Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 266 222
TITLEINSTITUTION
PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
JOURNAL CIT
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
DOCUMENT RESUME
UD 024 717
Population Profile of the United States 1983/84.Bureau of the Census (DOC), Suitland, Md. PopulationDiv.Sep 8555p.; Tabular material contains small print.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402.Statistical Data (110) -- Reports -Research /Technical (143)Current Population Reports; Series P-23 n145 Sep1985
MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Birth Rate; *Demography; *Educational Attainment;*Family Characteristics; Income; *Labor Force;Migrants; Migration Patterns; Population Growth;*Population Trends; Poverty; *StatisticalDistributions*United States
ABSTRACTThis population profile summarizes a range of
demographic, social, and economic data collected by the Census Bureauduring 1983 and 1984. Geographic coverage is primarily for the nationas a whole, although some demographic data at the State level arealso included. The areas covered are as follows: (1) nationalpopulation trends; (2) national population projections; (3)fertility, childspacing, and birth expectations; (4) state populationtrends; (5) metropolitan/nonmetropolitan populations; (6) farmpopulations; (7) migration; (8) households and families; (9) livingarrangements and marital status; (10) school enrollment; (11)educational attainment; (12) the labor force; (13) occupation; (14)earnings by occupation and sex; (15) money income; (16) participationin government benefits programs; and (17) poverty. Each section makesextensive use of graphs and charts to illustrate the data andconcludes with a list of sources and the name and number of aspecialist who can answer technical questions. Appendices includesummary tables on the data, information on sources and limitations ofthe data, and sources for the figures. (CG)
**************Reproduct
*
**************
*********************************************************ions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.*********************************************************
Population 1983/84Profile of the U.S. Department of Commerce
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
United StatesCurrent Population ReportsSpecial StudiesS2nes P-23, No. 145
TN
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
EDU TIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changer have been made to improvereproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent official NIEPosition or policy.
r1
3
Current Population ReportsSpecial StudiesSeries P-23, No. 145
Issued September 1985
PopulationProfile of theUnited States1983/84
-"F- 7. '11,,,1- 71 .3b
:4,1'
,4
: "T't , 31,4 %'::"
4 "' "
.47Y.,3":3
= _
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEMalcolm Baldrige, SecretaryClarence J. Brown, Deputy SecretarySidney Jones, Under Secretary forEconomic Affairs
BUREAU OF THE CENSUSJohn G. Keane, Director
U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUSJohn G. Keane, DirectorC.L. Kincannon, Deputy DirectorWi Maas P. Satz, Associate Directorfor Demographic Fields
POPULATION DIVISIONRoger A. Her riot, Chief
AcknowledgmentsThis report was prepared oy
Mark S. Littman, under the generaldirection of Campbell Gibson,Demographic Advisor, with the typingassistance of Terry A. Lugalla. Thetext was reviewed by subject-matterspecialists in Population Division whoare listed separately at the end ofeach section. Sampling review wascoordinated by Diana Harley ofStatistical Methods Division. Thereport was designed by David M.Coontz and edited by Paula Coupeand Penny Heiston in PublicationsServices Division.
Suggested CitationU.S. Bureau of the Census, CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-23, No.145, Population Profile of the UnitedStates: 1983-84, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C.,1985.
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.20402.
4
Preface
This Population Profile summarizesthe wide range of demographic,social, and economic data collectedby the Census Bureau during 1983and 1984 and published, for the mostpart, in the Current PopulationReports series during 1984.Geographic coverage is primarily forthe Nation as a whole, although somedemographic data at the State levelare also included.
At the end of each section, a "ForFurther Information" box lists sourcesof data and the subject specialist whocan answer technical questions. AllCurrent Population Reports listed asreferences in the sections- and---
appendix C-are available from theSuperintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402. Selectednational demographic, social, andeconomic characteristics for 1970through 1984 are summarized inappendix A. Reports or data availableafter January 1, 1985, will be coveredin the Population Profile for 19P5.
Contents
Page
PrefaceHIHighlights1
National Population Trends 4Figure
1. Distribution of the total population, by age and sex: April 1, 1980. andJuly 1, 1983
42. Number of births, by year, 1910-83, and relationship to 1983 age groups 5
National Population Projections 6Figure
3. Estimates and projections of total population: 1950 to 2080 64. Percent distribution of the population, by age and sex:
1982, 2000, 2030, and 20807
Fertility, Childspacing, and Birth Expectations 8Figure
5. Total fertility rate: 1920-8396. Births to women 30 and over as a percent of all births: 1970.82 8
State Population Trends10Figure
7. Percent change in population, by State: April 1, 1980, to July 1, 1983 108. Net change in population due to migration between April 1, 1980, andJuly 1, 1983
11
The Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Population 12Figure
9. Percent distribution of the population, by type of residence and area size:19831210. Average annual percent change in population, by type of residence andregion: 1980-8313
The Farm Population14Figure
11. Number of farm residents and their percent of total resident population:1920-8314
Migration .,15Figure
12. Percent distribution of movers, by type of move: March 1982-83 15
Households and Families16Figure
13. Percent distribution of households, by type: March 1984 1614. Types of households as a percent of all households: March 1970-84 17
Living Arrangements and Marital Status 18Figure
15. Living arrangements of children under 18, by race and Srianish origin:March 1984
1816. Percent of 20-to-24-year-olds living with at least one parent:March 1970-84
19
ai6
School Enrollment20
Figure17. Number of school-age children: 1960-83 and projections to 2000 2018. School enrollment, by level and control of school: October 1983 21
Educational Attainment22
Figure19. Percent of persons 25 and over completing high school and college, by
age: March 1984 2220. Percent of persons 25 and over completing 4 years of high school or
more, by race: 1970, 1980, and 1984 23
The Labor Force24
Figure
21. Civilian labor force 16 and over and percent growth over previous year:1970 -83 24
22. Percent distribution of reasons for unemployment, by sex: 1983 25
Occupation26
F.ist.re
23. Percent change in employment, by sex and occupation: 1972-83 2624. Women as a percent of total employed, by occupation: 1972 and 1983 27
Earnings by Occupation and Sex 28Figure
25. Percent of persons who ever worked and who had one or more workinterruptions lasting 6 months or more, by reason for interruption andsex: 1979 28
26. Proportion of potential work years spent away from work, by sex: 1979 29Money Income
30Figure
27. Median family income in 1983 dollars: 1970-83 3028. Median income in 1983 of selected types of families and households 31
Participation in Government Benefits Programs 32Figure
29. Percent of persons receiving benefits from selected programs: thirdquarter 1983 32
30. Percent of selected household types receiving means-tested benefits:third quarter 1983 33
PovertyFigure
31. Number and percent of persons below the poverty level: 1970.8332. Percent distribution A poor family householders, by work experience:
1983
34
34
35
Appendix A. Summary Tablei 36Table
A- 1.Surnmary of annual data on demcgraphic, social, and economiccharacteristics (except income and poverty): 1970-84 36
A-2.Summary of annual data on income and poverty: 1969-83 42
Appendix B. Sources and Limitations of Data 44Table
B-1. Components of selected population universes: March 1, 1984 45B -2. Selected population universes, by sex and broad age groups:
March 1, 1984 45
Appendix C. Sources for Figures 46
7
Highlights
National Population Trends
The total population on January 1,1984, reached 235,627,000 (includingArmed Forces overseas).
While the Nation's population grew by3.3 percent between the 1980 censusand July I, 1983, the population 35 to44 years old, the fastest growing agegroup, increased by 15 percent.
While net legal Immigration accountedfor 27 percent of the Nation's growthbetween 1980 and 1983, it accountedfor 70 percent of the growth of the"other races" population (principallyAsian and Pacific Islanders) and 53percent of the increase In the Spanish-origin population. .
Average life expectancy at birth In 1983was 74.7 years-78.3 years for femalesand 71.0 years for males.
National Population Projections
In the year 2000, the population wouldrange from 256 million under thelowest projection series to 281 millionunder the highest projection series.
Using the middle projection series, thepopulation would reach about 250million in 1990, 268 million in 2000,and pass 300 million in 2024.
The percentage of the population thatis 65 years and over will increase fromthe present 12 percent to 21 percent(under the middle series) by the year2030 when surviving members of thebaby boom generation will all be in thisage group.
The population 18 to 24 years reachedan alltime high of 30.5 million in 1981but will never again be as large basedon middle series projections.
Fertility, Childspacing, and BirthExpectations
The total fertilitylate (average lifetimebirths per wotnan implied by currentage-specific fikllity rates) has beenabout 1.8 since 1974, only half thatrecorded at the peak of the baby boomin 1957.
Women 30 to 34 years old accountedfor 9 percent of first births in 1982,compared with 3 percent in 1970.
The median age of mothers at first birthwas about 22 years in 1983.
State Population Trends
Alaska, with a 19-percent increase be-tween 1980 and IS)83, had the largestproportional gain in population, whileCalifornia, with a 1.5-million gain, hadthe largest numerical increase.
In the Midwest, no State grew fasterthan the national average, and fourStates lost population between 1980and 1983. (Provisional July 1984estimates indicate that the region ex-perienced a turnaround between 1983and 1984, regaining some of thepopulation lost since 1980.)
The Nation's growth continues to beconcentrated In the South and West,even though 8 of the 16 SouthernStates grew at rates below the nationalaverage from 1980 to 1983.
The combined increases in California,Texas, and Florida accounted for 53percent of the Nation's growth between1980 and 1983.
While 24 States had net outmigration,more than half of the growth in sevenStates was due to net migration. InFlorida, 89 percent of the 1980-83growth was attributable to migration.
8
Metropolitan-NonmetropolitanResidence
In a reversal of the pattern of the1970's, the population in metropolitanareas (CMSA's and MSA's) grew by3.5 percent between July 1, 1980, andJuly 1, 1983, while nonmetropolitancounties grew by 2.7 percent.
This metropolitan/nonmetropolitangrowth rate differential in the 1980-83period was most pronounced in theSouth, where metropolitan areas grew6.4 percent, compared with 3.6 per-cent for nonmetropolitan territory.
Three of every four Americans lived Inone of the Nation's 277 metropolitanareas In 1983; nearly half lived in oneof the 37 areas with a population of 1million or more, and 21 percent livedin one of the five largest metropolitanareas in 1983.
Farm Population
LI 1983, about 5.8 million personslived on farms, a number not statis-tically different from that in 1980.
Nearly one of every three persons livedon farms in 1920; in 1983, only aboutone of forty persons lived on farms.
Migration
Between March 1982 and March 1983,36.4 million persons changed resi-dences In the United States, and anadditional 978,000 moved or returnedto the United States from abroad.
The annual rate of mobility has de-dined slowly since the 1960's, from 21percent in 1960-61 to 16.6 percent Inthe 1982-83 period.
About 61 percent of moves between1982 and 1983 were within the samecounty.
Adults in their early twenties have thehighest rate of movingone-third of all20to-24-year-olds moved between1982 and 1983.
Households and Families
The number of households reached85.4 million in 1984-1.5 million morethan in 1983.
Of all households, 73 percent werecomposed of families, while the re-maining 27 percent were maintained bypersons living alone or withnonrelatives only.
The Nation's 20 million one-personhouseholds represented 85 percent ofall nonfamily households in 1984.
Nearly half of the 2.4-million increasein family households between 1980and 1984 was attributable to familiesmaintained by women.
Living Arrangements and MaritalStatus
One in foul children under 18 yearsold lived with only one'of their parentsin 1984.
Young adults appear to be staying withtheir parents longei: 52 percent of menand 32 percent of women 20 to 24ears old were living with one or bothof their parents in 1984, comparedwith 43 percent and 27 percent,respectively, in 1970.
The median age at first marriage was25.4 years for men and 23.0 years forwomen in 1984, up from 23.2 yearsfor men and 20.8 years for women in1970.
The divorce ratio (currently divorcedpersons per 1.000 currently marriedpersons living with their spouse) in-creased from 47 in 1970 to 100 in1980 to 121 in 1984.
2
School Enrollment
Elementary school enroiiment, whichpeaked in 1970 and then began todecline for more than a decade, willbegin to rise again in the latter half ofthe 1980's because of the increasingnumber of births after 1975.
There were 12.3 million collegestudents in 1983, 1.5 million of whomwere 35 years old or older.
The majority (51 nercent) of collegestudents in 1983 were women, whoaccounted for two-thirds of the increasein college enrollment since 1970.
Educational Attainment
In March 1984, nearly three of fouradults 25 years old and over were highschool graduates, compared with onlytwo of four in 1970 and one in four in1940.
In the past 40 years, educational attain-ment levels have increased pr )por-tionately more for Blacks than for.Whites.
The Labor Force
The civilian labor force averaged 111.6million persons in 1983, about 1.3million persons more than in 1982.
In 1983, the number of employed per-sons averaged 102.5 million (sur-passing 1981's record high average),while the number of unemployeddropped considerably and averaged10.7 million.
In addition to the official number ofunemployed, there was an annualaverage of 1.6 million persons classifiedas "discouraged workers"personswho wanted jobs but were not lookingfor work because they believed that nojobs were available.
Occupation
Two occupation groups, "managerialand professional specialty occupations"and "technical, sales, and adminis-trative support," recorded 81 percentof the growth in employment duringthe 1972-83 period; about 54 percentof U.S. workers were in these occupa-tional categories in 1983.
Women increased their percentage ofmanagerial and professional workersfrom 33 percent to 41 percent between1972 and 1983.
Despite these increases, womenremained concentrated in "female in-tensive" occupations (defined here asoccupations which were 60 percent ormore female); 18 of the largest 25 oc-cupations for women were in thiscategory as were 9 of the top 10 in1980.
Work Interruptions
For persons with some work experiencein 1979, about one in four men, com-pared with nearly three of four womenhad experienced a work interruption of6 months or more because of inabilityto find work, illness or disability, orfamily responsibilities.
Because of such interruptions, womenhave spent an average of 31 percent oftheir potential work years away from apaid job, compared with only 3 percentfor men.
Money Income
Median family income in 1983 was$24,580-1.6 percent above the 1982figure after adjusting for changes in theConsumer Price Index.
The median income of White familiesincreased by 1.4 percent between 1982,and 1983, while there was nostatistically significant income changefor Black or Spanish-origin families.
Women living alone had a 1983median income of $9,140, comparedwith $14,120 for men who lived bythemselves.
9
Participation in GovernmentBenefits Programs
On a monthly avenge, nearly one of .
three nonfarm perons received benefitsfrom one or more government pro-grams during the third quarter of 1983.
Social Security was received by 14 per-cent of the total population, or by 48percent of persons receiving benefits ofany sort from public programs.
o About 19 percent of the population re-ceived benefits from one or more"means-tested" programs such as foodstamps or Medicaid.
Poverty (official Governmentdefinition, based on cashincome only)
The number of persons below thepoverty level in 1983 was 35.3 million,or 15.2 percent of the total population.
About one of three persons below thepoverty level was in a family main-tained by a woman, and the povertyrate for these families was three timesthe rate for all families.
10
The poverty rate for persons 65 yearsold and over fell from 15.7 percent to14.1 percent between 1980 and 1983,while the rate for all persons rose from13.0 percent to 15.2 percent.
3
NationalPopulationTrends
Total population, including Amied Forces overseas 1/1/84: 235,627,000Births in 1983: 3,618,000Deaths in 1983: 2,014,000Net immigration in 1983: 517,000Numerical Increase in 1983: 2,121,000Percent increase In 1983: 0.9%.
The population has grown bymore than 8.5 million personssince the 1980 census.
The total population of lie UnitedStates (including 517,000 Armed Forcespersonnel stationed overseas) reached235,627,000 on January 1, 1984. Thisfigure represents an increase of 2.1 millionor 0.9 percent over the estimate for thefirst day of 1983, and a gain of8,566,000, or 3.8 percent, since the April1st count from the 1980 census. The Na-tion's growth during 1983 is attributable tothe number of births ($,618,000) ex-ceeding the number of deaths (2,014,000)by 1,604,000 ("natural increase") plus anestimated net legal immigration of.517,000 persons.
Life expectancy at birthapproaches 75 years.
Average life expectancy at birth in 1983was 74.7 years. (The expectation of life atbirth in 1983 is the average number ofyears that a group of infants would live ifthey were to experience the age - specificdeath rates prevailing in 1983.) The 1983figure is about 5 years more than the lifeexpectancy at birth a generation earlierand about 11 years more than it was twogenerations ago. Average life expectancyat birth for males in 1983 was 71.0 years,about 7.3 years less than the 78.3 yearsfor females. In 1983, average remaininglife expectancy at age 65 was 14.5 yearsfor men, compared with 18.8 years forwomen.
The school-age population willbegin to increase in te late1980's.
On a mid ;real basis (from July 1 to thefollowing June 30), the number of birthsincreased each year between 1976 and1983 reversing a long-term trend of
MALE
declining births.' This recent increase inthe number of births portends the stabiliza-tion and eventual increase In the numberof elementary-school-age children whichhas been declining since 1970 and con-tributing to the dosing of schools in someparts of country.' The increasednumber of births is almost entirely due to
FEMALE
1980
1983
FIGURE 1.
Distribution of the TotalPopulation, by Age and Se=April 1, 1980, and July 1,1983(Including Armed Forces overseas)
4
0L-- t I 1 -.I L.. I2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 0 0.5
Total population in millions
11
1.0--I
1.5 2.0
the rise in the number of women of primechildbearing age, since the total fertilityrate has changed very little since 1975.(See the section, "Fertility, Childspacing,and Birth Expectations").
Leading edge of the baby boomenters middle age.
While the population of the Nation grewby 3.3 percent between the 1980 censusand July 1, 1983, the population 35 to44 years old increased by 15 percent,reflecting the entry of the leading edge ofthe baby boom generation into middleage. This age group will continue its rapidgrowth for some time as it is augmentedby persons now in the 25-to-34 a2eranoe. However, the young adult popula-tion 18 to 24 has begun to decline in thisdecade, signalling a departure from theenormous growth this group experiencedduring the 1960's and 1970's as the babyboom cohorts entered that age group.
The number of persons 65 years andover increased by 7.2 percent fromApril 1. 1980, to July 1, 1983, and theelderly increased their proportion of thetotal population from 11.3 percent in1980 to 11.7 percent in 1983. This is thehigi.est proportion in this age group in theNation's history.
The Black population grew at a fasterrate between 1980 and 1983 than thetotal population, increasing by 5.3 per-cent, compared with 3.3 percent for theNation as a whole and 2.5 percent forWhites. The Nation's 28.2 million Blacksrepresented 12.0 percent of the popula-tion in 1983, up slightly from the 1980figure of 11.8 percent.
In the 1980's, some persons of "otherraces" (that is. principally Asians andPacific !slanders) have had growth ratesaffected significantly by immigration. Theother-races population grew from5,172,000 to 6,394,000, or by 23.6 per-cent. between 1980 and 1983; almost 70percent of this growth was due to im-migration. compared with 27 percent forthe Nation as a whole.
FIGURE 2.Number of Births, by Year,1910-83, and Relationshipto 1983 Age Groups(Age as of July 1, 1983)
The Spanish-origin populationnumbered about 16.2 million in April1983, an increase of about 1.6 million, or10.8 percent, since the 1980 census.'About 53 percent of the growth in theSpanish population since the census isattributable to immigration.
