•J^ AMERICAN TARMS. 



I have averaged the farmer's income at $473 ; and I 

 place the wage earner's income at not less than $350, 

 $50 less than Mr. Atkinson, in order to be within safe 

 bounds. Out of the $473, the farmer must meet cost of 

 production, wear of machinery, loss of stock, pay in- 

 surance, and pay taxes ; all of which would amount to 

 not less than an average of $173. This would leave the 

 farmer $300 for living, savings, and interest on his 

 investment. 



The average farmer's property in the United States, 

 according to census statistics, is ^3,019 value. I contend 

 that at least $2,000 of this should be subject to a charge 

 of interest at the rate of 6 per cent, in our calculation. 

 This will leave the farmer $180 for support of family and 

 savings, or $170 less than the wage earner.' 



" The farm does not pay if it merely affords a living 

 and prevents the accumulation of debt. It may do more 

 than this — it may even decrease debt and add to the 

 value of stock and improvements — and yet not pay. It 

 being assumed that the labor and superintendence of the 

 owner is equal in value to the support of the family, then 

 the net accumulations of the year must be equal to the 

 legal interest upon the whole capital invested, or the 

 farm does not pay. This is a simple method of farm 

 book-keeping, and will always answer the question ; yet 

 too many farmers will shrink from applying the test."' 



' It is well to note that official reports, now coming in, go to show 

 that the price of labor is gradually increasing, while the returns to 

 agriculture are diminishing. While the wealth of the agriculturists 

 decreased by $890 per farm, the per capita increase of the property of 

 the Union was $566, though the increase in number of those who en- 

 tered occupations other than agricultural, owning nothing, was quite 

 as great as those who had swelled the numbers of the agriculturists. 



* American Agriculturist, September, 1889. 



