PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thIs checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

.. 1.1 5
162

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
encircmpma

 

 

A MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S PUBLIC INVESTMENT

IN THE EDUCATION OF-l940 DECADE

FARM-NONFARM HEGRANTS

By

Robert Jackson Bevins

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHIIDSOPHY
Department of Agricultural Economics

1960

Approved 5% 8 W
7

7 v

 

11

ABSTRACT

When people migrate they carry with them the investments which have
been made in them. This phenomenon has long been recognized and the
literature abounds with references and near references to it, but rela-
tively little has been done to systematically estimate the transfer of
social capital which off farm migration occasions.

In this study an attempt was made to determine the magnitude of the
unamortized agriculturally derived public educational investment which
resided in off farm migrants of the 1940 decade. The estimating pro-
cedures used involved making estimates of the educational attainment
of the migrants and converting these to the number of years of elementary
and secondary education and the number of years of college training.
Appropriate adjustments were made to allow for the fact that presumably
in time the investment in education amortizes itself.

Estimates of the cost of education in 1940 were used to produce
estimates of total public investment in the education of off farm
migrants. Next, estimates of that proportion of the total public in-
vestment derived from agriculture were used to produce estimates of
agriculture's contribution.

It appeared that the educational investment made by agriculture in
the migrants was about $2.5 billion in 1940 dollars. This amounted to
a little over $5 billion in terms of 1959 dollars.

These estimates of agricultural contribution to the social capital

of the nonfarm economy could be viewed in perspective only if it was

‘ ‘qu

 

 

iii

realized that this drain on agricultural incomes was only a small part
of the total drain which resulted from excess population in agriculture.
Conservative estimates indicated that family expenses far exceeded the
agriculturally derived public investment in the education of these
migrants. Government payments over the decade were about $4.5 billion
in terms of 1940 dollars. This suggested that agriculture contributed
more to the growth of the nonfarm economy than farmers received in
government subsidy, for the drain on agricultural incomes occasioned I

by the rearing of off farm migrants far exceeded the transfer payments

F—

by government to agriculture.

Net new investment in physical farm assets for the 1940 decade was
about $4.6 billion in 1940 dollars. Agriculturally derived public edu-
cational investment embodied in the decade's off farm migrants was about
$2.5 billion. This suggests that during the "forties" for every two
dollars of net new investment in physical farm assets, about one dollar
of investment by agriculture in the education of off farm migrants be-
came part of the social capital of the nonfarm economy.

This study clearly indicated that there is a flow of social capital
from agriculture to nonagriculture. At the time of this study it
appeared that the society was very cognizant of the nonfarm to farm
income transfer through government agricultural programs and only
slightly cognizant of the reverse flow of social capital.

Should the nonfarm sector become aware of the contribution which
it appears to be receiving from agriculture it is possible that attempts

may be made to find ways by which more ”equitable" participation may be

 

 

 

iv

had in the costs of rearing and educating farm people who are destined
to make their productive contribution to the nonfarm economy.

The implications are many, but only those with respect to education
are dealt with here. For states in which the off farm migrants remain
within the state, state aid to schools could help reduce the heavy
pressure on the agricultural sector. For those migrants who leave the
state, there seems no alternative to federal aid to education, if the
intent is to remove the heavy demands upon agriculture that have arisen
(and will continue as out migration continues) as a result of the in-
vestment that is made in the education of rural youth who then migrate
to the nonfarm economy.

From the standpoint of society as a whole there is considerable
evidence that a much greater investment than is now being made in the
education of most migrants would be justified. In view of the already
heavy burden borne by agriculture, it is probably too much to expect
that industry to substantially increase its expenditures in the educa-
tion of off farm migrants, especially since the nonfarm economy would

be the major beneficiary of such increased provision of social capital.

 

 

A MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S PUBLIC INVESTMENT
IN THE EDUCATION OF 1940 DECADE

FARM- NONFARM MIGRANTS

By

Robert Jackson Bevins

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural Economics

1960

 

 

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to the many persons who
made the completion of this thesis possible.

Thanks are due Dr. L. L. Boger for supplying financial assistance
which helped make graduate work at Michigan State University possible.

The help given by the members of the clerical staff was an important
contribution. Those who contributed are too many to mention but special
thanks are due Hts. Arlene King who directed the computations.

hks. Kay Ralston is to be thanked for both the typing of this
manuscript and for her gentle unsuccessful attempts at cynicism which
eased the tension under which this work was completed.

A real debt of gratitude is owed Dr. Dale E. Hathaway, the student's
major professor for his able teaching and wise counsel. Thanks also go
to Dr. Thomas Meyer, Dr. Ingram Olkin, Dr. F. W. Morrisey, Dr. Kenneth
Arnold, and Dr. Lawrence Witt who served on the student's guidance com-
mittee. Knowing these men has been a rewarding experience and has
presented a real challenge to ”cast out into the deep.”

Special recognition should be given to Dr. John Fischer, now of
Montana State College, who more than a decade ago at the University of
Tennessee aroused the author's interest in agricultural economics.

To Dr. R. G. F. Spitze, the author's major professor during master's
work at the University of Tennessee, thanks must be given for his some-
times annoying habit of refusing to accept as final the author's decision
not to do doctoral work.

To the American taxpayer the author owes a real debt. The provision
of a university, an assistantship, and a ”G. 1. Bill" represent a tre-
mendous investment by society in the author. For this he is humbly
thankful. For the "G. 1. Bill" he is doubly thankful, for without it
he would most probably have never done graduate work or met his wife
who was a graduate student when he met her.

 

viii

Finally, last but far from least, thanks must be given to the
author's parents, his wife's parents, and his wife for the help and en-
couragement they have given. A real debt is owed his wife who became
a college professor to provide her husband with financial assistance.
Her recent retirement to become the mother of a daughter was well
earned. The encouragement which she gave contributed to the graduate
work of the author more, perhaps, than even he realizes.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Problem and Its Background . . . . . . .
Scope and Objective of the Study . . . . . .
Reason for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. THE ESTIMATING PROCEDURE . . . . - . . . . . . .

Extent of Off Farm Migration . . . . . . . .
The Educational Level Distributions . . . .
Determining the Portion of Investment in the
Education of Migrants Paid by Agriculture
Weaknesses in the Procedure . . . . . .
Data Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

O 0

III. RESULTS "'|000.oooooeoeoooo

The Amount of Education Transferred to the
Nonfarm Economy . . . . . . . . . e . . .

The Extent of the Educational Investment of
Agriculture in Net Off Farm Migrants . . .

Some Relative Comparisons of Agriculture's
Investment in the Education of Migrants
with Other Uses of Funds . . . . . . . .

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . .
v 0 SWY O I O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O
BIBLImRAm 0 O I O I O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

APPEND IC ES 0 o o o o o O o I 0 e o o o 0 O o o O O O O

Page

16

16
17

32
39
40

42

42

54

60
65
72
76

81

ix

 

 

TABLE

II

II

II

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

LIST OF TABLES

Net change in rural farm population due to
migration, MiChigan, 1940‘50 e e a o s o o o o 0

Net loss in rural farm population due to
migrAtion; M1Chigan, 1940-50 s o e o s o o o s 0

Age groups of migrants and educational distri-
bution with which they were matched . . . . . . .

Estimated educational level of 1940-50 off farm
migrants at time of migration, states and
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Estimates of number of years of education repre-
sented in net off farm migration 1940-50, states
and United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A comparison of the contribution to net off farm
migration and years of education held by the net
off farm migrants, by regions, United States,

1940-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Estimates of number of years of education repre-
sented in net off farm migration, 1940-50, states
and United States, adjusted to eliminate the
contribution of those 50 and older when they
migrated.o..................

Estimates of the total public investment in
the elementary and secondary education of net
off farm migrants less than fifty years old at
migration, 1940-50, valued at 1940 costs of
education°°”'°""°"""‘

Estimates of agricultural contribution to the
public educational investment in net off farm
migrants less than fifty years old at migration,
1940-50, 1940 costs of education ' - - - . - . -

Estimates including $100 per year of college

training of agricultural contribution to public
educational investment in net off farm migrants
less than 50 years old at migration, 1940 costs

Ofeducation essence-essence...

Page

18

20

29

43

SO

52

53

55

56

58

 

 

TABLE

 

xi

Page

Net new investment in physical farm assets

and agricultural investment in the education

of off farm migrants, valued at 1940 prices,

United States, 1940-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Loss of rural farm population due to migration,
Michigan, 1940-50, by age and by state economic

area; allocation of state economic area losses

to United States economic subregions to which

state economic areas belong; and losses to each
United States economic subregion comprising
Michigan,byage 83

Computation of the rural farm educational level
percentage distribution for those age 5-9,
Michigan 1950 O I O I O O D I C O O I O I 85
Computation of the rural farm educational level
percentage distribution for those age 25-29,

Michigan 1950 O O O I O I U 0 O 0 O I I O I D I 86

Computation of the rural farm educational level
percentage distribution for rural farm people
age 25 and over, Subregion 48, Michigan, 1940 . 87

Computation of age distribution of Michigan
loss from United States Economic Subregion 48. . 89

Computation of education level of loss due to
off farm migration 1940-50, Michigan portion
of United States Economic Subregion 48 . . . . . 90

Estimated level of education at time of migra-
tion of Michigan net farm loss due to migration,
1940-50 a o n I o e s e o o u o a I o a o o o a 92

Computation of number of years of elementary

and secondary education and number of years of
college education represented in net off farm
migration, 1940-50, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 94

School system data, United States, 1939-40 . . . 98

Computation of total state public investment
in elementary and secondary education of off
farm migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Computation of agricultural contribution to the
public investment in elementary and secondary
education of off farm migrants . . . . . . . . 101

 

 

TABLE

Computation of agricultural contribution to the
public investment in elementary and secondary
education of off farm migrants . . . . . . . . .

Computation of agricultural contribution to the
public investment in elementary and secondary
education of off farm migrants . . . . . . . . .

Computation of total United States public in-
vestment in elementary and secondary education
of off farm migrants, 1940-50 . . . . . . . . .

Computation of total agricultural contribution
to the public investment in elementary and
secondary education of off farm migrants,
1940-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of total agricultural contributions
to the public investment in elementary and
secondary education of off farm migrants,
1940-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Consumer price index, United States, 1940-49 . .
Realized net income of farm operators in-
cluding government payments, United States,
1940-49 s I n o a o a o e a o a o e o o c o o 0

Government payments to farmers, United States,
1940-49 0 O. o o o I s o u o a o e n s s a o I e

Page

102

103

105

106

107

109

110

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION]-
The Problem and Its Background
-It is generally believed, and there is evidence to suggest, that
investment in the human factor is important in relation to the pro-
ductivity of the society as a whole. In addition, it has implications
for the productivity of sectors of society.

If a nation is viewed as a single unit in which there is a large
degree of equality in income and asset ownership, the source of invest-
ment made in the human factor is irrelevant. However, when the
economic structure of society is viewed as composed of more than one
unit and when certain resources tend to flow in one direction, the
extent to which a sector contributes to investment, the benefits of
which accrue to the other sectors, becomes a relevant Consideration.

Each year rather substantial sums are allocated by the agricultural
sector for health, education, and welfare of youth who are destined to
spend their productive lives in the nonfarm sector.

When people migrate from the agricultural sector of the economy
they carry with them the investments made in them by individuals and

by the society as a whole. This, coupled with the tremendous off farm

 

1The noun agriculture and the adjectives and adverbs which can be de-
rived from it are used frequently in the report of this study. These
words are used in a very narrow sense. In this study, agriculture
refers to farms and that alone.

Frequent use has been made of the words migrants and migration. In
every case, it is to be understood that reference is made to persons
who physically migrated from farms and to the process of off farm
migration, respectively.

 

 

 

migration in the United States, 8,610,0002 for the 1940 decade, suggests

the hypothesis that the agricultural sector of the economy provides a
substantial contribution to the social capital residing in the nonfarm
economy in the form of education.

It may be argued that this social capital paid for by agriculture
provides a gain for that portion of the economy receiving the migrants.
To the extent that the educational investment in off farm migrants
increases their productivity, the nonfarm sector benefits. Also, to
the extent that the provision of surplus population by the farm sector
negates the investment which the nonfarm sector must make in order to
supply its labor needs, the nonfarm sector benefits.3 Stated alter-
natively, the first proposition is, given that the off farm migrants
go to the nonfarm sector, any increase in their productivity resulting
from investment in the human agent by the farm sector will increase the
benefit accruing to the nonfarm sector. The second proposition refers
to the cost of obtaining labor which the nonfarm society would have
had to incur had not the farm sector supplied increments of labor
through off farm migration.

The fact that the migration of people involves transfers of social

capital is hardly a new phenomenon nor has it just been recognized.

 

2Gladys K. Bowles, Farm Population, Net Migration from the Rura -
Farm Population, 1940-50, Statistical Bulletin No. 176, (Washington:

Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture,
June 1956), p. 17.

3These two types of benefit are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The benefits which occur in the real world are a mixture of the two.

 

 

 

Pareto calculated the preSumed economic loss to Italy resulting from

emigration, a problem also investigated by Beneduce and Coletti.4
Since the beginning of the century, migratory movements, of particular
importance in Italy's case, have attracted attention. Studies dealing
with the economic value of emigrants, assimilation, and eugenic effects
of emigration have been contributed by Savorgnan, L. Livi, DeVergottini,
Gini, Mortars, Lasorsa, and Parenti and Pienfrancesco.5

Baker and Manny discussed the transfer of wealth from farms to
cities and suggested this had been associated with the failure of
wealth to be accumulated on the farms.6

Japanese industrial development, according to Tobata, owes much to
agriculture for agriculture's education of youth who then moved to
industry.7 -

Brinley Thomas pointed out the boost which periodic injections of
labor give to a developing economy and he implied that this assistance

is greater because the recipient of this labor does not have to bear the

cost of the up-bringing of the labor.8

 

4Allessandra Costanzo, ”Contributions of Italy to Demography",
Chapter 10, The Study of Population, edited by Philip M. Hauser and Otis
Dudley Duncan, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 229.

5Loc. cit.

50. E. Baker and T. B. Manny, ”Population Trends and the National
Welfare," Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of
Agriculture, mimeo, 1935, p. 7.

7Seiichi Tobata, An Introduction to Agriculture of Japan, (Tokyo:
Maruzen Company Limited, 1958), pp. 17-18.

8Brinley Thomas, Migration and Economic Growth, (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1954), pp. 30-31.

 

 

 

Henry C. Taylor suggested that the movement of population from

country to city, which has been so great in recent years in the United
States, resulted in the transfer of a vast amount of wealth from the
agricultural industry.9 This wealth, according to Professor Taylor,
must be replaced from some source if the wealth of farmers is not to
decline.10 Likewise Hoffer pointed out that ”cityward migration of
youth is a drain on the country.”11

Lewis argued that the area from which migrants come has to bear
the cost of educating them only to lose them when they reach the pro-
ductive years. As the young leave, the proportion of older people and
dependents in the population rises and the demands on the remaining
working age people is correspondingly larger.12 Here Lewis was referring
especially to demands for publicly financed services such as education
and health.

In his Economics of Migration, Isaac stated that it has been argued
that the source of migrants bears the cost of maintaining the migrants
during their unproductive years while it is the place to which they
migrate which derives the direct benefit of their productive energies.
This, he suggested, was true and he pointed out that the gain may be

considerable.13

 

9Henry C. Taylor, Outlines of figricultural Economics, (New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1925), p. 272.

10Loc. cit.

110. R. Hoffer, Introduction to Rural Sociology, (New York: Richard
R. Smith, Inc., 1930), p. 36.

 

12W. Arthur Lewis, The Theory of Economic Growth, (Homewood, Illinois:
D. Irwin, Inc., 1955), pp. 359-360.

13Julius Isaac, Economics of Migration, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1947) pp. 228-230.

 

 

 

In a study of four townships in Whitman County, Washington, in

1931 and 1932, Yoder reported that the facts seemed to bear out the
theory of some agricultural economists and rural sociologists that one

of the results of migration of farm population to cities is the transfer

of wealth from farming communities to the cities.14

Duncan suggested ”that there is a continued drain of agricultural
wealth to the city in the form of the costs of education and rearing

of the migrants who leave the farms at the thresholds of their most

productive years.”15

An interesting observation was found in the work of Lively and
Taeuber.

”Although the effects of net migration from country to city
have generally been regarded as beneficial to both in terms of
population redistribution and plane of living, whether the quality
of the residual population is lowered has not been satisfactorily
settled. Migration seriously depletes the wealth of rural com-
munities which bear the cost of rearing children for the cities,
while the payment of inheritance claims to migrants offers another
channel through which rural wealth is lost to urban areas. More-
over, where rural migration is both rapid and severe, it causes
maladjustments in rural organizations and institutions.”16

 

1"Fred R. Yoder, ”Migration of Population and the Flow of Farm
Wealth", Journal of Farm Economics, Volume XIX, No. 1, (February 1937),
pp. 358-359 and Fred R. Yoder and A. A. Smick, Migration of Farm Popula-
tion and the Flow of Farm Wealth, Bulletin No. 315, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, September
1935.

15Otis Durant Duncan, The Theory and Conseguences of Mobility of
Farm Population, Experiment Station Circular No. 88, May 1940, Oklahoma

Agricultural and Mechanical College, Stillwater, p. 21.

16C. E. Lively and Conrad Taeuber, Rural Migration in the United
States, (Washington: Works Progress Administration, 1939), p. xx.

 

 

 

Rutledge, after looking at Cache County, Utah, and examining some

of the consequences of heavy outmigration concluded that while migration
has been praised as a remedy for farm depression, there are negative
aspects which have been overlooked, namely the purchasing power transfers
which result.17

According to Professor Schultz, ”the necessary cost inherent in
maintaining the social efficiency of the individual~-a cost that con-
stantly rises in our society-—is, as things now stand, borne primarily
by the family and locality.”18 This is one of the main reasons why the
transfer of social capital from the farm sector puts pressure on that
sector as it attempts to ”maintain social efficiency.”

There is considerable justification for reporting that the litera-
ture contained much reference to the flow of farm wealth as a result of
off farm migration. The material just discussed certainly bears out
such a contention. In addition, the literature contains much about
peripheral problems, enough to justify the conclusion that the recognition
of the phenomenon of investment transfers has been implied by writers

who did not specifically mention it.19

 

17R. M. Rutledge, ”The Relation of the Flow of Population to the
Problem of Rural and Urban Economic Inequality,” Journal of Farm
Economics, Volume XII, No. 3, (July 1930), pp. 427 f.f. and p. 439.

18Theodore W. Schultz, Agriculture in an Unstable Economy, (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1945), p. 206.

19For examples see C. T. Pihlbad and C. L. Gregory, ”Selection
Aspects Among Missouri High School Graduates," American Sociological
Review, Volume XIX, No. 3, (June 1954), pp. 314-324, and Gilbert A.
Sanford, ”Selective Migration in a Rural Alabama Community,” American
Sociological Review, Volume V, No. 5 (October 1940), pp. 759-766.

 

 

 

Despite this rather wide allusion to the flow of farm wealth, rela-

tively little has been done to either develop a satisfactory conceptural
apparatus or systematically investigate its nature and its magnitude.
One notable exception is the work of Dorner20 who investigated the loss
of wealth to Tennessee farmers as a result of having reared excess popu-
lation. The loss for 1949 was calculated at about $600 per farm and
this calculation did not include the investment by society as a whole.21
In a kindred study, Tarver investigated the costs of rearing and
educating farm children, but he did not go further and specifically
relate to the social expenditures made by agriculture and involved in

23

the off farm movement.22 Baker has a related study which was con-

ducted some years earlier.

