The Population of New Hampshire 2. MIGRATION AND CHANGES IN COMPOSITION By J. R. Bowring M. S. Purington O. B. Durgin Agricultural Experiment Station University of New Hampshire Durham, N. H. Station Bulletin 425 Hinsbll' Troy I latlrey fT^ T \*'"°"\ m 1(„ }s \ " liV-"\ ^ \ V" |\f,„„,II,J ^ \ New \ Uso^ r „ 3 -a o an CS u c75 c o V o to O o o U CO to c CO Q M CO <= s i-H(Ni— II llllllll LO cq f^ i-H CO \o cm' 00 o (--• "-i ^ 1— I oq CO i-H\0'^o\o\'^t-~;cq LO CM lO ' 1— J t^ lo o^ CM I— H 'O ^ LO \0 VO rH CM I oscooqcoi-HOCsvqcM i^vdo6vd,Looo'edvc5cM T}-HVO'^C^CMO\dcM' I— I CO 1— I 1 1 I I— I I cM\qo^o^^-;^qcOl— ieoco_oeqc5CM ocooocrJcvivdo^cdrH^di-Hr^coi-H LocDo^c^coi— 5c4i— ?cMi-HO'*roo ■^ ON Tj> 0\ I o LO i rf ON CM CM I I O LO C^ CM 0\ CO I LO CO T T LO I o lO CD V < a o o. o a. c V 3 3 13 lo ID O LO O phasized in Table 5 where migration is expressed as a percentage of the 1940 age groups for each county. Coos, Grafton and Sullivan counties lost heavily in all age groups. With the exception of Rockingham and Strafford counties there was a net exodus from each county of the age groups who were 5 to 24 years of age in 1940 and who would have been 15 to 34 years in 1950. Industrial development and job opportunities undoubtedly con- tributed to a net increase in these productive age groups in the two southern counties of Rockingham and Strafford. Rural — Urban Migration The definition of rural farm and urban residence was different for the 1940 and 1950 census. Applying the 1940 definitions to the 1950 data made it possible, however, to establish the net migration of persons 0 to 54 in 1940 and who would have been 10 to 64 in 1950 by urbsn and rural residence classes. The results show a decrease in the rural farm and urban age groups and an increase in the rural nonfarm residents. For every 100 farm residents between the ages of 0 to 54 in 1940, for example, there were only 72 in 1950. For every 100 rural nonfarm residents between the ages 0 to 54 in 1940, there were 114 in 1950. Table 6. Net Migration from 1940 to 1950 of Urban, Rural Form and Rural Nonfarm Residents in the Age Groups 0 to 54 in 1940 Net Migration Percent of 1940 Population Urban - 8241 3.54 Rural Nonfarm 16830 14.38 Rural Farm —13043 28.39 The increase in rural nonfarm residents can be explained by the move- ment of city residents to neighboring rural areas and small towns. Improved roads and transportation facilities together with improved incomes has accentuated this preference for small town life. The decline in farm resi- dents is typical of the United States during and since the 1940-50 decade. The decrease in number of farms has been accompanied by an increase in the level of living of the remaining farm families. The number of farms in New Hampshire declined from 18,786 in 1945 to 10,411 in 1955 but the average size increased from 107 to 140 acres. The major sources of farm income are dairy and poultry. Cow numbers decreased somewhat during the decade from 65,000 to 59,000. At the same time, however, milk pro- duction per cow increased by at least 25 percent. Poultry numbers in- creased 20 percent from 1945 to 1955. The movement off farms does not indicate a decline in the economic significance of the industry so much as an economic reallocation of resources to increase the total product of the state. The farm-operator family level-of-living index as published by the IJSDA shows that the New Hampshire farm family level of living compares favorably with the rest of New England and is certainly higher than most other regions of the United States. There has been an improvement in levels of living as shown by a comparison of the 1930 level with 1950. Movement out of agriculture has in part contributed to this progress. There is some variation between counties and levels of farm-family living. The lowest levels are in Coos, Grafton, Belknap, and Carroll, and the highest are in