An Unhallowed Gathering: The Impact of Defense Spending on Utah's Population Grown 1940-1964

An Unhallowed Gathering: The Impact of Defense Spending on Utah's Population Growth, 1940-1964

by James L. Clayton

Not since the Mormon "pure in heart" fled out of Babylon and gathered to Zion has Utah seen such profound population changes as in recent years. From 1940 to 1964, the year Utah's population reached an estimated 1 million persons, the Beehive State added 450,000 new residents. This represents a rate of growth of 65 per cent, or more than double the per cent increase of the previous 23 years.

It is widely assumed that there has been a direct connection between Utah's recent rapid population growth and federal defense spending in this state, but to date no one has attempted empirically to test this belief. It seems altogether fitting therefore to focus careful attention on this subject, not simply because defense spending has pushed Utah from a small state to a middle-sized state, but more because Utah's experience may be directly relevant to an understanding of significant aspects of the whole dynamic westward movement since 1940.

I

Before one can measure the impact of defense spending on a given region, however, one must first determine its magnitude. This is no simple task. There are, for example, no available data on federal defense procurement expenditures before 1951, although payroll statistics by state for Department of Defense (DOD) civilians go back at least to 1939. In recent years, however, payrolls represented less than half of the total defense budget. Nor do procurement data subsequent to 1951 offer any direct indication as to the state in which the contracted work is actually done. Subcontracting is not reported for instance, and the final figures represent where the product is assembled, not where production occurs.

The uselessness of these defense expenditure data should be particularly obvious to Utahns. As every resident knows, this state experienced a sharp cutback in defense employment during the fall of 1963. What is not generally known is that during this same period prime defense contract procurements in Utah were higher by $110 million than for any previous period. Obviously, defense expenditures data can be misleading.

A better method of measuring the magnitude of defense spending in a given area is to determine the number of jobs directly related to defense spending. Here again there is no indisputably accurate way of measuring defense employment and especially indirect defense employment, but this is not necessary in order to see the impact of defense spending on population growth. Sometimes personal income data are considered more informative than employment data, but these data are not broken down sufficiently to measure what is attributable to defense spending and what is not.

Since there is no defense sector in the standard industrial classification, each student of this subject must, in effect, determine for himself which jobs are defense related and which are not. Basically, however, there is general agreement among scholars as to what to include for recent years. Obviously all employees of the DOD working in Utah would be included. So should all employees in the ordnance and accessory and aircraft and parts industries. The latter is the trade name for Utah's missile employment and includes virtually nothing else. There is also precedent for including half of all electronic components and accessories employees in Utah. This is probably a conservative percentage, for some authorities in other states feel that 65 per cent of all electrical machinery workers is a more proper ratio.

For the years prior to 1952 the problem is more difficult. Standard industrial classifications of insured industries in Utah during the 1940's do not allow a careful breakdown of defense employment. Consequently, we have included average annual figures for the Remington Arms Company and all other war production manufacturing firms as well as twothirds of the total increase in construction employment from 1941 through 1944 This latter inclusion is justified for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the federal government spent between $600 and $650 million for buildings and equipment at Utah military installations during this period.

From these employment data, it is clear that from 1941 through 1943 defense spending was directly responsible for creating 49,500 new jobs in Utah. However, from 1944 through 1947,34,700 of these new jobs were discontinued because of defense cutbacks. Still, 14,800 Utahns were being directly supported by federal defense money in 1947.

With the coming of the Cold War, this downward trend reversed itself and direct defense employment climbed to 28,000 by 1952. Following the Korean War, defense employment slipped to about 20,000 where it remained until 1959. That year the impact of Utah's new missile industry began to be evident in employment figures, and direct defense employment climbed rapidly in every year thereafter until it peaked at 36,400 in 1963. In August of 1963 began the cutbacks already referred to in the ordnance and aircraft sectors, and by March of 1964 defense employment stood at 34,500 or 11.9 per cent of the non-agricultural work force.

