... for the Scientific Study of Population, Manila. DEMOGRAPHY© Volume 20, Number 2 May 1983 A SIMPLE MODEL FOR LINKING LIFE TABLES BY SURVIVAL· MORTALITY RATIOS S. Mitra Department of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322 Abstract-Patterns of variation in mortality can be studied by measuring changes...

... of migration from birth-residence data the paper focusses on the problems and procedures in estimating interprovincial net migration, 1951–1961 for Canada using “the place of birth survival ratio method, ” and it evaluates the estimates thus obtained. The evaluation of the estimates, taking into consideration...

...C. Horace Hamilton Summary This paper traces the history of the use of vital statistics, survival rates, and ratios in the estimation of net migration from one decade to another. Net migration studies by Hart (1921); Baker (1933) ; Hamilton (1934); Thornthwaite (1934); Lively and Taeuber (1939...

..., estimator bias, and measurement bias. Tables of bounds for measurement and estimator biases in the vital statistics and the forward survival ratio estimates of net intercensal migration are presented. Both net migration levels and net migration ratios are treated, and provision is made for both life table...

... as simple random samples of women. The assumption of simple random selection, together with the treatment of sample subgroup size and reverse-survival ratios as constants instead of random variables, imply that sampling variability is slightly underestimated. The methodology is applied illustratively...

...Lei Jin; Felix Elwert; Jeremy Freese; Nicholas A. Christakis Abstract In human populations, variation in mate availability has been linked to various biological and social outcomes, but the possible effect of mate availability on health or survival has not been studied. Unbalanced sex ratios...

... it as useful a teaching device as we did. 27 1 2011 © Population Association of America 1970 1970 Life Table Vital Rate Survival Ratio Mortality Decline Simulation Exercise References Barclay, George W. 1958. Techniques of Population Analysis. Wiley. Bourgeois-Pichat , J...

... into the quality of the data and a critical appraisal of the existing plan will reveal those defects that most seriously cripple efforts to obtain positive information. 13 1 2011 © Population Association of America 1968 1968 Live Birth Infant Death Survival Ratio Crude Birthrate Vital Event...

.... The influence of this work is evident in a variety of subsequent studies on regional differences in migration. 13 1 2011 © Population Association of America 1968 1968 Economic Growth Internal Migration Survival Ratio Interregional Migration Population Redistribution References 1...

..., the variable-r method confirms that Chinese fertility has reached a level well below replacement. 13 1 2011 © Population Association of America 2008 2008 Birth Interval Fertility Level Survival Ratio Large Birth Cohort Rowth Rate References Anderson B. ( 2004 ). Undercount...

...Gregory Spencer 30 12 2010 © Population Association of America 1977 1977 Family Size White Male Baby Boom Survival Ratio Large Family Size References Jacobson , P. H. ( 1964 ). Cohort Survival for Generations Since 1840 . Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly , 42...

... la mortalidad no baje mucho de sus aciuales niveles durante el presente decenio de 1960–69, debido a la escosezde personal médico capacitado en los eectores rurales. Survival Ratio Crude Birth Rate Present Writer Birth Registration Death Registration Bibliography Adams, Edith...

