This family is driven back and forth across the vast length and breadth of the land by no sense of high adventure or love of the open road but by the stubborn belief that somewhere waiting is a stake for them-a home-a piece of land they can raise a living on-something they can tie to. For, like most of the farm migrants, they are not following the crops because they like to-they are doing it because they have to live.

The plight of the migrant agricultural laborer has been impressed upon the public consciousness by the novel and the screen. Unquestionably this migration, either self-induced or resulting from factors beyond the control of the individual, was an outgrowth of an insufficiency of income in the locality from which the seasonal laborer originally came. Both expert and migrant witnesses who testified before the committee presented a picture of blind efforts by the migrants to find employment. Thrown into an overstocked and disorganized labor market, the migrant's chances of obtaining steady seasonal or casual work, undesirable as this may be from many points of view, are exceedingly low.

Numerous experts, including Dr. William S. Hopkins of Stanford University; Miss Loula Dunn, commissioner of public welfare of the State of Alabama; S. G. Rubinow, administrator of the California State Relief Administration, and others, testified concerning the inadequacy of existing facilities for the efficient placement of migratory workers in available jobs. The general conditions which make for intermittent employment, oversupply of labor, and growing numbers of migrant workers, hold also for urban or industrial workers. Many of those who migrate from city to city in search of industrial or service employment are confronted by a woeful lack of information or direction in regard to the labor market. Much of their movement, like that which takes place among agricultural workers, is ill advised, and consequently fails to bring worker and job together.

It is imperative, aside from purely humanitarian considerations, that the whole problem of decasualizing the labor market be tackled if we are to draw fully upon our available man-power in the national defense effort. The need for such action was well stated by several witnesses who testified at the Washington hearings upon the subject of the defense program.

A rather special aspect of migration is the problem of unattached youth from rural areas. Historically, the cities have tended to provide job opportunities for younger members of farm families who were not needed at home. Since 1930 there have been more unemployed youth in the cities than could be absorbed, with the result that in several years of this decade 200,000 more youths were left idle on the farms than heretofore. As one expert put it:

Making a conservative estimate, one can say farms today have 2,000,000 more youth than are needed to grow our agricultural products."

Similarly, young Americans in the cities, who faced widespread unemployment in the depression years, moved in large numbers across the country in vain efforts to gain employment.

DISABILITIES SUFFERED BY MIGRANTS

Perhaps the most serious disability suffered by the migrant is his irregular, discontinuous, and uncertain employment. It will be remembered that the majority of migrants seek to find employment

• Raney, Howard, American Youth Commission, titled "How Fare American Youth?" 1937, p. 106.

which will give a continuous and productive income, thus enabling them to settle down. The agricultural migrant, seeking an opportunity for self-employment, finds himself in an even more difficult situation than the urban migrant. Free land is no longer available, at least free land which can support a family even on a subsistence level. Moreover, under the conditions of widespread local unemployment, the destitute rural or urban migrant is often looked upon as an "outsider" in the community in which he hopes to take up permanent residence. However, further movement offers little reasonable expectation of employment. Finally, when his resources are exhausted, the migrant is forced to apply for either public or private assistance.

In seeking relief the migrant encounters difficulties and disabilities far greater than those suffered by the settled relief client. The local community naturally feels little or no responsibility for aiding the migrant. A complexity of legal barriers to the granting of public relief confronts him; the funds of private welfare organizations are limited and he faces the general feeling that the primary responsibility of the community is to aid needy local residents. In addition to the distress arising out of the migrant's lack of legal claim to general relief, the coverage afforded by Federal social-security legislation is frequently incomplete or nonexistent, especially for those in agricultural pursuits or domestic service. Old-age insurance and employment-compensation legislation specifically omits workers in these categories. Even those covered by social-security legislation frequently gain few or none of its benefits, because, in the process of moving about, they fail to attain sufficient credits or periods of employment to qualify for these benefits. In addition, protection of the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act does not extend to agricultural workers.

