distribution of income by states in 1919 · 2020. 3. 20. · state in the official statistics of...
TRANSCRIPT
This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the NationalBureau of Economic Research
Volume Title: Distribution of Income by States in 1919
Volume Author/Editor: Oswald W. Knauth
Volume Publisher: NBER
Volume ISBN: 0-87014-002-7
Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/knau22-1
Publication Date: 1922
Chapter Title: Distribution of Income by States in 1919
Chapter Author: Oswald W. Knauth
Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4849
Chapter pages in book: (p. 1 - 36)
OF INCOME
IN 1919
-J
BY
OSWALD
;
OF TUE STAFF OF TUE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
NEW YORK
HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY1922
DISTRIBUTION
STATES
BY
I.i'/ J,i
.\//.
Uis,
CoPmIGHT, 1922, By
}JABCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY, INC.
Printed in the U. S. A.
Publications of the National Bureau of
Economic Research, Incorporated
NO.3
DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATESIN 1919
-w- - - - - - -- - - w
PREFATORY NOTE
The "Distribution of Income by States in 1919" is a by-product ofthe volumes on "Income in the United States" which have already beenpublished by the Bureau. It is one of a series of studies which the Bureauis undertaking in connection with its main topics of research and whichmay later be collected in a formal volume. It is issued at this time in orderto meet the special needs of many investigators concerned with the compar-ative capacity of the various states to bear increased taxes, to buy goodsof various sorts, to absorb securities, etc. It also indicates the relativeimportance of agriculture in the different sections of the country.
The present study undertakes to distribute the aggregate income of theAmerican people among the States on the basis of such official data andother indices as are available. This distribution is based on data for 1919,and no single year is "typical." The small incomes received by farmers inMontana after the bad weather of 1919 certainly do not represent averageconditions and probably less striking anomalies exist among the figures forother States. However, the distribution must rest upon the State datagathered by the Census and those data are to be had only for 1919.
The reader who is looking for results, and is not interested in the method,will find these results presented in tabular form on pages 25 to 30.
Like all publications of the National Bureau of Economic Research, thispaper has been submitted for criticism to the Bureau's directors and ap-proved by them. Hearty thanks are due to members of the Board fortheir help in improving what remains at best a rough set of approximations.
The Directors of the Bureau are as follows:Directors-at-large:
T. S. Adams, Adviser to the U. S. Treasury Department.John R. Commons, Professor of Political Economy, University of Wisconsin.John P. Frey, Editor of the International Molders' Journal.Edwin F. Gay President of the New York Evening Post.Harry W. Laiciler, Secretary of the League for Industrial Democracy.Elwood Mead, Professor of Rural Institutions University of California.Wesley C. Mitchell, Professor of Economics, áolumbia University.J. E. Sterrett Member of the firm of Price, Waterhouse & Company.N. I. Stone, Manager, Hickey-Freeman Company.Allyn A. Young, Professor of Economics, Harvard University.
Directors-by-Appointment, nominated by organizations:Hugh Frayne, The American Federation of Labor.David Friday, The American Economic Association.W. R. Ingalls, American Engineering Council.J. M. Larkin National Personnel Association.W. H. Nichols, Jr., The National Industrial Conference Board.George E. Roberts, The American Bankers' Association.Malcolm C. Rorty, The American Statistical Association.A. W. Shaw, The Periodical Publishers' Association.Gray Silver, The American Federation of Farm Bureaus.
THE DISTRIBUTION OFBY STATES
in 1919
I. INTRODUCTION
In a previous publication of this Bureau, the income of the United Statesin 1919 was estimated at 66.7 billion dollars.' This estimate was based onthe incomes received by gainfully employed persons, and was divided intothe following categories—
INCOME OF THE UNITED STATES, 1919Billiondollars
Income of persons receiving over $2,000 per year (excluding farmers and farmlaborers) $18.90
income of persons receiving under $2,000 per year (excluding farmers and farmlaborers) 32.65
Income of Farm Laborers 2.30Income of Farmers 10.85Corporate Surplus 2.00
Total $66.70 2
Many of the items on which these estimates for the country rest areavailable also by States. The Bureau of the Census has published in itsadvance bulletins the number of gainfully employed persons on January 1,1920 and most of the details concerning farmers. The Bureau of InternalRevenue has published by States the amount of income reported under theincome-tax law. Where direct data of this kind are lacking, it is possibleto construct index numbers which can be used to distribute parts of thetotal National Income among the 48 States. Such State ofcourse, cannot have the same accuracy as the larger estimate of the Na-tional Income, if for no other reason than that a small error is more impor-.tant in a small total than it is in a large
For many purposes, it is quite as important to know the proportions ofincome received by States as it is to know the total for the country. Cer-
Income in the United States, Volume II, chap. 26. Harcourt, Brace & Company.2The amount distributed in the summary table below is 66.2 billion dollars; the
difference of one-half billion dollars being the amount paid to soldiers which it wasimpossible to distribute among states m 1919.
1
2 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES
tam details of this State distribution are particularly interesting: for exam-ple, the variations of per-capita income, the varying proportions of farm-ers' income to the total income, and the distribution of farmers' income.
II. THE METHOD
A: The Income of Persons Receiving Over $2,000 per Year. (ExcludingFarmers)
The income of persons receiving over $2,000 per year (excluding farmers)has been treated in the following manner: The amount shown for eachState in the official Statistics of Income, 1919, has been listed. This amountrequires adjustment for the present purpose in three ways: first, it includesa part, but only a part, of the incomes in the ranges between $1,000 and$2,000; second, it includes income due to agriculture; and third, it does notinclude income which should have been, but was not, reported. In orderto make these adjustments, (1) the amounts reported in the income-range$1,000—$2,000 have been subtracted from the total of each state; (2) theamount reported as due to agriculture, $1,211 million, has been apportionedaccording to the percentage of farmers' incomes in each state and the ratiowhich the average farmers' incomes of each state are to the average farm-ers' incomes of the whole country; and (3) the resulting income in eachstate as left by these two adjustments has been raised to bring the sum forall the States to the estimated national total of $17,500 million. (See In-come in the United States, volume II, Chapter 22.) The last adjustmentappears to be the least satisfactory; it involves the tacit assumption thatthe evasion of income taxes by failure to report and under-reporting isuniform in all states—an assumption which may or may not be valid.'
Next the non-taxable income must be apportioned. The income fromhomes owned by the individuals occupying them, amounting to 700 milliondollars, has been distributed among the States according to the percentageof the total income-tax payers resident in each State. The remaining tax-exempt income, mostly interest on exempted bonds, amounted to 710million dollars in 1919. This sum has been apportioned according to thetotal income of persons having $25,000 or more per year in the severalStates. The reason for this is that the exempt income appears to be highlyconcentrated in the higher range of incomes.
'"I am enclosing my approval of the publication of the section on the Distribution ofIncome by States. I want to place myself on record however, as believing that thefacts are not in accordance with the presumption that diere is an equal amount of failureto report and of under-reporting in every state. In my opinion there is evidence in theincome tax statistics themselves that there are very large differences in the degree ofaccuracy of these figures in different states. Nevertheless, the question is so difficultand is in particular so full of political dynamite that I do not see that the Bureau couhipossibly adopt any other course than the one it has followed."—Allyn A. Young.
TA
BL
E 1
DIS
TR
IBU
TIO
NO
F N
ON
—A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
AL
1919
INC
OM
ES
OV
ER
$2,
000
BY
ST
AT
ES
(Tho
usan
ds o
f D
olla
rs)
Mid
dle
Ath
zntic
Div
isio
n
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
Stat
eR
epor
ted
tota
l ove
r$2
,000
Est
imat
edfa
rmer
s'in
com
eR
epor
ted,
less
I
farm
ers'
Adj
uste
dfo
r un
der-
repo
rtin
g
I Tax
-exe
mpt
IO
ther
tax-
Iin
com
eI
exem
ptfr
om h
omes
inco
me
I IT
otai
New
Eng
land
Div
isio
n
'-3
Mai
neN
ew H
amps
hire
Ver
mon
tM
assa
chus
etts
Rho
de I
slan
dC
onne
ctic
ut
$93
,741
$6,
559
$87
,182
$96
,667
$4,
550
$2,
403
$62
,889
782
62,1
0768
,864
3,36
01,
633
38,8
012,
762
36,0
3939
,960
1,75
01,
300
947,
364
1,54
694
5,81
81,
048,
723
35,2
1055
,138
120,
132
150
119,
982
133,
036
5,25
07,
128
269,
666
1,19
326
8,47
329
7,68
314
,490
11,5
37
103,
620
73,8
5743
,010
1,13
9,07
114
5,41
432
3,71
0
New
Yor
kN
ew J
erse
yPe
nnsy
lvan
ia
3,09
9,69
032
,781
3,06
6,90
93,
400,
589
89,6
7023
6,99
870
8,25
95,
188
703,
071
779,
635
30,4
5026
,866
1,48
2,35
825
,743
1,45
6,61
51,
615,
095
70,7
7073
,144
3,72
7,25
783
6,95
11,
759,
009
Ohi
oIn
dian
aIl
linoi
sM
ichi
gan
Wis
cons
in
899,
500
49,2
1685
0,28
494
2,79
540
,460
34,4
7735
2,01
839
,979
312,
039
345,
989
17,0
806,
733
1,46
8,26
297
,055
1,37
1,20
71,
520,
394
55,4
4053
,803
570,
907
26,9
6354
3,94
460
3,12
523
,870
25,2
8327
5,28
938
,075
237,
214
263,
023
13,8
605,
859
1,01
7,73
236
9,80
21,
629,
637
652,
278
282,
742
Min
neso
taIo
wa
Mis
sour
iN
orth
Dak
ota
Sout
h D
akot
aN
ebra
ska
Kan
sas
314,
568
491,
582
407,
376
62,8
9011
9,76
624
2,52
823
5,77
2
303,
740
422,
856
413,
462
45,1
6798
,920
200,
357
199,
369
16,2
4017
,570
16,4
503,
570
5,04
011
,480
10,0
10
8,83
94,
491
13,9
30 236
541
3,10
23,
337
.
