1922.] 



Labour on the Farm. 



705 



In other words labour might complain that up to 1920 it had 

 received as wages £'2,300 less than what it might perhaps with 

 reason have claimed as its share, but might congratulate itself 

 that during the years 1920-21 and 1921-22, it had been paid 

 £1,200 more than its share. 



These figures have been arrived at by a comparison of the 

 wages and gross income from the farm. It is, however, fairer 

 to try and get a comparison betweeen wages and net income,, or 

 even net outpur, the net output being the fund available for 

 payment of profits to the farmers, rent to the landlord and wages 

 to the men. 



Relation of Cost of Labour to Net Output in Farming. — 



According to Orwin's figures,* which agree fairly closely with 

 those we have obtained in Yorkshire, in 1913-14 labour was 

 taking 33 per cent, of the net output, the farmer 45 per cent. : 

 in 1916-17 labour took 27 per cent., the farmer 61 per cent. 

 In 1919-20 on 11 Yorkshire farms of 2,738 acres, on which the 

 net output averaged £9 4s. 7d. per acre, labour took 49 per 

 cent. : in 1920-21, on 19 Yorkshire farms of 4,471 acres, on 

 which the net output was £5 12s. 2d. per acre, labour took 78 

 per cent., and in 1921-22 on the 29 farms in the same county 

 comprising 6,515 acres, whose full accounts are at present com- 

 pleted, labour took 84 per cent, of a total net output of 

 £4 4s. 9d. per acre. Judged from the standard of the net output, 

 from the outbreak of the War up to 1917-18 labour was not, as 

 has before been pointed out, receiving its fair share of the in- 

 creased prosperity of the industry, but for the last two 

 years at least it has been getting more than the industry could 

 reasonably be expected to bear. 



****** 



* Journal of Royal Agricultural Society, Vol. 82, p. 155. 



c 