Hillsboro, Cheshire, and Strafford. Table 7. Comparison of Farm-Operator Family Level-of-Living Indexed for New Hampshire, New England, and the United States in 1930 and 19501 Area 1930 1950 Increase United States New England New Hampshire Hillsboro Cheshire Strafford Rockingham Merrimack Sullivan Grafton Belknap Carroll Coos 75 122 47 107 152 45 105 151 46 121 166 45 110 161 51 113 160 47 110 158 48 103 147 44 96 146 50 102 146 44 103 144 41 99 144 * 45 98 139 41 1 Farm-Operator Family Level-of-Living Indexes for Counties of the United States. USDA. BAE. 1952. Urban, Rural Nonform and Rural Farm Migration by Counties The movement off farms or to nonfarm residences varied between coun- ties. All counties lost urban residents, except Rockingham and Strafford, and all lost rural farm residents. The proportions are shown in Table 8. Table 8. Estimated Migration by 1950 of Persons Who Were 0 to 54 in 1940 by Urban, Rural Nonfarrn and Rural Farm Categories Expressed as Percentages of the 1940 Population for Counties of New Hampshire County Urban Rural Nonfarm Rural Farm Belknap -0.9 12.7 -24.9 Carroll — -3.1 -23.4 Cheshire 4.6 13.9 -42.7 Coos -24.0 -10.5 -31.8 Grafton -3.7 6.41 -25.2 Hillsboro —3.4 24.6 —33.9 Merrimack -5.1 7.0 -23.0 Rockingham 7.2 31.9 -25.8 Strafford 0.4 56.71 -7.9 Sullivan -8.7 23.1 -32.9 1 Inclusion of students inflates the percentage. Effect of migration on Dependency Ratios The dependency ratio is an expression of the relationship of the num- ber of children 0 to 14 and the number of people over 65 to the number of persons in the age group 20 to 64. It estimates the number of dependents per 1,000 people aged 20 to 64. Comparison of this ratio between time {)eriods indicates changes in the age structure of the population. It may indicate potential tax problems, shifts in the size and distribution of in- come, or possible changes in institutional requirements such as schools. Effects of migration on the population of an area or region are revealed in changes in the dependency ratio. In a comparison between 1940 and 1950 the dependency ratio increased for all counties and all types of residents. For example, in Belknap County the number of children 0 to 14 and persons 65 and over was 8,505 in 1940, while the number in the 20 to 65 age group was 13,682. Dividing the former by the latter and multiplying by 1,000 gives a dependency ratio of 622 in 1940. This means there were 622 dependents for each 1,000 per- sons in the working age groups. By 1950 the dependency ratio for Belknap County had increased to 678, indicating that there were 56 more dependents for each 1,000 of the working group. The dependency ratios for 1940 and 1950 and the change between these dates is given in Table 9 for the state and for each county. Increases were greatest in rural nonfarm and rural farm groups. Table 9. Dependency Ratios for 1940 and 1950 by Total, Rural Farm, Rural Nonfarm, and Urban Groups and the Change in Ratio between 1940 and 1950 for Counties and the State Total Rural Farm Rural Non farm Urban County 1940 1950 Diff. 1940 1950 Diff. 1940 1950 Diff. 1940 1950 Diff. Belknap 622 678 56 702 770 68 631 724 93 597 635 38 Carroll 642 722 80 688 732 44 630 720 90 — — — Cheshire 597 674 77 631 735 104 609 727 118 565 599 34 Coos 644 684 40 747 859 112 658 732 74 608 607 -1 Grafton 600 647 47 659 740 81 588 716 128 587 6641 77 Hillsboro 526 591 65 619 710 91 616 702 86 504 562 58 Merrimack 581 653 72 678 761 83 647 720 73 527 608 81 Rockingham 589 682 93 649 737 88 627 708 81 534 639 105 Strafford 563 593 30 687 772 85 601 725 124 544 559 15 Sullivan 578 678 100 645 804 159 643 775 132 550 613 63 State 575 639 64 661 754 93 622 719 97 534 581 47 1 The 1940 definition of urban applied to the male population decreased the in- fluence of Dartmouth College. Change in Dependency Ratio Due to Change in Dependents An increase in the dependency ratio can occur because of the following: 1. An increase in children 0 to 14; 2. An increase in people 65 years and over; 3. A decrease in the working population 20 to 65 years of age; 4. Combinations of 1, 2, and 3. In order to measure the relative importance of these categories in the general increases by state and by counties, resort was made to differential calculus.