HB 6>OI Class Book. Gopyiiglit}]". C£iF£RIGHT DEPOSIT. Publications of the National Bureau of Economic Research^ Incorporated NO. 3 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES IN 1919 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES IN 1919 BY OSWALD W. KNAUTH OP THE STAFF OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OP ECONOMIC RESEARCH NEW YORK HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY 1922 COPTRIGHT, 1922, BT HABCOUBT, BRACE AND COMPANY, INC. Printed in the U. S. A. AUG 26 1922 OCUfi81521 PREFATORY NOTE The "Distribution of Income by States in 1919" is a by-product of the volumes on "Income in the United States" which have already been published by the Bureau. It is one of a series of studies which the Bureau is undertaking in connection with its main topics of research and which may later be collected in a formal volume. It is issued at this time in order to meet the special needs of many investigators concerned with the compar- ative capacity of the various states to bear increased taxes, to buy goods of various sorts, to absorb securities, etc. It also indicates the relative importance of agriculture in the different sections of the country. The present study undertakes to distribute the aggregate income of the American people among the States on the basis of such official data and other indices as are available. This distribution is based on data for 1919, and no single year is "typical." The small incomes received by farmers in Montana after the bad weather of 1919 certainly do not represent average conditions and probably less striking anomalies exist among the figures for other States. However, the distribution must rest upon the State data gathered 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, this paper has been submitted for criticism to the Bureau's directors and ap- proved by them. Hearty thanks are due to members of the Board for their 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 PoHtical 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. Laidler, Secretary of the League for Industrial Democracy. Elwood Mead, Professor of Rural Institutions, University of California. Wesley C. Mitchell, Professor of Economics, Columbia University. J. E. Sterrett, Member of the firm of Price, Waterhouse & Company. N. I. Stone, Labor 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. Ingalis, 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 OF INCOME BY STATES in 1919 I. INTRODUCTION In a previous publication of this Bureau, the income of the United States in 1919 was estimated at 66.7 bilhon dollars.^ This estimate was based on the incomes received by gainfully employed persons, and was divided into the following categories — INCOME OF THE UNITED STATES, 1919 Billion dollars Income of persons receiving over $2,000 per year (excluding farmers and farm laborers) $18.90 Income of persons receiving under $2,000 per year (excluding farmers and farm laborers) 32 . 65 Income of Farm Laborers 2 . 30 Income of Farmers 10 . 85 Corporate Surplus 2 . 00 Total $66.70 ^ Many of the items on which these estimates for the country rest are available also by States. The Bureau of the Census has pubhshed in its advance bulletins the number of gainfully employed persons on January 1, 1920 and most of the details concerning farmers. The Bureau of Internal Revenue has published by States the amount of income reported under the income-tax law. Where direct data of this kind are lacking, it is possible to construct index numbers which can be used to distribute parts of the total National Income among the 48 States. Such State estimates, of course, 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 one. For many purposes, it is quite as important to know the proportions of income received by States as it is to know the total for the country. Cer- 1 Income in the United States, Volume II, chap. 26. Harcourt, Brace & Company. 2 The amount distributed in the summary table below is 66.2 bilhon dollars; the difference of one-half billion dollars being the amount paid to soldiers which it waa impossible to distribute among states in 1919. 1 2 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES tain 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. (Excluding Farmers) The income of persons receiving over $2,000 per year (excluding farmers) has been treated in the following manner: The amount shown for each State in the official Statistics of Income, 1919, has been hsted. This amount requires adjustment for the present purpose in three ways: first, it includes a 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 not include income which should have been, but was not, reported. In order to 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) the amount reported as due to agriculture, $1,211 million, has been apportioned according to the percentage of farmers' incomes in each state and the ratio which the average farmers' incomes of each state are to the average farm- ers' incomes of the whole country; and (3) the resulting income in each state as left by these two adjustments has been raised to bring the sum for all the States to the estimated national total of $17,500 million. (See In- come in the United States, volume II, Chapter 22.) The last adjustment appears to be the least satisfactory ; it involves the tacit assumption that the evasion of income taxes by failure to report and under-reporting is uniform in all states — an assumption which may or may not be valid. ^ Next the non-taxable income must be apportioned. The income from homes owned by the individuals occupying them, amounting to 700 million dollars, has been distributed among the States according to the percentage of the total income-tax payers resident in each State. The remaining tax- exempt income, mostly interest on exempted bonds, amounted to 710 million dollars in 1919. This sum has been apportioned according to the total income of persons having $25,000 or more per year in the several A I States. The reason for this is that the exempt income appears to be highly ^ I concentrated in the higher range of incomes. 