100

100

26.6

26.4

27.9

28.2

28.2

28.0

32.8

33.1

30.9

12.3

12.2

13.1

100

100

100

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

36.0

36.0

36.1

20.9

21.7

19.1

33.5

33.7

33.0

9.6

8.5

11.8

100

100

100

35.2

35.5

34.4

23.2

24.0

21.5

31.5

31.5

31.3

10.1

9.0

12.8

100

100

100

28.8

28.7

28.8

29.4

30.3

27.4

30.5

30.8

29.9

11.4

10.2

13.8

100

100

100

South

Metro

Nonmetro

37.8

36.9

39.1

22.1

23.4

20.3

31.9

32.2

31.4

8.2

7.4

9.2

100

100

100

34.9

34.8

35.2

24.3

25.3

22.5

31.2

31.1

31.3

9.6

8.8

11.1

100

100

100

28.7

28.2

29.7

29.6

30.9

27.3

30.5

30.6

30.3

11.2

10.4

12.7

100

100

100

West

Metro

Nonmetro

36.3

35.5

39.1

22.2

22.6

20.9

33.1

33.5

31.6

8.4

8.4

8.5

100

100

100

34.4

34.0

36.2

25.2

25.7

23.0

31.4

31.5

31.1

8.9

8.7

9.7

100

100

100

28.1

27.5

30.3

31.7

32.1

29.9

30.4

30.7

29.2

9.9

9.7

10.6

100

100

100

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 7—Median age and dependency ratios of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Item Median age Dependency ratio

1960 1970 1980 1960 1970 1980

Years Hundred

U.S. total 29.5 28.1 30.0 81.5 79.5 65.1

Metro 29.9 28.0 30.0 77.7 77.1 62.3

Large metro

Core

Fringe

31.0

31.7

28.9

28.6

29.2

27.4

30.5

30.6

30.4

74.9

72.7

81.3

76.0

74.5

78.8

60.9

60.8

61.0

Medium metro 28.6 27.4 29.6 81.1 78.7 63.9

Small metro 27.6 26.4 28.9 82.7 79.3 64.5

Nonmetro 28.6 28.4 30.0 91.4 86.7 72.7

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

28.3

26.7

27.4

25.9

29.7

28.4

85.1

85.5

81.3

79.3

67.8

66.1

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

28.9

28.7

29.1

29.3

30.6

30.3

93.9

94.9

89.4

90.1

75.4

76.0

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

28.5

29.0

30.0

31.0

31.3

31.6

98.7

98.9

93.1

95.8

77.7

80.0

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

32.3

32.6

30.6

30.0

30.2

29.0

31.8

32.0

31.1

75.1

73.5

84.9

76.8

75.7

83.5

63.8

62.9

69.5

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

29.7

29.4

30.4

27.8

27.2

29.3

29.6

29.4

30.4

83.8

80.3

91.9

83.0

80.2

89.4

67.1

63.7

74.2

South

Metro

Nonmetro

27.2

27.5

26.7

27.3

27.0

28.0

29.7

29.5

30.1

85.2

79.8

93.0

80.2

77.3

86.2

66.4

62.9

73.6

West

Metro

Nonmetro

28.7

29.2

26.9

27.4

27.5

27.0

29.4

29.5

28.7

80.8

78.1

90.7

76.5

74.5

85.0

61.2

59.2

69.2

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

49
Appendix table 8—Percentage of population under

18 years of age not living with both

parents^ by metro and nonmetro

counties, and regions

Item 1960 1970 1980

Percent

U.S. total 13.2 M.l> 23.3

Metro 12.9 17.5 24.7

Large metro

Core

Fringe

12.7

14.4

8.5

17.8

20.9

11.2

26.1

30.9

17.0

Medium metro 13.0 16.8 23.3

Small metro 13.5 17.4 22.4

Nonmetro 13.9 17.0 20.0

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

12.6

14.0

15.7

18.1

20.0

21.9

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

14.5

14.2

17.4

17.3

19.8

19.9

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

15.6

13.2

17.8

16.2

19.0

18.0

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

11.3

11.4

10.8

16.1

16.4

14.1

23.5

24.6

17.6

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

10.1

10.8

8.8

14.3

15.3

12.1

20.4

23.0

15.0

South

Metro

Nonmetro

17.5

16.7

18.6

20.9

20.3

21.8

25.5

26.4

24.1

West

Metro

Nonmetro

12.6

12.9

11.5

17.4

18.0

15.5

23.3

24,4

19.6

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

50
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 9—Percentages of families with children with one parent^ no spouse present, total and blacks by metro and

nonmetro counties and regions

Total Black

Item 1980 1970 1980 1970

Total

With only

one parent

present Total

With only

one parent

present Total

With only

one parent

present Total

With only

one parent

present

Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 30,472.3 18.7 28,277.8 12.7 3,702.8 45.9 2,967.3 33.2

Metro 21,856.0 20.3 20,876.1 13.3 3,053.9 47.7 2,390.7 34.4

Large metro

Core

Fringe

11,828.9

7,683.8

4,145.1

21.8

25.9

14.3

11,841.9

8,063.0

3,778.9

13.9

16.4

8.6

1,936.9

1,656.0

280.9

49.5

51.4

38.6

1,574.9

1,418.6

156.3

35.6

36.6

26.3

Medium metro 7,203.0 18.8 6,588.9 12.4 824.5 45.3 606.3 32.5

Small metro 2,824.1 17.7 2,445.3 12.5 292.4 42.2 209.6 31.7

Nonmetro 8,616.4 14.6 7,401.7 11.2 649.0 37.6 576.6 28.0

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

2,008.8

1,313.3

15.6

16.5

1,742.2

1,154.4

11.1

12.2

125.8

129.3

39.8

39.2

95.8

100.7

29.0

30.8

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

2,110.9

2,130.0

13.9

14.2

1,778.0

1,844.4

11.0

11.3

186.6

145.3

36.1

38.6

167.0

141.4

26.8

29.1

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

375.0

676.4

12.4

12.3

302.2

580.6

10.6

10.1

30.8

31.2

31.5

33.1

35.0

36.8

22.5

24.4

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

6,335.1

5,347.6

987.5

20.0

21.0

14.6

6,680.0

5,790.2

889.8

12.8

13.1

10.4

710.1

697.2

12.9

52.1

52.3

40.2

621.8

611.4

10.4

37.9

38.0

29.8

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

8,101.0

5,512.5

2,588.5

17.0

19.3

12.2

7,936.9

5,558.4

2,378.5

11.0

11.8

9.0

782.7

745.3

37.3

50.6

50.9

43.1

630.4

602.4

28.0

34.6

34.8

29.8

South

Metro

Nonmetro

10,252.8

6,490.1

3,762.7

18.5

20.2

15.8

8,742.4

5,577.8

3,164.6

13.7

14.0

13.0

1,870.5

1,282.4

588.1

41.6

43.6

37.3

1,471.7

941.6

530.2

30.4

31.8

27.9

West

Metro

Nonmetro

5,783.5

4,505.8

1,277.7

19.8

20.9

15.7

4,918.5

3,949.7

968.8

14.0

14.6

11.5

339.5

329.0

10.6

46.0

46.4

32.7

243.4

235.3

8.1

34.6

34.9

26.8

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

51
Appendix table 10—Changes in households and single-person households, by metro and nonmetro counties and regions

All households^ Single-iperson households^

Item 1970 1980

1970-80

1970 1980

Total

Average

Total

Average

Total

Percent

of all Total

Percent

of all

1970-80

size size

households households

Thousand Number Thousand Number Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 63,637.7 3.10 80,467.4 2.74 26.5 12,469.1 19.6 18,202.0 22.6 46.0

