June 3, 1960 Release at Will

(Special to Editors of Editorial Pages, Feature Editors, Others)

WHO LEAVES NORTH CAROLINA, WHO COMES IN, AND WHY... OUT-MIGRATION AMD IN-MIGRATION, INDUSTRIALIZATION, UNEMPLOYMENT

An Interview * With Rupert Bayless Vance Kenan Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina (An authority on population and human geography, Dr. Vance has been a member of the facility at the University of North Carolina since 1926. His specialties are ecology, social theory, population, and social structure. He has been President of the American Sociological Society. He is a native of Arkansas, received his M.A. degree at Vanderbilt University, his Ph.D. at Chapel Hill. He is author of "Human Geography of the South" and "All These People: The Nation's Human Resources in the South", the latter acclaimed by population experts as a model of its kind.)

* Interview conducted by Pete Ivey, Director of News Bureau University of North Carolina

Question: Dr. Vance, are you alarmed over Census reports and some of the comment about North Carolina's loss in population — that is, that the out-migration has been more than the in-migration in the past ten years?

A: No. I am not alarmed. To the contrary, when I examine the long-term drift of populations, "bur mobile economy, our right of free choice of movement from state to state, the problems of modern industrialization and North Carolina's hopes and potentials for the future, I find more cause for rejoicing than for grief. Had it not been for North Carolina' s. high birthrate, we might have had a net loss in population.

Q: What kind of people left and what kind came in.

A: We won't know the details until additional Census data becomes available later on — such as specific information about age, sex, race, rural and urban residents and the like. Q: From your present observation, can you tell who left and who came in, and why it happened? A: You might say that we swapped manual labor for brain labor.

A: The people who left the state chiefly were farm laborers who became unemployed because it takes fewer farmers today to produce more. Others who left were manual laborers in the towns and cities. The ones who came in were people with technical skills and executive capacity. We send out about eight manual workers and get back about one brain worker — that's about the ratio. Q: What attracted the in-migration?

A: New industries in North Carolina. Manufacturing. At the same time there was expansion in service and distributing industries.

Q: Why didn't the new industrial development result in new jobs for people leaving the farms?

A: It did. Thousands of North Carolinians got jobs in the new industry. But not enough new industry came in to hire all of the people who became unemployed. So they looked for jobs where they could find them. They went out of the state.

Q: Is the loss in population — more going out than coming in — a normal happening, something that might have been expected, or is it astonishing?

A: In the kind of society and form of government we have, people can move over state boundaries at will. We don't want to keep them at home if they don't want to stay at home. We don't have a right to do that. At the same time, we don't want to be in a position of pushing people out of the state.

Q: Were the North Carolina population statistics of 1960 surprising to you?

A: No. The out-migration in North Carolina has exceeded the in-migration in every Census since 1880.

Q: What caused it the last eighty years? Has the trend been gradual and regular?

A: It has had its ups and downs but the long term trend has been for the out-migration to exceed the in-migration. From 1920 to 1930, North Carolina's loss of people was heavy) the main reason was that agriculture was depressed in North Carolina and the rest of the country was doing well industrially. The result was that the unemployed on our farms went outside the state to get jobs. In the 1930's we has a national and worldwide depression; and between 1930 and 1940 industrial jobs were scarce all over the country. During that period many came back to North Carolina.

Q: Does it follow then that a good way to keep people from leaving North Carolina is to have a national depression? And would it be true that in times of prosperity generally over

A: That is one conclusion, but there are other factors entering into migration and population. In the World War II period 1940 to 1950, for example, people moved around. Going into service tends to move people. Once begun, the movement has continued.

Q: Has this same trend been a factor from 1950 to 1960, with the draft still in force and the cold war going on?

A: Yes, it has. And I don't think it's altogether bad. It's all right for people to move around. They get to know the world more. That is especially true for people living in the mountains. They never would have gotten out of the hills if they hadn't gone into service. I am not against crossing state boundaries. We don't have customs barriers or frontiers in this country. The only time I was ever stopped at a state boundary was to check my car for Japanese beetles.