1 "I am enclosing my approval of the publication of the section on the Distribution of Income by States. I want to place myself on record, however, as believing that the facts are not in accordance with the presumption that there is an equal amount of failure to report and of under-reporting in every state. In my opinion there is evidence in the income tax statistics themselves that there are very large differences in the degree of accuracy of these figures in different states. Nevertheless, the question is so difficult, and is in particular so full of political dynamite that I do not see that the Bureau could possibly adopt any other course than the one it has followed." — Allyn A. Young. THE METHOD I PQ tf O £ w ^ 2 o J^ 2 03 ro pq Ph r-( Tj H O I— ( P5 O o o o m d c H 1 oi (U a^^l (L t) ^ X fl +^ o -ti 0. « fi q; G OJ H o ? X G J3 e Cl ' ' o H «« T! i bn (1) fl -t-i 3 P! tH 3 o T3 a <1 ^ ^H V tn 3 ■^ 6 'Ti- a 11 O 2 a rt (4 "^ i T! OJ m O 03 i4 a .^ 8 +3 CO 03 a w t3 u o >S 1 li] oo lyi rt ^ (B +J =s +3 C/J (M lO "-I t^ r-4 ^ O t>. ■* CO Tt< (M I-H T-< i-H CO cocoooooot>- OCOOCO(NfO M< CO CO 1— I rH lO oooooo LQ CO lO 1— I »0 C5 t^-*oeo._^o_tD_ io 00 a^ 1x5' CO t>^ C5 CO ^ CO Oi e s^ "S ■ OiCCO-ICO I CO I-H 00 1^ I O 00C2 ^ I CO lO 05 00 I CO 'ti I-H CO lOOO (NCOOCO CD ■* lO CI tN. lO 1— I I-H ■rH OS I— I rJH C<1 CO -* OOO COCOO i>^cq_oo__cq_^__cq_ 05 50CO-* (NO 05i-l(N 3^ a -. CQ c3 3 mi-H o c3 4) OJ •3 & S 2 o a I>.i-I05 U0»OO i>rco'"ar (N CO lO t>^QOt^ co" T-T OOO'* OiCO-* 05 00 1-H ooo t^ to t^ COTt.cO^ co" i-T ~) 05 >-H lO S co'co'co" e coo to ■^ co" i-T t-H ooco OOOOrtH O OiOO O IC lO 0_MC«5^ oi"oo'~cf a>ooo Ot^Tt< >.'a ^ ^ 03 t-i ai > & & g O) OJ m t^05 05C<) (N 1-1 cooiiooo OCOCOOIN t^COCOCO 05 t>-co o 00 lo Tt<__t>^oo_^(M_^oq_ ■^"(©"co'io'io" CO lOlM ooooo CO 00-* i>o TjH_O_-*_00_^00__ o~i>"io~co"co' Tjl ,-H O (N 1-1 C5 ""iti lOCO 00ai(M(M Oi_c0_^i-H_0_ \c"o'~co'"co' ■*(MOO COOCD(N feq ) CO O ■* 'H Pc^Ti-Tco't-^ )1-H t^ Tfl CO )C0CO iO(N CO OilCCOlO 1-H t--. lO CO l>- (N oo 050 O00C. t^ 00CO-* »0(N 03 fl.a ;,.2 gi£! 8 C5 l>(N CO i-H OS CO 1-1 r-H Tfl t>. O CO >-l oo_05_oo 05 lo 05 r- oo'"m<'"co'"qo'"-*'~-*"(n'~ C^ ■* TJ* Tti o 1-1 1-1 05 ^ O CO 1-1 (N 1^ CO Oi CO CO T}< o CO 00 -* O (M lO T-i CO ooooooo Tti i> lo t^ Tt< 00 >— I (N^iO^-^^^iq^O^Tt^^^O,^ co'"j>"co''co"iO~T-ro'~ ICO (Ml^O t^Oi I lO CO CO (M »0 CD ■_00 ■^ I— I 05 CO CO rc0 00 Oi 00 (M CO O CO 00 (N CO 00 t^ C5 CO (N t^ »o to CO 00 1^ lo r^ rjr,M~t^''(>^'cr(M''io'" >— I Oi O CO 1— 1 ■* CO W*-* i-l(M(N o3 a 03 O o .. T^^ o3 a '^ to 2 S 03 m *i 73 fc S THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES c3 -ti O H >^^ 03 "S 0^ Si a o 42 ><: fl O -►^ 03 a « s s a S fi o x-ex ncoi m h <^"^ o H .i: T3 i bC Qj oj a just und orti -O tH o. 1 o "K og O-lSfN tf 2^ a> -tj 03 02 SO l^ ■>*< CO ■* 05 00 I> CO (NOlOfO OiOcOiO O O t-H i-H ,-( 05 00 rH CO iO-** C<> -* CO (M 05 O OOOi-HOS 1-I0505-* CO 1— I C<) 1— I i-t I-H .— ( I-H C^a>_co_i-(__ i-H"t>rio~co'' I-H m ooooooooo l^COO-^iOOOt^cO I-H oooo ^ 10 05 lO 00 CO CO 1-H t^CD^iO-CO" OOOO 00 CO »o r- Tj^^Ol^O^T-t^ ■^^ccco ^ caicocoo5t^oo COCOt^fOr-HOOCOCOi-H -*_CD__0_(N_05^(N^i-H_^(N_05_ (D 0^1:0 coco a^ CO -^ CO iCOfOi-iOOlMr-iOOCTi CO I-H COT}H(M o~ ^'~cO COiOOit^COOOOOO fOt-iO(M»0(Nt^-ooooi^ CO CO »« t^ IN t>- ■* OOOOOOOO OOOOCOOCDOlN CO 00 CO lO TjH CO_00 1-H lo^c^TiN't^rT-rc^rcfi-r O^i-H-*(M(M«0 00 I^IOINIOOCOOOO OCDCOOlOOl^iOIN OIXN cji I-H CO Tf^O TJH^C^TCO" CO lo oi (N I-H 00 05 1CC0 ^ COI>iO ^ CD 00 CO o •t^ TtTT-To" TtH-^CO (N I-H 00 CO lO I-H lO CO t>. O tH ScOlO-* iNt^Tt^iOiOl^iCOO -J? ^(N05 o 05_co__-*^iN^a5_io^o>_ .§ 00 oo__i-H__ 00 cfoTc^r-^'co^io^i-H" Q o'r^^cT l> •* CO T}H (N •* Tj< ,-H ,^(N(N-# '-I tH (Nf-it^ coo 00 »0 CO ■* ic 1-H rvi IM I-H T}< 00 COOO 1-H C< O •* Tt< (N •*< 03 CO t^ (N OCO^^ iq^t>._iq^I>^iN_cO^ co_kC_co__0_ T^io co"co~co'"i>"c-H 1-H CO ■* -.# CO (N ■* 00 (N t^JJOrft CO (N CO CO ^ t^ (N CO i-HCOCO t^OCOiCcO(NO OOiOOO i-H'"(N'l>riN»0»0"cOCOi-HCOOOOCO lOiNINCOOOOOOO t--_co__i>.__oo_^io_'-H__oo__i~-_oq_ iN"cr(M'"io~Tiro'~ario"i-r »OININOIN'OIN0505 CO I-H C^ I-H 1-H I-H 1-H OOiOINCO Oi-HOOO CD^C0_t^_O_^ i-ro~eo"iN" Ot^T-H Oi OOOlNCO COCOI>Tj< t^^i-H^^CO^IN^^ cocoaTa^ i-H>i-i o I-H 1-H N IQ OSOiiCOOiOi-HOOCO 00CT)t^i-HCOiON.Tt< iO_CO_CO__i-H__l>^cO_l>_0_^ oo'"-*'i-H"o"co''aro"T)r t>.iO'*coiN->a*»ciT-i COOOO COOXN co_co_o^ •^ CO CO (N I-H 00 QJ-O o is ^ g gj o 03. g Is o o3 a •J g o3 ^.So3 I So O tC C ID cs g H 3*3 03 3.^ a bi) /^ *i o a 2'=^ 9 -• s o =«.