'Preliminary figures indicate the number ofbirths between July 1, 1983, and June 30,1984. was 3,635.000, down slightly from thecomparable 1982.83 figure of 3.694,000.
'The number of public elementary andsecondary schools declined from 117.000 in1959 to 86,200 in 1980. This is due to largeschools replacing overcrowded and outdatedsmaller schools, and the shrinking of theschoolage population, influencing the closing ofschools For example, the member of one-teacher schools was over 20,000 in 1959, butwas under 2,000 a decade later: see NationalCenter for Education Statistics. The Conditionof Education, 1982.).
'Persons of Spanish origin may be of anyrace. In the 1980 census, 56 percent reportedthemselves as White and an additional 40 per-cent indicated their race as "Other," i.e., otherthan White, Black, American Indian, Asian, orPacific Islander. The 1983 estimates for theSpanish population were derived by componenttechniques using data on births, deaths, andmigration. These figures differ from thoseshown In other Current Population Reports.This component technique will be used in otherCurrent Population Reports darting in January1985.
65 andover
5
4
3
2
1
0
For Foram. Information
See: Current Population Reports. SeriesP-25, No. 949. Estimates of the Populationof the United States, by Age. Sex. and Race.1980 to 1983andNational Center Inr Health Statistics. Vol. 32.No. 13, September 21, 1984. AnnualSummary of Births, Deaths, Marriages. acrdDivorces: United States, 1983
Contact: Louisa Misr,State and National PopulationEstimates Branch,(301) 763.5072
Age as of July 1, 198314- under
55.64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24 17 5-13 5i
Regmninq ofbaby boom
0 0a%
ONt..4
ON CnI t..4
...
12
o o ocn 19 kr)
0' a. 6cv ce) ,:r tr)a. a. a. a..- .... ... ...
Year of birth (July 1-June 30)
...
5
NationalPopulationProjections
lowestseries
middleseries
highestseries
1990 245,753,000 249,657,000 254,122,0002000: 256,098,000 267,955,000 281,542,0002080: '191,118,000 310,762,000 531,178.000
Projections illustrate possiblecourses of population growth.
The Bureau's latest population projec-tions to the year 2080 illustrate the futuresize and composition of the United States,by age, sex, and race, under variousassumptions about fertility, mortality, andnet immigration. Three different assump-tions were made about the possible courseof each of the three components ofpopulation change.
Fertility in the middle series was assumedto reach an ultimate completed cohort rateof 1.9 births per woman, which is consis-tent with recent levels of fertility andwomen's expectations of future births, aswell as various apparent social andeconomic trends in our society. Levels of1.6 and 2.3 births per woman were usedfor the low and high fertility assumptions,respectively.
Mortality is projected to decline under allthree assumptions, reaching an ultimatelife expectancy of 31.0 years in the middleseries, 85.9 years under the low assump-tion, and 77.4 years under the highassumption.
Net immigration for the middle assumptionutilized a constant annual net inflow of450,000, approximately equal to the an-nual number of legal immigrants to theUnited States over the past decade. ,wide range between the high (750,000)and low (250,000) net immigration figureswas used to reflect the uncertain futureflow of immigrants (legal and illegal).
FIGURE 3.Estimates and Projections ofTotal Population: 1950 to2080
6
Even in lowest series, populationwill continue to grow until theyear 2017.
Based on projections using the middleseries, the U.S. population would increaseby rearly 80 million during the next 100years, reaching about 311 million in theyear 2080. Most of this growth wouldoccur in the next 50 years as the popula-tion reaches 7'18 million in the year 2000and 305 million in 2030. After 1995, theannual growth rate would drop below 0.7percent, lower than the record low growthrate during the 1930's. In the lowest pro-jection series, the population would reach256 million in the year 2000 but begin todecline after the year 2017, shrinking to191 million by 2080, the size of thepopulation in the early 1960's. In thehighest projection series, the Nation wouldexperience a large growth in population,even though the growth rates woulddecline to Depression Era levels after theyear 2030. Under the highest series, thepopulation would reach 282 million in theyear 2000, 14 million higher than in themiddle series and 25 million more than In
600
500
400
300
200
100
Population in millions
IMI1
the lowest series. By 2080, the UnitedStates would have more than doubled itspresent population size, reaching 531million under the high projection series.
Aging of the population evidentin all, projection series.
The most pervasive trend In all of the pro-jection series is the overall aging of thepopulation. In 1983, the median age ofthe population was 30.9 years. In none ofthe projection series would the medianage again be so low. The median age inthe middle series would reach 363 yearsat the turn of the century, 40.8 years in2030, and 42.8 years in 2080. Membersof the baby boom generation (born be-tween 1946 and 1964) will all be over age35 by 2000, and thus will contribute to asharp increase in the median age during"the rest of this century.
Lowest seriesMiddle seriesHighest series NE a NM
loe--5-o
ti 1_1_1111111.111j1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070
Year
13
The changes in the age structure arealso evident in the dependency ratio,which shows the number of persons under18 years and 65 years and older per 100people 18 to 64 years old. In 1983, thedependency ratio was 63 dependents per100 persons 18 to 64 years old. This ratiowill decline to 58 by 2010 using the mid-dle projection series and then increase to78 by the year 2080 as the baby boomgeneration ages. This last figure is aboutthe same as the dependency ratio in 1970but lower than the dependency ratio in1965 (83). At present. there are 19 per-sons 65 years of age and over and 44children under 18 years for every 100persons of working age. By 2080, thisrelationship will shift, with the elderlydependency ratio being larger than ti;?dependency ratio for children: 42 elderlypersons and 36 children per 100 persons18 to 64 years of age.
The percentage of the entire populationthat is 65 years and over will increasefrom the current 12 percent to 13 percentin 2000 and to 21 percent in 2030 as themembers of the baby boom generationreach age 65. By 2030, the population 65years and over will be nearly 21/2 timeslarger than it was in 1983 (65 million vs.27 million).
Elementary-school-age populationsoon to increase as voting adultpopulation continues to decrease.
Tile population under age 5 would risefrom its 1983 level of 17.8 million to 19.2million by 1990 under the middle seriesassumptions, then begin to drop and leveloff between 17.5 and 18 million after theyear 2000. The elementary-school-agepopulation (5 to 13 years) would begin in-creasing in the latter half of the 1980's,reaching 34.4 million in the year 2000, up13 percent from 30.1 million in 1983.The high-school-age group of 14 to 17years, now numbering about 15 million,would decline to about 13 million by 1990before retuming to its present level by theyear 2000.
FIGURE 4.
Percent Distribution of thePopulation, by Age and Sex:1982, 2000, 2030. and 2080(Based on middle series projections)
The population 18 to 24 years peakedin 1981 at 30.5 million. This figure willnever again be as large, based on middlelevel projection assumptions, but willdecline by about 7 million during the next15 years as the last of the baby boomgeneration moves out of the age group.The number of these young adults willbegin to.increase again in the year 2000and reach a peak of 27.7 million in 2010,still 2.7 million short of the 1983 figure.
For Further lotorsaatioo
See: Current Population Reports, Series P-25.No. 952, Projections of the Population of theUnited States, by Age, Sex, and Race:1980 to 2080
Contact: Groton Spooror.Population Projections Branch,(301) 763-5964
2000
Male
100
FemaleCal
liMaN111
IINNICUMMIIIMEDIMEE
EMMISINECZENZIMMISMENE
CalinliMEMBEIIIMEM111==
titt tett t5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4
Percent
WINENIUSEEEMEffiffiNICIESESM11111321311CCEORMBAVERILMENOWE
11150111MainiEM1111111111111111=1111/111S011011111E531111111113%MINESIEZININIONimmaraggium
tit t
3 2 1 0 1
Percent
j2 3 4 5
1111 MI I I I I IMINNEN?.
MINI MEC I I I I NI IN11111.111111a MN IRSI I IN I I I Z C I II II I I 111
I I I I I IN I MX I I I W.II I EMS I X I NO I I It1111111t15 4 3 21012345 54321012345
Percent Percent
14 7
- ... -.,.
Total fertility rate, 1983: 1,789 . ;Lifetime titers expected per 1,000 women 18 to 34: 2,0791982 mediim age at first birth: 23.2 yearsPercent of births in -1982 to women age 30 and over: 22%
. ..Total fertility rate remains belowreplacement level for 12th con-menthe year.
The annual total fertility rate' has de-dined by one-half since 1957:the peak ofthe baby Worn. In 1960, for example, thetotal fertility rate was 3,654 (implying anaverage completed fertility of 3.7children), compared with 1,789 (or 1.8per woman) in 1983. The total fertilityrate has fluctuated only slightly since1976, when it reached 1,738, the lowestlevel recorded in U.S. history.
The 1983 rate of 1,789 is substantiallybelow that required for natural replace-ment of the population (2.1 children perwoman) in the long run. HOVANC, thepopulation will continue to grow bynatural increase until well into the 21st. '''century even if the present low fertilityrates continue. This is because of arelatively large number of women boinduring the baby boom who are now ofchildbearing age. *:
Lifetime birth expectations alsoremain low.
The lifetime birth expectations ofwomen 18 to 34 (regardless of maritalstatus), as of June 1983 are low, averag-ing 2,079 births per 1,000 women, or 2.1per woman. This level, consistent with thelow fertility rate, is just at the level re-quired for natural replacement of thepopulation. For younger women, 18 to 24years old, the average number of birthsexpected has remained at or belowreplacement level since the mid-1970's.
A shift toward later childbearingis savaging.
The national fertility rate (the number ofwornen.who had a birth in the previousyear per 1,000 women 18 to 44 yearsold) has not changed significantly since1980, when the Census Bureau beganpublishing an annual series of such rates.There is, however, evidence of an in-crease in the fertility rate for women in
,.-
Total fertility tate
their early thirties which, in combinationwith the recent stribility in childbearing foryounger age group's, indicates a continuedshift toward later childbearing. For exam-ple, the national fertility rate in 1983 forwomen 30 to 34 years old was 69.1 per
.1,000, up from the rate of 60.0 in 1980.About 22 percent of births in 1982 wereto women 30 years of age or older, com-pared with 18 percent of births in 1970.Births to 30-to-34-year-olds accounted for
FIGURE 5.Total Fertility Rat= 1920-83
- 1,000(For definition of total fertility rate, seefootnote 4)
11
8
rf-...<.mini 1,,
n- . ' 1.-. - 1.1
. '' ' 1920 ' 1930 1940
.
1950 1960- 1970 1980 199
15
l Artre
9 percent of first births In 1982; comparedwith 3 percent in 1970. AI/ of these In-creases are partly due to the increasedproportion ot women ochildbearing agewho are 30years of age and ant. . .
Another indicatoi al postponedchildbearini Is the deatasing Proportionof women born after 1945 who had theirfirst birth by age 25. About 7.0 percent ofwomen who were born In the 1935 -39.
had a first birth by the time theywere 25, compared with 60 percent ofwomen born between 1945 and 1949 andonly 53 percent of women born be-tween 1950 and 1954. .
Interval between first and secondbirths Increasing.
The median age at first birth for allwomen of childbearing age was about21.8 years in 1960, 22.1 years in 1970,and 23.2 years in 1982! The typical in-terval between the first and last birthrepresents only a small proportion of awoman's total reproductive period. For ex-ample, for the most recent cohort ofWhite women completing their childbear-ing years (the 1930-39 cohort), themedian age of mothers at first birth was22.1 and last birth was 29.5 years, a spanof 7.4 years.
Changes in the spacing of births can bemeasured by &interval between mar-riage and first birth or the interval betweenfirst and second birtir. The lowest propor-tion of women having a birth in the firstyear after marriage (about 25 percent) wasexperienced by women who married dur-ing the years of the Depression and WorldWar Ili (1935 to 1944). The highestpercentage of women who had their firstchild within 12 months of first marriage(40 percent) was recorded by women inthe 1960.64 marriage cohort. For the1970-74 marriage cohort, the group for'whom the most recent data are available,only 33 percent had a first birth within (orbefore) their first year of marriage.' Asimilar pattern has surfaced for secondbirths. The median interval from first tosecond birth.was 30.0 months for thosesecond births occurring between 1945 and
FIGURE 6.Births to W011101130 sadOver as a Percent of AllBirths: 197042
ri
1949, 26.4 months during the baby boomyears of 1%0 to 1964,:and 36.0 monthsfor the 1975-79 period:. ,
Tor a given year, the total fertility rate showsthe number of births a gaup of 1,000 womenwould hays by the end of that cNklbearingpairs If they were al to survive their reproduc-tive period and experience the age-opticific birthrates for that year.
'Based on data from the NationarCenter forHealth Statistics.
'About 11 percent of this cohort of womenhad a birth before they were married.
Pow Perdier loksemetiee
See: Current Population Reports, Series P-20,No. 395, Fertility of American Women: June1983andSeries P-20, No. 355, Childspacing AmongBath Cohorts of American Women: 1905 to1%9
Contact: Mortis O'Cesmell,Fertility Statistics anch(301) 763-5303
Br
Percent
22 1` 1 KY
,
21
20
19
18
17
16
01970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980
16
1982
9
pvri
StatePopulationTrends
Fastest growth, 1980 -83: Alaska (19%)Largest numerical gain: California (1.5 million)Lost population, 1980-83: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio
South and West dominate inpopulation growth.
The South and West captured 94 per-cent of the Nation's 7.4-million populationgain between 1980 and 1983, continuingthe increases begun in the 1970's. Alaska,the least populous but also the fastestgrowing State, registered a 19-percent in-crease between 1980 and 1983, and wasfollowed by Nevada, Utah, Texas, Florida,Wyoming, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado,and New Mexico; all recording increasesbetween 11.3 and 7.4 percent.
In terms of numerical increase, Califor-nia, the most populous State, experiencedthe largest growth with a 1.5-million gainin population between 1980 and 1983.California alone has accounted for 2t3 percent of the Nation's growth since 1980,while Texas accounted for another 20 per-cent. When the estimated increases inCalifornia, Texas, and Florida are com-bined, they represent over half (53 per-cent) of the population change betweenApril 1980 and July 1983.
The Northeast and, particularly, theMidwest (formerly the North CentralRegion) are growing at a much slower ratethan the rest of the Nation. Four Mid-western States (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan,and Iowa) and the District of Columbiaare estimated to have lost population dur-ing the 1980's, and only one State in theNortheast or Midwest (New Hampshirewith a 4.1 percent increase) experienced agrowth rate at or abotie the nationalaverage (3.3 percent).'
Despite the concentration of gm, 'h inthe South and West, their rate of changewas far from uniform: 8 out of the 16States in the South, for example, grew at
FIGURE 7.Percent Change in Popula-tion, by State: April 1, 1980,to July 1, 1983
10
rates below the national average. In theWest, only Oregon grew at such arelatively slow pace (a 1.1-percent in-crease between 1980 and 1983), whilethe region as a whole grew by 6.5percent.
Net outmigration key to slowgrowth for many States.
Migration and natural increase haveplayed widely divergent roles in thegrowth of individual States during the1980's. Between 1980 and 1983, 24States had net outmigration, but naturalincrease (births minus deaths) was largeenough to offset the migration losses in 20of them; 11 of these 24 States were in theMidwest, 7 in the South, and 5 in theNortheast. Only one State in the West(Oregon) had net outmigration between1980 and 1983. In addition, four otherStates experienced net inmigration whichaccounted for less than 10 percent of theirgrowth during the - 1980's: Idaho, Maine,
New Jersey, and Tennessee.In seven States, more than half of the
growth was due to migration. Florida wasthe most extreme of these (89 percent),partly because of its large elderly popula-tion and the resulting low rate of naturalincrease. Other States with half of thepopulation growth due to migration in-dude Nevada (71 percent), Oklahoma (68percent), Alaska (67 percent), Texas. (62percent), Arizona (60 percent), and Colo-rado (57 percent).
Most States have had increasesIn the young and the aged.
Most States have shared In the nationalgrowth of the population under 5 yearsold (a 9-percent increase) and 65 yearsand over (up 7 percent). All States exceptWest Virginia and Michigan are estimatedto have had a larger population under 5years of age la 1983 than in 1980.Alaska's population under 5 increased by33 percent, and four States (Colorado,
ME RI
19 09NH
MA 4105
Percent change8 or more
4 to 7.92 to 3.90 to 1.9
Loss
17
VT27
CrNJ 10
4MD DE2.1 1.9
DC
-24
U.S. increase, 3.3
Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida) had in-creases of approximately 20 percent.
At the other end of the age spectrum,the number of persons 65 years and overincreased in all States, and in all butLouisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyo-*ming the elderly population increased by alarger proportion than the State's totalpopulation. Alaska, for example, had a19-percent increase in total populationbetween 1980 and 1983, while the elderlypopulation increased by 24 percent.
Nationally, about 12 percent of thepopulation was 65 years of age or over in1983. While most Western States hadproportions that were smaller than thenational average, all of the NortheasternStates and 10 of the 12 Midwestern Stateshad proportions of elderly that were equalto or higher than the average. SouthernStates were about equally divided: Floridaat one extreme, with a national high of 18percent, and Texas at the other, with 9percent of its population elderly. Nation-ally, the States with the smallest propor-tion of their populations 65 years andolder were Alaska (3 percent), Utah. andWyoming (both with about 8 percent).
'Provisional July 1984 estimates indicate thatthe Midwest experienced a turnaround between1983 and 1984. regaining some os the popula-non lost since 1980, and the District of Colum-bia's population appears to have leveled off.See Bureau of the Census Press ReleaseCB84-233. A report elaborating on the 1984estimates will be issued in Current PopulationReports, Series P.25.
For Further InformationSee: Current Population Reports, Series P-25,No 951, Estimates of the Population of Statesby Age: July 1. 1981, to 1983andCurrent Population Reports, Series P-25,No. 957, Estimates of the Population ofStates: 1970 to 1983
Contact: Edwin ilyerlyState and National PopulationEstimates Branch(301) 763-5072
FIGURE 8.Net Change in PopulationDue to Migration BetweenApril 1, 1980, and July 1,1983(Numbers in thousands)
Alabama
AlaskaArizonaArkansas
CaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelaware
Dist. of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgia
HawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana
Iowa
KansasKentucky
LouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippi
MissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island
South CarolinaSouth DakotaTennessee
TexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashington
West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming
18
400 200 200 400 600 800 1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000Numbers in thousands
if
The MetropolitanNonmetropolitanPopulation
Number of metropolitanPercent of population
Number of metropolitanPercent of population
statistical areas (CMSA's and MSA's): 277ul metropolitan areas as of July 1983: 76%areas with 1 million or more population, 1983: 37living in these areas in 1983: 48%
Reversal of metropolitan/nonmetropolitan growth ratesconcentrated in the South.
