Econom.icDveomn
Italy Project
C/59-16
REGIONAL DIFFERENTIALS IN PER CAPITA INCOME UOSA,
1929
1957
Center for International Studies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
July, 1959
REGIONAL DIFFERETIAIS IN PER CAPITA INCOME UoS*Ao
1929 - 1957
A. Grasiani
1.
Long years of free and politically unrestricted movement of people
and resources across the country apparently have failed to produce
equalisation of per capita personal incomes in the various regions
of the United States0
In the year 1957, the ratio of personal poco
income in Connecticut to poco income in Mississippi was that of 3 to
la
It seems, however, that about 30 years ago the gap between rich
and poor regions was remarkably wider than it is today and that in
spite of the still existing discrepancies, a substantial process of
convergence has taken place between 1929 and 1957*
The extent and the
main characteristics of this process are the subject of this paper,
All that we are going to say about income differentials should be
viewed against the general background of growth of the whole country0
The national trend was one of strong growth; GNP expanded on average
at the rate of 3 per cent a year since 1929,
Per capita income, also
in real terms, increased by two thirds, while population increased by
over 40 per cento
However, the general pattern of the country conceals
wide movements in the relative positions of individual regions0
A first summary view of how the situation has evolved since 1929 is
offered in Table 1:
Table 1
Personal income per capita
1929
1934-36
1938-O
1948.50
1953-55
1955
1956
1957
1oU.S.A0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
16
155
162
135
13?
136
ih5
139
39
50
50
49
51
49
47
0
3o2
M
W.4 3o0
3o0
Richest State
3o Poorest State 2
h
38
Ratio of 2. to
3*
--
W
208
3 New York
2 South
up to 1936; Delaware after; Connecticut in 1957.
Carolina in 1929; Mississippi after.
District of Columbia disregarded.
The ratio appearing in the last row is a crude measure of the dispersion
of regional incomes; it gives an idea of how far apart the "tails" of the
distribution were over the relevant period, but supplies no information as
to the point of howa
of incomes,
people occupied the extreme positions in the scale
Moreover, in considering the absolute magnitude of the gap, it
should be borne in mind that the ratios were computed on the basis of per
capita incomes by State-.
If it were possible to compute the same ratios
on a county basis, the dispersion would result to be automatically wider;
while on the other hand, the same computation carried out at a higher level
of aggregation, namely by regions, shows a sensibly smaller gap, of about
3 to 1 in 1930 and 2 to 1 in 1950o1
A few comments can be made on Table lo
First of all it is undeniable that
a remarkable closing up of the gap has taken place in the years following
1929.
However, if we look at the timing of the process, it appears that the
whole of the evolution had already reached its conclusion by 194850; the
IS. Dell, "Economic Integration and the American Example," Economic
Journal, 1959, po 47, A table showing Deflls main findings is reproduced
at the enda
subsequent years witness a noticeable constancy in the magnitude of the
gap0
The bulk of the equalisation process may therefore be located in the
period 1935-45, that is, during the years of the New Deal and of World War II
Of course this particular dating in itself does not imply that the process was
due to such particular events and was not a long-term phenomenon of regional
equalisation,
The closing of the gap was coupled with a radical change in the shape of the
distribution. This can be best appreciated by looking at Figure 1, where
the two frequency distributions for 1929 and for 1957 are plotted
The
reduction of all figures to percentages, which was a necessity in order to
make the shapes of the two distributions comparable,
also eliminates the shift
to the right caused by the general increase in incomes between the two years0
Considering the shape of the distribution in itself, it will be noticed how
it changes from a bell-shaped to an almost square distribution in 1957*
other words, there are now fewer
In
people in the low income regions but there
are relatively more in the very high income areas, while the mid-income regions
have grown numerically smaller0
The magnitude of this evolution is quantified
in the figures of Table 2, reflecting the changes in the relative weights of
the extreme income classes:
Table 2
Percentages of the whole population living in States
with incomes as indicated
1929
1955
1957
States with income lower than 1/3 of maximum
150
none
none
States with income lower than 1/2 of maximum
34j9
130
12c0
States with income higher than 2/3 of maximum
47o7
6401
614
District of Columbia disregarded
--
4
-
If one could synthesise in one sentence the change occurred, one should
say that, while all regions have improved, the poor areas have experienced
greater improvements than the rich ones and this has been responsible for
the narrowing of the gap0
At the same time, more people have moved into
higher income brackets than have moved out of high into higher brackets
which has caused a concentration in the high levels of income, as
compared with a concentration around the mid-leve2s typical of 1929o
The existence of a siseable tendency towards equalisation, is on the
whole, unquestionableo
2o
In spite of all this, the view has been expressed that "what is remarkable
about the gap is not that it was reduced from 1880 to 1950 but that it lasted
so long In the face of competitive forces prevailing in the most dynamic
economy in the Western World,"
This kind of consideration, coupled with
the fact that the narrowing of the gap seems to have come to a halt after
1950, justifies a more careful consideration of regional income differentials.