At this point it is important to note that almost all of Utah's defense employment has been concentrated in five counties along the Wasatch Front — Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Tooele. Although a county breakdown of direct defense employment during World War II is not available, from 1952 to 1958 these five counties contained over 85 per cent of Utah's defense workers. Since 1958 virtually all of Utah's direct defense employment has been centered there (compare Table 1 and Table 2). Within these five counties the most recent data show that the Ogden Metropolitan Area (Weber and north Davis counties) contains 47 per cent of all defense employment; the Salt Lake Metropolitan Area (Salt Lake and south Davis counties), 25 per cent; Tooele County, 14 per cent; and Box Elder County, 13 per cent.

II

Having determined the magnitude of defense spending in Utah so far as it is possible to do so, we now turn to the measurement of Utah's population growth. Again, this is no easy task, for although a community can only grow through the fertility of its inhabitants or by migration, the study of fertility is still in its infancy and knowledge of migration has hardly progressed beyond the embryonic stage. Since defense spending has no apparent relationship to fertility rates, we shall only be concerned with the rate of migration both to and from Utah.

Defense Spending and Population TABLE 1

ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE DIRECT DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT IN UTAH 1940-1964*

By definition the rate of migration is the ratio of migrants observed to the population exposed to the likelihood of migrating during a specified interval. A direct measurement of migration would require a count of persons who change their residence, but this is impossible in the United States because there is no system of residence registration. Migration can therefore only be estimated for any given region.

There are several indirect methods of estimating migration used by demographers. Of these, the vital statistics method and the survival ratio method are the most common. The vital statistics — probably the better of the two methods — simply requires subtracting deaths from births to find natural increase, and the difference between natural increase and the actual population in any given year is the net migration. This figure, of course, may be either plus or minus. The main weakness of the vital statistics method is that net migration is a residual figure which includes all possible errors. There is, consequently, no practical way to check its accuracy. Its major strength lies in the availability of highly accurate natality and mortality statistics.

The survival ratio method is used with school enrollment. Expected and actual school enrollment in grades two through ten are compared and adjusted to mortality tables for this age group. The difference between these two figures is an estimate of the net migration of these students. The ratio of this group to the actual population is then calculated and an estimation of total net migration is the result. This, obviously, is also a residual figure. This method has two things to recommend it when applied to Utah. First, school enrollment in Utah is determined by age, hence is a reasonably accurate measurement of that segment of the population. Second, Utah has a very high percentage of its youth actually enrolled who should be enrolled. The major weakness of the survival ratio method is that only persons between the ages of seven and sixteen are actually considered. This, for our purpose, is especially unfortunate because young married persons with no children or children under seven, and older persons who no longer have children in school undoubtedly make up a significant but undeterminable segment of defense employment. An additional difficulty is that the accuracy of school censuses varies from district to district and sometimes from year to year.

Unfortunately, special problems must be faced when using either the vital statistics or the school enrollment method. Both assume that the annual base population of the state is accurate. This is not necessarily true and almost certainly not true for some recent years, because the U.S. Census Bureau makes its annual state population estimates also on the basis of the school enrollment and vital statistics methods. To further cloud the picture, the Census Bureau's past state population estimates are constantly being revised as new methods are developed — even as far back as 10 years or more. Finally, neither method can determine the state of origin of inmigrants nor the destination of out-migrants. This must be done by a special census. Despite these major limitations, however, these two methods are believed to give more accurate results than other possible methods of estimation, and if used cautiously and correlated with other variables they can be informative.

Applying the vital statistics method to Utah since 1940, we find that in-migration was highest during 1943,1946,1955, and 1961 (see Table 3). Out-migration on the other hand was most significant in 1944, 1945, and 1947. Measured in meaningful time intervals, Utah had a net positive migration of 18,400 persons during the war years 1941 to 1946, and a net loss of 8,200 persons from 1947 to 1950. From 1951 through 1955 this trend was reversed and 8,500 more persons entered the state than left. From 1956 to the present — the period of this state's extraordinary missile industry growth — Utah has had a positive net migration of 18,100, a figure only slightly less than during the somewhat shorter World War II period.

Using the school enrollment method, a similar albeit much less extreme picture emerges. By this method in-migration was highest in 1943, 1962, and 1963 (see Table 4). Out-migration was most noticeable in 1947, 1945, and 1944. Using the same time intervals as before, according to this method Utah lost 12,900 persons from 1941-1946, lost an additional 41,800 from 1947 to 1950, and suffered a further loss of 22,100 from 1951 to 1955. Thereafter the net gain to 1964 was 804.