A reversal has taken place since 1980in the growth rates of metropolitan versusnonmetropolitan areas. For the first timethis century, nonmetropolitan countiesgrew at a faster rate than metropolitanareas during the 1970's. But betweenJuly 1, 1980, and July 1, 1983, thistrend reverted to its earlier path: the pop-ulation in metropolitan areas (essentiallyall urban centers over 50,000 and theirsuburban counties) grew by 3.5 percentwhile nonmetropolitan counties grew by2.7 percent.' However, this growth ratedifferential has been concentrated in theSouth, where metropolitan areas grew by6.4 percent as compared with 3.6 percentfor nonmetropolitan territories. In contrast,in the Northeast, metropolitan areas grewonly 0.7 percent, compared with 1.4 per-cent for nonmetropolitan areas. In the re-maining two regions, the metropolitan andnonmetropolitan growth rates were similar:very low in the Midwest (0.2 and 0.1,respectively) and quite high in the West,where nonmetropolitan counties grew by6.7 percent as compared with 6.4 percentfor metropolitan areas. Eighty percent ofthe Nation's 1980.83 population increaseoccurred in metropolitan areas, comparedwith 71 percent in the 1970's for thesame areas.
Although the rates varied considerably,all of the Nation's major metropolitanareas with 5 million or more population(that is, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia,
............1.,. FIGURE 9.
Percent Distribution of thePopulation, by Type ofResidence and Area Size:1983(CMSA's and MSA's as definedJune 30, 1984)
12
Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bayarea) have experienced population gainsduring the 1980's. During the 1970's, forexample, the population of the New YorkCMSA, as now defined, decreased byabout 4 percent, while it increased byabout 1 percent between 1980 and 1983.Twenty-one percent of the total popula-tion lived in these five large metropolitanareas in 1983, and they account for 28percent of the metropolitan population.
25
Percent
The Nation continues to becomeproportionately moremetropolitan.
Three out of every four Americans livedin one of the Nation's 277 metropolitanstatistical areas in 1983. In 1950, theoriginally delineated 169 metropolitanareas contained about 56 percent of thepopulation. Changes in the proportion ofthe population that is classified as metro-
All metropolitan areas ... 76.0% of U.S. population
25 34 57 127Number of metropolitan areas-
19
22
politan are not only contingent on thebasic demographic components of births,deaths, and net migration, but also uponchanges in the territory that is consideredmetropolitan (that is, included withinMSA's). Part of the metropolitan increase.reflects expansion of existing areas to in-clude newly suburbanized territory, whilepart is due to the establishment of newmetropolitan areas as communitiesreached the required size. In 1950, when.standard metropolitah areas were firstdefined. the land area designated asmetropolitan was 6 percent of the Nation'sland area. By 1984, 16 percent of thetotal U.S. land area was designatedmetropolitan. The metropolitan areas asdefined in 1950 had a population of128.8 million in 1980, or 57 percent ofthe U.S. total, not a great deal differentthan the 56 percent these areas con-tributed three decades earlier.
The Nation's population has become in-creasingly concentrated in largemetropolitan areas since 1950.Metropolitan areas with over 1 millionpopulation contained 29 percent of theU.S. population in 1950. By 1983, nearlyhalf (48 percent) of our Nation's popula-tion lived in one of the 37 areas with apopulation of 1 million or more.
Major central cities are growingagain as suburban growth isslowing.
As a group, major central cities in the37 metropolitan areas over 1 millionpopulation have grown slightly since1980, reversing the small decline inpopulation experienced in the 1970's.These large cities as a group have actuallygrown slightly faster since 1980 than theydid in the 1960's. To some extent, thischange reflects the increasingly large shareof this group comprising fast-growingSouthern and Western cities like Houston.,compared with slower-growing Northerncities like New York.
FIGURE 10.Average Annual PercentChange in Population, byType of Residence andRegion: 1980-83(CMSA's and MSA's as definedJune 30, 1984)
For all central cities, the 1980-82growth rate was 0.7 percent per year,compared with only 0.2 percent per yearfor the same cities in the 1970's. The cen-tral cities in the South and West showedsignificant gains in both periods (1.5 per-cent per year for 1980-82, 1.3 percentper year for 1970-80), while those in theNorth had losses (-0.2 percent per yearfor 1980-82, -1.0 percent per year for1970-80).
The suburban components of largemetropolitan areas of 1 million or morepopulation, while still growing, are doingso at growth rates less than experienced inthe 1970's or 1960's. These suburbs grewat an average annual rate of 1.27 percentbetween 1980 and 1982 (the last dateavailable for individual cities), 1.58 per-cent during the 1970's, and 2.78 percentduring the 1960's.
The metropolitan concept used in this sec-tion refers to the population living inmetropolitan statistical areas defined as ofOctober 12, 1984. The previous term, standardmetropolitan statistical area (SMSA), wasshortened to metropolitan statistical area(MSA). If an area has more than 1 millionpopulation and meets certain other specified re-quirements, it is now termed a consolidatedmetropolitan statistical area (CMSA). For furtherdiscussion, see "The Metropolitan StatisticalArea Classification," Statistical Reporter,December 1979; and Metropolitan StatisticalAreas, PC80S1-18, 1980 Census ofPopulation.
3
2
1
Percent
For Farther InformationSee: Richard L. Forstall and Donald E.Starsinic, "The Nation's Largest MetropolitanAreas, 1982," paper attached to CensusBureau Press Release CB-8490, May 3, 1984.andRichard L. Forstall and Richard A. Engels,"Growth in Nonmetropolitan Areas Slows,"paper attached to Census Bureau Press ReleaseCB-84-57. March 22, 1984
Contact: Richard L. Forstall(301) 763.5184
U.S. total = 0.99Metropolitan areas = 1.05Nonmetropolitan territory = 0.81
Total
r701:;41 Metro
Nonmetro
0."4
Northeast Midwest(formerly North Central)
20
South West
The FarmPopulation
Number of persons living on farms, 1983: 5,787,000Farm population as percentage of the total population: 2.5%Percent of agricultural workers living on farms: 44%
More than five times as manypeople lived on farms in 1920 asin 1983.
In 1920, when most of today's elderlywere children, nearly one of every threepersons (30 percent) in the United Stateshued on a farm; by 1983, only one inforty had a farm residence. About 5.8million persons (2.5 percent) lived onfarms in 1983, a figure not statistically dif-ferent from the 1980 farm population.'
In 1983, 1.6 million (55 percent)employed farm residents worked solely orprimarily, as in the case of multiplejobholders, in agriculture. Even thoughfarm residents are more likely to beemployed in agriculture than in non-agricultural industries, only 44 percent ofthe average 3.6 million persons employedin agriculture lived on farms in 1983. Thisfigure is in sharp contrast with that for1930 when about 87 percent of allagricultural workers lived on farms.
Historically, the farm population hashad a younger age structure than the non-farm population. In 1920, for example, 49percent of farm residents were under 20years old, compared with 37 percent ofnonfarm residents. By 1983, however, theproportions of farm and nonfarm residentsunder 20 years of age- were similar (31percent). The farm population now has alower proportion of young adults (20 to34 years) and higher proportions of per-sons 35 to 64 years old and elderly thanhas the nonfarm population.
Most farm residents in 1983 lived ineither the Midwest, with 44 percent of theNation's farm population, or the South,with 35 percent. The West and Northeast
FIGURE 11.Number of Farm Residentsand Their Percent of TotalResident Population:1920-83
14
Regions contained only about 15 percentand 6 percent of all farm residents,respectively.
Although by definition the farm popula-tion is rural, nearly one of every five (18percent) persons on farms lived in ametropolitan area in 1983.") Metropolitanfarm residents were primarily concentratedin the smaller SMSA's, with about 79 per-cent living in metropolitan areas of lessthan 1 million population.
'The figures for 1980 and 1983 are five-quarteraverages centered on April. See Current Popula-tion Reports, Series P-27. No. 57, Farm Popula-tion of the United States: 1983. The 1983 figure isbased on the "current farm definition," while the1920 figure is based on the "previous farm defini-tion." See the report cited above for explanation.
Percent
35 -
"This figure is based on SMSA's as defined In1970: Current Population Survey metropolitanarea data will be based on that earlier definitionuntil 1986.
For Forth**. loforroatiosSee: Current Population Reports, Series P-27,No. 57. Farm Population of the United States:1983
Contact: Dias. MARINPopulation Distribution Branch,(301) 763.7955
Numbers in thousands
33
0'1920
1
1930 1940 195010
1960 1970 1980 1990
21
MigrationPercent of persons 1 year and over who moved between
March 1982 and March 1983: 16.6%Percent of movers who moved within same county: 61.1%Percent of movers who moved between States: 16.5%Movers from abroad as percent of all movers: 2.6%
One of every six Americansmoved between 1982 and 1983.
Between March 1982 and March 1983,36.4 million persons (1 year old and over)changed residences in the United States,and an additional 978,000 moved to theUnited States from abroad. These 37.4million persons represent 16.6 percent ofthe population in 1983. Some of the in-ternational movers were "true" immi-grants, while others returned from anoverseas military or civilian work assign-ment, retired overseas but decided toreturn to the States, or had been abroadon some other type of extended stay."
The majority of moves are of short-distance. About 61 percent of movers be-tween 1982 and 1983 remained in thesame county, while only 16 percent ofmovers went to a different State.
Rate of residential mobility hasdeclined since 1960.
The overall rate of mobility has declinedslowly since 1960.61, wi--.2n it was about21 percent. The decline in residentialmobility is primarily attnbutable to adecrease in the rate of moves within thesame county, which dropped from 13.7percent in 1960-61 to 10.1 percent in1982-83. Several factors appear to beresponsible for this decline. The rate ofhomeownership has increased slightly overthe past 20 years, and data from theAnnual Housing Survey show that rentersare much more 'Ike's, to move thanhomeowners. Thus, the rise in home-ownership would tend to cause a de-creased rate of local moves. In addition,
FIGURE 12.Percent Distribution ofMovers, by Type of Move:March 1982-83(Persons 1 and over)
recent increases in the cost of homes andinterest rates on mortgages have alsotended to reduce the rates of local moves.
The pattern of interregional migrationobserved since the late 1960's has con-tinued into the 1980's. The Northeast andMidwest have continued to experience netoutmigration, while the South and Westhave had net gains of residents from theNorth.
Young adults are the mostmobile age group.
The highest rate of moving Is foundamong adults In their early twenties. One-third of persons 20 to 24 years old movedbetween 1982 and 1983. Causes ofhigher rates of migration for young adultsinclude college attendance and graduation,
marriage, military service, initial full-timeemployment, and leaving their parents'homes to establish their own homes or tomove in with friends.
"The number of persons who left the UnitedStates is not available.
For Further hdorenatIonSee: Current Population Reports, Series P-20,No. 393, Geographical Mobility: March 1982 toMarch 1983
Contact: Kristin Hareem orCella Boort leis,
Joumey.tc-Work and MigrationStatistics Branch(301) 763.3850
Movedfrom
abroad(2.6)
Number of movers, 1982-83 = 37.4 million
15
Householdsand Families
Number of households in 1984: 85.4 millionPercent increase, 1980.84: 5.7%Average annual increase, 1980.84: 1.2 millionNumber of families in 1984: 62.0 million
Percent with female householder (no husband present): 15.9%Average family size in 1984: 3.24 personsNumber of nonfamily households in 1984: 23.4 millionPercent increase, 1980.84: 10.3%Percent' of nonfamily householders living alone in 1984: 85.2%
Average annual increase inhouseholds declines during1980's.
Between March 1983 and March 1984,the number of households in the Nationincreased by 1.5 million, to 85.4 million.The average annual increase in thenumber of households has been 1.2million since 1980. down by about 25percent from the 1.6-million averageannual increases during the 1970's.
The decline in the rate of increase ispartly due to changes in age structure.The population in the 20-to-34 age group,in which most persons form householdsfor the first time, grew very rapidly duringthe 1970's as the baby boom generationreached young adulthood. Now with theentry of the smaller birth cohorts of themid-1960's, the 20-to-34 age span isgrowing more slowly than it was in the1970's and will start declining in the late1980's.
In addition to the changes in age struc-ture other factors have contributed to thesmaller annual increase in households dur-ing the 1980's: the divorce rate hasstabilized, more adult sons and daughtersappear to be living with or moving back inwith their parents, economic conditionsmay have discouraged the formation ofnew households, and young adults aremarrying later.
Most nonfamily households arecomposes of only one person.
The 62.0 million family households in1984 represented 73 percent of allhouseholds, similar to *ie 1980 figure, but
FIGURE 13.
Percent Distribution ofHouseholds, by Type: March1984
16
.mi-IMMIr
substantially less than the 81 percent ofhouseholds in 1970.'2 The remaining 23.4million households (27 percent of thetotal) were maintained by a nonfamilyhouseholder. About 47 percent of allhouseholds added since 1980 have beennonfamily households, with persons livingalone accounting for about 36 percent ofthe total household increase. The Nation's20 million one-person householdsrepresented 85 percent of all nonfamilyhouseholds in 1984.
The vast majority of unmarried-couple householders are under45 years of age.
Many of the nonfamily households thatdid not consist of persons living alonewere unmarried-couple households,defined for Census purposes ashouseholds composed of two unrelatedadults of the opposite sex who are sharingliving quarters." There were about 2
Other family,male householder(2.4) Other family,
female householder(11.6)
23
million unmarried couples in 1984, 25percent more than the 1.6 million in1980. In 1970, only about 523,000 suchliving- arrangements were identified, -
although there-weeps/halm more reluc-tance to Whitt such a living arrangerhentat that time:, In 82 percent of thesehouseholds in 1994, the householder (theperson In whose name the housing unit isowned or rented) was under 45 years of ..age, compared with about 50 percent formarried-couple households, and 22 per-cent were under age 25, compared with 5percent for married couples.
Growth of families maintained bywomen continues to outpaceother family types.
The Census Bureau publishes figures onthree types of family households: married-couple households, of which there were50.1 million in 1984; other families with afemale householder (no husband present),9.9 million households; and other familieswith male householder (and no wife pre-sent), 2.0 million households.
The marked increase during the 1970'sin families maintained by women with nohusband present has continued into the1980's. Nearly half (48 percent) of the2.4-million increase in family householdsbetween 1980 and 1984 is attributable tofamilies maintained by women. In con-trast, families maintained by womenaccounted for only 8 percent of the in-crease in the number of families between1940 and 1960, and 29 percent of the in-crease between 1960 and 1980.
Average family size at record low.
Principally because of low birth rates,average family size in the United States isat a record low mark, declining from 3.58persons per family in 1970 to 3.24 per-sons in 1984. The average number offamily members under 18 years is also ata record low level, 0.99 persons, com-pared with 1.34 persons in 1970. Eventhough other factors -an increased divorce
FIGURE 14.Types of Households as aPorceat of All Households:March 1976414
ratio, imprOved mortality rates, childrenternaining.in ,their parents' home longer,-and changing a& structizre of thepopulationhave an impact on -fan*size, the net 'decline since 1970 Is viitualt,tall attributable to the decline in averagenumber of members under 18 years,which *facts the decline in fertility sincethe peak of the baby boom.-
"In census reports, a family is a houisholdmaintained by a man or woman living weh at bastone relative; a nonfanely household is a householdmaintained by a person lying alone or with one ccmore persons to whom be or she is not related.
"Although intimacy of aesodation between thewpersons is lambed, It b not known to be the case.Foc some unknown fraction of these persons theaffiliation may be only one of rocnwr/bowder toproperty owner /manager, for example.
75Percent
25
15
5
0
.111=11111.
Fee Ihriber lietennatienSae: Cunard Population Reports, Series P-20,No. 391, Households, Fangees, Marital Status,and Living Arrangements: March 1984(Advance dam)
Contact: awes IlandlegaMarriage and Family Statistics Branch(301) 763-7950
-
:."``-, /..;:..;-,-' ;-4:: -4 . '"',.-e-,..4t-- .-4.-'=Y:,:t.r:ic . , ,a ^ i_s: 7L A' ':!, ,-,.:; `.;W" '-'" .;
glt.i4.X.-x.,..1. ... ...-, :,.-: .,,,,z..v.i.. w,-_-:-k, szv-Iv..-1;--- . -A,ui,, , .
v4."VA*-,4'- -...' -Qs t. e ./..f.r It, Ners--4 -0:- s.70,...17:^7,41$ ..,`"-:-.F" .,1 ,.
.;tre4
IA\ 02. t -4.'"i-W-: ,,.. ,.... r .., . r . .
a;' ...,,,......,,4...,,-, 0, - ,......k:,&,-... -. .
'.-,7 .,,-...!: .: -,.. ",k. (4,
.- ..-'---.A?'e....,z .);1'.'"' 7 ---67v:i. 3)*T.,:"%".-; ::
)
1970 19727 '19-743.' 1976 1978
24
1980 1982 1984
17
LivingArrangements andMarital Status
Percent of children living with only 1 parent, 1984: 22.6%Percent of young adults 20 to 24 years old living with parents, 1984: 42.2%1984 median age at first marriage: Men: 25.4
Women: 23.0Median duration of marriage, at time of divorce: 1932: 7.0 years
1)71: 6.7 years
One of four children live withonly one parent in 1984.
As a consequence of the rapid growthof single-parent families, one out of four(22.6 percent) of the Nation's 62.1 millionchildren under 18 years of age lived withonly one of their parents in 1984. About53 percent of all Black children lived withone parent in 1984, compared with 17percent for White children. Even with therelatively recent tendency for somedivorced fathers to accept custody of theirchildren, only 2 percent of children livedwith only their fathers in 1984. and thesechildren constituted only 10 percent of allchildren living with one parent.
Larger proportion of young adultslive with parents.
The 1980's have seen an increase inthe proportion of young adults, partic-ularly those 20 to 24 years old, who livein their parents' household. In 1984, overhalf (52 percent) of men 20 to 24 yearsold, for example, were living with theirParents, compared with 43 percent in1970. For women in this age group, theproportion increased from 27 percent in1970 to 32 percent in 1984. Even olderage groups have recorded increases duringthis period in the proportion still living athome. About 16 percent of men and 8percent of women 25 to 29 years oldwere living with at least one of theirparents in 1984. The comparable propor-tions for 25-to-29-year-olds in 1970 were10.9 percent for men and 5.2 percent forwomen These increases are partly due toyoung adults delaying marriage and to theincrease in divorce and children returning
FIGURE 15.Living Arrangements ofChi idr n Under 18, by Raceand Spanish Origin:March 1984
18
to their parents' home after maritalseparation.
Nearly one-third of the elderlylive alone.
In 1984, 53 percent of the Nation's26.3 million p'ersons 65 years and over
Percent living with-
father only (2.2)
other relative (2.0)
nonrelativeonly (0.5)
(excluding those in institutions) were livingas a spouse in a married-couple family:"an additional 14 percent were living withother relatives." The remaining one-thirdof the elderly population, 8.6 million per-sons, did not live with persons related tothem, and the vast majority of these per-sons (92 percent) lived alone.
White
All Races
other relative only (5.0)
father only (2.9)
nonrelative only(0.9)
father only (2.1)
other relative (1.3)-nonrelative only (0.5)-
mother only(15.1)
nonrelative only(0.4)
mother only (24.9)
father only (2.0
other relative only (2.6)
Black
25
Spanish Origin
Young peop:e are poitponiceCurrier..