 

20Peter Dorner, An Excess Farm Population and the Loss of Farm
Wealth, unpublished master's thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics

and Rural Sociology, University of Tennessee, 1953.

21Erven J. long and Peter Dorner, ”Excess Farm Population and the
Loss of Agricultural Capital,” Land Economics, Volume XXX, No. 4,
(November 1954), pp. 367-368.

22James D. Tarver, "Costs of Rearing and Educating Farm Children”,

Journal of Farm Economics, Volume XXXVIII, No. 1, (February 1956),
pp. 144-153.

230. E. Baker, ”Rural-Urban Migration and the National Welfare."

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume XXIII, No. 2
(June 1933), pp. 86-87 and Two Trends of Great Agricultural Significance,

United States Department of Agriculture, Extension Service Circular
No. 306, June 1939, p. 6.

 

 

 

Marshall stated that ”the most valuable of all capital is that in-
24

vested in human beings” and he pointed out the difficulty that whoever
may incur the expense of investing in developing the abilities of the
workman25 finds in a free society this investment the property of the
workman.26

From a study of the literature, it appeared that while there were
references made to the investments made in the rearing and educating of
farm people, somewhat less has been done in adequately relating this to
off farm migration and the resulting transfer of agriculturally derived

social capital.

Scope and Objective of the Study
In view of the widespread discussions in the public forum at the
time of this study, it would have been desirable to investigate all the
capital flows, both real and social, and all the income transfers which
take place between the farm and the nonfarm economies. Unfortunately
such was far too ambitious an undertaking, given the limits of time and
other resources which, of necessity, had to be imposed upon this study.

A much smaller area of inquiry, therefore, had to be delineated.

 

24Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, eighth edition, (London:
MacMillan and Co. Ltd., 1956), p. 469.

25For a discussion of early calculations of the amount of capital
inveStment made in people see footnote, Marshall, pp. cit. pp. 469-470.
Here he refers to the work of Petty, Cantillion, Smith, Engel, and Farr.

26Marshall, 22. 339., p. 470.

 

 

 

The problem, then, with which this study was concerned was an

estimation of the magnitude of the agriculturally derived social capital
transferred by the off farm migration of people who take with them
public investment in their education. Stated alternatively, the pur-
pose of this study was to estimate the contribution made by agriculture
through the tax system to the education of rural people who then left
agriculture and carried with them this investment as they joined the
nonfarm economy. Such transfers of social capital represented, in a
sense, a contribution by agriculture to nonagriculture.

How large was this transfer? It was the hypothesis of this study
that the amounts were considerable.27

Long and Dorner offered no evidence to the contrary when they
stated the following:

”Finally, above and beyond these expenditures borne directly
by families are certain expenditures borne only indirectly by the
families in the form of public tax funds. There are, no doubt
certain costs shared by the community as a whole with regard to
such items as medical care and recreation. These items are con-
sidered to be of minor importance and have not been incorporated

in this analysis. Perhaps the largest item of this kind is the
support of the educational system.”

 

27The writer was well aware of the fact that this was a hypothesis
which could not be tested precisely for the reason that ”considerable“
was not quantitatively defined. Yet the alternative was to hypothesize
that the amount was less than, equal to, or more than some arbitrary
amount and there was little justification of this unless one wished to
be ”scientific" in what is in reality a pseudo sense. Therefore, in one
way of thinking this study had no hypothesis to test. It assumed the
existence of a phenomenon and attempted to measure its magnitude.

28Long and Dorner, pp. cit. p. 367.

 

 

10

here Long and Dorner suggested that the support of education via
the tax system was a relatively small portion of the costs which a family
incurred in rearing children. They were not referring to the aggregative
figure for the entire economy.

Obviously, any measurement made had to be made for some definite
time period. The period chosen for consideration was the 1940 to 1950
decade, a period during which rather substantial off farm movement took
place and the most recent for which anything approaching adequate data
existed.

The geographical area covered in this study was the continental

United States, the forty-eight contiguous states.

Reason for the Study
Off farm migration is a phenomenon of great importance and far
reaching consequences.29 ”The movement of masses of people . . . is not
a matter in which any government, given the widened conception of govern-
ment now generally accepted, ought to disinterest itself.”30 A society
viewing this or any phenomenon can devise rational response only if the
nature of the phenomenon is understood. To add to the understanding of

off farm migration, in the hope that this would provide a more adequate

29See, for example the following: (1) George M. Beal and Wallace E.
Ogg, ”Secondary Adjustments from Adaptations of Agriculture”, Chapter 13,
Problems and Policies of American Aggiculture, (Ames: Iowa State Univer-
sity Press, 1959), edited by Earl O. Heady, pp. 226-249; (2) Glenn L.
Johnson and Joel Smith, ”Social Costs of Agricultural Adjustment--with
Particular Emphasis on Labor liability," Chapter 14, Problems pnd Policies

_p§ American Aggicultugp, pp. pi£., pp. 250-271.

30A. M; Carr-Sanders, introduction to Julius Isaac, pp. cit., p. xi.

 

 

 

11

basis for intelligent response to the phenomenon, was the reason for
undertaking this study.

Was the transfer of social capital from agriculture to nonagricul-
ture unique? Is it not common in our society for youth reared by one
occupational group to enter another occupational group? Obviously, it
is common, but the movement from agriculture was atypical in at least
two respects. First, few movements of people from one occupational
group to another have been as persistent or as consistent in direction
as has the movement of people off the farm. Second, in few cases has
an occupational group been the recipient of deliberate income transfers
from the rest of society via government.

Several facts appear to make relevant a study of the magnitude of
the investment in the education of off farm migrants which is borne by
agriculture. Such investment is a contribution to the social capital
of the nonfarm economy and constituted a use of agricultural incomes
which otherwise might have been used to provide increased physical
capital for the agricultural industry, increased levels of living, or
for other purposes. The income transfers which agriculture received
were a similar drain on the income of the nonfarm sector.

In view of the rather general concern for the costs of the farm
programs and the extensive review the problem was receiving in the press
at the time of this study, it seemed worthwhile to study the drains on
agricultural income which were of benefit to the nonfarm economy, for
it appeared that such phenomenae were not generally recognized.

That an economist should choose to study pecuniary sums was not sur-

prising, but why, it well may be asked, was this particular drain on

 

 

12

agricultural incomes chosen for study? Has investment in the education
of off farm migrants some special significance?

In an attempt to answer this question, it was necessary to build a
framework within which the costs of rearing children could be analyzed.
Costs were broken into two types -- capital or investment and noncapitol
or noninvestment. The first type was defined so as to include (1) that
minimal level of outlay for food, shelter, health, and clothing necessary
to sustain life and (2) any sums spent for such things as health and edu-
cation so long as these expenditures resulted in the increased produc-
tivity of the individual. The second type included any expenditure not
included in the first.31 In short, the capital items had implications
with respect to the productivity of the human agent and the noncapital
items had no such implications. It was reasoned that these capital
expenditures, because of their contribution to the increased produc-
tivity of the off farm migrant, had important implications_for the
nonfarm society. Presumably, because the capital expenditures had been
made, the gain to the nonfarm society through off farm migration was
greater than it would have been had not the investment been made. Thus,
it appeared that no segment of society could afford to ignore the im-

portance of such capital or investment expenditures.

 

31While these two categories were set up as mutually exclusive,
it must be recognized that a specific expenditure may involve elements
of both. For instance, a pair of shoes in January may well be a capital
item while a second pair would be a noncapital item.

 

 

 

 

13

Expenditures for education may be part investment and part noninvest-
ment, or consumption, in nature. In some societies it may well be that a
relatively large part of educational expenditure has been used to provide
education for which the economy had little economic demand; however, in
the United States our education has been such that it appeared that the
expenditures for education were by and large capital or investment in
nature. Of these costs of education there were two components -- that [
borne by the family directly and that borne by society through its contri-
butions to the tax funds. The costs borne directly by the family were
largely discretionary in nature,32 but those borne through the tax system
were not so discretionary.

The taxes levied on farm peOple to support the education of off farm
migrants fell on both families from which there came off farm migrants and
on families from.which there was no exodus to the nonfanm sector. In
addition, there were families that furnished off farm migrants and contri-
buted little to the tax support of their education. The varied sources
and incidence of the taxes alluded to above made it clear that it was not
possible to view them as voluntary consumption expenditures made by the

families which contributed the migrants.

 

32The family borne costs were largely discretionary in nature only
with respect to some absolute minimal level. With respect to some cul-
turally acceptable level, a much smaller share of the family borne costs
was discretionary.

 

 

 

 

14

Once a decision as to the level of public educational expenditure had

been made through the tax rate,33

no real choice was left to farm people.
Indeed, even the tax rate was not completely discretionary since certain
minimal levels of education were imposed by society as a whole.34 These
expenditures for education were by and large a commitment which was in-
stitutionalized and had to be met. As a relatively fixed commitment, it
was of special importance to farm people who found that it had to be met
without regard to its return, a return which was to accrue mainly to the
nonfarm economy through the increased productivity of the off farm migrant.35
Thus it seemed that the portion of public investment in the educa-
tion of off farm migrants paid for by agriculture was of particular im-
portance. It was a drain on the resources of the farm sector over which
individual families had limited control and from which the nonfarm sector
would derive the major benefit through the increased productivity of the
off farm migrant. Indeed, it was a type of forced savings. Because of
the implications for productivity, it seemed quite possible that a fairly
small capital transfer of this nature, i.e., social capital, might well be
of more far reaching importance to the society than a much larger volume

of noncapital expenditure made in the rearing of off farm migrants.

 

33The decision as to tax rate was of particular importance to farmers
since much of the school tax was raised from real estate taxes. That the
real estate tax may not be according to earning capacity is well known.

34Indeed, it is doubtful if the farm sector was the instigator or
even supported in early days the laws requiring school attendance of all
children below a certain age.

35To avoid confusion, it should be noted that the topic of discussion
here is the education of off farm migrants, not that of all farm children.

 

 

J

W.

’i;

 

15

From the public relations standpoint, it is to agriculture's ad-
vantage that this and other contributions from agriculture to the non-
farm economy be better understood and more widely recognized. It seemed
likely that the society was informed about transfers made to agricul-
ture but unaware or poorly informed about transfers in the other direc-
tion. It was hoped that this study would contribute to a more general
understanding of the fact that transfers from sector to sector were two
way phenomenae.

36

When it was realized that according to some estimates agricul-

 

ture in the two decades ahead was expected to require one-fifth to one-
third fewer workers and that it was likely that there would be a one-
fourth to one-third million net out migration annually during the
period, it became very important that these transfers of social capital
be recognized, for manpower adjustments affect both the area from which
the migrants come and the areas to which they go and, in addition, they

affect the operation of the entire economy.37

 

 

36J. Carroll Bottum, "The Impact of Anticipated Trends and Shifts of
Population upon American Agriculture." A paper presented to the American
Agricultural Industries Conference, Cornell, June 1956, Cornell University
School of Business and Public Administration in cooperation with the New
York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, pp. 6-7.

37William H. Metzler, "Implications of Changes in Rural Manpower
in the South", an address prepared for delivery before the Association
of Southern Agricultural Workers, Brimingham, February 5, 1957, p. 7.

 

 

 

 

16

CHAPTER II

THE ESTIMATING PROCEDURE

The final aim of this study, as has already been pointed out, was
to estimate agriculture's investment in nonfarm social capital which had
its origin in agriculture's public investment in the education of persons

who migrated from farms in the period 1940 to 1950.

Extent of Off Farm Migration

The first question with which this study had to deal was the number
of persons migrating from agriculture during the period in question. The
basic data on the extent of off farm migration were derived from the work
of Bowlesi hereinafter referred to as Net Migration. Estimates of net loss
by age were given for United States Economic Subregions, hereinafter re-
ferred to as subregion . Estimates of the same type were provided for
states. Lastly, estimates of out migration were given for state economic

areas, hereinafter referred to as areas. No age estimates were given

 

with the area totals.

Prom table 5 of Net Migration, net out migration from agriculture
was obtained for each state. This figure was also broken into age cate-
gories. Thus it was possible to obtain for each state data like that in

TABLE II-l.

 

1Gladys K. Bowles, Farm Population, Net Migration from the Rural
Farm Population, 1940-50, Statistical Bulletin No. 176, (Washington:

Agricultural Marketing Service,United States Department of Agriculture,
June, 1956). '

 

 

 

 

17

To clarify the above presentation, it should be noted that on the
basis of criteria of economic homogeneity the United States was broken
into economic regions; the regions into economic subregions; and the
subregions into state economic areas.2 In Net Migration, data were
given for each of these breakdowns and, in addition, data were given

for states.

The Educational Level Distributions

The next step was to derive educational level distributions for off
farm migrants so that these could be applied to the net change figures
to produce estimates of the amount of education obtained by the migrants
from agriculture.

It was noted that the state boundaries were political in nature and
thus did not necessarily enclose areas which exhibited a large measure
of economic homogeneity. It was also reasoned that if the educational
level of migrants from various homogeneous economic portions of the
state significantly differed, any educational distribution for the state
would yield misleading results unless migration from the various portions

was at the same rate.3

 

2Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Subregions of the
United States, Series Census-DAB, No. 19, United States Department of
Commerce and United States Department of Agriculture, June 1953, pp. 1-4.
See this for a brief discussion of the criteria of economic homogeneity.

3The reasons for this will become clear a little later when the
discussion to assume that migrants were representative of the rural
farm population is discussed. Had it been possible to produce directly
a state educational level distribution for the migrants, the use of state
boundaries would have presented no problem, for the varying migration
rates from different economic areas would have been incorporated in the
synthesis of such a distribution.

 

 

 

18

TABLE II - 1 Net change in rural farm population due

to migration, Michigan, 1940-50

 

 

Age in 1940 E333;
0-4 -+ 2
5-9 -12

10-14 -45
15-19 -46
20-24 -18
25-29 -3
30-34 _a
35-39 _
40-44 -3
45-49 -4
50-54 -7
55-59 -10
60-64 -9
65 and over -10
Total -163
Computed Sum b. -165

 

 

8This indicates less than 500 in the category

bThis sum was computed since due to rounding error
the state total did not always equal the sum of the

age groups.

Source: Bowles, op. cit., Table 5.

 

 

 

19

Thus it was felt that state educational distributions might well be in-
adequate. To get around the problem of intra-state economic hetero-
geneity and still allow the use of available state migration data and
the ultimate synthesis of estimates of state educational losses, it was
decided to break each state into the subregions which composed it.4
Precisely, how this procedure was useful will become clear a little
later.

For each of the subregions composing a state, data similar to that
of TABLE II - 1 were obtained from Table 7 of Net Migration. The next
step was to obtain from Table 9 of Net Migration an estimate of not change
in rural farm population for each state economic area. A tabular pre-
sentation of this is shown in TABLE II - 2. A similar table was prepared
for each state.

Note that TABLE II - 2 shows net loss. For convenience, from here
on the figures are given in terms of net loss, not net change as in the

original data from Net Migration. This amounts to multiplying the original

data by -1. Thus the absense of a sign indicates a net loss and the use
of a minus sign indicates a net gain.

In TABLE II - 2 the losses of each state economic area were allocated
to the United States Economic Subregion of which the state economic area
‘was a part. Thus from TABLE II - 2 it may be determined that of the
120,000 migrants in subregion 66, 50,000 came from Michigan. Further,

it may be seen that these 50,000 migrants came from Michigan State

 

4It should be noted that the subregions may not be entirely included
within any one state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE II - 2 Net loss in rural farm population due to migration,
Michigan, 1940-50
U.S. Economic Subregions Composing Michigana
# # # #
Age in Michigan 66 49 50 48
1940 31000), (000) (099), $0002 $0002
0‘4 -2 4 - 1 -1 - --
5'9 12 ll 6 2 21
10-14 45 27 20 8 24
15-19 46 27 22 8 10
20-24 18 12 8 3 2
25-29 3 5 1 --- ---
30-34 --- 3 --- -1 ---
35-39 --- 3 --- --- 1
40-44 3 3 1 --- 3
45-49 4 4 2 --- 4
50-54 7 5 3 1 ---
55-59 10 6 5 2 6
60-64 9 5 4 2 5
65 and over 10 5 5 2 ,7
Sum 163 120 75 26 88
Computed Sumb 165 120 75 26 88
Michigan Economic
Area
1 10 10
2 9 9
3 9 9
4a 18 18
4b l3 13
5a A 22 22
5b 14 14
6a 8 13 13
6b 4 4
7 CDE_ 22 22c
8 F l6 16
9a 7 7
9b G 6 6
Sum 163 50 74 26 13

20

 

Michigan area losses allocated to sub-
regions of which areas are part

 

See following page for footnotes.

 

 

21

Footnotes to TABLE II - 2

‘The subregions are not necessarily completely within Michigan.

bThese sums were computed since due to rounding error the total
loss for the states and subregions did not always equal the sum of the
age groups.

cMuskegon was in United States Subregion 50 but its designation,
C, was such that it could not be separated from erroneous inclusion
in United States Subregion 49. Since Maskegon was a relatively small
component of 7 CDE the error introduced was small.

Sources: Bowles, _p. 315., Tables 5, 7, and 8.

I;

 

 

 

22

Economic Areas 1, 2, 4a, and 4b. It may also be determined that of
Michigan's 163,000 migrants, 50,000 were from Michigan's portion of
United States Subregion 66. The interpretation of TABLE II - 2 may be
continued analagously.

The data on losses in the state economic areas were given only as
totals and without age distributions. This was unfortunate since from
examination of the subregions, it was apparent that the age distribution
varied widely among subregions. It seemed probable that, this being the
case, there would be considerable variation between the state economic
areas in one subregion and those in another. To preserve the effects of
any variation in the age distribution of a state's migrants from dif-
ferent subregions, it was decided to assume that the losses from that
portion of a subregion within a state had the age distribution of the
losses of the entire subregion.

At this point, given the basic data and the assumptions already
discussed, it was possible to synthesize an age distribution for the
losses from each state's portion of a subregion. The next step in
getting an estimate of the total education of the migrants should have
been to apply to each age category an educational distribution of the
relevant migrant population. Unfortunately, the literature failed to
yield any such distributions and the only alternative became to develop
a method by which the desired migrant educational distributions could
be estimated. What was done was to develop an educational distribution
for off farm migrants on the assumption that those who left the farm

were representative of those who stayed.

 

 

 

 

23

This assumption of no selectivity with respect to education was
open to serious question, for studies of off farm migration have pro-
duced many hypothesis with respect to educational selectivity in migra-
tion.

For example, studies in Minnesota in which a comparison of net
migration between cities and farms by economic and social groups sug-
gested that the cities attracted the extremes while the farm attracted
and held the mean strata in society.5 However, further study failed to
substantiate a conclusion that farmers are declining in native ability
due to migrations of a select group to towns and cities.6 Bogue and
Hagood7 reported that migration to cities was highly selective with
respect to education.

"In addition to selecting those persons who were better edu-
cated than persons of the same age at the place of origin, it also
selected persons who were better educated than persons of the same
age at the place of destination. The two major exceptions to this
were migrants originating in populations which had a level of edu-
cation considerably below that of the city.

"(a) Although migration selected the better educated of the
farm population, the average educational attainment of the farm

population is still below that of the urban population to which they
migrated. (b) Possibly because of the major social and economic

 

5Carl C. Zimmerman and 0. D. Duncan, "The Migration to Towns and
Cities," Journal of Farm Economics, Volume X, No. 4, (October 1928), p. 506.

6Zimmerman and Duncan, pp. 515., p. 515. It should be noted that
while these studies do not bear directly upon educational attainment, they
do throw some light on it if, as seems likely, educational attainment is
fairly highly correlated with class position. In fact, Zinnnrman and his
students suggested that this was probably true with respect to education.
See Otis Durant Duncan, The Theory and Conseguences of Mobility of Farm
Population, Experiment Station Circular No. 88, May 1940, Oklahoma Agri-
cultural and Mechanical College, Stillwater, p. 20.