... a :< b. W ho le sa le a n d c r e ta il de al er s · 29 27 27 16 13 n a n a 2. 3 2. 4 2. 2 1. 8 1. 7 n a n a 2- c c . O th er pr op ri et or s, 3 m a n a ge rs , e tc . · 14 10 8 5 3 n a n a 1. 1 0. 9 0. 7 0. 6 0. 4 n a n a It C le rk s an d ki nd re d !:O w o rk er s. · · · · 21 1 15 6 86 42 19 n a n a 17 .3 14 .0 7. 1 4. 8 2. 4 n a n a I Sk il le d w or km en an d c 3 fo re m en · · · · 16 22 24 15 10 n a n a 1. 3 2. 0 2. 0 1. 7 1. 3 n a n a i Se m is ki ll ed w o rk er s 44 0 47 7 50 5) 36 .0 42 .7 41 .7 ) .. .. . a . In m a n u fa ct ur in g. 30 0 36 6 38 1) 24 .6 32 .7 31 .5 ) ;r b. O th er s e m is ki ll ed 14 0 11 2 12 4) 11 .4 10 .0 10 .2 ) 47 5) 73 2 68 0 ) 83 .2 87 .3 l:I " U ns ki ll ed w o rk er s. 38 9 33 5 n a n a 31 .8 30 .0 n a n a 2 · 17 ) 39 .2 ) III a . Fa rm la bo re rs . 5 15 0. 4 1. 3 1. 4) ~ b. L ab or er s (e xc ep t ) 24 ) ) . . . fa rm ) 19 34 1. 6 2. 9 2. 0) \Q c . Se rv an t c la ss es 36 4 28 6 43 4) 29 .8 25 .6 35 .8 ~ Immigration of Gainful Workers TABLE lContinued) 91 na - Not available. a-293,000 males and 66,000 females added to ac- count for the fact that at the census of 1930 all Mexicans were classified as nonwhite. These estimates were derived from the 1940 Census' revision of the 1930 foreign-bom white population data to include white Mexi- cans. It was assumed that white Mexicans in the age intervals of 10-19,20-24, 25-44,45-64, and 65 and over had the same labor force participation rate and occupational distribu- tion as other foreign-bom whites in these re- spective age intervals. h-6,630 males and 12,066 females subtracted to account for the overcount of women and children in agriculture. These figures were ob- tained by assuming that the percentage of foreign-bom white females and foreign-bom white male children that were overcounted at small changes in these figures from one census to another during the period from 1870 through 1910. From Table l,it can be seen that the socioeconomic position of foreign-born workers remained relatively stable from 1870 to 1910. It then improved appre- ciably from 1910 to 1930. Thus, the pro- portion of foreign-born workers who were in the bottom two groups-semiskilled and unskilled workers-fluctuated be- tween 59.1 and 56.6 percent from 1870 to 1910. It then declined significantly from 1910 to 1930. Similarly, the proportion of foreign-born workers who were in skilled occupations fluctuated between 15.6 and 13.5 percent during the four decades from 1870 to 1910. From 1910 to 1930, however, it rose substantially. The proportion of foreign-born work- ers who were in the first and third groups -professional workers and clerical and kindred workers-rose continuously from 1870 to 1930. Thus, the proportion who were in these respective groups rose from 1.6 and 2.4 percent in 1870 to 3.9 and 9.8 percent in 1930. However, from 1880 to 1920, the rise in the proportion of foreign-born workers in these two groups was more or less offset by a. decline in the census of 1910 was equal to that esti- mated by Edwards (1943, pp. 137-38) for the total number of females and male children, respectively. c-Includes nonwhite foreign-bom. d-Because of rounding, detail will not neces- sarily: add to total. Source: 1930: 1930 Census, Vol. 5, Population, Table 8; 1920: 1920 Census, Vol. 4, Popula- tion, Table 5; 1910: Dr. Alba M. Edwards, Comparative Occupation Statistics for the U.S.: 1870 to 1940, Appendix B, Tables 14 and 15; 1900: 1900 Census, Special Reports, Oc- cupations, Table 2; 1890: 1890 Census, Vol. 1, Population, Part 2, Table 109; 1880: 1880 Census, Compendium of the Tenth Census: 1880, Table XUI; 1870: 1870 Census, Com- pendium of the Ninth Census: 1870, Table LXV. the proportion who were in the second group-proprietors, managers, and offi- cials. In 1920, therefore, the proportion of foreign-born workers who were in the upper three socioeconomic groups was about the same as in 1870-27 percent. By 1930, however, the proportion who were in these three groups had risen to about 31 percent. This represented a significant increase in the socioeconomic status of foreign-born workers from 1920 to 1930. The sharp decline in the proportion of foreign-born workers who were pro- prietors, managers, and officials from 25.5 percent in 1880 to only 16.6 percent in 1920 was due entirely to the decline in the proportion of foreign-born workers who were farmers (owners and tenants). The latter declined from 18.2 percent in 1880 to only 7.7 percent in 1920. The socioeconomic position of foreign- born male workers shows a trend that is similar to that of total foreign-born workers. This is not at all surprising because from 1890 to 1930, between 84 and 86 percent of all foreign-born work- ers were males. The socioeconomic position of foreign- born female workers improved continu- 92 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 9, number 1, February 1972 ously from 1890 to 1930. Thus, the pro- portion of foreign-born female workers who were in the bottom two occupational groups declined in every decade from 1890 to 1930. In 1890 the percentage in these groups was over 87 percent. By 1930 it had dropped down to only about 68 percent. On the other hand, the pro- portion of foreign-born female workers in the first and third groups rose con- tinuously over the same period. Thus, the proportion of foreign-born female workers who were professionals rose from only 3.1 percent in 1890 to 8.3 percent in 1930, while the proportion who were in clerical occupations rose from only 2.4 percent in 1890 to 17.3 percent in 1930. Finally, the proportion of foreign-born female workers who were proprietors, managers, and officials and skilled work- men and foremen remained relatively stable throughout the period. RELATIVE SoCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS, 1910-1930 In the preceding section it was shown that the socioeconomic status of foreign- born workers improved appreciably dur- ing the period from 1910 to 1930. This section investigates the socioeconomic status of foreign-born workers relative to that of native white workers during that period. This is done by means of the relative concentration ratios for for- eign-born workers presented in Table 2. For any given occupational group, a relative concentration ratio shows the proportion of foreign-born workers who were in that occupational group relative to the proportion of native white work- ers