AGRICULTURAL POPULATION 255 



the national population, the actual number of residents on farms is 

 much less. In the rural population as reported by the census of 1910 

 is included the population of towns and villages having less than 2,500 

 inhabitants. The actual agricultural population is about one third of 

 the national population. In 1910 35.3 per cent, of all persons reported 

 as having gainful occupations were engaged in agriculture. 



With one third of the national population engaged in agriculture, 

 we have only to compare agricultural with other production to reach 

 certain inevitable conclusions. Were a parity of wealth distribution 

 maintained between city and county, evidently the income to agricul- 

 ture should be about equal to one third of the total' social production. 

 But is this the case, and if not what deductions may be drawn ? 



The census of 1910 gives the total value of manufactured articles 

 for the United States for the year 1909 as (in round numbers) 21 

 billion dollars. The total agricultural production for the same year 

 was 8£ billion dollars. So far the division of social income seems to 

 correspond fairly equitably with division of population. But there is 

 more to be said. When the 21 billion dollars' worth of manufactured 

 articles reaches the consumer the value has been augmented by trans- 

 portation, advertising and sellers' charges by at least 50 per cent, above 

 factory prices. Probably this estimate is absurdly low. But at the 

 lowest estimate the 21 billion dollars has become 30£ billion, as against 

 the 8£ billion of agricultural production. But wait, the 8£ billion 

 dollars' worth of agricultural products, on its way to the consumer, 

 doubles in value, according to results of investigations of the United 

 States Department of Agriculture. This means that while the farm 

 receives 8^ billion dollars the city occupations based upon agriculture 

 obtain another 8^ billion dollars. Adding this sum to the income of 

 city occupations heretofore given and we have a grand total of 39 bil- 

 lion dollars income for the city as against 8^ billion for the farm. 

 The addition of professional incomes, local to the city, would increase 

 the total by a very large amount. But at the lowest figures the city's 

 share in the division of productional values is 82 per cent, to but 18 

 per cent, for the farm. Were population apportioned between agricul- 

 ture and the city on this basis there should be over 75 million people in 

 cities and less than 17 millions on farms. On this basis there are now 

 millions more people in agricultural districts than agricultural, as 

 compared with urban, income warrants. 



Why this remarkable relatively large population on farms? His- 

 torical reasons might be cited, but perhaps there are two main causes — 

 a phenomenally low standard of living in agricultural areas, and low 

 per capita wealth production. It is evident that present agricultural 

 income can maintain only a standard of living that is on the whole far 

 below the average prevailing in cities. On the other hand, with a third 

 of the national population producing less than 18 per cent, of the social 