The proportion of young adultspostponing marriage has inatased ...
dramatically in the past 15 years: Amongrtwo 20 to 24 years of age, for example,75 percent were still single (never married)in 1984, compared with only 55 percentin 1970. For women of compliable age, .the never-married percentage increasedfrom 36 to 57. In addition the r.tclian ageat first marriage has risen during the1970-84 period from 23.2 to 25.4 formen and 20.8 to 23.0 for women.
Divorce ratio continues its up-ward spiral but divorce ratedezlines.
The record prevalence of divorce ex-perienced by the Nation in the 1970's hascontinued into the 1980's. The divorceratio (the number of currently divorcedpersons per 1,000 currently married per-sons living with their spouses) increasedfrom 47 in 1970 to 100 in 1980 to 121 in1984. it should be noted that the level ofthe divorce ratio is affected by the in-cidence of first marriage and remarriage ofpreviously divorced persons, as well as bythe incidence of divorce.
Men have a lower divorce ratio thanwomen (96 vs. 146) because of the higherremarriage rate among men. The divorceratio was twice es high for Blacks (240) asfor Whiter (113) and persons of Spanishorigin (11Z.
The trend in the annual divorce rate,based on data from the National Centerfor Health Statistics (NCHS), is currentlyrunning Counter to the trend in thedivorce ratio. The divorce rate representsthe number of divorces in a particular yearper 1,000 population. Thus, unlike thedivorce ratio, which includes all currentlydivorced persons, even those whodivorced in previous years and have notremarried, the divorce rate shows the in-cidence of divorce on an annual basis.The divorce rate declined in 1983 (for thesecond consecutive year) to 5.0 per 1,000population (provisional), the lowest rate
FIGURE 16.Percent of 20-to-24-Year-Old. Living With at LeastOne Parent: March 1970-84
:ince 1977.1he divorce rate peaked at5.3 in 1979 and 1981. .
The meilier dbration of marriage forcouples divorcing in 1982 (the Mostrecently avairabie tun from NCHS)' was.7.0 Veers. a figure only slightly higherthan the median at the begimitng.of the1970's (6.7 years in .1971). One of fivecouples'dtvorced in 1982 had beenmarried 15 years or longer.
"Data from the Curnint Population Survey ex-clude persons in institutions such as nursinghomes. About 5,3 percent of the elderly (1.3:Talon person) were in Institutions according tothe 1980 census, 92 percent of whom were Inhomes fdr the aged.
"Includes those living with sons, daughten, orother relatives at vain as the elderly who arehouseholders living web fcmily members otherthan their span,.
Percent
Fee Far defeessadesSee: Current Population R. Cris. Swiss P-20.No. 391, c-.-Iseibokis, Familiar. Mwtal Skin"and Living Arrangements: March 1964andNational Center for Health Statistics, Wad*Vital Statistics Reports, "Annual Summary ofBirds, Deaths, Marriages and Divorces: UnitedStates, 1983," Volume 32, No. 13,.
Contact: Mese StammMarriage and Family Statistics Branch(301) 763.7950.1.
26
1974 1976 1978
19
SchoolEnrollment .
Total school entailment 1983, s4 ages: 59,240;000Preprimary: 5,711,000Elementary and secondary: 41,208,000.College inrollment: 12,320,000
35 years and over: 1,495,000.
Total enrollment is down 1.2million since 1980.
Although elementary school enrollmenthas been declining for more than adecade after peaking in 1970, it will beginto rise again slowly In the latter half of the1980's as a result of the increasingnumber of births after 1975. Since 1980,nursery school and kindergarten enroll-ment increased by about 400,000 to standat 5.7 million in October 1983. Butbecause of declines in elementary andhigh school enrollment, the total enroll-ment for persons under age 35, fromnursery school through college, was 57.7million in 1983, representing a decline of1.2 million since 1980.1 The decline inhigh school enrollment was dispropor-tionate, representing nearly half (47 per-cent) of the declines in the elementaryand high school years. (High school.students constituted 34 percent of allelementary and secondary students in1983.)
There has been little change since 1970in the proportion of elementary schoolstudents who attend private schools (11percent in 1933). The comparable figurewas only slightly higher for Whitestudents, with about 12 percent attendingprivate elementary schools in 1983, norhas that proportion changed much since1970.
But college enrollment is up.
The number of college students under35 years of age reached 10.8 million in1933, about 3 percent more than the1980 figure and 46 percent larger thanthe 1970 figure. In addition, there were
FIGURE 17.Number of School-AgeChildren, 1960-83, and Pro-jections to 2000(Children 5 to 17; middles seriesprojections)
20
1.5 million college students 35 years oldand. over, making the total college popula-tion 12.3 million in 1983.17
Since 1970, the college enrollment ofwomen under 35 has increased by 77 per-cent, and has accounted for two-thirds ofthe increase in total college enrollmentbetween 1970 and 1983. College enroll-inent for men under 35 increased by only25 percent during this same period.
Numbers in millions54
52
42
0.1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Furthermore, the increase for men isattributable to their larger cohort of
collegeagek 1983, since the percentageof 18 -to-21 -year-old civilian men enrolledin college (34 Per0414hee actuallydeclined since 1970 (404rcenl)."However, college enrollmentrates haveIncreased for women overall, and women18 and 19 years old were actuallyenrolled at higher rates than men in the
27
same age group in 1983 (41 vs. 35 per-cent). reversing the order that occurred in1970 and earlier. Women 25 to 34 yearsold alone accounted for 32 percent of thegrowth in college enrollment since 1970.although they still only constituted 14 per-cent of all students in 1983.
Women are now the majority ofcollege students.
The majority of all college students in1983 were women (51 percent), as hasbeen the case since 1979. Two-thirds ofstudents 35 years old and over werewomen, and there were also moreenrolled women than men under 20 yearsof age. Men, however, constituted themajority of students in their twenties andwere enrolled at higher rates than womenin that age group.
The increase in the number of collegestudents 14 to 34 attending part time istied to the rapid increase in the number ofwomen in college. The proportion ofstudents attending part time increasedfrom 24 to 29 percent between 1972 and1983. primarily because women are morelikely than men to attend part time.Women represented about 53 percent ofthat enrollment.
One-half (51 percent) of the growth inundergraduate enrollment of studentsunder 35 years old between 1972 and1983 was in 2-year colleges. About one-third of undergraduate college studentswere attending a 2-year college in 1983.These colleges have traditionally enrolledproportionately more part-time studentsthan have 4-year colleges: 44 percent ofall 2-year college students under age 35attended part time, compared with 16 per-cent of 4year college undergraduatestudents in 1983. Over half (57 percent)
FIGURE 18.School Enrollment, by Leveland Control of School:October 1983(Persons 3 to 34)
of all part-time students were attending2-year colleges.
"The 1980 dat's in this section are CPSestimates controlled to the 1980 census counts.
"Enrollment status of persons over 34 years ofage was not asked in the CPS prior to 1972. In1980, there were 1.2 million of these students.
"Since enrollment rates based on the CurrentPopulation Survey are based on the civilianpopulation, fluctuations in the proportion of an agegroup in the Armed Forces can affect the collegeenrollment rate with little change in the number ofstudents. The enrollment rate for all men 18 to 21years old (Including the Armed Forces) droppedfrom 34 to 32 percent between 1970 and 1983For discussion of the effects of the Vietnam conflicton enrollment rates, see Current PopulationReports, Series P20, No. 390. Educational Attain.ment in the United States: March 1981 and 1980
25
20
15
10
5
Numbers in millions
For Further informationSee. Current Population Reports, Senes P20,No 394, School EnrollmentSocial andEconomic Characteristics of Students: October1983 (Advance Report)
Contact: Rosalind R. RamoEducation and Social Stratification Branch(301) 763.1154
24.2gip Public
f
1.5
Nursery Kindergarten Elementary Highschool school school
26
College
21
EducationalAttainment
Persons 25 years old andPercent completed highPercent with 1 or morePercent with 4 years o-
Men: 23%Women: 16%
over in 1984:school: 73%years of college: 35%more of college: 19%
The Nation's educational levelcontinues to rise.
In March 1984, nearly three of fouradults 25 years and over in the UnitedStates had graduated from high school.This is a dramatic increase over the 55percent in 1970 and 25 percent in 1940who had completed 4 years of high schoolor more. This increase resulted from acombination of mortality among the olderpopulation, who, on average, were lesseducated, and the increased rate oigraduation among the large baby boombirth cohorts. For example, 87 percent of25to-34-year-olds in 1984 were highschool graduates, compared with 48 per-cent of persons 65 years old and over.
Proportion of men completingcollege has decreased slightly.
Prior to World War II. a college degreewas rareonly 7 percent of men and 5percent of women 25 to 29 years of agehad completed ,college in 1940. By 1984,23 percent of men and 21 percent ofwomen 25 to 29 years old were collegegraduates.
While women have shown a nearly con-tinuous pattern of increase in the propor-tion completing college, college enrollmentand attainment rates for young men havefallen slightly since the mid-1970's. Itappears that men who were of draft-eligible age during the Vietnam Era. par-ticularly those born between 1947 and1951, received more education than theywould have under normal conditions. In1976, when these men were 25 to 29years of age, 28 percent had completed 4or more years of college, and 50 percenthad completed at least 1 year of college.For men in the 1942-46 birth cohort who
FIGURE 19.Percent of Persons 25 andOver Completing HighSchool and College, by Age:March 1984
22
90ent
(86.5)
(83.3)r=1 4 years of high school or more
imp4 years of college or more
50
25 to 34 35 to 44
29
45 to 54Age
55 to 64 65 and over
were 25 to 29 years in 1971, 38 percent 80completed at least 1 year of college and20 percent were college graduates. Formen born between 1952 and 1956, 46percent had completed 1 or more years ofcollege and 23 percent were collegegraduates by 1981 when they were 25 to29 years old.
Birth yearPercent completing college:
4 years 1 or more years
1942-461947.511952.56
202823
385046
70
60
Attainment levels have increased pro-portionately more for Blacks than forWhites in the past 40 years. This becomesevident when two 5-year age groupsabout 40 years apart are compared. ForBlacks, the prcportion who were highschool graduates in 1984 was 79 percent 50for 25-to-29-year-olds and only 28 per-cent for those 65 to 69 years of age;among Whites the proportions were 87percent and 60 percent, respectively.Though still lagging behind these figuresfor Whites or Blacks, the proportion of theSpanish-origin population completing highschool has increased dramatically as well: 40Only 21 percent of 65-to-69-year-olds ascompared with 59 percent of 25- to -29-year -old persons of Spanish origin hadcompleted high school in 1984.
For Farther InformationSee. Current Population Reports, Series P-20,No 390. Educational Attainment in the UnitedStates. March 1981 and 1980
Contact: Rosalind R. BrunoEducation and Social Stratification Branch(301) 763.1154
FIGURE 20.Percent of Persons 25 andOver Completing 4 Years ofHigh School or More, byRace: 1970, 1980, and 1984
30
20
10
Percent
(57.4)
1970 1980 1984
3023
fCivilian laborforce, 1983 annual average: 111.6 million;Nuinerical Masan since 1982.(annuaraverregir): 1:3Women as a percent of clvihanlabor force20 years anclokori.,
1983 annuaL average: 43.2%, -Percent of women 20 yeas and by* ;in faixr "`
(airmusl average): 53:1% , :C-.r :.;
. .
Slowed growth of civilian laborforce due to demographic as wellas economic factors.
The civilian labor force averaged 111.6million workers during 1983, marking anincrease of only 1.3 million persons overthe annual average for recessionary1982." This relatively slow growth rate ofthe labor force, compared with the ex-perience of the 1970's, occurred In spitsof the general recovery in the economyand resulted from several factors. First, thenumber of 16-to-19-year-olds has declinedannually during the 1980's, and there hasbeen a slackened pace of labor force par-ticipation by this group. These teenagershad a peak civilian labor force participa-tion rate of 58 percent in 1978 and 1979,but since then, the rate has declined to anannual average of 53 percent, perhaps Inresponse to the recessions of 1980 and198t-82.
Another factor contributing to the sloW .growth of the labor farce has been thedecreasing proportion of men in the laborforce, particularly at td-,e older ages. For- -
example, 78.2 percent of men 55 to 64'years old were in the labor forci in 1973,but only 69.4 percent of men of this agewere in the labor force in 1983. Theoverall 1983 rate (76.4 percent) for menremained at about the 1982 level (76.6percent), even though the economy con-tinued to recover from the 1981-82 reces-sion throughout the year. Although thenumber of "house husbands" has in-creased over the past decade, from about54,000 in 1973 to 93,000 In 1983, theirnumbers are relatively small and have hadlittle impact on the overall number or rateof labor force participation of men 20 to59 years of age."
FIGURE 21.Civilian Labor Force 1i andOver and Percent GrowthOver Previous Wan 1971143(Annual averages) ljt;
24
Running counter to these factors hasbegin an increasing number and proportionof ariztlt women entering the labor force,even though their rate of Marian hasslowed somewhat in recent years. Women20 years and over represented 43.2 per.; .
cent of the labor force in 1983, and overhalf (53 percent) of women in this agegroup were in the labor force in 1983:
Number of employed surpasses1981 record.
The end of 1983 marked a year ofrecovery from one of the longest anddeepest.post-World Wattll recessions.Improvements in the employment situationcompared favorably: with those; dubprevious recovery 'pritiods."_Thrt numberof employed 'Parsiont. 01.044g Ainirwd
Numbers/20
(110
100 -1
90
80
70
60
t, -Fon:ea residkig lit, the United Stafes)'readied ananitull average Of 102.5million, about million higher than theaverage for the recessionary year of 1982and surpassing the previous peak reachedin 1981. About195,000 (60 percent) ofthis annual average change was attrib-utable to the increased employment ofwomen.
Number of unemployed down,but MUl akrelatively high level.
As thirie.::recovery took hold In1983, the !nastier of unemployed personsdropped ccri)siditehly from` n,...5 million atthe begkiningotthe year to 9.2-naion toPecentlin-1983:lan average annual of10.7 mean ualinployed),. The "unemploir-melt ratelesesonily adjusted) dropped
:.tvc.,--o,r;Thr 4- -
7.0..
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
,1.0
1970- 1972.2 1974" 197a" 1988- 1982
31
0
from 10.3 to 8.1 percent from January toDecember 1983. Despite these decreases,both the number and rate of unemploy-ment remained high by historical stand-ards. As in the previous year, the 1983unemployment rate was lower for womenthan for men (9.2 percent versus 9.9 per-cent annual average), and considerablylower for Whites (8.4 percent) than forBlacks (19.5 percent) or for persons ofSpanish origin (13.8 percent).
About 49 percent of the unemployedwere adult men, 34 percent were adultwomen, and the remaining 17 percentwere teenagers. The unemployed areclassified by whether they had lost theirlast job because of layoff or other reasons,left voluntarily, were entering the jobmarket for the first time, or were re-entering after a period of absence. About58 percent of the unemployed in 1983had lost jobs, 8 percent had left their lastjob, 23 percent were re-entering the laborforce, and the remaining 11 percent werelooking for their first job. Among adults,unemployed men were more likely thanunemployed women to have lost jobs (78percent vs. 50 percent), whileunemployed women were considerablymore likely to be re-entrants (34 percentversus 13 percent of men). Forty-sevenpercent of unemployed teenagers werenew entrants, 26 percent were re-entrants,6 percent were job leavers, and 20 per-cent were job losers.
About 1.6 million are classifiedas discouraged workers.
Of the 63 million persons who were notin the labor force, about 56.2 million (or90 percent) indicated that they did notwant a job, either because of familyresponsibilities (50 percent), retirement (23percent), school attendance (12 percent),illness or disability (7 percent), or someother reason (8 percent).
The remaining 6.5 million persons out-side the work force indicated that althoughthey wanted a job at the time of thesurvey, they were not looking for work.About 25 percent of these persons did notlook because of conflicts with schoolattendance, 12 percent indicated they
FIGURE 22.Percent Distribution ofReasons for Unemployment,by Sex: 1983(Unemployed persons 20 and over;annual average)
were too ill or were disabled, 22 percentindicated that home responsibilitieshindered their job search, 25 percent feltthey would not be successful in finding ajob ("discouraged workers"), and the re-maining 17 percent gave some otherreason for not looking for work. Theannual average 1.6 million persons whowere classified as discouraged workerswere not included in the official count ofunemployed persons in 1983. Changes inthe number of discouraged workersgenerally follow changes in the businesscycle. For example, the number ofdiscouraged workers reached a reces-sionary high of 1.8 million in the fourthquarter of 1982, the same time theunemployment rate peaked. As theunemployment rate began to decline, sodid the number of discouraged workers,so that by the final quarter of 1983. theirnumber had dropped to 1.5 million.
Women
Men
" See Eugene H. Becker and Norman Bower.s."Employment and Unemployment ImprovementsWidespread in 1983." Monthly Labor Review.February 1984, pp. 3-14.
'° These figures are for men 20 to 59 not in thelabor force who indicated they do not want a jobnow and gave "keeping house" as the reason.They may not be currently married or havechildren. Even among 20-to.24yearolds, menrepresent less than 1 percent of persons "keepinghouse," not in the labor force, and not looking forwork.
"See Becker and Bowers, op ctt. pp. 3-4.
For Further InformationSee: Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Departmentof Labor, February 1984. This is a special issueon employment and unemployment.
Contact: Amelia Nelson orThomas Palumbo
Labor Force Statistics Branch(301) 763.2825
New entrants (5.8)
On layoff (14.1)
Job leavers (10.6)
Re-entrants (13.2)New entrants (2.6)
4,e ..., .13 '
job 'osiers (55.1);'',;:4 ,Peritteelq...114C ,4.7
3==
32
Job leavers (6.4)
25
OccupationLargest 1972-83 increase, technicians and related occupations: 58%Largest 1972-83 decrease, private household workers: 32%Largest numerical increase 1972-83: professional specialty
occupations (4 million)
Occupation classification systemhas changed since 1970.
The classification of occupations waschanged extensively for the 1980 censusand other reports of the Census Bureau.The 1970 census classification had 441occupational categories within 12 majorgroups, compared with 503 categoriesdivided into 13 major groups in 1980;some 1970 detailed categories were splitamong several 1980 categories, crossingmajor occupation group boundaries attimes.
Current Population Survey data afterJanuary 1983 reflect the 1980 classifica-tion. Prior to that date, occupation data inCurrent Population Reports are based onthe 1970 classification. A special set ofestimates covering the 1972-82 periodbased on the new classification wasrecently prepared, and the discussionbelow, unless otherwise indicated, is basedon those data, as well as on annualaverages for 1983 which are based on the1980 classification systeM.22
Employment growth between1972-83 was not shared equallyby all occupation groups.
Overall, the number of employed per-sons grew by 23 percent between 1972and 1983, while the changes among the13 major occupation groups ranged fromabout a 58-percent increase for "techni-cians and related occupations" to a32-percent decrease in the number ofprivate household workers.