who were in it. A relative concentra- tion ratio of 100, therefore, indicates that the proportion of foreign-born work- ers in the occupational group was equal to the proportion of native white workers who were in it, or that the concentration of foreign-born workers in the occupa- tional group was equal to that of native white workers. Similarly, a relative con- centration ratio of less than 100 indi- cates that foreign-born workers were relatively less concentrated in the oc- cupational group than native white workers. On the other hand, a relative concentration ratio of more than 100 in- dicates that foreign-born workers were relatively more concentrated in the oc- cupational group than native white workers. From the relative concentration ratios presented in Table 2, it can be seen that at every census from 1910 through 1930, foreign-born white workers were relatively less concentrated than native white workers in the following groups: professional; proprietors, managers, and officials; and clerical and kindred work- ers. On the other hand, they were rela- tively more concentrated in the groups of skilled workmen and foremen, semi- skilled workers, and unskilled workers. (See Hutchison, 1956, for relative con- centration ratios for foreign-born work- ers at the censuses from 1870 through 1920 and at the census of 1950.) Since the latter occupational groups have a lower socioeconomic status than the for- mer ones, it follows that the socioeco- nomic status of the foreign-born white population of the U.S. was lower than that of the native white population. However, from 1910 to 1930, the rela- tive socioeconomic position of foreign- born whites improved appreciably. Thus, the relative concentration of foreign-born white workers in professional and clerical occupations increased from 46 and 43 in 1910 to 55 and 49 in 1930, respectively. Similarly, their relative concentration in the proprietors, managers, and officials group increased from 67 in 1910 to 81 in 1930. Their relative concentration in the occupational group of skilled workmen and foremen also increased, from 130 in 1910 to 144 in 1930. On the other hand, the relative concentration of foreign-born white workers in semiskilled and un- skilled occupations dropped from 137 and 133 in 1910 to only 132 and 127 in 1930, respectively. Immigration of Gainful Workers 93 TABLE 2.-Relative Concentration·of Foreign-bom White Gainful Workers in Each Socioeco- nomic Group, by Sex, 1910-1930 Socioeconomic group Relative concentration ratio (Native whitea = 100) 1910 1920 1930 Fe- Fe- Fe- Total Male male Total Male male Total ~ale male Professional. 46 Proprietors, man- agers, officials. 67 a. Farmers (owners and tenants) 48 b. Wholesale and retail dealers. 151 c. Other propri- etors, etc. 83 Clerks and kindred workers 43 Skilled workmen and foremen. 130 Semiskilled workers 137 a. In manufac- turing . 147 b. Other semi skilled workers 119 Unskilled workers 133 a.' Farm laborers 28 b. Laborers (ex- cept farm) 269 c. Servant classes 204 58 36 63 104 46 68 141 275 80 78 47 35 124 133 156 128 184 127 116 136 132 142 30 12 264 146 227 236 48 61 41 70 64 115 46 43 75 181 168 267 80 76 82 42 48 41 128 120 154 141 148 152 159 180 156 108 102 143 144 136 184 36 35 30 209 206 138 223 273 263 55 76 81 75 48 44 191 179 93 86 49 55 144 134 132 134 155 175 101 93 127 116 32 30 174 165 219 287 50 115 86 230 79 47 163 145 145 144 195 14 113 248 a - Includes all nonwhites except Negroes. Source: Derived from Table 1 and Dr. Alba M. Edwards, A Social-Economic Grouping of the Gainful Workers of the United States, 1930, Tables 2 and 4. Almost all of the gain in the relative socioeconomic position of the foreign- born white population occurred during the decade from 1920 to 1930. During the 1910-20 decade their relative socio- economic position appears to have re- mained the same. Thus, their relative concentration in the first two occupa- tional groups rose slightly from 1910 to 1920, but during the same period their concentration 10 skilled occupations dropped slightly and their concentration in unskilled occupations rose. It would, therefore, appear that World War I did not change the relative socioeconomic position of the foreign-born white popu- lation. The rise in the socioeconomic position of the foreign-born population from 1920 to 1930 can be attributed, at least in part, to the fact (shown in the next section) that during that decade the net immigration of semiskilled and un- skilled workers decreased sharply in rela- tive importance. It can also be partially attributed to the economic expansion of the 1920's, which made it easier for the foreign-born to move up the occupational ladder. NET IMMIGRATION OF GAINFUL WORKERS INTO THE UNITED STATES, 1870-1930 The estimates of net immigration of gainful workers during each decade from 1870 to 1930 presented in Table 3 were derived from the socioeconomic occupa- tional grouping of the foreign-born gain- ful workers at each census from 1870 through 1930 that was presented in Table 1. As is explained in the Appendix, this was done by subtracting from the num- ber of foreign-born persons in each socio- economic occupational group at the cen- sus at the end of each respective decade the estimated number of these persons who were survivors from the census at the beginning of that decade. Thus, for example, the net immigration of skilled workmen and foremen during the 1870- 80 decade was obtained by subtracting from the number of foreign-born skilled workmen and foremen at the census of 1880 the estimated number of these per- sons who were survivors from the census of 1870. Unlike the official occupational group- ing of arriving immigrants, the occupa- tional grouping of Table 3 is based on the type of work that the immigrants did after arriving in the U.S. and not on the type of work they engaged in prior to arriving here. The figures of Table 3, therefore, show the net addi- tions that immigration made to the total labor force of the United States as well as the net additions that it made to each respective socioeconomic occupational group. As can be seen from Table 3, immi- gration made a significant contribution to the growth of the labor force of the United States during each of the six decades from 1870 to 1930. This con- tribution ranged from alow of 1.1 million workers during the 1870-80 decade to a high of 3.2 million workers