what did the census counts of 1920 and 1930 show about the shifting population in the United States?
Q. What did it show in terms of demographics and what was its impact on the U.S. as a whole?
Asked by George Roberts - Sun Mar 9 17:00:32 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Both of these Census Years revealed that our population was shifting from an agrarian base to a manufacturing and service base. That shift revealed that our population was changing from a rural population to a urban population. The changes promoted, and at the same time, required that agriculture must increase in productivity per man-hour of labor because there were fewer people left in the rural areas to provide the ever increasing population with food and fiber to sustain life.
Answered by Paul N - Sun Mar 9 17:17:18 2008
Q. What did it show in terms of demographics and what was its impact on the U.S. as a whole?
Asked by George Roberts - Sun Mar 9 17:00:32 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Both of these Census Years revealed that our population was shifting from an agrarian base to a manufacturing and service base. That shift revealed that our population was changing from a rural population to a urban population. The changes promoted, and at the same time, required that agriculture must increase in productivity per man-hour of labor because there were fewer people left in the rural areas to provide the ever increasing population with food and fiber to sustain life.
Answered by Paul N - Sun Mar 9 17:17:18 2008
census records of 1920?
Q. I'm doing some genealogical research and I've noticed while looking at the 1920 census of Natura, Okmulgee, Oklahoma where my great-great grandparents lived has their parents being born in the United States of America, but no specific state listed, even though the majority of other people on this census have the state of their parents nativity...my gg-grandparent's parents aren't the only ones that have the USA listed as their place of birth, but is there a specific reason for this that I'm missing? Can anyone help me out? the family's last name is murphey, from Natura, Okmulgee, Oklahoma in 1920...family members are Frank, Mary, Charlie, Clara, Pearl, Lucile, Fred, and Kattie. I've also found a record in seminole county, oklahoma in 1910.. [cont.]
Asked by dvinemrsshay - Sat Apr 18 21:03:54 2009 - - 8 Answers - 0 Comments
A. My guess is that the key issue here lies in the fact of Frank being listed as Black, and both parents were born before the Civil War. In that case.. the strong likelihood is that he would not have KNOWN the location of their birth, other than "US". In the possible event that his birth was not correct.. and he possibly was born pre 1867.. there would have been no record of his birth.. no exact way to be certain of his exact age.. and he MAY have been separated from his parents as a child (maybe sold). You also have the possibility that he came to Indian Territory with family who was Cherokee (or Freedman), which would suggest birth in what was THEN OK (state in 1907), but not a state prior. It was where the Cherokees were removed to, from… [cont.]
Answered by wendy c - Sun Apr 19 05:16:44 2009
Q. I'm doing some genealogical research and I've noticed while looking at the 1920 census of Natura, Okmulgee, Oklahoma where my great-great grandparents lived has their parents being born in the United States of America, but no specific state listed, even though the majority of other people on this census have the state of their parents nativity...my gg-grandparent's parents aren't the only ones that have the USA listed as their place of birth, but is there a specific reason for this that I'm missing? Can anyone help me out? the family's last name is murphey, from Natura, Okmulgee, Oklahoma in 1920...family members are Frank, Mary, Charlie, Clara, Pearl, Lucile, Fred, and Kattie. I've also found a record in seminole county, oklahoma in 1910.. [cont.]
Asked by dvinemrsshay - Sat Apr 18 21:03:54 2009 - - 8 Answers - 0 Comments
A. My guess is that the key issue here lies in the fact of Frank being listed as Black, and both parents were born before the Civil War. In that case.. the strong likelihood is that he would not have KNOWN the location of their birth, other than "US". In the possible event that his birth was not correct.. and he possibly was born pre 1867.. there would have been no record of his birth.. no exact way to be certain of his exact age.. and he MAY have been separated from his parents as a child (maybe sold). You also have the possibility that he came to Indian Territory with family who was Cherokee (or Freedman), which would suggest birth in what was THEN OK (state in 1907), but not a state prior. It was where the Cherokees were removed to, from… [cont.]