Metro 46,807.9 3.09 58,473.8 2.73 24.9 9,437.4 20.2 13,604.3 23.3 44.2

Large metro

Core

Fringe

27,207.0

19,843.6

7,363.4

3.05

2.95

3.33

32,573.0

22,636.6

9,936.4

2.71

2.63

2.88

19.7

14.1

34.9

5,852.6

4,800.4

1,052.1

21.5

24.2

14.3

7,987.2

6,139.6

1,847.8

24.5

27.1

18.6

36.5

27.9

75.6

Medium metro 14,265.6 3.16 18,650.8 2.76 30.7 2,599.1 18.2 4,055.0 21.7 56.0

Small metro 5,335.2 3.13 7,250.0 2.74 35.9 985.8 18.5 1,562.1 21.5 58.6

Nonmetro 16,829.9 3.13 21,993.7 2.77 30.7 3,031.7 18.0 4,597.7 20.9 51.7

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,875.6

2,544.5

3.13

3.13

5,163.8

3,344.3

2.77

2.75

33.2

31.4

705.1

471.5

18.2

18.5

1,083.5

720.4

21.0

21.5

53.7

52.8

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,057.9

4,272.2

3.14

3.11

5,323.4

5,451.0

2.81

2.78

31.2

27.7

705.3

787.1

17.4

18.4

1,081.8

1,161.9

20.3

21.3

53.4

47.6

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

704.0

1,375.6

3.17

3.12

944.8

1,766.4

2.85

2.79

34.1

28.4

118.1

244.8

16.8

17.8

184.1

366.0

19.5

20.7

55.9

49.5

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

15,530.2

13,506.9

2,023.3

3.07

3.07

3.12

17,479.5

14,891.3

2,588.2

2.74

2.73

2.76

12.6

10.2

27.9

3,135.9

2,759.0

377.0

20.2

20.4

18.6

4,136.8

3,580.7

556.1

23.7

24.0

21.5

31.9

29.8

47.5

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

17,581.8

12,068.0

5,513.8

3.13

3.16

3.06

20,877.4

14,191.7

6,685.7

2.75

2.76

2.73

18.7

17,6

21.3

3,397.0

2,333.2

1,063.8

19.3

19.3

19.3

4,739.2

3,260.6

1,478.5

22.7

23.0

22.1

39.5

39.7

39.0

South

Metro

Nonmetro

19,328.7

12,165.2

7,163.5

3.15

3.13

3.18

26,506.6

16,990.0

9,516.6

2.77

2.74

2.83

37.1

39.7

32.8

3,421.0

2,238.3

1,182.6

17.7

18.4

16.5

5,659.9

3,760.1

1,899.7

21.4

22.1

20.0

65.4

68.0

60.6

West

Metro

Nonmetro

11,197.0

9,067.8

2,129.3

3.02

2.99

3.13

15,604.0

12,400.8

3,203.2

2.70

2.68

2.78

39.4

36.8

50.4

2,515.2

2,106.9

408.3

22.5

23.2

19.2

3,666.2

3,002.9

663.4

23.5

24.2

20.7

45.8

42.5

62.5

^For changes in definition, see text.

^Population base is less than total population as persons in group quarters are not considered here.

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

52
Appendix table 11—Educational level of the total and black population age 25 years and over by metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Total population age 25 of over Black population aged 25 and over

1960 1970 1980 1970 1980

Item

Percent who

completed

sSo, ^°"^Be

Percent who

Median completed

education uieh

Median

education

Percent who

completed

sSo, C°"^^^

Median

education

Percent who

completed

sSo, ^°"^^^

Median

education

Percent who

completed

sSo, C°"^^^

Median

education

—Percent— Years —Percent— years —Percent— Years -Percent— Years —Percent— Years

U.S. total 41.1 7.7 10.6 52.3 10.7 12.1 66.5 16.2 12.5 31.4 4.4 9.8 51.3 8.4 12.0

Metro 43.7 8.6 11.1 55.0 11.9 12.2 69.1 18.0 12.6 35.2 4.7 10.3 55.2 9.1 12.2

Large metro

Core

Fringe

44.9

43.6

48.9

9.3

8.8

10.8

11.2

11.1

11.8

56.3

54.4

61.0

12.7

12.0

14.6

12.2

12.1

12.3

70.2

68.0

74.9

19.5

18.6

21.5

12.6

12.6

12.7

38.2

38.4

37.5

4.8

4.6

6.1

10.7

10.7

10.5

57.7

56.7

63.7

9.4

8.8

13.3

12.2

12.2

12.4

Medium metro 42.0 7.1 10.8 53.0 10.6 12.1 67.8 16.3 12.5 29.9 4.6 9.6 51.3 8.7 12.0

Small metro 41.8 7.5 10.7 53.5 10.6 12.1 67.3 15.8 12.5 27.7 4.5 9.2 48.5 8.4 11.8

Nonmetro 34.5 5.3 9.3 45.0 7.4 11.2 59.5 11.5 12.3 17.6 3.3 7.2 35.2 5.4 9.9

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

38.5

39.7

6.5

6.6

10.2

10.3

50.8

50.9

9.2

9.5

12.0

12.0

64.5

64.7

13.7

14.2

12.4

12.4

23.7

20.7

4.0

3.8

8.3

7.6

42.4

39.4

6.9

6.3

11.0

10.5

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

32.2

32.8

4.7

4.8

9.0

9.0

42.0

42.9

6.2

6.7

10.8

10.8

55.7

57.3

9.9

10.5

12.2

12.2

16.7

15.0

3.3

3.1

7.0

6.8

34.0

31.5

5.2

4.8

9.8

9.4

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

27.5

30.2

3.8

3.9

8.7

8.8

36.8

39.1

5.0

5.5

10.0

10.1

53.1

54.6

8.7

9.6

12.1

12.1

14.1

13.2

2.3

2.6

6.7

6.5

29.7

27.6

3.5

4.0

9.3

9.8

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

41.0

41.3

39.3

8.1

8.4

6.0

10.7

10.7

10.4

52.9

53.0

52.6

11.2

11.6

8.6

12.1

12.1

12.1

67.1

67.2

66.4

17.2

17.9

13.7

12.5

12.5

12.4

37.8

37.9

33.6

4.1

4.1

4.1

10.7

10.7

10.2

56.4

56.5

53.2

8.4

8.4

8.7

12.2

12.2

12.1

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

41.7

43.2

38.7

6.9

7.8

5.0

10.7

11.0

9.9

53.7

55.1

50.7

9.6

10.7

7.2

12.1

12.2

12.0

68.0

69.6

64.6

14.7

16.5

11.1

12.5

12.5

12.4

36.5

36.8

30.8

4.1

4.1

3.6

10.6

10.6

9.7

54.9

55.3

48.8

7.9

7.9

6.9

12.2

12.2

11.8

South

Metro

Nonmetro

35.3

41.2

27.0

7.1

8.7

4.8

9.6

10.6

8.6

45.1

50.9

35.5

9.8

11.8

6.5

11.3

12.0

9.9

60.2

65.9

50.4

15.0

17.8

10.0

12.3

12.5

12.0

24.5

29.4

16.4

4.5

5.2

3.3

8.5

9.5

7.0

45.0

51.0

33.6

8.1

9.6

5.2

11.3

12.0

9.7

West

Metro

Nonmetro

50.8

52.6

44.4

9.6

10.2

7.2

12.0

12.1

11.1

62.3

63.9

55.9

13.1

13.9

9.9

12.4

12.4

12.2

74.5

75.4

71.3

19.3

20.3

15.2

12.7

12.8

12.6

48.9

49.4

36.0

5.9

6.0

4.4

11.9

11.9

10.2

68.7

69.0

60.2

11.4

11.4

9.4

12.6

12.6

12.3

Ln Note: Data not available for black population, 1960.

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

>

3

H
Appendix table 12—Labor force growth in metro and nonmetro counties and regions, by sex

Total labor force Males in labor force Females in labor force

Item

1970 1980

Change,

1970

-80

Change,

1960

-701

1970 1980

Change,

1970

-80

Change,

1960

-701

1970 1980

Change,

1970

-80

Change,

1960

-70^

Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 82,049 106,085 29.3 18.6 51,502 61,416 19.2 9.7 30,547 44,668 46.2 37.5

Metro 61,564 78,797 28.0 21.6 38,353 45,196 17.8 13.1 23,211 33,602 44.8 38.9

Large metro

Core

Fringe

35,608

25,344

10,264

44,073

29,556

14,517

23.8

16.6

41.4

20.7

13.1

44.0

22,032

15,412

6,620

25,115

16,651

8,464

14.0

8.0

27.9

12.2

5.2

32.3

13,575

9,931

3,644

18,958

12,905

6,053

39.6

29.9

66.1

37.5

27.9

71.6

Medium metro 18,976 25,111 32.3 23.5 11,905 14,491 21.7 14.9 7,071 10,620 50.2 41.6

Small metro 6,980 9,613 37.3 21.3 4,416 5,590 26.6 12.8 2,564 4,023 56.9 39.2

Nonmetro 20,485 27,287 33.2 10.6 13,149 16,221 23.4 1.0 7,336 11,067 50.9 33.4

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,963

3,317

6,657

4,366

34.1

31.6

18.2

13.7

3,150

2,134

3,910

2,577

24.1

20.8

9.6

4.7

1,813

1,183

2,747

1,789

5T.5

51.3

37.2

34.6

Less urbanized;