328,
819
444,
917
443,
842
48,9
7310
4,50
121
4,93
921
2,71
6
40,6
3211
0,21
834
,485
22,1
5530
,552
61,8
3155
,966
273,
936
381,
364
372,
891
40,7
3589
,214
180,
697
179,
806
TA
BL
E 1
—C
ontin
ued
I
Sta
teI I
Rep
orte
dto
tal o
ver
$2,0
00
Est
imat
edfa
rmer
s'in
com
e
II
IR
epor
ted,
less
I
inco
mej
Adj
uste
dfo
r un
der-
repo
rtin
g
Tax
-exe
mpt
inco
me
from
hom
es
Oth
er ta
x-ex
empt
inco
me
I IT
otal
,Sou
th A
tlanl
ic D
ivis
ion
Wes
t Sou
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
Tot
al...
$16,
989,
869
$1,2
11,6
77$1
5,77
8,19
2$1
7,49
4,92
5$6
97,6
90$7
10,0
00$1
8,90
2,61
5
Del
awar
e$
52,7
58$
1,86
3$
50,8
95$
Mar
ylan
d32
9,62
45,
280
324,
344
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a12
2,72
512
2,72
5V
irgm
i20
5,83
313
,518
192,
315
Wes
t Vir
gini
a12
4,50
13,
725
120,
776
Nor
th C
arol
ina
150,
103
33,5
0311
6,60
0So
uth
Car
olin
a12
9,80
827
,744
102,
064
Geo
rgia
195,
700
32,2
4516
3,45
5Fl
orid
a91
,833
2,62
189
,212
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
56,4
3235
9,63
313
6,07
721
3,23
913
3,91
612
9,28
611
3,16
918
1,23
798
,918
$2,
170
15,2
607,
700
0,94
05,
950
4,90
04,
900
7,77
04,
060
$4,
001
13,0
144,
637
4,53
93,
248
5,31
32,
419
4,91
02,
155
$62
,603
387,
907.
.14
8,41
422
7,71
814
3,11
413
9,49
912
0,48
819
3,91
710
5,13
3
Ken
tuck
y19
1,60
814
,692
176,
916
Ten
ness
ee.
170,
615
13,5
6115
7,05
4A
laba
ma
113,
702
13,3
7410
0,32
8M
issi
ssip
pi92
,086
16,0
2876
,058
196,
164
7,84
03,
548
207,
552
174,
141
6,65
05,
358
186,
149
111,
243
5,39
02,
487
119,
120
84,3
333,
150
3,18
090
,663
Ark
ansa
s11
3,76
818
,206
95,5
62L
ouis
iana
173,
160
8,97
516
4,18
5O
klah
oma
219,
372
55,1
9316
4,17
9T
exas
559,
243
104,
142
455,
101
Mou
ntai
n D
ivis
ion
105,
959
4,48
01,
790
112,
229
182,
048
6,93
07,
952
196,
930
182,
042
8,05
05,
684
195,
776
504,
616
23,1
7016
,159
543,
945
Mon
tana
..Id
aho
Wyo
min
gC
olor
ado
New
Mex
ico
Ari
zona
Uta
hN
evad
a
Was
hing
ton
Ore
gon
Cal
ifor
nia.
78,5
8954
,699
41,3
7516
0,11
826
,765
49,6
5150
,778
14,0
46
244,
633
137,
390
832,
028
6311
,724
.2,
034
17,6
632,
512
5,67
45,
228
2,06
2
23,8
179,
565
82,8
34
78,5
2642
,975
39,3
4114
2,45
524
,253
43,9
7745
,550
11,9
84Pa
cifi
c D
ivis
ion
220,
816
127,
825
749,
194
87,0
7047
,651
43,6
2115
7,95
426
,892
48,7
6250
,506
13,2
88
244,
841
141,
732
830,
706
5,60
02,
800
2,38
07,
560
1,40
02,
660
2,80
01,
120
14,9
806,
510
35,0
00
668
300
591
3,76
127
278
148
3 72
4,66
93,
875
27,3
56
93,3
3850
,751
46,5
9216
9,27
528
,564
52,2
0353
,789
14,4
80
264,
490
152,
117
893,
062
z C) C
THE METHOD 5
B. Income of Persons Receiving under $2,000 per year. (ExcludingFarmers)
In apportioning the total sum of wages received by persons having lessthan $2,000 per year it is necessary to allow for: (1) differences in the gen-eral level of wages in different States, and (2) differences in the relativenumbers of persons following high-paid and low-paid occupations. A sam-ple table is appended to illustrate the method used.
The number of persons gainfully employed on January 1st in each ofthe eight main groups under which the Census classifies the occupationreturns is reported by States in the Census of 1920. From these data andfrom the estimated number of persons having incomes over $2,000, it ispossible to approximate the number of persons in each occupation groupin each State having incomes less than $2,000. To this end, the number ofpersons in each occupation group as reported by the Census has beenadjusted in the ratio applied to that occupation group in the estimate forthe whole country. These reducing ratios are computed from Tables 23E,F, and G of Income in the United States, volume II, chapter 23. Fromthis point forward, the general method of estimating the total wages ineach State is the same as that used for the United States. This procedureconsists in multiplying the number of persons in each occupation group bythe average wages for the corresponding group, and adding together theproducts in order to find the total wages in each state.
While this computation gives the estimated total payments for personalservices, it does not show the total income from all sources. In Chapter 23of Income in the United States, it was estimated that in the case of per-sons receiving less than $2,000 per year, income from other sources wasabout 9.5 per cent of the income from wages. This percentage was there-fore added to wages in order to arrive at the total income in each State ofpersons receiving less than $2,000. The results are shown in the summarytable.
The following form was used for estimating the total income of wage andsalary earners in each State. A complete transcription of the originaldata used in making the estimates would be extremely cumbersome and.would serve no useful purpose. The original tables, however, are open tothe inspection of anyone who is interested.
TA
BL
E 2
C.,
TA
BL
E I
LL
UST
RA
TIN
G M
ET
HO
D O
F FI
ND
ING
TO
TA
L W
AG
ES
AN
D S
AL
AR
IES
IN E
AC
H S
TA
TE
RE
CE
WE
D B
Y A
LL
PER
SON
S H
AV
ING
IN
CO
ME
S J.
LE
SS T
HA
N $
2,00
0 (E
XC
LU
DIN
G F
AR
ME
RS
AN
D F
AR
M L
AB
OR
ER
S)
New
Yor
k
Num
ber
ofPC
ThO
flS
inea
ch o
ccup
a-gr
oup
Perc
enta
gein
eac
hgr
oup
re-
ceiv
ing
in-
com
es le
ssth
an $
2,00
0pe
r ye
ar
Num
ber
ofpe
rson
s re
-ce
ivin
g le
ssth
an $
2,00
0pe
r ye
ar
Uni
ted
Stat
es a
v-er
age
wag
esfo
r ea
chgr
oup
Rat
io o
fw
age
rate
sin
this
Sta
teto
wag
e ra
tes
in U
nite
dSt
ates
Ave
rage
wag
es in
Stat
e fo
rea
ch g
roup
Tot
al w
ages
in S
tate
Min
inM
anuf
actu
ring
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Tra
dePu
blic
Ser
vice
Prof
essi
onal
Dom
estic
Cle
rica
l
Tot
al
7,64
41,
755,
927
404,
723
592,
145
100,
394
292,
211
470,
715
565,
944
4,18
9,70
3
84.3
96.4
88.4
64.5
84.3
47.9
93.2
66.7
6,44
41,
692,
714
357,
775
382,
526
84,6
3213
9,96
943
8,70
637
7,48
4
3,48
0,25
0
1,30
01,
160
1,25
01,
145
893
1,20
090
01,
200
.933
1.05
51.
030
1.04
01.
039
1.03
91.
033
1.05
5
$1,2
131,
224
1 28
811
91 928
1,24
793
01,
266
$7,
816,
572
2,07
1,88
1,93
646
0,81
4,20
045
5,58
8,46
678
,538
,496
174
541,
343
407:
996,
580
477,
894,
744
$1,1
91$4
,145
,072
,337
the
aver
age
ratio
bet
wee
n w
ages
and
inco
me
for
pers
ons
havi
ng in
com
es o
f le
ss th
an $
2,00
0 w
aa 1
:1.0
95.
be f
ound
by
mul
tiply
ing
$4,1
45,0
72,3
37 x
1.0
95 w
hich
equ
als
$4,5
93,1
54,6
00.
'The
tota
l wag
es m
ust b
e co
nver
ted
into
tota
l inc
ome.
z 0 C) 0 L
TJ I
In C
hapt
er 2
3, v
olum
e II
of
Inco
me
in th
e U
nite
dSt
ates
, it w
as f
ound
that
Tot
al in
com
e m
ay th
eref
ore
-w -
THE METHOD 7
As said, to estimate the annual wages of persons in each occupationgroup, indices were found for each State, and applied to the average annualwages for each occupation group in the whole country. In this way, thedifferent wage levels obtaining in different States, as well as the differentoccupations of the gainfully employed in different States were given theirdue weight.
The sources from which the varying income from wages imputed todifferent States were drawn are as follows :—
(1) Mining. The Census of Mines and Quarries, 1919, gives the totalwages paid and the number of miners paid in each State.
(2) Manufacturing. The Census of 1919 gives the number employedin manufacturing, and also the total wages paid in each State.
(3) Transportation. The reports of the Interstate Commerce Com-mission show the wages paid for similar work in three divisions ofthe country—Eastern, Southern, and Western. These, togetherwith similar data furnished by the American Telephone andTelegraph Company, have been used as a basis for adjustingwage rates by States. The number of persons employed isestimated from the Census of Occupations, 1920.
(5) Public Service. This is a small group, for which rio systematicwage data exist. The relative wages have been apportioned ingeneral conformity with the other groups. The estimates ofnumbers employed are based on the Census of Occupations.
(6) The relative wages and salaries of persons listed under Profes-sional Service in different States have been apportioned accord-ing to an index constructed from relative rates of salaried em-ployees in manufacturing and mining. Again, the Census ofOccupations gives a basis for estimating the numbers of persons.