>>o «-E-2i 5 a o .Bat: (^ tH 03 THE METHOD 5 B. Income of Persons Receiving under $2,000 per year. (Excluding Farmers) In apportioning the total sum of wages received by persons having less than $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 relative numbers 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 of the eight main groups under which the Census classifies the occupation returns is reported by States in the Census of 1920. From these data and from the estimated number of persons having incomes over $2,000, it is possible to approximate the number of persons in each occupation group in each State having incomes less than $2,000, To this end, the number of persons in each occupation group as reported by the Census has been adjusted in the ratio appHed to that occupation group in the estimate for the whole country. These reducing ratios are computed from Tables 23E, F, and G of Income in the United States, volume II, chapter 23. From this point forward, the general method of estimating the total wages in each State is the same as that used for the United States. This procedure consists in multiplying the number of persons in each occupation group by the average wages for the corresponding group, and adding together the products in order to find the total wages in each state. While this computation gives the estimated total payments for personal services, it does not show the total income from all sources. In Chapter 23 of 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 was about 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 of persons receiving less than $2,000. The results are shown in the summary table. The following form was used for estimating the total income of wage and salary earners in each State. A complete transcription of the original data used in making the estimates would be extremely cumbersome and would serve no useful purpose. The original tables, however, are open to the inspection of anyone who is interested. THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES So Sm ^P5 ^^ C-i rv, teQ S5 pi] el P5 ^o Hp£J Of Cl g 3 sS !» ^, *:< t, Qj Qj bc ^-S-2 g « m ^ > bD43 I S ^ S § 05 t< O 01 OO O J. Ol 2 a o.>S fl S3 -S o o ^ a £ ri CI I>COO 1-H 00.-I 00 GO CO l>.CD ococc 00"QO"i-r OOCO-ti lO IC lO VrrGo"-* 0-* CO-* 0201 O5_oq_ ot>- fO'*00'-HOOI>OCO '-H(Noo05(M-CCCDOOO 05 10 00 00 CO CO l> I© coco 1-H Tji CO CO-^-^iOCOOilMt-- Tt_'-*_C0__(N^ !--.__ C5_ l>"io"-*"c rJH iCi t-H (M •* "3 QJ S w '/I V • -- II ill 2 il ■i-5 11 (Tl :S •^^ T3 !r> C ^ J -(J 1*1 S fe 03 a -tJ a CO u «1 .a s: ;:d »o .s;^ Oe^ THE METHOD 7 As said, to estimate the annual wages of persons in each occupation group, indices were found for each State, and applied to the average annual wages for each occupation group in the whole country. In this way, the different wage levels obtaining in different States, as well as the different occupations of the gainfully employed in different States were given their due weight. The sources from which the varying income from wages imputed to different States were drawn are as follows : — (1) Mining. The Census of Mines and Quarries, 1919, gives the total wages paid and the number of miners paid in each State. (2) Manufacturing. The Census of 1919 gives the number employed in manufacturing, and also the total wages paid in each State. (3) Transportation. The reports of the Interstate Conmaerce Com- mission show the wages paid for similar work in three divisions of the country — Eastern, Southern, and Western. These, together with similar data furnished by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, have been used as a basis for adjusting wage rates by States. The number of persons employed is estimated from the Census of Occupations, 1920. (5) Public Service. This is a small group, for which no systematic wage data exist. The relative wages have been apportioned in general conformity with the other groups. The estimates of numbers 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 of Occupations gives a basis for estimating the numbers of persons. (7) No systematic data exist in the field of Domestic and Personal Service. Owing to this lack, an index based on manufacturing wages was used to determine the relative rates in each State; and the number of persons employed was estimated from the Census of Occupations. (8) Clerical. The relative wages of clerks in manufacturing and transportation have been used as an index for computing the rate 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 Department of Agriculture, vary widely from one State to another. The rates used here are average monthly wages without board, and thus furnish material only for an index of variations. The average wage of farm laborers in 1919 was estimated at $518, and the total wages at $2,302 million. This total for the entire country was apportioned among the States according to the index of variations made by taking the products of the number of farm laborers in each State times the average monthly 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 compUcated of the various subdivisions with which we have to deal. Without an actual census of farmers' incomes, the extraordinary diversity of production and costs presents problems which can only be solved in rough approximations. In addition the reports of the Department of Agriculture contain duplications which may be elim- inated only in a broad way. These reports do not differentiate between the crops which are sold as crops and those which are sold or used to feed animals. While such corrections may be made for the country as a whole with a tolerable 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 of product or of expenses among the States, the larger ones only have been chosen 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 of chance, for among the products of each State no account has been taken of 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 relatively minor importance and do not affect the vahdity of the index to any marked degree. The items comprising the index are by all odds the largest affecting farmers' income. And they are also the items concerning whose distribu- tion by States we have the most accurate information. Most of them are reported in the Census of 1920 and the others, for the most part, rest on Census data. The method of attack has been to take as a