Answered by wendy c - Sun Apr 19 05:16:44 2009
Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000.?
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 P(2000) =
Asked by julie - Mon Mar 15 20:14:08 2010 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The model is y = Ae^(Bx) where y is population, in millions, and x is the year minus 1900. We need to scale x to keep the x values reasonable. The two equations are 76 = Ae^(0B) 92 = Ae^(10B) The first equation tells us that A = 76 since e^0 = 1. Plug into the second equation, 92 = 76e^(10B) e^(10B) = 92/76 Take the ln of both sides, 10B = ln(92/76) = 0.191055237 So B = 0.019105524 and the equation is y = 76e^(0.019105524x) In 2000, x = 100, so y = 76e^[(0.019105524)(100)] = 76e^(1.910552368) y = 513.5183213 <-- population in 2000 The observed population is 275, so the model is overestimating.
Answered by Robert - Mon Mar 15 20:30:34 2010
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 P(2000) =
Asked by julie - Mon Mar 15 20:14:08 2010 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The model is y = Ae^(Bx) where y is population, in millions, and x is the year minus 1900. We need to scale x to keep the x values reasonable. The two equations are 76 = Ae^(0B) 92 = Ae^(10B) The first equation tells us that A = 76 since e^0 = 1. Plug into the second equation, 92 = 76e^(10B) e^(10B) = 92/76 Take the ln of both sides, 10B = ln(92/76) = 0.191055237 So B = 0.019105524 and the equation is y = 76e^(0.019105524x) In 2000, x = 100, so y = 76e^[(0.019105524)(100)] = 76e^(1.910552368) y = 513.5183213 <-- population in 2000 The observed population is 275, so the model is overestimating.
Answered by Robert - Mon Mar 15 20:30:34 2010
What do you think Economy Not Reliant On Illegal Immigration ?
Q. Takes a minute or two to read.If reading is not for you skip this question.One of the arguments currently made for increasing the intake of immigrants and guest workers is that it is vital to the health of the nation's economy. If this were true, a tough choice would have to be made between economic stagnation and the social and environmental impact of adding further population growth on top of what is already too much. Fortunately, there is no real dilemma. The economy can grow in a healthy fashion with a low level of immigration. How do we know? Our economic history demonstrates this fact. Between 1925 and 1965, we had a level of immigration that averaged less than 180,000 admissions per year. Illegal immigration during that period… [cont.]
Asked by Untied States Of Latina - Wed Sep 19 21:33:12 2007 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It's difficult to argue with facts. This article is packed with reality checks for every fake out there looking to grab a quick buck. Thanks for the info. .
Answered by take a number - Wed Sep 19 22:47:26 2007
Q. Takes a minute or two to read.If reading is not for you skip this question.One of the arguments currently made for increasing the intake of immigrants and guest workers is that it is vital to the health of the nation's economy. If this were true, a tough choice would have to be made between economic stagnation and the social and environmental impact of adding further population growth on top of what is already too much. Fortunately, there is no real dilemma. The economy can grow in a healthy fashion with a low level of immigration. How do we know? Our economic history demonstrates this fact. Between 1925 and 1965, we had a level of immigration that averaged less than 180,000 admissions per year. Illegal immigration during that period… [cont.]
Asked by Untied States Of Latina - Wed Sep 19 21:33:12 2007 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It's difficult to argue with facts. This article is packed with reality checks for every fake out there looking to grab a quick buck. Thanks for the info. .
Answered by take a number - Wed Sep 19 22:47:26 2007
Is this True ? ......No Tax...on Wages ?
Q. American Citizen's, living and working in the 50 states have no liability to pay federal income taxes and no liability to pay state income taxes, since the Constitution of the United States of America clearly does not allow for a DIRECT, unapportioned tax on Citizen's property or on the fruit of their labors. The recent case in Illinois, United States v. Robert Lawrence highlighted the fraudulent 1040, which does not contain a valid OMB number. The govt asked for the case to be dismissed, because Lawrence's atty intended to expose the fraud and the government was smart enough to realize that this would also expose the Constitutional tort existent because the income tax is a direct unapportioned tax.. The 16th Amendment does not change… [cont.]