* The increase in dependency ratios for each county of the state between 1940 and 1950 is given in Table 10. By comparing columns 2 and 3 it is possible to compare the relative importance of a change in the number of dependents with the relative importance of a change in the number in the working age groups. In Belknap county the increment due to a change in dependents was twice as great as that due to changes in the 20 to 64 age * X = dependents y = number in age group 20-64 R := Dependency Ratio R = f(xy) = X aR = j[ ^ = I? dx y 5y y^ Change in R due to ^x ^ 1 Ax y Change in R due to Ay = — x Ay 10 Table 10. Increase in Dependency Ratio 1940 to 1950 Due to Change in Dependents and Change in Working Population Increment Increment Due Increase in Due to to Change in Dependency Change in 20-64 County Ratio Dependents Age Group^ Belknap 56 108 -52 Carroll 80 73 7 Cheshire 77 124 -47 Coos 40 -16 56 Grafton 47 70 -23 Hillsboro 65 104 —39 Merrimack 72 74 -2 Rockingham 93 190 -97 Strafford 30 119 -89 Sullivan 100 100 -0 State 64 101 -37 1 Negative sign = net increase in age group. group. In Coos County the importance of a decline in the working age groups on the dependency ratio was over three times as great as the increase in dependents. In Sullivan County the increase in the dependency ratio was due entirely to an increase in dependents. For the state as a whole there were 64 more dependents per 1,000 of the working age groups between 1940 and 1950. The change in the dependents was three times as important as the change in the 20 to 64 age group. In other words the increased ratio was due to an absolute increase in the number of dependents between 1940 and 1950. Increase in Dependency Ratio Due to Increase in Children or to Increase in Older People As the dependency ratio includes both young children and older people as dependents, it is of interest to know which is the more important influence. Table 11 shows the increase in the ratio by counties between 1940 and 1950 and the relative importance of increases in the two age groups. Table 11. Proportion of Increase in Dependency Ratio in New Hampshire Due to Increases in Persons 65 and Over and in Children 0 to 14 Years — 1940 to 1950 County Belknap Carroll Cheshire Coos Grafton Hillsboro Merrimack Rockingham Strafford Sullivan State Percent Due to 65 Years and Over Group 18 42 22 90 60 31 46 6 10 22 32 Percent Due to 0 to 14 Years Group 82 58 78 10 40 69 54 94 90 78 68 11 In Coos and Grafton counties the dependency ratio increase is due pre- dominantly to an increase in older people. In the other counties increases in the number of young children accounts for the major part of the increase in dependents. In Rockingham, Strafford, and Sullivan counties this is par- ticularly pronounced. For the state as a whole 68 percent of the increase of 64 dependents per 1,000 working age group is due to an increase in children and 32 percent is due to an increase in older people. The increase in older people is due to the aging of the population. The difference between counties, however, is sufficient to show that any problems arising from increased dependents will require individual consideration for each county. Coos and Grafton and Merrimack counties have increased proportions of older people. Rock- ingham, Strafford, and Belknap have increased proportions of young children. The Effect of Migration* The changes in dependency ratios due to migration and changes due to natural causes are measured in Table 12. With the exception of the southern counties of Hillsboro. Rockingham, and