Q: So, you are not opposed to North Carolinians leaving home?

A: If they can't get good Jobs at home, they had better go elsewhere. It's better than hanging around unemployed — especially if there are good jobs they can do in other states.

Q: But aren't we losing valuable talent when they go out of the state, potential manpower than we cannot afford to lose?

A: It is true that when you raise and educate a man all the way through the university, you make' an investment of thousands of dollars — say $20,000 a person, or the cost of a good house. It would be nice if you could keep all of them at home. But, if there is no need in North Carolina for his services for the time being, it is much better for the individual to go where he can be useful. It's sort of like the game of fruit basket, and fitting round pegs into round holes. There are jobs in other states. So they go there.

Q: Don't we have jobs in North Carolina that many could fill, too. Don't we get people from other states to come into this state for jobs?

A: Yes, we have good jobs that attract people from other states. The whole thing is a swap-around arrangement, and it isn't too bad. The main thing is to watch out and not be on the losing end of the deal. Naturally we are disappointed in North Carolina that we didn't grow more.

Q: What kind of people have we lost and what kind have we gained?

A: We have lost farm laborers and manual laborers mainly, and we have gained professional

Q: What are the economic forces which have caused out-migration and in-migration?

A: There have been pushes and there have been pulls. The thing that has worked to push people out of North Carolina has been the shrinking importance of agriculture. It is not that we are growing less on the farms. Crops are as abundant Or better than ever. Farms today are larger, but regardless of size, each can grow more than it used to. We don't need as many farmers. All of the knowledge of scientific farming, all of the help given to the farmer by agricultural colleges and the extension services, the mechanization, the improved breeding practices, better seed, better fertilization — all have served to produce bigger yields. Ten farmers in 1960 can grow what it took twenty or thirty farmers to grow thirty years ago. We are having to sit on the lid and do everything we can to keep down acreage. If North Carolina farmers were to turn loose and grow all of the tobacco that could be grown in this state, we would have so much tobacco the world wouldn't be able to take it all. But all of it has tended to create unemployment on farms and push people off the farms — some of them out of the state.

Q: What about the pulling forces?

A: The pull, or bringing new people into North Carolina, means the continued expansion of services — white collar work. You can't mechanize service jobs like you can mechanize farming. The doctor has to take some time with each individual patient. Teachers find that learning can best be absorbed in small classes. There is no ceiling over white collar work as there is in agricultural production.

Q: Dr. Vance, is North Carolina's loss unique? Have many other states lost people in that manner?

A: Other southern states have lost, some of them more than North Carolina. The same factors have been at work. And the trend is not confined to the South. For instance, New York City has lost people. A recount was demanded, and when they got the recount, they hesitated to make it public. City populations are moving to the suburbs. Chicago's inside city limits owes practically all of its recent growth to the in-migration of Negroes from the South. The nation's major growth is taking place in the West. The West Coast is the fastest growing region, especially California.

Q: What could have been done to hold on to those people that we lost by out-migration?

A: We could have industrialized at a faster rate, and brought in more service, distribution

Q: Why didn't we industrialize faster?

A: We must be as frank about our limitations in North Carolina as well as about out strong points. In the first place, we don't have in this state two fundamental things that make for a great industrial region. First, we lack the basic metals. We don't have coal. We lack iron ore and bauxite for aluminum. Second, we don't have petroleum, the basis of an oil economy. We don't have a Birmingham, and we don't have what Texas and Louisiana have.

Q: If we could have industrialized more carefully and in an accelerated-manner, could we have retrained our farm and manual laborers for the new jobs in growing industry?

A: Somewhat. We have missed the boat on some things. We can grow soybeans in this state in large quantities. But we don't process them. Others make the soy sauce. Maybe we could have done better had we processed more farm products and trained the farm people who are right next to it — and kept them in North Carolina. We have done that to a certain extent, and the processing industries are growing — in peanuts, pickles, sea food, and the like.

