Page:Walter Renton Ingalls - Wealth and Income of the American People (1924).pdf/47

Rh of the latter was attributed to the effects of quantity production and the development of an efficient working organization.

All things considered, however, I can not see any strong evidence of quantitative increase in the output of labor in building and manufacturing from 1916 to 1920. In terms of value there was an enormous increase, but this was more or less in proportion to the increase in prices and wages. There is no good reason to look for anything otherwise. All of the factors, plus and minus, accelerating and retarding, that I have previously enumerated, have been in evidence since 1914. The indications are that on balance the minus factors exceeded the plus, especially since 1916. At the best it can not be discerned that the productivity of labor did any more than hold its own.

Now, let us turn to the statistics of production of raw materials as reported by the U. S. Geological Survey, for mineral products, and the Department of Agriculture for animal and vegetable products. In order to arrive at quantitative totals, however, I have converted everything into terms of the ton of 2,000 lb. In doing so, I have used the following equivalents: Lumber, 1,000 ft. b.m. = 4,000 lb.; cotton, 1 bale = 500 lb.; corn, 1 bu. = 56 lb.; wheat, 1 bu. = 60 lb.; oats, 1 bu. = 32 lb.; barley, 1 bu. = 45 lb.; rye, 1 bu. = 56 lb.; potatoes, 1 bu. = 60 lb.; apples, 1 bu. = 50 lb.; milk, 1 gal. = 8 lb.; eggs, 1 doz. = 1.2 lb.; cement, 1 bbl. = 376 lb.; petroleum, 1 bbl. = 280 lb.; poultry, average 4 lb. per head. While these factors may introduce some errors the resulting figures are near enough. The totals are summarized in the following table, wherein the aggregates of quantity