with unemployment (when employed during 1961) were $25 lower than those of year-round workers; if a similar gap is assumed for family heads, it would imply an annual difference of $1,300, apart from the effects of unemployment. Assuming further that the weekly earnings of unemployed family heads ($75 to $80 a week) were somewhat higher than for the unemployed as a whole, their average loss of potential earnings through unemployment could be estimated at about $1,100 to $1,300,14 since their average duration of unemployment was about 15 to 16 weeks. Roughly two-fifths of this loss was offset by unemployment compensation for the 3.4 million heads who received these benefits.

Despite his loss of earnings through unemployment, the family head's wage income was a major component of his family's income. During 1961, the head's wage income ($2,700) accounted for nearly three-fifths of aggregate family income for these 5.3 million families. At the same time, however, the nonwage income of the head, principally from unemployment insurance benefits, and the earnings of other family members were important contributions to family income-accounting for two-fifths of the aggregate income.

Since the earning ability of the head tends to exceed that of other family members, his unemployment strikes a much greater blow at the family's financial solvency than does the joblessness of other members. Among the 3.5 million families in which the unemployed person was the wife or other relative, family income averaged $800 more than for the 5.3 million families in which the head was unemployed. No doubt in many families, the head continued to work and to receive his regular earnings while family members were seeking work, as indicated by the fact that the personal incomes of wives and relatives with unemployment averaged less than one-third of their total family income. This low ratio, however, was partly the result of unemployment itself.

On the other hand, in about one-fourth of the 3.5 million families in which the unemployed person was the wife or other relative, these family members provided more than half the family's wage or salary income in spite of their unemployment. Of course, their loss of income while unemployed had a serious effect upon the financial structure of their families.

Number of dependents

Sharing the total income of families with an unemployed head were an estimated 19 million persons (over 10 percent of the country's total population in April 1962). These included 5.3 million family heads, 4.7 million wives, 8.5 million children under 18 years old, and 600.000 dependent relatives and other persons. Families with an unemployed head not only had incomes about one-fourth lower than for all families and two-fifths lower than for families whose heads had steady full-time employment, but they were also faced with the need to distribute their lower income among relatively more consumers. For example, among the families affected by the head's unemploy

Precise data on the average weekly wage and salary earnings during 1961 of heads with and without unemployment are not available. persons with unemployment averaged $70 in weekly earnings. On their current or last job, all ployment for family heads jobless more than 5 weeks during 1961 was estimated from Average duration of unemWork Experience of the Population in 1961," Bureau of Labor Statistics Special Labor Force Report No. 25, table C-1.

ment, some 26 percent had 3 children or more under 18 (including 14 percent with 4 or more), whereas among other families, 22 percent had 3 children or more (including 11 percent with 4 or more). Conversely, while 36 percent of the families hit by unemployment had no young children, 41 percent of the other families were in this position.

TABLE 8.-Methods used by family to meet living expenses during unemployment, by family position of unemployed person1 and duration of unemployment, 1961 [Percent distribution]

1 Includes persons 18 years old or older in April 1962 who were able to work, not in school, and who had some prior work experience.

NOTE.-Sum of percents adds to more than 100 because many families resorted to more than one method:

Among the families with an unemployed head, the total income available rose as family size increased, up to five persons. This reflects the contribution of additional earners plus the fact that the head's earning power reaches a peak in his late thirties and early forties. However, in families with more than five persons the increases in income were slight and per capita income dropped sharply.

How living expenses were met

In a high proportion of families, total income apparently was insufficient to maintain living standards without resorting to other means, such as using savings, borrowing money, or turning to friends and relatives for help. Use of most of these methods was much more likely if the unemployed person was the family head or was jobless over half the year.

The most usual method of replacing some of the missing income was by the use of savings. Almost half the families withdrew from their savings, averaging $400 (table 8). Nearly one-quarter of the families borrowed money, with half of the borrowers obtaining $300 or more. Other means of meeting living expenses in times of unemployment included cash assistance and surplus food from public and private welfare agencies and moving to cheaper housing. Each of these methods was resorted to in proportionately more families where the jobless person was unemployed more than 26 weeks.