Strafford, the migra- tion accounted for the major part of the increased dependency ratios. Rock- ingham was affected more by the increased number of children under 14. Table 12. Relative Significance of Changes in Dependency Ratios Due to Migration and Natural Causes for Counties of New Hampshire — 1940 to 1950 Increment of Change Due to: Increase in Natural County Dependency Ratio Migration Causes Belknap 56 35 21 Carroll 80 104 -24 Cheshire 77 43 34 Coos 40 119 -79 Grafton 47 10 37 Hillsboro 65 30 35 Merrimack 72 62 10 Rockingham 93 21 72 Straflord 30 0 30 Sullivan 100 62 38 1 See Appendix III. Migration, Birth Rate and Fertility Ratios The fertility ratio measures the number of children 0 to 4 in relation to the number of women 15 to 44 in the population. Comparison of this ratio in 1940 with the ratio in 1950 will indicate changes in the population structure due to changes in the birth rate or migration. In 1940 there were in New Hampshire 337 children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 15 to 44, By 1950 there were 488 such children per 1,000 women. See Appendix II 12 ll Table 13. Fertility Ratios for 1940 and 1950 and the Proportion of Increase Due to Changes in Number of Children 0 to 4 years and to Women 15 to 44 Years Old Increment Due Increment Due Increase in to Change ' in to Change in Fertility Ratios Fertility Number of Number of Women County 1940 1950 Ratio Children 0 to 4 15 to 441 Belknap 319 494 175 195 -20 Carroll 381 512 131 117 14 Cheshire 346 494 148 184 -36 Coos 386 494 108 49 59 Grafton 364 498 134 124 10 Hillsboro 287 471 184 179 5 Merrimack 315 446 131 131 0 Rockingham 327 516 189 249 -60 Strafford 313 436 123 179 -56 Sullivan 335 515 180 169 11 1 Negative sign = net increase in age group 15-44. The birth rate increased between 1940 and 1950 with a noticeable bulge in births per 1,000 population in 1947, 1943, and 1949. Table 14. Refined Birth Rate in New Hampshire — 1941 to 1950 Year 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 The birth rate followed the same pattern as the marriages per 1,000 population with a year's lag. The marriage rate and the birth rate in 1950 were above what they were in 1940. The marital status of the New Hamp- shire population indicates a higher proportion married in 1950 than in 1940. Population Births Rate per Thousand 111,270 8,016 72.0 111.520 8,797 78.9 111.770 9,116 81.6 112,020 8.229 73.5 112,270 8,182 72.9 112,521 10,779 95.8 112,771 12,869 114.1 113,021 12.123 107.3 113,271 11,725 103.5 113,522 11,324 99.8 Table 15. Percentage of Population 14 Years and Over, Single, Married, and Widowed or Divorced Males 1940 1950 Females 1940 1950 Single Married Widowed/Divorced 34.7 58.0 7.1 26.9 65.7 7.4 29.4 56.9 13.7 22.5 62.6 14.9 The number of children 0 to 4 for every 1,000 women 15 to 44 was greater in 1950 than in 1940 for every county. The increased ratio was less in Belknap, Cheshire. Rockingham, and Strafford counties because of in-migration of females 15 to 44. The ratios in Carroll, Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan were higher because of a decrease in the proportion of women in 13 this age group. Hillsboro and Merrimack increases were clue almost entirely to an increased number of children 0 to 4. The increased fertility ratio of Coos County is due in greater degree to a decline in women 15 to 44 than to an increase in children per 1,000 women of this age group. Migration is the greatest influence on fertility ratios in Carroll and Coos counties. In the other counties natural causes were more significant. Table 16. Related Significance of Migration and of Natural Causes on the Increased Fertility Ratios of New Hampshire Counties Increase in Increment Increment Fertility Due to Due to County Ratio Migration Natural Causes Belknap 175 -2 177 Carroll 131 106 25 Cheshire 148 24 124 Coos 108 128 -20 Grafton 134 46 88 Hillsboro 184 42 142 Merrimack 131 48 83 Rockingham 189 30 159 Strafford 123 -12 135 Sullivan 180 74 106 m ales per 1,000 ■s- females declined between 1940 and Effect on Sex Ratio The number of 1950 in all counties but Grafton.