7Donald J. Bogue and Margaret Jarman Hagood, "Differential Migration
in the Corn and Cotton Belts", Subregional Migration in the United States,
1935-40, Volume II, Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution
No. 6, p. 57.

 

fit. .

_
.
? .15.:

 

 

 

24

changes under way in the South, the migration of the nonwhite

Cotton Belt population contained disproportionately large numbers

of the least well educated as well as the better educated.”

Hamilton reported that migration rates from the rural farm areas
for the 1940-50 decade were the heaviest for the lower levels of educa-
tion.9 However, this same study revealed higher rates of migration
from both extremes of education in North Carolina.

Martin reported that positive educational selectivity of off farm
migrants was important in the early years of a migrational stream and
less important as the stream became developed.10 This and similar evi-
dence11 led Hathaway to suggest that the pattern of educational selec-
tivity may have changed.12

As late as 1959 Bogue discussed the paucity of data on migrants and
pointed out that comparatively little information had been obtained about

the characteristics of migrants in each stream.13

 

8222- 21.2.

9C. Horace Hamilton, ”Educational Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migra-
tion: Preliminary Results of a North Carolina Study", p. 6. This paper
may be found in Proceedings of the 1957 Annual Conference, Milbank Memorial
Fund, pp. 110-122.

10Joe A. Martin, Off Farm Migration: Some of Its Characteristics and
Effects upon Agriculture in Weakley County, Tennessee, Bulletin 290,

August 1958, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, pp. 6-9.

11Ben H. Luebke and John F. Hart, "Migration from a Southern Appala-
chian Community," Land Economics, Volume XXXIV No. 1, (February 1958) p. 50.

12Dale E. Hathaway, "Migration from Agriculture: The Historical
Record and its Meaning," Journal Article No. 2544, 1959, Michigan Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, East Lansing, p. 5. This page number citation
refers to a typed draft of the article. This paper was presented at the
joint winter meetings of the American Economic Association and other asso-
ciations and is soon to be published in the American Economic Review.

 

13Donald J. Bogue, "Internal Migration", Chapter 21, The Study of
Population, edited by Philip M. Hansen and Otis Dudley Duncan, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 501.

 

 

 

121
an
alt

bu;

 

25

The existence of such diverse conclusions regarding the educational
selectivity of off farm migrants made the selection of an adjustment
coefficient impossible. Indeed, it seemed that there might be some
doubt even as to its direction.

In view of this diversity of conclusions regarding educational
selectivity of migration, the neutral assumption of no educational
selectivity seemed the most reasonable choice. If positive educational
selectivity did exist, that is, if increased amounts of education were
associated with increased rates of migration, the amount of education
held by migrants would be underestimated, a conservative error. If the
migration process selected the extremes in educational attainment, there
would result a compensating error in the underestimating of the contri-
bution of the extremes and the overestimation of the contribution of the
group with medium educational attainment. In either case, the error
introduced seemed to be tolerable.

Now, getting back to the computation of the educational distribution
of off farm migrants by using data on the educational level of rural farm
people, considerable effort was expended in searching various sources
including the most obvious, the 1950 census materials. As might have
been expected, the search of the census materials was most rewarding,
but unfortunately, the 1950 census materials gave rural farm educational
level data by age groups only for states. There were no data for the
state portions of subregions and it was these that were needed if the
already synthesized age distributions of migrants were to be used as a

basis for estimating the amounts of education held by migrants.

 

 

 

26

Additional search of the published materials was conducted, but
this time the 1940 census was included. For the rural farm group,
twenty-five and older in 1940, the 1940 census provided educational
distributions by county.“+

Since the counties in each state's portion of each subregion were
known,15 it was possible to aggregate the county data in such a way as
to produce distributions for state portions of subregions.16

It was assumed that those twenty-five and older in 1940 had com-
pleted their education. Therefore, the 1940 educational distribution
of those twenty-five and older was used as an approximation of the 1950
educational distribution of those thirty-five and older.17

Since there existed no county data for rural farm people under
thirty-five in 1950 comparable to that in the 1940 census for those
twenty-five and older in 1940, a compromise was made. The state data on

rural farm educational levels were used.18 Implicit in this was the

assumption that for this age group, there were no significant differences

 

14Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Population, Volume II,
"Characteristics of the Population," Bureau of the Census, United States
Department of Commerce, Table 27.

15Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Subregions of the
United States, Series Census-DAB, No. 19, United States Department of
Connmrce and United States Department of Agriculture, June 1953, Table A.

16This procedure will be discussed more fully later.

17This ignored the fact that there were deaths in the decade. Since
it must be assumed that death was selective of the older ages, a bias
downward in the 1950 educational distribution was introduced to the ex-
tent that the younger people were better educated than the old. This
error was adjudged to be tolerable.

18Seventeenth Census of the United States: 1950, “Detailed Character-
istics,” 1950 Population Census Report, Series P-C, Bureau of the Census,
United States Department of Commerce, Tables 64 and 65.

 

 

 

27

among the educational attainments of the various state portions of sub-
regions within a single state. That this was an unrealistic assumption
was probably true, but it was felt that there were probably smaller
differences for those under_thirty-five than for those thirty-five and
older. With improving standards and amounts of education, it seemed
likely that there might well be a lessening of the differences within

a state.

The only real alternative would have been to ignore all differences
in educational attainment within a state and to do this would have robbed
the analysis of any refinement introduced by the use of educational level
data for state portions of subregions. It seemed preferable to use the
more refined data even though completely comparable data were not
available for those less than thirty-five in 1950, for by so doing the
results of any disparity in educational attainments of various state
portions of subregions were at least partially reflected in the final
computations of the amounts of education held by migrants.

Thus whatever the merits of the decisions, the basic data from
which the educational distribution were computed were taken from county
data in the 1940 census and state data from the 1950 census.

Since the data on migrants from Net Migration used age categories
as previously shown in TABLE II - 1, it was necessary to compute the
educational distributions on the basis of these age categories. The
1940 ages, however, were inappropriate so ten years was added to each
category to get an age category for 1950. These 1950 categories were

then combined to make them comparable to the educational distributions

 

 

 

28

which could be computed from the census materials. These age of migrants
in 1950 categories were the following: 10-14, 15~l9, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34,
and 35 and over.

A problem arose, however, for if the 1950 educational distribution
of the migrants were applied to the comparable 1950 age group of migrants,
this was tantamount to assuming that all migration took place in 1950.
Such, obviously, was not the case.

One way around this problem was to apply the 1950 age education
distribution of five years less to each 1950 age distribution of migrants.
This was the method chosen. This solution carried with it the implicit
assumption that all the migration took place in 1945 or, what was the
same thing, that the rates of outmigration in the various regions ware
constant over the 1940-50 decade.

This assumption of a constant rate of migration over the decade was
a conservative one. Some data19 indicated otherwise, but when it was
realized that such sources counted members of the armed forces as leaving
agriculture when they entered service, the argument that many off farm
migrants were counted prematurely had validity.

One fairly minor problem arose with respect to the assigning of the
educational distributions to be applied to the category of migrants
thirty-five and older in 1950. To use an educational distribution of an

age category five years younger gave a nonsense solution. What was an

 

195cc Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1958, United States
Department of Commerce, Table No. 788, p. 611.

 

 

29

age category of thirty years and over minus five years?20 Thus, for
this group the 1940 twenty-five and older educational distribution was
used. Since most of those twenty-five and older in 1940 were through
school, this departure from the use of five year younger educational
distributions did not cause difficulty. After all, the reason for
using a five year younger educational distribution in the first place
had been to allow for education acquired after 1940.

TABLE II - 3 shows the age groups of migrants and the educational
distribution with which they were matched to generate estimates of the
educational level of the migrants.

TABLE 11 - 3 Age groups of migrants and educational distri-
bution with which they were matched.

 

 

Age of 1950

Migrants Number of Migrants Educational
1950 Distribution

10-14 xxx 5-9

15-19 xxx 10-14

20-24 xxx 15-19

25-29 xxx 20-24

30-34 xxx 25-29

35 and over xxx 35 and over3

8This is the 25 and older distribution computed
from the 1940 Census.

 

2oThirty-five and over was the age category for the migrants. An
educational distribution for a group five years younger was wanted. A
discrete amount could not be substracted from an open ended category
such as thirty and over.

 

 

 

 

30

The actual computation of the various educational distributions has
been illustrated in Appendix A, but it will clarify this presentation
to develop to some extent this procedure here.

From Table A, Economic Subregions of the United States,21 herein-
after referred to as Economic Subregions, the counties by state from each
United States Subregion were obtained. For each of these counties an
educational distribution of rural farm population, twenty-five and older
in 1940 was obtained from the 1940 Census.22 A percentage educational
distribution was then computed so that no years through four or more
years of college equaled 100 percent.23 Such a distribution was obtained
for the portion of each United States Subregion belonging to each state.

The 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25-29 educational distributions,
as has already been explained, were computed from the 1950 Census figures
on the educational level of the rural farm population in each state.24

Figures for both the male and the female population were combined. Again,

 

21Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Subregions of the
United States, Series Census-DAB, No. 19, United States Department of
Commerce and United States Department of Agriculture, June 1953.

22Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, 22. c_1£., Table 27.

23This involved allocating the no report category to the other
groups in the same proportion in which they occurred. This assumed that
there was no educational level bias in the no report category.

24Seventeenth Census of the United States: 1950, "Detailed Charac-
teristics," 1950 population Census Report, Series P-C, Bureau of the
Census, United States Department of Commerce, Tables 64 and 65.

 

 

 

31

a percentage educational distribution was computed for each category
so that no years through four or more years of college equaled 100
percent.25

Since the percentage educational distributions gave a percentage
figure for such educational categories as 1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-6 years,
7-8 years, 9-11 years, and 13-15 years; these percentages were evenly
divided among the years included in the category. Thus an estimate was
produced which had seventeen categories--no years through four or more
years of college--and a percentage figure for each educational level
category.

The presentation of TABLE II - 3 and an earlier statement that the
losses from that portion of a subregion within a state were assumed to
have the age distribution of all losses from the entire subregion, im-
plied the method of developing the estimates of the number of migrants
within each age category for each portion of a subregion contained
within a state.

It will be recalled that losses from state areas were assigned to
the subregion of which they were a part. (See TABLE II - 2, lower right.)
Assuming that the loss had the same age distribution as the subregion
to which it belonged seemed more justifiable than assuming the loss had

the age distribution of the entire state. The subregions exhibited a

 

25As with the group twenty-five and older in 1940, this involved
allocating the no report category to the other groups in the same pro-
portion in which they occurred. This assumed that there was no educa-
tional level bias in the no report category.

 

 

 

32

greater degree of homogeneity26

than did the states. One minor problem,
however, did occur. The allocating of the losses had been done on the
basis of the actual sum27 so that the fractions by which the loss was
multiplied would sum to one.

The final step in getting an estimate of the educational level of
the migrants in each state was to sum the estimates for that portion of
each subregion within the state.

The step by step process by which the estimates for each state

were derived is presented in Appendix A.

Determining the Portion of Investment in the Education
of Migrants Paid by Agriculture

Once the state estimates of the educational level of the migrants
had been computed, the next concern was the attaching of a "price tag"
to them.

The estimated educational level of 1940-50 net off farm migration
was only an estimate of the years of education held by the migrants.
Unfortunately, there was little clue as to when this education had been
obtained. True, it was known that such off farm movement was essentially
a phenomenon of youth28 but such was hardly sufficient knowledge to
allow classification of the education as to the time at which it was

obtained. Since such could not be done, it became impossible to value

 

26See Bogue and Beale, gp. cit. pp. 1-2 for the criteria for sub-
regions.

27See Footnote b, TABLE II - 1.

28T. Lynn Smith, The Sociology of Rural Life, (New York: Harper
and Brothers, l9h6), pp. 186-187.

 

 

 

 

33

the educational investment in terms of its cost in public expenditure.
Rather, there seemed to be no alternative to valuing the educational
investment on the basis of the cost of education at some given time.
The time chosen was 1940.

The choice of 1940 as the date from which educational expenditures
were taken was, to a rather considerable extent, an arbitrary decision.
Yet there seemed to be some argument for the choice of 1940. From the
age distribution of the migrants it could be inferred that a majority of
the educational investment took place prior to 1940. Yet, much education
of migrants did take place in the 40's when educational costs were
rapidly rising. On the other side, a great deal of the education was
obtained prior to 1930 but very little came before 1920. The large drop
in school expenditures caused by the depression was in opposition to the
rising secular cost trend. It thus became defensible to look at the
1920 to 1940 period as one in which the investment per pupil per year
was relatively stable when compared to the years since 1940.

The use of the 1940 figure then underestimates the cost of educational
investment since 1940, but it overestimates that before 1940. The over-
estimation error seemed to be larger, but since there had been a general
rise in the price level over time, it did not seem unreasonable to value
some of the education at more than its initial cost.

When everything was considered the 1940 figure seemed the most
reasonable. Yet the defense of the use of the 1940 figure did not have
to be unassailable, for all that could be said with rigor was that the
education was valued at cost of production in 1940. Thus, whatever were

its merits and its demerits, the cost of education in 1940 was used.

 

 

 

34

Since, presumably public investment in education was self amortizing
because of the increased individual productivity resulting from the in-
vestment, it was reasoned that the unamortized public educational in-
vestment for each migrant would decrease over the productive life of
the migrant. To allow for this, the amount of education held by migrants
was adjusted to eliminate the contribution of those fifty years and
older at the time of migration.29 Had this not been done, the invest-
ment in an eighteen year old migrant with twelve years of education
would have been valued the same as that in a seventy-five year old man
with twelve years of education. The differences in productive potential
after migration certainly had to be accounted for in some fashion.

It must be admitted that the use of fifty years of age as a cut
off point was arbitrary. It seemed reasonable, however, for the alter-
native of valuing the educational investment at a figure which decreased
with the age of the migrant would have introduced some refinement, but only
at the cost of rather considerable additional complications in compu-
tation.

To introduce and clarify the remainder of the computational pro-
cedures, a brief preview is in order. Two estimates, designated
Estimates 1 and Estimates 2, of the unamortized public investment in
the education of migrants for states and the United States were made.

To Estimate 1, three estimates of the percentage contribution of agricul-

ture were applied to produce three estimates of the cost to agriculture

 

29For the computation of this adjustment, please see Appendix B.

 

 

 

35

of the educational investment in migrants. These were designated
Transfer Estimate 1a, Transfer Estimate lb and Transfer Estimate 1c.
To Estimate 2 two estimates of the percentage contribution of agricul-
ture were applied to produce two estimates of the total contribution
of agriculture. These were designated Transfer Estimate 2d and Transfer
Estimate 2e.

To produce Estimate 1 of total unamortized public educational in-
vestment figures on current expense, interest, and capital outlay per

rural pupil in average daily attendance, 1939-40 by states,30

were
multiplied by the number of years of elementary and secondary education
included in net off farm migration, adjusted to exclude those fifty and
older at migration. This produced state by state estimates of the total
public educational investment in migrants. In addition it was possible
to get estimates for the United States, both by direct computation and
by sunning the state figures.

In order to estimate the amount of this investment which was paid
for by agriculture, estimates of the percentage contribution of agricul-
ture to the tax revenues were needed. Unfortunately, there were no
available estimates of the percentage contribution of the agricultural
sector to public revenues going for the support of the education of
rural youth.

Data did exist, however, which could be used to produce estimates
which should give at least some insight into the nature of agricultural

contributions.

 

30"Statistics of State School Systems, 1939- 40 and 1941- 42", s_1-
ennial Survey of Education, Federal Security Agency, United States Office
of Education, Volume II, Chapter III, p. 131.

 

 

 

36

Estimates of percent of receipts from taxation and appropriation
from state, county, and local sources, by state, 1939-40, state school
systems, were available.31 By combining county and local sources an
estimate of the contribution of agriculture was made. Such an estimate
failed to allow for contributions made to state and federal funds which
were in turn returned and spent on education at the local level. On the
side of overestimation, to the extent that the rural areas included tax
paying nonagricultural establishments, there was an error. Thus, there
were errors of both overestimation and underestimation. It was hoped
that they might thus at least roughly compensate for each other and give
a usable estimate, especially when aggregated, of agriculture's contri-
bution to the educational investment of the off farm migrant. In any
case this did present a measure of the local conmmnity investment in
the education of off farm migrants.

This estimate of the percentage of the total that the agricultural
contribution comprised was multiplied by the total estimated investment,
Estimate 1, in the education of the migrants and thus an estimate of
the investment from agriculture was obtained for each state. The state
estimates were summed for a United States total. This produced Trans-
fer Estimate 1a.

Because there was reason to believe that the data on percent of
receipts from taxation and appropriation from state, county, and local
sources might reflect differences in the tax structures of the states
as well as differences in the ultimate source of public funds, other

means of estimation were also used.

 

311b1d., p. 23.

 

37

To each state estimate of total public education investment, Esti-
mate 1, the county plus local percentage contribution, United States

average32

was applied. This then was summed state by state to give a
United States estimate of agricultural contribution to public education
investment of off farm migrants. This was designated Transfer Estimate 1b.
Transfer Estimate lb was not open to the criticism of Transfer
Estimate 1a regarding the possible reflection of variations in state tax
structures, but to the extent that the percentages used to derive Trans-
fer Estimate la reflected real differences in the ultimate source of
public funds, the method used to derive Transfer Estimate 1b did intro-
duce error. To evaluate these various errors was not possible. Never-
theless, they had to be pointed out so that the reader would be aware
of the problem.
A third transfer estimate, Transfer Estimate 1c, was computed.
This computation involved the use of a percentage estimate of the non-
federal and nonstate revenues used in the financing of public schools
in rural counties?3 This percentage, 47.2 percent, was multiplied by
Estimate 1 of the total state public educational investment in net off
farm migrants. The state estimates of the agricultural investment in

the education of the migrants were summed to give a national estimate.

 

32E- 23-

33Statistics of Rural Schools, A United States Summary, 1955-56,
Circular No. 565, May 1959, Office of Education, United States Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 16. Admittedly, similar data for
1940 would have been preferable. It seemed, however, that the use of the
1955-56 figure would if anything underestimate the local contribution be-
cause of the trend toward increased federal and state support. Thus the
error was a conservative one. Despite the obvious inadequacies of the
use of this estimate of local contributions as an estimate of local con-
tributions as an estimate of the agricultural contribution, it was felt
that its use could be justified on the basis of a lack of more precise
estimates.

 

 

 

38

As was explained earlier two estimates of the total public invest-
ment in the education of the migrants were generated. The first estimate,
Estimate 1, gave both state and national estimates. Estimate 2, the
computation of which has not yet been explained, yielded only a national
estimate of the total public investment in the education of migrants.

To produce Estimate 2 of the total public investment in the educa-
tion of migrants, the total number of years of elementary and secondary
education represented in the national migrant group, adjusted to exclude
those fifty and older at migration, was multiplied by the 1940 United
States expense, interest, and capital outlay per rural pupil in average
daily attendance.34

Transfer Estimate 2d was produced by multiplying Estimate 2 of
total public investment in the education of migrants by the 69.4 percent,
the county plus local percentage contribution to receipts from taxation
and appropriation from state, county, and local sources, 1939-40, state
school systems, United States average.35

The computation of Transfer Estimate 2e differed from that of Trans-

 

fer Estimate 2d only in that in place of 69.4 percent, 47.2 percent was
used. 47.2 percent was the percentage estimate of the nonfederal and
nonstate revenues used in the financing of public schools in the rural

counties.36

 

34"Statistics of State School Systems, 1939-40 and 1941-42", .2-
cit., p. 131.

