Editorial and Educational Director, This work is especially designed to meet the practical every-day needs of the This work is especially designed to meet the practical every-day needs of the active business man, and contains the fundamental and basic principles upon which a successful business is founded, conducted and maintained. To those looking forward to a business career, this work forms the basis for a practical and systematic course in “Business Administration” PUBLISHED BY Copyright, 1910, BUSINESS ECONOMICS ¶ This treatise has been especially prepared by E. L. Bogart, Ph. D., Associate Professor of Economics, University of Illinois, and Author of Economic History of the United States; Hon. O. P. Austin, Chief of Bureau of Statistics, Department of Commerce and Labor; and John Bascom, D. D., LL. D., former President University of Wisconsin. It is supplemented by the writings of recognized experts in the production, preservation and distribution of wealth. The treatment is modern, popular and authoritative. The volume contains many timely and practical suggestions which can be applied with profit to any business. It is also arranged to serve as a quick reference work, and includes a complete table of contents, a comprehensive index and test questions. Walter D. Moody, INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. |
BUSINESS ECONOMICS. | ||
Practical Economics. | ||
By Ernest Ludlow Bogart | 1 | |
I. | The Modern Industrial System— | 1 |
The English Manor—?Institution of Private Property—?Competition Defined—?Development of Industrial Liberty—?Domestic System of Industry—?Factory System of Industry—?The State as a Regulator of Industrial Undertakings. | ||
II. | The Agricultural Resources of the United States— | 9 |
The Land Policy of the United States—?Irrigation—?Dry-Farming—?Farm Ownership—?Decline of the Agricultural Population—?Character of Agriculture in the United States—?Forest Resources—?Fisheries. | ||
III. | The Mineral Resources of the United States— | 19 |
The Problem Connected with our Mineral Resources—?Steps Taken to Remedy the Evil—?Coal—?Petroleum—?Iron—?Precious Metals—?Copper—?Water Power and Its Use. | ||
IV. | Capitalistic Production— | 29 |
The Rapid Industrial Development and Its Causes—?Factory Defined—?Division of Labor—?Use of Labor-Saving Machinery—?Specialization and Localization of Industry—?Large-Scale Production—?System of Standardization. | ||
V. | Trusts and Monopolies— | 39 |
Phases of Combination for Fixing Prices—?Classes of Industrial Establishments—?The Trust Movement—?Causes and Effects of Industrial Combinations—?Evils of Combination—?Legislative Regulation. | ||
VI. | Speculation and Crises— | 51 |
Risks of Modern Business—?Function of the Speculator—?Legitimate and Illegitimate Speculation—?The Occasion of a Crisis—?“Hard Times”—?Theories as to the Causes of Crises. | ||
VII. | The Modern Wage System— | 60 |
Beneficial Results of the Factory System—?Abuses of the Factory System—?The Existence of a Wage-Earning Class—?The Wage System—?Historical Systems of Labor—?Modifications of Individualism—?The Bargain Between the Employer and the Laborer—?Necessity of Protective Legislation. | ||
VIII. | Labor Organizations and Collective Bargaining— | 68 |
Growth of Labor Organizations in the United States—?Knights of Labor—?American Federation of Labor—?Objects and Methods of Labor Organizations—?Restrictions Limiting the Output of Labor—?Collective Bargaining—?Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration. | ||
IX. | Women and Children at Work— | 80 |
Evils of Early Factory System—?Expansion of Woman Labor—?Why Women are Paid Lower Wages than Men—?Desirability of Employment of Women—?Child Labor—?Labor Legislation. | ||
X. | Unemployment and Insurance— | 90 |
Number of Unemployed in Modern Industry—?Classification of the Unemployed—?Causes of Unemployment—?Insurance against Accident, Sickness and Old Age in the United States; in Germany. | ||
XI. | Machinery and Industrial Efficiency— | 101 |
Evils of Machinery—?Labor’s Complaint against Machinery—?Industrial Education in Germany; in England; in the United States—?Aids to Industrial Development in the United States. | ||
XII. | Profit-Sharing and Co-Operation— | 110 |
Methods of Profit-Sharing—?Economic Theory of Profit-Sharing—?Objections against Profit-Sharing—?Experiments in Profit-Sharing—?Co-Operation—?The Rochdale Society—?Producers’ Co-Operation—?Advantages and Defects of Co-Operation. | ||
XIII. | Problems of Distribution— | 119 |
Functional Distribution—?Personal Distribution—?Forms of Distribution Proposed—?Questions Connected with Functional Distribution; with Personal Distribution. | ||
XIV. | Saving and Spending— | 127 |
Expenditures for Different Purposes—?Relation Between Saving and Spending—?Desirability of Work for its Own Sake—?Problem of Luxury—?Economy in Consumption—?Economic Evils of Intemperance. | ||
XV. | Money and Banking— | 137 |
What Determines the Value of Money—? | ||
XVI. | Transportation and Communication— | 145 |
Consolidation in the Railroad World—?Question of Railroad Rates—?The Public Nature of Railroads—?Ownership of Railroads—?Electric Interurban Railways—?Express Companies—?The Telephone—?The Telegraph—?Inland and Ocean Water Transportation—?Our Canal System—?Our Merchant Marine. | ||
XVII. | Taxation and Tariff— | 154 |
Consequences of Taxation—?Adam Smith’s Rules of Taxation—?Problems of Taxation—?Sources of Revenue in the United States—?The General Property Tax—?Inheritance Taxes—?The Question of the Tariff. | ||
XVIII. | The Functions of Government— | 163 |
Functions of a Modern State—?Anarchism—?Individualism—?Modified Individualism—?Culture State Theory—?State Socialism—?Socialism—?Municipalization of Local Public Utilities. | ||
XIX. | Economic Progress— | 172 |
Improvement in Rate of Wages and Hours or Labor—?Advances in the Field of Production—?Reasons Why Labor has not Profited More by the Great Increase in Wealth—?Reduction in the Cost of Semi-Luxuries—?Lines Along Which Reform is Needed. | ||
Manufacturing. | ||
By O. P. Austin | 179 | |
Introduction— | 179 | |
The Hand Method of Manufacturing—?The Factory Method—?Chief Producers by each Method—?Exchanges of the World—?Relation of Development of Manufactures to Commerce. | ||
I. | Modern Manufacturing Systems of the World— | 185 |
Their Development During the Last Two Centuries—?The Waterfall as a Source of Power—?Development of Steam Power—?Enlargement of the Use of Machinery Following the Application of Power—?The Factory Town—?Results of the Application of Steam Power to Transportation—?Electricity as an Aid in Manufacturing. | ||
II. | The Use of Machinery in Manufacturing— | 193 |
The Spinning Wheel—?The Loom—?Kay’s Flying Shuttle—?Hargreave’s Spinning Jenny—?Arkwright’s Water Frame—?Crompton’s Spinning Mule—?Machinery in the Iron and Steel Industry—?Growth in Manufacturing Following the Application of Machinery to the Leading Industries—?Effect of Machinery upon the Employment of Men—?Effect upon Employment of Capital—?Effect upon Prices of Labor, of Raw Materials, of Finished Products—?Effect upon Commerce—?Effect upon the Quality of Manufactures Produced. | ||
III. | Development of the Factory System— | 203 |
Growth of the Factory System in England—?Causes of the Recent Growth of the Manufacturing Industries in the United States—?Estimates of the Value of Manufactures in the Principal Countries of the World—?Net and Gross Valuations of Manufactures in the United States. | ||
IV. | Capital in Manufacturing— | 214 |
Capital a Growing Factor in Manufacturing Industries—?Manufacturing in Great Establishments and under Expert Management a Favorite Investment for Capital—?Effect of Increase in Gold Production—?Investments of Capital and Use of Machinery Increase more Rapidly than Employment of Labor—?United States Statistics of Investment and Production Superior to those of Other Countries. | ||
V. | Trusts and Combinations— | 222 |
Reasons for Co-Operation—?The Pooling System—?The Company—?The Corporation—?Trusts and Other Combinations—?Causes of the Transformation from the Company and the Corporation to the Trust—?Effect of Trusts upon Production, Prices, Wages and Employment. | ||
VI. | The Iron and Steel Industry— | 230 |
Pig Iron the Basis of all Iron and Steel Manufacturing—?Pig Iron Production of the World in 1800 Compared with 1907—?Fall in Prices of Iron and Steel a Result of the Application of Modern Methods of Manufacture—?History of Iron Manufacture; Development in England and Germany—?History of Iron-Making in the United States—?Transformation from the Charcoal Method to that of Coal and Coke—?The Earlier Methods of Manufacturing Steel Contrasted with those of Today—?Rival Claims of the English and the American Inventors, Bessemer and Kelly, to the Modern System of Steel Manufacturing—?Description of the Process of Manufacturing Steel under American Methods—?The Use of Powerful Machinery and Lessening Proportion of Work Performed by Man Power—?The Railway and Steamship in Relation to the Steel Industry—?Great Combinations of Iron and Steel Manufacturers—?Description of the Process of Transforming Iron into Steel by the Bessemer Process. | ||