In the first place, a preliminary doubt should be solved, namely, how far
differentials in money incomes are true reflections of differentials in real
incomes.
Unfortunately, no indexes showing variations in the price level
from State to State seem to be available0
Still some conclusion on this
point can be drawn from the work of Hurwits and Stalling, showing separate
price indexes for each of the 48 States for each year from 1929 to 1953.2
These indexes, and the figures for "real" per capita incomes computed on
their basis, do not add any definite information as to differentials in real
income in any particular year: they only show the -change of real
income over time0 Therefore, the only information they add to our knowledge
of differentials is that they tell us whether differentials in real terms
decreased (or increased) over the period considered, less (or more) than
18. Dell, "Economic Integration and the American Example," Economic
Journal, 1959, pro 39-54o
2Ao Hurwits and C. Stallings,
"Inte-regional Differentials in Per Capita
Real Income Change," in Regional Income, Studies in Income and Wealth, volo 21,
published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, 1957, ppo 1952190
shown by the undeflated figures0
The conclusion, however, is that
variations in price levels were not of sufficient magnitude to shift the
relative positions of the various States0
An inspection of the price
indexes as computed by the two authors suggests, if any, the impression
that the movements shown by the raw figures somewhat overstate the extent
of the change in real terms.
This is true both of the gain achieved by
the poorer States in the thirties (that seems to be smaller in real than
in monetary terms)-, as of the stationary situation of the post-war period,
that considering the slightly higher price index of the South, might turn
out to be, in real terms, a small retrocession for the low-income regions.
Anyhow, the differences are so small, particularly in the later years, that
an analysis of the undeflated data will be sufficient to outline the broader
tendencies0
A rough subdivision of income into the two broad categories of farm and nonfarm income, supplies some additional information on this point. Unfortunately,
2
for a number of reasons, the figures for farm and non-farm employment do not
exactly coincide in coverage and definitions, so that, rigourously speaking,
the figures for farm and non-farm income per worker are not comparableo
However, since our main interest here is not in absolute divergencies between
the two sectors but in regional comparisons, we shall suppose, for the purposes
of this paper, that differences in the definition of farm and non-farm labor
force affect the various States different3y and, consequently, we shall make
use of the available figures, in spite of formal discrepancies0
A look at the Figures in Table 3 will disclose that the main cause of regional
differentials in income per head lies in regional differentials in farm income
lIn the years 1935-37 the price index for the north-eastern region
100) was around 63, for the south-eastern States around 58. In
(1947-49
the period 1951-53, the same indexes for the same regions were 111 and 113
respectively0
2 The reasons for non-comparability are given at the end where
the sources
of data are listed,
per worker,
Differentials in the all comprehensive non-farm sector are
very narrow9 while the big gap in regional incomes appears to be present
in the agricultural sector:
Table 3
Farm vs. non-farm income differentials
1954
Personal income per worker
Personal income per head
non-farm
farm
l1 USAo
100
100
100
2.
Richest State
205
118
130
3. Poorest State
38
67
49
5o50
lo76
4.
Ratio of 2. to 3o
2472
Non-farm income per worker in 1954 oscillates between 5:,6 and 302 thousand
dollars, the richest state being New Jersey (followed by Delaware, Connecticut,
and Michigan),
and the poorest State being South Carolina (preceded by North
Carolina, Mississippi and Arkansas).
