1G FA KM MANAGEMENT 



farmer's labor income does not equal hired-man's wages, 

 he would be as well off if he sold his farm, placed his money 

 at interest, and hired out. 



11. Comparison of labor income with city salaries. The 

 labor income made on a farm is one of the best measures 

 of its efficiency. Labor incomes show which farmers are 

 making most for their year's work. In addition to his labor 

 income the farmer receives the use of a house and some 

 products for home use. This gives a measure of profit that 

 is very good for comparing farms and is comparable with 

 hired-man's wages. It is not intended for comparison with 

 the city, but may be suggestive for such comparisons. In 

 order to compare with city salaries, we must add to the 

 labor income the amount that the house rent and farm 

 produce used by the family are worth. 



12. Labor incomes made by farmers. In Tompkins 

 County, New York, in 1907 the average labor income made 

 by 615 farmers was $423. About one-third of the farmers 

 made less than $200, about one-third made $200 to $400, 

 and one-third made over $400. Or, one-third failed to make 

 hired-man's wages, one-third made wages, and one-third 

 made more than wages. 1 



The house rent and farm products used in the house in 

 this region probably average about $300, so that these 

 farmers average about as much as a $700 salary in the city. 



have received had they worked for their neighbors. An increase in stock, 

 feed, or other inventory items is counted as a receipt ; a decrease is counted 

 as an expense. In succeeding pages Livingston and Tompkins coun- 

 ties are referred to. In these counties interest was counted at 5 per cent, 

 but taxes were not included with expenses. These averaged about 5 per 

 cent, so that the labor incomes in these counties are pay for labor above 

 4| per cent interest on capital. Taxes should be included and were in- 

 eluded in Jefferson County because money can be loaned on farm mort- 

 gages for 5 per cent net. 



i New York, Cornell Bulletin 295, pp. 396-397. 



