Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/896

Rh

Index Numbers of Farm Crops, Live Stock, Commodities and Farm Labour Each Year from 1913 to 1921 Inclusive. The two outstanding facts are that in every year from 1913 to 1919 the farm crops index stood higher than any of the others, and that from 1913 to 1918 the farm wage index stood as low as or lower than any other.

Tables III., IV., and V. are based upon data prepared by the Bureau of Crop Estimates, and published by authority of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The index numbers of average prices to farmers of the United States of 10 leading crops (wheat, corn, oats, barley, rye, buckwheat, potatoes, hay, cotton, and flax) represent about four-fifths of the value of all crops and may be regarded as representing the trend of all crop prices. (Base 100 = average for 12 months of 1913.)

Index numbers of average prices to farmers of the United States, for live stock. (Base 100 = average for 12 months of 1913.)

V.—Index Numbers of Commodity Prices, Excluding Farm and Food Products. Based upon the Bureau of Labor index numbers of wholesale prices of all commodities from which were deducted the commodities representing the foods, and farm products group. (Base 100 = average for 1913.)

A study of the diagram (fig. 1) confirms the evidence from many other sources that farmers engaged primarily in crop production were reasonably prosperous from 1913 to 1916 inclusive, and that during 1917, 1918 and 1919 they enjoyed unprecedented prosperity followed by two years of heavy losses; the high prices of the early months of 1920 having broken before the products could be marketed and the cost of commodities and farm wages remaining high. It also shows that the live stock grower was only just able to keep pace with the increasing cost of necessary commodities, and but little ahead of the steadily rising farm wages that he had to pay. The conditions of agriculture on Dec. 1 1921, as shown by Tables I., II., III. and V., and fig. 1, indicate that never before in the history of American agriculture had the farmers been confronted with so serious a situation. Unless the prices of what the farmer must sell could be brought into proper relation with prices of what he must buy—commodities and labour—agricultural production would necessarily be so greatly reduced as to bring about a serious shortage of food and textile products, for farmers cannot continue to produce crops at a loss not only of their time, but also of their money.

When, however, the agricultural situation is more closely studied it becomes apparent that even though a proper relation could be restored between the prices of farm products, farm labour, and the commodities the farmer has to buy, many of the farmers would be still unable to operate their farms profitably.

During the decade 1910-20, throughout the first half of which the farmers enjoyed normal prosperity and throughout the latter half of which their prosperity was the greatest ever enjoyed by American farmers, the rural population increased only 5.4% while the urban population increased at the rate of 25.7%. That is to say urban population increased nearly five times as rapidly as the rural population, increased movement to centres showing that farm life and farming had come to be disliked, notwithstanding their new advantages: improved roads, rural free mail delivery, telephones, automobiles, farm electric lighting plants and modern water and heating systems, all developed rapidly during the ten years in question.

Although there were 86,864 or 1.4% more farms in the United States in 1920 than in 1910, there were 23,627 or .6% fewer farm owners. Of the 3,925,090 farms operated by their owners in 1920, 41.3% were mortgaged as against only 33.6% in 1910.

The value of the land and buildings of mortgaged farms was $6,330,236,951 in 1910, and in 1920 $13,772,729,610, an increase of 117.6%. In 1910 the mortgaged indebtedness was $1,726,172,851; in 1920 $4,012,711,213, an increase of 132.5%. The increase in value ranged from 21% in New Jersey to 480% in Arizona. The increase in mortgaged indebtedness ranged from 10.2% in Rhode Island to 625.7% in Montana. The increase per cent in mortgaged indebtedness by geographical divisions was as follows: New England 56.8; Middle Atlantic 45.5; East North Central 101.0; West North Central 136.3; South Atlantic 161.8; East South Central 194.6; West South Central 154.0; Mountain 379.4; Pacific 215.6.

The average value of land and buildings on all mortgaged farms in 1910 was $6,289, and in 1920 it was $11,536, an increase of 117.6%. The average debt per farm was $1,715 in 1910 and $3,361 in 1920, an increase of 132.5%. The debt per cent value was 27.3 in 1910 and 29.1 in 1920, the figures being based on 1919 values. These declined and debts increased during 1920 and 1921, and at the end of 1921 it was believed that changes would continue in the same direction, until a shortage of food should increase prices.

There was difference of opinion as to the significance of the heavy increase in mortgaged indebtedness. The published reports of the Bureau of Census do not indicate at what time during the decade this increase took place, nor the purposes for which the money represented by the mortgages was used: whether as purchase money for the land upon which it was placed, for buildings, or other improvements upon the land, for farm equipment, or for the purchase,