VII. | The Textile Industry— | 247 |
Growth of the Textile Industry from the Hand Industries to Use of Machinery and the Factory System—?Great Britain, the Greatest Cotton Manufacturing Country of the World in Proportion to Population—?The United States the World’s Greatest Producer of Raw Cotton—?Contrast of Manufacturing Methods in the United States and Europe—?Great Britain the World’s Principal Cotton Manufacturer for Exportation—?The United States a Large Manufacturer but Chiefly for her Own People—?Light Grades of Cotton Manufactured in Europe—?History of the Textile Industry—?Description of the Manufacture of Textiles—?Cotton Manufacturing has Outgrown that of Other Textiles—?History of its Manufacture in India, in Asia Minor, in America, and, in Recent Years, in Japan—?Other Oriental Countries Manufacture by the Hand Processes—?Growth of the Use of Machinery in Cotton Manufacturing, from the Spinning Wheel and Spinning Jenny to Modern Machine Methods—?The Textile Industry of the United States. | ||
VIII. | The Manufacturing Industries of the United States— | 263 |
The United States the World’s Greatest Manufacturer—?Its System Developed More Recently than that of Europe—?Has Utilized Modern Methods in Combination with Large Sums of Capital—?The United States the Only Nation Taking a Census of Manufactures—?The Gross and Net Value of Manufactures as Reported by the Census—?Relation of the Gross and Net Figures to Those of Other Countries—?Acceptance of the Lowest Estimate of Manufactures in the United States Places her Products Far in Excess of Those of any Other Nation—?Growth of Manufacturing has Outgrown Consuming Power of the People and Resulted in Rapid Growth in Exportation—?Manufactures Form a Growing Share of Exports—?Principal Manufactured Articles Exported and Principal Countries to which Sent. | ||
IX. | Statistics of Manufacturing— | 289 |
Production of Manufacturers’ Materials—?Development of Transportation Facilities—?Distribution of Manufactures—?World’s Production of Gold, 1492 to 1908—?Enlargement of Capital Invested in Manufacturing—?The Various Classes of Manufactures Produced in the United States—?The Value of Each Group at Recurring Censuses from 1880 to 1905—?Distribution of the Manufacturing Industries in the Various Sections of the United States—?Share which Manufactures Form in the Imports and Exports of the United States—?Share which Manufactures Form in the Imports and Exports of the Principal Countries of Europe—?Estimated Value of Manufactures Produced in the Principal Countries of the World, 1780 to 1905—?Commerce of the World, 1780 to 1905—?Number of Persons Engaged in the Principal Manufacturing Industries of the United States—?Cotton Spindles of the World—?Cotton Production of the World—?Growth of Population, Commerce, Transportation Facilities, and in Production of Certain Articles Required in Manufacturing, 1800 to 1908. | ||
Concrete and Steel. | ||
By J. F. Springer | 322 | |
Chemistry and the Industries. | ||
By Benjamin Ball Freud | 341 | |
The Close Relation of the Producer-Gas Power Plant to the Conservation of our Fuel Resources. | ||
By Robert Heywood Fernald | 352 | |
Efficiency in Shop Operations. | ||
By H. F. Stimpson | 370 | |
The Bridge Between Labor and Capital. | ||
By John Mitchell | 380 | |
The Unemployed. | ||
By John Bascom | 384 | |
Quiz Questions | 403 |
PRACTICAL ECONOMICS.
BY ERNEST LUDLOW BOGART, Ph. D.
[Born Yonkers, N. Y., 1870; A. B., A. M., Princeton University, 1890, 1896; Ph. D., University of Halle, 1897; Graduate Student, University of Halle, 1894, 1896-7, University of Berlin, 1894-5, Princeton University (Fellow), 1895-6, Columbia University, 1897-8. Assistant Professor Economics and Social Science, Indiana University, 1898-1900; Professor Economics and Sociology, Oberlin College, 1900-1905; Assistant Professor Economics, History and Politics, Princeton University, 1905-9; Associate Professor Economics, University of Illinois, 1909. Author of Economic History of the United States (Longmans Green & Co., 3rd edition, 1909), and several monographs and periodical articles.]
INTRODUCTION.
In the preparation of this text the author has endeavored to apply the principles of economic science to some of the more important problems of the modern industrial world, and especially those now confronting the people of the United States. He has attempted in doing this above all to make the text practical. The student or teacher of economics will recognize at once that the sections are arranged into groups corresponding with the traditional divisions of economic text-books into production and distribution (land, capital and organization, and labor), consumption, exchange, and the relation of the government to the individual. It is hoped that the text may not be without profit and interest to the general reader as well as the students of the La Salle Extension University.
We shall probably get the clearest idea of the complexity of our modern industrial society if we contrast it briefly with the simpler state of social organization which preceded it. For this purpose we may take the English manor of the eleventh century. At that time England
Now the significant characteristics of such a manorial society were three. First, it was economically self-sufficient, that is, practically everything that was needed or was consumed on the manor was produced there. There was no need of intercourse with the outside world and there was little contact with it. Salt, iron, and millstones were almost the only things that the inhabitants of such a manor had to buy from outsiders. Consequently there was no production of goods for a market, little money, and almost no trade. The few things that were purchased were paid for at prices fixed by custom. Secondly, agriculture was carried on under a system of joint labor, and
Such a society differs from that of today in almost every point, and offers a startling proof of how far we have progressed in the past eight or nine hundred years. For many of these characteristics, however, we do not need to go back to the English mediaeval manor; the plantation of the South two generations ago, with its system of slave labor, furnishes an illustration more familiar to most of us. With such a condition of industrial development we may now profitably contrast our own of the twentieth century. The chief characteristics of the modern industrial system are the institutions of private property, of competition, and of personal liberty.
The institution of private property is so familiar to us and so fundamental in modern economic life, that we commonly regard it as a natural right. Nevertheless, private
Competition is defined as “the act of seeking or endeavoring to gain what another is endeavoring to gain at the same time.” But competition in modern industrial life is not merely a struggle to appropriate an existing good. The very contest, as over the control of a market, may and probably will lead to cheaper and larger production, and thus to the benefit of society. Competition is a selective process in our modern economic society, and through it we have the survival of the fittest. “Competition,” so runs the proverb, “is the soul of trade.” There is, to be sure, a dark side to the picture, for economic competition involves the defeat of the weaker party, but this does not necessarily mean his destruction, for his very
Industrial liberty has been developed even more slowly and painfully than the institution of private property, and has in some instances not yet been wholly won. Slavery and serfdom have given way before the higher and more beneficent conception of freedom or liberty. We believe today that a man generally knows what is best for him and will utilize his opportunities to the best advantage; that by giving him a maximum of freedom the welfare of society will at the same time be best promoted. Consequently, in our modern industrial society, a man is given not only social and religious liberty, but is free to move, to choose his occupation, to produce and to trade, to associate with his fellows, and to expend his income as he will. But here again, while the prevailing rule is liberty, society has found it necessary to lay restrictions upon the abuse of this liberty. It is not enough even to regard the industrial world as a great game in which each may act as he pleases provided only he observes the rules of the game. A higher conception of responsibility and duty must accompany freedom of action if we are to secure the best results.