during the decade from 1900 to 1910. With the exception of the 1920-30 decade, most of the workers that were added to the labor 94 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 9, number 1, February 1972 force as a result of immigration during these six decades were either semiskilled or unskilled. However, the net immigration of clerks and kindred workers, skilled workmen and foremen, and professionals increased in relative importance over this period. Thus, the proportion of gainful workers added to the labor force as a result of net immigration who were clerks and kindred workers increased from 3.7 per- cent during the 1870-80 decade to 7.4 percent during the 1900-1910 decade, and reached a high of 25.4 percent during the decade from 1920 to 1930. Similarly, the proportion who were skilled workmen and foremen was 10.7 percent during the 1870-80 decade, 15.4 percent during the 1900-1910 decade, and 21.7 percent dur- ing the decade from 1920 to 1930. Fi- nally, the proportion who were profes- sionals fluctuated between 2.2 and 3.0 percent from 1870 to 1910. It then rose to 4.7 percent during the decade from 1910 to 1920 and to 7.9 percent during the 1920-30 decade. On the other hand, the net immigra- tion of proprietors, managers, and offi- cials declined sharply in relative impor- tance during the six decades from 1870 to 1930. Thus, during the 1870-80 decade almost 20 percent of the net immigration of gainful workers consisted of such workers. By the 1900-1910 decade, the proportion of such workers had dropped to only five percent. During the 1910-20 decade, the net immigration of proprie- tors, managers, and officials was actually negative, i.e., there was a net emigration of such persons. The sharp decline in the relative im- portance of the net immigration of pro- prietors, managers, and officials can be attributed to a sharp decline in the net immigration of farmers (owners and tenants). As can be seen from Table 1, the number of foreign-born farmers (owners and tenants) actually declined during the period from 1890 to 1930. Since the 'Vsst majority of farmers (own- T A B LE a .- N et Im m ig ra tio n o fW hi te G ai nf ul W or ke rs in to th e U ni te d St at es ,b y, So cio ec on om ic G ro up an d Se x, 18 70 -1 93 0 3" 3 Nu m be r in th ou sa nd s o f pe rs on s Pe rc en t di st ri bu ti on iQ So ci oe co no m ic 18 70 1.8 80 18 90 19 00 19 10 19 20 18 70 18 80 18 90 19 00 19 10 19 20 iil gr ou p an d se x to to to to to to to to to to to to if 18 80 a l8 90 a 19 00 19 10 19 20 19 30 18 80 18 90 19 00 19 10 19 20 19 30 ~ To ta 1b 11 33 23 50 16 05 32 15 12 45 16 68 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 9- · rl ) Pr of es si on al 26 53 47 79 59 13 3 2. 3 3. 0 2. 5 4. 7 7. 9 III · · · 2. 2 S" P ro pr ie to rs , m an ag - -5. e rs , an d o ff ic ia ls 22 6 28 9 10 1 15 9 - 32 81 19 .9 12 .3 6. 3 5. 0 - 2. 7 4. 8 ~ C le rk s an d ki nd re d w o rk er s. · · · 43 13 1 13 2 23 9 25 2 42 3 3. 7 5. 6 8. 1 7. 4 20 .2 25 .4 i Sk il le d w or km en an d ii1 fo re m en . · · 12 1 37 1 21 1 49 2 33 7 36 2 10 .7 15 .8 13 .1 15 .4 27 .0 21 .7 Se m is ki lle d an d u n s ki ll ed w o rk er s · 71 8 15 04 11 13 22 46 62 9 66 8 63 .3 64 .0 69 .5 69 .8 50 .5 40 .0 M AL E · · · · 89 6 19 15 12 35 25 42 99 6 11 68 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 Pr of es si on al · · · 18 40 30 47 33 79 2. 0 2. 1 2. 4 1. 9 3. 3 6. 8 P ro pr ie to rs , m an ag - e rs , an d o ff ic ia ls . 22 1 28 3 92 14 9 - 29 77 24 .7 14 .8 7. 4 5. 9 - 2. 9 6. 6 C le rk s an d ki nd re d w o rk er s. · · · · 37 11 8 10 2 17 6 15 3 27 2 4. 1 6. 2 8. 2 6. 9 15 .4 23 .3 Sk il le d w or km en an d fo re m en . · · · 11 8 36 6 20 3 47 7 33 1 36 0 13 .2 19 .1 16 .4 18 .8 33 .2 30 .8 Se m is ki lle d an d u n s ki ll ed w o rk er s 50 1 11 09 80 8 16 94 50 7 38 1 55 .9 57 .9 65 .5 66 .6 50 .9 32 .6 FE M A LE . 23 7 43 4 36 9 67 3 24 9 50 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 10 0. 0 Pr of es si on al · · 7 14 18 32 26 54 3. 0 3. 2 4. 9 4. 8 10 .4 10 .8 P ro pr ie to rs , m an ag - e rs , an d o ff ic ia ls . 5 6 9 10 - 4 5 2. 1 1. 4 2. 4 1. 5 - 1. 6 1. 0 C le rk s an d ki nd re d w o rk er s · · 5 14 30 63 99 15 1 2. 1 3. 2 7. 8 9. 4 39 .8 30 .2 Sk il le d w or km en an d fo re m en . · · 3 5 8 15 6 2 1. 3 1. 2 2. 2 2. 2 2. 4 0. 4 Se m is ki lle d an d u n s ki ll ed w o rk er s 21 6 39 5 30 5 55 2 12 2 28 7 91 .6 91 .0 82 .7 81 .9 49 .0 57 .4 a - In cl ud es n o n w hi te im m ig ra nt s. ID b - B ec au se o f ro u n di ng , de ta il w il l n o t n e c e s s a ri ly ad d to to ta l. U I So ur ce : D er iv ed fro m Ta bl e 1 an d a so c io ec on om ic gr ou pi ng o f fo re ig n- bo rn w hi te ga in fu l w o rk er s a t th e c e n su s o f 18 90 . 96 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 9, number 1, February 1972 ers and tenants) were unskilled persons, the sharp decline in the relative impor- tance of the net immigration of such persons did not represent a drop in the skill level the workers added to the labor force as a result of net immigration. On the other hand, the rise in the relative importance of the net immigration of clerks and kindred workers, skilled work- men and foremen, and professionals did represent an increase in the skill level of the workers added to the labor force as a result of immigration. We may, therefore, conclude that the skill level of workers added to the U.S. labor force as a result of net immigra- tion during the period from 1870 to 1930 was increasing. On the other hand, we may conclude that, with the exception of the 1920-30 decade, their socioeco- nomic position deteriorated, for the rela- tive importance of the net immigration of proprietors, managers, and officials, whose socioeconomic position is second only to that of professionals, declined sharply during the period from 1870 to 1920. The decline in the relative impor- tance of this group was offset only par- tially by a rise in the relative importance of the net immigration of professionals and clerical and kindred workers. These seemingly contradictory conclu- sions can be attributed to the following two factors: first, the use of Edwards' socioeconomic occupational scale which includes farmers (owners and tenants) in the managerial category i second, as was shown earlier, the decline in the relative importance of the farmer cate- gory over time. WAS THE OLD IMMIGRATION MORE SKILLED THAN THE