Defense Spending and Population TABLE 3*

ESTIMATED NET MIGRATION IN UTAH MEASURED BY VITAL STATISTICS1940-1964

The difference between these migration estimates and those made by the vital statistics method cannot be fully reconciled. Undoubtedly, one major reason for the different results is that thousands of military personnel stationed in Utah during World War II and those released from service immediately following that conflict are not included in the annual estimates measured by school enrollment. Another probable reason for the

TABLE 4*

ESTIMATED NET MIGRATION IN UTAH IMPUTED FROM SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CHANGESIN GRADES THREE TO TEN, 1941 TO 1964

larger positive migration as measured by vital statistics is because children of school age are less mobile than persons of late adolescence and early maturity. 1Still another reason is that during unsettled times some persons seeking distant but temporary employment with the intention of returning to their original domiciles do not take their families with them. Nevertheless, these factors do not explain fully the quite different results of these two methods, especially during the 1950's and one is forced to conclude that a statistically accurate method of estimating state migration is wanting.

The combined results of these two methods do agree at certain points however. First, contrary to popular belief, Utah probably experienced a net out-migration of 10,000 to 15,000 during the bustling years from 1941— 45. Second, an even greater net out-migration of 10,000 to 25,000 occurred during 1947-50. Third, both methods substantiate the common knowledge that during the Korean War and during the late 1950's and early 1960's Utah probably experienced a net in-migration of from 5,000 to 15,000.

Ill

With these preliminary but necessary remarks on defense spending and migration, we now turn to the heart of the problem, viz. to what extent if any has defense spending contributed to Utah's population growth since 1940?

To begin with it is well known that Utah's population growth pattern during the past 24 years is a marked change from previous decades. Measured by the vital statistics method, Utah lost through migration over 60,000 persons from 1910 to 1940, but has gained almost 37,000 new migrants since 1940 (see Table 3). Moreover, during the 1940's Utah experienced for the first time in almost a century a faster rate of growth than the United States and the other Mountain States. Although unable to keep up with the average rate of growth of the surrounding Mountain States from the 1950's to date, the point is that after 1940 Utah began to import rather than export people.

The primary reason for Utah's population growth since 1940 becomes abundantly clear by comparing the natural increase data in Table 3 with the net migration data in Table 3 and Table 4. With the certain exceptions of 1942 and 1943 and the possible exceptions of 1946 and 1958, substantially more persons have been added annually to Utah's population by natural increase than by in-migration during the past 24 years. In fact, natural increase can account for 93 per cent of Utah's population growth if migration is measured by vital statistics, and virtually 100 per cent if measured by school enrollment. Conversely, out-migration has been larger than natural increase — causing Utah to suffer a loss of population — only during 1945, 1947, and possibly 1944. Clearly, therefore, Utah's birth rate is the primary reason for Utah's growth; not defense spending. Significantly, this birth rate has been falling rapidly in recent years.

TOP (Tooele Ordnance Depot) Park in Tooele was one of the many housing projects in Utah constructed to accommodate workers employed in defense industries. By the end of World War II, TOD had 1,080 units, a shopping center, a spost office, and an elementary school. The top left photograph shows military barracks constructed at Tooele Army Depot during World War II. During the Korean War, Navajo Indians working on the base were housed here. The top right photograph shows the cinderblock houses at TOD Park under construction in 1943. The units have now been dismantled as substandard housing. The aerial view shows TOD Park in relation to the Depot troop area (top center), motor pool (top left corner), and hospital (top left).

Photographs courtesy Tooele Army Depot

Of those factors affecting what migration we have had, however, defense spending is clearly the most important. For example there is a significant correlation between direct defense employment changes in Utah and population migration measured by school enrollment, although this is not so when measured by vital statistics. But correlation, as everyone knows, does not necessarily mean causation.