The term “industrial society” has already been frequently used and needs a somewhat fuller explanation. About the year 1760 there took place in England what is usually called the Industrial Revolution. A number of inventions were made which rendered
The introduction of power manufacture completely revolutionized industry. The independent workman with his own tools was superseded by the factory, the small producer has given way in turn to the trust. With the introduction of expensive machinery it became necessary to organize capital on a large scale. Corporations with limited liability were organized for the manufacture of goods, the exploitation of mines, the building of railroads, and the carrying on of trade. As methods of production improved industry became more and more concentrated, and finally huge trusts took over the operation of combined plants. The business unit has grown increasingly larger, and the need and power of capital have become increasingly important. Capital has played a role of growing significance and has become more and more powerful in modern economic life. Indeed the name “capitalistic production” has been applied to modern industry because of the predominant importance of capital in all lines of
Before the introduction of the factory system, under the so-called “domestic” system of industry, the laborer carried on his work in his own home, where he provided the raw material, owned his own tools, furnished the motive power—his muscles—and was his own master. Today every one of these conditions is changed—the work is carried on in the factory, the raw material, the tools, the motive power are all provided by the capitalist, the laborer contributing only his own more or less skilled labor, while the conditions under which he carries on his work are largely determined for him. He is no longer his own master. To protect himself against the growing power of capital the worker has organized with his fellows into trade unions. These seek to meet the monopolistic power of capital by exerting a monopolistic control over labor. While they realize that modern productive processes cannot be carried on without capital, they also insist that labor is equally essential. They claim that capital has received more than its fair share of their joint production and has exploited labor; consequently they insist that labor must now demand its just reward and enforce the claim by strikes and by raising wages. To enforce their monopoly, the policy of the closed shop is often enforced. The interests of capital and labor have thus often been made to appear antagonistic instead of complementary to one another. Frequently in their struggles the interests of the consumer have been entirely lost sight of.
These conflicts in the productive processes of modern economic society have led many people to look to the state
But while under the system of individualism, industrial activities have been multiplied, wealth has been enormously increased, and human progress has been greatly advanced, many abuses and evils still remain. Many practical economic problems still await solution. Some of these have already been suggested in the preceding paragraphs; others remain to be presented. It is the purpose of this text to apply to some of the more important practical current problems of our modern industrial life the principles of economic science, and to endeavor to reach fair and just conclusions on controverted points.
II. THE AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES.
The land area of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and our island possessions, is a little less than 3,000,000 square miles, or an area somewhat less than the whole of Europe (3,700,000 square miles). Of this about 840,000 square miles, or a little more than one-fourth, still remains in the possession of the Federal Government and constitutes the public domain. The rest belonged to the original thirteen states, has been given to railways or to the states for educational purposes, or has been sold and given away to individual settlers. The policy of the Government in the disposition of the public domain has, on the whole, been to place it as rapidly as possible in the hands of cultivators, and also to use it as a fund to promote internal improvements and education. About 200,000,000 acres had been granted to railroads down to 1871, at which time land grants were discontinued, to secure their early construction. This policy has often been bitterly condemned, and it has been contended that the land should have been saved for actual settlers. It may however be said that without such grants the railroads would not have been built at as early a date as they actually were, and that without railroads the land was practically worthless, as it was too far removed from any navigable waterway to have access to a market. Moreover, the Federal Treasury lost nothing, for the sections of land alternating with those granted to the railroads were sold to settlers for $2.50 an acre instead of $1.25, the customary price for the public lands.
The grants of land for educational purposes have been generally approved. Upon such grants rests the establishment of our state agricultural colleges.
The unique and characteristic feature of the land policy of the United States has been the granting of land to the settler upon actual residence and cultivation for five
Now, however, the public lands available for agriculture have been exhausted; practically all that remains is situated in the arid zone, and needs systematic irrigation before it can be made available for any use except that of grazing. There are still about 100,000,000 acres of choice land in Indian reservations, and as a consequence of the pressure upon this resource and also because of the unwisdom of the old reservation system, the policy has now been adopted of dividing these lands among the Indians in individual ownership, under careful safeguards, and of assimilating the Indians to the rest of the population.
The exhaustion of the fertile and well-watered lands of the Mississippi Valley has forced the later comers to have recourse to the arid soils in the almost rainless region west of the one hundredth meridian of longitude. The character of farming under such climatic conditions must of necessity be very different from what it is in the rainy districts, and the versatility and adaptability of the American farmer is well illustrated by the development which has taken place there. The first effort at the solution of the problem was in irrigation, a method which had been early practised by the Pueblo Indians, and later and most successfully by the Mormon settlers in Utah. By 1900, according to the census, 7,539,545 acres were under
A second and even more interesting development of American agriculture is the so-called dry-farming which is being successfully introduced into the semi-arid regions. Carefully selected seeds and plants of crops especially adapted to these climatic conditions are used, and then a very careful and intensive method of tillage is followed. The soil is plowed deep and thoroughly pulverized so that the roots can strike down to the deeper levels and absorb all the moisture available. Extraordinary results have already been attained, and the region that the older geographies labeled “The Great American Desert” bids fair to become one of the most flourishing districts in the country.
That part of the area of the United States which has already been reduced to private ownership is divided into 5,700,000 farms. As almost half of the land in these farms is uncultivated, being forest, waste land, or pasture, it is evident that there is still room for a great increase in the agricultural production of the United States without bringing additional land into the field. The average size of these farms is 146 acres, which looms large indeed when compared with the 20-acre farms of France and the 60-acre farms of Great Britain. The difference is of course due to the difference in the methods of agriculture and the character of the crops, the European conditions demanding intensive cultivation while our methods are still largely extensive.
Another change in our farming population that has been viewed with considerable misgiving is the movement from the farm to the city and the decline in the proportion of the agricultural population to the whole. Indeed the change has been startling, as the United States has passed from a primitive agricultural stage of development to a highly organized manufacturing and commercial stage. From 86.3 per cent of the population in 1820 the percentage
Writing about 1865 an eminent English traveler, Sir S. Morton Pets, apologized for calling the United States an agricultural country; today he would be spared this worry, for the Census of 1900 gave the net value of products of the farm as $3,764,000,000 and of pure manufactures as $5,981,000,000. Indeed since 1890 the value of the manufactures of the country has been larger than of the farm products, and the United States now ranks as one of the leading manufacturing nations of the world. Nevertheless the value and amount of the agricultural products are stupendous; the United States leads all countries in the production of dairy products, corn, and wheat, and the greater part of the lumber, meats, tobacco, and cotton which enter into the world’s trade come from her forests and fields.
While the territory of the United States is well adapted by nature to the cultivation of a great variety of agricultural
The character of agriculture in the United States, as in all new countries, has hitherto been extensive, that is, a small amount of labor and capital has been applied to a relatively large amount of land, and only the cream of the soil has been skimmed off, as it were. Where labor is dear and land is cheap this is the most economical method for the farmer; and, although European critics have severely criticized our system of “earth butchery,” whereby the fertility of the soil has been exhausted by constant cropping, with no effort to restore the exhausted properties by fertilizing, the practice has been justified by the conditions which produced it. Already the practical exhaustion of the free public domain has had the effect of raising the price of lands in the Middle West, and this in turn will cause a more careful and intensive system of cultivation. In other words, as our social and industrial conditions approach those of Europe more closely, we may expect our agricultural methods to do so also. One of the most serious practical problems now confronting the American farmer is the change from the old, wasteful, extensive methods to the new, careful, intensive methods of farming. Those who cannot make the change will complain of the unprofitableness of agriculture, but to those who successfully meet
It has been said that the year 1887 marked the beginning of a new stage of development in American agriculture—that of reorganization—because in that year Congress passed the Experiment Station Act. This marked the application of the principles of experimental science to agriculture on a more comprehensive and systematic scale than had ever been attempted before. Stimulated by the increased activity of the government experiment stations, the agricultural colleges have expanded their work. They are offering practical courses to the farmers, and in co-operation with the railroads, some of them have recently been sending out special lecturers, with moving laboratories, to bring the teachings of science as close home to the producers as possible. Finally, the wonderful work being done by Burbank and others in selecting and crossing, by travelers for the federal Agricultural Department in securing plants from all over the world suited to our varied climatic conditions, and by the experiment stations and agricultural colleges in spreading the new knowledge among the farmers and putting it into actual practice—all these departures promise to revolutionize agriculture, and to make it, as one writer has said, a learned profession.