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,863

5,033

6,657

6,581

34.8

30.8

10.5

5.2

3,117

3,209

3,903

3,912

25.2

21.9

.7

-4.6

1,746

1,824

2,655

2,669

52.0

46.3

33.9

29.5

Totally rural;

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

798

1,511

1,111

2,016

39.2

33.4

6.9

-.4

529

1,010

681

1,238

28.8

22.6

-4.2

-12.9

270

501

430

778

59.4

55.1

36.0

27.8

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

20,382

17,691

2,547

23,037

19,764

3,273

13.8

11.7

28.5

11.8

11.8

11.8

12,509

10,889

1,620

13,147

11,218

1,929

5.1

3.0

19.1

4.2

4.2

3.7

7,729

6,802

927

9,890

8,547

1,343

28.0

25.6

44.9

26.9

26.5

29.2

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

22,813

16,093

6,721

27,705

19,314

8,391

21.4

20.0

24.9

15.2

18.3

8.6

14,395

10,042

4,352

16,101

11,095

5,006

11.9

10.5

15.0

5.8

9.2

2.4

8,419

6,050

2,369

11,604

8,219

3,385

37.8

35.8

42.9

36.0

37.3

32.9

South

Metro

Nonmetro

24,711

16,080

8,631

34,434

22,815

11,619

39.3

41.9

34.6

22.2

29.5

11.2

15,483

10,016

5,467

19,917

13,070

6,847

28.6

30.5

25.2

12.9

20.7

1.4

9,228

6,064

3,164

14,517

9,745

4,773

57.3

60.7

50.8

42,0

47.0

33.6

West

Metro

Nonmetro

14,286

11,700

2,586

20,909

16,904

4,004

46.4

44.5

54.9

29.3

33.5

13.3

9,115

7,406

1,710

12,252

9,813

2,439

34.4

32.5

42.6

19.7

24.5

3.5

5,171

4,295

876

8,658

7,092

1,566

67.4

65.1

78.7

50.8

53.4

39.1

^14 years of a^e and over.

Source; Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

54
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 13—Labor force participation rates in metro and nonmetro counties and regions^ by sex

Males Females

Item 14 years and over^ 16 years and over 14 years and over' 16 years and over

1960 1970 1970 1980 1960 1970 1970 1980

Percent

U.S. total 77.4 72.9 76.6 75.1 34.5 39.6 41.4 49,9

Metro 78.9 74.4 78.2 '76.5 36.2 40.8 42.7 51.6

Large metro

Core

Fringe

79.6

79.2

80.9

74.9

74.0

77.3

78.7

77.6

81.5

77.0

75.4

80.3

36.8

38.2

32.8

41.4

42.1

39.7

43.2

43.9

41.5

52.4

52.0

53.2

Medium metro 78.4 74.2 78.0 76.3 35.4 40.2 42.2 50.9

Small metro 76.8 72.4 76.0 74.9 34.8 39.4 41.0 49.8

Nonmetro 73.8 68.8 72.4 71.6 30.3 36.1 37.7 45.5

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

75.3

77.0

71.0

71.4

74.3

75.1

72.9

74.1

33.3

33.0

38.3

38.1

39.9

39.8

47.6

48.3

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

72.9

72.8

68.2

67.3

71.9

71.0

71.2

70,7

29.6

29.5

35.6

35.5

37.1

37.2

44.9

44.5

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

70.4

72.1

65.2

65.3

69.2

68.8

68.8

68.2

25.6

25.3

32.1

31.1

33.8

32.6

41.6

40.9

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

78.0

78.5

74.5

73.3

73.8

70.0

76.9

77.5

73.5

74.2

74.7

71.6

36.1

36.6

32.8

40.2

40.6

37.2

41.8

42.3

38.8

49.1

49.6

45.8

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

78.4

80.0

75.3

73.9

75.5

70.5

77.1

79A

73.9

76.3

77.8

73.3

33.7

35.6

29.9

39,6

41.1

36.2

41.4

43.0

37.7

50.3

52.1

46.4

South

Metro

Nonmetro

75.2

77.8

71.7

71.0

73.6

67.0

74.9

77.5

70.6

73.9

76.2

69.9

33.5

36.1-

29.9

38.8

40.7

35.8

40.7

42.6

37.5

49.1

51.6

44.5

West

Metro

Nonmetro

79.0

79.7

76.4

73.8

74.9

69.6

77.4

78.4

73.1

76.7

77.7

73.2

35.2

36.3

30.8

39.9

41.0

35.6

44.7

42.8

37.3

52.0

53.4

46.5

Participation rates for workers 14 and over based on a slightly different metro/nonmetro classification. For more detailed information see Social

and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1970, by Fred K. Hines, and others, USDA, ERS, Agricultural Economic Report No. 272.

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.

55
Appendix table 14—Female labor force participation in metro and nonmetro counties and regions, by presence of own children

Women with children under Women with children under Women with children

18 years 6 years 6-17 years

Item Total

Participation

rate Total

Participation

rate Total

Participation

rate

1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980

Thousand Percent Thousand— Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 28,408 30,635 40.8 55.3 13,727 13,619 30.8 45.7 14,681 17,016 50.1 63.0

Metro 20,976 21,969 40.3 55.5 10,140 9,642 30.0 45.3 10,835 12,327 50.0 63.4

Large metro

Core

Fringe

11,896

8,107

3,788

11,890

7,741

4,149

39.3

40.3

37.2

55.0

55.1

54.7

5,730

3,933

1,797

5,139

3,424

1,716

28.7

30.1

22.5

44.2

44.9

42.9

6,138

4,174

1,991

6,751

4,318

2,434

49.5

49.9

47.8

63.1

63.2

63.0

Medium metro 6,629 7,243 41.4 56.1 3,205 3,212 31.2 46.3 3,424 4,031 51.0 63.9

Small metro 2,451 2,835 42.2 56.3 1,205 1,291 33.1 47.5 1,246 1,544 51.0 63.7

Nonmetro 7,433 8,666 42.0 54.9 3,587 3,977 33.0 46.5 3,846 4,690 50.4 62.0

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

1,746

1,157

2,013

1,319

42.2

42.4

55.5

56.0

857

571

903

619

32.4

33.5

46.0

47.5

889

587

1,110

700

51.6

50.9

63.0

63.5

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

1,788

1,854

2,129

2,144

42.7

42.5

55.0

54.6

859

882

967

999

33.8

33.9

47.5

46.6

726

973

1,162

1,145

51.0

50.3

63.0

61.6

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

306

581

380

681

39.5

38.3

51.8

51.4

145

273

172

316

31.0

30.2

44.0

43.6

161

308

208

365

47.1

45.6

58.2

58.1

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

6,700

5,811

889

6,378

5,391

987

37.4

36.9

40.1

52.0

51.7

53.5

3,200

2,762

438

2,641

2,219

422

24.6

24.0

28.8

39.1

38.5

42.3

3,500

3,049

451

3,737

3,172

565

49.0

48.7

51.1

61.1

60.9

61.9

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

7,934

5,574

2,360

8,120

5,541

2,579

40.0

39.7

40.6

55.1

54.9

55.5

3,884

2,748

1,136

3,652

2,460

1,192

29.9

29.5

30.8

45.5

44.9

46.8

4,050

2,826

1,224

4,468

3,081

1,387

49.7

49.7

49.8

63.0

63.0

63.1

South

Metro

Nonmetro

8,869

5,649

3,220

10,405

6,565

3,840

43.9

43.7

44.3

57.4

58.3

55.7

4,285

2,734

1,551

4,651

2,910

1,741

36.1

35.5

37.0

49.8

50.3

48.9

4,584

2,915

1,669

5,754

3,655

2,098

51.4

51.4

51.1

63.5

64.6

61.4

West

Metro

Nonmetro

4,905

3,942

963

5,733

4,472

1,261

41.0

41.3

39.5

55.6

56.7

51.9

2,358

1,897

461

2,675

2,053

622

31.1

31.5

29.6

45.2

46.2

41.9

2,547

2,045

502

3,057

2,418

639

50.1

50.5

48.7

64.7

65.5

61.7

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

56
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 15—Commuting outside county of residence to work by metro and nonmetro counties and regions

1970 1980 Employment change, 1970-80

Item Total

employment

Commuting outside

county to work Total

employment

Commuting outside

county to work

Total

Commuting outside

county to work

Total

Percent of

employment Total

Percent of

employment Total

Percent of

employment change

Thousand Percent • Thous'cmd Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 76,852 13,688 17.8 96,672 18,384 19.0 19,820 4,696 23.7