Asked by jgroup01 - Tue Jan 23 11:24:32 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Looks like you got all figured out.
Answered by Chuckles D - Tue Jan 23 11:28:32 2007
Q. American Citizen's, living and working in the 50 states have no liability to pay federal income taxes and no liability to pay state income taxes, since the Constitution of the United States of America clearly does not allow for a DIRECT, unapportioned tax on Citizen's property or on the fruit of their labors. The recent case in Illinois, United States v. Robert Lawrence highlighted the fraudulent 1040, which does not contain a valid OMB number. The govt asked for the case to be dismissed, because Lawrence's atty intended to expose the fraud and the government was smart enough to realize that this would also expose the Constitutional tort existent because the income tax is a direct unapportioned tax.. The 16th Amendment does not change… [cont.]
Asked by jgroup01 - Tue Jan 23 11:24:32 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Looks like you got all figured out.
Answered by Chuckles D - Tue Jan 23 11:28:32 2007
Calculus word problem?
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million
Asked by Mlukm - Wed May 20 23:39:25 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. don't see why this is a calc problem Oo. Exponential model is A = Pe^(rt) P is how much you start with. A is howmuch you end up with. and t is the amount of time passed. So from 1900 to 1910, the amount of time passed is 10 years, and 76 is how much you start with (P) 92 is how much you end with (A) so you have 92 = 76*e^(r*10) Solve this for r. (I'm too lazy.) and then replace that value of r into your equation. Now you have the power to predict what the population will be in 2000. Just use the started population in 1910 as you (A) and leave P as your variable. Use t = 90, (90 years from 1910 to 2000) and the rate you found in the first problem. The only variable you should have left is P, which is your prediction… [cont.]
Answered by Ken - Wed May 20 23:49:03 2009
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million
Asked by Mlukm - Wed May 20 23:39:25 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. don't see why this is a calc problem Oo. Exponential model is A = Pe^(rt) P is how much you start with. A is howmuch you end up with. and t is the amount of time passed. So from 1900 to 1910, the amount of time passed is 10 years, and 76 is how much you start with (P) 92 is how much you end with (A) so you have 92 = 76*e^(r*10) Solve this for r. (I'm too lazy.) and then replace that value of r into your equation. Now you have the power to predict what the population will be in 2000. Just use the started population in 1910 as you (A) and leave P as your variable. Use t = 90, (90 years from 1910 to 2000) and the rate you found in the first problem. The only variable you should have left is P, which is your prediction… [cont.]
Answered by Ken - Wed May 20 23:49:03 2009
another Exponential growth and decay question. Please help me!!?
Q. I don't really know what to do with this. I tried doing the slope of the 2 years given but I don't think that's right. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million
Asked by d_kuon - Thu Nov 6 22:30:37 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a) P(1910) = 76 e^10k = 92 k = ln (92/76)/10 So P(2000) = 76 e^100 ln (92/76)/10 = 513.5 b) P(1990) = 227 e^10k = 250 k = ln (250/227)/10 So P(2000) = 227 e^20 ln (250/227)/10 = 275.3
Answered by DANIEL G - Thu Nov 6 23:09:53 2008
Q. I don't really know what to do with this. I tried doing the slope of the 2 years given but I don't think that's right. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = million
Asked by d_kuon - Thu Nov 6 22:30:37 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a) P(1910) = 76 e^10k = 92 k = ln (92/76)/10 So P(2000) = 76 e^100 ln (92/76)/10 = 513.5 b) P(1990) = 227 e^10k = 250 k = ln (250/227)/10 So P(2000) = 227 e^20 ln (250/227)/10 = 275.3
Answered by DANIEL G - Thu Nov 6 23:09:53 2008
Math test help!!!! 50 point question!!!?