The production of cereals is the most important branch of agriculture, comprising corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, buckwheat, and rice. Since the building of the trunk railroads, by which the western territory was given access to a market, the progress of cereal production has been extremely rapid, nor does there seem to be any observable slackening. With the introduction of improved varieties of spring wheat, cereal production is being pushed further up into British Canada and our own Northwest. The center of cereal production has moved steadily westward, from eastern Indiana in 1860 to eastern Iowa in 1900. With the practical exhaustion of unoccupied land suitable
Of the separate crops corn is by far the most important, representing 60 per cent of the total value of all cereals produced in 1900. Most of the corn is fed to stock throughout the so-called “corn belt” and comes to market in the form of pork and beef. Although corn is very nutritious and is a favorite article of diet in this country in various forms, astonishingly little of it is exported. The development of a foreign market still awaits the enterprise of the American farmer and food manufacturer.
The production of live stock is essentially a frontier industry, and while it will probably always be carried on in the semi-arid grazing districts of the West, which can be reclaimed for agriculture only at considerable expense, it already shows a relative decline. Owing to the great growth of the population the domestic demand now consumes almost all the meat produced and the exports are declining. This is one of the reasons for the recent rise in the price of meat. The industry is extensive. Quite the opposite is true of the dairy industry, which is intensive, being carried on for the most part in the vicinity of large cities where land is expensive. The changing character of agriculture and the fact that it is itself a business enterprise demanding a knowledge of market conditions and business methods is well illustrated by the nature of the
Of the last of the four important branches of agriculture, namely cotton-raising, there is not so much to be said. Owing to the intensive nature of its cultivation, machinery has never been applied on a large scale to its production, as was done in the case of hay and grain. The wasteful methods that prevailed before the Civil War in the South have been largely corrected, and the tendency to sterility of the soil has been met by the increased use of fertilizers. The statistics of cotton crops for the past thirty years do not indicate any decrease in productiveness, and show that the point of diminishing returns has not yet been reached. A peculiar and interesting feature about cotton production is that it is largely in the hands of tenants. The old slave plantations of the South have been broken up into small holdings and many of these are operated by tenants, negroes and whites, who are too poor or too improvident to buy the land outright. The main problems connected with cotton culture are labor problems; and the question has often been anxiously asked whether the free negro will produce as much as the former slave. This can now be confidently answered in the affirmative, though it yet remains to be seen whether he can be made as efficient a producer as his white competitor. Upon the answer to that question depends not merely the future of cotton production, but the economic salvation of the negro himself. The constantly expanding use of cotton goods assures a brilliant future to the cotton-growing states of the South, for not merely is there an assured market in America and Europe, but the primitive peoples of
Hand in hand with the heedless extensive methods of agriculture in the past went wasteful use and even destruction of our forest resources. The annual cut of lumber in the United States is today about forty billion feet board measure; at this rate of consumption it is estimated that the present available supply will last only 35 to 50 years. It will doubtless surprise most readers to learn that about three-quarters of the annual wood cut is consumed as fuel, probably half of our population still depending upon wood instead of coal for fuel. The rapid exhaustion of our forest supplies, with the attendant effects upon moisture, floods, etc., has brought the question of forest preservation to the front as a practical economic problem. We have been squandering the heritage of our children and efforts are now being made to repair some of the loss before we are declared bankrupt. In 1898 the Federal Government began practical work in the introduction of forestry; this received a great stimulus in 1905 when the care of the national forest reserves, embracing over 60,000,000 acres, was put under the control of the Forest Service. Over 150 trained foresters are employed, who manage the forests on the public lands and co-operate with private owners in the introduction of scientific forestry. Several states have taken up the movement, and there is every indication that scientific methods of culture such as prevail in Prussia and other European states, will supplant our destructive denudation of the land. That it is high time to devote attention to the better conservation of this natural resource is made evident by the high and increasing price of lumber.
There is one other natural resource the conditions of whose supply resemble those of forestry and of agriculture in general; this is the fisheries. With careful use, providing for depreciation, and restoring the elements destroyed,
III. THE MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES.
The natural resources of any country may be divided into two broad groups, which call for different treatment and give rise to very different problems. There are, on the one hand, resources which are exhaustible but which can be restored again; and on the other, resources which, once exhausted, can never be replaced again by human agency. Under the first head come the soil, the forests, the fisheries, and even the water power, for all of these can be made to yield steady returns to man for thousands of years, if used intelligently. Under the second head belong coal, petroleum, natural gas, and all the minerals; man may discover substitutes, he may economize in the use of these substances, but he can never augment their supply. In the previous section we considered some of the problems that arise in the use of the soil in agriculture, and those connected with our forests and fisheries. For the most part they had to do with the intelligent use of these agencies and the restoration or repair of the elements destroyed. In this section we are met by a very different
We can distinguish two contrasting answers to this problem, one careless and optimistic, and the other pessimistic and fearful of the future. According to the former point of view we should not borrow trouble of the future; man’s career has been one of constant progress; when he has been confronted with a difficulty he has invariably met it. Indeed necessity has been the most prolific mother of invention. If our coal supplies are exhausted, man will devise means of utilizing the heat of the sun, the force of the tides, the motion of the waves, the stores of electrical energy in the air, all of which will yield inexhaustible supplies of heat and energy. If our stores of iron should fail, some enterprising inventor would surely discover a practicable and commercially profitable method of extracting aluminum from clay. New sources of raw materials will undoubtedly be discovered before the old ones give out, and we may confidently expect that, while the material bases of a high civilization may shift somewhat, they will never crumble and fall.
The other school has sounded a louder note of alarm. At the present rate of consumption the coal and iron deposits of Europe and America must soon be exhausted. The supplies of copper, lead, and other metals in favorable locations are also being consumed at an alarming rate, and no other known supplies are in sight. Within the past century scientific knowledge and engineering skill have combined to unlock the storehouses of the geologic ages, and now like prodigals we are dissipating our fortunes. To treat these exhaustible sources of supply as permanent sources of income, without regard for the future, is based upon unsound theory and must lead to reckless practice.
Our modern civilization may be said to rest upon coal, for upon its possession depends man’s ability to utilize most of the other items of his wealth. Passing over its utility as a fuel to heat our houses, without coal it would be impossible to smelt the iron needed in all our industries,
The large deposits of coal in England and their early development gave that country a great advantage over Europe. But as long ago as 1861 Professor Jevons, a noted English economist, sounded a note of alarm: he prophesied that because of the superior size and character of the coal deposits of America, industrial supremacy must inevitably pass to this country. His prediction has already been verified in the case of coal and iron production, and will probably soon prove true of textiles also. The coal deposits of the United States are thirty-seven times as great as those of England, but at the present rate of mining are threatened with exhaustion at no distant date. It has been estimated that there are in China coal deposits capable of supplying the world with fuel for another thousand years. But such estimates are, in the present state of our knowledge about China, the merest guesses, and if true would seem to point rather to the future industrial supremacy of that country in the world’s markets.
Two-thirds of the coal mined in the United States is obtained from the Appalachian field, extending from New York to Alabama, Pennsylvania being the largest coal-producing state in the Union. In the iron and steel industries
Petroleum or coal-oil is closely allied to coal in its origin and distribution and must be classed with it as a most important product, not only for industrial uses, but also because of the contributions it has made to the comforts of living. In its production the United States ranks first, being closely followed by Russia; together these two countries furnish over 90 per cent of the world’s supply of petroleum. Enormous economies have been effected in its production and distribution, which is done by piping the crude oil underground to the refineries. For illuminating purposes it is the cheapest form of artificial light; as a fuel it is supplanting coal, where the latter is dear or its cost of carriage high, as on ocean steamers. Finally, the construction of light and convenient gasoline motors has given it great importance as a source of motive power. Natural gas is closely related to petroleum, but the supply has been so reduced by rapid and reckless use that it has but a limited economic outlook and is of local significance only.