Metro 57,598 10,831 18.8 71,971 13,977 19.4 14,373 3,146 21.9

Large metro

Core

Fringe

33,225

23,508

9,717

7,517

3,516

4,001

22.6

15.0

41.2

40,287

26,844

13,443

9,238

3,807

5,431

22.4

14.2

40.4

7,062

3,336

3,726

1,721

291

1,430

24.4

8.7

38.4

Medium metro 17,824 2,565 14.4 22,919 3,621 15.8 5,095 1,055 20.7

Small metro 6,549 749 11.4 8,765 1,119 12.8 2,216 370 16.7

Nonmetro 19,254 2,857 14.8 24,701 4,406 17.8 5,447 1,550 28.5

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,658

3,114

639

243

13.7

7.8

6,017

3,972

1,011

3,649

16.8

9.2

1,359

858

372

122

27.4

14.2

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,582

4,727

917

592

20.0

12.5

5,941

5,952

1,409

882

23.7

14.8

1,360

1,225

493

290

36.2

23.7

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

751

1,422

209

257

27.8

18.1

1,002

1,817

339

401

33.8

22.1

250

396

130

144

51.8

36.4

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

19,007

16,622

2,385

4,889

4,492

398

25.7

27.0

16.7

20,924

17,993

2,931

5,375

4,783

592

25.7

26.6

20.2

1,918

1,371

546

486

291

196

25.3

21.2

35.6

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

21,389

15,038

6,352

3,393

2,475

918

15.9

16.5

14.4

24,944

17,359

7,585

4,413

3,130

1,283

17.7

18.0

16.9

3,555

2,321

1,234

1,020

655

365

28.7

28.2

29.6

South

Metro

Nonmetro

23,354

15,224

8,130

4,012

2,660

1,351

17.2

17.5

16.6

31,786

21,174

10,612

6,331

4,153

2,178

19.9

19.6

20.5

8,431

5,950

2,482

2,319

1,493

827

27.5

25.1

33.3

West

Metro

Nonmetro

13,102

10,715

2,387

1,394

1,204

190

10.6

11.2

8.0

19,018

15,446

3,573

2,264

1,911

353

11.9

12.4

9.9

5,916

4,731

1,185

870

707

163

14.7

14.9

13.8

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

57
00 Appendix table 16—Employment change by major sector of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Item

Total Primary industries^ Construction Manufacturing

1980 Change, Change,

1970-80 1960-70^ 1980 Change, Change,

1970-80 1960-70^ 1980

Change, Change,

1970-80 1960-70^ 1980 Change, Change,

1970-80 1960-70^

Service producing

industries^

1980 Change, Change,

1970-80 1960-70^

U.S. total

Metro

Large metro

Core

Fringe

Medium metro

Small metro

Nonmetro

Thousand

97,639

72,682

41,006

27,384

13,621

23,008

8,668

24,958

PercenV

27.5 19.7

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

South

Metro

Nonmetro

West

Metro

Nonmetro

6,072

3,875

6,054

6,077

1,023

1,857

21,393

18,404

2,989

25,517

17,807

7,710

31,678

21,019

10,659

19,051

15,452

3,599

26.5

22.2

14.8

40.4

30.7

37.5

30.7

31.8

32.4

31.2

27.6

35.1

30.0

11.0

9.0

25.2

17.9

16.3

21.6

39.0

42.3

32.8

48.4

47.2

53.9

22.7

21.9

14.5

44.8

24.2

22.4

11.3

19.5

14.6

11.1

6.7

6.9

.1

13.6

13.4

15.1

15.9

19.2

8.6

23.5

31.0

11.8

29.6

33.9

13.4

Thousand

3,942

1,518

581

339

243

603

333

2,424

347

255

—Percent

13.6 -32.2

604

748

136

334

339

196

142

1,160

287

873

1,559

591

967

885

444

441

23.3

29.1

33.2

23.9

19.7

20.3

8.2

15.4

12.3

5.7

9.1

4.4

2.8

2.5

--1.2

8.0

1.4

3.3

.8

15.6

34.1

6.7

36.3

41.3

31.6

-22.4

-13.3

-4.5

-22.1

-25.9

-27.9

-35.4

-31.9

-33.7

-38.2

-36.5

-40.5

-37.0

-29.1

-24.9

-34.3

-32.8

-27.7

-34.3

-38.4

-25.1

-43.1

-15.0

-10.3

-18.8

Thousand

5,740

4,033

2,130

1,329

801

1,346

558

1,706

370

252

-—-Percent

25.5 13.1

433

411

90

151

929

763

165

1,239

797

442

2,346

1,534

812

1,226

939

287

23.3

19.3

12.6

32.5

24.9

37.0

31.0

26.8

36.5

30.9

29.0

36.2

36.3

-8.3

-10.0

.7

9.5

4.3

20.2

40.9

45.7

32.6

60.7

55.2

81.7

12.2

10.1

2.5

28.4

15.2

14.0

15.2

17.1

3.8

20.6

12.0

27.9

18.4

8.4

6.1

21.5

10.9

11.7

9.3

21.3

20.7

22.2

6.5

8.3

.2

Thousand

21,915

16,059

8,994

6,026

2,968

5,283

1,783

5,856

1,577

767

1,615

1,317

239

342

5,407

4,604

803

6,609

4,796

1,813

6,527

3,721

2,806

3,372

2,939

433

—Percent Thousand -Percent

10.5 10.0 66,043 35.7 32.2

7.2 51,071

4.1

-.8

15.7

9.0

19.6

20.4

13.8

19.5

24.4

21.5

26.4

28.7

-4.8

-7.0

9.5

2.9

-1.4

16.6

23.7

23.1

24.5

37.1

37.3

35.5

5.8

1,9

-4.7

22.2

10.5

14.7

25.5

18.7

16.4

31.4

28.9

40.1

37.4

-3.8

-5.5

8.6

9.4

5.6

23.5

29.4

23.4

38.3

12.9

14.4

3.6

29,301

19,690

9,610

15,776

5,994

14,972

3,779

2,602

3,401

3,601

558

1,030

14,719

12,841

1,878

16,509

11,927

4,582

21,248

15,173

6,075

1 3,568

11,131

2,437

34.5

29.2

20.5

51.6

41.2

45.1

40.1

43.7

38.9

41.0

34.7

50.1

41.8

20.2

17.9

38.3

27.4

26.8

29.1

46.4

48.0

42.8

51.4

49.6

59.8

34.6

34.0

25.3

63.2

36.6

32.7

24.0

31.7

26.3

23.1

18.5

23.4

17.2

26.7

26.6

27.8

28.4

31.2

21.8

33.9

39.0

23.1

43.4

46.8

29.0

1 Includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining.

2 Includes wholesale and retail trade; finance insurance and real estate; services; transportation, communication, and public utilities; and public administration.

3 Workers 14 and over.

Source: Census of Population, 1960, 1970, and 1980.
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 17—Service sector employment and employment growth of metro and nonmetro counties and regions, 1970-80

Item

Service

sector

total

Educational

services

Health

services

Personal

services,

entertainment, and

recreation

Other

professional

services

Business

and

repair

services

Retail

trade

Wholesale

trade

Communication and

utilities

Finance,

insurance,

and

reai estate

Transportation

Public

administration

Thousand

U.S. total 66,043 8,377 7,250 4,083 4,184 4,082 15,717 4,217 2,813 5,898 4,274 5,147

Metro 51,071 6,035 5,563 3,084 3396 3,404 11,813 3,352 2,131 4,943 3,365 3,985

Large metro

Core

Fringe

29,300

19,690

9,610

3,206

2,093

1,113

3,144

2,182

962

1,695

1,230

465

2,091

1,436

655

2,154

1,462,

692

6,513

4,317

2,196

1,987

1,314

673

1,182

760

422

3,085

2,149

936

2,076

1,417

659

2,167

1,330

837

Medium metro 15,776 1,976 1,724 997 954 938 3,805 1,018 689 1,388 957 1,330

Small metro 5,994 852 695 391 351 313 1,495 347 260 470 333 487

Nonmetro 14,972 2,342 1,687 999 788 677 3,904 866 682 955 909 1,162

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,779

2,602

631

401

421

290

232

170

215

142

183

121

981

685

195

151

160

119

256

172

212

155

295

196

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,401

3,601

509

547

398

416

228

249

173

182

154

153

879

960

206

222

167

163

218

216

210

226

258

266

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

558

1,030

85

169

56

106

40

81

28

50

24

42

139

259

31

60

28

45

33

60

38

68

56

91

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

14,719

12,841

1,878

1,918

1,596

322

1,785

1,553

232

786

668

118

1,012

904

108

965

883

83

3,241

2,772

469

904

815

89

593

518

75

1,468

1,348

120

975

862

113

1,071

922

149

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

16,509

11,927

4,582

2,196

1,480

716

2,024

1,433

591

891

620

271

986

751

235

906

721

185

4,183

2,952

1,231

1,108

816

292

667

478

189

1,400

1,106

295

1,104

810

294

1,043

76Ô

284

South

Metro

Nonmetro

21,248

15,173

6,075

2,657

1,719

938

2,156

1,503

652

1,410

984

426

1,280

975

305

1,260

977

283

5,071

3,495

1,576

1,378

1,009

370

986

684

302

1,742

1,367

376

1,357

995

362

1,951

1,466

484

West

Metro

Nonmetro

13,568

11,131

2,437

1,606

1,240

366

1,287

1,074

213

996

811

185

906

766

140

950

824

126

3,221

2,594

627

827

712

115

568

452

116

1,287

1,123

164

838

698

140

1,083

838

245

Continued—

See footnotes at end of table.