351mm, 1). 23.

36Statistics of Rural Schools, A United States Summary, 1955-56,

22. cit., p. 16. Refer to Footnote 33, this chapter.

 

 

 

 

39

For a further explanation of the computation of the extent of the
social capital transfers, see Appendix B.

It should be noted that no account was taken of the investment in
college education. This was necessitated by the lack of knowledge as to
what proportion of the college training was obtained in publicly supported
schools and how much contribution per pupil agriculture made to his
education. This caused a downward bias but not a very large one since
the college educated off farm migrant represented a small percentage of

total migrants. Further mention of this problem is made in Chapter III.

Weaknesses in the Procedure

The writer was keenly aware of several weaknesses inherent in the
estimating procedures used. It must be remembered, however, that one
had to deal with data which were available or which could be produced
within the limits of time and resources available.

The first area of real weakness was the assumption of no educational
selectivity in off farm migration. This assumption probably did not
seriously bias the type of estimates made in this study, but were adequate
data on educational selectivity, it would have been desirable to use them.

Almost inevitable is criticism based on the failure to break the
migration streams into white and nonwhite. The error introduced by this
failure seemed tolerable. Remember that the object of this study dealt
with educational investment, not numbers of people in various race cate-
gories. Thus even in states where nonwhites represented a significant
proportion of the off farm migration, the method used did not ignore

them. The educational distribution of the rural farm sector took into

 

 

 

»
'l.

e

"

    
     

40

account all race groups. The cost figures for rural educational ex-
penditure were a weighted average. This meant that both the educational
level estimates and the cost figures did include the nonwhite segment.
Even if the findings of Bogue and Hagood37 held, the errors introduced
would seem to be a conservative one of underestimation, for the positive
educational selectivity of whites was opposed by disproportionately
large numbers of the least well as well as the better educated nonwhites.
Serious criticism may be directed at the estimates of the percentage
contribution of agriculture to total public investment in the education
of off farm migrants. Such criticism is not without foundation, but
the problem faced here was a paucity of data. These estimates used were
selected, not as the best estimates which could be produced by extensive
research, but as the best estimates that could be made on the basis of
existing information. To go further would have constituted an additional
research effort using time and other resources not available for this

study.

Data Needed
It became increasingly obvious that too little was known about the
characteristics of the off farm migrant group. Census material did not
even begin to adequately deal with this group. We need to have a ”before"
and ”after” view of these people. The special tabulations of the 1950

38

Census gave an essentially "after" picture.

 

37Bogue and Hagood, 22. cit., p. 57. Se quote this chapter, pp. 23-24

38See United States Census of Population: 1950, Volume IV, Special
Reports, Part 4, Chapter C, ”Population Mobility - Farm-Nonfarm Movers,"
United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1957.

 

 

 

41

Of particular interest would be a tabulation which shows the time
of and age at migration. Adequate data of this sort did not appear to
be available. I

Migration is a phenomenon of groups as well as individuals. Ade-
quate data are needed so that we may know to what extent there was
migration of families as well as individuals who because of their youth
have not established conjugal family ties.

Despite the argument that the failure to breakdown off farm migra-
tion by race did not seriously bias the results of this study, it was
without doubt, desirable that adequate data by race be collected.

Lastly, there was real need for state by state studies which in-
vestigate the source and disbursement of revenues by economic sector.
Only with such studies could reasonably reliable estimates of the con-
tribution of agriculture to the education of off farm migrants be made.

Had data of the type discussed in this section been available, it
would have been possible to remove many of the "bugs" from this study.
Until such data are available, studies of this type will find that too
often an inadequate or even questionable method of attack is dictated
by the necessity of using the data available. To be forced to develop
methods which allow use of the data is seldom preferable to first

developing method and then using data which fit the method.

 

42

CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The Amount of Education Transferred to the Nonfarm Economy

The level of education of the off farm migrants of the 1940-50
decade was of interest. So far as the researcher knows no estimates
comparable to those developed in this study have been published.

TABLE III - l is a tabular presentation of these estimates. Be-
cause of its nature this table might be particularly interesting to
sociologists.

It was of interest to know how many years of education were repre-
sented in the net off farm migration of the 1940-50 decade. TABLE III - 2
gives estimates for states and for the United States of the number of
elementary and secondary years of education and the number of years of
college represented in net off farm migration.

Data from TABLES III - 1 and III - 2 were used to make the regional
comparisons shown in TABLE III - 3. The South appeared as the region
of heavy off farm migration, but it showed up relatively less heavily
as a contributor to the body of education held by the migrants at the
time of migration. A group of midwestern states - Ohio, Michigan, Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri - and a group of
southern states - South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and
Alabama - had approximately the same number of off farm migrants. The
migrants from-these midwestern states had approximately 1.4 times as
many years of college training as did the migrants from this group of
states in the South. Even so, the South (as defined in TABLE III - 3)

accounted for more than half the years of education carried by off farm

 

 

vouamaoo "cousom

.CMMu mamas
m an vouaoavow ma cowumsuHu «gnu use nouuanmom Baum emu cu nowumuwua :« use ea ouonu nomad oEom omm

 

 

 

 

3
A.
ooo.~m ooo.HH ooo.m~ coo.na ooo.Hm ooo.wmn ooo.a¢ coo.aas ssnasmHs
anew wmo we .oz
Hao.H nnH mam NH¢.H osm.H HAN.H Has HsN.~ so>o was a
ans as can Nae mao.H mmH.H mmN «Ne.H m
mas smH can aaH.H HNH.~ sow.H Nan mmH.~ N
Haw «NH Has HH¢.H ome.~ Hmo.~ was mHm.~ H
oonHoo
Ham.» msm.H omo.e on.mH HH¢.aH amo.m~ awa.m Haa.Hm a
o~s.s sea am¢.H aom.s mma.s me.oH sam.H mas.aH m
moo.n Hna smN.~ sm~.m aom.a moo.mu aHa.~ ooa.a~ N
mam.o was an.~ Haw.m amm.a «Hm.o~ sos.~ maa.on H
Hooaom ame
«NH.oH NNN.H wNH.a .sHN.~H mom.~H oom.mn mma.a ooa.ms m
ans.» mHs.H aaa.~ man.m was.» moo.oa «ma.m aNH.Hn a
«HH.a ass mas MHn.m mqo.m mam.am aNm.~ amm.mm o
oss.e Has men mam.m awo.m was.sm maa.~ aHn.o¢ m
«so.n mos emN sam.~ Hoo.~ oea.o~ mam.~ moa.nm a
sm¢.s «mm NsH sHN.~ anN.H mHm.n~ omm.~ mam.Hm m
aan.m mom Hm sHo.~ Hum mao.H~ mmo.~ «Nm.m~ N
Hoo.m «nu a- mHm.H son o¢m.mH oom.H oaH.m~ H
Hoonom mnmucoaoam
qu.s mHs NMH Hmo.m oao o~¢.mw «NH.HH Hum.am muss» .oz
Cuban—Oak oum3mHOQ uDUHUUOQGOQ OUwHOHOU mHflHOMHHwU nmmfidxu< NGONH u< NEGQIH< GOHuMUfl—vm
”Ha: HmOHUHHom mo stag»

 

mmoumum beams: was nousuu .:o«uquw«5
no oaHs um suamths stun moo om-osmH mo Ho>oH HscoHssuseo souaaHumm H - HHH mamas

 

 

 

44

ooo.mm ooo.mom ooo.mwn ooo.ona ooo.m- ooo.aMH coo.Hmu ooo.om coo.Hm¢ wunmuwas
Show mwo mo .02

 

 

 

 

 

 

HNs sos.H Hao.N sHa.H «wa.H HNo.H amm.N «mm can.N uu>o new a
on HNH.H mas.H omm.H wom.H mam msN.H one moo.H m
omm Hoa.H oeo.N Haa.N aNo.n nam.H aNo.N som.H NmN.m N
was mea.H mHm.n awH.s oam.s oaN.N can.m HHo.H mmH.m H
owoaaoo
mao.w www.mH ”ma.on omw.os soa.ms MHH.mN omm.ws mam.NH mom.mN a
moa.N on.NH Hmn.NH on.HH amB.NH amm.a moo.aH woa.s mNN.om n
Nam.m mmm.mH wea.sH mam.HH haN.sH sho.NH oam.eH omm.n mom.nN N
Hno.e maN.NH Noe.mH «so.HH amm.eH «on.HH Hoo.oH moo.m Noo.Nm H
Hooaum :me
NnH.m nmm.MN maN.oa saN.mm «Hs.ma Neo.¢N omH.Hn onm.w Hoo.me m
«ma.s mmo.mN HHm.ws “Ha.mN omH.Nm HmN.eH Hoo.om asm.m mmo.mm N
mam.H soo.Nm sea.mm amm.o «NH.m cos.“ mNH.m Nmo.H osm.mq e
mom.H mwN.Hm Hms.mN omm.e oom.N Haw.¢ NNH.m sam.H can.oa m
«an NHw.om New.MN oNH.s Nm¢.s MHm.N cas.m moH.H mon.an q
Nmo moa.aN «MH.HN mHN.m nms.m mmo.N NNo.s mam HsN.an m
own moo.mN mmo.nH mNs.m oaH.m ans.H Haa.m Non mom.om N
smN sso.mN aoN.mH msm.m «MH.m Nam.H mnm.m Nwo mam.eN H
Hoosum hunucoEuHN
«mm Hsa.mn me.sH Nom.m mom.m Hom.H «no.0 maH.H saN.os muuua .oz
asoH nequaH mHocHHHH oaauH mwwumwm
ocuumosvm
UHaa HuUHUHHoa mo stun»

 

moscwuaoo H - HHH mam<a

 

 

 

 

45

ooo.~q~ coo.Hn coo.Nw~ coo.mm¢ ooo.~¢~ coo.noa ooo.m ooo.oo mucouwwa
Show wmo mo .02

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

mno.H mom oHa.H HeN.N 0mm.H mmH.H nHm «ON.H no>o was a
omN.H Nmm ans.H eN¢.H mmn.H “No oHH cos n
aHm.H amm osH.m mam.N on.N NwN.H mHs «an N
me.m «HH.H NaN.a mHa.N moa.m Nnn.N can Hem H
omoaaoo
moo.Nm oes.m Hes.es mom.aN me.nn «HH.mn HNa.m «NH.» s
mMN.m amm.N wa.mH maa.NH woo.mH msm.HH Nam me.m n
mmm.a NNs.m New.mH Hoa.NN ohm.nH noo.nH moo.H cam.m N
Ham.m Nma.n aNN.aH onm.mN Noc.NH Hnn.mH oNN.H an.¢ H
Hooeum new:
mmo.mN Hoq.o nnm.He ems.om sHe.mo omm.am new nan.” o
HNN.aH NHa.o msH.qm . oo¢.¢a Hmm.on mno.aH HmH oNN.m a
oNo.m amn.N ssH.oH nHo.ms mHo.HH aHo.N esH- neo.m o
awo.m msN.N NaN.¢H ano.me mmo.oH Nms.o mNm- ssm.e m
mam.m mno.H mnn.oH nmm.wm mom.o on.s oHe- mom.N a
on.N mam.H moo.a ooH.em Hno.n ama.N mNa- Neo.N n
mHN.N ewm.H nan.a mmH.aN wan.s HoN.H ans- was.H N
smw.N Nmm.H nNm.a Nom.oN ons.s was.H sue- mom.H H
Hoosom hwuuaoaofim
Hum.c nos.N ann.m nan.em «HH.a mum.H sac.H- an.H «use» oz
oxnmunoz «amuse: «ascend: H «mnammfiz mucusncfiz no «god: unusuanuseunz mundane: couumoavu
uHcm HmUHUHHoa no «snow

 

mosauucoo H - HHH uqm¢8

 

46

ooo.OHH ooo.mn¢ ooo.NNH coo.mo ooo.o~ ooo.oH ooo.n muamuwwa
Show wwo mo .02

 

 

 

«mo sow.~ wmo.~ oHo Hon mom mm uo>o van a
Nmm me.H NoN.H mas mNH NNH on N
Non.H Nam.H som.H aHe Non oaN an N
moH.N Nm¢.N mNH.N sea can NNN Nm H
uonHoo
omq.NH nHN.NN HNH.nN «Hm.o mmw.n m¢N.N can a
Hem.a maa.NN ooa.m NmN.N osH.H saw HNH m
ass.m own.NN mNH.NH Hen.n maa.H 0mm mmN N
Nmo.m NN¢.¢N me.oH was.n mam.H NNo.H NNN H
Hooeom ame
naN.aN HmN.¢s mNN.NN NNo.N ons.m me.N mos w
onn.oH oom.¢m on.NH sac.“ onm.N NNH.H NHN N
HoN.m anH.os HNN.n mnm.¢ Neo.H omn ANH o
Nom.m Nso.se oNo.s mNo.a Nam emN an m
NHo.n mNn.an oao.N moo.m nos soH ooH a
Hmm.n Hmo.Nm sos.H NNn.N ass NN ma N
NmH.m mam.mN sou mom.m oNs m as N
mom.n «Na.mH non NHo.m nos HN- moH H
Hoosom AnounoauHu
Hmo.s ooN.oN Nan HNH.m NNN no- NNH sumo» oz
nuoxmn muuoz usHHoumo nuuoz snow 3oz ooHXux suz hookah 3oz ouHsmmaom zuz uvn>oz :oHumoavm
uHap HaUHUHHoa no mass»

 

concHufloo H u HHH Ham<9

 

47

ooo.mm ooo.oom coo.H- ooo.mNH coo.sN ooo.mos ooo.moN usaaumHa
Emu HMO NO .02

 

 

 

mmm mNH.n qu- mnN.N nan mwo.m hmn.N uo>o one a
wNN me.H cm I nmm.H HNm NNn.N oHo.H m
MMN.H o¢0.N cHH- mMH.N mmm oom.m «Nn.N N
qu.N ooN.H mmN- mNm.N cow mnm.m MNH.m H

oonHoo
wmm.mH moo.MH How- mmo.nm Hoo.n acm.mm wnm.on a
owN.o NNH.wH noHu Hnm.oH «mo.N coo.oN MHm.mH m
oNN.o oqm.oH mum- mmN.mH nmo.m NNN.mN mo¢.0N N
mmn.¢ HNo.mH NON- www.mH onc.n HmN.Hn ONm.mH H

Hooaom amHm
nwm.o~ mmm.mN mun- Hon.o¢ mne.¢ www.mo mmn.mm m
wmn.NH moH.mm No HmN.mN oNo.N nwo.nc on.MN N
NNm.m onw.mN N . OMH.m mom Noo.wN cmo.m o
wmh.m Nwo.wN omH emm.N who omn.oN Hmn.o n
mam.N www.mN mmH wnH.m mam mom.NH mHo.m a
ohm.H NNo.¢N omN mmo.N we aoH.oH maa.H m
Nnm.H «no.mH oNN oHH.H NmHu won.nH mos N
moH.N woo.oH NmH mom oaNu mmN.mH Non H

Hoonom munuouaon

ess.m on.aN can com HNN- ooN.NN aNN scams 02

nuoxnm nusom mcHHouso nusom ocanH spasm chs>Hhun=om sowopo maommeo oHno 1|

coHumusvm

uHsD HmoHuHHom mo mums»

 

voucHunoo H . HHH mqm<a

 

 

48

 

 

 

coo.NNH ooo.No ooo.NoN coo.NN ooo.mN ooo.oHa ooo.mmm ouausta
Euwm mwo mo .02
Nam Ham mmN.N mom Nam neN.m Nem.H so>o was a
NNe ass Hos.H mmN can NNN.m mwN.H N
NNH.H Hom.H NmN.N mos NHm Noo.a oON.N N
woa.H oeo.N «HN.N mom oaN Nos.HH oe0.N H
omoHHoo
Ham.mH amm.oH wmo.HN nms.¢ an¢.m Nam.om msN.NN a
oo¢.o Hom.s see.NH NsN.H NmN.N oHs.oo mHN.NH m
NmN.m NoN.N mmN.sH NNN.N Hms.N NNo.oo NoH.NH N
ooe.oH Nws.N smH.NH nHH.N NaH.N NmN.ms Nso.oN H
Hoonom amHe
moN.mN omH.HH NaH.eN Nms.o oas.N «Ha.Ha Hmm.mm m
HNm.NH NNm.o mNo.NN amN.N osm.H mnN.NN Hmo.am N
HHa.HH Hoa.H NnN.oN «NN.H NNN nmo.ms mes.HN o
woN.a mos.H NmN.sN eao.H NoN NNN.Na maN.NN m
mHo.s com mmH.mH ans mam mNH.os mmn.HN a
mNm.¢ «NH «No.nH was was oaN.ms mmm.NH N
mom.m mam- NmN.HH mHN can NNN.ms MNm.sH N
NHH.N NmN- Non.oH NmN Nan HNN.Hs Nom.NH H
mumuaoaon
mHo.s HoH.N- Non.oH HNs «so.H nom.oa ssN.NH sumo» oz
IrchkuH> uses scuwaHneoz chkuH> uaoauo> gnu: annoy commonsoa soHumosvm
“Ha: HmoHUHHoa no stems

voanHufioo H u HHH mgm<8

 

 

noumum voans emu now ounaHuwo .eonom .ooo.oHo.m Hears uoc noon anu nouns
maanaou on use .uHmuOu mucus emu mo Han ecu uH aHnu menu ouozNH

49

oooo.Noo.N ooo.HN coo.HoN oooaomHa
atom moo No .oz

 

 

NoN.HN NNN NoH.H oo>o was a
Hno.oo NoN HNN.H N
NNN.ow NoN NNN.N N
NNN.NoH Nos HHo.N H
owuHHou
NNo.oNo.H NoN.o NHo.NN o
oNN.HNo omo.H NNo.oH N
oNN.NNN NNN.H HNN.NH N
NoN.Noo HNN.H moN.NH H
Hooaom szz
NNH.NNN.H ooN.N NNN.oN N
NNN.oHo.H NHN.N NoN.NN N
NNN.noo Now ooN.N o
oNN.NNN Now oNN.N N
HHN.NNs HNN NNN.N a
NNN.NHo NNN NNo.o N
oNN.NNN Non NsN.N N
HNN.ooN NNN oaH.N H
Hoozom humanoauHm
N¢N.NHN NNN oNN.N aroma oz
magnum ooUHsa wcHasxz :HwnOouHs noHumosvu

 

oHoz HuoHoHHoz mo some»

 

vuacHuaoo H n HHH mam<9

 

 

50

TABLE III - 2 Estimates of number of years of education represented
in net off farm migration 1940-50, states and United

States.

 

 

Political Number of Years
Unit 21 ~ Ljnd " ‘ , College
Alabama 2,921,755 20,097
Arizona 259,428 5,155
Arkansas 2,501,971 14,300
California 741,990 17,463
Colorado 582,122 9,829
Connecticut 219,968 6,533
Delaware 86,208 1,192
Florida 571,315 7,897
Georgia 2,905,906 24,900
Idaho 486,862 8,559
Illinois 1,957,874 23,544
Indiana 1,262,583 14,975
Iowa 1,882,959 23,013
Kansas 1,518,964 22,491
Kentucky 2,456,801 21,371
Louisiana 1,718,335 15,472
Maine 345,107 4,409
Maryland 463,772 8,045
Massachusetts 93,544 2,756
Michigan 1,433,841 13,633
Minnesota 1,947,439 18,806
Mississippi 2,654,886 21,120
Missouri 2,218,257 23,162
Montana 401,915 6,669
Nebraska 1,197,987 14,640
Nevada 23,694 481
New Hampshire 96,328 2,239
New Jersey 164,810 3,769
New Mexico 386,111 5,923
New York ‘ 1,101,476 19,478
North Carolina 2,674,138 21,653
North Dakota 827,094 10,381
Ohio 1,903,092 23,057
Oklahoma 2,995,594 33,086
Oregon 262,611 4,387
Pennsylvania 1,635,643 22,254
Rhode Island —24,799 -1,230
South Carolina 1,758,666 22,095
South Dakota 674,722 9,156
Tennessee 2,205,055 19,103
Texas 6,012,202 81,660
Utah 204,572 4,288

 

May‘s-m .3..-

 

 

TABLE III - 2 Continued

51

 

 

Political Number of Years

Unit Elementary and Secondary College
Vermont 229,500 3,445
Virginia 1,767,800 23,111
Washington 631,574 11,219
West Virginia 1,022,644 9,488
Wisconsin 1,662,289 16,496
Wyoming 172,475 3,112
United States 61,219,080 698,682

Source: Computed

 

 

 

 

52

TABLE III - 3 A comparison of the contribution to net off farm
migration and years of education held by the net
off farm migrants, by regions,a United States,

 

 

 

1940-1950.