Of all the metals iron must be considered the most useful for man, far surpassing the so-called precious metals in economic importance. Its great value is so evident that its production and use have often been taken as a criterion of the material progress of a community. Iron is the only metal that can be welded, and is accordingly of great significance, whether in making strong machinery, as the shafts of ocean steamships or the framework of a twenty-story building, or, in the form of steel, the most delicate surgical instruments or watch springs. Judged by the test
The most wonderful iron-mining region in the United States and probably in the world lies in the northern part of Michigan and Minnesota, where five ranges or lines of hills contain immense deposits. These lie so near the surface that they can be dug out of open pits at a cost of from 10 to 50 cents a ton, against $1 a ton in a shaft or underground mine. Three-quarters of the iron ore produced in the United States is mined in this district. Its proximity to the lake ports makes possible its transportation to the iron and steel manufacturing centers at very low rates. Machinery has been applied on an immense scale to the work of mining, loading and unloading the ore. Steam
The precious metals have received more than their fair share of attention, for the industrial progress of the world is much less dependent upon their presence in large and easily obtained quantities than it is upon the more common metals. Nevertheless they are of importance both in the arts and especially because of their use as money. In their production the United States stands second, being surpassed in the output of gold by the Transvaal in Africa and in that of silver by Mexico. The production of these metals has always in the world’s history proceeded spasmodically, and a speculative spirit has usually been present. More recently, however, scientific geological knowledge and improved metallurgical methods are removing the industry of gold and silver mining from a gambling venture to a legitimate industry. The practical problem at present confronting American gold-mining companies is to reduce expenses, some of the principal bearings having for some years shown signs of exhaustion, as for instance in the Cripple Creek district of Colorado. There is always a chance however that new gold fields may be discovered to make good the exhaustion of the old. In the case of silver, on the other hand, the metal is found in
Among the other metals copper is by far the most important. In primitive civilizations, before the art of smelting iron had been discovered, copper was indispensable as it was so easily malleable; in Homeric times, for instance, armor, utensils, money, etc., were made of copper or alloys of copper (bronze and brass). After an eclipse of some centuries copper has again risen to the front rank by reason of its qualities as a conductor of electricity. The new use of electricity to transmit power and the development of electrical industries has greatly increased the demand for this metal and has caused a great expansion in its production. Here again the United States holds first rank, contributing over half of the world’s copper supply. As in the case of iron the northern peninsula of Michigan is the most important center of copper production, with Montana a close second and Arizona contributing most of the remainder. Like petroleum, copper production is controlled by a small number of operators, five mining companies alone furnishing one-half of the American supply. It is far from being monopolized, however, as petroleum is, for new and rich supplies lie just on the margin of profitable working and will always be brought into the market whenever the price is artificially raised. One reason for American pre-eminence, aside from the rich stores of the metal, lies in the progress made in the art of refining it by the electrolytic process, considerable foreign ore being brought here to be treated by this method.
It is apparent from even this brief and hasty survey of the mineral resources of the United States, comprising those extractive industries which once exhausted can never be restored by man, that this country is wonderfully well equipped with the material means of civilization. Minerals and metals are remarkably abundant and accessible. The wonderful material progress of the United States during the nineteenth century is abundantly explained by this fact, though due credit must also be given to the enterprise, industry, and genius of those who developed these natural resources. The industrial supremacy of the American nation seems well assured, founded on such a stable material basis. We of this country have been rather inclined to boast of our industrial progress and our material bigness, whereas it must now be apparent that we owe much, if not most, to the bounty of nature. We should therefore see to it, in a proper spirit of humility and thoughtfulness, that we do not waste our heritage, but hand it on as nearly undiminished as possible to our children.
There is one other asset in our national wealth which has already contributed much to our progress, and is destined to play an even more important role in the future—and that is our water power. In colonial days, before the invention of the steam engine and the use of coal, this was of prime importance and determined the location of many a town, most of them being located at the “fall line” of the rivers, where water power was obtainable. With the invention of the steam engine and the use of steam as a motive power, industry became less dependent upon water power and moved away from the rivers to the vicinity of coal mines. Now again has come another swing of the pendulum, and with the rise of electricity as a motive power and the harnessing of our streams and waterfalls
Prior to 1890 the largest use of water power was in its direct application to machinery at the immediate point of development. Since that time, however, the use of electricity as an agency whereby the energy developed by falling water can be transformed and applied to the driving of machinery has entirely changed the conditions under which the power of our streams can be utilized. The practical possibility of transmitting electrical power over long distances—for example, over 200 miles from the Sierras to San Francisco—has removed the necessity of building factories immediately adjacent to water powers, but permits its utilization where most convenient and often where the lack of coal has made the use of steam power impracticable. The best-known example of the development and transmission of electrical energy for industrial purposes is the case of Niagara Falls, but more striking illustrations may be found on the Pacific coast, while the existence of enormous opportunities on the Atlantic seaboard give brilliant promise for the future of manufacturing in this region. So valuable indeed are these sources of power now seen to be that there is danger that their control may be monopolized by a few shrewd and far-sighted individuals before the general public awakes to a realization of their importance. It has recently been asserted in a reputable magazine that there is a “water power trust” already organized for this purpose. The opportunities for wealth-getting have hitherto been so great in this country, and the
Modern production is usually called capitalistic because it involves in its processes the use of a large amount of capital. In a primitive stage of culture man appropriated directly from nature’s bounty the food and shelter which he required. But today man has adopted long and roundabout methods of producing goods, involving numerous steps between his first efforts and the turning out of the finished articles. He invents tools and machinery to assist him in his work, and while he multiplies the processes of production he also enormously increases the results. Capital has become absolutely indispensable in modern production and is yearly playing a more important role. At the same time various problems, born of the new conditions, have arisen, such as the growth of large-scale production, the elimination of the small producer and the independent artisan, the growth of trusts, the rhythmic recurrence of speculative periods and industrial crises, the relations of labor and capital, and others similar in character.
The most striking phenomenon of the nineteenth century was the great industrial progress of the more developed nations; this is best shown in a table taken from Mulhall’s “Industries and Wealth of Nations,” which follows:
Countries | Millions of Dollars. | |||
1820 | 1840 | 1860 | 1894 | |
United Kingdom | 1,411 | 1,883 | 2,808 | 4,263 |
France | 1,168 | 1,606 | 2,092 | 2,900 |
Germany | 900 | 1,484 | 1,995 | 3,357 |
Austria | 511 | 852 | 1,129 | 1,596 |
Other States | 1,654 | 2,516 | 3,455 | 5,236 |
Europe | 5,644 | 8,341 | 11,479 | 17,352 |
United States | 268 | 467 | 1,907 | 9,498 |
Total | 5,912 | 8,808 | 13,386 | 26,850 |
Extraordinary as has been this universal growth, the development of manufactures in the United States has been still more marvelous, both absolutely and in relation to other branches of industry Between 1850 and 1900 the population and the products of agriculture both trebled; but the value of manufactured products increased twelvefold and that of capital invested in manufactures nineteenfold The United States, though politically younger than the countries of Europe, is industrially one of the most advanced The application of labor-saving machinery and of improved and economical methods of production and distribution has probably proceeded further here than in any other place Nowhere can we study to better advantage, therefore, than in America the problems that have grown out of this advanced capitalism
The causes of this rapid industrial development are enumerated by the census report as five in number: the agricultural resources of the country, the mineral resources, the highly developed transportation facilities, the freedom of trade between states and territories, and the absence of inherited and over-conservative ideas We have already considered the wonderful agricultural and mineral resources of the country, and have seen how greatly the American people are indebted for their industrial prosperity
The system under which the production of wealth in a modern industrial nation is carried on is usually called the factory system, and to this we must now turn, for it is in the factory that the utilization of machinery and capital finds its greatest development. The term is not easily defined, but we may adopt the description given by the late Carroll D. Wright: “A factory is an establishment where several workmen are collected for the purpose of obtaining greater and cheaper conveniences of labor than they could procure in their own homes, for producing results by their combined efforts which they could not accomplish separately, and for preventing the loss occasioned by carrying articles from place to place during
The division of labor may mean either the separation of occupation or the division of a process into minute parts. An illustration of separation of occupations may be found in the manufacture of a carriage: one factory produces hubs, another wheels, a third axles, a fourth the body, a fifth manufactures upholstery, a sixth the hardware, and a seventh (the carriage factory, so-called) assembles the parts and places the completed product on the market in the form of a carriage.
As an example of an extreme division of labor the slaughtering and meat-packing industry offers a classical example, though in this case the use of complex machinery is not involved. “It would be difficult,” writes Professor Commons,
Usually, however, when the division of labor becomes as minute as that described, the routine-like process is handed over to a machine. Indeed Mr. John A. Hobson states as a law of machine industry the fact that as soon as a process becomes perfectly automatic and mechanical a machine is invented which can do the work better and more rapidly than human hands. Hand in hand, therefore, with the subdivision of labor goes the extension of labor-saving machinery. Labor becomes relatively of less importance than capital in the new methods of production, and man becomes a machine tender rather than an independent producer. There are practical benefits and disadvantages connected with this system. Many writers insist that the effect on the worker is narrowing in the extreme, but Professor Marshall points out that his labor as tender of a machine demands a higher order of intellectual development than that of a handicraftsman, and that he has more leisure, while the product of the present system is immeasurably greater than under the old hand methods. The manufacture of products by machinery has in turn required the making of machines by machinery, as the complex machines of today could not be turned out by hand methods. A characteristic feature of the modern factory system therefore has been the growth of the machine trades, which supply the equipment of the new industry.