basis for the farmers' income of each State the crops raised. These are definitely recorded for each State, and form, for the country as a whole, about nine-tenths of the value THE METHOD 9 product of farmers. To the value of these crops must be added the value produced by (1) animals slaughtered and (2) animal products over and above 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 that the 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 that about twenty per cent of the value of animals slaughtered is an addition to the value of the crops that have been fed to these animals. While this rule seems to hold for most of the country, an exception must be made in the range states (Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada) in which the value added by animals above the crops they are fed is estimated at fifty per cent of their total value. This change in ratio is due to the fact that crops (range grass) on which these cattle are largely fed is not counted by the Census in its value of total crops. Of course, the same remark holds true concerning all animals which are out at pasture; but it is "more" true of the range States. That there is a distinct difference between these states and the rest of the country is indicated by the fact that in all other states there are 54,624,057 hogs and 50,822,210 cattle; whereas in the range states there are 4,722,352 hogs and 15,830,349 cattle. In the rest of the country, therefore, hogs and cattle are roughly equal. In the range states there are more than three times as many cattle as hogs. In addition, there is Httle fattening of cattle in the range States. Having deteraiined on the proportion of the value of animals slaughtered which may be considered a net addition to the value of crops which they are fed, it remains to determine the value of animals slaughtered. This ^ 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 might stand State A produces crops worth $1,000,000 State B produces cattle of gross value 1,250,000 State B produces cattle of net value (20%) 250,000 Total value of agriculture in both states (A + B) 1,250,000 The million dollars worth of feed bought by the farmers of State B from those of State A is thus counted out. (b) If one set of farmers in one state sell feed to another set of farmers of the same state, who raise only cattle, then the record stands Valueof crops raised $1,000,000 Value of cattle slaughtered 1,250,000 Net value of cattle slaughtered 250,000 Income of Farmers. . . . , 1,250,000 (c) If all farmers raise crops and feed them to their own animals, then the record stands Value of crops raised $1,000,000 Value of animals slaughtered 1,250,000 Net value of animals slaughtered 250,000 Income of Farmers 1,250,000 10 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES figure is not included in the Census; but the Bureau of Animal Industry reports the total production of meat; and the average values of the different kinds of animals slaughtered are shown in the Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920. 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 U.S. inspected Other Total number slaughtered Average value Total value (thousand dollars) Cattle 10,089,984 3,969,019 12,691,117 87,380 41,811,830 3,545,100 5,072,000 3,573,700 160,100 24,868,500 13,635,084 9,041,019 16,264,817 247,480 66,680,330 $44.22 25.00 11.63 10.00 22.00 $ 602,943 Calves 226,025 Sheeps and Lambs Goats 189,160 2,475 Swine 1,466,967 Total $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 is attributed 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 of the total crops produced. In order to divide this among the various States the total value of beef cattle, sheep, goats, and swine was taken for each State and the $652,952,000, was divided in accordance with this index. The assumption underlying this division is that the value of animals slaughtered in the States varies in the same ratio as the value of the animals in those States; an assumption which appears to be in general accord with the 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 of this value may be considered a net addition to the crops that are used to produce it. On this point the evidence is less clear than in the case of meat production. 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 to feed and about forty per cent to other items. This proportion is broadly corroborated by Mr. H. A. Wallace, Editor of Wallace's Magazine and by Mr. F. A. Peck, formerly of the Bureau of Crop Estimates and now with ^ Supplied 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 considerable duplication, since many animals are sold twice; it is only in the range States that there is little re-seUing 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/ then the net addition is found to be $1,067,000,000. Since the total value of animal products is reported by States, the amoimt to be added on this account 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 by the 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 those animals on the other hand. These crops are mainly hay, corn, barley and oats, 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 our present 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 Army ration — 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 $ 652,952,000 Value added by animal products 1,066,828,909 Total value added $1,719,780,909 (2) Total value of animals slaughtered and animal products $5,154,643,044 Less value of crops fed to live stock (total value of crops fed $5,698,995,210 less 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 and animal products over and above the crops fed to animals differ by about 11 per cent — not a wide difference as such matters go — and indicate that the percentages used in estimating the net addition to animals slaughtered and animal products are tolerably reUable. 