Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/895

1870. The percentages of increase of both wheat and corn for 1870 are not very trustworthy, because, as has been said, the yields used in the census of 1860 were the yields of the single year 1859 and those for the year 1870 were the averages of four years—1866-9 inclusive. From 1880 to 1920 there was a general decline in the average increase in production of wheat. In the case of corn its regularity was broken by reason of the very low rates of increase for the decade reported in the census of 1900. This was due to a succession of crop years with unfavourable weather conditions and to a general business depression. The production in bushels per capita of both wheat and corn has been quite constant. There has, therefore, been a regular increase in the bushels per capita of wheat from 5.5 bus. in 1870 to 7.4 bus. in 1920, and an increase in corn from 22.2 bus. in 1870 to 26.2 bus. in 1920. Dividing the percentages of increases for decades by 10 to give the annual percentage of increase shows that the average annual increase in the production of wheat in the United States for a period of 60 years (from 1860-1920) is to the annual increase in population as 2.91 is to 2.25 and that of corn for the same period is as 2.28 is to 2.25.

Both population and production have been increasing at a lessening rate. The retardation in the increase in population has been somewhat greater than that of production, as is indicated by the increase in the per capita production of wheat from 5.5 bus. to 7.4 bus. and of corn from 22.2 to 26.2 bus.

The proportionate rate of increase in production of wheat for the decade ending with 1920 was 13.9% and for corn 11.2%, and for population 14.9%.

Table I.—Wheat Production and Population.

Years.	Population.	Production.	Increase in   Production  Bus.	Percentage  Increase of  Production.	Percentage  Increase of  Population.	Bushels  Per Capita.
1860	31,443,321	173,105,000	—	—	—	—
1866 to 1869	38,558,371	212,156,000	39,051,000	22.6	26.6	5.5
1870 to 1879	50,155,783	316,820,000	104,664,000	49.3	26.0	6.3
1880 to 1889	62,947,714	444,078,000	127,258,000	40.2	25.5	7.1
1890 to 1899	91,972,266	684,434,000	127,760,000	23.0	21.0	7.4
1900 to 1909	91,972,266	684,434,000	127,760,000	23.0	21.0	7.4
1910 to 1919	105,710,620	779,560,000	95,126,000	13.9	14.9	7.4
Averages				29.1	22.5	6.8

Table II.—Corn Production and Population.

Years.	Population.	Production.	Increase in   Production  Bus.	Percentage  Increase of  Production.	Percentage  Increase of  Population.	Bushels  Per Capita.
1860	31,443,321	838,793,000	—	—	—	—
1866 to 1869	38,558,371	854,278,000	15,485,250	1.8	26.6	22.2
1870 to 1879	50,155,783	1,212,013,000	357,735,000	41.9	26.0	24.2
1880 to 1889	62,947,714	1,692,019,000	480,006,000	39.6	25.5	26.9
1890 to 1899	75,994,575	1,995,190,000	303,171,000	17.9	20.7	26.3
1900 to 1909	91,972,266	2,486,274,000	491,084,000	24.6	21.0	27.0
1910 to 1919	105,710,620	2,765,041,000	278,767,000	11.2	14.9	26.2
Averages				22.8	22.5	25.5

It becomes evident that the record of the annual production of wheat and corn through a period of 60 years, and its relation to the increase in population as indicated by the figures given in the accompanying tables, is a safe index of the agricultural requirements for the future, the conclusion is that if the general agricultural production of the country can be increased at the rate of 2% per annum for the future, the per capita production of wheat and corn, and probably of most other staple agricultural products, can at least be maintained at the ratio of the decade 1910-19.

The Agricultural Problem of the Future.—Had conditions in all parts of the world remained substantially as they were in 1914, the chief problem in 1921 would have been how to maintain in later years an increase of 2% per annum in the agricultural production of the United States, notwithstanding that virgin land could no longer be counted upon. This is a problem that prior to the World War would have engaged the most earnest effort of American farmers and the various agricultural agencies and organizations, both Federal and state. It would have presented difficulties of adaptation, adjustment, and development. The question of actual field production would have been a minor one as compared with such questions as transportation and distribution, the securing of efficient farm labourers at reasonable wages, and the opportunity for the farmers to purchase at prices comparable with the prices of farm products the things that a farmer has to buy to conduct his business and to live in comfort. Given conditions favourable in these respects, agricultural production undoubtedly could have been increased for many years after 1921 at a rate of 2% per annum. There are many ways in which this increased production could have been brought about: by clearing and bringing into cultivation waste land already included in farms; by draining swamps, and by developing water to enlarge existing irrigation projects; probably most of all by more intensive methods of agriculture. The agriculture of the United States had been and in 1921 still was an extensive, rather than an intensive, agriculture, and properly so. So long as land was plentiful and men were scarce the extensive system was to be encouraged. But as land began to become scarce and men plentiful there came almost unlimited opportunities for the intensifying of agriculture. While this need for closer farming was being discussed the World War brought with it a new set of problems that engaged the attention of the farmers as well as other citizens.

Prices of Farmer's Products and of Commodities He Buys.—The most pressing problem in 1921 was the disproportion between the prices of those things the farmer has to buy and those he has to sell. This difficulty was as great when he paid for labour as when he bought commodities.

Wages of Farm Labour.—The Bureau of Crop Estimates of the Department of Agriculture published in the Yearbook for 1920 a table giving the wages paid farm labourers from 1866 to 1920. Arranging these figures for the different classes of farm labourers as index numbers, and calling the wages of 1913 100 as a base, gives the following results:

Wages—Agricultural Labour.

	1913	1920	1921	Index No.
				1920	1921
A By the month
with board	$21.38	$46.89	$29.48	219	138
B By the month
without board	30.31	64.95	42.65	214	141
C Day labourer at harvest,
with board	1.57	3.60	2.12	229	135
D Day labourer at harvest,
without board	1.94	4.36	2.80	225	144
E Day labourer, not harvest,
with board	1.16	2.86	1.60	247	138
F Day labourer, not harvest,
without board	1.50	3.59	2.17	240	145

Farm wages declined during 1921. The best information available, Nov. 20 1921, was that wages were about as follows (A) $29.48, (B) $42.65, (C) $2.12, (D) $2.80, (E) $1.60, (F) $2.17. These figures would give an index number about 145, or an increase of about 45% for 1921 over the wages of 1913. In the diagram, fig. 1, the figures for “Day labour, not harvest, without board” have been used as they are considered the most trustworthy. Men of this class are usually married men who either own their own homes or rent them from their employers. They are less inclined to drift than those who are boarded by their employers, and who are usually single and “footloose.” The married man who works by the month and boards himself frequently has house, garden, firewood and sometimes milk and pork provided by his employer. This is probably the most stable class of farm labour. It does not, however, yield a conclusive index of the changes in wages because changes in the value of the perquisites above mentioned tend to complicate the calculation.

The index number for the wages of day labourers, not for harvest, without board were as follows:

Year	1913	1914	1915	1916	1917	1918	1919	1920	1921
Index No.	100	97	98	108	135	175	208	240	145

Discussion of Diagram.—Fig. 1 (p. 864) shows the index numbers of farm crops, live stock, commodities and farm labour for each year from 1913 to 1921, inclusive.