View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

rzis
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - -

•

It

it

December 12, 1958

EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE has continued
its downward trend during 1958 at almost the same rate
as in the preceding year. At 6.4 million in October,
according to Department of Commerce estimates, agricultural employment was 6 per cent below the yearearlier number. In the business recessions of 1949 and
1954, the decline in agricultural employment slackened
and even temporarily reversed direction.

rat
etter

I

EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTUREr7—
cUTh

million workers
8

Number 486

LCD

JAN- 8 1959

NUMBER OF MACHINES INCREASES
1AS EMPLOYMENT DECLINES
14

\1957.000\
\I Li. S. I)1PARTMEN 7
4%00

1950

VT

‘N
I

Tractors .... • •
Motor trucks ...
Grain combines .
Corn pickers ...
Farms with milking machines.
Pickup bailers ...... • • • •
Field forage harvesters .•.•
• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • •

mar

june

sept

Per cent
change

(in thousands)

\•

1958

1958

ec

The usual explanation for such interruptions of the
flow of farm workers out of agriculture has been in terms
of reduced availability of jobs in the cities. In addition
to the slowing effects on farm to city migration, some
workers, n o doubt, return to their farms when their jobs
are terminated or hours are reduced. However, little
return migration is evident, thus far, in the business
recession of 1957-58 even though it was the sharpest of
the postwar period and had the greatest level of unemployment. Since there is a time lag in adjustment to
unemployment situations, some delayed effects of the
business recession may yet be felt. THE SURPLUS PROBLEM in agriculture has been
described on occasion as a surplus of farmers—too many
dependent upon farm income. And some have maintained
that as the number dependent upon agriculture declines,
agricultural surpluses would disappear. In the period
1950 to 1958, migration from farms to cities has been
rapid. Total farm employment declined one-fifth, farm
population decreased one-sixth and man-hours of labor
used for farm work dropped one-eighth. Yet total farm
output in 1958 is 22 per cent above the 1950 level.
Certainly it is desirable that workers, in agriculture
and elsewhere, move from low income to higher income
jobs. And this transfer of labor helps to adjust the nation's output to provide the things desired by consumers.
It is obvious also that a very large transfer of workers
out of agriculture would solve the problem of surpluses
and could even result in shortages of some commodities.
But a change of that magnitude or speed is not on the
horizon.

•

•

3,394
2,207
714
456
636
196
81

4,685
3,000
1,040
745
725
590
255

+ 38
+ 36
+ 46
+ 63
+ 14
+201
+215

Employment in agriculture .. 7,507 5,850* - 22
(in millions)
Man hours .• •. •
•
. 15,259 13,553**
41

•

11

* Estimated.
"1957.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture and
Department of Commerce.
The explanation for the increase in output, even in
the face of a fairly rapid decline in work force, lies; of
course, in the rapid technological advances being made
in agriculture and the associated high level of investment
of new capital goods such as in tractors, combines and
other major farm machines. As a result, the index of
farm production per man-hour has increased more than
one-fourth in the period 1950 to 1957 and the 1958 figure
will show another large gain.
Thus far, the new technology and additional capital
have more than offset the effects of fewer farm workers.
And the processes continue. At what pace and for how
long are open questions. The desirability of developing
new technology cannot be questioned. The future welfare
of mankind everywhere is closely linked to continued
technological progress., But so long as there is such
progress, or changes in consumers' desires, there will
be need for adjustments in labor force and capital investment.
Research Department