622 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



supply the money to buy the new farm machinery to shift? Where is 

 my cotton farmer going to shift to when all of his labor knows only 

 cotton, when every plow and every implement he has are made for 

 cotton production ? You can go down there and cut his price down so 

 low he cannot survive on raising cotton and say he has to shift. What 

 will he shift to ? 



Mr. Davis. Pie cannot do it in a short period of time. 



Mr. Pace. Nor over a year. 



Mr. Davis. But as a country we shifted from 80 percent of the 

 people on the land to 20 percent. It is that kind of a process, but it also 

 requires expansion of other industries. I think that over a long period 

 of time we can bring that about. 



There is a serious problem of adjustment for the generation of people 

 that are caught right in tlie middle of it. 



Mr. AVhite. On this matter of cost, I want to observe that the more 

 effective the control of the production, the less it will cost the Govern- 

 ment because you maintain a stable price. If you did that on all com- 

 modities, it would not cost a dime, contrary to what the gentleman 

 from Minnesota said. I wish he were here. I would like to discuss 

 those things with him. The most positive way to avoid an excessive 

 cost is to do the program effectively and completely. 



We talk about regimentation. That is an ugly sounding word. It 

 is regulation. That is what I prefer to call it and I am willing to 

 submit to it in order to keep fiom running into a chaotic condition 

 that not only bankrupts me as a farmer but bankrupts every business- 

 man in the country and eventually leads to war. I hope you will 

 think about those things, Mr. Davis. That is all I have. 



Mr. Pace. One final question, Mr. Davis. 



You mentioned the fact that farm labor should be included in the 

 parity formula. Of course, I agree with you except you just went 

 halfway and included only hired labor. Do you not think at the 

 same time that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics should review 

 the entire list and bring it up to date ? 



Mr. Davis. Surely, and the weightings. The more nearlj^ you can 

 get it to reflect today's costs, the better. 



Mr. Pace. Do you not think maybe the Congress should direct that 

 that list be revised every 2 or 3 years, or at least every 5 years? 



Mr. Davis. Yes ; I would agree with you. 



Mr. Pace. But you do not agree that you should include the family 

 worker with hired labor ? 



Mr. Davis. I think you could do it either way, but if you do that, 

 then I think you have to give different weights to the family cost of 

 living items. It seems simpler to us to do it by adding the hired labor 

 cost and then include in the cost of family living those items that go 

 into the cost of living. 



Mr. Pace. Where would you ])ut the sharecropper? 



Mr. Davis. You know more about that than I do. Maybe I would 

 put him with hired labor ; I do not know. 



Mr. Pace. They do not include him in hired labor. It seems strange 

 to me when a man has two 40-acre tracts and he takes a hired man and 

 operates one of them that his labor is included in the calculation of 

 the price of the commodity. If he takes the other one and lets it out 

 on a sharecropper basis, supplying some of the necessities and getting 

 a part of the crop, that is not included. 