Occupation groups which experiencedincreases statistically greater than that forall employed persons during the 1972-83period included "executive, administrative,
FIGURE 23.Percent Change in Employ-ment, by Sex and Occupa-tion: 1972-83
and managerial," "professional specialty.""technicians and related support," "salesoccupations," "protective service," and"service, except private household andprotective." Two summary occupationgroups, "managerial and professionalspecialty occupations" and "technical.sales, and administrative support" in-creased from 48 percent to 54 percent ofall U.S. workers between 1972 and1983." and accounted for about 81 per-cent of the net change in employmentduring the period. The group with thelargest proportional gain, "technicians and
50.0
Total employed
Managerial and professionalspecialty
Executive. administrative, andmanagerial
Professional specialty
Technical, sales, and administrativesupport
Technicians and related support
Sales occupations
Administrative support, includingclerical
Service occupations
Private household
Protective service
Cervice, except privatehousehold and protective
Farming, forestry, and fishing
Precision production, craft, andrepair
Operatives, fabricators, and laborers
Machine operators, assemblers,and inspectorsTransportation and materialmovingHandlers, equipment cleaners,and laborers
MI Men tngWomen
related support occupations" (58 percent),represented only 3 percent of all workers.Of the 13 major groups, the largestnumerical gain was registered in "profes-sional specialty" occupations (up nearly 4million during the period).
The occupation with the largest propor-tional loss between 1972 and 1983 was"private household workers," whichdecreased by 32 percent but constitutedonly 1 percent of all workers. The groupwith the largest numerical loss was"machine operators, assemblers, and in-spectors" (down about 860,000, or 100 50.0 100.0
8118
11.640.9
988
50.0
33
150.0
11 143 5
I I50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0Percent change
200.0
percent) The only other group experienc-ing a decrease during the period was"handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers,and laborers," whose numbers declined by11 percent between 1972 and 1983. Theapparent decline in "farming, forestry,"andfishing" was not statistically significant. The1983 declimr of "handlers, equipmentcleaners, helpers, and laborers," as well as"machine op,?.rators, assemblers, and in-spectors" is partially due to the lingeringeffects cf the 1982 recession. A largepercentage of people employed in theseoccupations are in industries such as con-struction and manufacturing that are moreseverely affected by recessions.
Women have experiencedemployment gains and someoccupational deconcentration.
Two-thirds of the increase in employ-ment between 1972 and 1983 wasattributable to women. In two majorgroups, "protective service workers" and"executive, administrative, andmanagerial" workers, their numbers morethan doubled. Women increased from 33to 41 percent of all managerial and pro-fessional workers between 1972 and1983, and about 22 percent of employedwomen were in a managerial or profes-sional occupation in 1983, compared with17 percent in 1972.
Despite these changes, the 1980 censusshowed that women remained concen-trated in "female intensive" occupations(defined as those occupations which were60 percent or more female)." Of the 25occupations with the largest numbers ofwomen, 18 were female-intensive, aswere 9 of the top 10. Heading the list ofoccupations for women was secretary,followed by elementary school teacher,bookkeeper, cashier, and office clerk.Based on the 1980 census, the 10.4million women whose current or most re-cent job was in one of these five specificoccupations represented 25 percent of allwomen in the experienced civilian laborforce. The decline in occupationalsegregation by sex that did occur duringthe 1970's was largely attributable to theincreasing proportions of both men andwomen employed in "sex-neutral" occupa-
FIGURE 24.Women as a Percent of TotalEmployed, by Occupation:1972 and 1983
tions (defined as those that were com-posed of between 21 percent and 59 per-cent women) rather than to women break-ing into male-dominated occupkonalarenas. For example, similar proportions
"See Deborah Pisetzner Klein, "OccupationalEmployment Statistics for 1972-82," Employ.ment and Earnings, January 1984, pp. 13-16:1972 was chosen as the beginning year becauseit was the first year for which CPS data usedthe 1970 census occupation classification.
"The top five proportional gainers, among allspecified categories, between 1972 and 1980,were computer systems analysts, computer andperipheral equipment operators, welfare serviceaides, authors, and psychologists. See CarolBoyd Leon, "Occupational Winners and Losers:Who They Were During 1972.80," MonthlyLabor Review, June 1982, pp. 18.28.. **See Nancy F. Rytina and Suzanne M.
Bianchi, "Occupational Reclassification andChanges in Distribution by Gender," MonthlyLabor Review, March 1984, pp. 11.17.
"Based on the 25 occupations with thelargest number of men In 1980.
Total employed
Managerial and professionalspecialty
Executive, administrative, andmanagerial
Professional specialty
Technical, sales, and administrativesupport
Technicians and related support
Sales occupations
Administrative support, includingclerical
Service occupations
Private household
Protective service
Service, except privatehousehold and protective
Farming, forestry, and fishing
Precision production, craft, andrepair
Operatives, fabricators, and laborers
Machine operators, assemblers,and inspectors
Transportation and materialmovingHandlers, equipment cleaners,and laborers
e3,1972 diliP198b
34
of the followir , male-intensive jobs wereheld by women in 1980 as were held in1970: heavy truck drivers (2.3 percent),carpenters (1.6 percent), auto mechanics(1.3 percent)., welders (5.9 percent), and
--electricians--(2,percent). One of the male-dominated occupations (under 10 percentwomen in 1970) with a large propor-tionate increase for women was privateguards: women increased from 4 to 14percent of all such workers between 1970and 1980."
For Farther IsiforstatioaSee. Employment and Earnings, January 1984and1980 Census of Population, SupplementaryReport, PC80-51-15. Detailed Occupation ofthe Experienced Civilian Labor Force by Sexfor the United States and Regions: 1980 and1970
Contact: John Priebe or Paola MassLabor Force Statistics Branch(301) 763-5144
20 40 60 8038.0
43.7
so19.7
32.4
40.9
44.048.1
59.564.6
38.4
40.5
48
47.5
50
61.1
65
I62.6
4.88.1
15.4160
24.1266
154168
38.642.1
20 40 60Percent women
640
799
100
916
e
80
961
100
27
Earningsby Occupationand Sex
MML711.
Percent experiencing a work interruption of 6 months or more:Men 26%Women 72%
Median earnings in 1983 of year-round, full-time workers:Men $21,880Women $13,920
Median earnings ratio in 1983 of women/men 64
Nearly three of four women haveinterrupted their careers for 6months or longer.
One reason frequently offered for thecontinuing differences between the earn-ings of men and women is the extent towhich their careers are interrupted byfamily responsibilities, and the differencebetween the amount of time spent awayfrom their professions. A recently releasedcensus report based on the Income SurveyDevelopment Program, a special incomesurvey conducted in 1979, provides somequantification of these differences for per-sons with some work experience, and in-formation on the effect of other variablessuch as educational attainment."
Overall, only about one out of four men(26 percent) had experienced a work in-terruption of 6 months or more, comparedwith nearly three of four women (72 per-cent). Although these figures include per-sons who did not work for a period of 6months or more because they were notable to find work or because of illness ordisability, the vast majority of thesewomen interrupted their careers for familyresponsibilities. Approximately two-thirdsof women in the survey had familial inter-ruptions (representing 9 of 10 women withwork interruptions of any sort), cumparedwith less than 2 percent of the men "
The effect of this difference on lifetimework experience is magnified because in-terruptions for family reasons (9.5 yearson average for women) tend to be longer
FIGURE 25.Percent of Persons WhoEver Worked and Who fiadOne or More Work Interrup-tions Lasting 6 Months orMore, by Reason and Sex:1979(Persons 21 to 64)
28
than interruptions for other reasons. Forexample, interruptions due to inability tofind work lasted about 1 year on average.Thus, women ' .he survey had, on
Percent80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
average, spent 31 percent of their poten-tial work years away from a paid job,compared with an average of 3 percentfor men."
(71.9)
rill Men
imp Women
All reasonssurveyed
Inability tofind work
Familyreasons
Illness ordisability
Note: Sum of specific reasons does not add to "all reasons surveyed" since somepersons listed more than one interruption or cause.
35
Work interruptions explain onlypart of the male/female earningsgap.
Even with these large differences, workinterruptions in combination with work ex-perience and educational attainment dif-ferences can only be shown to account forabout 15 percent of the earnings gap be-tween men and women in the survey year(1979) Although discrimination may be afactor in explaining the remaining earningsdifference, other variables remain whichare difficult to measure or for which suffi-cient data do not yet exist. For example,men and women still tend to work in non-competing detailed occupations within themajor occupation groups, and the earn-ings of persons employed in those detailedoccupations dominated by women are, onaverage. below those for detailed occupa-tions (within major group) dominated bymen. Other variables include the timespent with the same employer, the possi-ble timing of work interruptions inhibitingpromotion, and participation in companytraining programs.
Median earnings of women weretwo-thirds those of men.
Earnings data by major occupation foryear-round, full-time workers in 1983illustrate the continuing disparity in theearnings of men and women. For profes-sion oecialty occupations, the medianearn for men in 1983 were $29,550,compared with $19,200 for women (or 65percent); for precision, production, craft,and repair occupations, the comparablefigures were $21,520 for men and$13.250 for women (62 percent). For allmajor groups, the earnings of womenworking year-round, full-time were onlyabout two-thirds of that for men. Thsoverall ;atio has increased only slight ysince 1970, when the median earnings ofwomen working year-round, full-time wereabout 59 percent of those of men.
FIGURE 26.Proportion of Potential WorkYears Spent Away FromWork, by Sex: 1979(Potential work years were definedas age minus years of schoolcompleted minus 6)
"See Current Population Reports. Series P-23.No. 136, Lifetime Work Experience and Its Effectson Eamings.
"There was a small difference between men andwomen in the proportion who had had a work in.tetruption due to an inability to find work17 per-cent of men and 14 percent of womenbut nostatistically significant difference between the sexesin the proportion with disability Interruptionsabout 10 percent. For men who did have a workinterruption, two.thirds gave the inability to findwork as the reason.
" "Potential work years" was defined as ageminus years of school completed minus 6
Women
Men
50 percentor more
(3.1)
1.9 percent(9.6)
For Further InformationSee: Current Population Reports, Series P.23,No. 136, Lifetime Work Experience and itsEffect on Earnings
Contact: Jack McNeilPoverty and Wealth Statistics Branch(301) 763.7946
None(28.1)
10-24 percent(14.4)
25-49 percent(0.8)
25-49 percent(18.8)
10-24 percent(6.1)
Note: Percent distribution in parentheses.
3 6 29
rr'"pi
.
1983 median income:
AU families: $24,580Mirried-coupie farnIfies: $1,7,290 2'11. ':41:!4" '..."*""* V
Married-couple family,wife in paid labor force: $32,110Families with a female hOuseholcier, no husband present: $11,790Families with male householciei,. no wife present: $21,856Weinman living alone: $ 9,140 .
Men living alone: $14,120
"Rear median family famine in-creased between. 1982 and 1983.
Median family income was $24,580 In1983, representing an Increaseof 1.6 per-cent over the 1982 figure after adjustingfor the 3.2-percent increase in consumerprices." This rise in "real" median familyincome was the first since 1978 andfollowed declines of 5.5 percent in 1980,3.5 percent In 1981, and 1.4 percent In1982. These declines in real income wereassociated with the 1980-82 recesakenaryperiod. The 1983 median of $24,580 was$2,360 below the median for 1978, thelast year for which a significant real in:crease had been recorded.
The real median income of While.families increased by 1.4 percent between"1982 and 1983. The apparent increases Itt :?the medians for Black families andSpanish-origin families were not statistically-significant. The ratio of Black to Whig'median family incoine in 1983 was .56,somewhat less than the 1970 figure of.61. Part of this continuing difference isdue to proportional differences in familycomposition, with Blacks having a muchhigher proportion of families maintainedby women, who on average have lowerincomes than ail families. For example,the 1983 ratio of Black-to-White medianfamily income for married-couple familieswas .79, rising to .86 for married-couplefamilies In which the householder workedyear-round, full -time and the wife was alsoin the paid labor force.
$27,000
. $26,000
$25,000
$24,000
$23,000
FIGURE 27. $22,000
Median Fanelli: Income in1983 Dollars: 1970-83
0
is4
.
1970 1972
INN
t-
1"!.
-zri.... -7.-1974- 19t8;/- 971f2'..1 -198(11:. 1984s44i&-
.
37
Median income is closely relatedto household composition.
The median income for all man'ad-couple families was $27,290 in 1983, and$33,570 for those with the householderworking year-round, full-time. In contrast,families maintained by women whoworked year-round, full-tim?, but with nohusband present, had a median income' of$18,620, or about 55 percent of themedian for married couples with a year-round, full-time working householder. Themedian income of family householdsmaintained by men working year-round,full-time, but without a wife present, was$28,330 in 1983.
About 15 percent of the Nation's 85.4million households consisted of womenliving alone in March 1984. The medianincome of these women was $9,140 in1983. Men living alone accounted forabout 9 percent of all households. Theirmedian income was substantially higher,$14.120 in 1983.
Educational attainment is astrong correlate of medianincome,
Median family income increases at eachapparent attainment threshold, from$29,120 in 1983 for those families whosehouseholder completed high school butdid not complete any college to $40,920for those who completed only 4 years ofcollege to $47,600 for those who com-pleted 5 or more years of college.3° Thetendency for family as well as personal in-come to rise with increased educationalattainment can be observed regardless ofthe age of the person or householder.
FIGURE 28.Median Income in 1983 ofSelected Types of Familiesand Households
"Changes in "real" Income refer to com-parisons after adjusting for inflation based onthe Consumer Price Index.
"These data are for families in which thehouseholder worked year-round, full-time. Thephrase "apparent attainment threshold" is usedsince the data are reported in terms of years ofschool completed and thus are not completelyrepresentative of degrees completed.
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
For Fourths? IsforaradosSee: Current Population Reports, Series P-60,No. 146, Money Income of Households,Families, and Persons in the United States:1983
Contact: Edward Weis lakIncome Statistics Branch(301) 763-5060
coN1-41.4
4.6
0
$20,000 ----
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
38 31
Participationin GovernmentBenefitsPrograms
Percent of nonfarm persons receiving benefits from one or more government pro-grams, third quarter. 1983: 29.6%
Social Security: 14.1%Medicare: 11.9%Food stamps: 8.3%Medicaid: 7.8%Aid to Families with Dependent Children: 4.2%
Nearly one of three nonfarm per-sons received some benefits dur-ing the third quarter of 1983.
The Bureau recently released the firstdata from a new ongoing survey calledthe Survey of Income and Program Par-ticipation (SIPP). The survey focuses onvarious economic topics such as participa-tion in government benefits programs forwhich no continuing survey data havebeen available. Based on the surveyresults, on a monthly average nearly oneof every three nonfarm persons (30 per-cent) received benefits from one or moregovemment programs during the thirdquarter of 1983.3'
Social Security is the largestgovernment benefits program.
Social Security, the Nation's disabilityand old -aje pension plan, benefited 31.7million persons-48 percent of thosereceiving benefits from government pro-grams or 14 percent of the total popula-tion. Medicare (hospital and physicianservices insurance plans for the aged anddisabled) was the second most oftenreported benefit program, and was utilizedby 26.7 million Americans or 40 percentof persons receiving benefits of any type!'These two benefits differ in that SocialSecurity is a direct cash payment to in-dividuals or families, while Medicare is a"noncash" benefit of medical care, andpayments are not made directly to thepatient.
FIGURE 29.Percent of PersonsReceiving Benefits fromSelected Programs: ThirdQuarter 1983
32
Food stamps and Medicaid arethe Nation's two largest means-tested programs.
Persons can qualify for Social Securityor Medicare regardless of economic need,
15
Percent of total U.S. population
that is, neither program requires that theincome and/or assets of the person orfamily be below specified levels in order toqualify for benefits. Other programs thatrequire the individual or family to meet aspecified level of need are called meanstested.
Nonmeans tested
39
.............v,.......0Means tested
About 19 percent of the total population(42.1 million persons) received benefitsfrom one or more means-tested programs.The two largest such programs were foodstamps (a Federally funded program whichincreases the food-purchasing power oflow income households) and Medicaid (aprogram furnishing medical assistance toneedy families with dependent childrenand aged, blind, or disabled persons).Food stamps benefited a 1983 third-quarter monthly average of 18.7 millionpersons (8 percent of the total populationand 28 percent of those receiving anyprogram benefits), while Medicaid wasprovided to 17.5 million persons.
There was a large difference by race inthe proportion of households receivingmeaus-tested program assistance: about13 percent of White households receivedsuch benefits, compared with 42 percentof Black households and 34 percent ofSpanish-origin households.
The type of household most likely toreceive means-tested benefits was a familywith a female householder with childrenunder 18 years and no husband present.About 55 percent of these householdsreceived such assistance, compared withabout 10 percent of married-couplefamilies. One of three families receivingbenefits was maintained by a woman withchildren under 18 years old and no hus-band present.
Since many of these government pro-grams were designed to complement eachother, it is not surprising that nearly halfof all households rezeiving means-testednoncash assistance received benefits fromtwo or more different programs. The mostcommon form of mulhple recipiency formeans-tested programs was food stampsand coverage under Medicaid. This com-bination of benefits was received by 4.3million households.
FIGURE 30.Percent of SelectedHousehold Types ReceivingMeans-Tested Benefits:Third Quarter 1983
"These data were restncted to the nonfarmpopulation for technical reasons. See appendix Bof Current Population Reports, Series P-70,No. 1, Economic Characteristics of Households inri-.4 United States: Third Quarter 1983. The nonfarm population was about 97 percent of the totalpopulation in ; 93.
"Data are not available on the amount ofoverlap in receipt of Social Secunty and Medicare,although it is known to be considerable.
60
For Froths, Information'See Current Population Reports. Senes P-70,No 1, Economic Charactenstics of HouseholdsIn the United States. Third Quarter 1983
Contact: Jack McNeilPoverty and Wealth Statistics Branch(301) 763-7946
Percent of all households of specified type
4033
i
PovertyPersons below the poverty level in 1983: 35.3 millionPoverty rate in 1983persons: 15.2%Numerical increase between 1980 and 1983: 6 millionPoverty rate in 1980persons: 13.0%
Poverty population continues toincrease.
In contrast to the relative stability m thesize of the poverty population during the1970's, the early 1980's have witnessed asubstantial increase in the poverty popula-tion, as well as in the percentage of thepopulation with incomes below thepoverty level." The number of poor per-sons reached 35.3 million in 1983, or15.2 percent of the total population, asthe poverty rate increased from 13.0 to15 0 percent during the 1980-82 reces-sionary period. During the 1970's, thenumber of poor fluctuated between a lowof about 23 million and a high of 26million, while the poverty rate varied be-tween 11.1 and 12.6 percent.
The official poverty rates in both 1982and 1983, though not significantly dif-ferent from each other, -Mere higher thanin any previous year since 1966. It shouldbe noted, however, that most of thegrowth in aid to the poor since 1966 hastaken the form of noncash benefits suchas food stamps and Medicaid. Thesebenefits are not counted as income indetermining poverty status but contributesignificantly to the well-being of therecipients.
