/
The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
APRIL 21, 1926
CHAPEL HILL, N C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XII, NO. 23
Bdltorial Board. E. C, Branson, S. H. Hobbs. Jr.. L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knifrht, D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt, H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-class matter November 14, 1914, at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of August 24, 1912
INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES
INCOME BY STATES
Elsewhere appears a table which
serves excellently to show the relative
position of the states relative to income.
The states are ranked according to gross
value of all farm products per farm
dweller, mainly because three-fifths of
North Carolina’s population is agricul
tural. The rank of any state in gross
current income per farm dweller or in
gross current income per non-farm
dweller may readily be obtained from
the two additional columns included in
the table.
Explanation
The table is based on Income in the
Various States, published by the National
Bureau of Economic Research. The
data are for the year 1919. Similar
data are available for the years 1920
and 1921, but it is felt that the year
1919 is the more representative of the
three years.
By gross value of farm products per
farm dweller is meant the total value
of all farm products produced in the
state divided by the farm population.
Gross current income per f-arm dweller
means roughly the income received from
farm products which entered the chan
nels of commerce per farm dweller.
For instance, corn may be consumed on
the farm by mules and horses, say, and
belongs to gross value produced, while
receipts from sale of corn, or of cotton
and tobacjo, belong to gross current
income.
Gross current income per non-farm
dweller represents roughly the amount
that the non-farmer groups have to
spend or to save currently; in other
words, the amount disbursed to them
Carolina probably remains about the
same, possibly with some improvement.
-S. H. H., Jr.
VALUE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS
Further evidence of North Carolina’s
low rank in the production of milk and
butter is found in a recent publication
of The National Bureau of Economic)
Research, based on the U. S. Census of
1920. The gross value of all milk and
butter produced in the state in 1919 was
$18,999,000. This sum includes not only
milk and butter sold, but the value of
all milk and butter consumed on the
farm, i
North Carolina ranks second in num
ber of farms but thirtieth in the value
of milk and butter produced. We have
about four and one-half percent of the
nation’s farms, but we produce only
one percent pf the milk and butter pro
duced in the United States.
The total value of all milk and butter
produced in the state in 1919 was less
than the value of crops alone in one
county.
In milk and butter production per
farm North Carolina ranks last among
the states.
The National Bureau of Economic
Research says, “Of all the branches of
agricultural enterprise, dairying is the
most important stabilizing factor in the
total income of farmers. The continu
ous demand for practically the entire
farm supply and the perishable nature
of the original product prevents the
accumulation of large stocks and, hence,
also the disastrous effects that usually
accompany such accumulations. The
prices of dairy products are, conse-
during the year in the form of actual | quently, unusually uniform from year
money, commodities.
services
which a pecuniary value is ordinarily
placed. Current income of non farmers
must not be confused with the value of
industrial output, etc. It refers to wages
of employees, salaries of professional
classes, earnings from businesses, and
so on and on.
How we RanK
In gross value of all farm products
per farm dweller North Carolina ranked
39th in 1919, the amoulit being $406.
The rank may seem a bit low at first
glance, mainly because we have so often
been told of North Carolina’s high rank
in the total value of crops. Total and
per unit values may be very different
matters. Considering that our culti
vated farms are the smallest in the
United States, that we specialize on
crops, and have only a small output of
livestock values, and practically no agri
cultural industrial output, our rank is
really very gratifying. We rank ahead
of nine other Southern states.
In gross current income per farm
dweller, that is roughly in the value of
farm products which entered into com
merce, North Carolina ranked 39th, the
value being $275. We ranked ahead
of the same nine Southern states that
fell below us in the gross value of farm
products per farm dweller.
Non-Farm Group
In gross current income per non-farm
dweller North Carolina ranked 46th, the
amount being $600. The states rank
ing below us were Alabama and Florida.
However, it will be seen from studying
the current non-farmer income column
that in a good many states the current
income was not much higher than in
North Carolina. Fourteen states fall
within the five hundred to six hundred
dollar class.
Secondly, that the range in current
income for non-farmers is not nearly so
great as for farmers, the variation be
ing from $463 in Florida to $928 in
New York. The states vary in gross
value of farm products per farm dweller
from $1,907 in Nevada to $295 in Ala
bama. In current income per farm
dweller the states vary from $1,064 in
Nevada to $200 in Alabama.
Thirdly, that although the gross cur
rent income per non-farm dweller is
only $600 in North Carolina, the
amount is nearly twice the gross cur
rent income of farmers, and nearly one
hundred dollars above the gross value
of all farm products per farm dweller.
All in all the table presents an excel
lent comparison of states relative to
income. The facts have changed since
1919, but the relative position of North
to year, and although phenomenal profits
cannot, under such circumstances, be
made, the farmer does not run the risk
of sustaining great losses, as in the case
of other agricultural products.’’
Only this week the writer was unable
to get a glass of milk in the leading
hotel located in the city that claims to
be the state’s leadmg tobacco market.