However, differentials in non-agricultural
sectors don 9 t seem to play a big role as causes of differentials in total
personal income.
income,
The main factor seems to lie in differentials in farm
If income outside agriculture is roughly (or at least tolerably)
equalized throughout the country
and still there are discrepancies in total
income per capita, the inference should follow that these are due to the
fact that in some areas there is a wide discrepancy between agricultural and
non-agricultural incomes,
If this is correct, the consequence follows that
the problem is not so much one of rgonal differentials but rather one of
sectoral discrepancies between agriculture and the other sectors,
The nature
of the problem seems, therefore, to call for an analysis of intersectoral
differentials in incomes per worker,
3*
Table 4 supplies some material for such an analysis.
table suggests a few comments 0
Inspection of this
Nowhere farm income equals non-farm income
(subject to the reservations already mentioned concerning comparability of
farm and non-farm employment figures).
As can be seen from column 4, in all
States the ratio-of farm to non farm is under 100.
In the States where
equalisation between the two sectors is the highest, the ratio reaches a
value of just over 75 (Iowa and Arizona); but in other States, where the
gap is wider, the ratio is as low as 16 or 20 (Maine, Michigan, Tennessee,
Alabama)o
The fact that the ratio is constantly under 100 should cause
no surprise; in all countries we know of, average product per worker is
lower in agriculture than elsewhere.
Even in the countries of the world where
it is the highest (Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands,
and Australia)
the ratio of farm to non-farm income per worker is about 75 to J 1
In the United States, however, a similar ratio only obtains in a few
exceptional States and this explains why the overall ratio of agricultural
to non-agricultural incomes per worker is as low in the U.S.A., as in the
majority of both developed and underdeveloped countries0
If we plot personal income per head against the ratio of farm to non-farm
income, the resulting diagram (Figure 2) shows no definite correlation
The ensuing conclusion that inequalities between the two sectors can be just
as high in poor and traditionally backward regions as in highly industrialised
and progressed States may sound rather surprising0
It becomes less surprising
and lends itself to interpretation, if we consider that the anomaly is more
apparent than real,
Rich States with marked differentials, such as Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, are all States where the agricultural
sector is very small (in terms of active population engaged in it); while
States with a moderate income per head where the gap between the two sectors
is narrow, such as Iowa or Arizona, are all States where agriculture is
lIn the majority of countries the ratio is of about 45-50 to l00o
Table 4
Farm and non-farm income per worker
Farm income
State
pOwO
1954
Ratio of
Non-Farm income
pvo.
farm to non-
farm Income
Uo0S0 dol.lars
UoS.AQ
1,569
4,764
33
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
RhodeIsland
Connecticut
605
1,17
1,094
1,864
29507
2,323
3,841
4075
4,048
4,432
4,034
16
24
27
32
62
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
19286
29072
1,126
5,63
4,553
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
2,048
2,516
3,034
1,151
1,394
4i912
4685
5,Olo
5-279
4,662
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
1,776
3,323
1,561
1,159
2,116
2,506
2,025
4,494
4,355
4,432
2,988
3,818
4,085
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
1,643
1,470
1,161
1,003
1,215
750
1,042
3,082
5,600
4.531
3,732
4,220
3,468
3,201
3,592
4,457
29
30
31
24
35
23
30
69
Kentucky
Tennessee
Albama
Mississippi
1,313
DO
762
-157
4,229
3,717
3,497
3,229
31
20
22
23
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
862
820
l4057
1,418
3,497
4,O30
4,200
4512
25
20
25
31
5,316
44
4i934
26
37
25
4,443
42
54
61
22
30
41
76
35
29
55
61
46
Table 4
(continued)
Ratio of
State
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
colorado
New Mexioo
Arizona
Utah
Farm income
POW
3i179
14790
l$365
1,523
3,567
1,231,
Pow
Non..Farm income
POW
0
poW 0
U.S. dollars
L,510
4,328
4,5,5
.439
4$504
3,977
4683
3,780
farm to nonfarm inone
taz' ipome
70
35
40
30
38
??
33
Nevada
3,00
5,288
57
Washington
Oregon
California
2,441
1,673
2,873
4,835
4,924
50
34
54
51306
a 0Loa
particularly rich (in terms of product per worker).