59
Appendix table 17—Service sector employment and employment growth of metro and nonmetro counties and regions,

1970-80—continued

Item

Service

sector

total

Educational

services

Health

services

Personal

services,

entertainment, and

recreation

Other

professional

services

Business

and

repair

services

Wholesale

and

retail

trade'

Communication and

utilities

Finance,

insurance,

and

real estate

Transportation and

public

administration^

Percent change

U.S. total 35.7 44.1 70.7 -2.0 21.1 70.4 29.7 19.3 53.7 34.0

Metro 34.5 42.9 69.8 .5 20.8 68.8 28.2 15.5 50.3 30.6

Large metro

Core

Fringe

29.2

20.5

51.6

38.3

32.1

51.8

65.0

55.7

90.9

-1.7

-7.2

16.5

17.5

10.8

35.3

62.4

49.6

98.3

22.3

13.2

45.3

6.3

-3.1

28.7

42.4

31,8

74.6

24.9

16.0

45.2

Medium metro 41.2 48.3 75.9 4.6 24.5 78.7 35.1 28.3 63.7 37.7

Small metro 45.1 48.7 77.3 0 33.0 89.7 40.9 31.3 72.2 44.6

Nonmetro 40.1 47.2 74.1 -9.1 23.1 79.1 34.5 33.2 73.6 47.6

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

43.6

38.9

46.1

44.2

74.7

75.8

-2.9

-10.5

25.0

27.9

88.7

72.9

39.2

36.2

34.5

25.3

73.0

65.4

50.0

42.7

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

41.0

34.7

50.1

44.3

73.0

67.7

-12.6

-13.2

26.3

16.7

81.2

71.9

34.4

28.9

40.3

25.4

78.7

71.4

50.5

43.4

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

50.0

41.7

63.5

52.3

100.0

86.0

-7ß

2.5

40.0

16.3

84.6

75.0

38.2

31.8

55.6

45.2

94.1

87.5

62.1

48.6

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

20.2

17.9

38.3

34.4

32.4

45.0

58.5

56.4

73.1

-8.9

-10.5

.9

3.1

1.5

18.7

45.8

43.6

72.9

11.5

8.9

31.6

-2.9

-5.5

19.0

27.3

25.2

57.9

20.2

17.4

43.2

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

27.5

26.8

29.1

33.7

33.3

34.3

63.0

64.3

59.7

-8.5

-8.1

-9.4

11.9

12.3

10.8

56.2

56.1

56.8

20.7

20.0

22.7

11.9

9.4

18.9

46.1

43.5

57.8

26.6

24.1

33.8

South

Metro

Nonmetro

46.4

48.0

42.8

58.2

59.6

55.6

88.6

88.3

89.0

-8.2

-1.9

-20.1

35.3

38.1

27.1

91.8

95.0

81.4

42.2

43.8

38.5

37.9

36.3

41.8

71.6

69.6

79.9

45.0

42.3

53.5

West

Metro

Nonmetro

51.4

49.6

59.8

50.9

49.2

57.1

75.3

74.6

77.5

25.3

25.5

24.2

41.1

40.3

44.3

91.1

87.3

121.1

48.2

46.5

55.9

30.6

26.3

50.6

80.5

76.9

110.3

42.2

38.1

61.1

'Combined for calculation of gro\A4h rate because of reclassification of farm equipment and supply equipment from retail to wholesale trade in 1980.

Combined for calculation of growth rate because of reclassification of post office employment from public administration to transportation in 1980.

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

60
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 18—Occupational distribution of the employed of metro and nonmetro counties and regions, 1980

Item Total

employed

Managerial

and

professional

Low-skill

white

collar^

High-skill

blue

collar^

Low-skill

blue

collar^

Service Farm^

U.S. total

Thousand

97,639 22.7 30.3

Percent of total

12.9 18.3 12.9 2.9

Metro 72,682 24.2 32.4 12.4 16.8 12.8 1.4

Large metro

Core

Fringe

41,006

27,384

13,621

25.6

24.8

27.1

33.7

33.8

33.4

11.7

11.3

12.6

15.7

16.2

14.6

12.5

13.1

11.2

.9

.8

1.2

Medium metro 23,008 22.7 31.1 13.1 18.3 13.0 1.8

Small metro 8,668 22.2 30.0 13.4 17.9 13.9 2.7

Nonmetro 24,958 18.2 24.2 14.5 22.7 13.3 7.1

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

6,072

3,875

20.1

20.8

26.4

27.6

14.1

13.7

21.8

19.6

13.4

14.1

4.2

4.3

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

6,054

6,077

16.5

17.4

22.8

23.0

15.2

14.6

25.2

22.9

12.9

13.5

7.4

8.6

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

1,023

1,857

15.4

16.3

20.6

19.6

15.7

14.1

25.5

22.3

12.5

13.1

10.2

14.6

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

21,393

18,404

2,989

24.4

25.0

20.6

31.6

32.6

25.6

11.8

11.5

14.1

17.9

17.3

22.3

12.9

12.8

13.6

1.3

.9

3.8

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

25,517

17,807

7,710

21.3

22.8

17.7

29.2

31.6

23.7

12.6

12.3

13.3

19.8

19.0

21.5

13.3

13.0

14.0

3.9

1.3

9.8

South

Metro

Nonmetro

31,678

21,019

10,659

21.5

23.9

16.9

29.5

32.6

23.5

13.9

13.1

15.5

19.6

16.4

26.1

12.5

12.6

12.3

3.0

1.5

5.8

West

Metro

Nonmetro

19,051

15,452

3,599

24.6

25.4

21.2

31.6

32.9

26.1

12.9

12.5

14.4

14.5

14.2

15.7

13.2

12.9

14.7

3.3

2.2

7.9

^ Technical, sales, and administrative support.

2 Precision production, craft, and repair.

3 Operators, fabricators, and laborers.

"* Farming, forestry, and fishing.

Source: Census of Population, 1980.

61
Appendix table 19—Median family income of metro and nomnetro counties and regions

Item Current dollars

Real income,

1979 dollars

Change in

real income

Ratio of median income

to U:S. median

T959 1969 1979 1959 1969 1959^69 1969-79 1959 1969 1979

- DoMrs — ——Percent — -NumberU.S. total 5,640 9,574 19,920 14,044 18,957 35.0 5.1 1.00 1.00 1.00