That is the main reason.
OUR FERTILIZER BILL
We wonder how many people are
aware of the enormous sum of money
this state spends each year on com
mercial fertilizer? Or how North
Carolina ranks as a consumer of what
commonly goes by the name of guano?
The 1920 Census reports that the
state’s fertilizer bill for the year 1919
was $48,797,000. This sum was ex
ceeded by only one state, South Caro
lina, which put under her crops,
mainly cotton, $52,647,000 worth of
fertilizer in 1919. The National
Bureau of Economic Research, bas
ing its findings on the American
Fertilizer Handbook and the U. S.
Census of Agriculture, reports that
North Carolina’s fertilizer bill for
1920 was $64,179,000, while South
Carolina’s was $65,968,000. In 1921
North Carolina ranked first in the
value of fertilizer used, and probably
has continued to hold first place since
1921.
The three states of North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia con
sumed nearly half of all fertilizer
used in the United States both in
1919 and in 1920, and approximately
two-fifths of the total for 1921. North
Carolina in 1919 bought 16 percent,
or more than .one-seventh, of all fer
tilizer sold in the United States.
Ordinarily it takes considerably more
than half of the gross receipts from
our tobacco crop to pay our annual
fertilizer bill. Our fertilizer bill in
1920 did not fall far short of the
value of our tobacco crop in 1926.
The 1920 fertilizer bill was approxi
mately as much as the value of all
school property in the state in 1926.
ESTIMATED NATIONAL WEALTH OF THE U. S.
Based on Bureau of the Census Keports
(000,000 omitted, except in per capita figures)
Tax-exempt real property and improvements
Agriculture and mining
Manufacturing
Railroads
Public Utilities
Personal and miscellaneous
Grand Total
Per capita
Annual Increase, percent
U. S. Labor Bureau Price Index
Per capita at 1913 prices
Annual Increase at 1913 prices, percent.
1880
1900
1912
1922
$20,078 i
f46.326
$96,923 $165,909
2,000
6,213
12,314
20,606
3,187
6,838
13,662
14,608
6,160
8,628
20,786
44,206
6,536
9,036
16,149
19,951
419
3,496
10,266
16,-414
6,262
8,982
16,202
60,210
43,642
88,517
186,300
320,804
870
1,166
1,950
2,918
4.61
3.61
9.22
7.24
94
81
100
166
$46,400$109,400 $186,300 $206,000
926
1,440
1,960
1,885
9.32
3.69
6.16
1.06
Chapel Hill, when asked that question,
replied, “I reckon we would have joined
together long ago, but for the preach
ers.’’ That is not the wholS story, but
it shows that one part of our problem is
to find leaders with vision. Without
them, rural life in North Carolina will
remain poor and barren. Yet it has the
possibilities of the finest type of life on
earth, if Christians will cooperate to
make it so.
WHAT MOTOR CARS COST
The Bureau of Industrial Technology
says that it costs upon an average more
than seven hundred dollars a year to
own and operate a motor car. In other
words the depreciation on the invest
ment, plus the actual operating cost,
averages slightly more than seven hun
dred dollars per car per year. North
Carolina now has more than 340,000
motor cars. Accepting the $700 annual
cost figure as correct, our motor car
bill is approximately 238 million dollars
annually. This is an enormous sum of
money. Most of it is cash that leaves
the state. An idea of the size of our
motor car bill may be gained by recall
ing that it amounted to the total value
of the state’s cotton, tobacco, and corn
crops combined for the year 1926. In
other words it takes an amount equal
to the gross value of our three greatest
crops to pay our motor car bill. We
may not be a’rich state, but we want
motor cars and we seem to be rich
enough to get what we want.
RURAL CHURCH PROGRAM
At a recent meeting of the North
Carolina Clufi Mr. F, S. Wilder, a gradu
ate student, presented a paper on A Com
munity Program for the Rural Church.
The following is a brief of his paper.
From the community standpoint the
church is an institution which ministers
to a human need, man’s desire to find
his relation to the universe in which he
lives and its meaning for him. The
better it meets the human wants that it
developed to fulfill, the more right it
has to the support of those interested in
the welfare of their neighbors. But if
the church fails to help men live a bet
ter life in this world, the community
may as weh sidetrack it as a waiting
room for people who are weary of this
world’s life and ready to leave it.
A Community Affair
Throughout history organized religion
has generally been a community affair,
and worship has meant the gathering of
the community. The only exception to
this has been Protestant Christianity,
in which creed and church polity have
been made paramount at the expense of
community life. Creeds may be par
roted, but real religious belief can never
be universalized in a detailed creed,
since it varies with individual experi
ence. Therefore, the church, to again
become a community affair, must place
unity of purpose and the spirit of loving
service above creed. Needless to say,
the rural churches of North Carolina
along with most rural churches do not
measure up to this ideal of community
service. Yet any rural church with a
vision of its possibilities and the obliga
tions of its position can make itself a
community church in fact, and do a
great deal to make Carolina country
life the best on earth.