This means that in
highly progressed regions there may be a small "residual" of poor agriculture,
while elsewhere a very rich agriculture can reduce the gap without actually
bringing the State to a very high rank as to income per heado
Moreover, it will be noticed from Figure 2, that if we leave out of consideration these two sets of "exceptional cases." in the U.S., there seems to
appear a positive correlation between income per head and inter-sectoral
differentials, in the sense that the gap tends to become narrower as income
per head rises0
It can be interesting to notice that there appears here to
be present, at the internal level, a correlation that is conspicuously absent
when the analysis is p3rformed at the interaional level, by comparing farm
and non-faru incomes in the various countries of the worl4d
On the other hand, a definite and by no means surprising correlation appears
to be present between product per worker in agriculture and the ratio of farm
to non-farm income in the sense that the ratio grows higher (the gap tends to
close) the higher labor productivity in agriculture (Figure 3).
Which is,
after all, only a different way of stating the already noted fact,, that
differentials outside agriculture do not play any great role in the story,
and that equalization in regional incomes can only bei reached by raising
the level of agricultural relative to non-agricultural incomes.
That is,
as
already mentioned, the problem of regional differentials is easentially a
consequence of the existence of sectoral differentialso
4o
The immediate consequence of this conclusion is that if over the last thirty
years regional differential in income per head were reduced (as we
aw- they
were) the cause of this movement should be found in the narrowing of regional
- 1
-
differentials within the agricultural sectors.
It can therefore be worth
while looking at the evolution of farm Incomes per head over the same
period,
If the hypothesis is correct, we should find that the dispersion
of regional farm incomes shows a decreasing range over timeo
Again we are confronted with a statistical difficulty, in that the various
Censuses of Agriculture were carried out on the basis of different 'oriteria,
so that the data for farm labor in the various years are not strictly comparable.
Again, in order to proceed, we must relj on the assumption that differences in
definition do not affect the various States in different proportions, so that
a comparison of the relative positions of the various States over time is
still
legitimate0
A summary view of the change occured in the regional distribution of
agricultural incomes is given in Figure 4, where the distribution is plotted
for the years 1930 and 1954 (1954 being the year of the most recent Census
of Agriculture)o
The relevant figures are shown in Table 5:
Table
5
Farm income per worker
(national average - 100)
1930
1935
1945
1950
1954
1. Richest State
240
220
295
284
225
2. Poorest State
40
40
24
47
38
61o
55
120
6,o
6o2
L.5
5o4
20
68
69
3* Ratio of 1. to 2o
4k
Percentage of total
population living in
States with income per
head higher than double
of national average
l12 The range of the distribution measured by the ratio between the extreme
incomes (row 3) show a remarkable constancy:
the only exception is the
year 1945, and is due to an abnormally high agricultural income in the
State of California (disregarding California, the ratio in that year would
be equal to h1).
On the other hand a definite change seems to have taken place in the shape
of the distribution, as synthesized by the percentages in row 4 of Table 5o
The relative number of people in the highest income brackets has definitely
decreased between 1930 and 1954, which means a higher concentration of
incomes around the average, with less people in the "tails," even if the
tails are just as far apart as they were in the 19308s,
However, if we look
at the trend of the evolution over time, we notice that the downward tendency
was stopped and reversed sometime between 1945 and 1950, as if the process
of regional equalization in agricultural incomes had been brought to a halt
at the end of the waro
It will be recalled that the same trend with a
similar reversal at about the same date was noticed in the analysis of
regional differentials in per capita incomes; which is once more a confirmation
of the dependence of regional differentials on differentials in agriculture0
5. Given the fact that a certain degree of equalization was reached among per
capita incomes in the various States, two more questions arise:
process of convergence realised? and:
how was the
is this process a part of a steady
trend, or is it the product of occasional forces that need not perpetuate in
the future?
Let us consider one question at a time,
First of all, what
forces have been responsible for the closing of the gap?
Obviously such
factors should be found among those affecting the demand and supply of labor
in the various areas, One first cause could have been geographical shifts
in industrial location, such as to favour low income regions more than high
- 13 -
income regions,
In the case of agriculture, shifts in the location of
production favored sometimes rich sometimes poor areas and no definite
conclusion can be drawn.
As for the manufacturing sectors, an examination of a number of large
manufacturing industries was performed by R.A. Easterlin and the results
show that only in some cases changes in geographical distribution were
definitely in favour of backward areas0 2
The most remarkable of these
was the shift of textile manufacturers from the Northeast to the South,
alongside with similar shifts in the manufactures of tobacco products,
furniture, marble, granite, food products0
Many more regional shifts were
registered over the relevant period (iron and steel, metal products,
chemical industries), but they either were at the expense of poor regions
or, even if at the expense
of high income areas,
benefited other high
income areas, so that they exerted no effect on the convergence of regional
incomes0
More than geographical shifts in industries, the general evolution in the
composition of the national product may have contributed to the reduction
of inequalities,
The decline in the relative weight of food and clothing,
for instance, should have favored the shift of resources from agriculture
to industry and, therefore, from low to high income activities.