(7) No systematic data exist in the field of Domestic and PersonalService. Owing to this lack, an index based on manufacturingwages was used to determine the relative rates in each State; andthe number of persons employed was estimated from the Censusof Occupations.
(8) Clerical. The relative wages of clerks in manufacturing andtransportation have been used as an index for computing therate of wages in different States. The number of persons em-ployed is estimated from the Census of Occupations.
These data make possible a reasonably accurate estimate of the differ-ences in wage levels that exist among the 48 States.
8 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES
C. Income of Farm Laborers.Farm laborers form a problem by themselves. Their wages, as shown
in the Year Book of the of Agriculture, vary widely from oneState to another. The rates used here are average monthly wages withoutboard, and thus furnish material only for an index of variations. Theaverage wage of farm laborers in 1919 was estimated at $518, and the totalwages at $2,302 million. This total for the entire country was apportionedamong the States according to the index of variations made by taking theproducts of the number of farm laborers in each State times the averagemonthly wages. These results appear in the summary table.
D. Income of Farmers.The distribution of the total income of farmers in 1919 among the various
states is the most difficult and complicated of the various subdivisions withwhich we have to deal. Without an actual census of farmers' incomes, theextraordinary diversity of production and costs presents problems whichcan only be solved in rough approximations. In addition the reports ofthe Department of Agriculture contain duplications which may be elim-inated only in a broad way. These reports do not differentiate betweenthe crops which are sold as crops and those which are sold or used to feedanimals.
While such corrections may be made for the country as a whole with atolerable degree of accuracy, errors are apt to loom large in the subdivi-sions by States. Since it has not been possible to divide all the items ofproduct or of expenses among the States, the larger ones only have beenchosen and used as an index of the proportions in which the total farmers'income of $10,850 million was divided. As a matter of fact the total re-sulting from the use of this index came very near the national total, being$10,978 million; but the closeness of these figures is largely a matter ofchance, for among the products of each State no account has been takenof the direct income received by the farmers, such as milk, butter, vegeta-bles, home rent, etc. In the expenses no account has been taken of seed,horses sold, feed purchased, etc. These items, however, are of relativelyminor importance and do not affect the validity of the index to any markeddegree. The items comprising the index are by all odds the largest affectingfarmers' income. And they are also the items concerning whose distribu-tion by States we have the most accurate information. Most of them arereported in the Census of 1920 and the others, for the most part, rest onCensus data.
The method of attack has been to take as a basis for the farmers' incomeof each State the crops raised. These are definitely recorded for eachState, and form, for the country as a whole, about nine-tenths of the value
• $1,000,000• 1,250,000
• 250,000• 1,250,000
State B from those of
of farmers of the same
$1,000,0001,250,000
250,000then the record
$1,000,0001,250,000
THE METHOD 9
product of farmers. To the value of these crops must be added the valueproduced by (1) animals slaughtered and (2) animal products over andabove the value of those crops that are fed to animals.'
The value added by animals slaughtered has been based on a large num-ber of reports of the costs of producing beef and hogs. These indicate thatthe ratio of feed costs to other costs is about four to one. On the assump-tion that total costs are roughly equal to total value, the indication is thatabout twenty per cent of the value of animals slaughtered is an additionto the value of the crops that have been fed to these animals.
While this rule seems to hold for most of the country, an exceptionmust be made in the range states (Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, Idaho,Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada) in whichthe value added by animals above the crops they are fed is estimated atfifty per cent of their total value. This change in ratio is due to the factthat crops (range grass) on which these cattle are largely fed is not countedby the Census in its value of total crops. Of course, the same remark holdstrue concerning all animals which are out at pasture; but it is "more"true of the range States. That there is a distinct difference between thesestates and the rest of the country is indicated by the fact that in all otherstates there are 54,624,057 hogs and 50,822,210 cattle; whereas in therange states there are 4,722,352 hogs and 15,830,349 cattle. In the restof the country, therefore, hogs and cattle are roughly equal. In the rangestates there are more than three times as many cattle as hogs. In addition,there is little fattening of cattle in the range States.
Having determined on the proportion of the value of animals slaughteredwhich may be considered a net addition to the value of crops which theyare fed, it remains to determine the value of animals slaughtered. This
1 Some hypothetical examples will explain this procedure.(a) If all farmers in state A raised feed worth say, a million dollars; and sold it to
farmers in state B, who raised no feed at all, but only fattened cattle, the record mightstand
State A produces crops worthState B produces cattle of gross valueState B produces cattle of net value (20%)Total value of agriculture in both states (A + B)
The million dollars worth of feed bought by the farmers ofState A is thus counted out.
(b) If one set of farmers in one state sell feed to another setstate, who raise only cattle, then the record stands
Value of crops raisedValue of cattle slaughteredNet value of cattle slaughtered
Income of Farmers(c) If all farmers raise crops and feed them to their own animals,
standsValue of crops raisedValue of animals slaughtered.Net value of animals slaughtered.
Income of Farmers......
10 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES
figure is not included in the Census; but the Bureau of Animal Industryreports the total production of meat; and the average values of the differentkinds of animals slaughtered are shown in the Department of AgricultureYear Book for From these data the total value of animals slaugh-tered in the United States may be estimated as follows:
TABLE 3
TOTAL VALUE OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN 1919 1
.
U. S.inspected
OtherTotal
numberslaughtered
Averagevalue
Total value(thousanddollars)
CattleCalvesSheeps and LambsGoatsSwine
Total
10,089,9843,969,019
12,691,11787,380
41,811,830
3,545,1005,072,0003,573,700
160,10024,868,500
13,635,0849,041,019
16,264,817247,480
66,680,330
$44.2225.0011.6310.0022.00
$ 602,943226,025189,160
2,4751,466,967
$2,487,570 2
Twenty per cent of the value of animals slaughtered, $2,487,570,000, is$497,514,000, and when a correction is made for the fifty per cent which isattributed to the value of animals in the range States, this total becomes$652,952,000. This sum therefore is counted a net addition to the value ofthe total crops produced.' In order to divide this among the various Statesthe total value of beef cattle, sheep, goats, and swine was taken for eachState and the $652,952,000, was divided in accordance with this index.The assumption underlying this division is that the value of animalsslaughtered in the States varies in the same ratio as the value of the animalsin those States; an assumption which appears to be in general accord withthe facts.
The values of animal products are reported by States in the Census; but,as in dealing with meat, it is necessary to determine what proportion ofthis value may be considered a net addition to the crops that are used toproduce it. On this point the evidence is less clear than in the case of meatproduction. A study of the cost reports of the Bureau of Farm Manage-.ment indicates that about sixty per cent of the costs may be attributed tofeed and about forty per cent to other items. This proportion is broadlycorroborated by Mr. H. A. Wallace, Editor of Wallace's Magazine and byMr. F. A. Peck, formerly of the Bureau of Crop Estimates and now with
1Supplied through the courtesy of the Bureau of Animal Industry.2 The total value of animals sold and slaughtered on farms is given in an advance
bulletin of the Census at $3,511,201.21. This figure, however, contains considerableduplication, since many animals are sold twice; it is only in the range States that thereis little re-selling and in these States the values reported by the Census agree fairly.closely with those used.
THE METHOD 11
the University of Minnesota. If we accept forty per cent as the net addi-tion and apply it to the total value of animal products of $2,667,072,273,1then the net addition is found to be $1,067,000,000. Since the total valueof animal products is reported by States, the amount to be added on thisaccount can be computed directly.
A broad check upon the total value added by "Animals Slaughtered"and "Animal Products" may be had by comparing the results obtained bythe preceding method on the one hand and the net value as found by sub-tracting the crops fed to animals from the total value product of thoseanimals on the other hand. These crops are mainly hay, corn, barley andoats, and the percentage of each of these crops sold is reported in the Cen-sus. From the total amounts fed must further be subtracted for ourpresent purposes the value of crops fed to horses and mules on the farms.The amounts fed to horses and mules are estimated at two thirds the Armyration—12 lbs. oats and 14 lbs. hay for horses, and 9 lbs. oats and 14 lbs.hay for mules.
This comparison works out as follows:
(1) Value added by animals slaughtered $ 652,952,000Value added by animal products 1,066,828,909
Total value added $1,719,780,909
(2) Total value of animals slaughtered and animalproducts $5,154,643,044
Less value of crops fed to live stock(total value of crops fed $5,698,995,210less value fed to horses 2,069,597,962
$3,629,397,248$1,525,245,796
The two methods of estimating the value product added by animals andanimal products over and above the crops fed to animals differ by about11 per cent—not a wide difference as such matters go—and indicate thatthe percentages used in estimating the net addition to animals slaughteredand animal products are tolerably reliable.
1 Summary of the Census of Agriculture, 1919 and 1920. Table 26, page 15.
TA
BL
E 4
DIS
TR
IBU
TIO
NO
F FA
RM
ER
S'19
19IN
CO
ME
BY
ST
AT
ES
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
ofA
gric
ultu
re, p
. 53. 'Exp
lain
ed in
text
.
ci -I 0 z 0 PTJ 0
NE
w E
NG
LA
ND
DIv
IsIo
NM
IDD
LE
DIV
ISIO
N(T
hous
ands
of_
dolla
rs)
Inco
me
Mam
eN
. H.
Vt.
Mas
s.R
. I.
Con
n.N
. Y.
N. J
.Pa
.
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ue o
f an
imal
pro
duct
s 1
(B)
Net
val
ue a
dded
by
anim
al p
rod-
ucts
(40
% o
f ab
ove)
Val
ue o
f be
ef c
attle
, hog
s, s
heep
and
goat
s 2
(C)
Val
ue a
dded
by
crni
mal
s sl
augh
-te
red Tot
al I
ncom
e (A
+ B
+ C
)..