1 Summary of the Census of Agriculture, 1919 and 1920. Table 26, page 15. 12 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES CO H < « IS O O ^ 02 O o I— I H C3 CQ I— ( H < Eh > P Q 2; rt CO 1— I 050 o o> •* CO 005 T-H GO ■^ CO 00 CO CO Oi o 05C0 ■*o —Tgo" r* ?D 00 00 (M O (M o ■"^tNt^C^i-iiOTtiT-i «5~ ■*'-l'* t>oo lO T-H cOi-iooco'*r^o.co eo'co" ■Ti- 05100050"— ICOIO C5_'-i -rt.CO(M(N 05(Mr-(C5lOC00505 o'S •^^co'co^i-Tco^or C»0>— it^Tjit^ 00COCO00t^(NI>O5 o 05 1— I ooo loco CO 1-H (MO N lO O >0 OSi-H U3t>. CO O O 05 o"co" cT i-T c.COr-(OOt^O T}HiOCO(N(N'*00 ■"^ ,-) T-f^^iO "^fO .^ oo"§ co" •^" lo eo' CO*-! "-H •^COCOOSi-tTjfCOO OSt^-OOiOTPCOCOiO t^ CO t^ t^ co_ i-H o o> OS s 03 g «*-«« o ^ O m « a; rt to N Xi S flu3 - So iu-r3 o ^ 0} X Qj o3 w SH O 03 ^ O -kJ c3 5§ Q So r3 "-I • 03 o ^° • H I (V o (NC^l^'-H lOOOOOiO (N-* lO .05 lO l-» O Oi 05001^ T-H OOt-H GO lOCOCO o> lO lOOO "-I «DO> O (N COt^ -00 00 osi-H CO Ol>00(N »-H COI> 05 O --I l>00 005 CO iC O iC I—I t^OO •«ti CO 0(M --HCO COr-(CO (N (M rH (NOO lO 00 1-H l^ t^lNC<>0> CICOi-HO (N »Cn-ICO J^ bC bC bC -^ c3 c3 c3 . ^ li^ K- K- THE METHOD 13 Q S J is < ^ OS ««-i H o Z OD ■* T-H 00 Tj< C^ lO 000500t^(NCO»0 TtiC^OiOOCCOSOO i>rS CD ocToo'coV-'' 00 ^ lO T}< i-H I> Oi TJH CO O 05 l--> t-H rt<*'r-rrt<'"io'co"i-r O »-l '^ CO rH 1^1 00 1-1 O CO t^ lO CO lO Tfi lo fc 1-1 t--^co_05_-<*^i©^co__ CO rj^ lO 00 (N 'ti 00»-l C<1 O 000»H 05 05 CO lo ■* 05 00 lo (M^CO_^t>.(N (M_^(N^ tNToTcT lo'co'co" as o CO CO i-t lo ->* 1-1 lO oooo»Oi-ioeo CO 00 CO i-H rfl 1-1 0_iC_(N^i-i_CO^CO_^ b-"io~c~ O »OCO00i-(00 CD I— I 1—1 CD 2^ o no J~t3 « S ^-1 a fl o 43 OjH eOCDOOCOOOCDOl-* OJIMr-Ht^COTtHOOOi CO-^CMOOi-iCDOOO CD ■ CDTt.lM»0 (Ni-iioosai-^coi— I i-H_00 C0__C5_CO 00 O CO CO CD^IM 00i-iO5'-i tH 1-1 •r-(Ttroo'"r(N' 1-l^CO CO lOt^ 00 i-< OOCOOOCOCOOO i-tTtHOOfM-^Ot-- C0__CO "oriQ" Tt< '-' CD T-t ■^ 1> 1— I 00 C^ 03 'rl a § 03 03 ■T3 03*" O O ^ , ro (-1 0) P CO IS3 g « « 43 o ^ (U X OJ o3 O O an O o3 £| ■*J 03 »OC01>fO 03 CD 1— I ■^ (NO0i- o so O O «00 .go t^OJ CO CO ■* CO 05 t^ co^i-T o6~ T-H>T}H 00 00 iccoo 1-1 CO tH 1-1 CD^(Ni-i iNCOOCO T-i 00 i-< 00 lO 05 1— I o 03 1—1 05 CO co__oo^ O^ CO^r-T (m" lO 1-1 CO B 3 .Si o 1-1 1-1 O o 2'« 14 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES " c3 go CO cocoes * co't^cf >-H CO 00 (Mt^ coc:50 coooo ■*-* (M oo__co_o^ CD^CO^TjT eO(N(M (M «0 i-HOO iOOt-h OHOO 00"* CO CO iM — I OO 1— I O ■*Tj< 00 O t^ lO O 1-H o (M CO 05 lO (N CO 0_^(M_^*t~^t-»0>— lO i-H^iM 05 o^ oq^io^o CO co"!2 oo' tCcD^O^io" (N^O CD lOCO CO 7-1 (M COi-HOOiOCOOOClO •<*'— lOOcOCOOCO (N C^ i-H COO-* t^ ■>-H(Ni-l-*05C0t^Tt< lOOiOCOClOOOt^ 1-H^co co_ iq_co_co_^co_ (n"?? oo" <>f io"io"^~ CO'-^CO CO CO-* 00 i-i »OTtcocH R c3 .. q; C3 g ro c3 O oj oH O 3 03 CO tn i: g-s a gas ?^ :3 ra aj Q 00 SI ^ o pa ^ ^

iC iCi CD CO O CD-* 00 OOOCDrH Cl T-H cD»0 CD (N-* CD OO CO lO O lO T-H CD co'i-T co" 00 OS lOcD T-< CO 00 »o •* -* OS T-( c: co"(n' (N CO OOlMOSi-H t-^ 00 CD (N Tt<__OS__— 1 (M__ 00"i-r i-T ag sh aj 0^ a^ S bC bC bC ,0 03 03 c3 C ^ tH b< c Qj a> aj 3 > > > <<< rn on 3 r/1 r»J C a OJ aj uu oo (MO» OS OS I— 1 1— 1 <0 « -a -a ->-> 'i 1 C4-I o o tf s s 3 ft5tt) ^1 ^ u 5i K M « ;o -W-TS '^'^ THE METHOD 15 fe o 03 ►J s o (N CO O »0 «0 Oi O CO ■^ 1— I CO-* (NCO i-H CO 10 05 CD CDOTf^t^O(NOOT-^ 1— l(NlNrHC0'*l01>- co CO CO CO 00 o co_^co__ o'S co^o"©" co'^i.o'" 00 ~ T-H I-H CO t^05 00 OrH rt< COt-I I-H CO T-HIN .-IIN 00 lO (N(N M< CO 0303 C 03 a + + -^ -^ -S a-TS 02 r= tC jV 03 c3 a; < ffl u Tti'-i00CDl>OO'-i lOi— iiN02'-HiO'#O__ cc'S T-H^co^oTiN o'o" O '-'■*■* T-i CO -+I ,_(,_ll-,.l>.COC005»0 oooO'*'<*'cococoo CO"— I'^'OCOOO'^cO >00005t^CDOOOO OOl-^ascOr-HINiN o CO '-i,t~-:,o_02_co__iN_^ C.iO (NCOCOOr-HCOOOO ,— I t>. i-<_^t^00_^CO '-<^iO_ Tt^S lO'i-Tio" (N^iO" OOP'-H T-HCO iOrt0005(NCOOi 03IN'— i|>.OCOlNGO (N CO cD__iN_^oo__Tt<__aq_Oi^ cT?^ co~t--"^'~c o O 00 °cO LO to IN '-< O 05 -H ,V~ CO IN 00 ^ CO CO CO 00 CO t^ CO CO COIN-* CO t:^r-ICOTl< CO t^ a> IN COrjH-*^ CO lOt^co r-.__-*^ co_^ oTi-T T*" CO IN CftOO CJl t^ 00 lOO 00 iNOOr-ICO IN O 03 lO ^ ^ 03 IN (N ^ '^ l^03 (N»0 O 00 03 05 00 O I>03t> CI CO CO O O CO CO ^00 030 1— I t~- 03 ^ 8 p^ '^<<< ^3 Oo 03(33 O o •2 '^ 16 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES i>c COO O3O5(N.-0 05iN(MO: Q (N COCOCOO 1 X IC_I>_.-H_ 1-H 1-H t>. (NlNCiOOOiOOOrH ^ i-H 1 OOININ 1 l~-~fe o"'-roo'"o'~(N''-* CO ° lO 00 »-< lO O 0^ i-TiCio' CO C005 IC lO COIN O I— 1 t^ooco 1> 0505 o: 00 CO rH •* o_ CO i-l 00^ i-H CO OC 00 ■* I— I T-T 1— 1 d. ^ II .. o ll ■* 2 I OOOIO CO o^ 00COCO(NiOl:^Tt*Tt< o 1 l^ • CO t^lNCOOi 3 > "* GO iQ lO oo t^cOOkO(NTtHOCC b- O OOINCD'* Q C3 Ci O 05 0_lN CO^-<# CD__00 CO^iC u:ro c(NI»-*'-Ht^'-H(M IC ■* cocor-ic 03 rH^CO^-*^ o_ ■*_©_ 00 ■* ■>*_00_-«i<__T)<_CO__lC IC 00 -^O CO t h-) oo~S orco'i-Ti-Tc^'oc io'-:(N (N 1-HCD '^COlCi icT co^io" CD Tj< lO »-l Tf o Oi-l CO r-l Tj* Tj< CO (M (M CO 1— 1 I-H 1-H o . o ll §1 5l CO II 9 g H ^ "a »OTf O CO COt^t^QOCOiQOi-* o- lO OOCO-* cc 03 (N_O0_O5_ 00 lOCD 0_0 05_(N__0_05_J>,C kC CO 1-HO lO |§S o § (©■"iCo" lo" io'im" CO^S (N~-«l<"t>-"'-roo'~'C I> '*■ IN^rH" C0~ Z COIM'-I lO »o t^ t^ t^ g 2 o CO CO lO IN IN C^ § II ^. w Olt^i-H Tf4 lOlC OCOiOcOrttCOcO-^ r-H CO O5O1CD00 3 Q c3 Tt^ (M t>. lO Tfl CO OCftTj^COfNOOC^-* (N ^ 05 Tt< t^ C5 CO •<*,'-i. '^ t-^lM^ CO CO O O l^ --1 (M_^(M C i-H_ 0^05 CO_ f >-} ^ '*"o'"cr(N"co"u: IM ^. CO tH rH t^ CO co" co" in" < OCOi-l rf< (N ■>* Tf< lO 3 g CO CO Tt< (N (N (N IN co^ , IC'-H'* CD IN »-i i-HO(NiCt^OcOC T^ c i c c ^ t^ CO t^ lo g a '*l-°- ■*cDOiOrco~ O'S UD CO^T-TcO^I^O- t^Po r-^ (NO- CO c o" in" tjT oT-i § rHlO(M 1> -* ■* ■» i* lO S; 03 CO CO CO (N c ^1 c^ 3 a 4^ .a 05 "3 S 5 lOOO^ CO 05»0 OOCOt^(Nt>.COOC 1> t ■* COOOOSt^ < lO (M !