The Bureau of the Census has preparedexperimental estimates of the number ofpersons in poverty when income isdefined to include both cash and the valueof selected noncash benefits." The 1983poverty rate in this experimental studyvaned from 10.2 to 14.0 percent,depending upon the method used to valuethe noncash benefits. Regardless of themethod used to value noncash benefits,the poverty rate would have Increased be-
FIGURE 31.Number and Percent of Per-sons Below the PovertyLevel: 1970-83
34
tween 1980 and 1983. Furthermore, datafrom the March 1984 Current PopulationSurvey indicate that about 41 percent ofall poor households receive no means-tested noncash benefits from the govern-ment at all, either because of reluctance toapply, lack of knowledge about availableprograms or the application process, orfailure to qualify because of ownership of
35 million (35%)
30 million (30%)
25 million ( 25%)
20 million (20%)
15 million (15%)
10 million (10%)
5 million (5%)
Numberpoor
assets such as a house.The White and Black populations ex-
perienced increases In their poverty ratessince 1980, while the rate for the Spanish-origin population did not changesignificantly. In 1983, the official povertyrates were 12.1 percent for Whites, 35.7percent for Blacks, and 28.4 percent forpersons cf Spanish origin.
number of poor persons
poverty rate for persons
Povertyrate
0' 1 1
1970 1972 19741411. 1111111
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984
41
Nearly half of all poor familiesare maintained by women alone.
About one of three persons below thepoverty level in 1983 was in a fatnilymaintained by a woman with no husbandpresent; 36 percent of such families hadincomes below the poverty level in 1983,significantly higher than the rate for allfamilies (12.3 percent). About two-fifths ofthe overall increase in the number of poorfamilies since 1980 is attributable tofamilies maintained by women, whichrepresented 47 percent of all poor fainili-esin 1983.
Poverty rate for the aged fellbetween 1980 and 1983.
The poverty rat for persons 65 yearsold and over MI :rom 15 7 to 14.1 be-tween 1980 and 1983, while the rate forall persons rose as indicated earlier. Onereason the aged have fared better than thetotal population may be that mos! are notworking and are therefore less affected byhigh unemployment. In addition, SocialSecurity benefits are indexed to reflectchanges in the cost of living, and over 90percent of the elderly receive SocialSecurity benefits.
Seventeen percent of poor familyhouseholders worked year roundfull time in 1983.
While only about half (49 percent) ofthe 7.6 million poor family householdersworked at all during 1983, over 1 million,or 17 percent of all poor familyhouseholders, worked year-round, full- 1
time in 1983. The poverty rate for suchfamilies ( those with the householderemployed year-round, full-time) was,however quite low (3.8 percent). Thepoverty rate was inversely related tonumber of weeks householders worked,peaking at 37 percent of those whoworked 13 weeks or less.
FIGURE 32.Percent Distribution of PoorFamily Householders, byWork Experience: 1983
The main reasons given for not workingby the 3.8 million poor familyhouseholders who did not work in 1933were illness or disability (24 percent),
"The poverty definition used by the Federalgovernment for statistical purposes is based ona set of money income thresholds which varyby family size and composition. The averagepoverty threshold for a family of four personswas $10,178 in 1983, that ts, four-personfamilies with cash income below this amountwould be classified as being below the povertylevel.
"See U.S. Bureau of the Census, TechnicalPaper 52, Estimates of Poverty Including theValue of Noncash Benefits: 1983.
"The income of nonrelatives is excludedwhen determining the poverty status of
unrelated individuals who do not live alone.
III or disabled (11.8)
family responsibilities (38 percent-90 per-cent of these householders were womenwith no husband prescnt), and retirement(14 percent). Inability to find work wasonly given as the reason by 19 percent ofnonworking family householders.
For F=t1tex InformationSee: Current Population Reports, Series P-60,No. 148, Characteristics of the PopulationBelow the Poverty Level: 1983
Contact: Arso Wizard orSteve Rudolph
Poverty and Wealth Statistics Branch(301) 763.5790
. I l
Worked, butless than year-round, full-time
(32.4)Unable tofind work
(9.7%)
Worked year-round,' Going to school orfull-time (17.3%) other reason (2.7%)
Retired (7.2%)
Did notwork in
1983
'Includes householders in the Armed Forces, who represent about 2 percent of thosein the year-round, full-time category. Without Armed Forces, the percent year-round, full-time would be 16.9.
4 "4,35
Appendix A.
Summary TablesTable A-1. Saveasary of &usual Data ovt Demeostaphic, Social, and Economic
(Sea table A-2 for income and poverty. The 1980 mane population was about 4.8 million greater than the estimate obtained by carrying forward the 1970April 1, 1970, which are not caneistent with the 1980 census are marked with an asterisk M. The degree of inconsistency, which is generally greater
...
Subjects
Population
universes Unit
Date
orperiod 1984 1983 1982 1981
1980
1980
COWANconsistent
Not 1980census
consistent'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101112
131415
1617
18
26
21
222324
25
2627
28
2930
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39404142
4344
45
4647
48
49
50
POPULATION (MIMING OF YEAR)
Total (Including Armed Forces overseas)sPercent increase during years
ResidentsCivilians ........ .. .... ......
POPULATIC8 (MIDYBAR)
Total (including Armed Forces overseas)Resident
Civilian
CCUPONFJffi OF POPULATION CHANGE
Total increasesNatural increaseBirthsDeaths
Net civilian immigration (legal only)
Rate Per 1,000 Midyear Population
Total increasesNatural increase
Births (crude birth rate)Death, (crud, death rat.)
Net civilian immigration (legal only)
FARM POPULATION
Current farm definition'Previous farm definition'
81X AND ACK (mum)
MaleFemale
Under 18 yearUnder 5 years5 to 13 years14 to 17 year
18 to 44 year18 to 24 years
,
25 to 34 year35 to 44 years
45 to 64 years45 to 54 years .
55 to 64 years ..
65 years and overMaleFemale
65 to 74 years75 to 84 years85 years and over
Percent:Under 18 years18 to 44 year.45 to 64 years65 year. and over
Median age:
TotalMaleFemale
Ao dependency ratio:Total"Youths"Old -ages'
442 ratio:
Total (male, per 100 females)65 years and over (melee per 100 females)
Total
ResidentCivilian
Total
ResidentCivilian
Total
".
"
.
"
Civ nonin.e.
Total
Total
.
.
.
".
"
".
.
"
"
"
"
".
.
.
".
.
.
.
Thousand.Percent
Thousands
Thousands
"
Thousands
".
.
Rate
Thousands.
Thousands
Thousands
.
.
.
.
"
".
«
.
.
.
Percent
.
.
Years
"
Ratio.
.
.
Jan. 1AnnualJan. 1
July 1«
.
Annual
"
"
"
"
"
"
'Ann. avg.
July 1
July 1
.
.
.
.
.
"
".
.
"
"
"
.
.
".
.
.
.
.
.
235,627(NA)
235,110233.430
236,634236.108234,395
(NA)
(MA)
(KA)
(NA)
(NA)
.
(NA)
(KA)
(NA)
(KA)
(NA)
5,754(KA)
(NA)
(NA)
(KA)
(KA)
(NA)
(1(A)
(NA)
(NA)
(1(A)
(1(A)
(NA)
(KA)
(KA)
(K4)
(NA)(KA)
(KA)
(1(A)
(KA)
(NA)
(NA)
(KA)
(KA)
(KA)
(NA)
(KA)
(NA)
(1MA)
(NA)
CAA)
(NA)
233,5060.91
232,987231,322
234,496233,981
232,286
2,1211,604
3,6182,014
517
9.0
6.8
15.4
8.62.2
5,7877,029
114,179120,317
62,57517,82730,11614,63399,97530,14840,33529,492
44,56222,34372.220
27.38410,99216,39216,3628,5192,503
26.7
42.619.0
11.7
30.929.632.2
62.243.118.9
94.967.1
231,2560.97
283,744
229,098
232,309
231,786230,117
2,2511,719
3,7041,956532
9.7
7.415.9
8.52.3
5,6206,870
113,105119,204
62,81217,37730,45814,97698,16030,42239,55928,17844,51122,39872,113
26,82610,781
16,04616,1448,2452,437
27.0
42.319.211.5
30.629.331.9
62.844.018.8
94.967.2
228,9761.00
228.484226,860
230,019229,518
227,870
2,280
1,6553,6421,987
624
9.9
7.215.88.62.7
5.850*6,942
111,984118,034
63,20916,94933,68215,579
96,05433,48639,03326,53644,49922,53021,948
26,25610,56715,69015,9038,0022,351
27.541.819.311.4
30.329.131.6
62.7
45.018.7
94.967.3
226,4441.12
225.958224,367
227,738
227,236225,632
2,5321,622
3,6121,990
787
11.1
7.1
15.98.7
3.5
(NAP
(NA)
110,874116,864
63,38316,45931,08416.14093,84430,35737,60123,88644,49822,73921,759
23,11310,36715,34615,5627,7892,271
28.041.219.5
11.3
30.028.831.3
64.646,018.6
94.967.6
(X)
(x)
(X)
(X)
(x)
(I)
(x)
(X)
(X)
(x)
(X)
(X)
(x)
(I)
(X)
(X)
(x)
.6,051.7,241
(X)
(X)
(X)(x)
(X)(x)
(X)
(X)
(x)
(X)
(x)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(I)
(X)
(x)
(X)
(I)
(X)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(I)
(I)
(X)Soo footnotes at end of table.
36 43
,41=1111
Characteristics (Except Income and Poverty): 1970-84census count with data on births, deaths, and international migration for the decade. See appendix 0 Annual figures based on data collected after Aprilfor absolute manors than for derived measures, is suggested by the difference between the two estimates shown for 1980)
1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970
Change'
0
:
:1Unit 1980-844 1970-804
223.880'1 15
223.392
221,783
225.055224,567
222.969
2.564
1,560
3,4681,908499
'11 4
6 915 4
8 5
2 2
.6.241
*7,553
109,584115,472
64,10516,063
31.43116,611
91,426
30,04836.203
25.176
44,39022,942
21,448
25,134
10,15414,980
15,3387,599
2.197
28.540.6
11.7
11,2
29.8
28.6
31.1
65.7
47,2
18.5
94.9
67 8
221,477'1.08
220.595219.358
222,585222,095220,467
'2,4031.405
3.3331,928
508
610 8
6.3
15 08 7
2 3
'6.S01
8,005
108.424114.161
64,77415.73532.09416,94689,02229,62234,96324,43744,286,23,17421,112
24,5029,91414.58814.9957,4122,095
29.140.099.911.0
29.528.330.8
67.048.618.4
95.068.0
219.179'1 05
218,706217,046
220,239
219,760218.106
'2,2981,426
3,3271,900
394
'10 4
6 5
15 1
8 6
1 8
(NA)
.7,806
107,335112.905
65,46315,564
32,85517,045
86,734
29,17433,998
23,56244,150
23,37020,780
23,8929,69114,201
14,638
7,262.
1,992
29.7
39.4
29-0
10.8
29 2
28.030.5
68.350 0
18.3
95.1
68.2
217.095'0.96
216,609214,957
218,035217.563
215,894
'2,084
1,258
3,1681,910
353
'9 6
5 8
14 5
8.8
1 6
(NA)
.8,253
106,309111,727
66,25215,617
33,51617,11984,497
28,645
32.75923.094
44.00823.62220,386
23,2789,471
13,80714,237
7,145
-1,896-
30.438,8
20 2
10.7
28 9
27,7
30.1
69.7
51.618,1
95.268.6
214,931'1,01
214,428212,738
215,973215,465
213,788
'2,165
1,2513,1441,894449
'10.05 814 6
8 82 1
(NA)
.8.864
105,366110,607
67,16816,12133,91917,12882,307
28,00531,471
22,83143,80223,757
20,045
22,6969,26513,431
13,917
6,9581,821
31 1
38.124.310.5
28.7
27.529 9
71 353.318.0
95.3
69.0
212,932'0.94
212,418210,676
213,854213,342
211,636
31,9991,225
3.1601,935
316
'9.3
5.7
14 8
9 0
1.5
(NA)
*9,264
104.391109,463
67,987
16,48734.46517,03580,28427,23330,22522,82543,52223,80919.713
22.061
9,04013,02213,5746,781
1,706
31.837 5
20.4
10.3
28.527 329,8
72 7
54.917.8
95,4
69.4
210.985'0 92
210,410
208,580
211,909211,357209.600
'1,947
1,163
3,137
1,974
331
'9 2
5.5
14.8
9 3
1.6
(NA).9,472
103,506108,402
68,76416.851
35,04616,86778.38526,63528,939
22,81043,23523,807
19,428
21,525
8,86112,66413,247
6,671
1,607
32,4
37.0
20.410,2
28.327.1
29,6
74.2
56.517.7
95.570.0
208,917
'0.99
208,224
206,324
209,896209,284
207,511
'2,0681,293
3,2581,965
325
'9 9
6 2
15.5
9 4
1.5
(HA)
.9,610
102,591
107.305
69,420
17.101
35.67916,63976,560
26,07627,624
22,86042,897
23,686
19,211
21,0208,699
12,32112,9226,555
1.542
33.1
36.5
20.4
10.0
28.126,8
29.4
75.7
58.117.6
95.670,6
206,466
'1.19205,546203,499
207,661206,827204,866
'2,4511,626
3,5561,930
387
'11 8
7 8
17 1
9.3
1 9
(NA).9,425
101,567106.094
69,80817.24436,23616,32874,81025,87425,958
22,97842,481
23,51918,962
20,561
8,59912,00312,6846,3901,487
33.636.0
20.59.9
27.926.629.2
77.0
59.517,5
95.771.3
203,849
'1.28202,717203,466
205,052
203,984201,895
'2,6171,812
3,7391,927
438
'12 88,8
18.29 4
2.1
(NA).9,712
100.354104,698
69,762
17.16636,672
15,92473.18524,712
25,32423,15041,999
23,31618,682
20,107
8,41311,693
12,4936,1831,430
34.035,7
20.5
9.8
27.9
26 629.2
78.0
60.617,5
95.972.0
Percept
(x)
Percent
Percent
"
Percent
".
Percent
"
"
Percent
Percent
Percent
.
"
".
"
"
"
""
"
"
Per.Pt.9
'
"
Years
.
In ratio''
"
"
"
.3.1
(X)
43.1
.3.1
.3 0
.3 0.2 9
-16.2
-1.1.0 2.1 2-34 3
(X)
(X)
(X)
(x)
(X)
-4.9(NA)
.3 043 0
-1 7
.8.3-3.1
-9 3.6 5-0.7+7 3.13 9.0.1
-1 7
.2.1
.6,5
.6.0.6,8.4.5
.9.4i.10.2
-1.3.1.4
-0.5.0.4
.0.9
.0.8
.0.9
-2 4
-2.7
+0 3
-
-0.5
+11 1(x)
+11.5.11.9
.11 0
.11 4
.11 7
'-7.0-10.1
-3 4.2 9
.49.2
'-16.4-18.2-12.6-7.4
.38 1
(NA)-25.4
+10 5.11 6
-8 7-4.1
-15 2+1 4.28 2+22.8+48.5+11.8+5 9-2.5
+16.5
.27.9+23.2.31.2+25.3+26.0+58.8
-6.0+5.5-1.0
.1.5
.2.1
.2.2
.2.1
-13.4-14.6.1.1
-1.0-4.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1314
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
222324
25
2627
28
29
30
31
32
3334
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4445
4647
48
49
50
4437
Table A-1. Summary of Annual Data on Demographic, Social, and Economic(See table A-2 for income and poverty.
The 1980 census population was about 4.8 milliongreater than the estimate obtained by carrying forward the 1970April 1, 197C, which are not consistent with the 1980
census are marked with an asterisk (.).The degree of Inconsistency, which is generally greater
2c
Subject'
Population
universe' Unit
Date
orperiod 1984 1983 1982 1981
1980
1980
censusconsistent
Not 1980census
consistent'
51
52
5354
55
56
57
58
59
60
6162
6364
65
66
67
68
69
7071
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
8081
8283
84
85
8687
88
89
90
91
92
93
9495
96
97
98
99100
FERTILITY AND MORTALITY
Total fertility rate"General fertility rate"Lifetime births expected per 1,000wives 18 to 24 years oldBirths to unmarried wcmon"Rate per 1,000 unmarried women15 to 44 years old"
Percent of total births"
Average life expectancy at birth for both sexesAverage life expectancy at birth for males
Average life expectancy at birth for femalesInfant mortality rate (under age 1)per 1,000 live births
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
Median ago at first marriage for malesMedian age at first marriage for females
Single (never married) males 20 to 24 years oldSingle (never married) females 20 to 24 years oldDivorced persons per 1,000 married persona,spouse present
Marriages
Marriage rate per 1,000 unmarried women 15 yearsand over
First marriages per 1,000 never married women''Remarriages per 1,000 divorced women"Remarriages per 1,000 widowed women"
Divorces
Divorce rate per 1,000 married women15 years old and over
HOUSEHOLDS
Total households.
Average population per household, totalUnder 18 years18 years and over
Family householdsMarried -couple family
With own children under 18Other family, male householderWith own children under 18
Other family, female householderWith own children under 18
Nonfamtly householdsMale householder
Living aloneFemale householderLiving alone
Percent Distribution of Households by Typo
Family householdsMarried - couple family
Other family, male householderOther family, female householder
Nonfamtly householdsMale householderFemale h-usoholder
Percent Distribution of Households by Size
One personTwo personsThree persons
Four personsFive or more persons
Resident
Civ.nonin.Resident
.
.
.
.
"
"
Civ.nonin.+
"
.
Resident
.
.
"
"
"
.
C_ .nonin.4.
".
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
""
".
Rate
"
Thousands
RatePercentYears
"
Rate
Years
Percent
RateThousands
Rate
"
"
Thousands
Rate
Thousands
Rate
.
Thousands
.
.
"
".
".
"
.
Percent
.
"
"
.
"
"
"
"
"
Annual
JunoAnnual
.
""
.
"
"
March
.
.
"
Annual
""
"
".
.
March
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
"
1,804
P65.5
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
25.4
23.0
74.856.9
121
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
85,4072.71
0.73
1.98
61,99750,090
24,3392,030
799
9,8785,90723,4109,752
7,579
13,65812,425
72.658.62.411.6
27.4
11.4
16.0
23.4
31.5
17.7
15.911.5
1,789
65.4
2,225(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
P74.7P71.0P78.3
P10.9
25.422.8
73.255.5
114
P2,444
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
P1,179
(NA)
83,9182.730.741.99
61,39349,90824,3632,016
737
9,4695,71822,525
9,5147,45113,01111,799
73.259.52.4
11.3
26.811.3
15.5
22.9
31.517.6
15.912.1
1,82967.3
2,096715
30.019.4
P74.5P70.8
P78.2
P11.2
25.222.5
72.053.4
114
P2,495
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
1,170
21.7
83,5272.720.751.97
61,01949,63024,465
1,986679
9,4035,86822,508
9,4577,48213,05111,872
73.159.42.4
11.326.911.315.6
23.2
31.7
17.5
15.412.2
1,815
67.4
2,162
687
29.6
18.974.270.4
77.9
11.9
24.8
22.3
69.5
51.9
109
2,422
61.7
64.?96.36.5
1,213
22.6
82,3682.73
0.761.96
60,309
49,29424,927
1,933
666
9,0825,63422,059
9,2797,253
12,78011,683
73.259.8
2.3
11.0
26.8
11.3
15.5
23.0
31.3
17.7
15.5
12.5
1,84068.4
(NA)
'4666
'429.4"18.473.770.0
77.5
12.6
24.7
22.0
68.8
50.2
100
2,390
61.466.091.36.7
1,189
22.6
80,7762.760.79
1.97
59,55049,112
24,9611,733
616
8,7055,44521,2268,8076,966
12,41911,330
73,760.8
2.1
10.8
26.310.9
15.4
22.7
31.4
17.5
15.712.8
(X)
(X)
*2,134(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
.24.6
22.1.68.6.50.2
*100
(X)
(HA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(70
(NA)
.79,108.2.75
.0.78.1.97
.58,426
.48,180
.24,568.1,7061
.609.8,5405,340.20,682.8,594.6,79312,088.11,022
73.9.60.9.2.2
.10.8.26.1.10.9.15.3
.22.5
.31.3
17.5-15.813.0
See footnotes at end of table,
3845
Characterfitics (Except Income and Poverty): 1970-84-Continuedcensus count with data on births, deaths, and international migration for the decade. See appendix B. Annual figures based on data collected rfterfor absolute numbers than for derived measures, is suggested by the difference between the two estimates shown for 1980)
1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970
Change'
0.