In many parts of the country denomi
national cooperation is doing much to
prevent needless competition among
rural churches. In one community hav
ing two churches, perhaps a Methodist
and a Baptist, the church members will
agree to go to the Methodist church, at
the same time in another community
similarly situated all will join the Bap-
; tist church, thus making it possible for
e ach to have a resident minister. Then
only can a preacher become a true
minister to the spiritual needs of the
community. Such consolidation has
taken place in scores of rural churches
in America during the last few years.
An Example
A pastor of a church in the open
country furnishes an example of how
the church can bring religion into the
everyday life of the community and
make community life a fact instead of
a mere possibility. At the beginning
of his pastorate the church was dilapi
dated, and only old folks and a few chil
dren attended. The pastor began by
getting the young people to sing and to
play musical instruments for a church
orchestra^ They furnished music at
church, at bedsides of shut-ins and vari
ous sorts of social occasions, A young
people’s discussion group met twice a
week, once on Sunday to study the Bible,
and once on a week-day evening for a
debate, a mission education program, a
social, or a current events talk. All
this has made the farmers more neigh
borly and cooperative, and Christian
fellowship dominant in the community.
A surveyor once asked a southern
country woman, “But what do you do
for recreation?’’ “Why, we go to
church,’’ she replied. What an oppor
tunity to draw the young people to the
church by furnishing them whQlesorae
recreation.- The church should minister
to the need for play as well as the need
for work, worship, and friendship. Yet
how often has the church admonished
young people for seeking the best recre
ation they knew without giving them i
chance to enjoy a better sort. The
really important need of the rural
churches is to get a vision of their op
portunities.
The rural community of the future
may be expected to center about the |
consolidated school and the consolidated .
church. They should be located to-1
gether. The school ministers to the |
physical and mental needs, ^the church
to the spiritual. Officially, the church |
will promote such things as the Sunday
School, the Young People’s society, and ,
daily vacation Bible schools. Unofficially, |
it will foster Boy Scouts, playgrounds,
picnics, community dramatics, a com
munity library, and the like.
The test of the church is its ability to
minister to human needs in a way that
enriches daily living and builds faith
and character. It cannot do that in the
individual without dealing with all
phases and group interests of his life.
It can best do that by a united front in
the community. What is keeping de
nominations apart? An old farmer near
INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1919
In the following table the states are ranked according to the gross value of
all farm products per farm dweller for the year 1919. The second column shows
the gross current income per farm dweller (income from farm products which
entered into commercial channels). The third column shows the gross current
income per non-farm dweller for 1919. The third column covers the current in
come of all people other than farmers, as factory workers, and factory owners,
clerical workers, professional classes, etc. It refers to income, and not to value
of output.
In gross value of all farm products per farm dweller North Carolina ranked
39th with a value of $406; in gross current income per farm dweller our rank was
39th with a value of $276; in gross current income per non-farm dweller our rank
was 46th, the amount being $600.
Based on Income in the Various States, by National Bureau of Economic
Research. (Similar data are available for the years 1920 and 1921. The year
1919 was chosen because, for comparative purposes, undoubtedly it is the most
representative.)
Department of Rural Social-Economics, .University of Nbrth Carolina
-
Gross value
of all farm
Gross current
Gross current
products per
income per
income per
farm dweller
farm dweller
non-farm
1919
1919
dweller 1919
1 Nevada
$1,907
... $1,064
$820
2 Wyoming
1,475
958
811
^ J/xtr?o
1,466
669
667
4 South Dakota
1,422
669
708
6 California
1,417
916
825
6 Nebraska
1,271
483
694
7 Illinois
1,160
644
822
8 Colorado
1,065
609
704
9 North Dakota
1,042
610
629
10 Kansas
1,032
487
663
11 Oregon
1,010
630
766
12 New Jersey
990
666
736
13 Rhode Island
989
621
737
14 Washington
984
614
746
16 New York \
977
637
928
16 Massachusetts
960
610
794
17 Idaho
960
687
638
18 Minnesota
878
406
670
19 Connecticut
876
464
725
20 Wisconsin
869
463
610
840
371
628
22 Montana
817
427
^ 769
816
633...^.
761
792
339
602
oc AV.?/-*
770
379
738
26 Pennsylvania
720
368
698
702
392
692
700
824
670
29 Michigan
683
363
766
30 Utah
682
449
677
31 New Hampshire
660
296....
...‘ 636
634
348....
861
33 New Mexico
690
376
632
34 Oklahoma
689
364
680
r* f III
574
312
740
• 652
360....
666
298
656
412
277
463
39 North Carolina
406
275...
500
40 Georgia
386
266....
662
41 Virginia
:374
214....
674
42 Kentucky
368
213....
« 674
43 Arkansas
367....
243,...
562
44 West Virginia
354
207,...
664
,46 Tennessee
346....
192....
46 Louisiana
342
240....
647
47 Mississippi
339....,
241....
641
48 Alabama
296
200....
483