100,
152
26,0
75
10,4
30
21,4
05
2,10
911
2,69
1
23,5
0914
,681
5,87
2
12,5
44
1,23
630
,617
48,0
0031
,573
12,6
29
30,6
36
3,01
763
,646
53,7
0133
,851
13,5
40
22,6
93
2,23
669
,477
5,34
05,
368
2,14
7
3,35
4
331
7,81
8
44,4
9220
,862
8,34
5
15,9
96
1,57
754
,414
417,
047
225,
466
90,1
86
218,
248
21,5
0752
8,74
0
543,
494
.021
5644
,629
15,0
6764
,325
7,85
980
,159
212,
039
87,4
6431
,483
12,5
93
21,1
03
2,07
910
2,13
6
78,3
26.0
0311
6,43
810
,743
18,0
741,
357
13,3
6049
,972
410,
934
156,
012
62,4
05
150,
391
14,8
2048
8,15
9
561,
047
.022
2646
,078
15,6
2842
,112
4,65
076
,442
184,
910
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
r of
dra
ft a
nim
als
Per
cent
of
all d
raft
ani
mal
s in
Sta
teE
xpen
ses
of f
eed
Fert
ilize
rL
abor
Inte
rest
on
mor
tgag
eM
aint
enan
ceT
otal
Exp
ense
s
9479
40ö
378
7,78
37,
759
9,64
11,
134
11,6
3337
,950
38,4
42.0
0153
3,16
752
64,
521
348
5,20
713
,769
77,8
32.0
0309
6,39
685
77,
712.
1,27
39,
741
25,9
79
50,9
37.0
0202
4,18
13,
907
16,5
771,
334
13,9
2939
,928
6,61
5.0
0026
538
380
2,10
2 871,
429
4,53
6
38,9
94.0
0155
3,20
94,
894
13,2
031,
018
10,2
3332
,557
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal r
e-co
rded
exp
ense
s
Fina
l inc
ome
of a
bove
) 3
74,7
41
73,8
67
16,8
48
16,6
51
37,6
67
37,2
26
29,5
49
29,2
03
. 3,29
2
3,25
3
21,8
57
21,6
01
316,
701
312,
996
52,1
64
51,5
54
303,
249
299,
701
Num
ber
of f
arm
sA
vera
ge in
com
e pe
r fa
rmA
vera
ge a
crea
ge p
er f
arm
Ave
rage
val
ue p
er f
arm
1,53
211
2.5
5,60
9
20,5
23 811
126.
95,
782
29,0
751,
280
145.
77,
661
32,0
01 913 77
.99,
389
4,08
379
781
.28,
238
22,6
55 953 83
.810
,019
193,
195
1,80
710
6.8
9,87
9
29,7
021,
736 76
.810
,499
202,
252
1,48
2 87.3
8,55
1
2Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 41.
TA
BL
E 4
—C
ontin
ued
EA
STC
EN
TR
AL
DIv
ISIO
N(T
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs)
Inco
me
Ohi
om
d.Ill
.M
ich.
Wis
.
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ue o
f an
imal
pro
duct
s 1
(B)
Net
val
ueadded
by c
i.nim
alpr
oduc
ts(4
0% o
f ab
ove)
....
Val
ue o
f be
ef c
attle
, hog
s, s
heep
and
goa
ts 2
(C)
Val
ue a
dded
by
anim
als
slau
ghte
red
Tot
al I
ncom
e (A
+ B
+ C
)
607,
038
155,
588
62,2
3518
6,11
118
,340
687,
613
497,
230
99,3
5039
,740
165,
291
16,2
8955
3,25
9
864,
738
142,
351
56,9
4028
0,45
627
,637
949,
315
404,
014
111,
076
44,4
3013
5,03
913
,307
461,
751
445,
348
213,
022
85,2
0924
3,94
124
,040
554,
597
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
rof
dra
ft a
nim
als
Per
cent
of
all d
raft
ani
mal
s in
Sta
teE
xpen
ses
offeed
Fert
ilize
rL
abor
Inte
rest
on
mor
tgag
eM
aint
enan
ceT
otal
exp
ense
s
842,
318
.033
4369
,200
13,2
0646,428
7,14
679
,290
215,
270
817,
591
.032
4467
,151
8,73
532,867
6,10
557
,848
172,
706
1,46
5,12
6.0
5814
120,
350
2,99
880,390
10,8
4797
,032
311,
615
611,
393
.024
2650
,218
4,87
332,168
8,64
659
,989
155,
894
687,
648
.027
2956
,490 78
048,137
18,7
9273
,606
197,
805
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal r
ecor
ded
expe
nses
Fina
l inc
ome
ofab
ove)
472,
343
466,
817
380,
553
376,
101
637,
700
630,
239
305,
857
302,
278
356,
792
352,
618
Num
ber
of f
arm
sA
vera
ge in
com
e pe
r fa
rmA
vera
ge a
crea
ge p
er f
arm
Ave
rage
value per
farm
256,
695
1,81
9 91.6
12,0
60
205,
126
1,83
410
2.7
14,8
31
237,
181
196,
447
2,65
71,
539
134.
896
.928
,108
8,97
6
189,
295
1,86
311
7.0
14,1
43
'Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of th
e 19
20 C
ensu
s of
Agr
icul
ture
, p. 5
3.'Advance
Bul
letin
ofthe 1920
Cen
sus
ofAgriculture
p.41
z 0
C) 0
TA
BL
E 4
—C
ontin
ued
I.
WE
ST N
omra
CE
NT
RA
L D
IVIS
ION
(Tho
usan
ds o
f do
llars
)
Inco
me
Mum
.Io
wa
Mo.
N. D
akS.
Dak
.N
ebr.
Kan
s.
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ue o
f an
imal
pro
duct
s 1
(B)
Net
val
ue a
dded
by
anim
al p
rodu
cts
(40%
of
abov
e)V
alue
of
beef
cat
tle, h
ogs,
she
ep a
ndgo
ats
2(C
)V
alue
add
ed b
y an
imal
s sl
augh
tere
d.T
otal
Inc
ome
(A +
B +
C).
..
506,
020
113,
237
45,2
95
209,
256
20,6
2157
1,93
6
890,
391
130,
250
52,1
00
447,
885
44,1
4098
6,63
1
559,
048
105,
601
42,2
40
236,
846
23,3
4062
4,62
8
301,
783
30,9
8012
,392
80,3
787,
922
322,
097
311,
007
35,7
3914
,296
173,
622
17,1
1034
2,41
3
519,
730
54,6
1221
,845
241,
695
23,8
2056
5,39
5
588,
923
-80
,323
32,1
29
187,
612
18,4
8963
9,54
1
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
r of
dra
ft a
nim
als
Per
cent
of
all d
raft
ani
mal
s in
Sta
teE
xpen
ses
of f
eed
Fert
ilize
rL
abor
Inte
rest
on
mor
tgag
eM
aint
enan
ceT
otal
exp
ense
s
943,
032
0374
277
,459 43
349
,811
13,9
9673
,193
214,
892
1,46
8,04
2.0
5826
120,
598
596
70,6
9826
,940
123,
192
342,
024
1,29
5,26
5.0
5139
106,
377
3,94
140
,155
13,2
0460
,704
224,
381
863,
555
.034
2770
,939 12
037
,064
7,25
532
,339
147,
717
832,
151
.033
0268
,351 34
32,5
995,
303
35,3
8714
1,67
4
1,06
1,24
3.0
4211
87,1
08 6546
,366
9,63
853
,499
196,
736
1,32
6,15
9.05
263
108,
944
979
67,8
736,
595
50,9
1523
5,30
6
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal r
e-co
rded
exp
ense
s
Fina
l inc
ome
of a
bove
)
357,
044
353,
705
644,
607
637,
065
400,
247
395,
564
263,
004
1,50
413
2,2
13,6
54
174,
380
172,
340
77,6
902,
218
466.
122
,651
200,
739
198,
390
74,6
552,
657
464.
137
,835
368,
659
364,
346
124,
421
2,92
833
9.4
33,7
71
404,
235
399,
505
165,
286
-
2,41
727
4.8
19,9
82
Num
ber
of f
arm
sA
vera
ge in
com
e pe
r fa
rmA
vera
ge a
crea
ge p
er f
arm
Ave
rage
val
ue p
er f
arm
178,
478
1,98
216
9.3
21,2
21
213,
439
2,98
515
6.8
39,9
41
1 A
dvan
ceB
ulle
tin2
Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of th
e 19
20 C
ensu
s of
Agr
icul
ture
, p. 5
3.of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 41.
TA
BL
E 4
—C
ontin
ued
SOU
Ta
AT
LA
NT
IC D
IVIS
ION
(Tho
usan
ds o
f do
llars
)
0
Inco
me
Del
.M
d.D
. C.
Va.
W. V
a.N
. C.
S. C
.G
a.Fl
a.
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ue o
f am
inal
pro
duct
s 1
(B)
Net
val
ue a
dded
by
anim
alpr
oduc
ts (
40%
of
abov
e)V
alue
of
beef
cat
tle, h
ogs,
shee
p an
d go
ats
2(C
)V
alue
add
ed b
y an
imal
ssl
augh
tere
dT
otal
Inc
ome
(A +
B +
C).
..
23,0
595,
779
2,31
2
4,03
6
398
25,7
69
109,
811
25,5
22
10,2
09
25,8
02
2,54
212
2,56
2
307
119 48 189 19
374
292,
842
46,3
11
18,5
24
66,1
87
6,52
231
7,88
8
96,5
3726
,333
10,5
33
42,8
84
4,22
611
1,29
6
503,
229
35,8
60
14,3
44
45,6
61
4,50
052
2,07
3
437,
122
20,3
54
8,14
2
31,1
01
3,06
544
8,32
9
540,
614
36,4
01
14,5
60
56,3
30
5,55
256
0,72
6
80,2
577,
622
3,04
9
20,9
65
2,06
685
,372
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
r of
dra
ft a
nim
als
Perc
ento
falid
raft
anim
alsi
nSta
te.
Exp
ense
s of
fee
dFe
rtili
zer
Lab
orIn
tere
st o
n m
ortg
age
Mai
nten
ance
Tot
al e
xpen
ses
37,1
91.0
0148
3,06
41,
222
2,80
825
415
37,
501
173,
962
.006
9014
,283
7,61
016
,721
1,53
915
,566
55,7
19
343
.000
014
20 23 173 5
153
374
409,
295
.016
2433
,617
17,2
7821
,809
2,46
231
,823
106,
989
184,
129
.007
3115
,132
1,70
95,
816
661
12,1
8735
,505
428,
005
.016
9835
,149
48,7
9712
,036
1,91
827
,320
125,
220
297,
681
.011
8124
,447
52,5
4715
,336
1,83
621
,439
115,
605
506,
854
.020
1141
,628
46,1
9619
,017
2,75
030
,420
140,
011
80,6
16.0
0320
6,62
410
,317
10,8
30 942
6,65
835
,371
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal
reco
rded
exp
ense
s
Fina
l inc
ome
of a
bove
)
18,2
68
18,0
54
66,8
43
66,0
61
47,9
081,
379 99
.39,
678
27.8
29,0
59
210,
899
208,
431
186,
242
1,11
9 99.7
6,42
5
75,7
91
74,9
04
87,2
89 858
109.
