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

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

illiteracy among the native whites in rural and urban communities

(1920 Census, Vol. III]

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

23 43 20

5 39 28 15 27 26 8 7 17 16 33 29 31 12 19 47 40 49 21. 35

1 32

2 36 25 18 37 30 22

4 46

3 48 38 13

6 45 10 34 41

[ocr errors]

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

$1992 UNITED STATIES

3566 I NEVADA

337 2 CALIFORNIA

3173 3 NEW YORK 4 MASSACHUSSES

2875 5 WASHINGTON

2857 6 DELAWARE

2778 7 WYOMING

2730 8 ILLINOIS

2631 9 NEW JERSEY

2602 10 OREGON

2564 II CONNECTICUT

2.548 12 RHODE ISLAND

2508 13 MICHIGAN

2462 14 OHIO

2457 15 IOWA

2,343 16 MARYLAND

2270 17 PENNSYLVANIA

2226 '18 NEBRASKA

2,192 19 NEW HAMPSHIRE

2192 20 COLORADO

2159 21 ARIZONA

2103 22 SOUTH DAKOTA

2059 23 MAINE

2058 24 INDIANA

1976 25 KANSAS

1909 26 MINNESOTA

1861 27 VERMONT

1849 20 IDAHO

1819 29 WISCONSIN

1789 30 MISSOURI

1.757 31 MONTANA

1.746 32 TEXAS

1.478 33 UTAH

1464 34 OKLAHOMA

1.437 35 NORTH DAKOTA

1428 36 WEST VIRGINIA

1272 37 FLORIDA

1,244 38 VIRGINIA

1.200 39 LOUISIANA

1.15.9 40 NEW MEXICO

1142 41 KENTUCKY

1133 42 SOUTH CAROLINA

1089 43 GEORGIA

1028 44 TENNESSEE

1.013 45 ARKANSAS

999 46 NORTH CAROLINA

991 47 MISSISSIPPI

901 48 ALABAMA

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.

[graphic]

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 on. 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 fluid 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

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?

·to my

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 »