WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
F. G. Harrington, Adainiatrator
FAMILY UNEMPLOYMENT
Preliminary Summary
Corrington Gill
Assistant Administrator
Washington, D.
February 1, 19
M-1758
EMERSON ROSS, Director
Division of Statistics
and Economic Research
Prepared by
Don D. Humphrey
Economic Research Section
Arthur E. Burns, Chief
M-1758
U
FAMILY UNELTLOYMENT
A clear understanding of the relationship between un¬
employment and families in need is essential to an under¬
standing of the relief problem. Unemployment has always
been measured in terms of individual workers. while unem¬
ployment relief has generally been administered and*
therefore, measured in terms of families. The common use
of these two different units of measurement is responsi¬
ble for a good deal of confusion concerning the relation¬
ship between relief and unemployment.
In order to clarify some of the important phases of
this problem, estimates of unemployment in terms of fami¬
lies have been prepared and are briefly discussed in the
following pages. This work constitutes a new approach to
the problem of measuring unemployment. The basic data on
family unemployment are not very numerous and leave much
to be desired. For this reason these estimates must be
viewed as provisional and wholly conclusive results must
wait until more comprehensive statistics are obtained.
At the present time approximately 11.5 million work-
a/
ers are jobless. But if we consider unemployment on a
family basis, it is estimated that 4.8 million families
I/A more detailed and comprehensive study of this problem
will be published shortly.
2/The estimates contained in this report are limited to
nonfarm workers and families.
with one or more employable members, comprising 6.2 mil¬
lion workers, have no member at work. These families
have no income at all from private work.
In order to understand the relationship between re¬
lief and unemployment, it must be recognized that one-
1/
third of the working families in the United States have
two or more worker members. With 11.5 million unemployed
individual workers,the number of totally unemployed fami¬
lies is much less than half of that number. Specific
examples of the relation between unemployment measured in
terms of workers and unemployment measured in terms of
family units are showiin the following data.
Percent of families totally
Percent unemployed
of in¬
4-or-
Location
dividual
1
2
3
more
workers
worker
worker
worker
worker
unem¬
ployed
Phila.,
1929
9.4
6.6
2.4
1.1
0.5
Phila.,
1933
42.3
33.6
25.4
19.6
16.1
Bridgeport,1934
26.6
21.8
10.2
6.4
4.5
Michigan,
1935
18.7
14*4
5.3
4.4
2.5
Unemployed workers can be divided into two groups:
First, the unemployed workers in partly employed fami¬
lies, i. e., families where some other member has a job;
and, second, the unemployed workers in totally unemployed
families. For example, there are at present about 11.5
l/ln this discussion, families with no employable member
are excluded.
M-1758
3
million out of work; 5.3 million are in families where
some other member is employed in private enterprise# The
remaining 6.2 million unemployed are in families where
every worker is out of a job. These 6.2 million unenw
ployed workers live in 4.2 million totally unemployed
family units, some of which, of course, contain more than
one unemployed worker. Thus it is that 11.5 million Tin-
employed individuals constitute an unemployment relief
problem, the core of which is represented by 4.2 million
totally unemployed family units, each having one or more
employable worker.
In emphasizing that these 4.2 million totally unem¬
ployed families represent the core of the unemployment
relief problem, it should be stated also that there are
several additional groups involved in the relief problem.
First, these estimates are of nonfarm unemployment and,
consequently, destitute farm and tenant families are not
included. Second, the earnings of some of the partly un¬
employed families (i. e., those having both employed and
unemployed members) are so low that they need supplemen¬
tary assistance. Of course, families with no employable
member represent a serious relief problem, but not one of
unemployment relief.
None of the important relationships between individ¬
ual and family unemployment is constant; they all change
with changes in the level of employment and unemployment.
[-1758
4
For example, it cannot be said that one—half of the unem¬
ployed workers are in partially employed family units and
the remaining half in totally unemployed families. This
fraction itself is definitely a function of the level of
unemployment. When unemployment is low the fraction is
less than one-half, when high, more than one-half. 4s un¬
employment (measured in terms of individual workers) rises
from a low level, there is an increase in the number of
partially and totally unemployed families. In the initial
stages of rising unemployment, multi-worker units tend
to suffer partial unemployment before total unemployment,
but as the rise continues, the partially unemployed fami¬
lies rapidly become totally unemployed. This is easily
seen from simple probability calculations. Other things
being equal, the mathematical probabilities are that when
unemployment among individual workers is 10 percent, two-
2
worker families are only (10) , or 1 percent totally un¬
employed. It is obvious that if unemployment were to in¬
crease to 100 percent, the two-worker families would, of
necessity, be 100 percent totally unemployed. Or, to con¬
sider the question within the practical limits, let unem¬
ployment increase fourfold, from 10 to 4.0 percent. To¬
tally unemployed two-worker families would thereby in-
2
crease, in terms of the mathematical odds, from (10) , or
2
1 percent, to (40) , or 16 percent. The relative increase
in the three— and four-worker families would, of course,
-1758
5
be even more striking. The mathematical calculations need
to be modified, however, by the fact that there is a
marked concentration of unemployment in the multi-worker
family units. In other words, unemployment falls very
unevenly and hits hardest the individual workers in fami¬
ly units with more than one worker.
