Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

TABLE IV.The States and inequality of educational opportunity as shown by

illiteracy in rural and urban population

(1920 Census, Vol. III)

[graphic]

Alabama..
Arizona.
Arkansas.
California.
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia.
Florida.
Georgia.
Idaho.
Illinois.
Indiana
Iowa.
Kansas.
Kentucky.
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland.
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi.
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon..
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island.
South Carolina
South Dakota..
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont.
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

2 12 20 34 35 10 14 30 16

4 46 25 31 47 37 19

6 26 23 21 27 40

1 32 42 38

4 17 18

7 15

5 44 28 39 43 22 13

3 49

9 11 48 24

8 45 29 33 36

TabĻE V.The States and inequality of educational opportunity as indicated by

illiteracy among the native whites in rural and urban communities

[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]

I will give you the facts in detail for the States. Here is a chart showing the annual income behind each child from 5 to 20 years of age:

ANNUAL INCOME PER CHILD

AGES 5-20

$1.992

3566

3371

3.173

UNITED STATES I NEVADA 2 CALIFORNIA 3 NEW YORK 4 MASSACHUSSEITS 5 WASHINGTON 6 DELAWARE 7 WYOMING 8 ILLINOIS 9 NEW JERSEY 10 OREGON II CONNECTICUT 12 RHODE ISLAND 13 MICHIGAN 14 OHIO 15 IOWA 16 MARYLAND 17 PENNSYLVANIA '18 NEBRASKA 19 NEW HAMPSHIRE 20 COLORADO 21 ARIZONA 22 SOUTH DAKOTA 23 MAINE

24 INDIANA

2875 2857 2778 2730 2631 2602 2564 2.548 2.508 2462 2457 2343 2270 2226 2.192 2192 2159 2103 2059 2.058 1976 1909 1861 1.849 1819 1789 1.757 1.746 1.478 1464 1,437 1.428 1272 1,244 1.200 1.15.9 1.142 1.133 1,089 1028 1.013

25 KANSAS

26 MINNESOTA 27 VERMONT 26 IDAHO

29 WISCONSIN 30 MISSOURI 31 MONTANA 32 TEXAS 33 UTAH 34 OKLAHOMA 35 NORTH DAKOTA 36 WEST VIRGINIA 37 FLORIDA 38 VIRGINIA 39 LOUISIANA 40 NEW MEXICO 41 KENTUCKY 42 SOUTH CAROLINA 43 GEORGIA 44 TENNESSEE 45 ARKANSAS 46 NORTH CAROLINA 47 MISSISSIPPI 48 ALABAMA

999

991 901 8.95

These figures are calculated using the census figure for the number of children aged 5 to 20, and the 1919 income figures of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

'on.

The richest State in the United States, if you will notice, per child is Nevada. It has tremendous natural resources and a very small population.

Then come some of the industrial States which are rich in resources, such as California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, and so

These are interesting figures—$3,500 annual income in some States behind each child; less than a thousand dollars, $895, in others.

Mr. ROBSION. There is the State of Nevada. How do you get those figures there?

Mr. NORTON. The National Bureau of Economic Research issued a little book called "Income by States” that is recognized as an authoritative piece of work. Some of the greatest authorities in the country are on the staff of the Bureau of Economic Research. I take the figure as to the total income given for the State of Nevada for a year and divide it by the number of children according to the census.

Mr. ROBSION. You do not get that income from the Federal census?

Mr. NORTON. The Federal census makes no estimate of this kind. It makes an estimate of total wealth. But mere existence of wealth is not as good a measure of ability to pay as is income.

Mr. REED. This is based on the number of children; that is, it is not based so much on the wealth as it is on the whole number of children. Mr. NORTON. The two factors together. Take your income and

. your number of children and divide one by the other, and you will find how much of real fuid wealth, wealth that is available for taxation, that is produced each year behind each child.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar or do you know how the Bureau of National Research arrives at its figures as to the income?

Mr. NORTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they take total wages and total salaries and total dividends paid on investments?

Mr. NORTON. Yes. For instance, in their investigation they came to my office and asked me for data on teachers' salaries, and I gave the most comprehensive data I could as to teachers' salaries in the United States. They spent thousands of dollars in the investigation and have a very effective staff, well supported by private contributions. A great many industrial concerns are supporting it; the National Educational Association is also one of the contributing members. We contribute $25 a year to the support of that organization. Such men as Mitchell and King, names that you will immediately recognize in the economic field, are on the technical staff of the organization.

“Income in the United States," is the name of the first book they issued. It was an epoch-making study and is recognized as authoritative throughout the country. It is referred to in some of these tables.

If you base these figures on wealth you get nearly the same results; that you find the wide differences in wealth per child in different States as in income

per

child. The CHAIRMAN. You think it would be relatively about the same; the States would be relatively about the same?

Mr. NORTON. There is a close correlation. There are a few exceptions. Take, for example, Montana here [indicating on chart] in our table; wherever income is used it ranks lower than it does when wealth is used. It happens that Montana had periods of drought, reducing its income, and therefore placing it rather low here [indicating on chart], but in wealth it stands somewhere up here in rank (indicating]; but you get essentially the same rank in most of the States.

Mr. ROBSION. There is North Carolina; that stands about the sixth State in the value of the Federal income tax

Mr. NORTON. That is due to

Mr. Robson. Wait a minute; and a year or two ago it was fourth in the value of the agricultural products of the Nation-it stood fourth. Texas is first, Iowa second, and Illinois probably third, and North Carolina fourth.

Mr. DOUGHTON. It is fifth or sixth now.
Mr. Robsion. Now you have got it down third from the bottom.

The CHAIRMAN. They probably have a lot of children; that would account for it.

Mr. Doughton. Either the Federal census of this "ability to pay” would give you the same thing.. You get North Carolina relatively low, the Federal census on wealth of this study of income will give you about the same results. North Carolina is a relatively poor State per child. If you study the figures given in the report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, you will see it pays apparently a large tax to the Federal Government. Of course, North Carolina does not pay that at all; it is collected by the Federal Government from the people who happen to be there for the time being manufacturing tobacco, but is paid by the Nation's tobacco consumers.

Mr. Robson. That is an explanation somewhat about its income tax but how do you account for its standing so high in agricultural products? It was fourth a few years ago and now is fifth or sixth.

Mr. NORTON. Yes. Agricultural products are important, but at the same time only a fraction of our total wealth produced, and becoming a smaller and smaller fraction.

Mr. Robsion. Nevada is up near the top in accordance with this chart (indicating) and North Carolina is way down.

Mr. Norton. I don't happen to know what the rank of North Carolina is as to value of agricultural products, but of course I would not care to go back of the Federal census or this group of authorities as to the amount of income.

Mr. RobsION. That is not based on the Federal census?

Mr. NORTON. Well, the Federal census of wealth will show essentially the same thing, that North Carolina is a poor State.

Mr. ROBSION. The last Federal census shows that North Carolina is fourth in the value of its agricultural products.

940414241

12

« ForrigeFortsett »