1 8 American Economic Association [816 



tend when aided by machine power. One needs to be 

 on guard, however, against taking them as indexes of 

 the greater effectiveness of man-labor, due to the use of 

 machinery ; for obviously, they take no account of the 

 character of the cultivation whether intensive or ex- 

 tensive. Construed as indexes of effectiveness, these 

 figures show that the effectiveness of the average worker 

 in the North Central, South Central, and Western Divi- 

 sions has been much increased during the period from 

 1880 to 1900 while that of the average worker in the 

 North Atlantic and South Atlantic divisions has actu- 

 ally become less. Such a conclusion would be clearly 

 wrong. There is good reason for believing that the 

 effectiveness of the average farm worker in each of these 

 divisions, 1 and even in the New England States alone 2 

 was, in all likelihood, very much greater in 1900 than 

 in 1880. 



If we take the value of product per person engaged 

 in agriculture as an index of effectiveness under the 

 methods in use in 1880 and in 1900 we shall find that 

 the effectiveness of the average worker in the United 

 States was greater, by nearly 60 per cent., 3 in 1900 than 

 in 1880. 



The census of 1870 did not report crop acreage at all, 

 and the value of agricultural products was reported in 

 connection with the value of betterments, so that no 

 showing of the relative effectiveness of agricultural 

 workers, in 1870 and in 1900, based either on crop 

 acreage or on value of products, can be made; but, 

 judged by the quantity of cereal product reported, per 



1 See p. 69-70. 



2 See p. 31. 



8 58.4 per cent. For value of product per person engaged in agri- 

 culture in 1880 and 1900 see table at p. 70. 