>• 05 CO 05 O00t>-05iCIINl^(N cc c O INCOt^OO H CDOICO oo'"o''o" IN cO -* "O^i-H 0_IN_iC ic~g >o"co"oo~T}ro"'-H t^'-r ''S <-< COi- cr c o coa> ic h" o" "O" ^iO(M i> t^ cc c D t^ 3 o3 ai.5 CO CO CD .- (N c ^ (N :-2 : :§ : ill 00 ^ o.a : E>> : a, 5i 3 o q5 k -^ 1 ■s 03 + pq + ccS, a B m .3 3 , > ;!3 s £ • Oi 1 ta ^ 3 :< III H o3i: V i^2 S a;'*-' 3 ^o o C '3 41 or H &H 0) < > 1 1 C i 1-^ a. s- 0. 1 t i 1 OS < 1 < 03 1 THE METHOD 17 s o 4 9 2 ^ P OlO 00 00O5 t>. 050 00 oc »oco «OOt^OQOI^ OOO C5 10-* CO t^I> OCO IM iCi T-H05 CC(N (NO O <0 OOi-H 00 CO rt<0>C0CSO00l^O CDOC0005(M(N35 oo"S o" oo^^-r^jTio" (N°. .-H (N CT>00(Ni-<(N-*Oi00 lOOOt^TjH-rtHt^iOOO T-H lO 1— ( Ttl 1— I Tj^ (N 00~gi 00' i(M ■* iM iOcOtJ— ii>. OOI>rH.C000TtH I-H O ■* 1> t^lOCO t^OOCO (N rH lOCO ^'§ CO- OP T-H (M OSi-HCOO (NIC OKM ■* (Nt-I 00 00 (N I-H bC 03 ^ «3 o3^ a t^ b « 00 1=] m o3 oj « < w o OOTjHCOCOOOOCOrH lOOl'-iOOOOrO OO'-it^i-HCO'-HQOO lOl— lTt* r-i (TO t>- »0 00 •o (N lOCOCC coi>aiT-H cO_^00^tH ^- lO CO I-H 00 t^COOOi-H 05 I-H lO ■* Tj<»ci>co -* O "-H 03 00 (N 00 00 ■^lOOOcD CO lOO 1^ 02(M Tji 03 OOCOOiiO Tf< 03Tf< CO t>._'*^l> .t^00iO t>- CO O 05 CO i-l CO o ti;« ^ Qj q; QJ aj M bD M ^ 03 03 c3 fl >H b ^ a (u (u > > ^«< I bfl < o on -*^ 3 X V 0} ^■S <=> rt (N.S i-H-d -Si -1^ 03 ■^ 03 ^ 03 00 ^ -3 «-> -I-i "a a -^ Oi ^ . a> q5^ oo -d 03 II 0-73 CO "O 05?* 18 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES 9 OT3 (N 1-H lO CO cD"co"c"i>' t^(N o CO 05 o o_eo co^(N ■*.'*_ (n" i-T i-Tio" COrco'"'-H'"'-rio'io'~ CO O ■* O r-4 Ttl lO 1— I 1—1 CO CO-* lo C5 CO 00 CO rH O ■* O lO (NCOCOIXNO r-l CO (M CO t^ 1-1 (N_O_CD__TlH__00__t^_^ (M Tf 1-1 -* ■* ^5 O 53 o g (u ■ K^^e •ri ^^ , O O-^ O 03-3 « a> > (U ai -tf 03 S3 « 03 c3^ < « u coos-^eocoooco-* C^Tfit^OOOiCOOOtN OOOOlNT-iOt^tOO •"*iCiOOi-iOTt<0 cocooioicooo'Oio Oi ^ ■<*i ■* o^co__o_^__ lo'S wT r-Tco'co"— r 00^(N d CO (4 a « a> rs O 3 fc^ q; 0^ ^ O) b£ bC bC -g 03 03 03 C i4 ti ;-i n (u > > aoi 3 3 3 3 o bC bC <:< 'i 1 o O m tn 3 3 m C! a a; 0i 1—1 I— 1 JSM -*j 'f-i O o i? s? Q^ » 3 oq"q <» g gi ^ 53 ■ce '^^ THE METHOD 19 One other remark should be made concerning the variations among States in farming. Differences in crops and their values are taken account of in the Census figures; the same is true of variations in the amount spent on fertilizer, labor, interest on mortgage, and animal products. Crops sold by farmers to other farmers and used as feed by them, are taken account of first by using the entire crop values for each State; and second by adding to their value only that part of the value of animals slaughtered on the farm or 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 feed of animals, especially the proportion that is due to grazing, which are not taken account of in the Census figures. Such variations cause some error; corrected in a very rough manner for the range States alone. But the error cannot be large; for crops constitute about 90 per cent of the total value product according to this method of counting; so that the error must be in the 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 the cross 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 distribute among the States. Perhaps the best approximation is to credit it in the same ratio as the value added by manufactures in each State, an item which is reported in the Census of Manufactures for 1919.^ A comparison with earlier Censuses shows that this percentage distribution remains fairly constant from one census period to the next, so that there can be no great error in applying these figures to the total corporate surplus. 1 The low average income per farm in Montana ($137) may not be typical. Montana crops in 1919 were particularly bad; the composite number of all crop yields in 1919 as shown in the Department of Agriculture Year Book, 1920, p. 810, was 40, as compared to 83 in 1920, 66 in 1918, 55 in 1917, 86 m 1916, 107 in 1915, and 90 in 1914. The "hypo- thetical" value of all crops in Montana, 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 have expected 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 Une with the averages of surrounding states. 2 Various other ratios of distribution have been suggested — (1) the distribution of the non-agricultural income of each State; (2) the distribution of dividends received as re- ported by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Statistics of Income. Both of these methods are logical, especially the latter. It is questioned, however, whether corporate surplus really 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 of these 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 a certain independent interest. Of course this form of presentation is necessary because the Federal Income Tax data give arbitrary prominence to the $2,000 line. THE METHOD 21 < m o u o o O W H 05 •^ D "i H «2 o PQ H I iPi 03 3 at? O OQ o c3 egg !>^ O S O a; ^ § ^ S ;o ';0 00 CO -* 00 10^-*_IM__GO_^0_C»_ lO Tt< ■* 00 (M >0 CO (N r-t 05 ■* 05 ^005000 GO O OOt^ (M 00 00 rH_iq_Tt<_0_a3^CO_^ oo'"Ttro"-*"^"o^ •* <© 00 CO CO C5 r)H (M --H O "* 05 co~ OOOOOQ oooooo (N •* 00 O CD O eo(Nr^ l-lTf<0 (N -^OO -"j^t-Tco" COC^i-H (©coo O5r)H00 »o O >— I oo__^_o_ ■>*'~c-< ■^ l-H_p^t>-__t>_CO^ t>roo'~»o"t>."o6" •<*Q0>O(NCO co'^i-^'Tfc^r^ CO CD -^r^ CO '-Ht^OOO'-H t> t>CO 05 lO t^"c»oi>. s 00'-<(M(NCD CO CD t^ CJ3 CO i-H (Ni-iOi CDCDOiMIM t^ in CO (MM s rHirjOl •2 CDt^COO O «; •S CO (N TflcOCDCOCO 8 CO =; m 1 •« CD(NOCOCOOO OQOO V 00 i^^'* 00 1-1 r^rH i^ooGOOJ K5<=":i o CDt^C^OC* 5» CD ■* d5_05_CD__t^ rS 00"cD'o6"cD~C^cD_^'*_oq_io_ C«3~CO~CD'"'-riO Kl 1-H T-l <» (N.