Rents More Than Half Again as High as in 1940 Median gross rents have increased relatively more for rural nonfarm than for urban, and more for nonwhite than for white renters. Severity of Overcrowding in 1950 The percent of nonfarm homes with 1.51 or more persons per room was higher for renters Overcrowding was most severe for nonwhite rural-nonfarm renters. war production took place, and particularly for the first time in west coast localities such as Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay area, San Diego, Portland-Vancouver area, and Seattle. Comparative Changes in Population and Households Probably reflecting the added difficulties encountered by nonwhites in obtaining adequate housing accommodations, the 10 percent rate of increase in the number of dwelling units occupied by nonwhites failed to keep pace with the 15 percent rate of increase in the nonwhite population over-all. While the total nonwhite population rose by 15 percent, the total number of nonwhite households increased only 14 percent. In urban areas the rate of increase in population was slightly higher than in households, but in rural nonfarm areas it was one-fourth again as great. In farm areas, on the other hand, the rate of decrease in nonwhite households, 36.4 percent, was far greater than the rate of decline in nonwhite population, 29.8 percent. Meanwhile, the nonwhite population per occupied dwelling unit remained stable, the median number at both census dates being 3.3 for all nonwhite households and 3.8 for those in nonfarm areas. The situation among nonwhites varies in several respects from the long-term trends evidenced for the total population since 1890. In every decade from 1890 to 1950 the rate of increase was greater for total occupied dwelling units than for total population. For the period since 1920 when nonfarm data first became available, this tendency has been even more pronounced for the nonfarm areas. For example, from 1930 to 1940 the total nonfarm population increased by 9.5 percent, while total nonfarm occupied dwelling units increased by over 19 percent. Similarly, from 1940 to 1950, the total number of occupied dwelling units in nonfarm areas increased by about 32 percent compared with a rise of 25 percent in the total nonfarm population. Geographic Shifts in Households Although the rates of increase in nonwhite households and population differed somewhat, the loca tion of households followed to some extent the pattern of change observed for population. By 1950, two-thirds of the nonwhite households were urban, compared with little more than a half in 1940. Correspondingly, the rural farm proportion declined from 31 percent of all nonwhite households in 1940 to 17 percent in 1950. The shifts that have occurred in the nonwhite households have brought about a distribution between farm and nonfarm areas which approximates more closely the distribution among white households. In 1950, the only significant differences remaining between the location of white and nonwhite households were found in the rural areas, particularly farm areas. About 18 percent of the nonwhite households lived in rural nonfarm areas, compared with about 20 percent of the white households. The rural nonfarm areas to a large extent have been developed in comparatively recent years and contain a considerable number of subdivisions from which nonwhite occupants have been excluded by means of restrictive practices against them. At the same time, 17 percent of the nonwhite households still lived in farm areas compared with 14 percent of white households, despite the apparently more rapid shift of nonwhite households from farms to urban areas. Between 1940 and 1950, farm households declined 36 percent for nonwhites but only 13 percent for whites. The marked tendency shown by nonwhites to move to urban rather than rural nonfarm areas has undoubtedly aggravated the congested conditions under which many of them were already living even before this influx. Of the total nonwhite households in both rural and urban areas, the proportion found in the South dropped from 74 percent in 1940 to 66 percent in 1950. If only urban areas are considered, however, the proportion of nonwhite households located in the South declined relatively less, from 57 to 54 percent. This reflects the shift already cited of nonwhites from rural to urban areas within the South. The decrease in percentage of nonwhite urban households in the South was, to be sure, accompanied by gains in all other regions combined. The proportion of all urban nonwhite households located in these (non-southern) regions rose from 43 percent in 1940 to 46 percent in 1950. HOUSING SUPPLY The extensive and rapid population shifts, high levels of family formation, and rising employment and income all combined to create acute pressure upon the housing supply during much of the decade up to 1950. Despite many obstacles which impeded the production of housing during the period, home builders and investors performed creditably in expanding the housing supply, particularly since 1946. The housing supply was expanded sufficiently during the decade to meet in some fashion most of the burgeoning needs. Doubling If the ebb and flow of doubling (i. e., households which contain, in addition to the head, one or more married couples) is taken as an indication of the availability of housing accommodations, the progress made especially in the closing years of the decade is impressive. Starting with 1,540,000 nonfarm families sharing quarters with others in 1940, the number of such families soared to 2,712,000 in 1947. By 1950, however, the number had again declined to 1,919,000. Taking into account additions to the housing supply and the increases in number of households during the decade, the rate of doubling in 1950 was 6.4 percent of all nonfarm occupied dwelling units. This 1950 rate was as low as it had been at any time since 1910. figures include a small number of married couples in quasi-households.) (These This improvement in the over-all situation obscures the fact that the doubling picture among nonwhite families still remained bad. In 1950, there were 339,000 nonwhite families living doubled up with other nonfarm families, at a doubling rate of 15 percent, or nearly three times that for white families. In nonfarm areas, the incidence of doubling among nonwhites was about two and one half times as great as among whites. Doubling was most severe in urban areas, for both whites and nonwhites. Of significance is the fact that between. 