65,
687
396,
853
392,
210
269,
763
1,45
4 74.2
4,63
4
333,
724
329,
819
192,
673
1,71
2 64.5
4,94
6
420,
715
415,
793
310,
732
1,33
8 81.9
4,36
6
50,0
01
49,4
16
54,0
05 915
.11
2.0
6,11
6
Num
ber
of f
arm
s10
,140
Ave
rage
inco
me
per
farm
1,78
0A
vera
ge a
crea
ge p
er f
arm
93.1
Ave
rage
val
ue p
er f
arm
7,90
3
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
ofp.
53.
2Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 41.
TA
BL
E 4
—C
ontin
tted
EA
ST S
oum
CE
NT
RA
L D
IvIs
IoN
WE
ST S
OU
TH
CE
NT
RA
L D
IvIS
IoN
(Tho
usan
ds o
f do
llars
)
Inco
me
Ky.
Ten
n.A
la.
Mis
s.A
rk.
341,
565
30,0
8412
,034
49,1
21
4,84
035
8,43
9
La.
206,
183
13,6
135,
445
35,0
64
3,45
521
5,08
3
Oki
a.
549,
249
49,8
8819
,955
105,
553
26,0
0059
5,20
4
Tex
.
1,07
1,52
787
,762
35,1
05
378,
174
93,1
631,
199,
795
8
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ueof
ani
mal
pro
duct
s 1
(B)
Net
val
ue a
dded
by
anim
al p
rodu
cts
(40%
of
abov
e)V
alue
of
beef
cat
tle, h
ogs,
she
epan
d go
ats
2(C
)V
alue
add
ed b
y an
imal
s sl
augh
-te
reci
Tot
al I
ncom
e (A
+ B
+ C
)
348,
655
50,9
2820
,371
75,7
93
7,46
937
6,49
5
318,
285
50,9
6120
,384
75,1
16
7,40
234
6,07
1
304,
349
30,4
2712
,171
48,1
54
4,74
532
1,26
5
336,
207
27,3
2810
,931
55,8
23
5,50
135
2,63
9
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
r of
dra
ft a
nim
als
Per
cent
of
all d
raft
ani
mal
s in
Sta
teE
xpen
ses
of f
eed
Fert
ilize
rL
abor
Inte
rest
on
mor
tgag
eM
aint
enan
ceT
otal
exp
ense
s
675,
299
.026
8055
,476
3,59
718
,152
4,02
730
,276
111,
528
670,
431
.026
6055
,062
3,52
511
,227
3,09
027
,066
99,9
70
426,
600
.016
9335
,045
14,0
667,
724
2,18
316
,226
75,2
44
523,
068
.020
7642
,973
4,28
87,
033
1,95
318
,794
75,0
41
574,
603
.022
8047
,196
2,57
313
,208
3,06
618
,877
84,9
20
358,
871
.014
2429
,477
3,84
021
,418
1,47
512
,314
68,5
24
1,07
5,07
8.0
4266
88,3
06 452
41,6
254,
847
27,3
0416
2,53
4
1,83
7,29
4.0
7291
150,
924
1,83
188
,093
10,5
2152
,825
304,
194
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal r
e-co
rded
exp
ense
s
Fina
l inc
ome
ofab
ove)
264,
967
261,
867
—__
____
_24
6,10
1
243,
222
246,
021
243,
143
277,
598
274,
350
273,
519
270,
319
146,
559
144,
844
432,
670
427,
608
895,
601
885,
122
Num
ber
of f
arm
sA
vera
gein
com
epe
rfa
rmA
vera
geac
reag
epe
rfa
rmA
vera
geva
lue
per
farm
270,
626
968
795,
587
.9
252,
774
962 77
.24,
953
256,
099
949 76
.42,
698
272,
101
1,00
8 66.9
3,54
6
232,
604
1,16
2 75.0
3,97
4
135,
463
1,06
9 74.0
4,35
4
1Adv
ance
of th
e 19
20 C
ensu
s of
Agr
icul
ture
, p. 5
3.2A
dvan
ce B
ulle
tin o
f th
e 19
20 C
ensu
s of
Agr
icul
ture
, p. 4
1.5V
alue
add
ed b
yha
sbe
en a
djus
ted
as e
xpla
ined
in th
e te
xt.
191,
987
2 22
7i6
6.4
8,64
9
436,
033
2,03
026
110
,200
tTJ
5
TA
BLE
4—
Con
tinue
d
MO
UN
TA
IN D
rvIs
IoN
(Tho
usan
ds o
f do
llars
)
inco
me
Mon
t.Id
aho
Wyo
.C
ob.
N. M
ex.
Ari
z.U
tah
Nev
.
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ue o
f an
imal
pro
duct
s(B
)N
et v
alue
add
ed b
y an
imal
prod
ucts
(40
% o
f ab
ove)
Val
ue o
f be
ef c
attle
, hog
s,sh
eep
and
goat
s 2
(C)
Val
ue a
dded
by
anim
als
slau
gh-
tere
dT
otal
inco
me
(A +
B +
C).
..
69,9
7524
,809
0,92
4
102,
615
25,2
8210
5,18
1
126,
492
22,2
25
8,89
0
69,2
14
17,0
5015
2,43
2
30,2
7114
,004
5,60
2
75,4
47
18,5
88 3
54,4
61
181,
065
26,9
21
10,7
68
122,
252
30,1
2022
1,95
3
40,6
208,
448
3,37
9
81,0
69
19,9
7563
,974
42,4
816,
295
2,51
8
44,3
27
10,9
2055
,919
58,0
6713
,736
5,49
4
43,1
14
10,6
2074
,181
13,9
804,
695
1,87
8
26,5
28
6,53
5 a
22,3
93
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
r of
dra
ft p
nim
als
Per
cent
of
all d
raft
in S
tate
.E
xpen
ses
of f
eed
Fert
ilize
rL
abor
Inte
rest
on
mor
tgag
eM
aint
enan
ceT
otal
exp
ense
s
678,
185
.026
9155
,704 12
621
,344
5,92
414
,086
97,1
84
300,
858
.011
9424
,716 10
618
,303
5,10
010
,806
59,0
31
201,
710
.008
0416
,643 8
9,27
71,
178
3,55
830
,664
451,
829
.017
9337
,115 294
28,2
934,
258
15,2
1085
,170
203,
055
.008
0616
,684 113
6,43
881
53,
522
27,5
72
36,4
02
35,9
65
29,8
441,
205
817.
910
,896
148,
159
.005
8812
,172 41
8,44
21,
174
2,45
924
,288
31,6
31
31,2
51
9,97
53,
133
581.
723
,418
128,
264
.005
0910
,536 10
98,
490
1,72
84,
627
25,4
90
48,6
91
48,1
07
25,6
621,
875
196.
812
,130
52,9
36.0
0210
4,34
7 105,
808
437
1,05
211
,654
10,7
39
10,6
10
3,16
33,
354
745.
231
,546
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal
reco
rded
exp
ense
s
Fina
l inc
ome
ofab
ove)
7,99
7
7,90
1
93,4
01
92,2
80
42,1
062,
192
198.
917
,008
23,7
97
23,5
11
15,7
481,
493
749.
921
,235
136,
783
135,
142
59,9
342,
255
408.
117
,966
Num
ber
of f
arm
s..
Ave
rage
inco
me
per
farm
Ave
rage
acr
eage
per
far
mA
vera
ge v
alue
per
far
m
57,6
77 137
608.
117
,095
'Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 53.
8Val
ue a
dded
by
slau
ghte
red
has
been
adj
uste
d as
exp
lain
ed in
the
text
.
t.Tj C
2Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 41.
TA
BL
E 4
—C
ontin
ued
00
PAC
IFIC
Drv
IsIo
N(T
hous
ands
of
dolla
rs)
inco
me
Was
h..
Ore
gon
•
Cal
if.T
otal
Uni
ted
Stat
es
(A)
Val
ue o
f cr
ops
Val
ue o
f an
imal
pro
duct
s 1
(B)
Net
val
ue a
dded
by
pnim
al p
rodu
cts
(40%
of
abov
e)V
alue
of
beef
cat
tle, h
ogs,
she
ep a
nd g
oats
2(C
)V
alue
add
ed b
y an
imal
s sl
augh
tere
dT
otal
inco
me
(A +
B +
C)
227,
212
44,0
6617
,626
49,4
374,
872
249,
710
131,
885
35,1
4714
,059
77,4
927,
636
153,
580
587,
601
103,
932
41,5
7316
1,56
915
,922
645,
096
14,7
55,3
56
1,06
6,82
65,
053,
519
652,
952
16,4
75,1
34
Exp
ense
sN
umbe
r of
dra
ft a
nim
als
Per
cent
of
all d
raft
ani
mal
s in
Sta
teE
xpen
ses
of f
eed
Fert
ilize
rL
abor
Inte
rest
on
mor
tgag
eM
aint
enan
ceT
otal
exp
ense
s
319,
472
.012
6826
,248 52
634
,121
4,03
417
,746
82,6
75
285,
934
.011
3523
,495 49
021
,031
3,38
013
,054
61,4
50
465,
826
.018
4938
,274
8,18
312
6,09
614
,788
42,6
8323
0,02
4
2,07
0,02
132
6,39
61,
363,
492
239,
872
1,49
7,33
15,
497,
112
Tot
al r
ecor
ded
inco
me
min
us to
tal r
ecor
ded
expe
nses
Fina
l inc
ome
of a
bove
)
167,
035
165,
031
92,1
30
91,0
24
415,
072
410,
091
10,9
78,0
22
10,8
51,0
96
Num
ber
of f
arm
sA
vera
ge in
com
e pe
r fa
rmA
vera
ge a
crea
ge p
er f
arm
Ave
rage
val
ue p
er f
arm
66,2
882,
490
199.