With the growing specialization of industry there has gone on an increasing localization in some favored spot or locality. Thus most of the collars and cuffs (85 per cent) manufactured in the United States are made in Troy, N. Y.; 64 per cent of the oyster canning is carried on in Baltimore; 54 per cent of the gloves are made in Gloversville, N. Y.; 48 per cent of the coke in Connellsville, Pa.; 48 per
More striking than the concentration of manufactures in particular places has been its concentration in a few large establishments and under the control of fewer individuals. Without entering into the discussion, as yet, of the trust problem, we may at this time take up the earlier and important tendency of industry to be conducted on a large scale. This concentration into a relatively smaller number of establishments has been going on pretty steadily since 1850 and shows no signs of abatement at this time. In the case of the iron and steel industries, cotton manufactures, and leather goods, the movement is positively startling, an actual decrease in the number of establishments having occurred in the half century. This is most marked in the monopolized industries. At the same time there has gone on an enormous increase in the size of the individual plant, in the capital employed, the number of men employed, and the value of the product. Almost the only industries which have not yet displayed this tendency are those which are essentially local in their nature, as grist mills, cheese and butter factories, etc. But in general it is characteristic of manufactures in the United States. The same tendency has been manifest in the countries of Europe, though there a system of well-developed and fairly vigorous hand trades has resisted the movement and made the development in this respect much less rapid than in this country.
But other economies than those in the use of capital are present in large-scale production. A large concern can hire more expensive and better managers, can afford to experiment with new methods, can effect a more minute and economical division of labor, as for example in the slaughtering business above referred to. A striking economy can also be effected in the utilization of what were formerly waste products, and still are in small concerns. This has been carried furthest in the oil-refining and meat-packing industries; a recent statement of Swift and Co., for instance, alleged that the dividends on the stock were paid out of the by-products, such as neatsfoot oil, land fertilizer, glue, fats, etc. Owing, however, to the generally wasteful methods prevailing in the United States not so much attention has been given to this point as in England and Germany. A final economy may be mentioned that can be secured by a large business, namely, carrying on allied or subsidiary processes. Thus the Standard Oil Company builds its own pipe lines, makes its own barrels, tin cans, pumps, tanks, sulphuric acid, etc.
Such an extension in the size of the single establishment would of course not have been possible if improvements in the arts of communication and transportation had not at the same time immensely widened the market. As long as the market was local, and a factory could afford to send its goods over only a limited territory there was of course a fixed limit to the expansion of that industry. Now, however, when markets are often world-wide and the demand for goods has so enormously increased, while the modern railway and steamship can transport goods cheaply and quickly half around the globe, enterprises can be expanded and carried on on a scale commensurate with the expanded market and improved methods. It is clear then that the tendency to production on a
But not only in manufacturing is this movement observable. More recently concentration in large establishments has revolutionized the retail trade. Department stores have supplanted the small shops because they can buy on better terms, get transportation cheaper, offer a greater variety to the customer at a lower price, and save time and trouble to the customer. The growing ease of communication with central shopping districts, the rapid changes in fashion with the consequent large variety which only a large establishment could afford to carry—all these factors have helped along the movement. There are limits to such a movement, for small tradesmen will always hold the repairing trades, and the sale of perishable goods; thus there are no businesses so scattered as the small stores of the “butchers and grocers.” But on the whole we may safely conclude that the small storekeeper is doomed now just as the small manufacturer was two or three decades ago. In the carrying trade country carriers and a few cabmen in the cities are the only survivals of the small independent business; the steam railroad and the electric railway have driven the small carrier out of business. In agriculture alone, where concentration is strictly limited by the necessity for intensive cultivation, and in professional and personal service, where the very nature of the business prevents it, is there little or no development in the direction of large-scale methods.
The industrial and social effects of this development have been marked in all countries. In the United States the main attention has been given to the organization and development of machinery, and a wonderful industrial advance has followed the movement. The economic readjustments have consequently been made with comparative ease, and the labor set free by the invention of new machines
There is one other characteristic feature of modern capitalistic machine industry which deserves special mention, especially as its development has been carried furthest in the United States. Reference is made to the system of standardization and of interchangeable parts. In no single feature is the contrast between modern machine methods and those of the old hand trades greater. By standardization is meant the production of so-called “standard products” according to some acceptable size, form, or shape. In the manufacture of screws or iron beams, or even ready-made clothing, for example, certain dimensions and sizes which are best adapted for general use, are selected as standard sizes and these are then turned out in large quantities by automatic machinery. The advantages of such a system, in cheapness, quickness of delivery, ability to replace a single broken part, etc., are numerous and manifest. “The possibilities of standardization are strikingly shown in a recent international incident. The Egyptian Government desired a bridge for the Atbara at the earliest possible moment; inquiry was made of the English bridgemakers, but no promise of prompt delivery could be secured. Within twenty-seven days after the tender of the contract was made to an American firm the bridge was ready for shipment. The feat, not a remarkable one, was due to the standardization of bridge material. This in itself was a guarantee of quick delivery and construction.”
Standardization was followed by the system of interchangeable parts, according to which each part of an intricate
V. TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES.
We have already seen how production upon a large scale has superseded production upon a small scale in most important branches of manufactures. We have now to inquire whether production upon a large scale is in turn to be supplanted by single consolidated enterprises, by those combinations of capital known as trusts. Under one of these three conditions industry must be carried on; few people wish to revert to the stage when production was carried on in small establishments, but warm controversy and difference of opinion still exist as to whether centralized management by a single company or combination offers superior advantages to production by independent competing establishments. The concentration of production in a few large establishments has been followed by the consolidation of these larger units into a single whole. Since the days of Adam Smith capital has tended to combine for the purpose of fixing prices, and
There are three classes of establishments by which industry is carried on—those that are the property of an individual, those which belong to partnerships or firms of unlimited liability, and those belonging to corporations of limited liability. The usefulness of the individual system is of course limited to small undertakings, where but little capital and credit are necessary; this form of organization still dominates the field in agriculture, in the small retail trade, and in the repairing industries. The partnership is a joint undertaking by two or more individuals, and makes larger enterprises possible, but as each individual is liable for all obligations of the firm or his partners his personal liability is greatly increased. While it is well adapted to certain undertakings, as moderate mercantile establishments and professional firms, owing to a certain elasticity in the contractual relations of its members, it is not suited to large industrial ventures, both because of the excessive personal liability, and because of the necessity of dissolving the partnership upon the death, withdrawal, or insolvency of any member. The advantage of the corporation lies in the fact that it has a continuous existence, and that the liability of the shareholders is limited to the amount of capital actually contributed by each; it is well adapted to modern enterprise because it permits the summation of large amounts of capital from a number of small savers and centralizes the use of this capital in the most economical manner. There may thus be concentration of management without concentration of ownership. The federal census of manufactures in 1905 showed that, although less than one-quarter of the manufacturing establishments were organized as corporations, yet they produced
The trust movement may be said to have begun with the formation of the Standard Oil Trust in 1882, but down to 1898 its progress was slow. Beginning with the revival of prosperity in 1898, however, there ensued a veritable stampede of business managers to enter into combinations. During the next three years 149 large combinations, with a capital of over $3,000,000,000, were formed. The movement spent most of its force by 1902, though it is by no means at an end yet, as the recent floating of the Dry Goods Trust indicates. A few figures from reliable authorities will make clear the extent of the movement. According to the New York Journal of Commerce, industrial (i.e., manufacturing and commercial) and gas trusts were organized in the United States between 1860 and 1900, not including combinations in banking, shipping, railroads, etc., as shown in the accompanying table.