Q: Has North Carolina been worse off than other southern states in its holding power on those who feel impelled to go to other states?

A: We have done better than some of them. Arkansas has suffered, and so has Mississippi and Alabama. Some southern states have actually had population losses, regardless of high birthrates .

Q: How do the other southern states see that development?

A: Although we may be feeling sorry for ourselves, some of the other southern states are looking to North Carolina as an example of success — in industrialization.

Q: Didn't South Carolina for a while have success in winning new industry — much more so than some of her neighboring Southern states.

A: Yes, South Carolina had a boom for a while. It was largely because of the Savannah River development. But at the present time the situation is becoming stabilized in South Carolina.

Q: What other things could we do to promote more and better industrialization in North Carolina in spite of the handicaps of not having basic metal and oil resources?

A: We might consider New England's example. That is not a metals producing area. Yet Yale

Q: Then we should try for new skills and new industries?

A: Yes, but we must be very careful about this. You don't build up a tradition of excellence overnight. As a caution, I might say that I have often felt it would be a great mistake for the South to go into the automobile manufacturing business. Assembly plants, yes. But for South to attempt automobile manufacturing would be economic suicide. We should not deceive ourselves that just because we want something badly we are going to get it. We would lose our shirts in the process.

Q: Haven't we lost some young people, college graduates going into business, and university trained school teachers? What about them?

A: Yes, we have. Graduation from college is the major time for moving. Young people will be getting married, looking for the very best job opportunities and many of them go out of the state — striving-for better jobs, maximum opportunity. Yet, we attract some able college graduates into the state, skilled people. Some of them come to colleges here and remain, while ours go to other states. I think that is natural and not bad.

Q: What has been the effect of unemployment on city workers in comparison with farm workers in North Carolina?

A: The city workers don't have the staying power of the man on the farms. Unemployed city workers are forced to move earlier. They have to pay rent in the cities, or go on relief, or move.

Q: Have the efforts to bring in new industry in any way injured the agricultural economy?

A: I don't see how. New industry buys what the farms produce. New industry employs thosewho move off the farms. Agriculture benefits greatly by a balance of farming and industry. When cities grow, more demand is created for products of the farm.

Q: Then you feel industrialization has not worsened the lot of the farmer?

A: No. The farmers would have been much worse off than they are now if we hadn't been gradually industrializing. Take Mississippi as an example. Mississippi hasn't industrialized,

Q: Many of the out-migrants are Negroes, and some people have declared that the majority of the Negroes leaving the South are the most able ones, the college graduates and those who have acquired skills. They also say that while the able Negroes go North, their less able cousins remain at home to be cared for. What is your opinion of that?

A: I doubt that it is so. Frankly, I think we do a better job in employing Negro teachers in the South, for instance, than they do in the Northern states. The main jobs for Negroes in the North are in manual labor. Not many get white collar jobs in the large northern cities. They usually follow manual labor, factory jobs. But in the South, the educated Negroes are able to practice trades and professions — law, medicine, business — because of the large Negro population. After the Negro crosses the Mason-Dixon Line going northward the main jobs available to Negro women, after domestic service, are clerical and secretarial jobs, chiefly in government.

Q: Has there been a known policy of getting rid of low income people in the South, such as

the Negroes, and encouraging them to go to other states?

A: No. I see no reason to accuse our people of any such cruelty.

Q: Is there historical precedent, in other regions and in other nations, for movement of people across boundaries when industrialization comes, or agricultural techniques promote more abundant yields in food?