Q. The table gives the population of the united states, in millions for the years 1900-1990? YEAR - Population 1900 - 76 1910 - 92 1920 - 106 1930 -123 1940 -131 1950- 150 1960 - 179 1970- 203 1980 - 227 1990 - 250 A. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to find equation, use that to predict the population for 1990. Compare with the actual figure and try to explain the discrepancy. B. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1970 and 1980 to find an equation, use that to predict the population for 1990.Compare with the actual population. Use this model to predict the population in the years 2000 and 2010.
Asked by Dani - Sun Apr 6 15:34:48 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A. The increase of population from1900 to 1910 was 16 mil which is 21.05% increase. Using that as the percentage in the formula, and 76 as the initial population, the equation is: 76 e^.2105t where t is the number of decades past 1900. The discrepency could be a larger percentage increase between 1900 and 1910 than other decades. B. Using 1970 and 1980 gives a different percentage of increase at 11.82%. The equation now changes to: 203 e^.1182t with t = # of decades so the population prediction is 289.4 mil in 2000 and 325.7 mil. in 2010
Answered by Rusty - Sun Apr 6 20:09:12 2008
Q. The table gives the population of the united states, in millions for the years 1900-1990? YEAR - Population 1900 - 76 1910 - 92 1920 - 106 1930 -123 1940 -131 1950- 150 1960 - 179 1970- 203 1980 - 227 1990 - 250 A. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to find equation, use that to predict the population for 1990. Compare with the actual figure and try to explain the discrepancy. B. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1970 and 1980 to find an equation, use that to predict the population for 1990.Compare with the actual population. Use this model to predict the population in the years 2000 and 2010.
Asked by Dani - Sun Apr 6 15:34:48 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A. The increase of population from1900 to 1910 was 16 mil which is 21.05% increase. Using that as the percentage in the formula, and 76 as the initial population, the equation is: 76 e^.2105t where t is the number of decades past 1900. The discrepency could be a larger percentage increase between 1900 and 1910 than other decades. B. Using 1970 and 1980 gives a different percentage of increase at 11.82%. The equation now changes to: 203 e^.1182t with t = # of decades so the population prediction is 289.4 mil in 2000 and 325.7 mil. in 2010
Answered by Rusty - Sun Apr 6 20:09:12 2008
exponential models...help please 10 points?
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. Year Population 1900 76 1910 92 1920 106 1930 123 1940 131 1950 150 1960 179 1970 203 1980 227 1990 250 2000 275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1960 and 1970 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million i have no idea how to do this please help
Asked by Ashleigh G - Fri Apr 24 16:00:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a.) 513 million b.) 296 million
Answered by bob - Fri Apr 24 16:06:52 2009
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. Year Population 1900 76 1910 92 1920 106 1930 123 1940 131 1950 150 1960 179 1970 203 1980 227 1990 250 2000 275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1960 and 1970 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million i have no idea how to do this please help
Asked by Ashleigh G - Fri Apr 24 16:00:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a.) 513 million b.) 296 million
Answered by bob - Fri Apr 24 16:06:52 2009
From Yahoo Answer Search: '1920 United States Census'
Wed Sep 8 18:49:47 2010 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
onlineathens.com
Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:13:45 GMT+00:00
Online Athens The US Census Bureau estimates that by 2050, the elderly in the United States will outnumber the working-age population by nearly 2-to-1. ...
mekulius.com
860px x 1214px | 474.40kB
[source page]
Image Collins clan Close up Collins clan Image John Agnes The 14th Census of the United States 1920 Image Collins clan
braunsacredheartcenter.com
admin
Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:19:43 GM
Few realize that the short depression of 1921 resulted in more Mexican immigrants being stranded in Phoenix than the entire population of Phoenix recorded in the . 1920 Census. . Few realize that the extensive effort to rid the city of this Mexican element ... And would, once again, the distinction between legal and illegal lead to a blurring of that distinction to the detriment of those whose families have been in the . United States. for generations? . . . For centuries? ...
[Hide]▲