Another more recent list by John Moody
Decade. | Number Organized. | Total Nominal Capital. |
1860-69 | 2 | $ 13,000,000 |
1870-79 | 4 | 135,000,000 |
1880-89 | 18 | 288,000,000 |
1890-99 | 157 | 3,150,000,000 |
Total, 40 years | 181 | $3,586,000,000 |
The most important and general cause was the desire to secure the legitimate economies of large-scale production. A combined or federated industry may secure even greater economies than a single large factory. These have been concisely stated as follows
The growth of this latter combination is an example not only of consolidation, but of the integration of industry, that is, the grouping together under one control of a whole series of industries. From the mining of the ore and coal, through the processes of carrying it to the furnaces, coking the coal and making the pig iron, manufacturing the latter into the finished forms of iron and steel products, and down to the marketing of the latter, every step is carried on under the control of the United States Steel Corporation. The assets of the company were stated as follows soon after its organization, and illustrate the magnitude and scope of its operations:
Iron and Bessemer ore properties | $ 700,000,000 |
Plants, mills, machinery, etc. | 300,000,000 |
Coal and coke fields | 100,000,000 |
Railroads, ships, etc. | 80,000,000 |
Blast furnaces | 48,000,000 |
Natural gas fields | 20,000,000 |
Limestone properties | 4,000,000 |
Cash and cash assets | 148,251,000 |
Total | $1,400,281,000 |
In addition to economies due to improvements in methods of organization, production and marketing, another cause for the sudden and vigorous outburst of trust promotion in the years 1898-1902 may be found in the profits to be secured by promoters and organizers. After the successful launching of the first few trusts, with their undoubted economies and advantages, the movement was taken in hand by professional promoters, who organized combinations, often with the help of underwriters, in every branch of industry where there was any promise of profit. That many of these were artificial or premature is evident from the financial results: of the 183 industrial combinations enumerated by the census in 1900, one-third paid no dividends whatever after their formation and another one-third paid no dividends to the holders of common stock. As an indication of the profits obtained by the successful trust promoter may be cited the testimony given before the Industrial Commission in the case of the Tin Plate Trust stating that this promoter realized from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 profit from the undertaking. When to this is added the profit obtained by the owners of the constituent plants, which were usually taken over by the trust at an exorbitant valuation, it is clear that the stimulus of financial gain was probably stronger in many cases than that of economy in production. The bill was of course paid in most cases by the investing public, which absorbed large amounts of industrials in the years of their active promotion.
Let us now turn to some of the effects of industrial combinations, which we may classify according as they bear upon competitors and producers of raw materials, labor, and consumers. As the number of competitors is reduced the fierceness of competition among those remaining in the field is greatly increased, for the value of the prize to the successful enterprise is correspondingly greater. It is not surprising therefore that at times this rivalry should have assumed unethical if not actually illegal forms. The practice by some trusts of fixing prices below cost at some strategic point in order to crush out a troublesome competitor, and then correspondingly raising them elsewhere
The effects upon labor of the organization of capital in combined industries and under centralized control are more complex. As trusts have superseded single corporations because this mode of industrial organization was more economical, we must expect to find that one of the economies was the displacement of labor. The discharge of traveling salesmen has already been spoken of; with the consolidation of various plants under one control other high-priced men were let go—managers, superintendents, etc. The same thing was true at the other end of the industrial scale and thousands of workmen, usually the least efficient and capable, were deprived of work. The natural consequences of these combinations and economies were not clearly apparent at the time, because they were happily coincident with a period of business expansion and prosperity which reabsorbed into the industrial organism most of the displaced workers. Another phase of the relation between trusts and labor is that of their effect upon wages.
The discussion of the effects of trusts upon the consumer leads at once to the discussion of their effects upon prices, for it is through the agency of price that the trust touches the ordinary man. The advantages claimed by trust organizers are economies of production and lowered cost; but the vital question to the consumer is whether lowered cost increases profits or reduces prices. On this point the Industrial Commission reaches the following conclusion: “that in most cases the combination has exerted an appreciable power over prices, and in practically all cases it has increased the margin between raw materials and finished products. Since there is reason to believe that the cost of production over a period of years has lessened, the conclusion is inevitable that the combinations have been able to increase their profits.” Moreover the power over prices was greatest during certain periods when the control of the combinations was greatest. The problem
There remains to be considered another charge of monopoly which has been brought against the trust, the monopoly of opportunity or the suppression of individual initiative. It is no longer possible, it is claimed, for the man of small means, even with good talents, to engage in business for himself: he must accept some subordinate position in a corporation where his individuality is checked and his power of initiative does not find free play. So far as this is true it would seem to be the result not so much
There are, however, other evils connected with trust organization and management that are more easily remediable and that call for legislative regulation. “The evils of combination, remedied by regulative legislation,” concludes the report of the Industrial Commission,
VI. SPECULATION AND CRISES.
An unavoidable element of risk enters into all modern business. In the old handicraft stage of industry goods were made upon order; demand preceded supply very definitely, and there was little possibility of mistakes in production. Nowadays, as we have seen, production is for a distant and often uncertain market. It is carried on by machine methods and roundabout processes; sometimes the result is a very remote one and the uncertainty of success is correspondingly great. Production is not based upon order, but upon a forecast of the possible demand, upon a future market. Chance and change are inseparable from productive enterprise—natural chances from the elements, political changes, as war or unfavorable legislation, industrial mistakes or sickness or death of oneself or others, and economic changes, as the invention of a new machine or a change in fashion. These are the unavoidable incidents
There is another kind of risk-taking the social utility of which is not at first sight so clear. Among the chances of productive enterprise are those due to the rise and fall in the prices of the raw materials, the labor, and the finished product between the time when the process of production is begun and the time when it is completed. Every farmer, every manufacturer, every student even who invests capital in his own education, is to some extent a speculator. Along certain lines he can protect himself by insurance, but that is not possible in all. Is there no way, then, by which he can guard himself against price fluctuations and assure himself of the legitimate gains of his business? This, it may be answered, is the function of the speculator in modern business, and in performing this service he is benefiting society in much the same way that the insurance company does. We must, however, clearly distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate speculation; we are discussing only the former.
One way in which the speculative risk attaching to price fluctuations is reduced for the manufacturer and assumed by the speculator is by the establishment of a continuous
The social value of this service lies in the equalization of demand and supply between the present and future that is thereby effected. Let us take as an illustration the case of the miller cited above. If at the time he accepts the order for flour the price of wheat is high, he will be inclined to charge a high price. But the wheat broker,
The facilities offered by the open markets on the exchanges and the practice of dealing in futures are taken advantage of by many who, without any special training or opportunities of knowing the market, simply bet on the price movements. Brokers are willing to buy and sell produce or stocks for their customers if the latter will put up with them a margin of about 10 per cent to protect them from loss. It is therefore possible for a person with little capital and no knowledge to speculate on a margin, buying what he does not want and selling what he does not own. In practice it is impossible to distinguish between those dealings in which actual delivery is intended (legitimate speculation) and those in which no such delivery is contemplated (gambling), and consequently most efforts to
One of the most striking phenomena of modern industry is the frequent and violent convulsions of business known as crises. They are characteristic of all commercially advanced countries and are generally most marked in those countries which are most advanced. They are a product of modern methods of capitalistic production and are essentially a phenomenon of the nineteenth century. A crisis in its last analysis is the result of a lack of adjustment between production and consumption, due primarily to mistakes in production. It is significant that crises usually occur in periods of business prosperity when credit
The immediate occasion of a crisis is always a shock to credit or confidence. Such a shock, begun perhaps by the failure of a bank or merchant, creates a demand for ready money. No one is sure that his neighbor will remain solvent. Everyone accordingly tries to secure himself against loss by enlarging his cash reserve and thus lessens the supply for others. Now modern industry is carried on by means of credit. There is at no one time enough money in the country to meet all obligations expressed in terms of money. Considerably over three-fourths of the larger commercial transactions in the United States are carried on by means of credit. If everyone tries at the same time to get actual cash, there is simply not enough money in the country to go around. This increase of demand and diminution in the supply of money forces up the interest rate on short-time loans. Money—actual cash—is needed by many people to meet immediate engagements and they are willing to pay almost any price for it. In the last panic the rates for call money went up to over
This stage marks the end of the crisis and the beginning of a period of depression or “hard times,” which continues for a longer or shorter period. The panic of 1893 was followed by a long-continued depression which lasted until 1897, a period which was marked by low prices and slack work. In 1898 began a revival of business and an era of marked prosperity set in which continued for almost ten years, interrupted only slightly by a “Wall Street panic” in 1903. In October, 1907, a severe crisis occurred, recovery from which, however, has been remarkably rapid. The periodicity which has attended crises in the past is so marked—occurring as they have at intervals of about ten years—that many writers consider them inevitable. As the easiest way to answer this question we
A much quoted, but now generally discredited, theory is that of W. S. Jevons, a noted English economist, who ascribed crises to sun-spots. Every ten years and a fraction there occur outbursts of electrical and heat energy on the sun, which we call sun-spots. These result in increased heat waves, which affect the crops on the earth, causing enlarged harvests in Europe and the United States and drought and famine in India and the tropics. The large harvests and good prices start a wave of prosperity and speculation, which culminates inevitably in a panic and depression, until a recurrence of the heat phenomenon starts the cycle again. The theory states some undoubted facts, but no causal connection between sun-spots and crises can be traced, as the latter are too irregular and the two do not always coincide. Were this theory true crises would be beyond human control.