Percent Of Percent of Years of Education Held by

Net U. S. Net Off Farm Migrants
Re81°“ off farm

Migration Elementary and Secondary College
Northeast 5 6 9
North Central 25 30 31
South 64 57 49
West 6 ~ 7 11

 

8The regions were defined as follows: Northeast - Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; North Central - Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas; South - Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ken-
tucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
and Texas; and West - Mmtana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California.

Source: Computed

migrants. Thus the years of education were greatest in the South, but
this was more than offset by the increased levels of educational ex-
penditure in the regions outside the South. While the South contributed
more than half of the migrants and more than half of the years of school
attendance received by its migrants, it contributed less than half of

the agriculturally derived public educational investment in the 1940-1950

off farm migrants.1

 

1This last part of the statement anticipates some of the data pre-
sented later in this chapter in TABLE III - 8. It should be noted that
the Appalachian, Southeast, Delta, and Texas-Oklahoma regions of TABLE
III - 8 comprise what in TABLE III - 3 was designated as South.

 

 

 

 

53

vouamaou

”mousom

.Huuou ououm ago no Ban onu Hears uoa hue Hausa meadow toads: on» uouno mdausaou cu once

 

 

noa.mnm soo.mm~.am u.¢ .m .p

HmH.~ Hew.om~ masses: «mm.a oaa.o0m nausea:
oa~.HH naw.~m~.a gaseous“: «mo.oa ew~.mnm.a “Macaw“:
use.o mou.mmm uaauwua> gnu: ~«m.wa oom.nm¢.~ “aaanmuuuaz
was.m oma.mom noumusanus amm.n~ mac.mam.a «accused:
mam.aa man.mam.a uaaamua> om¢.a auo.flmo.a cameras:
“an.“ Noo.ooa uuoauo> Hom.a «no.mm nuuonuaouanuz
anH.m Hom.aea an»: Nam.m Nam.mom gangsta:
a~o.wo mao.am~.m mange Ha~.¢ moc.mmm menus
mum.o~ wom.oma.a amouoaaos m-.ma mmm.m~m.a «assuage;
has.» qu.~a¢ «pagan auaom mam.ma m¢m.~ma.~ sausuaue
~o~.aa Hou.amm.s uaaaouuo auaom cam.nH wmm.ooH.H assume
Noe- moo.¢a- vamHmH ocean soo.ma onw.amm.~ mon
can.ma oo~.mn~.a uuam>aamaaom onm.oH www.0em «cuanaH
cam.a ¢H¢.mna cowouo oom.oa ome.nma.a saoauaaH
mam.a~ s-.ohn.u maosaaxo asa.o cma.nnm onovH
www.ma NAN.~oa.H cane ao¢.¢~ maamoam.~ mawuooo
oqm.a mom.mao «posse euuoz emm.o m¢¢.¢ma «usuoam
moH.aH aau.~mq.~ unsaoumo :uuoz “No mea.oa unusuaon
Hmm.oa Haa.oao ago» suz mm¢.e mm~.e0a usuauouccou
“Ho.q «no.m~m ocean: :uz m~o.o Naa.one evapoaoo
mam.a nma.wm suntan 3oz cam.m mah.~ne maauomaamo
Nag.” mam.am «paenaau: suz on~.~a can.omu.~ amuauxu<
mmm mom.aa mum>uz om~.a Nom.m- acouau<
maa.oa Ham.mmm manuunoz Nua.aa Nam.auo.~ maupmaa

huovaouom humvaooom
owoaaoo new humuaosuau «moaaoo was Auuusoaoau

«hour we nonaaz

awn: anuwuwuom

 

muss» mo nonaaz

uwflb Hmowuauom

 

.vousuwwa aosu dos: nevus use on uaonu Ho noausnunudoo

use ouodwaqao ou vouusnvm .woumum usage: one season .onnocau coaumumwa
anew «no use =« voucouonmou soauuoavo mo wusoh no Hones: mo mauqauumu q u HHH flun<H

 

   

   

54

As explained in CHAPTER II, the number of years of education was
adjusted to eliminate the contribution of those fifty or older when
they migrated. These adjusted estimates are presented in TABLE III - 4.

The Extent of the Educational Investment of Agriculture
in Net Off Farm Mflgrants

‘The estimates of total investment in the education of net off farm
migrants by state, Estimate 1, are presented in TABLE III - 5. These
estimates were based on 1939-40 figures on current expense, interest,
and capital outlay per rural pupil in average daily attendance. They
include no allowance for college training and therefore had a downward
bias. This bias, however, was not great because a small percentage of
the off farm migrants had college training.

The estimated transfer from agriculture, or agriculture's contri-
bution to this total educational investment in net off farm migrants, is
presented in TABLE III - 6.

If an arbitrary allowance of one hundred dollars per year of
college training were allowed as the agricultural contribution to the
college training, the estimate of total agricultural contribution to the
education of off farm migrants for the 1940 decade was somewhat in-
creased. The estimates which included this allowance for college
training are presented in TABLE III - 7.

These estimates of the transfer in educational investment which
agriculture sustained as a result of off farm migration support the
hypothesis that the transfer was considerable.

It should be pointed out that the estimates of transfer for the

United States probably had greater reliability than did the individual

 

55

 

 

vouaaaoo "oouaom

soa.mon.uoe.¢m AuuuaaaoUV moumum vogue:

mmmuuao.maa.mw Awuumum no same museum vogue:

Nou.aom.aa masses: o-.omm.aa nuance:
oom.aH~.~oH seasoned: ann.ma~.mma assassin
mce.ooa.no nasawua> an»: ana.maa.na Haanumnuna:
«so.naw.~a couwsaeamz amc.m¢a.ona “sauces“:
oom.mao.aw canawua> m-.woe.HOa nauseous
mam.cwa.aH oceano> oNo.mw~.w nuuomsnoaauu:
Hoh.mwe.aa anus «an.amm.mm vamaauux
Naa.amo.ooa assay maa.ama.o~ onus:
aaa.oma.am momuocaoa mna.wmo.maa unmana=QH
oao.amh.aa muoan asaom ane.m~o.am sauauaoz
omn.m¢m.mo aaaaouqo canon onm.wma.maa «manna
“Nm.oem- ucmauH «were amn.onm.omH msoH
oo~.mea.m~a cacs>aamcaum don.mwn.am unusuaH
~m¢.m~a.ma nomuuo m-.aam.so~ maoaaaaH
oNa.moH.ow~ maoemaxo ”No.¢ma.an oaauu
mna.omm.maa case «Ha.omm.caa uawuowo
4H~.¢ma.an «scam: nuuoz mmo.mmm.am «caucus
Hau.moe.aaa masseuse :uuoz ohm.moo.aa oumsmaua
Hem.ama.aoa snow zwz woo.aaw.o~ sauauoocuoo
moa.ns~.nm ocean: zuz omm.wmn.~a ouauoaou
nam.maw.~a assume 3»: Hnm.~na.mo uaauouaauo
NNm.on.o uuaeaaaum smz ooH.oem.oa manauau<
meo.nnq.n nua>oz oNo.mHo.mm ssONHu<
mmm.mmo.oa usuaunoz aeo.ana.non maunma<

 

usoaumo>=H oaansm
«woos mo ouoauumm

uwab mmowuwaom

 

uaoauuo>cH owuosm
annoy uo ousaauwu

awn: Hmofiuwaom

 

.aoHuoosvo mo wumoo coma us
poaaw> .onuo¢mu .doaunuwwa us was uuooh human coon mesa nucsumaa Show uuo use no
acqumoavo huovsooom vow zuouaoaoao ago :a uoosuno>s« oflansm HouOu ueu mo muuuaaumu n n HHH uAn<H

wwm'w‘_mrza -.. GL9:— f'.’ " -" .1! ‘ ~ . ' ..

 

56

 

mom.oo~.na oma.mmo.n~ a~o.~a~.ca oedema suz
ma~.mmo.o mam.anm.m mne.nma.- houses suz
oaa.eam.m «Ha.o~a.a ~m~.oma.o «Hangman: suz
oa~.mmo.a ~a~.ofia.~ ego.moa.~ usa>uz
amo.omo.mm nnm.ace.ma eem.ao~.ao ax.aupoz
3.33. S :NJQ . a" S». n2. mm 2.382
nom.mae.~e aam.oas.ao am~.oom.sm unsouuaz
amo.oom.mm om~.a~a.~m H-.a¢c.o¢ seasonaauaz
coa.ooa.ma aoa.mon.wofi woe.uma.aoa «sausage:
emo.ama.aa oaa.o~m.oa mae.mom.am nauseous
~m~.~aa.m nom.~na.m ama.na¢.a auuoaanouuoax
oua.noa.ma ouo.maa.m~ -o.moo.o~ sandman:
oma.omo.a mma.aaa.¢a oc~.mo~.aa seas:
-a.mom.mm aoa.~o¢.wa «Hm.m~a.m¢ «sausages
moo.~mm.a¢ oan.cn~.mo ~a~.m~a.en escapees
omm.aom.om o¢¢.aoa.~o oaa.~wa.moa manque
mme.meo.ee mam.a¢o.na odo.Oma.nma mon
o~m.mm~.~¢ “Hw.osa.~o nae.aam.mn aaaanaH
Haw.mmm.am oaa.~ao.¢ea o~m.-a.oma .aoaaaau
~¢~.meo.aa mae.mam.m~ aca.~¢m.~m canon
moa.naa.nm om~.~mm.ma “He.mam.aq weapons
mna.aoa.oa ma~.-~.e~ mmo.oam.oa «vauoam
a~o.sae.m omo.mno.m «wo.aem ouuauaon
ooo.o~m.a mma.m¢¢.a~ oma.omm.ma usuauooqaoo
moo.¢ma.aa anu.mmn.m~ mem.oao.oe oeauoaoo
aoo.woo.aa osm.aaa.ao ~mo.mao.oa «asuouaamo
«om.aa~.om ama.amm.mm amm.oaa.ae «mascara
oma.amn.ma qo~.maa.- mam.mao.o~ «nouau4
aaa.aam.mqa sam.~ma.aaa oaa.o~meuam naupnac
«N masseuse en usages.» ca ouuaaumm AH ouqaau.m «a «assays»
nouussua nauseous nowasmua nonsense nauseoua awn: doowuuflom

 

escauooavo mo auaou
coma om coma .so«uoumwa as was undo» human dado «use mudouwastsuam «mo use
aw uaoauuo>sa descauooneo uwaosm one an coausnauusoo dousunsuwumm mo nonmaauau o HHH mqm<a

 

 

 

 

 

57

pauseaoo

"condom

.wsqswouu omoauoo you oosnsodau on ousaodu oeusaauas seesaw

 

oaa.ama.aao.~w use.amm.mmo.ma oaa.a-.mwa.aa aom.oaa.-o.~w mam.oaa.awa.~m mosque sauna:

m¢m.¢o~.m onm.~ma.~a ama.oaa.oa masses:

ooe.e¢~.m¢ nam.mma.oa mam.~oa.mw nauseous:

Nem.aam.cm mao.~an.ma mea.mma.am macawua> goo:

aa~.n-.o~ moa.mms.mu amm.amn.oa aouwaunaaz

~oo.ma~.mm moe.~m~.om emm.ana.~m aaaawua>

«am.Nao.a ~mm.amm.oH aan.-¢.~a uaosuos

«Ho.e-.m omo.~ao.- mea.a-.oa emu:

ae¢.ona.aaa oca.aa~.aw~ o¢n.n~a.mm~ canoe

ama.mmm.mm om~.aom.mn “No.~so.mn consensus

amm.m~m.m~ Noa.n~a.mn oma.oso.ma auoxmn gunom

awn.mom.~m oeo.an~.m¢ mom.a~m.am uaaaouuo assom

a~a.ma¢ - nua.~mo - . oao.amw - unuauu usage

nan.nos.oo nmm.amo.mm hem.osm.ooa ua=u>aaaaaom

auo.o¢a.a oaa.mos.oa mmm.aoo.ma cowouo

asa.aao.mm w¢~.mma.¢- amm.aoa.aca «assuage

aeo.amm.oa oao.maa.mca «No.aoa.mm cane

oma.¢aa.e~ m~o.H0m.mm aao.mwa.me muosmn auuoz

oun.aaa.nm aum.aaa.ae m~a.uam.mm mafiaoumo auuoz

_ nam.mmm.ma om~.mmm.maa o~w.naa.oaa ago» smz
» ow «unsung» cu oumaaunm ca uuaaauuu an masseuse «a ouqanumu

”Emu nauseous nounsoua nomasous nomnduua nomoaouh odd: Hooauwaom

 

 

u ..
a u
. 'a . .
1" u .. -

voanwuaoo o u HHH uAm<B

 

 

 

 

58

 

mam.nw~.o an.oaH.a ena.oom.ua suntan zwz
caa.amm.m asa.nam.a «ma.mmm.o assesses: smz
can.~ao.a www.maa.u can.aom.~ avs>oz
amn.moo.an mne.oao.ma sow.oau.oa «annuaoz
as».~a~.o~ as¢.~mm.m~ aao.~am.wn «sauna:
noo.m-.so Hao.omn.mo ama.moa.om «usages:
anm.~¢a.an oma.moo.am Hua.amn.wa “as“..aauaz
ooa.ooo.na aoe.aua.moa wo~.~em.~oa nuances“:
«mo.aom.wa oaa.eo¢.aa mao.aam.nm nauseous
«an.meo.a hoe.wmm.m awu.asm.a musomseouaaqz
sum.omn.oa oun.moa.m~ -m.oao.o~ sesame“:
om~.aao.oa mam.wao.aa oo~.o~o.aa «can:
Nam.omo.an “on.mms.aa «Ha.ano.on mamamasog
aon.-~.os saw.nao.ao «an.eon.om axusunox
omH.aam.am seo.eme.aw oaa.aso.aoa «magma
me.omH.oo mmm.qnn.oa oaa.oma.ona maoH
«Hm.onm.ne Haa.¢-.mo ma~.mmm.oo masque“
Hmm.mmo.mm os¢.-a.maa cam.uao.wma «socaaaH
«an.ow~.mH m~o.~mn.o~ som.mnn.mm oeanu
moo.n¢e.om oma.aeo.flw Haa.mo~.on aawuouu
nmm.oma.aa aao.nmw.sm mna.aas.aa sunbeam
nNm.aen.n own.naa.w «an.mmm onwauawa
oom.na~.oa mmm.amm.aH oao.nn¢.ma unuauuoaaoo
mow.ane.o~ mmo.Hno.On maa.mao.oa ovmuoaoo
soa.ama.~a oa~.aoo.~o «no.5om.oa «scuowaamo
~o~.nma.am aao.mmn.am sas.maa.we mumamxua
omm.aao.oa som.eam.m~ mam.m¢a.o~ «couaua
acm.aon.onm asa.m~m.maw oao.~on.a¢m maanaa<
0N OumwuHumN UN Ouwawunm o.— uugumfl a: mum—55mm 6H fluguom
nowadays noundmua uowwamuh nownduua unannoua uficb amouuwsom

 

.soHususvo mo uumoo cam” .souuaumaa um
vac awash on swan mmuu museumwa Show uwo as: ea unoEu-o>aa ”mesqumosvo cannon ou

souusnwuucoo auusuasowuwo no waacamuu oonHoo as you» use ocaw wnwvsaoaa noumswumm n u HHH mqm<9

 

 

59

 

 

vousmaoo "sounom

oao.aom.mma.~w «Ha.oaa.oaa.ma omm.ooa.emm.aa mo~.maw.ano.~a mam.msm.¢mm.Nw .auaum vegan:
mec.~m¢.m oo¢.aom.ua am~.emo.oa masses:

ooo.oam.ms m¢m.~oo.~a www.o-.aw camaoumas

Nam.aaa.an maa.am~.oe moa.awa.am «assures us»:

amo.aaa.o~ moa.~om.on Hma.m¢H.aH nouwsaauus

~0H.Ho~.o¢ mea.mo~.wn omo.oqa.en maaamua>

3min; «3.30.3 SfiSfifi 29:3

maa.mmn.m oas.hoa.ua wea.nan.oa gnu:

hem.nea.waa oom.m¢o.mmu o¢m.~mm.n¢~ queue

m-.m~o.aa oma.ama.oo Hum.eom.am «sausages

smo.aaa.mm Noa.ama.mm oma.om~.aa «poem: auaom

m~a.w~s.am oom.ama.om mem.a¢a.em aaaaouao euaom

m~0.aon- nwe.maa- omn.ooa- vauHuH moose

mam.o¢c.~e mam.mma.om a¢m.nmn.~oa unca>aam==om

awo.¢nm.a o¢~.mao.o~ wmm.ao~.ma sonata

as¢.mmm.ow mam.aam.oua ama.amo.aoa «sausage

aem.mma.- oam.omm.moH nwm.m-.¢m euro

awa.mmm.a~ m~o.mm~.on Noo.Nam.aa unease nuuoz

eao.a~m.am mua.wmm.mm nua.-a.mm anaaoumo euuoz

mao.mom.ma on~.~ao.aaa oaa.omn.aaa snow :uz

moo.HoH.oH om~.oan.n~ aHH.moh.oa conga: saz

ow ousaauum on suufiaumn oa ousawunu AH ouuaauwm as oueauuam

“Omar—GHQ... “Owns—wk? HQNNGQHH HUMOGQHH. “Owns—Qua. UHSD aQUHH—HHOA

 

vascuusoo n u

HHH MAM<H

 

60

state estimates. This was particularly true for the New England states.
In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut the net out migration
estimates were understated somewhat because of the change in designation
from urban in 1940 to rural in 1950 of parts of certain towns.2 In
Rhode Island the apparent net in migration resulted from problems con-
nected with the change in designation from urban in 1940 to rural in
1950 of parts of certain towns. In these instances change in the defi-
nition of residence from urban farm to rural farm was indicated rather
than actual movement from nonfarm areas to farms.3

Some Relative Comparisons of Agriculture's Investment in

the Education of Migrants with Other Uses of Funds

There are dozens of comparisons which could be made to help bring
into perspective the importance of agriculture's contribution to the
social capital of the nonfarm economy.

Perhaps, first it should be noted that the transfers investigated
in this study comprised only a small portion of the drain on agricultural
incomes, a drain which resulted from the production of population in
excess of replacement needs in agriculture. The expenditures which
families made in their children who migrated certainly represented a

drain of great magnitude.

 

2Gladys K. Bowles, Farm Population, Net Migration from the Rural
Farm Population, 1940-50, Statistical Bulletin No. 176, (Washington:

Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture,
June 1956), pp. 28-30 and 166.

31bid. pp. 30 and 166.