-lTfl ^ 1 1-1 ^ m IS CO CO O CO CO lO O) CD 1-1 00 CD.-lrt. CO CO t-- lOOOi OO OOCDIO IXN^t^OCO 1-iOCO CO-^OCDOi lO ■* i-i 00 t-- 00 CO(MCD •^ lO (M 1-1 1>. CO »i^ 05 O "3 t>. Cit^O lO »o r>. lO oi C<«rH t^(N»0 lOCOCD (MOO-^-^CO 1—1 >*»-HCO (N (M.-< m ON.O --1 "^O t^rHOl (NlMt^OOM (M lo T— 1 r- <— ( I— 1 lOiOO coocot^-* CDQOOO ■* t>- IM OiO t^OOCD(NI> COCOCO C2 10C0 t>.OOi t>-C»05(NC• •* CO •* (N (MCOlO i-tCOlM lOOO ■^ ^ ^co t^oot^ OCOCDCD(M & & § a> CD S 03 O (M ^ 1-1 CO 1> 05 Tf I— I »Ci CD C5 lO I>._CO_T-(_^QO_00_(N_^00 CO~CO"rjrc— I lO lO CO "^'*-'*^'^ '^^"'^'^^ CO'~l>~(M'"cl »-< tH 1— I c^-X>Zr S ooooooo ooooooo 00O OCDINlCCOOJt^ O ^OllCXNOrHt^ t; arco~c'''#"r}H'~o'" S 00 1> CO (M CO TjH Tj< ^ OCOO OOO'^'-i 00 (M t^ t^ CO lO ■<*< T-H_'*__0_00^l>_'-^^CO__ oo'"o"t^'~crcD'~or 00 C^ t^ 00 05 t^ C5 lOlClOO (NCO 05 t>. (M CO 1-1 Oi CO T-l I— I -^ t^ O CO ^ 00 05 00 C5 lo C2 r^ O0'~'*'co'"oo'"^''rirc-< COtIH-"* 1-1 (M(N So |o3i|5|| y te " is 3 -S 9 22 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES 'TJ DO ^ s a CO exc arm far orer 73 '"'^■S o a os~ Eh- e3 -u O H OJ O rv S; :3 U CO o ^ 3 So, o — -«£i a> :3 aj€^ 9 n o a> i^g^ M & a> 03 +i 02 oq_oq_c»cD_oq_(N_CR'-<_o^ iCi-IOOCO'00(M'-<(M T-lO5C0I>iOiQC0COSO lO^ iO_ Ci^ ^^t-^ "^^"^^ '^^'*« l>OG002»000f0TfiO 1— iC5C0O5CC>0lt^»-iT}< ooooooooo ooooooooo kOCO 1-1 rt< O 03 CO CD coo -^ -H CT> 1-1 Tfl^ 05^ (M__ C0_ t-»^ '*_^ O t^ 03(M --I ■* .W3 _<£i 05_05_ coiocot^ Ot>.«Oi-H -* 10.-H (M Oi 00 GO CO oooo oooo coo IMO t^(MCOO COCNTfi lO oq^(M^T-<__co_^ ^"co'co"-*" 1— I CO O CO oit^t^co »0^(M_^CO_r-H^ crcD"i>rTjr i-HCOOO-* COOIC-"* (NtJ00 oooo oooo C0rj<00 01-rt< 00(N CO_^CO_CO_^i-H^ O^-^'t^^io" 05i-HCOCOt^CO(NCO i-iOOCOCO(MOOOOO i-t^co_^oo_io_io^co o 03 ■^"i-H"i-rio~t>-''o"oo'~o'~ iO-*(MCOOil^cOU5 C^ I— I 1— I Ttl 1-H ,— I 0>Ol^COt^OO-*>-l C0CDO300OC0C^O> '-H^CO_(N_TlH_^'-H_t^_^CO__t- i-To^co^o"!— "-"-Tc^rio" OOCOIOO-*I(NCOCO (N (N 1-1 CO rH C<1(N OOOOOOOO oooooooo C0__0 (M_^0_^CO (M^GO^-* co^co'co'oo" efco" T-HOt-HlMlOT-Ht^O OGO"— i"*icOiOO'— < 03(MiCi'-H05(M'-HCO e J^ t^OO -* CO IN 00 GOO ^ c^ ^ CO iM CO ^ 03 CD GO t^co O 03 I— 1 lO 03 O^ ■^ fO "—I 00 OCOiOO0 ^HCNrHfO-^t^Oit^-* OO '-*„'^'-l.t>.__CO__(N_^(N__CO^ 00OC00005(N0iO'-i •^iN-^COCOr-tTlHIN COt^TtiGO-^OOOt^fO OO'-H'— I'-HOJCO'— tco CO 0> rjH t>. '-l.'*_"*.Oi^'-'„ (N~i>''"oo''t>^co'"oro'"co"io" COOOrJ<(N-*COlNOiO COrHCOTf_O5_00_.-H_ 02-*i oo^-. l-Hcocooo C50COIO (NCOt^-* (N_01>05^ Crorco''orio rjT S C<«(N (NT-trlrH ^O'*00C0OC0C0 OOCOt^iOCOGOOJIN i-H_CD__O_^(N_'-<^(N_C0__O__ TjrtCciOCOi-H»-tcO oo»-H(Nio->*eooiO eoioost^cooGOoo eot>io(N":iiNt^'* M, 03 • a 03^ a _ o ««,^o ^-aS V o <-< lo »-i cooooi ■* CO Ol CO lO CO 1— 1 03 to rjH coco lO OOtJh (N O 1 (NICO II lO m CO(N 1— 1 lO i-H ■<* 00 o K O ««# S 1 (Nt^CD It^ 1 CJ i-H ^ O -'-^ MS, Tt< CO iN 1 0~- II rH COO iO C lOCOIN '* Ws 1— 1 CO IN m OrfHC 5 CD TticD C- 5 CD t^OC^ (N (Nl^CC 3 IN lOCO »- lO lO(NC^ 5 — 1 (N Ol^Cs lO 05T-ICC •^r-KZ CD -jiNc: cOiOO IN (N^OC oo" m xri c D o .SS , 1 to 03 .3 fl c ^ 3 &.£ s^s ^ C u THE RESULTS 23 III. THE RESULTS 1. New York State with an income of about nine billion dollars, which is over one-eighth of the total National Income, has by far the largest income of any State. It is followed in succession by Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Cahfornia, Michigan, and Texas. At the other end of the Ust 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; and with the East North Central group and the New England States, have more 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 Washington are next with around $800. At the other end of the scale, with per capita incomes of less than $400 each are Georgia, Kentucky, North CaroUna, 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 per capita income of the East South Central States was less than half these amounts, or $364. 5. The average income of the gainfully employed shows variations from the per capita income due to the wide differences in the character of the employment of the population in the various States. South Dakota and New York head the list with just over $2,000; and close to this mark are Nebraska, Iowa, Delaware, Illinois, and Wyoming. At the other end of the list are Alabama and Mississippi, both just under $900. 6. The Middle Atlantic States have the largest average income of gainfully employed with $1,886 and the Pacific States have $1,837. At the other end, the East South Central States have the smallest with $979. 7. The per cent of non-agricultural Income in each State received by persons having incomes over $2,000 per year is difficult to interpret. The percentage is high where there are large incomes; but it may also be high owing to a large number of moderate incomes. If we had sufficient data to plot a curve representing the distribution of incomes in each state, such variations might be brought out, but this is not feasible with the existing data. South Dakota shows the highest percentage, having over one-half of its non-agricultural income received by persons with incomes over $2,000; next in order are Iowa, New York, Nebraska, Maryland, and Delaware. 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 milUon dol- 24 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES lars. Iowa and Illinois come next, each just above 600 million dollars. Rhode Island farmers are last, with aggregate incomes of three milUon dollars. 