Five projections of the population of Los Angeles County, California, to the year 2000 are analyzed. Consideration is given to components of growth, the immigration of minorities, transportation and commuting, and the prospect of the development of a Californian megalopolis.
The relationships among the family life cycle, economic well-being, and marital disruption among black families in the United States are explored. The data are taken from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and concern a sample of 575 black families that had both spouses present in 1968 and were followed up to 1974. Multiple classification analysis is used to identify the factors that are important predictors of marital disruption, and multiple regression analysis is used to examine the causal structures involved. The results suggest that the stage of the family life cycle is the strongest predictor of marital disruption. Economic well-being, as measured by family income, assets, and consumption, is also significant.
The rationale for this study is to test Durkheim's proposition that the division of labor in a society changes with the change in population size and density of a society in a change framework. Durkheim (1964) specified that an increase in population size (i.e., social volume) influences a change in the division of labor when there is an increase in density. The county is the basic unit of analysis. To ensure that a sufficient number of counties were included in the analysis, all counties which had reported crime data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the years of 1940, 1950, 1960, and 1970 were selected. The total number of counties in the US is 3073 but only 300 counties consistently reported crime data over the time period. The findings apply only to the 300 counties selected. The average population of these counties in 1970 was 117,724 and ranged from 202 to 7,032,075. The population density averaged 147 population per square mile (ppsm) with a range of .2 to 5103 ppsm while the average percent urban was 37.1 with a range of from zero to 99.7. The division of labor is measured by an index developed by Gibbs and Martin (1962) and modified by Gibbs and Poston (1975)which measures occupational differentiation. The basic statistical procedure used was regression analysis. Both zero order correlations and standard partial regression coefficients were computed to test the postulated association between population size, density, urbanization, and the division of labor. Relationships were examined for 1940-50, 1950-60, 1960-70. The zero order correlations were inconsistent with Durkheim's proposition. The correlation between change in population size from 1940-50 and change in the division of labor (DL) 1940-50 were negative. Similar results occurred with density and urbanization. The degree of DL in 1940 was positively associated with change in the antecedent variables of population density and urbanization and negatively associated with change in DL. Comparisons of the variables during 1950-60 indicated a similar pattern. The 1960-70 comparisons indicated that there is no correlation between change in population size and change in DL and change in urbanization and change in DL. Change in density was negatively related to DL. As in the earlier time periods, the level of DL in 1960 was positively related to each of the independent variables. These data suggest that some interesting things, largely incongruent with Durkheim's postulate are taking place. The zero order correlations suggest that in all time periods the antecedent variables vary together which is as Durkheim posited, but the division of labor apparently does not increase as the antecedent variables increase. These findings lend support to the argument that the division of labor may precede rather than follow the ecological changes in a society. The results of the regression analysis suggest a similar pattern.
2 hypotheses have emerged to explain minority fertility. The traditional explanation, the social "characteristics hypothesis," predicts that as a minority group approaches the socioeconomic status of the dominant group their fertility rate will also approximate the majority group rate. The alternative explanation, "the minority group status hypothesis," concludes that fertility differences do not disappear even when socioeconomic characteristics are controlled. When compared with majority whites, Catholics have higher fertility, but Jews, higher status blacks, urban Japanese Americans, and Japanese Americans outside the West have lower fertility. Japanese Americans provide a useful test case for the minority group status versus characteristics hypotheses for differential fertility. This test of minority fertility focuses primarily on the Nisei, more specifically the ever-married Nisei subsample (N=1937) of a 1967 survey conducted in the US. The well educated, substantially middle class 2nd generation exemplifies the type of minority group addressed by the alternative hypotheses of minority fertility. Alternately, the Issei were born and largely educated in Japan and necessarily worked on the peripheries of dominant American institutions. They, like the Sansei, are examined in abbreviated form to explore extensions of the Nisei fertility pattern. Analysis of variance is the basic technique used to evaluate the effects of multiple variables, and interactions among variables, on fertility. Only education and occupation explain significant amounts of variation in Issei fertility. The multiple classification analysis confirms that this relationship reflects high fertility among Issei farmers, a pattern maintained by rapidly decreasing Nisei and Sansei farm populations. Unlike their children's generation, however, blue collar Issei exhibit lower fertility than white collar Issei. Education and occupation explain approximately equal amounts of variance in fertility within the Nisei population. The general pattern of the findings supports the characteristics hypothesis rather than the minority status hypothesis for Japanese American fertility. Education is the most consistent single predictor of fertility, significant for all 3 generations, while occupation is a strong predictor for the 1st and 2nd generations. Neither the direct measure of insecurity nor the battery of variables suggested in the literature as accentuating minority insecurity are significant predictors of this minority group's fertility.