Metro 6,220 10,460 21,357 15,488 20,711 33.7 3.1 1.10 1.09 1.07

Large metro

Core

Fringe

6,656

6,512

7,046

11,170

10,687

12,207

22,549

21,099

25,205

16,573

16,215

17,545

22,117

21,160

24,170

33.4

30.5

37.8

2.0

-.3

4.3

1.18

1.15

1.25

1.17

1.12

1.28

1.13

1.06

1.27

Medium metro 5,797 9,808 20,396 14,435 19,420 34.5 5.0 1.03 1.02 1.02

Small metro 5,310 8,930 19,127 13,222 17,681 33^7 8.2 .94 .93 .96

Nonmetro 4,286 7,688 16,837 10,672 15,222 42.6 10.6 .76 .80 .85

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

5,146

4,836

8,752

8,141

18,584

17,534

12,814

12,042

17,329

16,119

35.2

33.9

7.2

8.8

.91

.86

.91

.85

.93

.88

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,029

3,946

7,506

7,244

16,795

15,980

10,032

9,826

14,862

14,343

48.1

46.0

13.0

11.4

.71

.70

.78

.76

.84

.80

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,334

3,275

6,640

6,341

15,368

14,149

8,302

8,155

13,147

12,555

58:4

54;0

16.9

12.7

.59

.58

.69

.66

.77

.71

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

6,211

6,406

5,168

10,543

10,889

8,711

20,717

21,322

17,943

15,465

15,951

12,868

20,875

21,560

17,248

35.0

35.2

340

-.8

-1.1

4.0

1.10

1.14

.92

1.10

1.14

.91

1.04

1.07

.90

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

5,881

6,574

4,652

10,138

11,125

8,299

21,076

22,735

17,941

14,644

16,369

11,583

20,073

22,028

16,432

37.1

34.6

41.9

5.0

3,2

9.2

1.04

1.17

.82

1.06

1.16

.87

1.06

1.14

.90

South

Metro

Nonmetro

4,477

5,250

3,392

8,160

9,125

6,689

17,981

19,728

15,307

11,148

13,073

8,446

16,157

18,068

13,244

44.9

38.2

56.8

11.3

9.2

15,6

.79

.93

.60

.85

.95

.70

.90

.99

.77

West

Metro

Nonmetro

6,379

6,701

5,321

10,266

10,811

8,470

21,068

21,969

18,143

15,884

16,685

13,249

20,327

21,406

16,771

28.0

28.3

26.6

3.6

2.6

8.2

1.13

1.19

.94

1.07

1.13

.88

1.06

1.10

.91

Source: Census of Population 1960, 1970, and 1980.

62
Appendix table 20—Median family income of blacks, by metro and nonmetro counties and regions, 1969 and 1979

Item Current dollars

Real income, 1969

(in 1979 dollars) Change

in real income,

1969-79

Ratio of median income

to U.S. black median

income

1969 1979 1969 1979

Dollars Percent -NumberU.S. total 6,265 12,925 12,405 4.2 1.00 1.00

Metro 6,954 13,678 13,769 -.7 1.11 1.06

Large metro

Core

Fringe

7,532

7,477

8,059

14,378

13,812

18,558

14,913

14,804

15,957

-3.6

-6.7

16.3

1.20

1.19

1.29

1.11

1.07

1.44

Medium metro 6,084 12,833 12,046 6.5 .97 .99

Small metro 5,182 11,780 10,260 14.8 .83 .91

Nonmetro 4,053 10,072 8,025 25.5 .65 .78

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,906

4,197

11,531

9,978

9,714

8,310

18.7

20.1

.78

.67

.89

.77

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,003

3,741

10,073

9,381

7,926

7,407

27.1

26.6

.64

.60

.78

.73

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,962

3,627

10,124

9,439

7,845

7,181

29.1

31.4

.63

.58

.78

.73

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

7,525

7,534

7,087

13,493

13,487

13,856

14,900

14,917

14,032

-9.4

-9.6

-1.3

1.20

1.20

1.13

1.04

1.04

1.07

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

7,787

7,869

6,158

14,733

14,866

12,553

15,418

15,581

12,193

-4.4

-4.6

3.0

1.24

1.26

.98

1.14

1.15

.97

South

Metro

Nonmetro

4,903

5,888

3,941

11,836

12,911

9,871

9,708

11,658

7,803

21.9

10.7

26.5

.78

.94

.63

.92

1.00

.76

West

Metro

Nonmetro

7,531

7,621

5,703

14,902

15,001

12,236

14,911

15,090

11,292

-.1

-.6

8.4

1.20

1.22

.91

1.15

1.16

.95

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

>

Ö

CU

21
Appendix table 21—Poverty of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Total Blacks Persons 65 and over

Item

1959 1969 1979

Change,

1969-79 1969 1979

Change,

1969-79 1969 1979

Change,

1969-79

Percent

U.S. total 22.1 13.7 12.4 -1.3 35.0 29.8 -5.2 27.3 14.8 -12.5

Metro 17.0 11.4 11.3 -.1 29.4 27.7 -1.7 22.9 12.3 -10.6

Large metro

Core

Fringe

14.2

15.3

11.1

10.2

11.7

6.5

n.o

13.3

6.2

.8

1,6

-.3

25.6

25.8

23.5

26.4

27.7

18.2

.8

1.9

-5.3

20.4

20.9

18.5

11.2

12.1

8.9

-9.2

-8.8

-9.6

Medium metro 19.8 12.2 11.3 -.9 35.1 29.2 -5.9 25.1 13.0 -12.1

Small metro 23.8 15.1 12.9 -2.2 40.4 31.6 -8.8 29.4 15.5 -13.9

Nonmetro 34,2 20.2 15.2 -5.0 54.5 38.4 -16.1 37.0 20.3 -16.7

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

24.7

29.0

14.4

18.1

12.1

14.5

-2.3

-3.6

43.4

52.6

32.9

38.5

-10.5

-14.1

29.6

34.4

14.2

23.9

-15.4

-10.5

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

36.5

37.7

21.1

22.5

15.1

16.6

-6.0

-5.9

55.4

59.6

38.2

41.4

-17.2

-18.2

39.0

39.4

21.5

22.5

-17.5

-16.9

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

45.3

44.2

26.3

27.7

17.6

20.0

-8.7

-7.1

55.6

60.6

38.1

42.6

-17.5

-18.0

42.6

41.9

24.5

25.2

-18.1

-16.7

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

14.4

13.3

21.1

10.1

9.8

12.3

11.2

11.1

11.2

1.1

1.3

-1.1

24.4

24.3

26.7

27.9

27.9

27.0

3.5

3.6

.3

21.6

20.5

27.8

11.2

10.9

12.5

-10.4

-9.6

-15.3

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

17.7

13.8

25.6

10.8

9.2

14.4

10.5

9.8

11.9

-.3

.6

-2.5

25.4

24.9

34.1

27.6

27.5

30.4

2.2

2.6

-3.7

26.2

22.2

32.4

13.1

11.2

16.2

-13.1

-11.0

-16.2

South

Metro

Nonmetro

35.5

27.0

46.9

20.3

15.8

27.9

15.4

13.2

19.0

-4.9

-2.6

-8.9

44.0

36.2

56.2

32.5

28.9

39.1

-11.5

-7.3

-17.1

36.2

29.0

45.6

21.0

16.8

27.0

-15.2

-12.2

-18.6

West

Metro

Nonmetro

16.1

14.3

22.3

11.7

10.7

16.0

11.3

10.7

13.5

-.4

0

-2.5

25,1

24.6

37.0

22.6

22.4

27.3

-2.5

-2.2

-9.7

21.2

19.3

28.1

10.3

9.1

14.2

-10.9

-10.2

-13.9

Source: Census of Population, 1970, and 1980.

64
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 22—Family poverty of metro and nonmetro counties and regions^ by family type, 1979 and 1969

ie>^9

All families

Families with related children under 18 years old1

Item

Total Female-headed, Male-headed

no spouse present and other

Total Poor Total Poor Total Poor Total Poor

Thousand Percent Thousand Percent —Thousand Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 59,190 5,è70 9.6 31,953 4,214 13.2 5,509 2,222 40.3 26,444 1,992 7.5

Metro 42,360 3,694 8.7 22,895 2,865 12.5 4,289 1,689 39.4 18,606 1,176 6.3

Large metro 23,095 1,978 8.6 12,404 1,559 12.6 2,491 970 38.9 9,913 589 5.9

Core 15,358 1,607 10.5 8,121 1,278 15.7 1,944 819 42.1 6,177 459 7.4

Fringe 7,737 372 4.8 4,283 282 6.6 548 151 27.6 3,736 131 3.5

Medium metro 13,877 1,198 8.6 7,540 920 12.2 1,315 524 39.9 6,224 3% 6.4

Small metro 5,388 518 9.6 2,952 387 13.1 483 195 40.4 2,469 191 7.7

Nonmetro 16,830 1,975 11.7 9,058 1,349 14.9 1,220 533 43.7 7,838 816 10.4

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area 3,901 350 9.0 2,095 255 12.2 297 119 40.0 1,798 136 7.6

Not adjacent 2,494 268 10.8 1,378 195 14.2 210 91 43.5 1,169 104 8.9

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area 4,146 489 11.8 2,228 327 14.7 289 126 43.6 1,940 201 10.4

Not adjacent 8,972 540 12.9 2,243 363 16.2 297 137 46.1 1,946 226 11.6

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area 747 106 14.2 398 67 16.9 463 217 46.9 352 46 13.0