The migrant also suffers from a lack of adequate hospital and medical care. The Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Thomas Parran, in his testimony before the committee in Washington, made clear that the migrant presents a special and extremely pressing problem in this respect. The need of the migrant and his family for medical care and advice cannot be met by the limited medical facilities of most American communities. Qualified witnesses testified that local medical facilities are inadequate in most cases to meet the needs of all destitute local residents, let alone nonpaying transients. A warning in connection with the health of the migrant was sounded at several of the committee's hearings, namely, the danger of the unhospitalized migrant transmitting communicable diseases. The program which has aroused the most interest among experts in this field, according to testimony before the committee, is the hospital and medical program sponsored by the Farm Security Administration. However, this service, caring only for a small segment of agricultural migrants, falls far short of meeting the whole problem.

Much information was furnished the committee concerning the housing of migrants, serving to reinforce previous studies made by Federal agencies, one witness told the committee that—

Bad housing facilities are a rule where the migrants congregate. In rural areas the ditch-banks shack, the tent camp, or the worse type of "tourist camp" provide most of the shelter within the means of this low-income group. In urban areas, the "shack town" at the edge of the city is frequently the only resort of the needy

nonresident. Low income and short stays make the migrant an unprofitable and undesirable tenant."

Testimony relating to the housing facilities of migrant workers furnished considerable evidence that, with some notable exceptions in the field of private migrant camps, the Farm Security Administration program for providing housing facilities was an outstanding achievement. Again, however, it was stated by witnesses that the need for exceeded existing facilities.

Another disadvantage suffered by our migrant population was reported as the inadequate education of the children of migrant families. Testimony conclusively showed that educational opportunities were extremely limited for thousands of children of migrant families, particularly those of migrant agricultural workers. Even when the children of migrants are able to avail themselves of local school facilities the uncertainty and short duration of their residence seriously hamper their educational progress.

The entire situation confronting migrants must be viewed against the background of their extremely low annual earnings. When the average annual earnings of a migrant family vary anywhere from $300 to $700, as latest available figures seem to indicate, it is obvious why so many migrants become destitute during the season of slack employment. After the harvest seasons the agricultural migrant is unemployed for the remainder of the year. At best, the migrant farm laborer is fortunate in obtaining 6 months work in the year. Most reports indicate a much lower average period of employment. Annual income for the migrant agricultural family on the west coast has been reported to be as low as $200, seldom higher than $600. The agricultural migrant family averages four persons; thus, the per capita income seldom exceeds the meager figure of $150. A casual knowledge of the cost of living is evidence that a family income of $700 annually for nonsettled persons is close to destitution.

Low incomes and other adverse conditions facing migratory workers were prevalent before the depression. Literature on this subject shows that even in prosperous years it was the fate of migrant and casual workers to exist at subnormal standards. The earnings of migratory workers naturally were driven downward by the impact of the depression.

Another conspicuous hardship suffered by the migrant, especially the agricultural migrant, is his hazardous method of transportation. Unable to afford train or bus fare, most migrants travel throughout the country in old, unsafe trucks and automobiles. Truck transportation supplied by labor contractors is frequently in violation of State and Federal laws. In several cases reported to the committee no financial responsibility for accidents could be fixed.

It is clear that the disabilities thus summarily set forth bring ills not only of the body but of the spirit. Most telling for the future is the effect of migration as a way of life upon migrant children. John Beecher, of the Farm Security Administration, in the committee's Montgomery hearings aptly said:

What sort of Americans are migrant children growing up to be? Their way of life is completely alien to the traditional American way of life. We may very well be breeding aliens out of the descendants of pioneers.

'Lawson, William R., memorandum to W. P. A. Administrator Col. F. O. Harrington, March 2, 1939. In Congressional Record March 20, 1939, pp. 5008-5010.

CAUSES OF MIGRATION

The preceding section has been concerned with the question of what happens to people who move, and related questions as to the number of migrants within our borders, how many move seasonably, what proportion of all migrants are rural or urban in origin, what disabilities they have as compared with resident people, and how many potential migrants there may be at the points of origin, waiting for something to start them along the same road.

This committee has been deeply concerned with these millions of migrants who have to move on account of circumstances over which they have no control and who, like Americans, refuse to starve standing still. Directly or indirectly, this movement of people is connected with every economic dislocation in our national life. It is obvious, therefore, that no single solution to this problem is possible.

