KELATIOX OF LAXD [NCOME TO LAND VALUE. 
33 
than in other areas. The chart shows some fluctuation in all the 
series except that representing the State of Iowa. This is probably 
due in the main to the fact that the series representing Iowa is based 
upon a larger number of returns than those representing the other 
areas, so that the uneven increase in these areas is in part apparent 
only. More adequate samples for these areas would probably give 
smoother curves. However, it is clear from the chart that the present 
generation of farmers in these areas has experienced nothing but ris- 
ing land incomes, and the arithmetic rate of increase has been greater 
in recent than in earlier years. 
It is to be expected, then, that the anticipated increases in income 
were large in those areas where land incomes have been rising rapidly 
and small in those areas where land incomes have been rising slowly, 
and if the assumptions back of the land-value formula are° correct! 
one should expect to find the anticipated increases in land income as 
calculated by it to show some relation to the average increase in rents 
of the years preceding 1920. However, data showing what cash rents 
were in the past for the areas represented by the groups in Table 10 
are not available. The counties were regrouped, therefore, to corre- 
spond to the areas for which cash rent returns for a period of years 
were available. The average land values, average net rents, and 
average mortgage rates of interest were then determined for these 
areas and i calculated by the formula as before. Then, using the 
series in Table 6 that shows average rents from 1910 to 1920, the 
average increase in rent was determined for the 5 years preceding 
1920. Then the 6-year, 7-year, 8-year, 9-year, and 10-year average 
increase was determined. The results are shown in Table 11. 
Table 11. — Relationship between i as calculated by the formula and the average 
increases in cash rents of the preceding years. 
V 
a 
r 
a 
V 
Average increase in a for the preceding— 
t 
5 6 
years, years. 
7 
years. 
8 
years. 
9 
years. 
10 
years. 
$243 
154 
139 
203 
$6.01 
4.75 
3-84 
4.54 
5.60 
3.49 
Perct- 
5.5 
5-9 
5.2 
5.8 
5.5 
5.8 
Perct. 
2.5 
3.1 
2.8 
2.2 
2.7 
2.1 
$0. 40 SO- 56 
$0-50 
.27 
.19 
*41 
.33 
.27 
$0.48 
*.23 
*.18 
.39 
*.29 
.25 
SO. 43 
.21 
.17 
.35 
.27 
.23 
*$0.40 
.19 
.16 
.33 
.25 
.21 
$0.38 
1.19 
.15 
31 
Ohio, western half 
Southern Wisconsin . . . 
Eastern Nebraska and 
southeastern South 
Dakota 
.26 
.18 
.42 
.32 
.35 
.31 
.20 
.48 
.34 
*.29 
North-central Illinois . . 
Minnesota, southern 
half 
211 
164 
.24 
21 
1 The cash-rent series for western Ohio on which these averages are based were especially calculated for 
this table. This series is not given in Table 6. 
* Increase in cash rents most closely approximating the Calculated i. 
From this table it is clear that the calculated i's are not more 
abstractions, but correspond to the average increases in cash rents 
of the years preceding 1920. Where the calculated i's are high, the 
average increases of the preceding years are high (Iowa and eastern 
Nebraska, and South Dakota), and where the calculated i's are low 
the average increases of the preceding years are low (Ohio, southern 
Wisconsin, and southern Minnesota). In other words, the buyers 
75462°— 24 3 