Not adjacent 1,369 222 16.2 716 141 19.8 81 382 47.4 635 103 16.3

Northeast 12,732 1,111 8.7 6,600 873 13.2 1,234 548 44.4 5,365 325 6.1

Metro 10,788 952 8.8 5,578 755 13.5 1,102 4% 45.0 4,476 260 5.8

Nonmetro 1,944 159 8.1 1,021 118 11.5 132 52 39.6 889 65 7.3

Midwest 15,424 1,230 8.0 8,387 923 11.0 1,308 504 38.6 7,079 419 5.9

Metro 10,385 776 7.5 5,728 618 10.8 1,021 398 38.9 4,706 220 4.7

Nonmetro 5,039 454 9.0 2,660 305 11.5 287 107 37.2 2,374 199 8.4

South 20,010 2,390 11.9 10,938 1,690 15.5 1,932 814 42.1 9,007 876 9.7

Metro 12,559 1,273 10.1 6,891 945 13.7 1,309 514 39.3 5,583 432 7.7

Nonmetro 7,451 1,117 14.9 4,047 745 18.4 623 300 48.2 3,424 445 13.0

West 11,024 939 8.5 6,029 728 12.1 1,036 356 34.3 4,993 372 7.5

Metro 8,628 694 8.0 4,700 547 11.6 858 283 32.9 3,842 265 6.9

Nonmetro 2,396 245 10.2 1,329 181 13.6 178 74 41.4 1,151 108 9.3

ContinuedSee footnotes at end of table.

65
Appendix table 22—Family poverty of metro and ironmetro counties and regions^ by family type, 1979 and 1969—continued

1969

1Ml families

Families with related children under 18 years old^

Item

Total

Female-headed,

no spouse present

Male-headed

and other

Total Poor Total Poor Total Poor Total Poor

Thousand— Percent —Thousand Percent —Thousand— Percent —Thousand JPercent

U.S. total 51,168 5,462 10.7 29,591 3,480 11.8 3,468 1,498 43.2 26,072 1,982 7.6

Metro 37,370 3,222 8.6 21,712 2,170 10.0 2,674 1,099 41.1 19,037 1,071 5.6

Large metro

Core

Fringe

21,354

15,043

6,311

1,632

1,311

321

7.6

8.7

5.1

12,290

8,405

3,885

1,126

923

202

9.2

11.0

5.2

1,595

1,296

300

626

535

91

39.3

41.3

30.4

10,695

7,110

3,586

500

389

112

4.7

5.5

3.1

Medium metro 11,666 1,086 9.3 6,867 722 10.5 788 340 43.1 6,079 382 6.3

Small metro 4,350 504 11.6 2,554 323 12.6 292 134 45.8 2,263 189 8.4

Nonmetro 13,798 2,240 16.2 7,829 1,310 16.7 794 399 50.2 7,035 911 12.9

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,170

2,073

349

290

11.0

14.0

1,821

1,215

210

182

11.5

15.0

180

135

79

68

43.7

50.7

1,641

1,080

131

114

8.0

10.5

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

3,353

3,485

573

637

17.1

18.3

1,891

1,958

327

368

17.3

18.8

189

201

96

106

50.5

52.8

1,702

1,756

231

261

13.6

14.9

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

586

1,131

129

262

21.9

23.2

325

619

73

150

22.5

24.2

31

57

18

32

56.2

56.6

293

562

55

118

18.9

20.9

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

12,394

10,748

1,646

936

784

152

7.6

7.3

9.2

6,928

6,001

927

609

523

86

8.8

8.7

9.3

818

733

84

324

291

33

39.6

39.7

38.6

6,111

5,268

843

285

232

54

4.7

4.4

6.4

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

14,185

9,735

4,450

1,171

661

510

8.3

6.8

11.5

8,192

5,738

2,454

700

437

263

8.5

7.6

10.7

809

623

186

314

240

74

38.7

38.5

39.6

7,383

5,115

2,268

386

197

189

5.2

3.9

8.3

South

Metro

Nonmetro

15,908

9,927

5,981

2,581

1,218

1,364

16.2

12.3

22.8

9,337

5,896

3,441

1,638

817

822

17.5

13.8

23.9

1,208

783

426

610

364

246

50.5

46.5

57.8

8,128

5,113

3,015

1,028

453

576

12.6

8.9

19.1

West

Metro

Nonmetro

8,682

6,961

1,721

774

560

214

8.9

8.0

12.4

5,083

4,077

1,006

533

394

139

10.5

9.7

13.8

633

535

98

251

204

46

39.6

38.1

47.5

4,450

3,541

909

282

190

92

6.3

5.4

10.2

1 Numbers slightly higher than in other tabulations which included only families with family head's own children.

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

66
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 23—Sources of income of households of metro and nonmetro counties and regions

Wages and

salaries

Self-en-iployment Income

from

public

assistance

Income

from

social

security

Otf

Incc

1er

Item

Nonfarm Farrr1

)me

1979 1969 1979 1969 1979 1969 1979 1969 1979 1969 1979 1969

Percent

U.S. total 75.8 78.6 6.1 7.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 .7 5.2 3.5 10.8 8.3

Metro 77.3 79.9 5.9 7.3 .4 .4 1.0 .7 4.7 3.1 10.8 8.6

Large metro

Core

Fringe

77.8

76.8

79.8

79.9

79.3

81.4

6.0

6.0

6.0

7.3

7.1

7.7

.2

.1

.3

.2

.1

.4

1.0

1.3

.5

.7

1.0

.3

4.4

4.8

3.6

2.9

3.2

2.3

10.6

11.0

9.9

8.9

9.3

7.9

Medium metro 77.0 80.1 5.5 7.1 .5 .6 .9 .6 5.2 3.3 11.0 8.3

Small metro 75.3 79.0 6.1 7.6 1.0 1.3 .9 .6 5.4 3.7 11.3 7.9

Nonmetro 70.7 73.7 6.9 8.6 3.3 4.9 1.1 .8 6.9 4.9 11.1 7.0

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

73.6

73.9

78.1

77.6

6.0

6.7

7.6

8.3

1.6

1.7

2.1

2.4

1.0

1.0

.6

.7

6.3

6.0

4.2

4.1

11.5

10.7

7.3

6.8

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

70.5

68.5

73.2

70.4

6.8

7.1

8.6

9.5

3.7

4.5

5.6

6.7

1.1

1.2

.9

1.0

7.1

7.3

5.1

5.4

10.9

10.9

6.7

7.0

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

67.9

62.8

69.1

62.5

7.2

8.3

8.9

10.0

4.8

7.4

7.9

12.5

1.3

1.4

1.2

1.2

7.7

8.2

5.9

6.2

11.2

11.9

7.1

7.6

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

76.4

76.9

72.7

79.3

79.5

77.8

5.5

5.4

6.0

7.3

7.3

7.8

.3

.2

.9

.4

.2

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.0

.8

.9

.7

5.7

5.5

7.4

3.5

3.3

4.7

10.9

10.8

12.0

8.7

8.8

7.5

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

76.9

79.7

69.2

79.1

81.9

70.9

5.3

4.8

6.6

6.9

6.4

8.6

2.0

.6

5.9

2.6

.7

8.2

.9

.9

.8

.5

.5

.5

5.2

4.6

6.9

3.6

3.1

5.0

9.7

9.4

10.6

7.3

7.4

6.8

South

Metro

Nonmetro

74.9

76.7

71.0

78.1

79.4

75.0

6.3

6.1

6.9

7.8

7.5

8.6

1.0

.4

2.5

1.4

.5

3.6

.9

.7

1.3

.7

.5

1.1

5.5

4.7

7.2

3.7

3.2

5.1

11.4

11.4

11.4

8.3

9.0

6.7

West

Metro

Nonmetro

75.0

75.7

71.4

77.4

78.2

73.3

7.4

7.2

8.3

8.3

8.1

9.5

.8

.4

2.4

1.1

.4

3.9

1.0

1.0

1.0

,9

.9

1.0

4.3

4.0

5.5

3.0

2.8

4.1

11.5

11.5

11.4

9.3

9.5

8.2

Source: Census of Population, 1970 and 1980.