A cause and effect relationship between defense spending and migration becomes strikingly evident, however, when one examines employment data for this state back to 1940. It has long been established that population migration is directly related to job opportunities. From 1940 to March 1964, the number of non-agricultural jobs in Utah increased from 119,000 to 289,000 or 143 per cent. Most of these new jobs were created in the government and manufacturing sectors. Within the government sector, employment by the federal government can account for most of the job increase, and in Utah defense installation employment is the most significant part of federal government employment. This explains why Hill Air Force Base is Utah's largest employer. Within the manufacturing sector, ordnance and transportation equipment can account for most of the new jobs since 1947. Clearly, therefore, defense spending has been the single most important factor in the number of new jobs created in Utah since 1940.

During this same period 450,000 persons were added to Utah's population for a gain of 79 per cent. Of these persons, 379,000 or 72 per cent have been added to those five counties most associated with defense spending. Reliable data on net in-migration by county during the 1940's are not yet available, but from 1950 to 1964, 104,000 persons migrated to Utah, and 87,000 or 84 per cent of these persons went to the five defense counties. The reason for the concentration of newcomers in these five counties can readily be seen when one knows that from 1950 to 1963, 86,700 or 83 per cent of all new non-agricultural jobs were created in these defense-oriented counties. Of these new jobs, 24,000 or 30 per cent were directly related to defense spending. If indirect defense employment were computed, a higher ratio would result.

It is unknown at this time how many of these defense jobs went to non-residents, but we have reason to believe that most of the salaried positions in the defense industries have gone to persons from outside the state. Eighty per cent of Thiokol's salaried employees are non-Utahns, for example, and only one-seventh of the engineers at Sperry are natives. At Hercules the ratio of Utahns was high at first, but in 1964 it was estimated by company officials at no more than 50 per cent.

If we assume that only one-fourth of the total salaried and wage defense employees came from other states and each brought with him a wife and two children, then 28 per cent of the in-migrants in these key counties came to Utah directly because of defense jobs. If, on the other hand, as many as one-half of all new defense jobs went to non-residents, then 55 per cent of the in-migration to these counties and 46 per cent of the total in-migration to Utah since 1950 could be attributed directly to defense spending. If indirect defense employment were included these figures would, of course, be higher.

These assumptions are supported by a number of conclusions which may be drawn from a comparison of defense employment and school enrollment. First, as we have seen, defense spending is directly and closely related to school enrollment in Utah, and since 1940 has apparently been the primary reason for its fluctuation. This close correlation suggests strongly that direct defense employment is to a great extent a non-resident phenomenon. That is, the better defense jobs seem to have gone to outsiders, not to residents. When defense jobs have been terminated these employees generally have left Utah for other opportunities. How else can one explain this close correlation? Second, since 1940 Utah has attracted comparatively few migrant employees other than persons seeking defense employment. When defense spending has not been heavy or has been reduced, out-migration has occurred.

If one uses the vital statistics method to correlate defense employment and migration, the same general conclusions may be drawn albeit with less assurance and conviction. Although the correlation is closer here than with the school enrollment method during the early war years, there is really no correlation from 1943 to 1948. Thereafter the trend is comparable with school enrollment but with significant departures in 1955 and 1961. There being no empirical reason for averaging the vital statistics method and the school enrollment method, we are unable to refine these data further.

IV

In conclusion, it is now clear that the primary reason for Utah's recent rapid population growth is because defense spending created new job opportunities which reversed a decades-long trend of out-migration and enticed new residents to the state. If this growth is to continue, defense spending must be expanded in order to keep up with a bulging young war baby generation now coming on the market — or an effort of similar magnitude must be undertaken in the private sector of Utah's economy, or both. Since the total wages to defense employees in 1964 were about $264 million, it is not likely that such an alternative will be found. It seems probable, therefore, that unless defense spending is increased, Utah's population boom is now over and the pattern of out-migration will commence once again.

Utah's experience also offers a possible key to understanding growth in other Mountain and Pacific States in recent years. The close relationship of defense spending and California's growth has already been examined. It may also be the main reason why defense-oriented Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico have experienced rapid growth, while nondefense-oriented states such as Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana have not. If this hypothesis is true — and only further study of other states will determine this — defense spending may be the key to the amazing population "explosion" in the West today.

For full citations, images and tables please view this article on a desktop.