815
,952
50,2
061,
813
269.
716
,304
117,
670
3,48
524
9.6
29,1
58
6,44
8,34
31,
682
148.
212
,084
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 53.
3Adv
ance
Bul
letin
of
the
1920
Cen
sus
of A
gric
ultu
re, p
. 41.
-4
THE METHOD 19
One other remark should be made concerning the variations amongStates in farming. Differences in crops and their values are taken accountof in the Census figures; the same is true of variations in the amount spenton fertilizer, labor, interest on mortgage, and animal products. Crops soldby farmers to other farmers and used as feed by them, tare taken account offirst by using the entire crop values for each State; and second by adding totheir value only that part of the value of animals slaughtered on the farmor sold for slaughter, and of animal products which is imputed to other ex-penses than the value of feed. There are, however, variations in the feedof animals, especially the proportion that is due to grazing, which are nottaken account of in the Census figures. Such variations cause some error;corrected in a very rough manner for the range States alone. But the errorcannot be large; for crops constitute about 90 per cent of the total valueproduct according to this method of counting; so that the error must be inthe remaining 10 per cent only.
The amounts shown, then, are not put forward as exact; they are, rather,working estimates, which appear to be substantiated fairly well by thecross checks which have been used.'
E. Corporate Surplus.The corporate surplus in 1919, which amounted to 2.0 billion (Income
in the United States, volume II, chapter 25) is a difficult item to distributeamong the States. Perhaps the best approximation is to credit it in thesame ratio as the value added by manufactures in each State, an item whichis reported in the Census of Manufactures for 1919.2 A comparison withearlier Censuses shows that this percentage distribution remains fairlyconstant from one census period to the next, so that there can be no greaterror in applying these figures to the total corporate surplus.
1 low average income per farm in Montana ($137) may not be typical. Montanacrops in 1919 were particularly bad; the composite number of all crop yields in 1919 asshown in the Department of Agriculture Year Book, 1920, p. 810, was 40, as compared to83 in 1920, 66 in 1918, 55 in 1917, 86 in 1916, 107 in 1915, and 90 in 1914. The "hypo-thetical" value of all crops in Montana2 as estimated by the Department of Agriculture(page 807), in 1919 is $71,552,000 as against $146,713,000 in 1918 and a five year average,1914 to 1918, of $95,158,000. If the value of crops raised had been what one would haveexpected in a "normal" year, then the average income per farmer would have been about$1,200 to $1,500 (instead of $137) a figure that is not out of ime with the averages ofsurrounding states.
2Various other ratios of distribution have been suggested—(1) the distribution of thenon-agricultural income of each State; (2) the distribution of dividends received as re-ported by the Bureau of Internal Revenue inStatistics of Income. Both of these methodsare logical, especially the latter. It is questioned, however, whether corporate surplusreally goes to stockholders in the sense indicated. To some extent, it goes to the com-munity. As a practical matter, the distribution resulting from the use of any one ofthese ratios is about the same.
/
20 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES
F. The Totals.The preceding items need to be cast up to get the total income for each
State. While the figures for persons having incomes over and under$2,000 exclude the farmers, and are therefore rather artificial, they possess
certain independent interest. Of course this form of presentation isnecessary because the Federal Income Tax data give arbitrary prominenceto the $2,000 line.
TA
BL
E 5
SUM
MA
RY
TA
BL
E O
F D
IST
RIB
UT
ION
1919
OF
INC
OM
EB
Y S
TA
TE
S
C
Stat
e
Inco
me
ofIn
com
e of
non-
agri
cul-
non-
agri
cul-
tura
l per
sons
tura
l per
sons
havi
ng o
ver
havi
ng u
nder
$2,0
00$2
,000
Farm
Farm
ers
Cor
pora
tesu
rplu
s
'Iota
l exc
iud-
Tot
alin
g fa
rmer
san
d fa
rmla
bore
rs
Mai
neN
ew H
amps
hire
Ver
mon
tM
assa
chus
etts
Rho
de I
slan
dC
onne
ctic
ut
New
Eng
land
Div
isio
n$
103,
620
$23
5,74
3$
18,6
76$
73,8
67$
16,2
00$
73,8
5715
4,21
06,
412
16,6
5113
,400
43,0
1091
,473
8,97
037
,226
5,80
01,
139,
071
1,70
8,76
316
,983
29,2
0314
0,00
014
5,41
425
7,03
52,
686
3,25
326
,600
323,
710
578,
679
9,79
821
,601
56,6
00
448,
106
$35
5,56
326
4,53
024
1,46
718
6,47
914
0,28
33,
034,
020
2,98
7,83
443
4,98
842
9,04
999
0,38
895
8,98
9
New
Yor
kN
ew J
erse
yPe
nnsy
lvan
ia
Mid
dk A
tlant
ic D
ivis
ion
3,72
7,25
74,
593,
156
127,
650
312,
996
313,
800
836,
951
1,37
2,09
119
,108
51,5
5411
2,40
01,
759,
009
3,60
6,39
844
,510
299,
701
248,
400
9,07
4,85
98,
634,
213
2,39
2,10
42,
321,
442
5,95
8,01
85,
613,
807
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
Ohi
o1,
017,
732
2,25
4,39
653
,768
466,
817
175,
000
Indi
ana
369,
802
855,
401
43,6
7237
6,10
157
,800
Illin
ois
1,62
9,63
72,
472,
084
76,4
2463
0,23
915
4,00
0M
ichi
gan
652,
278
1,45
1,66
351
,888
302,
278
123,
800
Wis
cons
in28
2,74
269
7,95
275
,541
352,
618
57,6
60
3,96
7,71
33,
447,
128
1,70
2,77
61,
283,
003
4,96
2,38
44,
255,
721
2,58
1,90
72,
227,
741
1,46
6,51
31,
038,
354
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
Min
neso
ta32
8,81
958
8,18
089
,010
353,
705
26,8
00Io
wa
444,
917
520,
423
76,9
9663
7,06
518
,000
Mis
sour
i44
3,84
287
7,07
062
,752
395,
564
43,2
00N
orth
Dak
ota
48,9
7382
,878
27,7
2517
2,34
01,
000
Sout
h D
akot
a10
4,50
197
,760
34,0
0319
8,39
01,
600
Neb
rask
a21
4,93
927
6,15
444
,919
364,
346
9,20
0K
ansa
s21
2,71
639
9,34
140
,977
399,
505
12,8
00
1,38
6,51
41,
697,
401
1,82
2,42
833
2,91
643
6,25
490
9,55
81,
065,
339
943,
799
983,
340
1,36
4,11
213
2,85
120
3,86
150
0,29
362
4,85
7
TA
BL
E 5
—C
ontin
ued
Stat
e
Inco
me
of n
on-
agri
cultu
ral
pers
ons
havi
ngov
er $
2,00
0
Inco
me
of n
on-
agri
cultu
ral
pers
ons
havi
ngun
der
$2,0
00
I I I
Farm
labo
rers
I I I
Farm
ers
Cor
pora
teT
otal
Tot
al e
xclu
d-in
g fa
rmer
san
d fa
rmla
bore
rsSo
'u€h
Atla
ntic
Div
isio
n 18,0
54$
66,0
616,
400
25,8
003,
000
21,8
0016
,000
33,4
0012
,200
20,0
009,
600
$17
6,59
199
9,52
938
6,92
999
0,10
765
5,72
398
0,59
673
5,39
81,
141,
953
406,
477
$15
4,82
091
1,83
038
6,92
973
3,65
255
7,85
650
2,27
432
4,98
161
9,19
232
8,08
1
I:'
C12 0 0
Del
awar
eM
aryl
and
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a.V
irgi
niW
est V
irgi
nia
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Geo
rgia
Flor
ida
$62
,603
387,
907
148,
414
227,
718
143,
114
139,
499
120,
488
193,
917
105,
133
885
,817
498,
123
235,
515
484,
134
398,
742
329,
375
192,
293
405,
275
213,
348
$3,
717
21,6
38
48,0
2422
,963
86,1
1280
,598
106,
968
28,9
80
S
208,
431
74,9
0439
2,21
032
9,81
941
5,79
349
,416
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
Ken
tuck
y20
7,55
2T
enne
ssee
186,
149
Ala
bam
a11
9,12
0M
issi
ssip
pi90
,663
412,
537
52,0
5426
1,86
712
,600
946,
610
632,
689
351,
526
55,9
7024
3,22
217
,000
853,
867
554,
675
349,
647
83,1
1624
3,14
315
,200
810,
226
483,
967
174,
252
81,8
0627
4,35
08,
000
629,
071
272,
915
Ark
ansa
s11
2,22
9L
ouis
iana
196,
930
Okl
ahot
na19
5,77
6T
exas
543,
945
Wes
t Sou
th C
entr
al D
ivis
ion
199,
762
73,8
3227
0,31
97,
600
663,
742
319,
591
349,
946
60,2
9414
4,84
419
,400
771,
414
566,
276
384,
894
68,5
7342
7,60
87,
000
1,08
3,85
158
7,67
087
6,19
118
1,79
288
5,12
224
,000
2,51
1,05
01,
444,
136
Mou
ntai
n D
ivis
ion
Z
Mon
tana
....
Idah
oW
yom
ing
Col
orad
oN
ew M
exic
oA
rizo
naU
tah
Nev
ada
93,3
3850
,751
46,5
9216
9,27
528
,564
52,2
0353
,789
14,4
80
154,
181
87,6
3072
,074
258,
258
68,1
6311
6,28
011
1,39
336
,023
22,1
1027
,004
7,92
029
,808
13,6
1519
,854
15,2
354,
278
7,90
192
,280
23,5
1113
5,14
235
,965
31,2
5148
,107
10,6
10
3,60
03,
000
3,20
08,
000
800
2,20
03,
800
400
281,
130
260,
665
153,
297
600,
483
147,
107
221,
788
232,
324
65,7
91
251,
119
141,
381
121,
866
435,
533
97,5
2717
0,68
316
8,98
250
,903
Was
hing
ton
Ore
gon
Cal
ifor
nia
Tot
al U
. S..