* With the exception of Carroll County, the greatest major influence causing this change in sex ratios was migration. Table 17. Number of Males per 100 Females in Counties of New Hampshire and the Relative Significance of Migration and Natural Causes on these Changes — 1940 to 1950 Increment Increment Sex Ratio Due to Due to County 1940 99.4 1950 95.3 Change Migration Natural Causes Belknap —4.1 —3.7 —.4 Carroll 102.0 99.9 —2.1 0 —2.1 Cheshire 103.2 98.1 —5.1 —3.9 —1.2 Coos 108.5 100.8 —7.7 -^.1 —3.6 Grafton 103.3 109.7 6.4 8.1 —1.7 Hillsboro 95.3 93.5 —1.8 —1.9 .1 Merrimack 97.6 92.9 —4.7 —4.0 —.7 Rockingham 99.0 96.3 —2.7 —1.8 —.9 Strafford 97.6 97.9 .3 .4 —.1 Sullivan 103.4 98.2 —5.2 4.1 —1.1 This is probably due to the inclusion of boarding students in the population. 14 Conclusions The net migration from New Hampshire between 1940 and 1950 by numbers of persons was small. The major changes resulting from migration were in the age and sex structure of the population. This can in part be explained by the greater migration of some age groups than of others, and of males. The greatest mobility between 1940 and 1950 occurred in the age groups 10 to 34, There was a net loss from the state of persons who were 10 to 24 in 1940 and who would have been 20 to 34 in 1950. A much smaller loss was apparent in the 45 to 64 age groups. All other age groups gained from migration and from births between 1940 and 1950. There was a net gain of females for the state. Variation Between Counties Examination of migration within New Hampshire reveals variation be- tween counties and between age groups migrating. The 10 to 24 years group declined in all counties except Rockingham and Strafford. Coos and Grafton counties lost from almost ail age groups. Migration was heaviest from the rural farm groups and for every 100 farm residents between the ages 0 to 54 in 1940 there were only 72 in 1950. This has coincided with a decline in the number of farms and farmers, but with an increase in the average size of farm, production per farm, and the total values of farm products sold. The level of living of farm families in New Hampshire has increased and compares favorably with the rest of New England as well as being higher than in most other sections of the United States. There has been an increase in the number of residents who have moved to rural nonfarm areas to establish their homes. In some cases this is the result of industrial development in these areas. In other cases it is probably the result of individual preferences for homes in rural areas while com- muting to jobs in industrial centers. Coos County lost urban, rural nonfarm, and rural residents. Changes in Dependency Ratios The dependency ratio, which is an expression of the number of de- pendents in relation to the working age groups, increased for the state. The greatest increases were in rural farm and rural nonfarm residents. This increase was in general due to an absolute increase in the number of de- pendents greater than the increase in the age groups 20 to 64. Dependents are composed of children 0 to 14 and persons 65 years and over. Both groups increased, but the greatest increase for the state was in the children 0 to 14 years of age. There was some variation between counties in this rela- tionship. Coos and Grafton counties showed a greater relative increase in older people than in children. Migration was more significant than births and deaths in the changed dependency ratios for all but three southern counties. Changes in Fertiiity Ratios A further measure of changes in the structure of the population during the 1940 to 1950 period under study is provided by the fertility ratio which 15 measures the number of children 