1940 and 1950 doubling had decreased propornately for whites in all areas of residence, but among nonwhites it had actually increased both numerically and proportionately, except in the rural non farm areas, where it had changed little. In nonfarm areas, nonwhite married couples without their own household rose from 274,000 or 13.8 percent in 1940 to 339,000 or 15.1 percent in 1950. In the South doubling among both white and nonwhites was not as great as in the other regions combined. Only in the nonfarm South was doubling among nonwhites less severe in 1950 than in 1940. A large factor in these results were the migration trends. Overcrowding The high proportion of doubling among nonwhites is undoubtedly a factor contributing to the overcrowding which is so marked in dwelling units occupied by this group. Overcrowding as evidenced by occupied dwelling units with more than 1.5 persons per room, or with less space than two-thirds of a room for each person, is far more prevalent among nonwhite than white households. Among nonfarm dwelling units occupied by nonwhites in 1950, about 18 percent were found to have more than one and one-half persons per room compared with only something over 4 percent of such units occupied by whites. Little change was evidenced since 1940 in overcrowding in dwellings occupied by nonwhites when a little over 18 percent also contained more than one and one-half persons per room, although the proportion of overcrowding among whites declined by almost one-third since 1940. Thus, the most serious overcrowding conditions were among nonwhites. Especially was this true for renters. Not only was the proportion of overcrowding among nonwhite renter-households some three and one-half times as high as among white renter-households in 1950, but for nonwhites it actually increased during the decade from 20 to 23 percent. That nonwhites tended to be more constricted in their living quarters than whites is brought out in another way by examination of the distribution of the number of rooms per occupied dwelling unit and the number of persons per household. Such data are not yet available by color from the 1950 census, but the 1947 Sample Survey is revealing in this respect. While about 35 percent of the units occupied by white households contained six or more rooms, only 17 percent of the units occupied by nonwhites were in this category. At the same time, 12 percent of the nonwhite households consisted of seven or more persons as compared with only 5 percent of the white households. The median number of rooms in nonfarm dwelling units occupied was 4.9 for whites and 3.9 for nonwhites, or a room less, on the average, for nonwhites. At the same time, the median number of persons per nonfarm unit occupied was practically the same for both. Analysis of related data suggests that it is unlikely that these relationships have changed much since 1947. Income Concurrent with population growth and shifts, the rise in the income of nonwhite workers had a marked effect upon the physical condition, tenure, value, rent, and mortgage status of the housing supply available to them. Census estimates of the income distribution of nonfarm families for the year 1949 show that approximately half of the nonwhite group had annual total money incomes of about $1,700 or more, and the other half below that figure. For whites, the halfway mark was about $3,400, twice as great. Approximately 19 percent of the nonwhite families, but 60 percent of the white families received incomes of $3,000 and over in 1949. Income data for prewar years are not available for a direct comparison with the distribution of nonfarm families by total money income received in 1949. Conversely, it is impossible to show 1949 income from wages and salaries which would afford a direct comparison with 1939 data collected by the Census Bureau. For 1945, however, information is available on civilian earnings, which differ from wages and salaries mainly in the inclusion of net income from self-employment.3 A rough approxi 3 Differences in the income concept, in the size of the respective samples, in coverage and in sampling error prevent exact comparison of these data. In 1939, for example, only income from wages and salaries was reported and persons who derived income from sources other than wages and salaries were excluded. But the 1945 figures include, in addition to wages and salaries, net income from farm and nonfarm self-employment (i. e., money income from a business or professional enterprise or farm in which the individual was engaged on his own account). Also the 1939 data include earners in quasi-households such as hotels and quarters for resident employees of institutions, but the 1945 data exclude such persons. 206422-52-3 mation of income changes over the first half of the decade 1939-49 may be gained by comparing the 1939 and 1945 data, bearing in mind the probable overstatement of the increase. Thus, the median civilian money earnings of $815 reported for nonwhite civilian earners in 1945 was about double the median income of $371 shown for nonwhite wage and salary workers without other income in 1939. Since the distributions and medians for total money income in 1945 and 1949 resemble each other closely, it is probable that civilian money earnings in 1949 were also substantially higher than in 1939, as evidenced by the most nearly comparable data for that year-income from wages and salaries. In fact, nonfarm incomes for nonwhites were probably nearer three times higher in 1949 than in 1939. Further analysis indicates that the sharp rise in the earnings and income of nonwhite families probably narrowed the gap somewhat between the levels of white and nonwhite incomes but fell far short of erasing it. women. The improvement over the decade in incomes of nonwhites resulted from significant shifts from employment on farm to employment at higher wage rates in factories and from considerable upgrading in type and level of jobs for both nonwhite men and In 1950, for example, 82.9 percent of all nonwhite employed persons were engaged as private wage and salary workers and as government workers as compared with 72.4 percent in 1940. The percentage of self-employed workers, however, declined from 20.8 percent to 12.8 percent, and that of unpaid family workers from 6.8 percent to 4.2 percent. The improved income situation among nonwhites arose in part from the large proportion of nonwhite families which customarily have two or more regular wage earners. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "reconversion of industry to peacetime activities brought no major downgrading in the occupational composition of the Negro workers. This is especially significant in view of the concentration of wartime employment advances of Negroes in those occupations, industries, and areas in which the postwar readjustment was most severe." 4 |