Cracken) in 1957 contained 38 percent of the state’s also had a sizeable natural increase, since there were
*7* population compared to only 32 percent in 1950. 77,999 more births than deaths. But this gain, great
V. Cllanggs in     1]Ou-]T]€tl·0pO1itan economic areas HS.  \V1ElS, \VHS   less thai] half tl'lC loss tllfnllgh Iil€'t
.   (see map) also show that the shift to urban areas is iiiigmiicii _ 1
nggctiug all parts Of the Stat€_ Urban groyvth is the fx I]TOI`€ careful look Ht th€ data lTli.lkC‘S clear hO\V _
·i`v— primary reason for population increase in nearly every tistoiiisliiiig these (iam Oii iititiiiiil i“€i`€`tiS€ um-
 1,* one of the five economic areas which gained (Area 1- li" i94°·$°· ·i¢"¢¤¤¤ ¢¤¤¤*Y had i°$»6“ hitihw 52·i8i
The Purchase- Area 2—Owensboro-Henderson· Area d°°"“'
’ ’ In 1940-50, Economic Area 9 had l76,364 births, 36,360
`*v 3b—Eastern Pennyroyal and Knobs; Area 4-The Pen- de,",,_
_ nyroyal; and Area 7—The Inner Bluegrass). On the ih 1950-$7. J¢"¢¤¤¤ ¢¤¤¤tY hid i°7·$U6 birth!. NJN
_ other hand, the five economic areas which lost in In "1?g°;; Economic Ama 9 had WL"] Mmm 23.442 ’
‘*** population were areas dominated by agriculture or de,•|,,_ _
Tri coal mining and were without large urban areas (Area Note that jgfigeysou County vvhich had 7(),68() fgwgr
3¤—Tii€ \V€$t€i`ii Coal Fields; Aiea 5·Tii€ Smith C€ii· births than Economic Area 9 in the earlier period had
*°*` tml Knobs; Aitfii 6·Tli€ Oiiiei Bi\i€gT€i$$9 Area 8-The 6,145 more births than Area 9 in the 7% years follow- .
Y} v Cumberland Plateau Margin; Area 9-The Cumb€1‘— ing, Note also that there were nearly 2,000 more births
liiiid Pltit€aiil· in ]efferson county in the 7% years from 1950 to 1957
7 *‘ than in the 10 years from 1940 to 1950. The animal
 R, Most lmP°'T¤ni' Changes rate of reproductive increase in ]efferson county in-
The two most important changes, both in numbers creased from 1.23 in the earlier period to 1.77 from
f" and rates, were in ]e{ferson county’s continued in- 1950-57. On the other hand, the animal rate of repro-
JV crease, and the tremendous decrease in Economic ductive increase of Economic Area 9 dccrerlscd from
A Area 9. 2.75 in the 1940`s to 2.:28 in the 1950's.
, ’ "" In 1950 ]efferson county had about 27,000 fewer The migration to ]efferson county because of the
gs; persons than Economic Area 9. Only 7% years later, job opportunities there in industry and commerce is
. _ in 1957, the county had about 158,000 more people an old, readily understood phenomenon. The move-
***5 than Area 9. This is a startling change. Although ment away from Economic Area 9 is also an old pat-
,5-. - ]efi`erson county has steadily gained in population, in tern of movement from subsistence farming and coal
  no decade from 1860 to 1950 had the Cumberland mining, with its decreasing need for manpower, to
‘ Plateau failed to gain population. But there is no better employment opportunities elsewhere.
doubt that the census of 1960 will show a sizeable The changes in natural increase are, however, new
loss of population in this area. and different. Apparently young persons have mi-
"T How can we account for these spectacular changes grated in such numbers from Eastern Kentucky that
wr in the two areas? the number of births has fallen precipitously. On the
Fundamentally, population change is a result of the other hand, ]efferson county has held the young people
(Ti number of births, the number of deaths, and the it already had and has attracted young persons of
1;,,, migration into and out of the areas during the period child·bearing ages so that the number of births has
T_ being studied. increased rapidly.
T7 As expected, from 1950 to 1957 jefferson county
 és gained through net migration (i.e., the number of The Future
migrants coming into jefferson county exceeded the \Vhat of the future? The rate of emigration from
VT number leaving the county), with an estimated gain E11$i<‘1`ii K€1¤ili€l<)’ WHS Coiiiiiiiiiiiil iii li<‘ l¤<’¤\’)’ iis
.L;.· of   On thc other hand, Economic Area 9 lost recently as _Inly 1, 1957. and in spite of the economic
h(xu\,vily_ tho net loss bgiug (·¤StiI]]at(¤d at   hl I`(‘C(’SSl()ll (illfillg   ilIl(1       llIIlll*((‘l}`   I'tltl‘
M {hg 7fA..)r(¤;u· P(¤l·i()(i E£·()]]0I]]ic _,\l·;_»;]_   lost th]·()ugh (l(‘CI`(*1lS(*(i ll gI`(‘ilt (l(‘ill. 1)l`(}i)tll)ly IllOI`(‘ 1lll(l I\l()I`l‘
. *··•·- migration 31 percent of its total population in 1950. Yiiiiiiii D<‘OPl<` will lit` tl¤·¤· li’iii