2nUnit 1980-844 1970-804
1,808
67.2
2,164598
27.2
17.1
73.7'69.9
77.6
13.1
.24.4
.22.1
.67.4
49.4
922,331
63.6
62.1'104.0
'7.71,181
22.8
.77,330'2.78'0.81
'1.97
.57,498
.47,662'24,505.1,616
'556'8,220'5,075'19,831'8,064'6,464
'11,767'10,738
.74.461.6'2.1
'10.6'25.6
'10.4'15.2
22.2.30.9*17.3
'15.913.6
1,76065.5
2,166544
25.7
16.3
.73.369.577.2
13.8
24.223.865.8.47.6
'90
2,282
64.1
*62.1'105.0
7.11,130
.21.9
'76,030
.2.81.0.83.1.98
.56,958'47,357
'24,621.1,564
'524.8,037'5,031
'19,071.7,811'6,352
'11,261.10,363
'74.962.32.1
'10.6
*25.1'10.314,8
22.0.30.7'17.2'15.714.4
1,790
66.8
2,137516
25.6
15.5
.73.269.3'77.1
14.1
'24.0'21.6
63.745.3
'84
2,178
63.6'62.7'107.3
'7.61,091
'21.1
.74,1422.860.87'1.99
.56,472'47,471'24,868.1,464
'471'7,540'4,643
'17,669'6,971'5,639'10,698'9,893
'76.2'64,0.2.0
.10.2'23.8'9.4
.14.4
'20.9
.30.7'17.3
'15.7.15.4
1,738
6S.0
.2,141468
24.3
14.8
72.8'69.0
76.7
15.2
.23.821.3.62.1
42.6
'75
2,155
65.2
'64.8'111.3
'7.91,083
'21.1
.72,867.2.89
'0.89
'2.00.56,056.47,297
'25,106.1,424
'437'7,335
'4,495'16,811'6,548
'5,416'10,263.9,567
*76.9
'64.9'2.0.10.1
'23.19.0'14.1
.20.6
30.6'17.2'15.7
'16.0
1,774
66.0
2,173448
24.5
14.3
.72.5
.68.7
.76.5
16.1
'23.5
.21.1
*59.9.40.3
692,153
66.9
68.1'117.2
'8.31,036
'20.3
'71,120'2.94
'0.93*2.01
.55,563
.46,951'25,165
1,485'478
'7,127
'4,301'15,557'5,912
'4,918'9,645'9,021
.78.1'66.0'2.1
'10.0'21.9
'8.313.6
'19.6.30.6
.17.4
.15.6'16.8
1,835
67.8
.2,165418
23.9
13.2
.71.9
.68.1
'75.8
16.7
'23.1'21.1
'57.0.39.6
'63
2,230
72.0'74.8
'121.7'9.1977
.19.3
'69,859
.2.97
'0.96
'2.00.54,91746,78725,269.1,421.385
.6,709.3,994'14,942'5,654.4,742.9,288'8,626
78.667.0'2.0
.9.621.4'8.1'13.3
'19.130.8'17.1'15.6'17.4
1,879
68.8
.2,262407
24.3
13.0
'71.3
.67.675.3
17.7
'23.2'21.0
'57.1.38.3
'562,284
76.0
81.0'131.0
'9.3
915
'18.2
.68,251
'3.01
'1.00'2.02
54,26446,297'25,385'1,432
.377
'6,535'3,73613,986.5,129
'4,3978,858.8,239
79.5'67.8
'2.1
'9.6'20.5
.7.5.13.0
.18.5
30.2'17,3.15.7
18.2
2,01073.1
2,255403
24.8
12.4
'71.1'67.4
75.1
18.5
'23.320.9'56.9
36.4
'52
2,282
77.9'84.5
'130.6'9.4845
17.0
'66,676.3.06'1.03.2.03
53,163'45,724.25,481'1,331
'364.6,108
'3,54313,513'4,839*4,121.8,674
'8,068
'79.768.6'2.0'9.2
'20.3'7.3'13.0
'18.3'29.2'17.3'16.019.2
2,26781.6
.2,375401
25.511.3
'71.167.4'75.0
19.1
23.1.20.9
'56.0'36.8
.512,190
76.2'82.8132.8
'9.6733
.15.8
.64,778.3.11'1.07
.2.04'52,102'44,928.25,205.1,254'330
5,920.3,327.12,676.4,403
.3,831'8,273
*7,661
80.4.69.4'1.9
'9.119.6'6.812.8
'17.7.29.217.1'15.5'20.5
2,48087.9
(NA)399
26.410.7
'70.8
.67.174.8
20.0
23.2
20.8
54.7
35.8
47
2,159
76.5.82.9
.123.2'10.2708
'14.9
63,4013.141.09
2.05
51,456'44,728'25,532
1,228
341
5,5002,858
11,945
4,063
3,5327,8827,319
81.270.51.9
8.718.86.4
12.4
17.028.817.3
15.8
21.1
Percent
.
.
.
Per.Pt.'Years
.
Percent
Years
Per.Pt.'
Percent
.
.
.
.
.
Percent
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
".
.
.
.
.
Per.Pt.'
.
.
.
.
Per.Pt.'
.
.
.
-2.0-4.2
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
+0.7
+1.0
+6.0
.6.7
+21.0
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
+5.7
-1.8
-7.6
.0.5
.4.1
+2.0-2.5
+17.1
+29.7+13.5
+8.5+10.3+10.7+8.1.10.0.9.7
-1.1
-2.2
+0.3.0.8.1.1
+0.5.0.6
.0.7+0.1+0.2+0.2
-1.3
-25.8-22.2
(NA)
+66.9
+11.4.7.7
+2.9
+2.9
+2.8
-37.0
+1.5+1.2
14.1+14.4
+112.8+10.7
-19.3(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
+67.9
*51.7
.27.4-12.1
-27.5
-3.9
+15.79.8-2.2
+41.1+80.6+58.3
.90.5+77.7+116.8
+97.2+57.654.8
-7.5-9.7+0.2
+2.1.7.5
.4.5
.3.0
.5.7+2.6.0.2
-0.1
-8.3
5152
5-54
5556
57
5859
60
61
6263
64
65
66
67
6869
7071
72
7374
75
76
77
77
79
80
81
82
838485
8687
88
89
90
91
9293
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
4639
Table A-1. Summary of Annual Data on Demographic, Social, and Economic(See table A-2 for income and poverty.
The 1980 census population was about 4.8 million greater than the estimate obtained by carrying forward the 1970April 1, 1970, which are not consistent with the 1980 census are marked with an asterisk ().The degree of inconsistency, which is generally greater
0
mSubject
Populationuniverse' Unit
Dateor
period 1984 1983 1982
1980
1981
1980census
consistent
Not 1980census
consistent'
101
102103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
12c
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130131
132
133
134
135
136
137
SCHOOL ENPOLLMENT
All levels, 3 to 34 years oldNursery school
Kindergarten and elementary school (1 to 8)Percent private
High school (1 to 4)
Percent privateCollege (under age 35)
Male
Percent ptrt-timeFemale
Percent part-time
College, 35 years old and overMale
Percent part-timeFemale
Percent part-time
YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED, 25 TO 34 YEARS OLD
High school graduates
College graduates, totalMaleFemale
LABOR FORCE
Civilian labor force, totalMales
Females
Employment, totalMales
Females
Unemployment, totalMales
Females
Unemployment rate, totalMales, 20 years and overFemales, 20 years and overBoth sexes, 16 to 19 yearsHouseholders
Married man, wife presentMarried women, husband presentFemale householder, no husband present
Civ.nonin.
".
"
"
.
".
""
"
.
"
"
"
Civ.nonin..
"
"
Civ.nonin.
"
""
"
"
"
"
"..
"
"
"
".
.
Thousands
"
Percent
Slousends
PercentThousands
PercentThousandsPercent
Thousands
PercentThousands
Percent
Percent
"
"
Thousands
"
".
"
"
"
"
Percent
.
"
"
"
"
"
October
"
"
""
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
March
"
"
Ann.avg.
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
".
"
"
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA,
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)(NA)
(NA)(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
86.524.325.922.8
113,544
63,83549,709
105,005
59,09145,915
8,5394,7443,794
7.56.6
6.818.95.54.6
5.710.4
57,7452,35030,559
11.9
14,010
8.710,824
5,50426.6
5,32131.0
1,495506
80.898980.0
86.424.4
26.8
22.1
111,550
63,04748,503
100,834
56,78744,047
10,7176,2604,457
9.68.98.1
22.47.2
6.57.0
12.2
57,9052,153
30,71111.7
14,123
7.9
10,9195,40925.75,51032.5
1,39049081.090079.1
86.323.826.521.1
110,20562,45047,755
99,52756,271
43,256
10,6786,1794,499
9.78.38.323.27.2
6.57.411.7
58,3902,058
30,956
11.6
14,642
7.6
10,734
5,372
27.25,363
31.8
1,39345381.5
940
80.5
85.623.2
26.1
20.4
108,67061,97446,696
100,39757,39743,000
8,2734,5773,696
7.6
6.36.819.6
5.2
4.35.9
10.4
58,9532,031
31,513
11.5
14,935
(NA)
10,4735,205
26.75,26833.4
1,215
41278.9
803
84.2
85.424.1
27.520.9
106,94061,45345,487
99,30357,18642,117
7,6364,2673,369
7.1
5.96.417.8
4.94.2
5.8
9.2
.57,348
.1,987a30,625
11.514,556
(NA)
10,1805,02526.55,15533.0
1,20740579.580284.2
85.524.127.620.8
104,719.60,14544,574
97,27155,98841,283
7,4484,1573,291
7.15.9.6.317.74.94.25.89.1
'Not consistent with the 1980 census. See headnote.- Represents zero or rounds to zero.NA Not available.
Provisional.X Not applicable.
'Data for the items on lines 18-19, 53, 61-65, and 73-137 are from the Current Population Survey.The annual estimates and the 1970-80 and1980-84 changes shown for these items are subject
to sampling variability (see appendix B) and should be interpreted with particular caution.The issues of Current Population Reports cited in thisreport provide information on sampling variability for data from the Current Population Survey.'The population universes included in this table are total including Armed Forces overseas, resident, civilian, civilian noninstitutionalplus Armeu Forces living off post or with their families on post (civ. noninsti. +), and civilian noninstitutional.
See also appendix B.'Not shown when 1980 census-consistent data are available for 1970 to 1979."Based on 1980 census-consistent data for 1980 when available. Except for the farm data, the "change data" shown for 80-84 on the first pageof this table are for the 1980-83 period since most of these data were not yet available for 1984.'Population estimates for January 1, 19851 total population, 237,839,000, resident population,
237,318,000, civilian population, 235,621,000.'Figures for 1970 to 1980 reflect the error of closure between censuses. See appendix B.'The current definition is persons living in rural territory on places which had, or normally would have had, sales of agricultural productsof $1,000 or more during the reporting year.
The previous definition included places of 10 or more acres with sales of at least t50 and places
4 740
Characteristics (Except Income and Poverty): 1970-84-Continuedcensus count with data on births, deaths, and international migration for the decade. See appendix B. Annual figures based on data collected afterfor absolute numbers than for derived measures, is suggested by the difference between the two estimates shown for 1980)
1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970
Change'0zoc
4Unit 1980-84' 1970-80'
57,8541,869
30,89011.5
.15,116
7.49,9784,99327.3
.4,986
32.5
1,40248782.5914.83.6
.84.7
23.827.720.0
102,90859,517.43,391
96,94556,49940,446
5,9633,0182,745
5.84.15.716.13.62.75.18.3
58,6161,82431,47911.9
15,4758.0
9,838.5,124
27.84,714.30.4
1,303.457
.80.384586.2
.84.0
.23.6
.27.519.9
100,42058,542.41,878
94,37355,49138,882
6,047.3,0512,996
6.0.4.2
.6.016.3.3.72.85.5.8.5
.60,013.1,618
32,42511.6
15,7537.9
10,217.5,36928.2
.4,84830.9
1,32952082.1.809
79.2
83.4.23.8
27.7.20.0
97,40157,44939,952
.90,54653,86136,685
.6,8553,5883,267
7.05.2.7.017.74.53.6.6.5
9.3
.60,482
.1,526
.33,264.10.8
.15,742
7.69,9505,29627.6.4,65428.2
.1,189.489
.79.170084.0
.82.722.6.26.818.6
94,77156,35'38,414
.87,48652,39135,095
7,2883,968.3,320
7.75.97.4.19.0.5.1
.4.2
7,1.10.0
.60,969
.1,74833,83911.3
.15,683
7.59,6975,34226.3.4,355.27.2
1,18356971.761480.5
.81.1
.21.4
25.417.5
92,613.55,615
36,998
84,78351,23033,553
7,830.4,385.3,445
.8.5
6.7.8.0.19.9
5.85.17.910.0
60,259.1,607
34,37810.7
.15,447
7.68,827.4,92627.23,90129.1
.1,025
.476
.77.3.548
80.8
80.120.023.7.16.4
91,01155,18635,825
85,93552,51833,417
.5,07'
2,(oP*2,,08
1,63.8.5.5
.16.0.3.32.7.5.3
7.0
59,3921,324
34,54310.9
15,347.7.7
8,179.4,677
25.13,50226.2
787.371
67.4.416
81.7
78.118.221.515.0
.88,71354,203*34,510
.84,409
,1,963
.32,446
.4,304
.2,2402,064
.4.9
.3.2
.4.8
.14.5
.2.9
2.3.4.6
7.0
.60,142.1,2.13
35,37711.4
.15,169
7.6.8,313.4,85323.5.3,46024.9
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
77.2.17.9
21.6.14.3
86,54253,26533,277
81,70250,630.31,072
.4,8402,635.2,205
.5.6.4.0.5.4
16.23.3.2.8.5.4
7.2
.61,106'.1,066
36,770.11.6
.15,1837.4
8,087.4,85023.33,23623.3
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
75.316.319.9.12.8
.84,11252,02132,091
79,120.49,245
29,875
.4,993
2,776.2,217
5.9.4.4
.5.716.9.3.7
3.25.7.7.3
60,357.1,096
37,13312.1
14,7158.0
7,413.4,401
21.03,013.24.1
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
73.815.8
19.712.0
.82,715
.51,19531,520
78,62748,96029,667
.4,088
.2,2351,853
.4.9
.3.5
4.815.2.2.9.2.6.4.9.5.4
Percent
"
Per. Pt.'
PercentPer. Pt.'Percent
Por. Pt.'PercentPer. Pt.'
percent
Per. Pt.'PercentPer. Pt.'
Per. Pt.'
""
Percent
"
"
"
"
"
Per. Pt.'
"
"
""
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
I (NA)
i(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
+1.1+0.2-1.6+1.9
+6.2
+3.9+9.3
+5.7+3.3
+9.0
+11.8
+11.2+12.6
+0.4
+0.7+0.4+1.1+0.6+0.4
-0.1
+1.2
-2.3+85.3
-15.1-0.6+1.5
(NA)
+41.3
+18.3
+5.7+74.8
+9.3
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
+11.6
+8.3+7.8
+8.9
+29.3+20.0+44.3
+26.3+16.8+42.0
+86.8
+90.9+81.8
+2.2+2.4
+1.6+2.6+2.0+1.6
+0.9
+3.8
101
102
103104
105
106
107
10t
109
110
111
112
113114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
under 10 acres with sales of at least $250. The 1980 estimate (current definition) of 6,051,000 is higher than the sample figure of 5,617,903from the 1980 census.
'The 1984 figure represents a 12-month average for the calendar year. Estimates for 1983 and earlier years are five-quarter averages centered on April.'Percentage-point change."Youth: persons under 18 years per 100 persons 18 to 64 years. Old-age: perso"s 65 years and over per 100 persons 18 to 64 years. Total: sum ofyouth and old-age."Points in ratio.
I'Llfetime births per 1,000 women implied by the age-specific childbearing pattern of a single year. See section on Fertility and Birth Expectations.''births per 1,000 women 15 to 44 years.
"1980 data on births to unmarried women ere not totally comparable with data for earlier years due to a change in methodology. Comparable figures for1980 are 645,000 births, a rate of 28.4, and 17.9 percent of all births. See National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report.Vol. 31, No. 8, Supplement (Novem, ,r 30, 1982).',Rates for women 14 years and over in the marriage-registration area. See National Center for Health Statisti.s, Monthly Vital Statistics Report,
Vol. 30, No. 4, Supplement, July, 1981.
Source: Compiled from reports published by the Bureau of the Census (lines 1-50, 51 for 1981-1984, 53, 61-65, 73-120), the National Center for HealthStatistics (lines 51 for 1970-1980, 52, 54-60, 66-72), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (lines 121-137).
4841
Table A-2. Summary of Annual Data(Families or persons as of March of the following year. the 1980 census population was about 4.8 million greater than he estimate obtained by carryinglected after April 1, 1970. which are not consistent with the 1980 census are marked with an asterisk (). The degree of inconsistency, which is general'
.
Income and poverty'
Population
universe' Unit
Dateor
period 1983 1982 1981 1980
1979
1980
censusconsistent
Not 1980census
consistent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
26
27
2829
INCOME'
Median Family Income
All familiesMarried- couple families
With one or more own children under 18 yearsFemale householder. no husband present
Mean Income Per Family Member
All familiesMarried-couple familiesFemale household, no husband present
Mean Income of Persons 15 Years and Over
Male with income'
Year-round, full-time workers'Female with Income'
Year-round, full-time workers`
Number of Earners'
All familiesNo Income earnersOne income earnerTwo income earners
Three income earners or more
Percent with no Income earnersPercent with one income earnerPercent with two income earnersPercent with three Income earners or more
POVERTY'
Persons below the poverty levelPoverty rate for all personsPoverty rate for persons 65 /ears and overp)verty rate for persons in female-householderfamilies. no husband presentPoverty rate for persons not living in families
Families below the poverty levelPoverty rate for all familiesPoverty rate for female-householder families.no husband present
Poverty rate for all other families
Civ.nonin..