0 to 4 years of age relative to the num- ber of women 15 to 44 years old. This increased for all counties and with the exception of Coos County was due to a greater number of children. In Coos County a decline in the number of women of child-bearing age from migration was greater than the increase in children. Changes in Sex Ratios There was a decline in the number of males relative to the number of females in all counties but Grafton. This exception is probably due to the inclusion of Dartmouth College students in the census count. In all counties but one the decline in sex ratio was due more to migration than to natural causes. These are the major finding. They point to shifts in the age and sex structure of the population in the counties of New Hampshire as a result of migration. The methodology followed and the kind of observations which have resulted should provide useful guides to those interested and con- cerned with changes in the population and in the meaning of these changes to services, institutions, taxes, and markets. 16 Appendix I Methodology The general equation followed in estimating migration can be sym- bolized as follows: Initial population, plus births, minus deaths, plus or minus migration, equals final population. Migration by Age Groups In order to estimate migration by age group it was necessary to obtain initial and final population by specified age groups and to estimate the number of deaths occurring to this age group over the period of time in question. The problem was one of tabulating resident deaths by single years of age for each year of the period under study. It was possible to obtain resident deaths by single years of age in New Hampshire from 1940 to 1950 from the State Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics. The recorded deaths were mechanically sorted for each year according to the following criteria: 1. Place of Residence: N. H. residents who died in the state or out of state were included. Deaths of non-residents occur- ring in the state were excluded. 2. Age of Deceased: Excluding a few whose age was not stated. 3. County of Residence of the Deceased: Excluding a few whose residence was not stated. Since the population is enumerated as of April 1, it was necessary to take the 1940 deaths from April 1 to December 31, and the 1950 deaths from January 1 to March 31, to coincide with the census taking. It must be realized that the method of pairing deaths within an age group to population in that age group is not wholly accurate. An example will clarify this point. If an individual was aged 34 years, 11 months in April, 1940, he would be enumerated in the 30-34 age group. However, if he should die in June of the same year, his age at death would be 35. This would cancel out if we assume that a 29-year, 11-month individual may also die at the age of 30. In the higher age groups, however, with in- creasingly higher-age specific death rates, the cancellation may not be wholly complete. It is also evident that deaths to residents between April, 1940, and April, 1950, will include deaths to in-migrants who are now residents, but who were not enumerated in 1940. This intrinsic factor would tend to slight- ly exaggerate net migration. Since the population in 1940 of any age group is known from the U. S. Census, it is possible, by subtracting the deaths in the intervening period, to estimate the expected population in 1950. The difference between the expected population in 1950 and the actual census figure is an approxi- mation of the net migration which has occurred over the period to the age group. 17 Migration by Residence Classification Estimates of 1940 and 1950 state and county populations were immedi- ately available from the respective censuses. However, two factors combine to limit the accuracy and completeness of the rural farm, rural nonfarm and urban data. They include: 1. The change in census definitions with respect to the rural-urban residence. 