NEW? According to Jenks and Lauck (1912, pp. 24-32), the "new immigration", i.e., immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe who made up 81 percent of immi- grants who came to the U.S. from 1883 to 1907, was less skilled than the Hold im- migration", i.e., immigrants from North- ern and Western Europe who made up 95 percent of immigrants who came to the U.S. before 1883. However, as Paul Douglas (1919) points out, their conclu- sion is based on a comparison of the skill level of the old immigration with that of the new immigration during the period from 1899 to 1909, when the latter was the main source of immigration into the United States, whereas the correct procedure would have been to compare the skill level of the old immigration with that of the new immigration for periods during which each was the major source of immigration into the United States. After comparing the skill level of the old immigration during the period from 1871 to 1882 with the skill level of the new immigration during the pe- riod from 1899 to 1909, Douglas con- cludes that the new immigration was about as skilled as the old immigration. In their comparisons of the skill level of the old immigration with that of the new immigration, both Douglas and Jenks used the official occupational clas- sification of arriving immigrants, which, as was mentioned earlier, is based upon the type of work immigrants did before arriving in the United States. From the occupational distribution of immigrants presented in Table 3, which, as was pointed out earlier, is based on the type of work immigrants did after arriving in the U.S., it would at first glance ap- pear that the new immigration was less skilled than the old immigration. Thus, the percentage of the total net immigra- tion of gainful workers who were either semiskilled or unskilled rose from about 63 percent during the 1870-80 decade, a period of mainly old immigration, to al- most 70 percent during the two decades from 1890 to 1910, a period of mainly new immigration. However, a more careful analysis of the figures of Table 3 will reveal that the almost seven percentage point in- crease in the net immigration of semi- skilled and unskilled workers that oc- Immigration of Gainful Workers curred from the 1870-80 period to the 1890-1910 period was more than offset by a drop of more than 13 percentage points in the net immigration of pro- prietors, managers, and officials. As was shown in the last section, the latter was caused by a decline in the net immigra- tion of farmers (owners and tenants). Since the vast majority of farmers (own- ers and tenants) were unskilled persons, the switching of farmers (owners and tenants) to semiskilled and unskilled oc- cupations did not represent a decline in the skill level of the workers added by the new immigration as opposed to the old immigration. On the other hand, the rise in the net immigration of skilled workmen and foremen from about 11 percent of the total net immigration of gainful workers during the 187Q-80 decade to about 14 percent during the two decades from 1890 to 1910 did represent a genuine increase in the skill level of the new immigration as opposed to the old immi- gration, because it also happened at the expense of farmers (owners and tenants) . Similarly, the rise in the relative im- portance of the net immigration of clerks and kindred workers also represented a genuine increase in the skill level of the new immigration as opposed to the old immigration, for it also occurred at the expense of farmers (owners and tenants). Hence, we may offer the conclusion, based upon the occupations that immi- grants entered after coming to the United States, that the new immigration was actually more skilled than the old immi- gration. However, although the skill level of the workers added to the labor force by the new immigration was greater than the skill level of those added by the old immigration, their socioeconomic status (using Edwards' classification scheme) was lower, for farmers (owners and ten- ants) have a higher socioeconomic posi- tion than either clerks and kindred work- ers, skilled workers and foremen, or 97 semiskilled workers. Hence, the switch in the occupational distribution of immi- grants from farmers (owners and tenants) to the above mentioned occupational groups represented a decline in the socio- economic position of immigrant workers, even though it represented an increase in their skill level. This would tend to answer Douglas' question (1919, pp. 402-403) of why the erroneous impression that the new im- migration was less skilled that the old was cherished for so long. The reason is that although from a technical point of view the new immigrants were more skilled than the old, they belonged to a lower socioeconomic class. It was, there- fore, very easy for people to make the mistake that they were also less skilled. This error was especially likely to occur in a situation where, as Douglas points out, there was social prejudice against the new immigrants. CONCLUSIONS From the socioeconomic occupational grouping of foreign-born gainful work- ers and the estimates of the net immigra- tion of gainful workers presented in this paper, one can draw the following three conclusions. First, the socioeconomic po- sition of the foreign-born population of the United States remained relatively stable from 1870 to 1910 but then in- creased appreciably from 1910 to 1930. Second, although most of the contribu- tion that immigration made to the United States labor force was in the form of semiskilled and unskilled workers, the relative importance of professional, cleri- cal, and skilled workers increased almost continuously from 1870 to 1930. Third, the "new immigration" was not less skilled than the "old immigration". On the contrary, it was actually more skilled than the lIold immigration". ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is a revision of part of my doctoral dissertation presented at the 98 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 9, number 1, February 1972 City University of New York. I would, therefore, like to acknowledge my indebt- edness to the late Professor Alfred H. Conrad for his research supervision. In addition, I would like to express my ap- preciation to Professor Bernard Okun of Brooklyn College of the City University of New York for having read earlier drafts of this paper and having made many valuable suggestions. ApPENDIX Method Used to Obtain a Comparative Occupational Grouping of the Foreign-Born Population, 1870-1930 The occupational grouping of the foreign-born population of the United States at each census from 1870 through 1930 presented in Table 1 was obtained by arranging the occupational designa- tions of each census from 1870 through 1920 according to the occupational classi- fication used at the census of 1930. This was accomplished in the following man- ner: The occupational classifications of the 1910 and 1920 censuses were arranged according to the classification used at the census of 1930 by using the "Com- parison of the Occupation Classifications of 1930, 1920 and 1910" (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1933, Table 1). The occu- pational classification of the 1900 census was then made comparable to the classi- fication used at the census of 1930 by means of Edwards' (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1943, Table 11) comparison of the occupational classifications of these two censuses. Finally, the occupational designations of the censuses of 1870, 1880, and 1890 were arranged according to the classification of the census of 1900 by means of the "Comparison of Occu- pations at the Censuses of 1870 to 1900" (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1904, Table III). The resulting comparative occupa- tional data for the period from 1870 through 1930 were then divided into the socioeconomic groups of Table 1. This was accomplished by using Edwards' (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1938, Table 1) social-economic grouping of the occu- pational designations of the 1930 census. In many instances, however, two occu- pational designations, x and y, of the 1930 census were combined by the cen- suses prior to 1910 into one occupational designation, xy. If x and y belonged to occupational groups i and i, respectively, then one of the following two procedures was followed. 1. If x contained a relatively insignifi- cant number of persons at the census of 1910, then it was transferred to occu- pational group i, i.e., the group to which y belonged. Similarly, if y had an in- significant number of persons, it was transferred to occupational group i, i.e., the group to which x belonged. Because of this procedure, the figures of Tables 1 and 2 for the censuses of 1910 and 1930 differ slightly from those presented by Thomas (1954, Tables 42 and 43) and Edwards (U.S. Bureau of the Cen- sus, 1938, Table 3), respectively. 2. If both x and y contained a rela- tively significant number of persons at the census of 1910, then the number of persons in xy was divided between x and y. This was done by assuming that the proportion of persons in xy who belonged in x and in y was the same as at the census of 1910. In a few instances, it was necessary to use the proportion at the census of 1920 instead of the proportion at the census of 1910, because it was im- possible to construct for the census of 1910 an occupational designation that was comparable to xy. Thus, for example, the 1900 occupa- tional designation "nurses and mid- wives" included the 1930 occupational designations "nurses (trained)" and "midwives and nurses (not trained) ", which belong in the professional and in the semiskilled occupational groups, re- spectively. Both of the 1930 occupational groups contained a relatively significant number of persons at the census of 1910. It was, therefore, assumed that in 1900 Immigration of Gainful Workers the same proportion of nurses and mid- wives were trained nurses as in 1930 (9.28 and 0.38 in the case of males and fe- males respectively). Judging from the data of the censuses from 1910 through 1930, the individual estimates obtained by the above method are subject to a rather large margin of error. Fortunately, in the process of aggregating the estimated number of per- sons in the various occupations in order to obtain the total number of persons in each occupational group, the errors tend, at least partially, to cancel each other out. Furthermore, in the occupa- tional groups of proprietors, managers, and officials; clerks and kindred work- ers; and male professionals, the total number of persons that were estimated by the above method was less than one percent of the total in each group. The error that was introduced by the use of this method in the case of these occu- pational groups is, therefore, relatively very small. In the case of skilled work- men and foremen, semiskilled and un- skilled workers, and female professionals, however, where up to 40 percent of the persons in these groups were estimated by this method, the error introduced may be substantial. When looking at Tables 1 and 2, one must, therefore, keep in mind that the figures that are given for the latter groups for the censuses from 1870 through 1900 are only approxima- tions. Hence, no significance should be attached to relatively small changes in these figures from one census to another during the period from 1870 to 1910. Method Used to Estimate the Net Immigration of Gainful Workers into the United States, 1870-1930 The estimates of the net immigration of gainful workers classified by socio- economic group and sex presented in Table 3 were derived by the following method: 1. The enumerated number of foreign- born gainful workers 10 years of age and 99 over in each occupational group at each census from 1870 through 1930 was cross classified by age and sex. The age classi- fication consisted of five-year age inter- vals from age 10 to age 65 and an open- end interval of 65 and over. 2. From the enumerated number of foreign-born gainful workers in each age-sex-occupational group at each re- spective census from 1880 through 1930 was subtracted the estimated number of foreign-born gainful workers in each re- spective age-sex-occupational group who were survivors from the previous census. By summing the results for each respec- tive census over all age intervals, an esti- mate was obtained of the net immigra- tion of gainful workers classified by sex and socioeconomic occupational group for each decade from 1870 to 1930. Sym- bolically, for each decade from 1870 to 1930, the net immigration (Ii) of gainful workers in the j1h occupational group was estimated by means of .. (1) I; = L (f.; - s i-I where fli is the enumerated number of foreign-born