The
increasing importance of service output should have worked substantially in
the same direction.
Both hypotheses agree with empirical researches of F.A.
Hanna showing that variat'ions in the occupational composition explain 80 per
cent of variations in reported State earnings 0 '
1 Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1950, General Report,
Vol 0 II, po 401, 425o
2 RoA. Easterlin,
"Long-term Regional Income Changes: Some Suggested Factors,"
in The Regional Science Association, Papers and Proceedings, vol. IV, pp. 313-325o
3F.A. Hanna, "An analysis of interstate income differentials: theory and
practice," in Regional Income, Studies in Income and Wealth, vol 0 21, published
by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, 1957, po 1240
- 14 -
Another equalising factor, according to traditional economic theory,
should consist in migration of labor 0
Once more the relevant data are
supplied by R.A. Easterlin.I As Table 6 shows, between 1880 and 1950 a
substantial flow of labor from poor to rich areas did occur* All southern
areas were regions of high out-migration, while all rich areas (north-eastern
States and Pacific) were regions of net immigration
The persistency of
this tendency over the whole period shows that this was in fact mne of the
major forces, alongside with change in the productive structures, malding
for the reduction in income differentials.
Table6
Net jaigration into each region during specified period
(both internal and international migration)
(% of population in initial year of each period)
1920-19502
1880-1900
1900-1920
New England
247
161L
Middle Atlantic
l9o2
18,6
6 7
East-North Central
9.09
1743
540
West-North Central
1703
-648
-12o2
South Atlantic
-8o6
-448
-5o6
East-South Central
-12o2
-17,2
-15o6
West-South Central
28o7
1009
-7,8
Mountain
86,0
53.9
-10
Pacific
798
1o4,3
1 R.A.
6745
Easterlin, op cito,
po 322o
0
reasons of comparability change in this period is expressed as
average rate per 20 years9
2For
-o15 One might think that the process should have gone much further than it did,
considering that the conditions of mobility of factors and products were
almost ideal all the time:
absence of internal customs, complete freedom
of internal migration, no restrictions to capital movements 0
The answer,
if one can be attempted, would perhaps be that while the equalizing forces
considered by the static theory of general equilibrium did work in the right
direction, other forces of dynamical nature were making for increasing instead
of decreasing regional differentialso
The development of new industries, such
as the rapid growth of the automobile industry, and others connected with it
(such as tires and glass), the increasing importance of the alecraft industry,
the expansion of electrical manufactures, may have favoured already advanced
regions rather than the poor ones,
The only technical changes that seem to
have favoured the South could be the introduction of synthetic textiles, and
the developments in the field of petrochemical products.
If these hypotheses are not complete3y ill-founded, they might help to
explain how, in a strongly dynamical setting, where the forces of innovation
were working in the direction of greater inequality, the equalizing forces
of trade and migration failed to produce a greater result than they actually
dido
Much less can be said as to the question regarding the continuity of the
equalization process.
As it was noticed earlier, the process seems to have
come to a halt in the last years,
The supposition has, however, been advanced
that this may be due to short-term factore, apt to obscure but not to reverse
the basic trend0 1
The post-war decline in farm incomes should be attributed
to forces of this nature0
Given the shortness of the period, no safe conclusion
can be reached an this point 0
1C0 F* Schwartz and R.Eo Graham, Personal Income by States, U0 S0 Department
of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, Washington, 1956, p. 28,
6.
By way of a sutanary we can say:
regional differentials in per capita incomes are still existing and
siseable in the U.S.Ao; in 1957 the ratio of p.c. incomes in the richest
and poorest State was of 3 to 1;
-
such differentials as exist are mainly due to differentials between farm
and non-farm income, these being particularly pronounced in a number of
States, which are not necessarily agricultural nor necessarily low-income
States;
-
the measure of the gap between rich and poor regions is much smaller today
than it was 30 years ago;
-
this evolution towards equalisation has been mainly achieved through a
change in the occupational structure (less peoRle in agriculture and
more in the industrial and tertiary activities) and through substantial
migrations from poor to rich areas;
-
the more recent years seem to witness a halt in the process of equalisation;
however, there are no sufficient elements to judge whether this is a shortterm phenomenon, or a reversal of a long-term trend0
- 17 -
Sources:
UoSc Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Censuses
of Population for the years 1930 and 1950;
UoSo Department of Conmerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Censuses
of Agricultre for the years 1935, 1945, 1954;
U.So Department of Comearce, Office of Business Economics,
.Personal Income by States, 19291955, by CaF Schwartz and
R.E. Graham, Washington, 1956;
- U0 S0 Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, U.S.