 

 

   

61

Tarver concluded that an expenditure of more than $15,000, at prices
prevailing in 1954, was required to rear and educate a farm child in the
United States through age 18.4 Included in this figure was slightly
less than4$3,0005 for education, so a $12,000 estimate not including
education was reasonable. Using an index of the purchasing power of
the dollar as measured by consumer prices,6 this $12,000 for 1954 con-
verted to $6,264 in terms of 1940 prices. A rough conversion of the
8,610,000 off farm migrants 1940-50 to adult educational equivalents
yielded an estimate of 7,349,000.7 This times $6,264 was $46,034,136,000.
Even if it had been assumed that those migrants fifty and older in 1945
had remained in agriculture long enough to return to agriculture the
investment made in them, adjustment of the 7,349,000 adult equivalents
to exclude this group would have reduced the figure only to 5,965,000
adult equivalents. Five million nine hundred sixty five thousand times
$6,264 was $37,364,760,000, an expenditure of significant size. Were it
argued that Tarver's estimate was too high, it would still have been
difficult to reduce it enough to get an estimated drain of inconsequential

size. If $3,000 instead of the $6,264 figure were used, the estimate

 

4James D. Tarver, "Costs of Rearing and Educating Farm Children"
Journal of Farm Economics, volume XXXVIII, No. 1, (February 1956), p. 153.

 

51bid., p. 149.

6See Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1955, (Washington:
United States Department of Commerce, 1955), Table No. 373, p. 316.

7Those in the 1945 5-9 age category were valued at 1/4 adult
equivalent, those 10-14 at 1/2, and those 15-19 at 3/4. The remainder
were valued at a full adult equivalent.

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

"1
a

a? .\ . _-

,_
\
l‘e- <
-.~ 1I -, ..
”I-..

 
 

. .—

  

62

of family expenditure would have been nearly $18 billion. If it were
arbitrarily assumed that only ten percent of these family-borne expendi-
tures for rearing off farm migrants was investment as defined in
Chapter I, this meant an investment of about $1.8 billion in social
capital. If a five percent figure were used, the investment would
still total almost $.9 billion, a sizeable figure.

Realized net income of farm operators including government payment
for 1940 through 1949 adjusted to 1940 price levels by the use of a
consumer price index was $83,961,000,000.8 Taking the $18 billion and ig-
noring the additional educational investment, it could be seen that
this expenditure exceeded twenty percent of the realized net income of
farm operators including government payments for the decade. The $37
billion figure exceeded forty percent. That the rearing of excess farm
population consumed a sizeable portion of agricultural incomes is clear.

Government payments under rental and benefit, soil conservation,
price adjustment, price parity, Sugar Act, and production for 1940-49,
reduced to 1940 price levels on the basis of a consumer price index,
amounted to $4,532,000,000.9 Even by the most conservative estimate of
family expenses of $18 billion, this expenditure by agriculture amounted
to about four times the amount received in government payments. While
the relevance to this comparison, except as it showed the relative

magnitude of family borne expenditures in rearing off farm migrants,

 

8For the derivation of this figure, see Appendix C.

9See Appendix C for the derivation of this figure.

 

M? '.

"I

 

 

 

 

 

63

could have been questioned, a comparison of the $4.5 billion in govern-
ment payments and the portion of the public investment in the education
of off farm migrants borne by agriculture is valid, for both constitute
a drain on the incomes of sectors. If to the $2.5 billion estimate (See
TABLE III - 8) of agriculturally derived public investment in the educa-
tion of off farm migrants the arbitrary estimate of $1.8 billion in family
borne investment alluded to above is added, it appears that the invest-
ment expenditure by agriculture in the social capital which moved with
off farm migrants amounted to almost as much as government payments to
the industry. If only five percent of family borne expenditures in
rearing migrants were assumed to be investment in nature, the agricultural
investment figure would be about $3.4 billion, still a sizeable portion
of the $4.5 billion in government payments.

Calculations based on the work of Tostlebe10 indicated that what
may be termed net new investment in physical farm assets valued at 1940
prices was about $4.6 billion over the decade 1940-50. TABLE III - 8
shows a regional breakdown of this investment and a comparable breakdown
of the investment made by agriculture in the education of off farm
migrants. Perhaps the most interesting conclusion to be drawn from
TABLE III - 8 is that for every two dollars of net new investment in
physical farm assets during the 1940 decade, one dollar of agricultural
income invested in the public education of off farm migrants found its

way into the social capital of the nonfarm economy.

 

10Alvin S. Tostlebe, Capital in Agriculture: Its Formation and
Financing Since 1870, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research,
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 54-57 and 66-69.

   

64

TABLE III - 8 Net new investment in physical farm assets and
agricultural investment in the education of off
farm migrants, valued at 1940 prices, United
States, 1940-50 ‘

 

Regiona Net New Investmentb Educational Investmentc
(Billions of Dollars) (Billions of Dollars)
Northeast .1 .2
Appalachian .5 .3
Southeast .5 .2
Lake States .4 .2
Corn Belt .6 .5
Delta States .3 .2
Great Plains .5 .2
Texas-Oklahoma .4 .4
Pbuntain . 6 . 2
Pacific .7 .1
United States 4.6 2.5

8In this table the regions and the states in each as follows:
Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont); Appalachian (Dela-
ware, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia); Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina);
Lake States (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin); Corn Belt (Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio); Delta States (Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi); Great Plains (Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota); Texas-Oklahoma (Oklahoma and Texas); thntain (Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming); and Pacific
(California, Oregon and Washington).

bTostlebee (See footnote 10, this chapter, for citation) gave esti-
mates of the value of physical farm assets in terms of both constant
(1910-1914) and current prices, by selected groups and regions for the
census years 1870-1950. To derive the regional estimates of the 1940-50
net new investment, the following procedure was used: The 1950 regional
value of physical farm assets in constant prices was divided by the 1940
regional value of physical farm assets also in terms of constant prices.
The quotient derived was multiplied by the 1940 regional value of
physical farm assets in terms of current dollars. This product provided
an estimate of the 1950 regional value of physical farm assets in terms
of 1940 prices. The process was repeated for each region. Then the
1940 regional estimates of physical farm assets, in terms of current
prices, were subtracted from the computed 1950 regional estimates of
1950 physical farm assets in terms of 1940 prices. The resulting dif-
ferences were used as estimates of "regional net new farm asset invest-
ment” for the 1940 decade in terms of 1940 prices.

cThese figures are averages of the three state estimates presented
in TABLE III - 7.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

That the migration of people from farms involves a rather consider-
able transfer of investment derived from the receipts of the farm
sector now seems clearly established. The estimates made in this study
indicate that during the 1940 decade agriculturally derived investment
in the elementary and secondary education of off farm migrants under
fifty years of age at migration amounted to $2,404,095,385 in 1940
dollars if an average of the five estimates, ranging from $1,783,221,990
to $3,055,337,612, is used.1 In 1959 dollars the range of the estimates
was from $3,699,630,685 to $6,338,874,7l4 and an average of the esti-
mates was $4,987,749,761.2 Inclusion of college training at the rate
of $100 per year of college training increased estimated investment to
$2,457,974,594 in 1940 dollars if an average of the five estimates
ranging from $1,836,100,39O to $3,110,716,912 is used. In 1959 dollars
the range was from $3,809,336,909 to $6,453,769,527 and the average
was $5,099,532,353.

While the $4.5 billion, valued at 1940 prices, of government pay-
ments to farmers for the 1940 decade exceeded the estimates of agricul-

ture's investment in the social capital of the nonfarm economy, it must

 

1For all the investment estimates the education was valued at 1940
educational costs.

2For the conversion to 1959 dollars the average of the first ten
months 0f the 1959 consumer price index published by the Department of
Connnerce was used. This index converted to a 1940 base was 48.2. The
source of the 1959 consumer price index was Survey of Current Business,
lhlited States Department of Commerce; December 1959, p. S-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

be remembered that these estimates of investment were derived by methods

which likely underestimate the true magnitude. Because of the conserva-

tive nature of these estimates of investment, the writer speculates that

had the true parameters been known, much of the spread between government
payments and investments would have disappeared.

Another view of the magnitude of the investment resulting from
agricultural support of the public education of off farm migrants may be
made by comparing it with net new investment in physical farm assets for
the 1940 decade. It appears that for every two dollars of net new in-
vestment in physical farm assets during the ”forties”, one dollar of
agricultural investment, in the public support of the education of off
farm migrants was transferred from the agricultural sector through off
farm migration.

The magnitude of the transfer through investment in education comes
into perspective only when it is realized that this represented a rela-
tively small part of the total expenditure made by farm people in off
farm migrants. The largest single item was undoubtedly family expense
incurred in rearing children. Rough calculations based on conservative
figures suggested that the expenditures by farm families in rearing
1940-50 off farm migrants amounted to at least $18 billion, based on
1940 costs of rearing children. A reasonable case could have been built
for a considerably larger estimate of almost twice the $18 billion figure.

These estimates of agricultural expenditure on off farm migrants
who left the farm during the 1940 decade must be considered in the light
Of a decade total of slightly less than $84 billion of realized net in-

ccnne to farm operators including government payments of about $4.5 billion.3

\

3These figures are in terms of 1940 price levels.

 

 

 

 

67

It must be concluded that despite income transfers from the non-
farm sector to agriculture, these transfers fell far short of the
expenditures incurred by agriculture in the rearing of the off farm
migrant. Indeed, it was quite possible that the investment portions“ of
this expenditure were as large as the income transfers to agriculture
through government payments. Had investment been defined with respect
to some culturally acceptable level of expenditure, there is no doubt
that the investment would have far exceeded the transfers via government
payments.

That the transfer of social capital from the agricultural sector
has implications for the farm sector, the nonfarm sector, and the society
as a whole is self evident.

Long and DornerS

suggested that (1) the large proportion of the
farmers' earnings which are invested in off farm migrants reduces the
amount available for investment in nonhuman resources, (2) a large part
of the investment made in the production of farm people does not yield
the farm sector any return because these people cannot be profitably em-
ployed in farming, and (3) the loss of agricultural capital invested in

off farm migrants together with capital rationing contribute to the

difficulty farm people have in accumulating sufficient capital to get

 

4To qualify as investment the expenditure must increase productivity.

5Ervin J. Long and Peter Dorner, ”Excess Farm Population and the
Loss of Agricultural Capital", Land Economics, Volume XXX, No. 4, (Nov-
ember 1954), p. 364.

 

 

 

68

a proper balance of capital and labor at a proper scale of operations.
These suggestions seem justified.

The nonfarm sector receives a contribution from agriculture to the
extent that agricultural investment in off farm migrants lessens the
investment the nonfarm sector must make in order to secure labor re-
placements and necessary expansion in the labor force.6 That this con-
tribution was of considerable magnitude for the 1940 decade seems clear.

The fact that agriculture contributes substantially to the social
capital of the nonfarm sector might be used as a justification for the
support of rural education on other than a purely local basis. State
aid to education might be sufficient in some states, but where most off
farm migrants leave the state, nothing short of federal aid to education
can cope with the imbalances created by the large contribution for edu-
cational expense which is borne by the local farm people.

Since much off farm migration, in fact, does involve out of state
movement, it appears that the most equitable support of this burden
would be through federal aid to education. Such aid could reduce the
burden now resting heavily on low income farm areas from which further
out-migration must take place. This would release funds for other pur-
poses in these low-income, capital-scarce areas. While it cannot be
proved that not just increased consumption or leisure in the farm sector

would be the result, the writer believes that the major result would be

 

6Ducoff estimated that one-half of the expansion in the nonagriculr
tural labor force from 1930-1954 came from migration from the farm
population. See Louis J. Ducoff, ”Trends and Characteristics of Farm
Population in Low Income Farming Areas," Journal of Farm Economics,
Volume XXXVII, No. 5, (December 1955) p. 1407.

 

 

 

69

a higher rate of real capital formation in agriculture. If such did
take place, the increased rate of capital formation in agriculture might
well result in an increased rate of off farm migration and returns to
agricultural labor more comparable to returns in nonfarm employment. Such
would represent a more efficient allocation of the nation's resources.

A second and very important implication of federal aid to education
is that the social capital attached to off farm migrants could probably
be created in a form more amenable to ready use in the nonfarm sectors.
Greater resources available for education and the greater possiblities
for nonfarm technical training could go far to helping achieve this end.

It may be argued that the society receiving the migrants did al-
ready make a contribution to the total investment in the off farm migrants.
Such is true, but the question is whether the magnitude of the contribu-
tion of the nonfarm sector is equitable in view of its gain in human
resources through off farm migration.

It can be argued that despite the large investment, whatever be its
source, made in off farm migrants, the amount is insufficient to insure
the receiving society with entrants able to fit into the new social
order. In view of the present magnitude of educational investment in
relation to other expenditures by farmers, it appears unlikely that
fermers,at present income levels, can be expected to greatly increase
their investment in education. If this be true, the nonfarm sector is
the only other possible source of increases. In view of the transfer of
social capital to the nonfarm society, it would seem that the nonfarm

society might well increase its investment in off farm migrants.

‘ 1
1y;

‘s
’ V-

 

70

A recent survey by the Michigan Department of Corrections7 showed
that persons born out of Michigan made up 35 percent of the state's
population but 54.5 percent of its prison population. Michigan residents
who were natives of the South were responsible for 3l percent of commit-
ments but accounted for only 9.5 percent of the population.‘

It must be presumed that a large proportion of these Southern born
Michigan residents were of rural origin. It can be hypothesized that
had these people been the object of greater investment, they would have
been better able to be assimilated into the receiving society and the
crime rate would have been lower. If this hypothesis be true, it can be
further suggested that investment by the receiving society in the migrants
at the point of origin might well have been a paying proposition when the
real costs of social disorganization, the expenses involved in criminal
confinement, and a cost of criminal confinement not usually recognized,
the waste in human resources which it entails, are considered.

Investment in excess farm population does not appear to be a prof-
itable venture for agriculture, but, if as generally believed, investment
in the human agent has high returns, then from the standpoint of society
as a whole, it would appear to be a profitable venture. Can agriculture
be expected to increase an investment when its benefits accrue largely
to the nonfarm sector? If such cannot be expected, then there is reason
to suggest that through the public forum consideration might be given to
the possibility of devising means whereby that portion of society which
benefits from the investment in off farm migrants can share more fully in

the making of that investment.

 

7Bill Sinnott, ”Non-Natives Cause Most Crime in State," The State
Journal, Lansing, Michigan, November 3, 1959, p. 16.

 

 

71

In the light of present public dissatisfaction with both the method
by which income transfers are made to agriculture and the existence of
the transfers themselves, it seems important for agriculture that the
existence and magnitude of the farm contribution to the social capital
of the nonfarm economy be recognized.

Additional study is needed to determine the situation in the 1950
decade before relevant public policy and action can be mapped, but this
study of the 1940 decade offers enough insight to suggest the hypothesis
that although increased income transfers to the farm sector may have
reduced the relative net agricultural expenditure in off farmnmigrants,
these expenditures still far exceed the transfer to agriculture.

By way of speculation, a look may be taken at the distribution of
assets within agriculture. It seems likely that off farm migration and
the means by which income transfers from the nonfarm economy have been
made, have combined to increase the disparity of asset distribution
within agriculture. Since these income transfers are affected mainly
through the pricing system, the area of greatest agricultural produc-
tivity receives disproportionately large per capita amounts of these
transfers. On the other hand, the areas of low agricultural productivity

supply a disproportionately large share of off farm migrants. Thus,

perhaps those within agriculture who make the major contribution to the

migrational stream.suffer a disprOportionate drain on their incomes.

 

 

 

72

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY

When people migrate they carry with them the investments which have
been made in them. This phenomenon has long been recognized and the
literature abounds with references and near references to it, but rela-
tively little1 has been done to systematically estimate the transfer of
social capital which off farm migration occasions.

The limited resources available for this study precluded a thorough
investigation of all the transfers which take place as a result of off
farm migration and only one part of the phenomenon was chosen for study.

An attempt was made to determine the magnitude of the agriculturally
derived public educational investment which resided in off farm migrants
of the 1940 decade. The estimating procedures used involved making
estimates of the educational attainment of the migrants and converting
these to the number of years of elementary and secondary education and
the number of years of college training. Next, an adjustment was made
to remove the contribution to the educational total of those who were
fifty or older at the time of migration.2

Estimates of the cost of education in 1940 were used to produce es-

timates of total public investment in the education of off farm migrants.

 

1For a notable exception see Ervin J. Long and Peter Dorner, "Excess
Farm Population and the Loss of Agricultural Capital," Land Economics,
Volume XXX, No. 4, (November 1954), pp. 361-368.

2This adjustment was made to compensate for the fact that, presumably
in time the investment in education amortizes itself.

, .7 *7 I,

1‘ ‘13.. .7" J r
' '. ‘ 574' R
f} i
' .5. ‘j‘ ' ,. ' ‘\
. \\\
\\\\

‘\

b \_

 

Next, estimates of that proportion of the total public investment
derived from agriculture were used to produce estimates of agriculture's
contribution.

It appeared that the educational investment made by agriculture in
the migrants was about $2.6 billion in 1940 dollars without allowance for
college training and about $2.5 billion if an arbitrary allowance of $100
per year of college training were included. This amounted to a little
over $5 billion in terms of 1959 dollars.

These estimates of agriculturally derived public investment in the
education of off farm migrants could be viewed in perspective only if it
was realized that this drain on agricultural incomes was really only a
small part of the total drain which resulted from excess population in
agriculture. Conservative estimates3 indicated that family expenses in-
curred in rearing 1940 decade off farm migrants far exceeded the agricul-
turally derived public investment in the education of these migrants.
Government agricultural payments over the decade amounted to about $4.5
billion 1940 dollars. This suggested that agriculture contributed more
to the growth of the nonfarm economy than farmers received in government
subsidy, for the drain on agricultural incomes occasioned by the rearing

of off farm migrants far exceeded the transfer payments by government to

 

3These estimates of the privately borne costs were not an integral
part of this study. The estimates derived were rough, indeed, but they
gave some indication of the relative magnitude of the public and private
costs.

 

 

 

\ illil.|.!.1 in."

 

74

agriculture. Such was certainly true for the 1940 decade and it was
probably still true, though, perhaps to a lesser extent, for the 1950
decade.4

Net new investment in physical farm assets for the 1940 decade was
abour $4.6 billion in 1940 dollars. Agriculturally derived public edu-
cational investment embodied in the decade's off farm migrants was about
$2.5 billion if the education is valued at 1940 costs. This suggests
that during the "forties" for every two dollars of net new investment in
physical farm assets, about one dollar of investment by agriculture in
the education of off farm migrants became a part of the social capital
of the nonfarm economy.

This study clearly indicated that there is a flow of social capital
from agriculture to nonagriculture. At the time of this study it
appeared that the society was very cognizant of the nonfarm to farm in-
come transfer through government agricultural programs and only slightly
cognizant of the reverse flow of social capital. In view of this, it
was reasoned that it was to agriculture's advantage that the farm con-
tribution to social capital be more widely recognized and better under-
stood.

Should the nonfarm sector become aware of the contribution which it
appears to be receiving from agriculture, it is possible that attempts
may be made to find means by which more "equitable” participation may
be had in the costs of rearing and educating farm people who are destined

to make their productive contribution to the nonfarm economy. The

 

4This hypothesis regarding the 1950 decade was not in any way tested
by this study.

 

75

implications are many, but only those with respect to education are
dealt with here. For states in which off farm migrants remain within
the state, state aid to schools could help reduce the heavy pressure on
the agricultural sector. For those off farm migrants who leave the
state, there seems no alternative to federal aid to education, if the
intent is to remove the heavy demands upon agriculture that have arisen
(and will continue as outmigration continues) as a result of the in-
vestment that is made in the education of rural youth who then migrate
to the nonfarm economy.