gainful workers in age in- terval i and sex-occupational group j at the census at the end of each respective decade, and S'i is the number of such persons who were survivors from the pre- vious census, i.e., the census at the begin- ning of that decade. Classification of Foreign-born Workers by Sex, 1870-1930 While the censuses of 1890 through 1930 present the sex distribution of for- eign-born gainful workers in each occu- pational designation, the censuses of 1870 and 1880 do not. It was, therefore, necessary to estimate the sex distribu- tion of foreign-born gainful workers in each occupational group at the latter two censuses. This was done by assum- ing that for each occupational group, the sex distribution at the censuses of 1870 100 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 9, number 1, February 1972 and 1880 was the same as at the census of 1890. The above procedure probably under- estimated the proportion of males among foreign-born professional and clerical workers at the censuses of 1870 and 1880 and overestimated the proportion of males among semiskilled and unskilled workers at these censuses. The reason for this (judging by the data for the cen- suses from 1890 through 1910) is that the proportion of males among foreign- born professional and clerical workers respectively dropped from 77 and 90 per- cent in 1890 to 74 and 84 percent in 1900 and to only 71 and 81 percent in 1910. Similarly, the proportion of males among semiskilled and unskilled workers rose from 77 percent in 1890 to 78 percent in 1900 and to 79 percent in 1910. Classification of Foreign-born Workers by Age, 1870-1930 The classification of male and female foreign-born gainful workers ten years of age and over in each occupational group at each census from 1870 through 1930 into five-year age intervals from age 10 to 65 and an open-end interval of 65 and over was accomplished as fol- lows. The censuses of 1890, 1920, and 1930 present the age distributions of foreign- born gainful workers in each occupa- tional designation. On the basis of this information, it was possible to obtain the following age groupings for these cen- suses: 1890 and 1900-10-14, ten-year intervals from 15 to 64, and 65 and over; 1920-10-19, 20-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65 and over; and 1930-five-year inter- vals from 10 to 64, and 65 and over. The censuses of 1870, 1880, and 1910 do not present any age distribution for foreign-born gainful workers. However, every census from 1870 through 1930 does present the age distribution of the total foreign-born population. It was, therefore, possible to group the foreign,. born gainful workers in each respective occupational group at the censuses of 1870 and 1880 into the age intervals of the 1890 census and those at the 1910 census into the age intervals of the 1920 census. This was done by assuming that the age distribution of foreign-born workers in each respective occupational group at the censuses of 1870 and 1880 relative to the age distribution of the total foreign-born population was the same as at the census of 1890 and that at the census of 1910 it was the same as at the census of 1920. The resulting age classifications of 10-14, ten-year intervals from 15 to 64, and 65 and over for the censuses from 1870 through 1900 and 10-19, 20-24, 25- 44, 45-64, and 65 and over for the cen- suses of 1910 and 1920 were then con- verted into the required age classification of five-year intervals from 10 to 64, and 65 and over. This was accomplished for the censuses from 1870 through 1900 by assuming that the age distribution of foreign-born gainful workers in an occu- pational group relative to the age dis- tribution of the total foreign-born population within each respective ten- year interval from 15 to 65 was the same as in 1930. In a similar manner, the in- tervals of 10-19, 25-44, and 45-64 of the 1910 and 1920 censuses were also divided into the five-year intervals of the 1930 census. The above procedure of estimating the age distribution of gainful workers in each occupational group probably con- tains a rather large element of error. However, the error introduced by this procedure into the net immigration esti- mates of Table 3 is greatly reduced by the fact that the putting of persons into age interval "a" instead of age interval lib" affected those estimates only to the extent that the s# for the two groups were different. Furthermore, the errors did cancel each other out, at least to some extent. Immigration of Gainful Workers Estimation of st/s For any census n, the s./s were esti- mated by means of (2) 8it = (1 + ei)rfci-2H', where fH--2J/ is the enumerated number of foreign-born workers of a given sex in age interval i - 2 and occupational group j at census n-l; r is the forward census survival ratio for foreign-born white persons in that age-sex group at census n-l; and eJ is the net rate of in- crease (from census n-l to census n) in the number of foreign-born persons in the given cohort who are in occupational group j that was caused by some foreign- born persons within that cohort having entered and others having left occupa- tions within occupational group j. In equation (2), rf(i~2J/ shows the enumerated number of foreign-born workers in the age-sex-occupational group at census n - 1 who were also enumerated at census n when they were ten years older, Le., in age interval i. However, by the time census n was taken, some of these survivors may have switched to occupations that belong to other occupational groups, or they may have dropped out of the labor force. On the other hand, some of the enumerated persons in the age-sex-occupational group at census n who were survivors from the previous census would not be picked up by rf (1-2l because they were either in different occupational groups or not in the labor force at census 11. - 1. Hence, they had to be added to rf(l-2l!' to obtain Sil' Similarly, the survivors from n - 1 who were no longer in occupational group j at census n had to be subtracted from rf (l-2H' to obtain Slf. This was done by multiplying rf (l-2>/ by 1 + eJ. Estimation of r The values of r were obtained by using Lees's (1957, pp. 55-56) estimates of the forward census survival ratios of the foreign-born white population at each 101 census from 1870 through 1930. The use of these forward census survival ratios, which are for the entire foreign...