In order to Make account of this factor, sample unem¬
ployment censuses for local areas were analyzed. These
censuses included each year from 1929 through 1937. Anal¬
ysis of these census data (which include various years
when unemployment ranged from less than 10 to more than
4-0 percent)shows definitely the way various family groups
are affected at each level of unemployment. A signifi¬
cant conclusion is that the percentage of families which
are totally unemployed is always markedly lower than the
percentage of unemployed individual workers. Thus, when
individual workers are 40 percent unemployed, families
are only 27.4 percent totally unemployed; when workers
are 10 percent unemployed, the family units are only 5.4
percent totally unemployed.
Analysis of the relationships described above makes
it possible to convert estimates of the number of indi¬
vidual unemployed workers into totally unemployed family
units. Estimates by months are shown in the accompanying
l/The methodology will be explained in detail in a later
publication. The estimates presented in this paper are
based upon the census studies and not upon the simple
probability calculations referred to on p. 4.
-1758
6
table and charts. The upper line in chart 1 represents
individual workers, while the lower line represents fami¬
lies and is not a subdivision of the upper line. The two
lines represent different units. In charts 2 and 3, how¬
ever, this is changed, for both lines in chart 2 repre¬
sent worker units, while both lines in chart 3 represent
family units. Chart 3 shows the number of totally unem¬
ployed families and the number of partially unemployed
families. Chart 2 shows the number of workers in each
category. It must be borne in mind that these charts ex¬
clude unemployables and farm laborers and tenants.
ESTIMATES OF NONFARM UNEMPLOYMENT, 1929-1938
(A) Number of Workers
(B) Number of Totally Unemployed Family Units
(Millions)
Year
Jan,
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Avg.
1929
(A)
(B)
2.3
•8
2.4
.8
2.6
.9
2.3
.8
1.9
.6
1.6
.5
1.3
.4
0.7
.2
1.0
.3
1.3
.4
2.0
.6
2.7
.9
1.8
.6
1930
(A)
(B)
3.6
1.3
3.9
1.4
4.2
1.5
4.2
1.5
4.1
1.5
4.2
1.5
4.4
1.6
4.8
1.7
5.0
1.8
5.5
2.0
6.3
2.4
6.6
2.5
4.7
1.7
1931
(A)
(B)
7.6
2.9
7.8
3.0
7.9
3.1
7.8
3.0
7.8
3.0
7.9
3.1
8.1
3.2
8.4
3.3
8.7
3.5
9.2
3.7
9.8
4.0
10.0
4.1
8.4
3.3
1932
(A)
(B)
10.9
4.5
11.2
4.7
11.6
4.9
12.0
5.1
12.6
5.4
12.9
5.6
13.4
5.8
13.4
5.8
12.9
5.6
12.8
5.5
12.9
5.6
13.1
5.7
12.5
5.3
1933
(A)
(B)
13.9
6.1
14.0
6.2
14.5
6.4
14.3
6.3
14.0
6.2
13.4
5.8
12.7
5.4
11.9
5.0
11.2
4.7
11.1
4.6
11.4
4.8
11.5
4.8
12.8
5.5
1934
(A)
(B)
12.0
5.0
11.5
4.8
11.0
4.5
10.7
4.4
10.4
4.3
10.5
4.3
10.8
4.5
11.0
4.5
11.5
4.8
11.4
4.7
11.5
4.8
11.4
4.7
11.1
4*6
1935
(A)
(B)
11.8
5.0
11.6
4.8
11.5
4.8
11.3
4.7
11.3
4.7
11.3
4.7
11.3
4.7
11.1
4.6
10.8
4.5
10.6
4.4
10.7
4.4
10.4
4.3
11.1
4.6
1936
(A)
(B)
10.9
4.5
10.8
4.5
10.7
4.4
10.3
4.2
10.1
4.1
9.9
4.0
9.6
3.9
9.4
3.8
9.1
3.6
8.9
3.5
9.0
3.5
8.7
3.4
9.8
3.9
1937
(A)
(B)
9.5
3.8
9.3
3.7
8.9
3.5
8.7
3.4
8.5
3.3
8.5
3.3
8.3
3.3
8.3
3.2
8.3
3.2
8.6
3.4
9.4
3.7
10.1
4.1
8.9
3.5
1938
(A)
(B)
11.6
4.8
11.8
4.9
12.0
5.0
12.1
5.1
12.5
5.3
12.6
5.4
12.4
5.3
12.2
5.1
11.6
4.8
11.5
4.7
11.2
4.6
11.2
4.6
11.9
5.0
1939
(A)
(B)
1/ 11.5
4.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
l/Preliminary.
Chart 1.—
ESTIMATES OF NONFARM UNEMPLOYMENT, 1929 - >958 BY
1. NUMBER OF WORKERS
2. NUMBER OF FAMILY UNITS*
MILLIONS MILLIONS
* Includes only families with one or more
workers all of whom are unemployed.
Works Progress Administration 5082
M—1758
Chart 2.- estimates of unemployed workers
IN .TOTALLY AND PARTIALLY UNEMPLOYED FAMILIES
BY MONTHS
Millions
16 111 11 |
Millions
11111 111111116
1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939
tO
"Works Progress Administration 3121
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
I
Chart 3.- EST IMATES OF TOTALLY AND
PARTIALLY UNEMPLOYED FAMILY UNITS
BY MONTHS
lions
Millio
1929 1930 1S31 1932 1933 1934 935 1936 1937 1938 1939
Works Progress Administration 3]