264,
490
152,
117
893,
062
552,
740
267,
064
1,31
6,23
3
54,4
1233
,617
129,
206
165,
031
91,0
2441
0,09
1
29,4
0012
,800
60,4
00
1,06
6,07
355
6,62
22,
808,
992
846,
630
431,
981
2,26
9,69
5$1
8,90
2,61
5$3
2,15
2,26
6$2
,345
,964
—
$10,
851,
096
$2,0
00,6
00$6
6,25
2,60
1$5
3,05
5,54
1
Paci
fic
Div
isio
n
THE RESTJLTS 23
III. THE RESULTS
1. New York State with an income of about nine biffion dollars, which isover one-eighth of the total National Income, has by far the largest incomeof any State. It is followed in succession by Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio,Massachusetts, California, Michigan, and Texas. At the other end of thelist is Nevada, with an income of less than one hundred million dollars.
2. The Middle Atlantic States (New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl-vania), taken as a group, have over one-fourth of the National Income; andwith the East North Central group and the New England States, havemore than one-half of the total.
3. New York again heads the list of per capita incomes, with $874.Nevada, California, Delaware, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and Washingtonare next with around $800. At the other end of the scale, with per capitaincomes of less than $400 each are Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina,Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama.
4. Taken as a group, the Pacific States have the largest per capita in-come, with $796; next are the Middle Atlantic States, with $783. The percapita income of the East South Central States was less than half theseamounts, or $364.
5. The average income of the gainfully employed shows variations fromthe per capita income due to the wide differences in the character of theemployment of the population in the various States. South Dakota andNew York head the list with just over $2,000; and close to this mark areNebraska, Iowa, Delaware, Illinois, and Wyoming. At the other end ofthe list are Alabama and Mississippi, both just under $900.
6. The Middle Atlantic States have the largest average income ofgainfully employed with $1,886 and the Pacific States have $1,837. At theother end, the East South Central States have the smallest with $979.
7. The per cent of non-agricultural Income in each State received bypersons having incomes over $2,000 per year is difficult to interpret. Thepercentage is high where there are large incomes; but it may also be highowing to a large number of moderate incomes. If we had sufficient data toplot a curve representing the distribution of incomes in each state, suchvariations might be brought out, but this is not feasible with the existingdata. South Dakota shows the highest percentage, having over one-halfof its non-agricultural income received by persons with incomes over$2,000; next in order are Iowa, New York, Nebraska, Maryland, andDelaware. At the other end of the scale are North Carolina, Wisconsin,West Virginia, and Alabama, which show about one-fourth of their non-agricultural incomes received by persons having over $2,000 per annum.
8. Texas has the largest farmers' income, with nearly 900 million dol-
24 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES
Jars. Iowa and Illinois come next, each just above 600 million dollars.Rhode Island farmers are last, with aggregate incomes of three milliondollars.
9. The largest average income of farmers is found in California, with$3,485; next in Nevada, with $3,354. The only other States near the$3,000 mark are Arizona, Iowa, and Nebraska. With the exception ofMontana, which had an abnormally poor year in 1919, the States havingthe lowest averages (all less than $1,000) were Kentucky Tennessee, Con-necticut, Alabama, Florida, Massachusetts, West Virginia, New Hamp-shire, and Rhode Island.
10. Taken as a group, the East North Central and the West NorthCentral States have nearly one-half of the farmers' income of the country.The Middle Atlantic States have only 6 per cent, and New England lessthan two per cent.
11. Farmers' income constitutes over one-half the total State income inNorth Dakota. It is over 40 per cent in South Dakota, South Carolina,Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Carolina. On the other hand,it is less than four per cent in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut,and less than one per cent in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
12. Taken as a group, farmers' incomes constitute about one-third of thetotal income in the West South Central, the West North Central, and theEast South Central States. On the other hand, they constitute about one-thirtieth of the total income in New England and the Middle AtlanticStates.
TA
BL
E
AN
AL
YSI
S O
F IN
CO
ME
BY
ST
AT
ES,
191
9
Per
cent
of
Stat
ePe
r ce
nt o
fN
umbe
r of
Ave
rage
inco
me
ex?I
usiv
e
Tot
alto
tal n
a-Ir
cenb
Ot
inco
me
per
a a,
nd
Stat
ein
com
ePo
pula
tion
Per
capi
tatio
nal i
n-ga
infu
llype
rson
com
e
(tho
usan
ds)
Jan.
1, 1
920
inco
me
com
e in
the
empl
oyed
gain
fully
une
i,uau
eJa
n. 1
,pe
rson
s ha
ving
1920
OY
over
$2,
000
per
year
UN
ITE
D S
TA
TE
S..
$66,
252,
601
105,
710,
620
$627
100.
0010
0.00
41,6
09,1
92$1
,592
35.6
3N
EW
EN
GL
AN
DM
aine
448,
106
768,
014
583
.68
.73
309,
858
1,44
629
.14
New
Ham
pshi
re26
4,53
044
3,08
359
7.4
0.4
219
2,82
71,
372
30.5
9V
erm
ont
186,
479
352,
428
529
.28
.33
138,
484
1,34
730
.66
Mas
sach
uset
ts3,
034,
020
3,85
2,35
678
84.
583.
641,
728,
297
1,75
538
.12
Rho
de I
slan
d43
4,98
860
4,39
772
0.6
6.5
727
5,00
01,
582
33.8
9C
onne
ctic
ut99
0,38
81,
380,
631
717
1.50
1.31
589,
816
1,67
933
.76
MID
DL
E A
TL
AN
TIC
New
Yor
k9,
074,
859
10,3
85,2
2787
413
.70
9.83
4,50
4,79
12,
014
43.1
7N
ew J
erse
y2,
392,
104
3,15
5,90
075
83.
612.
991,
310,
379
1,82
636
.05
Penn
sylv
ania
5,95
8,01
88,
720,
017
683
8.99
8.25
3,42
6,36
11,
739
31.3
3E
AST
NO
RT
R C
EN
TR
AL
Ohi
o3,
967,
713
5,75
9,39
468
95.
995.
452,
300,
412
1,72
529
.52
Indi
ana
1,70
2,77
62,
930,
390
581
2.57
2.77
1,11
7,03
21,
524
28.8
2Il
imoi
s4,
962,
384
6,48
5,28
076
57.
496.
142,
626,
547
1,88
938
.29
Mic
higa
n.2,
581,
907
3,66
8,41
270
43.
903.
471,
473,
614
1,75
229
.28
Wis
cons
in..
1,46
6,51
32,
632,
067
557
2.22
2.49
995,
401
1,47
327
.23
WE
ST N
OR
TH
CE
NT
RA
LM
inne
sota
1,38
6,51
42,
387,
125
581
2.09
2.26
906,
623
1,52
934
.84
Iow
a1,
697,
401
2,40
4,02
170
62.
562.
2785
8,69
91,
977
45.2
5M
isso
uri
1,82
2,42
83,
404,
055
.53
52.
753.
221,
317,
010
1,38
432
.54
Nor
th D
akot
a33
2,91
664
6,87
251
5.5
0.6
120
7,08
21,
608
36.8
6So
uth
Dak
ota
436,
254
636,
547
685
.66
.60
216,
573
2,01
451
.26
Neb
rask
a90
9,55
81,
296,
372
702
1.37
1.23
457,
081
1,99
042
.96
Kan
sas
1,06
5,33
91,
769,
257
602
1.61
1.67
624,
391
1,70
634
.04
TA
BL
E 6
—C
ontin
ue4
Tot
alin
com
e(t
hous
ands
)Po
pula
tion
Jan.
1, 1
920
Per capita
income
Per
cent
of
tota
l na-
tional in-
come
in th
eSt
ate
Per
cent
of
tota
lpopu-
latio
n in
the
Stat
e
Num
ber
ofpe
rson
sga
infu
llyem
ploy
edJa
n. 1
,19
20
Ave
rage
inco
me
per
person
gain
fully
empl
oyed
Per
cen
t of S
tate
inco
me
excl
usiv
eof
farm
er's
and
farm
labo
rer's
in-
com
e re
ceiv
ed b
yno
n-ag
ricu
ltura
t
over
$2,
000
per
pers
ons
havi
ng
year
SouT
H A
mM
nIc
Del
awar
eM
aryl
and
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a..
Vir
gini
aW
est V
irgi
nia
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Geo
rgia
Flor
ida
EA
ST S
oum
CE
Nm
AL
Ken
tuck
yT
enne
ssee
Ala
bam
aM
issi
ssip
piW
EST
Sou
m C
EN
TE
AL
Ark
ansa
sL
ouis
iana
Okl
ahom
aT
exa8
MO
UN
TA
INM
onta
naIdaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
PACIFIC
Was
hing
ton
Ore
gon
Cal
ifor
nia
$ 17
6,59
199
9,52
9386,929
990,107
655,723
980,596
735,398
1,141,953
406,477
946,
610
853,867
810,226
629,071
663,
742
771,
414
1,083,851
2,51
1,05
0
281,
130
260,
665
153,
297
600,
483
147,
107
221,
788
232,
324
65,7
91
1,066,073
556,
622
2,80
8,99
2
223,
003
1,44
9,66
143
7,57
12,309,187
1,46
3,70
12,
559,
123
1,683,724
2,89
5,83
2968,476
2,416,630
2,337,885
2,34
8,17
41,
790,
618
1,752,204
1,79
8,50
92,
028,
283
4,66
3,22
8
548,
889
431,
866
194,402
939,
629
360,350
334,
162
449,
396
77,4
07
1,35
6,62
178
3,38
93,426,861
$792
689
884
429
448
383
437
394
420
392
365
345
351
379
429
534
538
512
604
789
639
408
664
517
850
786
711
820
.27
1.51 .5
81.
49 .99
1.48
1.11
1.72 .6
1
1.43
1.29
1.22 .9
5
1.00
1.17
1.64
3.79 .4
2.3
9.2
3.9
1.2
2.3
3.3
5.1
0
1.61 .84
4.24
.21
1.37 .4
12.