2. The estimation necessary to make the 1950 "old urban" definition of age classes coincide with the 1940 and 1950 regu- lar age classes. With respect to these factors it was necessary to use the supplementary figures in Table 50 of the 1950 census. Upon advice of the Population and Housing Division of the Bureau of the Census, the distribution by five- year age groups of the rural farm and rural nonfarm was based upon the distribution of the total rural population in Table 50. In order to complete the estimates of migration by rural-urban resi- dence, the cumulative deaths of the rural farm, rural nonfarm, and urban segments had to be estimated by assuming that deaths would be proportion- ate to the populations estimated above. Appendix II Assessing Relative Weight of Natural Causes and Migration In the course of analyzing the mobility of the population of New Hamp- shire from 1949-1950, the need for assessing the relative weight of natural causes and migration arose. Many of the measures of population change are set up as ratios so that the dependent variable is a function of two or more independent variables. Under these conditions, it appeared that use might be made of partial derivatives in securing these weights. To measure the amount of change in New Hampshire population, an expected population for 1950 had been computed based on the 1940 census and state vital statistics assuming no migration. For any of the measures then 1950 minus 1940 is the actual change in the measure; 1950E minus 1940 is the change due to natural causes; and 1950 minus 1950E would represent the net change in the measure due to migration. This was not entirely satisfactory since it was impossible to tell which component of the measure was most important in inducing the change. The changes were then analyzed in the following manner: Expected 1950a — 1940a = a Expected 1950b — 1940b = b 1950A - 1950 Expected A = A 1950B - 1950 Expected B = B 18 The change could now be written : AR = AA = Change due to migration AB Ar := ^a = Change due to natural causes Ab AR + Ar = Total change 1940-1950 Using the partial derivatives, the equations were: Ar =J_Aa + (- a) Ab b b- AR =_1 AA + (- A) AB B B2 Since small populations (county) were the objects of analysis and since the sum of the partials is not likely to give true increments if the change is large compared to the base, it was felt desirable to minimize this limitation by taking the mean value of the two populations under consideration. Thus a = 1940 pop. + 1950 expected population 2 A = 1950 expected pop. + 1950 population The use of this device so ordered the values that in all cases the sum of all partials 1/bAa + (— aJ_Ab + 1/BaA + (—A) AB is within P B^ .002 of the difference between the measure for 1940 and 1950. In terms of the meaning 1/b Aa represents change in the numerator of the ratio due to natural causes; — a Ab represents change in the de- b2 nominator due to natural causes; 1/B AA represents change in the numer- ator due to migration; and — A AB represents a similar change in the denominator. ^T >9 If the measure used has more than one term in the numerator, the function can be written in the form a -|- t> ^'''d the equation will become c 1/cAa -\- 1/cAb -f" ( — a-|-b) Ac and equivalently for the change due to migration. c^ There follows an example worked out for the dependency ratio, in- cluding tabular computation form used and symbols. a = mean population 0-14 1940 and expected 1950 b = mean population 65 and over 1940 and expected 1950 c = mean population 20-64 1940 and expected 1950 A ^ mean population 0-14 1950 expected and 1950 actual B = mean population 65 and over 1950 expected and 1950 actual C = mean population 20-64 1950 expected and 1950 actual 19 The formula followed: Ar =z 1/c Aa + 1/c Ab + (— a+b) Ac c- 1/c Aa represents the amount of change in Ar attributable to change by natural causes in the age group 0-14. 