9. The largest average income of farmers is fomid 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 of Montana, which had an abnormally poor year in 1919, the States having the 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 North Central States have nearly one-half of the farmers' income of the country. The Middle Atlantic States have only 6 per cent, and New England less than two per cent. 11. Farmers' income constitutes over one-half the total State income in North Dakota. It is over 40 per cent in South Dakota, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Carohna. 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 the total income in the West South Central, the West North Central, and the East South Central States. On the other hand, they constitute about one- thirtieth of the total income in New England and the Middle Atlantic States. THE RESULTS 25 02 o o iz; I— I o CO <: ■g > I a"* ^ fc- rt tD t< S 0) o -a ^ 5j 3 oS gaa> ^ 8 (^ g, a ^ g bC53 ass g.c3rH 3 o.s.a'"' cS •^ 03 C Ph 005 3' Phi- =J a o OQ CO iM t>. IC ■* 40 00 r>- TJH CO C<5 t^ 10 ^ Tf 1-1 (N CO 000 1> IC-* 05 (N 00 (M (N 00 10 t^ t>. 10 00 t^ •<*! Oi t>- ■* 00 -* O CO IM t^ 00 O --H 05 O »0 05 CO CO O Oi t^ ^ ,_lrt^^,-<,-l c^co^co__ 10 CO-* r-H CO -^ i-H O o i-i iM r^oi CO i-H CO '^ 05 CO OS O C~I>^co"|>'t}h'~ o >o 1— I O >— I 10 c^ 05 00 CO (M C<1 rj< CO ■* I-H CO (Ni-H W'-' CO tH ONOO lONCDCON NC^CO i-H i-h O 00 O 00 00 CO O O "-H 0> 05!>050C^ C? CO 10 O CD t^ rH O CO^C^iOCOiO I>CD03 OiO-^OKN O»0t>.OC0C0C0 O ' ' ' rft ' vi COCO06 iO(Nt>-COlN C-< !» COt>.CT)OOOt» -^OOCO (M 00 05 (N 00 (N T-i 1>»OGO CO 10 ici ira t>- 1>- 1>» oot>-co oooocoo«o CO»CH>l>"3 T-( CO 10 »Ci »0 (M IN OOOCO T-H GOO o »0 t>- lO U3 CO t^ CO •>* CO 00 CO t» i-H T-i 00 (N lO 01 CO 0_0_'1*^CO_CO_CO_^ oo"co'"(n'~(m'"'1<"o' o ■* inioo 00 t>. th CO oo_co eo^ co" T-T dOriJ (N_0_0_ 00iO(N CO '-'^t^ o^co^oo" rt<00(Nt>. 05 Oi 00 1-1 CO CO^CO^(N^-<1<_0_ cTo'io'od'iN'" 10 CO 00 CO CO t^ 02 ■^ CO CO 10 i-i «0 IN !>. (N 1> rTtrTtr(:o~co"ccror OOOO-^COOICO CO •* ■* CO CO (N I> »0(NCDCO(N (N(NCO C0005000 00 O CO t^ IN 00 00 1-1 "O^rt^^O^Cl^CO^ oid~-*~co"-*"-*"cr Ttt CO 00 CO CO 05 ■>* (N f-H O^-^ 05 CO O5-*00 00__rH_O_ TjTcfGO" r>. 01 lO O CO Oj CO CO -^t^ CO i-< t>-000 1-1 |> t^CO^i^l^*^ t^c t^ 05 ^'*, CO^i-TTiTc^fr-r •«*< 1-1 00 CO ""ti 00 03 rH O IN 1-1 »0 10 CO "^■*_"*^'^_'^«"^'^_ CO'"l>~iN'"lN~CO~Crio" 00 05 (N CO CO O CD CO CO 00 CO ■«* 05 o 26 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY STATES Cm. So ^; COCOOlCOVOlCi-IC^liC coiocooocoosoji— lO OJOCOrHfOOOOO (M05(NlM 1-HOOOOO CO N >— I •— I ■*CC05C0 o >-< 10 ■* eoo50 05icooi^(N rHOlOOCOOOliOiO COCO00CD(N COOOOi ■rt< (N 10 t-1 c a (M r^ C• '— I '— I <:0 CO CO -rP -CO •~;,'^„'^_"^_ "^*-^„'^^^^ T-rCO~CO~fO~i— TlO'-^^OO^lO" l-T©) 00 "-h" Tfl rH T-H 00 OS O CC CC O 02 txM 00 »Ci(MOC CO CO CO t^ COOlCOOO^OSrHOO oo»ocoiccot>o^ tjh'co"— Tcc'cfo'cTtC r-(iOOOCO(MCOTfCO I i-H i-H T-H I— I T-H l-( I— I I— I CO '*0 (MiOlO»-i OlOlTtHOO Oi 00 00 (M ■* 00 CO 05 (N CKCO-^iO t--(NC0CO lvcOO0'<*i-*COTtCOt}-iO OOrH (M t^I>00 fO'-iTHt^.-ifO->*iiMcO OCOl>00OiMlMC0I:^ o CO 10 '-•^i> '~1,'>l'^„"*» CO* oT t--r oT eo'~ Oi" co" lo" 00" (N'^COOCOIOOOOICO (M ■* ■>* co_'^'0^co__oq_o OiC* 00 CO 00 1>- i-H CD__00__'-<_CO^ co^i^od'o*" I-H CO ■* C^i ■^cocot^ ■* O5CO00 00 00(M Oiccccco 10 CI (M CO t^t^O CO 05CO(N050(NCOI^ 00COO 10 Tjl 1-H 05 CO CO Tt< - 1— I CO (N 1>- 10 lO CT> 1— I t^ to C0_05_'^__ CD_00__C\O_ co"crcD~crio"cr»o"i-rco'" co co o oi t>. o 00 a> ic 00 CO ■* o ■* 10 rH (N 1-H 05 CO 05 CO 05 I> "-I ■* O50000CO Tfl rH IC lO !>•* 000 O»Ot^C0t^00-*T-H C0C0O500O00(N05 T-H__cO_(M_^'*_'-H^I>^CO_^l>_ i-ro~co"o~t^",-r(M'"io" OOCDiOO'^fMCOCO (M IM r-i CO fH (M C4 CO(N (N 0^cO_05_ co'co^oo" CD 100 o 1000 w ^ S pS THE RESULTS 27 W Eh < W CO t- p5 O w o u I— I o CO >^ < ;z; ni CI 8 H «, 'o 8 (= "O! 1> O fc- J3 O T-\ o oj q F (N (N ■^ir0>O(NC0 CO IQ fC-i .-H fo CO fo i-H c» i-H oi lO o (TO 00 T-H eo ic CO CD »o^oo (M 05 1> 03 oq_t>^T)^^ oq^oq^co^io^GC^ 1-h" i-t t-Ti-Ti-t T-Ti-Tcfi-rT-r (N lO •* 00 t^ 00 l^ 00 00 O >-< lO (N T-H Oi_C5 lO (M 'X' 05 ■* '-r(M'~,-rc 1— I c£> CO CO 1— I CO lO (M O lOO oo__cq_ca^(>i^(M_^cD_ co~ccri>"crco'~r-r l>i-(cO• t^i-i O5 00 00 1— I O CO I> I— I OO^^i-H^CO^C^^CD^^ co^co^o'c^Tcf CD t^COO iC "* coco coco lO iC Tfi O O CO lO O CD CO '^^ C5 Tj< O i>^o^ io^co__co__co__io COi> 'o"(M''QO'"':trar to CO O t^ CI CD 03 CO CD CO T-H 1— I CO CO l^ CO IC 1-H CO lO (N (N t^O OOiO (M__>0 O 0_0_CO_ ■*(M(NCO C^ 05 o »o co'oi'c^'" 05(NO lOCO r-l t-lO OC<>00rt< 05 CD_^^__'-*_'<^__ 1>(M CD l-H (M OOS O500-*(M00iO 00(NO500 (M 05 1^ O QOl>. THiOiC-rHCO^ CD' CO Oi OOiOSO »-hO(MO I>(NCOIO»OCOIOtJH coociioocot^io c-< (B _ c3 3 T)i,-i ^"^ooieoco t^wcoo lOO CO O --I »-i 05 1-1 CO ccrco"io"io"T-raro" 05 (M CO CO CO ■<* i-l rHTjH,-! CO(N Ol ooo irfi-To" CO C3 T-H T-H Tt( a rt O00rt<(N05C0C0(Mi0 ^OO'tiCCCOOSCOO i-H^O^C^ (M_^C^_t^_^ C0_t>-_^0^ o"i>r co^t^^crcfo"-*" >— I -^ 00 00 CO 05 I— t lO tH IMi-HCO CO TtH Ol 1— I co_r^__o_T-H^ ©"ofco^c^r i> lo >ol>- TfHCOl^CO O CO 00 CO CO^^-^^O^O^ c CO C<) 1-H r-l Tjl l>CO00TiHTtHlO(MCO l>0-^COTtH:^cDcO co^i-<__i--__C2_oq_a3^co__r-<_ i>-'"c I— ( o <: o I— I a o o o m o o "^ l-H o CO <5 U OJ P ° § ^ s^ d.2 "-^ oi S ^ 8 >.& 2-^ gX! o 03 O > O a; S 0< bCS o O ;3 |1h & -1^ o3 P CJ O (^ -2 03 Si 1=1 li O O 0) s ■^ c3 o P< O o O100C0O»OG0(MC0Ci(M OCO'rft.-HGOfO^r-llOi-l lO-^IXMcO t^TtHi:Ortoi>cocooco (MCOTfHlD l-H < o l-H w O O W o W « O o u "^ I— ( o 9 '^ SJ 9^ a3 fl i=i 9 Ph^ bC o '^ bC'" 3 OD DO '^ e B c S g ^ 03 3 03'" O -►^ «*- -G H 0)

-_'-H_ .-ri-rTti''oo'~o'~-*"crTti~(;£r >O00«5(N(MiO^cc o o~ (N"cco-*-*i>i>oooo'X) co" T-Ti-Ti— T'h" =5 S 5 s^ d as CO S b| S O § LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 779 105 5 •