[From the Manpower Report of the President, 1962]

GROWTH AND CHANGE IN THE POPULATION AND IN THE LABOR FORCE

THE GROWING POPULATION

Growth and change have characterized the American population and labor force throughout our history. Since 1910 the country's population has doubled (chart 1). In the past 20 years alone it has grown by nearly 50 million, a gain of about 35 percent. A half century ago, 1 out of every 3 people lived on a farm; less than 1 in every 10 lives there today. While people in rural areas continue to move into the cities, city dwellers persist in moving out to the suburbs, urbanizing farm areas in the process. Geographic shifts of population are cutting into the population growth in some regions-New England, the South, and the North Central States-and contributing to it in others, above all the Far West.

The population gains since World War II-the largest the country has ever experienced in a 15-year period-have been due chiefly to the high postwar birth rates, although the increasing longevity of the population has been another contributing factor. Immigration, which in earlier periods added greatly to the country's population, is no longer a significant factor in population growth.

Since the postwar population explosion followed a decade and a half of low birth rates resulting from depression and wartime conditions, a sharp rise in the number and proportion of children has been a feature of recent population increases (table 1). In 1940 children under 10 years of age numbered 21 million and represented one-sixth of the population. By 1960 their number had grown to 39 million, or one-fifth of the total population.

The increase in the number of older persons has been equally notable-from 9 million in 1940 to 17 million in 1960, for those aged 65 and over. Although changes in death rates have been small in recent years, a really dramatic reduction in these rates has taken place since the beginning of the century, as a consequence of improved sanitation, immunization, and other public health measures, and of wider availability and higher standards of medical care. The most striking development has been the decline in infant mortality. Between 1915 and 1961 infant mortality dropped from 100 to 25 per 1,000 live births. The result has been a great lengthening of life expectancy. In 1900 the chances of a newborn male child living to age 65 were about 4 out of 10. In 1950 the chances had increased to 6 out of 10, and in 1960 to about 612 out of 10. For female infants the chances of reaching age 65 have improved even more-from 4 out of 10 in 1900, to over 7 out of 10 in 1950, and nearly 8 out of 10 in 1960.

36-510-64—vol. 1——16

TABLE 1.-Total population, population under 10, and population 65 years and over, 1910 and 1940-60

1 Based on unrounded figures.

Includes Alaska and Hawaii (totaling 860,000 in 1960).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Because people live so much longer, there has been an increase in the years spent both at work and in retirement. Estimates prepared by the Department of Labor as of 1955 indicate that a 20-year-old person could expect to work for 43 years and spend 6.5 years in retirement. In 1900 he could have expected to work 39.4 years and to spend only 2.8 years in retirement. For older persons, the expectation with respect to years of retirement has improvement even more sharply. A 60-year-old person in 1900 could look forward to an average of 2.8 years in retirement; in 1955, to 6.7 years. And the retirement period will become substantially longer in the future. This may explain in part why provisions for retirement and pension plans now loom so large in collective bargaining and in workers' evaluations of the relative desirability of different jobs.

The great increase in the older population also underlines the importance of increased provision for the special health, housing, and recreational needs of retired people and of the aging, as well as of adequate income maintenance arrangements for them. Similarly, the spectacular growth in numbers of children has created a need for expanded educational facilities and other services to the young-a need of a magnitude and urgency beyond anything previously experienced in our country's history. Since further growth in population, both young and old, is in prospect (as indicated by the projections presented later in this report), we must expect and provide for meeting even greater needs of these kinds in the years ahead.

THE CHANGING SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE LABOR FORCE

The growth in the country's labor force over the past two decadesthough not so rapid, in relative terms, as the increase in populationhas nevertheless been very substantial. From 56 million in 1940, the number of workers grew to 73 million in 1960. This gain of 17 million workers was the largest ever yet experienced in this country in any 20-year period, though it will be far surpassed in the next 20 years (chart 2).1

A variety of developments-economic and social, as well as demographic-have entered into the growth of the labor force. While increases in the working-age population have been an important factor, changes in the proportion of men and women in various age groups

1 For a further discussion of prospective labor force changes, see ch. 7, pp. 84-88.