A: Yes. We have seen this swap around for a long time. When New England became industrialized originally and at the same time farms became more efficient mechanically, some of the men went into the new industry, but much of the new labor was immigrant. The Portuguese, the Irish and the French-Canadians came into New England mills. Many of the New England men went West and became school teachers and professional men. New England has exported educators for a long time. This was tragic in a way because of what happened to women in New England. They didn't go west with the men. They remained behind in New England and became spinsters. At first, many New England women worked in industry. It was a respectable thing to do. Lucy Larcom, the poet, was a textile worker. But after the immigrants came, not many of the original New England women worked in the mills. And they didn't marry the immigrants. Something similar happened in England during the industrial revolution. The countryside fed the English cities, and many of the surplus English farmers came to America.

Q: Is this to he considered a national problem?

A: It will always be a national problem. It was a problem during the depression. People left their homes, went to New York and other metropolitan areas and went on relief if they could. California had a policy of paying newcomers their way back home. It was cheaper than relief payments. In New York at the present time there is the problem of absorbing Negroes from the South as well as Puerto Ricans. New York is not prepared to take care of all the streams of people that go there. Another great dilemma is the problem of migrant farm labor, those who go from region to region to harvest crops and fail to stay in one place long enough to establish legal residence.

Q: Isn't technological unemployment a main feature of our modern economy, and isn't the problem of migration and its effect on the economy going to get worse rather than better?

A: I think we are more fortunate than we have any right to expect. Ever since World War II, people have been predicting a depression. But somehow we keep right on producing.

Q: What other things can we do in North Carolina to cope with the out-migration problem?

A: Besides industrialization and training, we can make the best possible use of public employment agencies. These agencies can be used a great deal more by employers and by employees. Jobs to fit qualifications can be found — if not in the same community or in the same state, then in another state. Another thing we can do is improvement the quality of education — not only in the colleges and universities but in the high schools. I speak especially of technical high schools or any vocational center where skills can be learned, where broader opportunities for versatile occupations can be offered to young men and young women.

Q: Will the same out-migration trend continue in North Carolina, with the out-migration again exceeding the in-migration in 1970.

A: I am not the seventh son of a seventh son. However, I would say that, barring a depression, the same trend we have noticed since 1880 will continue during the next ten years. A depression would reverse both the out-migration and the in-migration. Obviously it is not worth it. Continued prosperous times would tend to cause the same economic forces now operating to continue.

A: That day may come eventually, but it is not now in sight. As I have said, we lack basic metals and oil resources. We have to exert special efforts to build ourselves as an industrial state by skillful means. We have done well with our older industries — tobacco, textiles, and later furniture. And now we are doing well in chemicals, paper, synthetics, electronics, woollens. But there is another thing that concerns me.

Q: What is that?

A: We have been talking as though nothing mattered except North Carolina. If we take industry from another region, that region suffers and must adapt itself to the change. If we took most the industry out of New York, for example, then we'd have to pay the taxes here that New York is paying at the present time, and the New Yorkers would be on the dole. Then we'd feel about New York the way New York feels about us now. Another thing we must consider: industry may eventually pass us by and go further South or West.

Q: What can be done to give basic protection to our economy no matter what happens?

A: We should do everything we can to get out of the one-crop industry. We must diversify.

Q: Is out-migration to be avoided?

A: I don't think it's too bad to migrate. I happen to be an in-migrant in North Carolina and am glad of it. Some people go to New York and other places and have a darn good time and live useful and happy lives. We do have people who refuse better jobs at better pay in order to stay in North Carolina. In the main I do not approve of that. Carried out as a policy it would lead the state to expect to get something they can't pay for in full. This is unrealistic and tends to spoil the people. What's bad is for a person to prepare himself for the future, to look around and not be able to find a job to fit his skills. That situation can be helped by migrating, or bringing in new industry, or re-training in other allied skills, and using existing employment agencies to match jobs and men in appropriate harmony.

Q: Then you would say that we can consider ourselves lucky to have done as well as we have?

A: I would acknowledge that the ideal situation would be a perfect balance between agriculture and manufacturing and growth.of allied service and distributing — for one economic force tends to complement the other for the greater well being of both and rising per capita wealth. But the plain economic facts of life don't point to any perfect balance any time