Assuming, as the committee has, that the American people desire to encourage migration, there will remain situations in which movement may not be the best solution for the individual or the family group. Unconsidered movement to certain areas may serve to aggravate an already serious situation. Migration from certain areas may be desirable, if not imperative, but existing or proposed migration from those areas may not provide a desirable solution. For example, farms in the Southeast can . rovide work for only a fraction of the oncoming generation of farm population. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the migration of whole families is more desirable than the continued migration of youth which has been characteristic of that region for generations.

The causes of migration may be divided into two principal categories: 1. Economic causes, especially those arising from depression conditions(a) General unemployment, causing migration to other urban areas in search of jobs or to the land for security;

(b) Regional differences in employment, wage levels, and patterns of seasonal labor requirements;

(c) High rates of natural population increase in areas of low economic opportunity;

(d) Seasonal demands of agriculture for workers;

(e) Mechanization of industry and agriculture;

Belated flight from stranded areas as national recovery develops.

2. Natural causes in areas subject to drought hazards, soil erosion, plant disease, and insects.

The causes of migration have been found by the committee to be primarily economic. Migration is symptomatic of economic dislocation and, in more serious situations, of economic decline or disintegration. Extreme examples of the latter are to be found in stranded mining or mill towns, cut-over forest areas and certain rural areas where natural forces, such as drought or erosion, have worked the greatest hardships. In the case of these latter rural areas the committee realizes that neither drought nor soil erosion is automatically attended by the permanent decline of the affected rural areas. Adjustments in such areas are, however, usually accompanied by some temporary migration.

Urban migration throughout the last decade has been a byproduct of the general unemployment problem. The study now being conducted by the group attached to the National Resources Planning Board investigating general relief should form a valuable background

to any future studies of migration. It is from the ranks of those at or near the relief level that the bulk of migration arises. Witnesses before the committee have regularly testified, however, that many of the migratory group dislike to accept relief and that this in itself has often led them to migrate either to other urban areas in search of jobs or back to the land in search of security.

Migration from country to city in good times has been, in all countries, the classic example of migration. In fact, to carry this a step further, the European immigration to this country before 1920 originated largely in rural communities. A strong case could be made for the assertion that the advent of the industrial revolution in country after country produced a steady flow of population not only from European countryside to European cities, but also from rural Europe to urban America. One of the outstanding factors behind this is the failure of urban populations, in all modern industrialized communities, to reproduce itself. Replacements, characteristically, have been derived from rural areas. Until very recently, the population increase in rural areas in all countries has exceeded local economic opportunities. As a consequence, migration from the countryside to cities at home or abroad has flowed freely. With the closing of our gates to immigration, except on a highly restricted basis, such replacements for urban United States population were bound to be drawn from rural areas in the United States. It was in this connection that the Southeast was characterized by Prof. Rupert B. Vance at the committee's Montgomery hearings as "the seedbed of the Nation."

Mechanization of industry after 1920 led to expanding employment opportunities in manufacturing establishments. In contrast to those absolute increases, however, the relative numbers employed in manufacturing had already begun to decline by 1920. Yet it was not until the decade just ended that it became generally apparent that job seekers must look elsewhere than to industry for expanding employment opportunities. The impact of mechanization on industrial job seekers during the decade 1930-40 has overtaken agricultural labor also. Continued mechanization of agriculture will reduce further the total number of jobs to be done on farms. As a result of this mechanization, and the natural population increase, it may be expected that for several decades to come the number of job seekers in agriculture, as well as in urban industry, will rise. This situation produces areas of surplus population and declining job opportunities, and stimulates migration in search of new jobs. For many migrants whose job qualifications are limited, these new jobs are nonexistent.

From areas of surplus population the majority of migrants have been, and continue to be, drawn from the youthful group. With the improvement of educational opportunities throughout the country, the horizon of youth has been broadening, while the local job opportunities in many areas have been stagnating or actually declining. At the same time, oncoming numbers of young men and women have not appreciably slackened. This group of migrants has been characterized above as indispensable to the maintenance of urban population. The committee is not concerned with cutting off the movement of such a group but is interested in its guidance, the alleviation of unnecessary hardships it encounters, and especially the improvement of its preparation for the role which its members will have to play as the urban dwellers of the next decades.