From the standpoint of society as a whole there is considerable
evidence that a much greater investment than is now being made in the
education of most migrants would be justified. In view of the already
heavy burden borne by agriculture, it is probably too much to expect
this industry to substantially increase in the near future its expendi-
tures for the education of off farm migrants, especially since the
nonfarm economy would be the major beneficiary of such increased pro-

vision of social capital.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

-muwnflr .V—Ws mt In.

a.,.-*_..

’ -‘w‘ ‘3;-—— ~~

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, 0. 3., "Rural-Urban Migration and the National Welfare," Annals
of the Associationflgf American Geographers, Volume XXIII, No. 2
(June 1933).

 

, Ego Trends of Great Agricultural Significance, Extension
Service Circular No. 306, United States Department of Agriculture,
June 1939.

Baker, 0. E. and T. B. Manny, "Population Trends and the National Wel-
fare," Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department
of Agriculture, mimeo, 1935.

Bogue, Donald J. and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Subrggions of the United
States, Series Census - BAB, No. 19, United States Department
of Census and United States Department of Agriculture, June 1953.

Bogue, Donald J. and Margaret Jarman Hagood, ”Differential Migration

in the Corn and Cotton Belts,“ ubregional Migration in the United
States, 1935-40, Vblume II, Scripps Foundation Studies in Popula-

tion Distribution No. 6, Miami, Ohio, 1953..

 

Bottum, J. Carroll, ”The Impact of Anticipated Trends and Shifts of
Population Upon American Agriculture." A paper presented to the
American Agricultural Industries Conference, Cornell University
School of Business and Public Administration in cooperation with
the New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, June 1956.

Bowles, Gladys K. , Farm Po ulation Net Mi ration from the Rural-Farm
Populatiqg£_l940-SO. Statistical Bulletin No. 176, Agricultural
Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, June

1956.

Carr-Sanders, A. 24., Introduction to Julius Isaac's Economics of m-
5323. New Ybrk: Oxford University Press, 1947.

 

Farm Po lation and the Loss of Farm.Wealth.
Department of Agricultural Economics
1953.

Dorner, Peter, An Excess
Unpublished Master's thesis,
and Rural Sociology, University of Tennessee»

of Farm Pupulation in Low

u d Cha acteristics
Ducoff, Louis J., Trends an r volume XXXVII, No. 5

Income Areas," Journal of Farm.Economics,
(December 1955).

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

Duncan, Otis Durant, The Theory and Conseguences of Mobility of Farm
Population. Experiment Station Circular No. 88, Agricultural Ex-

periment Station, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College,
Stillwater, May 1940.

Hamilton, C. Horace, "Educational Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migration:
Preliminary Results of a North Carolina Study," Proceedings of
the Annual Conference, Milbank Memorial Fund, New York, 1957.
Also published as Paper No. 882 of the Journal Series, North
Carolina State College, Raleigh, 1957.

Hathaway, Dale 2., "Migration from Agriculture: The Historical Record
and its Meaning," Journal Article No. 2544, Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station, East Lansing, 1959.

Mauser, Philip M. and Otis Dudley Duncan, editors. The Study of Popula-
tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959.

 

., Donald J. Bogue, “Internal Migration”, Chapter 21.

., Allessandra Costanzo, "Contributions of Italy to Demography",
Chapter 10.

Heady, Earl 0., editor. Problems and Policies of American Agriculture.

Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1959.

., George M. Beal, and Wallace E. Ogg, ”Secondary Adjustments
Prom Adaptations of Agriculture,” Chapter 13.

., Glenn L. Johnson, and Joel Smith, "Social Costs of Agricul-
tural Adjustment -- with Particular Emphasis on Labor Mobility,"
Chapter 14.

Hoffer, C. R” Introduction to Rural Sociology. New York: Richard R.
Smith, Inc., 1930.

Isaac, Julius, Economics of Migration. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1947.

 

Lewis, W. Arthur, The Theory of Economic Growth. Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1955.

Lively, C. E. and Conrad Taeuber, Rural Migration in the United States.
Washington: Works Progress Administration, 1939.

Long, Erven J. and Peter Dorner, ”Excess Farm Population and the loss
of Agricultural Capital", Land Economics, volume XXX, No. 4
(November 1954).

 

79

Luebke, Ben H. and John F. Hart, ”Migration from a Southern Appalachian
Community,” Land Economics, Volume XXXIV, No. 1 (February 1958).

Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics, Eighth Edition. London:
MacMillan and Company, Ltd., 1956.

Martin, Joe A., Off Farm Migration: Some of Its Characteristics and
Effects upon Agricultgre in Weakley County, Tennessee. Bulletin 290,

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
1958.

Metzlen, William H., "Implications of Changes in Rural Manpower in the
South," An address prepared for delivery before the Association of
Southern Agricultural Workers, Birmingham, February 1957.

Pihlbad, C. T. and C. L. Gregory, "Selection Aspects Among Missouri
High School Graduates", American Sociological Review, Volume XIX,
No. 3 (June 1954).

Rutledge, R. M., "The Relation of the Flow of Population to the Problem
of Rural and Urban Economic Inequality," Journal of Farm Economics,
Volume XII, No. 3 (July 1930).

Sanford, Gilbert A., ”Selective Migration in a Rural Alabama Community,"
American Sociological Review. Volume V. No. 5 (October 1940).

Schultz, Theodore W., Agriculture in an Unstable Econgmy. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1945.

Sinnott, Bill, "Non-Natives Cause Most Crime in State," The State
Journal, Lansing, Michigan, November 3, 1959.

Smith, T. Lynn, The Sociology of Rural Life. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1946.

Tarver, James D., "Costs of Rearing and Educating Farm Children,”
Journal of Farm Economics, Volume XXXVIII, No. 1 (February 1956).

Taylor, Henry C., Outlines of Agricultural Economics. New York: The
MacMillan Company, 1925.

Thomas, Brinley, Migration and Economic Growth. Cambridge: The Univer-
sity Press, 1954.

Tobata, Seiichi, An Introduction to Agriculture of Japan. Tokyo:
Maruzen Company Limited, 1958.

Tostlebe, Alvin 8., Capital in Agriculture: Its Formation and Financing

Since 1870. National Bureau of Economic Research Report. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1957.

 

~- ‘. "'1' - 1.
.Ja..._.~_-b=~ ’ f

amen». .

 

 

80

United States Bureau of the Census:

Seventeenth Census of the United States: 1929, Population Census
Reports, Series P—C.

Seventeenth Census of the United States: 1950, ”Population Mobility -
Farm-Nonfarm Movers," 1957.

Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Population, Volume II.

 

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1954.

United States Department of Commerce:

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1955.

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1958.

 

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Statistics

of Rural Schools, A United States Summary 1955-56. Circular No. 565,
Office of Education, May 1959. '

United States Office of Education, "Statistics of State School Systems,
1939-40 and 1941-42," Biennial Survey of Education.

Yoder, Fred R., ”Migration of Population and the Flow of Farm Wealth",
Journal of Farm Economics, Volume XIX, No. 1 (February 1937).

, and A. A. Smick, Migration of Farm Population and the Flow of
Farm Wealth. Bulletin No. 315, Agricultural Experiment Station,

State College of Washington, Pullman, September 1935.

Zimmerman, Carl C. and O. D. Duncan, ”The Migration to Towns and Cities,”
Journal of Farm Economics, Volume X, No. 4 (October 1928).

m

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

m
.: w

._ it.“

 

82

APPENDIX A1

COMPUTATION OF THE EDUCATION LEVEL OF OFF FARM MIGRANTS

The purpose of this appendix is to illustrate more fully than was

done in Chapter II the method used to estimate the number of off farm

'migrants in each state in each of seventeen educational level categories-

-no education through four or more years of college. Nevertheless, the
presentation used in this appendix assumes a careful reading of Chapter II.
As a result no attempt was made to spell out every detail. Instead this
appendix should be used as a supplement to Chapter 11.

TABLE A - 1 illustrates the process by which the losses were reé
corded and allocated to the United States Economic Subregion from which
they came.

TABLE A - 2 illustrates the procedure used in computing the age
5-9 rural farm percentage educational distribution.

Precisely the same procedure was used for the 10-14, 15-19, and
20-24 distributions. An only slightly modified method was used for the
25-29 distribution. The rationale was precisely the same, but the source
was different and the original data were given in slightly different
form. TABLE A - 3 illustrates the method used to get the 25-29 per-
centage educational level distribution.

The counties of each state were grouped according to the subregion
to which they belonged. Then for each group of counties a percentage

educational level distribution was computed. See TABLE A ~ 4 for an example.

 

lFor identification of sources referred to in this appendix, see the
last page of text of this appendix.

 

 

83

 

 

TABLE A - 1 Loss8 of rural farm population due to migration,
Michigan, 1940-50, by age and by state economic area;
allocation of state economic area losses to United
States economic subregions to which state economic
areas belong; and losses to each United States
economic subregion comprising Michigan, by age.

Michigan U. S. Economic Subregions Composing State
__ - - 66 49 50 48
Age loss Loss Loss LOss Loss
1940 (000) (000) (000) (000) (000)
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
0 - 4 -2 4 -1 -l --
5 - 9 12 11 6 2 5
10 - 14 45 27 20 8 21
15 - 19 46 27 22 8 24
20 - 24 18 12 8 3 10
25 - 29 3 5 1 -- 2
30 - 34 -- 3 -- -l --
35 - 39 -- 3 -- -- --
4O - 44 3 3 l -- 1
45 - 49 4 4 2 -- 3
50 - 54 7 5 3 l 4
55 - S9 10 6 S 2 6
60 - 64 9 5 4 2 5
65 8 over 10 5 4 2 7
Sum 163 120 75 26 88
Actual sumc 165 120 75 26 88
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6
State Economic
Areas

1 10 10

2 9 9

3 9 9

4a 18 18

4b 13 13

5a, A 22 22

5b 14 14

68, B 13 13

6b 4 4

7C,D,E 22 22e

8F l6 16

9a 7 7

9b, G 6 6

Computed Sumf 163 so 74 26 13

 

See following page for footnotes.

 

 

 

Footnotes to TABLE A - 1

aNote that the numbers in this table are in terms of loss, not net
change. This amounts to multiplying the original data by a minus one.
Thus, negative figures indicate in migration.

bISource 1, TABLE 5
bzsource 1, TABLE 7
b3Source 1, TABLE 7
b4Source 1, TABLE 7
bSSource 1, TABLE 7

cThis Actual Sum was computed since, due to rounding to the
nearest thousand for each category, the sum of the age category losses
may not equal the state loss.

dlSource L TABLE 8. Note that source gives 7,D,E,H, as a category.
This appears to have been a mistake so it was recorded as 7,C,D,E. Note
also that Phskegon, C, is in United States Economic Subregion 50, but
its designation, C, was such that it could not be separated out. Thus
in the computations Miskegon is erroneously included in United States
Subregion 49. Since mskegon accounts for a relatively small percentage
of 7,C,D,E, it is felt that this does not introduce intolerable error.

dZSource 1, TABLE 8

d3 - d6 Here the losses from the State Economic Areas are allocated
to the United States Economic Subregions of which they are a part.

ePlease see footnote d1.

fThis sum is computed and due to rounding error it may not equal

the losses of a subregion when the subregion is entirely contained within
the state.

 

85

.huowouuo unonou on on» oH umHn Ho>oH HuaoHuuoomo on moaoumo cha
.muomouoo uuoauu on can no saw one oaoHa.aom venom emu mo «Hana emu so mouoaaoo one: muwuuaouuoa 6:80
. .muuv HoeHwHuo on» aoum conoo monome «mu «0 moouaouo can no moose
Anna on on: 0.85 «23. .336 «mu Boom onus acuuon one um 53.3 menu can. .vouomaou 0.33 25a 0355
.co MHm<H .N counom scum vu>Huov ouos_uuuu saunas

www.ms . onm.m-mmm.~a u unease oz - saw canto

 

cowooH mmn.~a mma.o mom.o mom.a om~.a ohm.a mae.a coo.» owe.“

omm.m emu mos cad mom cos oNs nan mea
No.0 nu ma
so.o cos as on ow ca
~m.a one.“ man man as mm m 0H
am.oH omH.a mmu.m msa.~ owe oms as mm ma ca

n¢.ma mse.ms cos.N omm.~ mmm.m cma.n man man no we
mo.- on~.na mom can mam.~ msm.~ oam.m oom.m use can

mmo.~. one.a sum
oHn com uuomuu oz
uo>o can a
m
N
H
umoHHoo
o
m
N
H
Hoomum anm
m
n
o
m
a
m
mm mm N
mm mH H

Hoonum huouooauHm

 

n¢.od mNH.Nm mm OOH mom mm¢ o~m.~ m~m.~ oom.m Ooh.o mmN.o omw.o «your 02

o 33 a saw a- a a: .3 2-x a-“ a: mg... as as sin 833:3

spam no unsoa<
xom moo uw<

.onms sumaauuz .m-n «mu

maogu you :oHuanuumHv ammueoouoa Ho>oH HueoHuoosuo Baum Hanan ago «0 aoHusunnaoo

«N - < mom<a

 

86

TABLE A - 3a Computation of the rural farm educational level
percentage distribution for those age 25-29,
Michigan, 1950

 

 

Amount of Age and Sex
Edu ti
°‘ °“ 25-2911 25-29r Sumb Percentc
No years 90 100 . 190 0.51
Elementary School
1 and 2 65 60 125 0.33
3 and 4 250 100 350 0.93
5 and 6 530 300 830 2.21
7 755 565 1,320 3.52
8 5,520 4,185 9,705 25.88
High School
1 1,230 1,390 2,620 6.99
2 1,510 1,695 3,205 8.55
3 780 1,050 1,830 4.88
4. 6,655 7,865 14,520 38.73
College
1 400 590 990 2.64
2 340 480 820 2.19
3 85 165 250 0.67
4 and over 410 330 740 1.97
No report 305 290 595
Sum 18,925 ' ‘ 19,165 38,090 100.00

 

Grand Sum - No Report - 38,090 - 595 ' 37,495

bThese sums were computed. The sums given at the bottom were from
the data. Thus there was an easy check on the accuracy of the figures

‘ 8These data were derived from Source 2, Table 65.
i copied from the original data.

cThe percentages were computed on the basis of the grand sum minus
the sum of the no report category. This assumed no educational level
bias in the no report category.

 

' . . ‘a 9'
11.1.1».-

 

 

'87

.hnomouuu uuoauu o: as» oH aoHn Ho>uH HuaOHuounmu on unsound mHAH .huowouuo
uuoaou on one mo Bum emu moaHa Eon venom on» no «Hana 0:» no vouanaoo one: ummmuououon unsu

.ounv HucHwHuo emu scum muHmoo nanomHm may no muuuuuuu on» no 30050 mono
.ouuu use :H a0>Hw one: abuuom emu no mean any .vuusaaoo ouoa mane «woman

.ON ”HOQH. am ”OH—gum BORN @erfluflfi 0&0? 693 0609—96

on was uuosu mama

s¢~.No u mas - msu.ne . unease oz mo sum - sum cacao

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.coa mos.ms Nem.a saw.m omn.o moa.m neo.a nmo.sa moa.m ooo.~ saw
one saw and an mNE mm Has as so ”scams oz
as.a st mow ma and man mm one mad mm uo>o was s
. m~.m mm~.m has mam cam was mom see mes aom m-H
.. an oonHoo
no.ms mmH.m cao.a «mm ems omo.a «ma mas.“ oem.H man s
os.m~ one.sa oun.~ «mm «mm asa.a amm.o aoo.~ amo.H ooa.a m-a
‘. . A 338 :3:
M... 2.? ”8.8 mean ooaJ So; So... 938 Sax 21¢ warm «.5
. m¢.a a~8.s one «ms mam moo ham mus moo amm o-m
. am.m Nam.~ ow. saw can mmm «am can omN mAN s-~
houuooauHm
am.o Nsm on «a as cos em me mm mm mums» oz
oonaman !mmwmwm1.um ammo oaomHuo zuuom _oosmauH oHomuHHHm nueuum
u send mm ouu< _ mm uuu<
oucouuom 89m - GOHumunmm
a mo uoaoad
:uwHAUHz .m¢ oonoqum cH moHuaaoo

 

 

 

 

.oamH .awchon .mc aOHwounnm .uo>o was mu own «Hmooa anon Hausa now
oOHuanuuuHo «monsoonua Ho>oH HueoHuounoo Show Hanan «no mo aOHumusmeoo _u¢ n d mamca

 

 

 

 

   

 

88

The next step was to take the state losses from each subregion and
apply to them the age distribution of the losses for the entire sub-
region. This is illustrated in TABLE A - 5.

When the loss due to migration in the state's portion of each sub-
region had been assigned the age distribution of the entire subregion
and when the number of migrants in each of the six age categories had
been computed, the next step was to apply the relevant percentage edu-
cational level distributions so as to obtain for each portion of a
subregion within a state an estimate of the number of migrants in the
seventeen educational categories - no years through four or more years
of college. The procedure is illustrated in TABLE A - 6.

The result portion of TABLE A - 6 was obtained by multiplying the
various constants (C's) by each of the percentages given in the relevant
percentage educational level distribution. Since C1 : 0 (See TABLE A - 5),
the 10-14 result row has only zero or no entry. CZ was not equal to zero
and C2 times 0.62% 3 5. CZ times 0.43% = 3. Thus each entry in the
result table was the product of a C and a percentage.

Computations similar to that of TABLE A - 6 were performed for each
state's portion of each subregion which comprised the state. Obviously
the C's changed in each computation, but only the 35 and over percentage
level distribution changed as computations for each state's portion of a
subregion were made.

To produce the final educational level distribution of losses from
the state off farm.migration losses, the results of the various state

portion of subregion computations were summed. Thus for a state the end

 

 

 

 

 

89

TABLE A - 5 Computation of age distribution of Michigan loss
from United States Economic subregion 48.

Age in Proportion of Loss Loss in Michigan's Number in Each Age

 

1950" in Each Age Cate- Portion of Sub- Category for Michigan's
gory in Ub§' Sub- region 48 Portion of Subregion 48‘:
region 48
10-14 0/88 13,000 0 = CI
15-19 5/88 738.6363595 = 02
20-24 21/88 3,102.2727099 8 C3
25-29 24/88 3,545.4545256 = 04
30-34 10/88 1,477.2727190 I C5
35 and over 28/88 4,136.3636132 = 05
' 12,999.9999272

8Note that this is a 1950 age. Ten years were added to convert
the 1940 age to the 1950 age.'

bRefer to TABLE A - 1. These fractions were taken from the distri-
bution of loss in the Subregion. Note that those 35 and older in 1950
have been combined into one category. The original source of this data
was Source 1, Table 7.

cThe total loss from the state's portion of the Subregion was
multiplied by the proportion of loss in each age category (Column 2)
to give the number of net off farm migrants in each age category. For
simplicity in later tables illustrating computations, these numbers
were designated as constants - Cl, CZ, etc. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oNH soH sNH sNN Nno.m .NHo.H mAN.H mmN.H smm.N Hom.H sHs ssm HHN HsH nN on em saw
Hs NN NN NN Hsm smN smN smN «No.H mNo.H smH smH an an mm mm on 00>0 a ma
NN oH Nm mm NNn NN sNH moH Nam Nn sH sH N N N N m sm-om
mN NN no as HHm.H soN st NNN mNN NHH as «N mH N a s NN NN-m
N m mN mHs ems Ham Nss mms mmH Hs mH NH s s 0 AH sN-oN
H HH ms oNH osH mmH me om NH m m NH-mH w.
sH-oH m
“u
a s m N H s m N H m N s . n s m N H scum» omaH s
oonHoo Hoozom stm Hoosom muououaon uw<
N m m m»: mLu m.: N N N N s s s s
NN.m mN.n MN.n No.mH os.wH os.mH os.wH HN.Ns HN.Ns ms.N ms.N Hm.m HN.N HN.N HN.N Nm.o so to>o s mm
N N N N N N
No.0 aH.N ss.N NN.NN mm.s mm.m mN.s mm.nN Nm.m HN.N HN.N ma.o mm.o sm.o mm.o Hm.o no sm-om
No.0 sm.H sN.N Ns.Ns Hm.m NH.m HN.N sw.HN mH.m sN.H ss.o Hs.o sN.o sN.o NH.o No.0 so mN-nN
Ho.o mH.o Hm.o HN.NH Ns.mH so.mH as.oN os.oN No.8 NN.H mm.o os.o NH.o wH.o NH.o Ns.o mo sN-oN
mo.o mH.o om.H sH.N nN.sH mm.mH mm.oN Hs.mH ms.oH mm.N ms.o Ns.o No mH-mH
No.o sH.o Nm.H Nm.oH ms.mH mo.NN Ns.ss Ho sH-oH
munowll1 :onounsm .I
m N H s m N H m N s m ,s m N H oz No aoHutom
11» ii: 1. m.oumum now
mwsHHoo Hoosum nNHx _ Hooeom aumucoaon . showcase omNH
141 «as some ems
aoHuoanomHm Ho>oH HnaoHuuuovm owuoaoooom ,oH ounasz

.ms conoumsm oHaooOUH muusum vooHeD mo ooHuuom
emenon .omuosmH eoHumuwHa Boom «no on use mmoH mo Ho>oH eoHuoosmo mo eoHuouoaaoo o u m MHm<H

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

result of all these computations was an estimate of the number of off
farm migrants in each of the seventeen educational level categories.
See TABLE A - 7.