1/c Ab represents the amount of change in Ar attributable to change by natural causes in the age group 65 and over. — a+b Ac represents the amount of change in Ar attributable to change by natural c^ causes in the age group 20-64. AR = 1/C AA + 1/c AB + (- A+B) AC C2 1/C AA represents the amount of change in AR attributable to change by migration in the age group 0-14. 1/C AB i-epresents the amount of change in AR attributable to change by migration in the age group 65 and over. — A+B AC represents the amount of change in AR attributable to change by mi- C^ gration in the age group 20-64. DEPENDENCY RATIO -a + b — a + b County 1/c c2 1/cAa 1/cAb c2 Ac Ar Belknap .0000700 —.0000443 .0653100 .0102200 —.0541789 .0213511 Carroll .0001110 -.0000699 .0101010 .0036630 -.0380955 -.0243315 Cheshire .0000481 —.0000295 .0596440 .0204425 —.0463445 —.0337420 Coos .0000429 —.0000257 —.0188331 .0319605 —.0939849 —.0808575 Grafton .0000375 —.0000224 .0555750 .0287250 —.0464576 .0378424 Hillsboro .0000111 —.00000564 .0662337 .0167721 —.0457235 .0372823 Merrimack .0000276 —.0000161 .0163392 .0263304 —.0314916 .0111780 Rockingham .0000290 —.0000182 .0865070 .0192850 —.0324888 .0115032 Strafford .0000377 —.0000218 .0672191 .0102921 —.0470008 .0305104 Sullivan .0000649 —.0000388 .0593186 .0318010 —.0535052 .0376144 -A + B -A + B County 1/C C2 1/CAA 1/CAB C2 AC AR Belknap .0000673 .0000444 .0155463 .01.56136 .0042180 .0353779 Carroll .0001120 -.0000746 .0300160 .0269920 .0472964 .1043044 Cheshire .0000464 —.0000302 .0325728 .0097904 .0014194 .0437826 Coos .0000445 -.0000274 —.0194910 -.0095230 .1482340 .1192200 Grafton .0000369 —.0000236 —.0207378 .0051291 .0261960 .0105873 Hillsboro .0000107 —.00000617 .0056175 .0134606 .01169215 .0307703 Merrimack .0000275 —.0000171 .0234850 .0064350 .0312417 .0611617 Rockingham .0000269 —.0000181 .0696441 .0171891 —.0652143 .0216189 Strafford .0000349 —.0000207 .0258260 .0172755 —.0428697 .0002318 Sullivan .0000649 —.0000419 .0149919 —.0110330 .0572773 .0612362 20 Appendix III POPULATION CHANGE IN N, H. 1940-1950 Dependency Ratio D.R. D.R. Natural Ch ange Sub Mig ration Change Sub Total 1940 1950 Diff. 0-14 65+ 20-64 Total 0-14 65+ 20-64 Total Change 622 678 56 65 10 -54 21 16 16 4 36 57 642 722 80 10 4 -38 -24 30 27 47 104 80 596 674 78 60 20 -46 34 32 10 1 44 78 644 684 40 19 32 -94 -81 19 -10 148 119 38 600 647 47 56 29 -46 38 21 5 26 10 48 526 591 65 66 17 —46 37 6 13 12 31 68 581 653 72 16 26 -31 11 23 6 31 61 72 588 682 94 86 19 -34 71 70 17 -65 22 93 562 593 31 67 10 -47 30 26 17 -43 0 30 578 677 99 59 32 -54 38 15 -11 57 61 99 Labor Force Replacement M ale Diff. Due Female Diff. Due Ex p. L.F.R. Act. L.F.R. M igration Exp. L.F.R Act L.F.R. Ml gration 109 106 -3 109 111 2 106 97 -9 106 100 -6 107 104 -3 109 112 3 115 88 -27 119 96 . -23 108 106 -2 108 101 -7 109 106 -3 110 109 -1 106 99 -7 105 102 -3 106 114 -8 106 118 12 108 118 -10 117 124 7 109 96 -13 110 104 -6 Fertility Ratio N atural Change Mig ration Change F.R. F.R. Sub Sub Total 1940 1950 Diff. 0-4 15-44 Total 0 4 15-44 Total Change 319 494 175 194 -16 178 3 -5 -3 175 381 512 131 59 -35 24 52 54 106 130 346 494 148 154 -29 124 31 -6 24 148 387 494 107 21 —44 -23 23 105 128 105 364 498 134 114 -26 88 4 41 45 133 287 471 184 148 -1 147 30 7 37 184 316 446 130 90 —7 83 39 8 48 131 327 516 189 173 -14 158 84 -54 30 188 313 436 123 146 -11 135 42 -53 -12 123 335 515 180 126 -19 106 37 37 74 180 21 Sex Ratio Natural Change Mig ration Change S.R. S.R. Sub Sub. Total 1940 1950 Diff. Males Females Total Males Females Total Change 99 95 -4 8 -8 -0 -1 -3 -4 -4 102 100 -2 4 -6 -2 -3 3 0 -2 103 98 -5 8 -9 -1 1 -4 -4 -5 108 101 —7 8 -11 -3 -20 16 -4 -7 103 110 7 10 —12 -2 -0 8 8 6 95 94 -1 8 -8 0 -1 -0 -2 -2 98 93 -5 5 -5 -0 -3 -0 —4 —4 99 96 -3 8 -9 -1 9 -11 -2 -3 98 98 0 8 -8 -0 8 -8 0 0 103 98 -5 9 -10 -1 -8 4 -4 -5 22 r