67
Appendix table 24—Housing and tenure of metro and nonmetro counties and regions^

1970 1980

Item Housing units Occupied units Housing units Occupied units Change,

1970-80

Total Vacant Total

Owner

occupied Total Vacant Total

Owner

occupied

Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Percent

U.S. total 67,699 6.3 63,445 62.9 86,759 73 80,390 64.4 28.2

Metro 49,142 5.0 46,693 60.2 62,373 6.3 58,420 61.3 26.9

Large metro

Core

Fringe

28,418

20,770

7,647

4.5

4.7

3.9

27,138

19,791

7,347

56.2

50.6

71.1

34,573

24,145

10,428

5,9

6.4

4.8

32,542

22,610

9,932

57.6

51.8

71.1

21.7

16.2

36.4

Medium metro 15,010 5.2 14,234 65.4 19,950 6.6 18,635 65.6 32.9

Small metro 5,714 6.9 5,321 66.9 7,849 7J 7,243 66.8 37.4

Nonmetro 18,557 9.7 16,752 70.3 24,386 9.9 21,970 72.6 31.4

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,168

2,746

7.3

7.7

3,862

2,535

69.1

65.5

5,615

3,639

8.1

8.2

5,160

3,342

70.1

67.3

34.7

32.5

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,479

4,737

9.8

10.3

4,039

4,251

72.0

70.7

5,889

6,066

9.7

10.3

5,319

5,442

75.0

73.5

31.5

28.1

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

814

1,614

14.0

15.4

700

1,366

73.9

74.4

1,094

2,084

13.7

15.4

944

1,763

78.2

77.0

34.4

29.1

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

16,198

13,963

2,235

4.4

3.5

9.9

15,483

13,469

2,014

57.6

55.4

72.3

18,532

15,687

2,845

5.7

5.1

9.0

17,471

14,883

2,588

59.0

56.6

72.7

14.4

12.3

27.3

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

18,675

12,623

6,052

6.1

4.6

9.2

17,536

12,043

5,493

68.0

65.3

73.8

22,361

15,011

7,349

6.7

5.5

9.1

20,859

14,182

6,677

68.8

66.1

74.5

19.7

18.9

21.4

South

Metro

Nonmetro

20,884

12,999

7,885

7.8

6.7

9.6

19,257

12,132

7,125

64.7

62.6

68.3

29,023

18,454

10,569

8.7

8.0

10.0

26,486

16,973

9,513

67.0

63.7

72.8

19.0

42.0

34.0

West

Metro

Nonmetro

11,942

9,557

2,385

6.5

5.3

11.1

11,169

9,048

2,121

59.0

57.4

65.9

16,844

13,221

3,623

7.5

6.3

11.9

15,574

12,382

3,192

60.3

58.3

68.0

41.0

38.3

51.9

^ Year-round housing units.

Source: Census of Housing, 1970 and 1980.

68
Appendix Tables

Appendix table 25—Kitchen and bathroom facitties of metro and nonmetro counties and regions^

1970 1980

Item

Total

Without

complete

bathroom

Without

complete

kitchen

Total

Without

complete

bathroom

Without

complete

kitchen

Thousand Percent Thousand PercentU.S. total 67,699 7.5 4.2 86,759 3.3 2.5

Metro 49,142 4.5 2.1 62,373 2.3 1.7

Large metro

Core

Fringe

28,418

20,770

7,647

3.5

3.5

3.3

1.6

1.7

1.4

34,573

24,145

10,428

2.2

2.5

1.5

1.6

1.9

1.1

Medium metro 15,010 5.4 2.5 19,950 2.2 1.7

Small metro 5,714 7.0 3.7 7,849 2.6 2.0

Nonmetro 18,557 15.6 9.7 24,386 5.8 4.4

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,168

2,746

8.3

10.7

4.3

6.3

5,615

3,639

3.2

4.1

2.3

3.1

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

4,479

4,737

17.0

18.0

10.5

11.4

5,889

6,066

6.1

6.6

4.8

4.9

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

814

1,614

27.0

25.9

18.0

17.8

1,094

2,084

10.1

10.6

7.6

8.3

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

16,198

13,963

2,235

5.0

4.3

9.1

1.8

1.4

4.0

18,532

15,687

2,845

3.2

3.0

4.2

1.8

1.7

2.5

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

18,675

12,623

6,052

6.7

4.3

11.8

3.6

1.8

7.2

22,361

15,011

7,349

2.8

2.0

4.4

2.1

1.5

3.3

South

Metro

Nonmetro

20,884

12,999

7,885

12.4

6.2

22.7

7.6

3.5

14.5

29,023

18,454

10,569

4.2

2.2

7.8

3.4

1.9

5.9

West

Metro

Nonmetro

11,942

9,557

2,385

3.7

2.6

7.8

2.5

1.8

5.4

16,844

13,221

3,623

2.3

1.7

4.3

2.1

1.7

3.5

'Year-round housing units.

Source: Census of Housing, 1970 and 1980.

69
Appendix table 26—Median rent of metro and non metro counties and regions^

Item 1970

1970

(constant

1980 dollars)

1980

Change

(constant dollars),

1970-80

U.S. total

Metro

Large metro

Core

Fringe

Medium metro

Small metro

Nonmetro

Urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

Less urbanized:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

Totally rural:

Adjacent to metro area

Not adjacent

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

South

Metro

Nonmetro

West

Metro

Nonmetro

109

116

122

119

139

105

95

74

88

80

68

66

62

63

113

115

84

112

118

82

90

105

63

121

125

88

-Dollars231

246

259

252

295

223

201

157

187

170

144

140

131

134

240

244

178

237

250

174

191

223

134

257

265

187

243

253

263

256

274

239

231

200

220

210

190

184

177

174

247

250

220

232

241

201

228

244

181

273

280

229

Percent

5.2

2.8

1.5

1.6

-7.1

7.2

14.9

27.4

17.6

23.5

31.9

31.4

35.1

29.9

2.9

2.5

23.6

-2.1

-3.6

15.5

19.4

9.4

35.1

6.2

5.7

22.5

'Renter-occupied housing.

Source: Census of Housing: 1970 and 1980.

70 * U5. QOYEBNMBNT PMNTEWG OFFICE: 1986 - 621-066 - 1302/02017
Economic Growth Is Good For Everyone. Right?

Not necessarily, according to recent findings from USDA's Economic Research Service. Find

out from these related reports just what can happen when rapid economic growth comes to

a rural area.

Will Employment Growth Benefit All Households?

A Case Study in Nine Nonmetro Kentuclcy Counties, by Donald K. Larson and Claudia K. White.

SN: 001-019-00425-8.

Overall economic growth in a rural area will probably

not benefit all households or residents in that area.

In a nine-county area of south central Kentucky,

rapid employment growth between 1974 and 1979

did create new job opportunities. However, only 18

percent of the households had members who took

advantage of the new jobs. The employment growth

also did not reduce the area's overall poverty level.

About as many households fell into poverty as left

the poverty ranks during the study period. Some

population groups, such as households headed by

women, remained economically disadvantaged

despite the area's growth. Other groups, such as the

elderly, maintained their income status by relying on

public and private income transfer programs.

Distribution of Employment Growth in Nine Kentucky Counties: A Case Study, by Stan G.

Daberkow, Donald K. Larson, Robert Coltrane, and

Thomas A. Carlin.

SN: 001-019-00337-5.

Rapid employment growth between 1974 and 1979

in a nine-county study area of south central Kentucky provided job opportunities both for local

residents and for persons with limited labor force experience. But, recent inmigrants held a disproportionate share of better paying executive jobs. This

case study, which examines the distributional effects

of rapid employment growth in a nonmetro area,

shows that inmigrants also held a disproportionate

share of jobs in growing business establishments.

Although manufacturing was the major economic

force in the study area in January 1980, jobs in the

private service sector increased more than in other

sectors.

Distribution of Employment Growth in 10 Georgia

Counties: A Case Study, by James D.

Schaub and Victor J. Oliveira.

SN: 001-019-00412-6.

Rapid economic growth in a 10-county rural area in

south Georgia during 1976-81 favored employment

of whites, men, and inmigrants. They earned higher

average weekly salaries than blacks, women, and

long-term residents. This study of growth in a mixed

manufacturing- and agricultural-based economy flows

from a research project on the impacts of economic

expansion in nonmetro economies with different industrial bases. The Georgia area's job growth was

greatest in the trades and services sectors. Few

businesses used public sector funds to start or expand their operations. Government employed 25 percent of the area's wage and salary workers.

For prices of these reports, write to

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

Order from the above address, making your

check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. For faster service, call

GPO's order desk at (202) 783-3238 and

charge your purchase to your Visa, MasterCard, or GPO Deposit Account. Specify title

and stock number. A 25-percent bulk discount

is available on orders of 100 or more copies

shipped to a single address. Please add 25 percent extra for postage for shipments to a

foreign address.