For Michigan the 163,000 net farm loss, 1940-50, was distributed
among the seventeen educational levels as shown in TABLE A - 7.

The entire process was repeated for each of the forty-eight
states and a table like TABLE A - 7 was derived for each state.

The existence of net in migration complicated the method demon-
strated in but one way. It necessitated the performing of algebraically

correct operations.

Sources Referred to in Appendix A

Source 1. Gladys K. Bowles, Farm Population, Net Migration from the
Rural Farm Population, 1940-50, Statistical Bulletin No. 176,
(Washington: Agricultural Marketing Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, June 1956).

Source 2. Seventeenth Census of the United States: 1950, "Detailed
Characteristics”, 1950 Population Census Report, Series P-C,
Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Comerce.
(P-C 22 for Michigan).

Source 3. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Population,
Volume II, ”Characteristics of the Population", Bureau of
the Census, United States Department of Commerce.

 

 

'TABLE A - 7 Estimated level of education at time of migration
of Michigan net farm loss due to migration, 1940-50

 

Years of Number of
Education Migrants
No Years 1,985
Elementary School
1 1,448
2 1,761
3 2,957
4 4,168
5 6,432
6 7,019
7 17,635
8 34,930
High School
1 15,551
2 15,605
3 11,948
4 35,114
College
1 2,552
2 1,787
3 925
4 and over 1,183
Sum 163,000

Source: Computed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

APPENDIX B

ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL CONTRIBUTION TO NONFARM SOCIAL CAPITAL

This appendix is intended as a supplement to Chapter II. No attempt
was made to develop this appendix as a document which can stand alone,
yet, in order to make it intelligible, there was necessarily some dupli-
cation of Chapter II.

For each state the seventeen educational categories were multiplied
by the appropriate number of years of elementary and secondary education.

This then was summed for the state.

 

The number of years of college education was handled in analogous
fashion.

For an illustration of these procedures see TABLE B - l.

The number of years of elementary and secondary education repre-
sented in net off farm migration was adjusted to eliminate the contribu-
'tion of those who were fifty or older when they migrated. Given the
assumptions about migration already discussed, this meant eliminating
the effect of those fifty and older in 1945.

The procedure followed was to get the per capita number of years
of elementary and secondary education, United States rural farm average,

1950, for those 5-49 and those 50 and over.1 The no report category

 

was assumed to have no educational level bias. Categories spanning

more than one year of educational attainment were broken into smaller

 

1The source of these data was Seventeenth Census of the United
States: 1950, "Detailed Characteristics," 1950 Population Census Report,
P-Cl, Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce,
Tables 114 and 115.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE B - 1 Computation of number of years of elementary and
secondary education and number of years of college
education represented in net off farm migration,
1940-50, Michigan
No. of Years No. of years No. of Years No. years
No- Of of elementary of elementary of college of college
Years Of Off farm and secondary and secondary per person in each
Schooling migrants education per _ education in in each edu- educational
person in each each educa- cational category
educational tional categorya
category category
No Years 1,985 0 0 0 0
Elementary
School
1 1,448 1 1,448 0 0
2 1,761 2 3,522 0 O
3 2,957 3 8,871 0 0
4 4,168 4 16,672 0 0
5 6,432 5 32,160 0 0
6 7,019 6 42,114 0 0
7 17,635 7 123,445 0 0
8 34,930 8 279,440 0 0
High School
1 15,551 9 139,959 0 O
2 15,605 10 156,050 0 0
3 11,948 11 131,428 0 0
4 35,114 12 421,368 0 0
College
1 2,522 12 30,624 1 2,522
2 1,787 12 21,444 2 3,574
3 925 12 11,100 3 2,775
4 and 1,183 12 14,196 4 4,732
over
Sum 163,000 1,433,841 13,633

 

 

 

aNo allowance was made for post graduate work.

Sources - Computed from data given in TABLE III - l.

 

 

 

 

_-__. ,

 

 

 

categories by dividing by the number of years. That is, if there were
100 persons with 1-2 years of education, it was assumed 50 had one year
and 50 had 2 years. The ratio between the per capita years of education
for the 5-49 and the 50 and older age group was determined and this
ratio was used as the basis for the adjustment of the state data. The
implicit assumption was that the ratio of the educational level of the
two groups was the same for all states. The method did not imply,
however, that the levels of education in all states were equal for com-
parable age groups.
The actual adjustment to eliminate the effect of those fifty and
older at migration can best be shown algebraically.
A = number of years of elementary and secondary education in the
migrant group of a state
A' = number of years of elementary and secondary education in the

migrant group of a state after exclusion of the contribution
of those 50 and over at migration

P I number of people in the migrant group

p1 I proportion of migrants less than 50 in 1945

p2 = proportion of migrants 50 and over in 1945

X = number of years of elementary and secondary education per
capita for the p group

Y = number of years of elementary and secondary education per

capita for the p2 group

By examination of United States rural farm data, 1950, as explained above,
the following equation may be written:

(1) X = kY where k is some constant
We can also write the following:

(2) p1 PX-+ p2 PY = A where X and Y are the only unknowns.
This gives a set of simultaneous equations. The solution for Y may be
obtained by rewriting equation (2) in terms of Y.

(3) p1 P kY + p2 PY - A

 

 

 

 

 

96

Solving for Y equation (4) is obtained

(a) Y = A 4

 

With Y known, A' is easy to calculate, for the following relation holds:

(5) A'zA-sz‘l

Afwas obtained for each state. For esthmates involving only United
States data the procedure was completely analogous.

The adjustment of the number of years of college training to exclude
the effects of those fifty and older was also an analogous procedure.

The adjusted number of years of secondary and elementary education
in each state was multiplied by current expense, interest, and capital

2 ‘This gave an

outlay per rural pupil in average daily attendance.
estimate of total public educational investment for each state, which,
as explained in Chapter II was designated Estimate 1. This is illus—
trated in TABLE 8 - 3.

Then for each state, the Estimate 1 of total public investment in
the education of off farm migrants was multiplied by county plus local
percent of receipts from taxation and appropriation from state, county,
and local sources, 1939-40, state school systems,3 to give an estimate
of the agricultural contribution to the state public investment in the

education of off farm migrants. This was designated Transfer Estimate la

and it is illustrated in TABLE B - 4.

 

2See TABLE B - 2, Column 5, for the source of these estimates.

3See TABLE B - 2, Column 4, for the source of these estimates.

 

 

 

 

97

'Transfer Estimate lb is illustrated by TABLE B - 5. Estimate 1 of
total public investment was multiplied by county plus local percent of
receipts from taxation and appropriation from state, county, and local
sources, state school systems, United States average.4

Transfer Estimate 1c, illustrated in TABLE B - 6, utilized the
Estimate 1 of total state public investment and the percent of nonfederal
and nonstate revenues in the financing of public schools in rural
counties, United States average.5

The state estimates derived by each of the three methods were
summed to give United States Estimates.

Transfer Estimates 2d and 2e yielded no state estimates, only
United States estimates. In order to use both methods, it was first
necessary to compute an estimate of total United States Public educational
investment in off farm migration. As pointed out in Chapter II, this was
designated Estimate 2. This was done by taking the adjusted number of
years of elementary and secondary education represented in off farm migra4
tion in each state and summing these for a United States total. This
United States total was then multiplied by the current expense, interest,
and capital outlay per rural pupil in average daily attendance, United

States average.6 For an illustration of the computation of Estimate 2,

see TABLE B - 7.

 

4See TABLE B - 2, Column 4, for the source of this figure.

SSee Footnote, TABLE B - 6 for source of this figure.

6See TABLE B - 2, Column 5, for the source of this figure.

 

TABLE B - 2 School system data, United States, 1939-40

 

 

 

Percent of Receipts from Current Expense, Interest,
Taxation and Appropriation from and Capital Outlay Per
State, County, and Local Rural PUPil in
Sources, 1939-40, State Average Daily Atten-
‘ School Systems dance
State County Local County plus
Local

Alabama 58.6 22.8 18.6 41.4 $ 39.45

Arizona 21.2 38.2 40.6 78.8 146.23

Arkansas 46.0 3.8 50.2 54.0 34.61

California 47.8 2.0 50.2 52.2 203.69

‘ Colorado 5.5 20.7 73.8 94.5 98.30
1 Connecticut 8.8 0 91.2 91.2 126.75
| Delaware 92.7 o 7.3 7.3 163.52
E Florida 51.8 17.0 31.2 48.2 70.56
Georgia 58.2 16.6 25.2 41.8 39.85

‘ Idaho 12.0 25.6 62.4 88.0 99.79
: Illinois 10.2 0.1 89.7 89.8 139.75
Indiana 33.2 0.6 66.2 66.8 93.22

h Iowa 1.1 2.6 96.3 98.9 101.31
Kansas 11.7 14.4 73.9 88.3 102.95

Kentucky 41.8 26.6 31.6 58.2 42.89

Louisiana 56.9 30.2 12.9 43.1 74.11

Maine 15.9 0 84.1 84.1 61.36

Maryland 21.9 31.3 46.8 78.1 91.86

Massachusetts 10.2 0 89.8 89.8 156.23

Michigan 46.0 0.5 53.5 54.0 93.94

Minnesota 35.2 1.6 63.2 64.8 103.06

a Mississippi 38.6 20.0 41.4 61.4 31.22
Missouri 35.8 0.4 63.8 64.2 72.06

. Montana 8.4 20.4 71.2 91.6 139.88
J Nebraska 1.1 1.0 97.9 98.9 77.92
{1 Nevada 20.3 58.4 21.3 79.7 195.06
1? New Hampshire 5.5 0 94.5 94.5 118.67
, New Jersey 5.7 14.9 79.4 94.3 131.36
New Mexico 69.3 13.2 17.5 30.7 100.90

New York 33.9 0 66.1 66.1 241.97

North Carolina 71.2 20.7 8.1 28.8 48.27

'} North Dakota 14.4 8.7 76.9 85.6 79.21
I Ohio 37.7 1.5 60.8 62.3 106.64
‘ Oklahoma 40.2 6.4 53.4 59.8 70.06
Oregon 0.4 25.9 73.7 99.6 111.72

Pennsylvania 21.2 0 78.8 78.8 103.40

Rhode Island 10.7 0 89.3 89.3 66.87

South Carolina 49.9 5.3 44.8 50.1 43.96

South Dakota 8.5 3.5 88.0 91.5 96.92

 

 

 

 

TABLE B - 2 Continued

 

 

 

Percent of Receipts from Current Expense, Interest,
Taxation and Appropriation from and Capital Outlay Per
State, County, and Local Rural Pupil in
Sources, 1939-40, State Average Daily Atten-
School Systems dance
State County Local County plus
Looal
Tennessee 34.3 49.6 16.1 65.7 $ 43.30
Texas 41.3 o 58.7 58.7 77.70
Utah 41.3 35.5 23.2 58.7 107.98
Vermont 17.1 0 82.9 82.9 93.27
Virginia 34.7 37.7 27.6 65.3 51.54
Washington 61.3 5.5 33.2 38.7 117.15
West Virginia 52.4 47.6 0 47.6 69.64
Wisconsin 18.7 9.6 71.7 81.3 82.91
Wyoming 5.9 27.6 66.5 94.1 133.80
United States 30.6 6.8 62.6 69.4 85.93
Column Number 1 2 3 4 5

Sources:

Columns 1-3

Column 4
Column 5

”Statistics of State School Systems, 1939-40
and 1941-42", Biennial Surveys of Education in
The United States, Federal Security Agency,
United States Office of Education, Volume III,
p. 23.

Computed

"Statistics of State School Systems, 1939-40
and 1941-42”, 22. £15., p. 131

 

 

 

TABLE B - 3 Computation of total state public investment in
elementary and secondary education of off farm
migrants.

(Estimate 1)

' Adjusted Years of Elementary and Secondary
‘J Education Represented in Off Farm Migration
1940-50, Michigan 1,081,629

1 Times Current Expense, Interest, and
Capital Outlay per Rural Pupil in
1 Average Daily Attendance, Michigan X §93.94

\ Estimate 1 of Total State Investment in
‘ Education of Off Farm Migrants, Michigan $101,608,228.26

 

Sources: Row 1 - TABLE III - 4
Row 2 - Column 5, TABLE B - 2
Row 3 - Computed - This is recorded in TABLE III - 5.

 

 

 

 

 

t_ v . a. s” ”Wt“ 51.121.

 

 

 

 

TABLE B - 6 Computation of agricultural contribution to the
public investment in elementary and secondary edu-
cation of off farm migrants.

(Transfer Estimate 1c)

Estimate 1 of Total State
Contribution to Education of
Off Farm Migrants, Michigan $101,608,228.26

Times Percentage of Nonfederal

and Nonstate Revenues in the

Financing of Public Schools in

Rural Counties, United States

Average X 47.2%

Estimate of Agricultural Con-

tribution to Public Support of

Education of Off Farm Migrants,

Michigan $47,959,083.74

Sources: Row 1 - TABLE B - 3
Row 2 - Statistics of Rural Schools, A United States
Summary 1955-56, Circular Number 565, May 1959,
Office of Education, United States Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 16.
Row 3 - Computed - This is Recorded in TABLE III - 6

 

‘C-O Q‘fi

 

 

 

Transfer Estimate 2d, an estimate of the agricultural contribution,

was derived by multiplying the Estimate 2 by 69.4 percent7, the county
plus local percent of receipts from taxation and appropriation from state,
county, and local sources, 1939-40, state school systems, United States
average. Please see TABLE B - 8.

Transfer Estimate 2e, an estimate of the agricultural contribution
to public support of the education of off farm migrants differed from
Transfer Estimate 2d only in that 47.2 percent8 was substituted for 69.4

percent. For an illustration, please see TABLE B - 9.

 

7See TABLE B - 2, Column 4, for the source of this figure.

8See footnote, TABLE B - 9 for source of this figure.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE B - 7 Computation of total United States public investment
in elementary and secondary education of off farm migrants,
1940-50.

(Estimate 2)

Adjusted Years of Elementary and

Secondary Education Represented in

Off Farm Migration, 1940-50, United

States 51,233,606

Times Current Expense and Interest
Per Rural Pupil in Average Daily
Attendance, United States 1939-40 X §85.93

Total Public_Educationa1 Investment
in Off Farm Migrants, 1940-1950, United
States $4,402,503,763.58

Sources: Row 1 - TABLE III - 4
Row 2 - Column 5, TABLE B - 2
Row 3 - Computed - this is recorded in TABLE III - S.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE B - 8 Computation of total agricultural contribution to the
public investment in elementary and secondary educa-
tion of off farm migrants, 1940-50.

(Transfer Estimate 2d)

Total Public Educational
Investment in Off Farm Migrants,
1940-1950, United States $4,402,503,763.58

Times County Plus Local Percent

of Receipts from Taxation and

Appropriation from State, County,

and Local Sources, State School

Systems, 1939-40, United States -

Average X 69.4%

Estimate of Agricultural Contri-
bution to Public Support of Education
of Off Farm Migrants, United States $3,055,337,611.92

Sources: Row 1 - TABLE B - 7
Row 2 - Column 4, TABLE B - 2
Row 3 - Estimated - this is recorded in TABLE III - 6

 

 

 

108

APPENDIX C

REALIZED NET INCOME or FARM OPERATORS AND GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

The tables in this appendix give the basic data from which some

of the calculations presented in Chapter III were made.

TABLE C - 1 Consumer price index, United States, 1940-49

 

Consumer Price Index Consumer Price Index
1947-49 8 100 , Converted to 1940 =100
1940 166.9 100.0
1941 159.0 95.8
1942 143.5 86.0
1943 135.1 80.9
1944 133.0 79.7
1945 130.0 77.9
1946 ‘119.9 71.8
1947 104.7 62.7
1948 97.3 58.3
1949 98.2 58.8
(1) (2)

Sources:
Column 1 - Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1955,
United States Department of Commerce, Table No.
373, p. 316.

Column 2 - Computed.

 

 

 

109

TABLE C - 2. Realized net income of farm operators in-
cluding government payments, United States,

1940-49.

 

Realized Net Income

of Farm Operators Consumer
Including Government Price Index
Payments Adjusted
to 1940 Base

(Million Dollars)

Realized Net
Income of Farm
Operators In-
cluding Govern-
ment Payments
Adjusted to 1940
Price Levels

(Million Dollars)

 

1940 4298 100.0
1941 6052 95.8
1942 8849 86.0
1943 11540 80.9
1944 11970 79.7
1945 12286 77.9
1946 14193 71.8
1947 16774 - 62.7
1948 15604 58.3
1949 13593 58.8

(1) (2)
Sources:

of Agriculture, Table 604, p. 428.
Column 2 - Computed, see TABLE C - 1.

Column 3 - Computed.

 

4298
5798
7610
9336
9540
9571
10191
10517
9097
7993
83,951
(3)

Column 1 - Agricultural Statistics, 1954, United States Department

 

110

TABLE C - 3 Government payments to farmers, United States,
1940-1949.

 

 

 

 

 

Government Payments
Adjusted to 1940
Price Levels

(Million Dollars)

Consumer Price
Index Adjusted

Government Payments8
to 1940 Base

(Million Dollars)

 

 

 

 

1940 724 100.0 724
1941 544 95.8 521
1942 650 86.0 559
1943 645 80.9 552
1944 776 79.7 618
1945 742 77.9 578
1946 772 71.8 554
1947 314 62.7 197
1948 ' 257 58.3 150
1949 185 58.8 ,109

4,532

(1) (2) (3)

Sources:

Column 1 - Agricultural Statistics, 1954, United States Department
of Agriculture, Table 663, p. 479.

Column 2 - Computed See TABLE C - 1.
Column 3 - Computed.

aIncludes payments under rental and benefit, soil conservation,
price adjustment price parity, Sugar Act, and production programs.

 

c m 2.. {As—J 1’19}: 'P
j. ..

 

d

T-Wm.m.rw:w 7.1"“ 3;:

.. q.

I

met- W-sx'm -- - m

 

 

 

 

12001.1 USE 03““- .

 

 

“1111113911111