"
.
,
.
"
Civ.nonin.4
"
1983 dole.
"
"
Thousands
"
.
Percent
.
ThousandsPercent
ThousandsPercent
.,
Annual
.
,
0
.
.
"
Annual
.
..
24,58027,28628,16511,789
8,8279,5144,968
18,10925,752
8,780
15,994
61,243
9,26618,45925,4378,081
15.130.1
41.513.2
35,266
15.214.1
40.223.4
7.641
12.3
36.07.8
24,18726,85628,01711,853
8,6629,296
4,961
17,940
25,6076,076
15,629
60,653
8,94318,761
24,7768,174
14.7
30.940.8
13.5
34,398
15.0
14.6
40.6
23.1
7,512
12.2
36.3
7.9
24,52527,45728,72312,006
8,6999,329
4,962
18,54725,4358,150
15,194
60,312
8,52618,55524,8568,375
14.1
30.841.2
13.9
31.82214.0
15.3
38.723.4
.851
11.2
34.6
7.0
25,41827,97929,38812,585
8,8759,4815,161
18,091
25,9188,187
15,393
59,6408,05018,58624,6508,354
13.531.2
41.314.0
29,272
13.0
15.7
36.722.9
6.21710.3
32.7
6.3
26,88529,413
31,044
13,562
9,313
9,9445,332
18,54727,362
8,272
15,713
58,7937,601
18,236
24,423
8,534
12.9
31.041.514.5
26,07211.7
15.2
34.9
21 9
5.461
9.2
30,4
5.5
26,98629,515
31,16813,625
9,37510,008
5,382
19,72227,4058,279
15,732
57,7027,421
17,833
23.9388,510
12.9
30.941.5
14.7
.25.34511.615.1
34.8"21.9
5.3209.1
30.2.5.5
"Not consistent with 1980 census. Sec headnote.NA hot available.rRevised.
X Not applicable.
'pats are iron the Current Population Survey.The annual estimates and the 1969-1979 and 1979-1983 changes shown are subject to sampling variability(see appendix B) and should be tnierpreted with particular caution. The source cited for this table provides information for data on income and poverty.Data on income and poverty arc based on money income from regularly
received sources (e.g., wages, self-employment Income, Social Security, publicassistance, interest, rent, royalties, unemployment compensation,pensions, alimony, child support) before taxesand other types of deductions. Capitalgains (or losses), lump sum or one-time payments such as life insurance
settlements, and noncash benefits are excluded.
4942
on Income and Poverty: 1969-83forward the 1970 census count with data on births, deaths, and international niltrttion for the decade. See appendix B. Annual figures based on data Col -ly greater for absolute numbers than for derived measures, is suggested oy the di .erence between the two estimates shown for 1979)
1978 1977 1976 1975 1974r 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969
Change'
$,
o.5Unit 1979 -83' 1969-797
26,938
29.53431,169
13.037
9.2829.8945,304
20,025
27,9548,550
15,886
57.095
7,028
18,346
23,333
8.388
12.3
32.1
40.)14.7
.24,497
-11.4.14 0
.35.622.1
5,2809.1
31.45.3
26,32028,96330,65512,766
9,0079,5765,230
19,83227,832
8,69915,676
56.4487,08318,62122,4148 330
12.533.039.714.8
.24,720
.11.6-14.1
.36,2.22.6
*5.3119.3
31.75.5
26,17928,358
30,14512,621
8.7739,312
5,051
19.54127,479
8.532
.5,675
55,8666,906
18,789
22,055
8.116
12.4
33.6
39.5
14.5
*24,375'11.8
15.0
37.324.9
5,3119.4
33.05.6
25.39527,521
29,110
12,669
8,4918,9674,970
19.30527,237
8,35415,294
55.4346,788
19.46621,377
7,803
12.2
35.138.614.1
.25,877
-12.315.3
*37.525.1
.5,450-9.7
32.5*6.2
26,06628,12930,117
13,108
8,6939,1845.111
19,922
27,7948.40615,524
54,7376,17018,930
21,6378,001
11.334.6
39.514.6
.23,370.11.2
.14.6
36.524.1
*4,922
.8.8
-32.15.4
27,01729,208
(NA)
12,996
8.878
9,3695.053
20.82628,289
8,51715.494
55,0535,781
19,604
21.9187,751
10.5
35.6
39.814.1
22,97311.1*16.3
*37.525.0
4,828-8.8
32.2.5.5
26,473
25,347
(NA)
12,721
8,640
9.0745,077
20.564
28,094
8,51815,541
54,373
5,38320,285
21.296
7,409
9.9
37.3
35.2
13.6
24,460'11.9
.18.6
38,229,0
5,07'.9.3
32,76,1
25.30127,036
(NA)
12.580
8,067
8.4554,827
19.41:
26,6528,19915.028
53,2965,100
20,104
20,6027,490
9.6
37.738.714.1
-25,559
-12.5- 21.6
38.731.6
5,30316.0
33.9*6.8
'5,317
26,982(NA)
13,068
7,910
8,2624,790
19,33826.4588,052
15.025
52.2274,716
19.355
20,5537,602
9.03'.1
39.414.6
.25,420.12.6
24.c
38.1.52.9
5,2C0.10.'
*32.51.',2
25.63627.179
(U1)
13,105
7,933
8,2644,892
19,57226 4628.003
14,689
51.586
4,36719,38220,262
7,575
8.537.6
39.314.7
.24,147
.12.1.25 .
43P,2
'34.0
I .5,008
-9.7
32.76,9
Percent
"
"
"
"
..
"
"
,.
""
"
.
.
Per. pt.
"
"
Percent
Per. pt."
"
Percent
Pe-, pt
-8,6
-7.2
-9.3
-13.1
-5.2
-4.3-6.8
-2.4
-5.9.6 1
*1,7
.4.2
+21.9
.1.2
.4.2
-5.3
.2.2
-6.9
-1.3
+35.!+3.5-1.1
+5.3+1.5
*59.9+3.1
+5.62..
+4.9
8.2(x)
+3.5
.17.4
*20.3+0.0
-5.2.3.4
._ 4
.7.0
+14.0+74.1
-5.9
*20 5
+12.7
.4.4
-o.6
42.2-0.2
.8.0
-0.4
-10.1
-3.3
-12.1
.9.0
-0.5
-2,3
-1.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
.7
28
79
For a detailed explanation of the poverty concept, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, So. 44', ("ham stelisitce of thePopulation Below the Poverty Level 1983 (February 1985). For discussion of noncash benefits, see Technic',' Paper 'o. 52, Fstimw.-s f Pevcrtv :nclud-----w-ing the Value of Noncash Benefits 1983 (August 1984).
'Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post. See appendix B.'Based on 1980 census-consistent data for 1979.
'For the years 1979 to 1983, persons 15 years old and over. for the years 1969 to 1978, persons 14 years old and over.For the years 1974 to 1983, excludes families with any members in the Armed Forces.'Percentage-point change.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Series P-6C, annual reports on income and poverty.
50BEST COPY AVAILABLE 43
Appendix B.
Sources and. .
Limitations of Data
SOURCE OF DATA
This report includes clan: from theBureau of the Census, the Bureau ofLabor Statistics, and numerous otherreports and publications from governmentagencies and unpublished tabulations fromthe Current Population Survey (CPS).The Census Bureau data in the report,which covers a wide range of topics andyears, were collected primarily in themonthly Current Population Survey and inthe 1970 and 1980 Census of Population.The Bureau of Labor Statistics data arefrom the CPS. Data from the NationalCenter for Health Statistics are from itsregistration system. The monthly CPSdeals mainly with labor force data for thecivilian noninstitutional population.
Current Popelatioo Survey (CPS).The estimation procedure used for themonthly CPS data involved the inflatior ofweighted sample results to independentestimates of the civilian noninstitutionalpopulation of the United States by age,race, and sex. These independentestimates .:re based on statistics fromdecennia censuses; statistics nn births,deaths, immigration, and emigration; andstatistics on the strength of the ArmedForces. The estimation procedure used for1980 through 1984 data utilized inde-pendent estimates based on the 1980decennial census; 1970 through 1979data utilized independent estimates basedOn the 1970 decennial census. Thischange in independent estimates hadrelatively little impact on summarymeasures such as medians and percentdistribution, but did have a significant im-pact on levels. For example, use of the1980-based population controls resulted inabout a 2-percent increase in the civiliannoninstitutional population and in thenumber of families and households. Thus,estimates of levels for 1980 and later willdiffer from those for earlier years by morethan what could be attributed to actualchanges in the population. These dif-ferences could be disproportionatelygreater for certain population subgroupsthan for the total population.
44
Docoo_ssial Coosa. of Popsrlados.Full-count data from the 1980 Census ofPopulation have been published for allStates in Number of Inhabitants(PC80-1-A) and General PopulationCharacteristics (PC80-1-8). Sample datahave been published In General Socialand Economic Characteristics (PC.80-1-C)and Detailed Population Characteristics(PC80-1-D). Data on various topics havebeen published in Supplementary Reports(PC80SA). More detailed data on severaltopics ars being published in SubjectReports (PC80-2).
RELIABILITY OF ESTIMATES
Since the CPS estimates were based ona sample, they may differ somee-Set fromthe figures that would have been obtainedif a complete census heil been taken usingthe scare luestionnaires, instructions, andenumerators. There are two type's oferrors possible in an estimate based on asample survey: sar:Npling and non-sampling. The standard errors provides!for this report primarily Indicate themagnitude of the sampling errors. Theyalso partially measure the effect of somenonsampling errors in response andenumeration, but do not measure anysystematic biases In the data. Bias is thedifference, averaged over all possiblesamples, between the estimate and thedesired value. The accuracy of a surveyresult depends en the net effect of sampl-ing and nonsampling errors. Particularcare should be exercised in the interpretsdon of figures based on a relatively smallnumber of cases or on small differencesbetween estimates.
Nonaampliai ,a-!ability. As in anysurvey work, the results are subject toerrors of response and nonreporting inaddition to sampling variability. Nonsampl-Mg errors can be attributed to manysources, e.g., inability to obtain informa-tion about all cases in the sample, defial-tional difficulties, differences in theinterpretation of questions, inability orunwillingness on the part of the
respondents to provide correct informa-tion, inability to recall information, errorsmade in collection such as in recording orcoding the. data, errors made in processingthe data, errors made in estimating valuefor missing data, and failure to representall units with the sample (undercoverage).
Sasplias vaaiablitty. Standard errorsare primarily measures of samplingvariability, that is, of the variations thatoccurred by chance because a samplerather than the entire population wassurveyed. Standard errors are not given inthis report due to the type of report andcombination and variety of data sources.Standard errors may be found in thepublications that are noted at the end ofeach section or by contacting the author.
CastparabVity with other data. Dataobtained from the CPS and other sourcesare not entirely con,parable. This is duelargely to differences in interviewer trainingand experience and in differing surveyprocedures. This is an additional corn-pcnent of error that is not reflected in the
...standard errors. Therefore, caution shouldbe used in comparing results among thesesources.
The April 1, 1980, census populationwas about 4.8 million greater than theestimate cm the same date obtained bycarrying forward the 1970 census popula-tion with data on births, deaths, and legalinternational migration that are consistentwith the-data presented in this report onnational population trends. See CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-25, No. 917(July 1982), Preliminary Estimates of thePopulation of the United States, byAge,Sex, and Race: 1970 to 1981. It is notknown at this time how much of this dif-ference, or "error of closure," Is due toimprovements in census coverage or tcthe enumeration of illegal immigrants (whowere not included in the April 1, 1980,estimate because of the lack of reliableinformation) or to other factors. For adetailed (Liscussion of coverage in the1980 census with alternative assumptionsconcerning immigration, see CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P23, No. 115
51
(February 1982), Coverage of theNational Population in the 1980 Census,by Age, Sex, and Race: PreliminaryEstimates by Demographic Analysis.
As a result of the sizable error of closure(roughly 2 percent of the 1980 censuspopulation with the percentage varying byage, sex, and race), CPS-based estimatesshown in this report for 1970 to 1984 donot represent consistent series. This limitation is generally of minor importance in1970.80 or 1970.84 comparisons but isimportant in annual comparisons. For thisreason, the annual data series shown intables A-1 and A-2 include data for yearon both bases when 1980-census consistent data are not available for the entireperiod.
This report includes data for five dif-ferent population universes: total popula-tion including Armed Forces overseas,resident population (census universe),civilian population, civilian noninstitutionalpopulation plus Armed Forces living offpost or with their families on post (MarchCPS universe), and civilian noninstitutionalpopulation (CPS universe in months otherthan March). The estimated size of thetotal population including Armed Forcesoverseas in March 1984 was235,919,000. The universe for householddata in the March 1984 CPS(231,854,000) was lower because of theexclusion of group quarters, and theuniverse for poverty data (231,612,000)was lower because of the exclusion ofunrelated individuals (persons who are notliving with any relatives) under 15 yearsold.
The Armed Forces and the institutionalpopulation differ greatly from the totalpopulation in age-sex structure (table B-2).On March 1, 1984, males 18 to 64 yearsold constituted 90.8 percent of the ArmedForces population as compared with 30.4percent of the total population, andfemales 65 years and over constituted40.5 recent of the institutional populationas compared with 7.1 percent of the totalpopulation. However, these two groupstogether accounted for only 2.1 percent ofthe total population, and as a result, thecivilian noninstitutional population (whichaccounted for 97.9 percent of the total)had an age-sex structure very similar tothat of the total population. Similarly, thesocial and economic characteristics of theArmed Forces and of the institutionalpopulation could differ greatly from thoseof the total population with relatively smalldifferences between the characteristics ofthe total population and of the civiliannoninstitutionai population.
Table BAL. Components of Selected Population Universes:March 1, 1984(Numbers in thousands. Consistent with the 1980 census)
Population universe Number Percent
Total population including Armed Forces overseasArmed Forces overseasResident populationArmed Forces in the United States
235,919523
235,3961,686
100.00.2
99.80.7
Living off post or with their families on post 879 0.4Living on post without families 807 0.3
Civilian population 233,710 99.1Institutional population 2,734 1.2Noninstitutional population 230,975 97.9
Summary of population uni...rses:Total population including Armed Forces overseas 235,919 100.0Resident population 235,396 99.8Civilian population 233,710 99.1Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forcesliving off post or with their families on post 231,854 98.3
Civilian noninstitutional population 230,975 97.9
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Monthly National Population EstimatesProgram and March 1984 Current Population Survey.
Table 132. Selected Population Universes, by Sex andBroad Age Groups: March 1, 1984(Numbers in thousands. Consistent with the 1980 census)
Population universeand age
Population Percent of populationuniverse
Total Male Female Total Male Female
TOTAL POPULATION INCLUDINGARMED FORCES OVERSEAS
Total 235,919 114,863 121,056 100.0 48.7 51.3Under IS years 62,542 31,978 30,565 26.5 13.6 13.018 to 64 years 145,592 71,751 73,841 61.7 30.4 31.365 years and over 27,784 11,135 16,649 11.8 4.7 7.1
ARMED FORCES (WORLDWIDE)
Total 2,209 2,012 197 100.0 91.1 8.9Under 18 years 8 7 I 0.3 0.3 -18 to 64 years 2,202 2,005 196 99.7 90.8 8.965 years and over - - -
INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION
Total 2,734 1,322 1,413 100.0 48.3 51.7Under 18 years 153 108 45 5.6 4.0 1.618 to 64 years 1,065 805 261 39.0 29.4 9.565 years and over 1,516 409 1,107 55.4 15.0 40.5
CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIOhALPOPULATION
Total 230,975 111,530 119,446 100.0 48.3 51.7Under 18 years. 62,382 31,862 30,519 27.0 13.8 13.218 to 64 years 142,325 68,941 73,384 61.6 29.8 31.865 years and over 26,269 10,726 15,542 11.4 4.6 6.7
- Represents zero or rounds to zero.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Monthly National Population EstimatesProgram.
52 45
46
Appendix C.
Sources of Figures
1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 949,Estimates of the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1980 to1983 (May 1984), cover.
2 Ibid., figure 2.3 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 952,
Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1983to 2080 (May 1984), figure I.
4 Ibid., figure 4.5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 130,
Population Profile of the United States: 1982 (December 1983), table 12. Figuresfor 1980.82 based on U.S. National Center for Health Statistics estimates. The1983 figure is a Census Bureau estimate.
6 U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States,Volume I, Natality, annual issues.
7 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 957,Estimates of the Population of States: 1970 to 1983 (October 1984), table 1.
8 Ibid.9 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1985
(December 1984), table 19 and unpublished Census Bureau estimates.10 Ibid., table 21 and unpublished Census Bureau estimates.11 U.S. Bureau of the Census/U.S. Department of Agriculture, Current Population
Reports, Series P-27, No. 57, Farm Population of the United States: 1983(November 1984), table A.
12 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 393,Geographical Mobility: March 1982 to March 1983 (October 1984), table A.
13 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 391,Households, Families, Marital Status, and Living Arrangements: March 1984(Advance Report) (August 1984), table 2.
14 Ibid., table 6.15 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 399,
Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1984 (July 1985), table D.16 Ibid, table 2 and prior annual marital status reports.17 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 519,
Estimates of the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race: April 1,1960, to July 1, 1973 (April 1974); Series P-25, No. 917, Preliminary Estimatesof the Population of the United States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1970 to 1981(July 1982)'; and Series P-25, Nos. 949 and 952.
18 Op. dt., Statistical Abstract: 1985 (December 1984), table 208.19 U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished data from the March 1984 Current
Population Survey.20 Op. dt., Series P-23, No. 130, table 18, and unpublished data from the
March 1984 Current Population Survey.21 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, (January 1984), table
A-1, p.17.22 Ibid., table 12, p. 169.23 Ibid., table 1, pp. 13-16, and table 20, p.176.24 Ibid.25 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. la
Lifetime Work Experience andits Effect on Earnings (June 1984), tables 3Aand 3B.
26 Ibid., tables 5A and 5B.27 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 145,
Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United States:1983 (August 1984), table 3.
53
28 Ibid., tables 1 and 6.29 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-70. No 1.
Economic Charactenstics of Households in the United States Third Quarter 1983(September 1984). table C.
30 Ibid., table F.31 Op. cit., Series P60. No. 145, table 15.32 Ibid., table 18.
54
47
ON-LINE?or
IN LINEforCensusData?
s rop WAITING FOR FACTS NEEDED NOW.
Get news and numbers the DAY they're announced. In CENDATA the CensusBureau's new on-line system. Keep up to the minute in fast changing fields
construction and housingmanufactures and agriculturebusiness and population
In an easy-to-use system, find data ranging from county estimates to internationaltrends. Find indicators of the future before it's the past.
You can iccess CENDATA throughDIALOG Information Services, Inc. or The Glimpse Corporation(800)227-1927, or (703)836-6800.(800)982-5838 in California
Or call the Census Bureau on (301) 763-2074 or 763-4100 for more information.Now key statistics are just a phone call away.
55U US GOVZ1014LNTPRINT1NO0/71CL 1,45 - 461.100 - 227/2002/