Income and Output, Washington, 1959,
The reasons for non-comparability between the data for farm and non-farm
employment (referred t6 on page 5) can be deduced from the Census of
A
for 195%, vol. II, General Report, po 234, and are mainly the
(i) the data were tabulated from two different sources0 The occupa.
tion and industry statistics were tabulated from information reported on the
Census of Population Questionnaire, while the number of persons working on
farms were tabulated from the Census of AgrieurLuure uesvuonnaireo At no
time were the questionnaires checked one with the other for these data;
(ii)
in the occupation and industry statistics, persons were allocated
to a particular category on the basis of the jobs at which they worked the
greatest number 'of- hours during the week preceding enumeration; in the
Agriculture Census, persons were reported as working on the farm if they
worked the stated minimum hours or more of the week, regardless of the hours
spent at other employment;
(iii)
in the occupation and industry statistics, only persons 14 years
old and over were included; in the Agriculture Census there was no specified
age limit for persons reported as working on farms;
(iv) the detailed occupation and industry groups used in classifying
workers as "agricultural" in the Census of Population are not identical
with those used in the Census of Agriculture.
The reasons for non-comparability among the data of the various Censuses of
Agriculture can be deduced from the same source and are mainly the following:
(i) the 1954 Census of Agriculture, taken in October and November, was
the first nation-wide Census to be taken in the fall 9f the year (the previous
Censuses were taken in January; the change was introduced "upon recommendation
of the principal users of farm-labor data"), The number of persons reported
as working on farms during the specified week in 1954 represents in many areas
the maximum number of persons employed in agriculture during the year; this,
of course, is.not true of the previous Censuses;
(ii)
in the 1954 Census, the minimum weekly hours of employment at form
for a worker to be considered as "agricultural" were as followas
(a) members of operators family: 15
(b) hired workers: any;
in the 1945 and 1935 Censuses, the minimum weekly employment at farm was two
d~ai for all kinds of workers,
(iii)
the minimum age of workers was unspecified in all Censuses, except
in the 1945 Census where it was fixed at 14 years.
-
18 -
The table by S. Dell referred to in the text (p. 2 footnote 1) is the following:
Regional Per Capita Income as Percentage of National Ievel
1880
1900
1920
1930
1940
1950
United States
100
100
100
100
100
100
New England
Middle Atlantic
141
141
134
139
124
134
East North Central
West North Central
129
140
121
124
109
116
102
90
106
97
108
87
111
82
112
84
112
94
72
100
135
48
61
83
130
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
45
' 45
60
168
204
49
61
139
163
51
59
52
56
.69
55
70
90
138
74
62
80
96
121
Arithmetic mean
deviation- of regional
per capita income from
national level,
percentage points
i46.
31.1
.20
16.9
Figure 1
Personal income
1929
18
Number of
recipients
(% of total
population)
14)
10
6
2
Personal income per capita (national average a 100)
1957
Number of
recipients
(N of total
population)
3O
26
22
18
1&
10
6
2
Personal income per capita (national average - 100)
Figure 2
a
*
*
o45
e
e
,
e
e
#e
e
e
e
e e
0
*15
5
500
1000
1
1500
2000
2
2500
Personal Income Per Capita
Figure 3
*
I I~ El o ipg
I
g i
ee .
@5
e
5
500
io00
15S %o
25 )0
3cM
Farm personal income per worker
350
Figure 4
Number of workers in
States with average
income indicated
22
1930
(%of total farm
labor force)
18
14
6
2
TI
itI -- I - A 0- 20 50 100 114180 220
Farm income per worker (national average - 100)
Number of workers
living in States
with average
income indicated
(%of total
farm population)
.30
26
22
18
14
10
6
2
Farm income per worker (national average
-
100)