... of America 1973 1973 Life Table Internal Migration Survival Ratio Decennial Census Survival Proportion References Chiang , Chin Long ( 1968 ). Introduction to Stochastic Processes in Biostatistics . New York : John Wiley and Sons . Coale , Ansley J. , &amp; Demeny...

... are required. 30 12 2010 © Population Association of America 1969 1969 Vital Rate Survival Ratio Crude Rate Remote Past Weak Ergodicity References Britton Jack R. ( 1956 ). Calculus . New York : Rinehart . Chrystal G. ( 1904 ). Algebra. Vol. 1. Reprinted (pp...

... at birth from each survey year in TDHS as well. To investigate the differential gender mortality, I also calculate the sex ratios for those who survived to age 5. Overall, TDHS does a good job of replicating the sex ratios calculated from the censuses. The point estimates are not statistically different...

... in the century to about 43.8 at the end. 26 1 2011 © Population Association of America 1974 1974 Nineteenth Century Life Table Black Population Vital Rate Survival Ratio An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2060484 . References Coale...

... a survival analysis, using the genocide-induced change in the commune-level sex ratio as conflict measure. In this case, the Cox proportional hazard is defined as 2 h icw t = h 0 t exp β Δ Sex rati o c , 1991 – 2002 + π Sex rati o c , 1991 + X icw ' γ...

... with children whose parents were married, children born to never-married single mothers were significantly more likely to die before age 5 in six countries (odds ratios range from 1.36 in Nigeria to 2.61 in Zimbabwe). In addition, up to 50 % of women will become single mothers as a consequence of divorce...