181.39
2.42
1.59
2.74 .9
2
2.29
2.21
2.22
1.69
1.66
1.70
1.92
4.41 .5
2.4
1.1
8.89
.34
.32
.43
.07
1.28 .7
43.
24
cr2
'-3 '-3 'I 0 8 LTJ
91,224
603,473
236,
027
833,
177
491,117
895,852
674,
257
1,12
8,74
238
5,31
3
851,122
829,875
908,216
721,412
634,564
681,
237
681,
439
1,71
8,94
5
214,183
153,
459
81,536
366,458
122,031
130,
579
149,201
37,548
578,470
322,137
1,511,320
$1,9
361,
656
1,63
91,
188
1,335
1,095
1,09
11,
012
1,05
5
1,11
21,
029
892
872
1,046
1,13
21,
591
1,46
1
1,31
31,
699
1,880
1,639
1,20
51,
698
1,557
1,752
1,843
1,728
1,859
40.4
442
.54
38.3
631
.04
25.6
527.77
37.0
831.32
32.04
32.8
033
.56
24.6
133.22
35.1
234
.78
33.3
137
.67
37.17
35.9
038
.23
38.8
729
.29
30.5
831.83
28.4
5
31.2
435
.21
39.35
TA
BL
E 7
AN
AL
YSI
S O
F IN
CO
ME
OF
FAR
ME
RS
BY
ST
AT
ES,
191
9
Stat
eN
umbe
r of
farm
ers
Tot
al in
com
eof
far
mer
s(t
hons
ands
)A
vera
ge in
com
epe
r fa
rmer
Per
cent
of
tota
lst
ate
inco
me
go-
irig
to f
arm
ers
Per
cent
of
tota
lfa
rmer
s' in
com
ein
the
Stat
e
UN
ITE
D S
PAT
ES
6,44
8,36
6$1
0,85
1,09
6$1
,682
16.3
810
0.00
NE
W E
NG
LA
ND
Mai
ne48
,227
73,8
671,
532
16.4
8.6
8N
ew H
amps
hire
20,5
2310
,651
811
6.29
.15
Ver
mon
t..
29,0
7537
,226
1,28
019
.96
.34
Mas
sach
uset
ts32
,001
29,2
0391
3.9
6.2
7R
hode
Isl
and
.4,
083
3,25
379
7.7
5.0
3C
onne
ctic
ut22
,655
21,6
0195
32.
18.2
0M
IDD
LE
New
Yor
k19
3,19
531
2,99
61,
807
3.45
2.88
New
Jer
sey
29,7
0251
,554
1,73
62.
16
.47
wP
enns
ylva
nia
202,
252
299,
701
1,48
25.
032.
76E
AST
NO
RT
HO
hio
256,
695
466,
817
1,81
911
.77
4.30
Cl)
Indi
ana
205,
126
376,
101
1,83
422
.09
3.47
Illin
ois
237,
181
630,
239
2,65
712
.70
5.81
Mic
higa
n19
6,44
730
2,27
81,
539
11.7
12.
79W
isco
nsin
189
295
352,
618
1,86
324
.04
3.25
WE
ST N
OR
TH
CE
NT
RA
LM
inne
sota
178,
478
353,
705
1,98
225
.51
3.26
Iow
a21
3,43
963
7,06
52,
985
37.5
35.
87M
isso
uri
263,
004
395,
564
1,50
421
.71
3.65
Nor
th D
akot
a77
,690
172,
340
2,21
851
.77
1.59
Sout
h D
akot
a74
,655
198,
390
2,65
745
.48
1.83
Neb
rask
a12
4 42
136
4,34
62,
928
40.0
63.
36K
ansa
s16
5,28
639
9,50
52,
417
37.5
03.
68
TA
BL
E 7
—C
ontin
ued
Stat
eN
umbe
r of
farm
s
Tot
al in
com
eof
far
mer
s(t
hous
ands
)A
vera
ge in
com
epe
r fa
rmer
Per
cent
of
tota
lst
ate
inco
me
go-
ing
to f
arm
ers
Per
cent
farm
ers'
in th
e
of to
tal
inco
me
Stat
e
SOU
TH
AT
LA
NnC
Del
awar
e10
,140
$ 18
,054
$1,7
8010
.22
.17
Mar
ylan
d47
,908
66,0
611,
379
6.61
.61
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a20
4V
irgin
ia18
6,24
220
8,43
11,
119
21.0
51.
92W
est V
irgm
i87
,289
74,9
0485
8fl
.42
69N
orth
Car
olin
a26
9,76
339
2,21
01,
454
40.0
03.
61So
uth
Car
olin
a19
2,69
332
9,81
91,
712
44.8
530
4G
eorg
ia...
310,
732
415,
793
1,33
836
.41
3.83
Flor
ida.
...54
,005
49,4
1691
512
.16
.46
EA
ST S
OU
TH
CE
NT
hAL
Ken
tuck
y..
..27
0,62
626
1,86
796
827
.66
2.41
ZT
enne
ssee
.....
252,
774
243,
222
962
28.4
82.
24A
laba
ma.
....
256,
099
243,
143
949
30.0
12.
24M
issi
ssip
pi27
2,10
127
4,35
01,
008
43.6
12.
53W
EST
SO
UT
H C
EN
TR
AL
i—i
Ark
ansa
s23
2,60
427
0,31
91,
162
40.7
32.
49L
ouis
iana
135,
463
144,
844
1,06
918
.78
1.33
ôO
klah
oma
191,
987
427,
608
2,22
739
.45
3.94
Tex
as43
6,03
388
5,12
22,
030
35.2
58.
16M
OU
NT
AIN
Mon
tana
57,6
777,
901
137
2.81
.07
Idah
o42
,106
92,2
802,
192
35.4
0.8
5W
yom
ing
15,7
4823
,511
1,49
315
.34
.22
Col
orad
o59
,934
135,
142
2,25
522
.51
1.25
New
Mex
ico
29,8
4435
,965
1,20
524
.45
.33
Ari
zona
9,97
531
,251
3,13
314
.09
.29
Uta
h25
,662
48,1
071,
875
20.7
1.4
402
Nev
ada
3,16
310
,610
3,35
416
.13
.10
PAcm
'IcW
ashi
ngto
n66
,288
165,
031
2,49
015
.48
1.52
Ore
gon
50,2
0691
,024
1,81
316
.35
.84
Cal
ifor
nia
117,
670
410,
091
3,48
514
.60
3.78
TA
BL
E 8
AN
AL
YSI
S O
F IN
CO
ME
BY
GE
OG
RA
PHIC
AL
DIV
ISIO
NS,
191
9
Geo
rgra
phic
aldi
visi
ons
Tot
al in
com
e(t
hous
ands
)Po
pula
tion
Jan.
1, 1
920
Per
capi
tain
com
ePe
r ce
nt o
ftO
te4
na-
tiona
l mco
me
Per
cent
of
tota
lpo
pula
tion
Num
ber
ofpe
rson
sga
infu
llyem
ploy
ed
•
Ave
rage
com
e pe
rpe
rson
gam
fully
empl
oyed
Per
cent
of
inco
me
in e
ach
divi
sion
, exc
lu-
sive
of
farm
-er
s' a
nd f
arm
labo
rers
' in-
com
e re
ceiv
ed,
by n
on-a
gri-
cultu
ral p
er-
sons
hav
ing
over
$2,
000
per
year
Uni
ted
Stat
esN
ew E
ngla
ndM
iddl
e A
tlant
icE
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al...
.So
uth
Atla
ntic
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
alW
est S
outh
Cen
tral
Mou
ntai
nPa
cifi
c
$66,
252,
601
5,35
8,51
117
,424
,981
14,6
81,2
937,
650,
410
6,47
3,30
33,
239,
774
5,03
0,05
71,
962,
585
4,43
1,68
7
105,
710,
620
7,40
0,90
922
,261
,144
21,4
75,5
4312
,544
,249
13,9
90,2
788,
893,
307
10,2
42,2
243,
336,
101
5,56
6,87
1
$627 724
783
684
610
463
364
491
588
796
100.
008.
0926
.30
22.1
611
.55
9.77
4.89
7.59
2.96
6.69
100.
007.
0021
.06
20.3
111
.87
13.2
38.
419.
693.
165.
27
41,6
09,1
923,
234,
282
9,24
1,53
18,
513,
006
4,58
7,45
95,
339,
182
3,31
0,62
53,
716,
185
1 25
4,99
52,
411,
927
$1,5
921,
657
1,88
61,
725
1,66
81,
212
979
1,35
41,
564
1,83
7
35.6
335
.76
38.1
632
.26
37.8
433
.83
31.0
435
.95
35.4
036
.90
OF
INC
OM
E
Num
ber
offa
rmer
s
6,44
8,36
615
6,56
442
5,14
91,
084,
744
1,09
6,97
31,
158,
976
1,05
1,60
099
6,08
724
4,10
923
4,16
4
OF
FAR
ME
RS
Tot
al in
com
eof
far
mer
s(t
hous
ands
)
$10,
851,
096
181,
801
664,
251
2,12
8,05
32,
520,
915
1,55
4,68
81,
022,
582
1,72
7,89
338
4,76
766
6,14
6BY
GE
OG
RA
PHIC
AL
Ave
rage
inco
me
per
farm
er
1,68
21,
161
1,56
21,
962
2,29
81,
341
972
1,73
51,
576
2,84
5
DIV
ISIO
NS,
191
9
Per
cent
of
tota
ldi
visi
on in
com
ego
ing
to f
arm
ers
16.3
83.
393.
8114
.49
32.9
524
.02
31.5
634
.35
19.6
115
.03
Per
cent
of
tota
lfa
rmer
s' in
com
e
100.
001.
686.
1219
.61
23.2
314
.33
9.42
15.9
23.
556.
14
I: H If 0 z 0 II ci 0
AN
AL
YSI
S
Geo
rgra
phic
al d
ivis
ions
TA
BL
E 9
I
(W* I
Uni
ted
Stat
esN
ew E
ngla
ndM
iddl
e A
tlant
icE
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
...W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
..So
uth
Atla
ntic
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
alW
est S
outh
Cen
tral
.M
ount
ain
Paci
fic