A second theory, or group of theories, are those which attribute crises to over-production. Under modern conditions of industry a small group of men direct industry and determine what shall be produced. They try to estimate future demand and to adjust production to consumption, but they often make mistakes. They divert capital into unproductive industries, they produce the wrong things and create a comparative glut in certain lines, and when they cannot sell their goods at a profitable price they fail and precipitate a crisis. Industry must then be reorganized and frequently control be put in the hands of other men. A variation has been given this theory by the socialists, under the leadership of Rodbertus, who insist that the reason that there is over-production is because of the institution of private property. Since the capitalists own all the tools of production they pay the laborers only starvation wages. The latter cannot possibly buy all that is produced and commodities consequently heap up in the warehouses until they are thrown upon the market to be sold
The last of these theories regards a crisis as essentially due to a failure of credit. It is seen that a large part of modern industry is carried on by borrowed capital, by roundabout processes and for a distant market and not upon order. That is, the success of a business depends upon its ability to sell its goods when produced. Now the aggregate volume of transactions that can be carried on in a year, so runs the theory, depends upon the efficiency of the credit system; that is, in general, upon the freedom with which banks are willing to loan money to people who engage to repay it in the future out of their ventures. If for any reason the banks reduce this accommodation the amount of business that can be transacted upon borrowed capital is lessened. Either some transactions must stop or prices must fall. Either of these events causes commercial disaster. The contraction of credit makes it impossible to get the goods into the right hands, and so we have the phenomena of over-production in a great many lines. As exchange and transportation have developed and markets widened, crises have become more universal. According to this theory, they are inseparably connected with the use of credit and can be controlled only by a more careful granting of credit by the banks to industrial managers. Another phase of the credit theory is presented by those who insist that the cause of crises is the rhythmic overestimation of the profits to be secured out of certain lines of production, or their over-capitalization. The new enterprises are financed by the banks on the basis of this mistaken over-capitalization, their organizers engage to pay rates of interest which they cannot earn, and the crash inevitably follows. This is often called the over-capitalization theory, and is essentially psychological in its character.
There is no doubt as to the truth contained in this last theory. It helps to explain the rhythmic periodicity of
The practical problem that presents itself in this connection is the question as to whether it is possible to prevent the recurrence of crises. In view of the explanation just given it would seem that they must be regarded as unpreventable as long as industry is carried on under the competitive capitalistic system of production and the modern credit system. Moreover, crops differ in amount from year to year and probably always will. Human production and human genius are unequal. Crises may be regarded as the price a progressive society pays for its advance, and they may be expected to recur pretty regularly at periodic intervals. Their disastrous effects may, however, be greatly lessened by wise currency legislation, by greater care in granting credit, and by greater wisdom in the direction of individual effort.
We have already characterized the modern system of industry as capitalistic, that is, as involving the use of expensive and complex machinery in factories under the control of the capitalist managers of industry. As we have seen, such a system has caused an enormous increase in the production of wealth; it has also raised the general standard of comfort and the level of wages, and has relieved labor to a considerable extent of the deadly strain of hard manual toil that was characteristic of preceding systems. The factory system, under which capitalistic production is now carried on, may also fairly be credited
One of the most vital factors in the situation—which we must frankly admit at the start—is the existence in modern industrial society of a distinct wage-earning class. It is perfectly obvious that under present conditions of production great capital or great ability is necessary in order to become the manager of an industrial enterprise. Most laborers do not possess either the one or the other of these, and although there are fortunate examples of industrial leaders who have risen from the ranks, the general rule is, once a wage-earner always a wage-earner.
In the transition to the factory system Mr. John A. Hobson
Another characteristic of modern industry from the labor point of view is the existence not merely of a wage-earning class, but, more fundamental, of the wage system. “It is characteristic of the modern industrial system,” writes President Hadley,
The first historical system of labor, aside from that in the family, was that of slaves. In this case the labor was forced, and being given under coercion was probably very inefficient; but the laborer was at least assured of a minimum of food, clothes and shelter. Slavery was the main source of manual labor in the ancient world, and did not disappear in England until the eleventh century. The feudal system of the Middle Ages was characterized by serfdom, according to which the laborer was bound to the soil and was compelled to render his lord certain services. Gradually serfdom was broken down and the wage system took its place, although remnants of serfdom remained in England until the eighteenth century. Four centuries before this, however, the disintegration of the feudal society had already begun, the serfdom of the agricultural laborer was commuted into regular money payments, and the artisan bought or otherwise secured his freedom from feudal exactions. In the towns industry was regulated by the guilds, and while at first they were distinctly beneficial, in time they became monopolistic and oppressive. Power was lodged in the hands of the wealthy traders and merchants and they legislated in their own behalf against the growing class of laborers, as did the wealthy land owners against the agricultural laborers. The Statute of Laborers and other acts sought to fix wages and to prevent the freedom
It has since been found necessary, however, to modify both the theory and practice of this extreme individualism in order to protect the interests of various classes of society, especially the laborer. The legal theory still is that “today the labor contract is perfectly free: either side may make whatever contract he can get the other side to sign. Not only this, but either side may freely combine to demand any form of contract from the other side, as mere combinations alone are now made perfectly legal.”
It is a very vital and important practical economic problem that presents itself in this connection. How far shall we carry this regulative principle, or how far shall we insist upon the principle of freedom? Many labor leaders are again asking for an effectual control of the labor contract, not by the action of trade unions, but by the direct legislation of the state. What shall be our attitude to this demand? Before we can fairly answer this question we must consider somewhat more fully the character of the bargain that takes place between an employer and an individual workman, and the nature of the commodity that the laborer has to sell.
It has already been stated that the commodity which the laborer brings upon the market is his labor, that is, himself, his time, and his energies. But these wares are peculiar and differ in several important respects from ordinary marketable commodities. In the first place, labor is like a perishable commodity which must be sold at once if the owner is not to incur loss. The laborer has usually little if any capital by which to support himself in case he cannot find work, and may be compelled to make a forced sale of his labor, that is, to accept unduly low wages. In
In view of these facts we may fairly conclude that workmen are inferior to employers as bargainers and that protective legislation is necessary in order to put them on a real equality. “When laborers have to make a forced sale of their labor, their freedom of contract is more nominal than real. When women and children stand individually before the manager of hundreds of thousands of capital, it is possible that there may be little freedom and less equality in the contract by which they sell their services.”
VIII. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
As modern capitalistic production caused the growth of a distinct wage-earning class and brought about a sharp separation between employers and laborers, and as the latter
The growth of labor organizations in the United States has proceeded hand in hand with the industrial development of this country, and has been especially rapid since the Civil War. Two distinct types of trade unions may be noted—the local and the national (or international) unions. The former, which comprises members who live and work in the same locality, is the primary unit, and dates back to the beginning of the century. Each local union, even when subordinate to a national organization, is a self-governing unit, and is absolutely democratic. Its relation to the national body has been well compared to that of one of our states to the United States. The first national union was not formed until 1850, but now these far surpass the locals in importance. Their government is representative, as they are made up of local unions. The great majority of the national trade unions are bound together in the powerful federal organization, the American Federation of Labor. The membership of this body numbers considerably over 1,000,000, while the railroad unions, which are not connected with it, claim about 125,000 more. Probably not far from 1,500,000 persons in the United States belong to labor organizations, which is about
Historically the two most important national organizations in this country have been the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor, and they represent such different principles that it will be worth while to describe them. The Knights of Labor was organized in 1869 as a local union of seven garment cutters and had a meteoric career, counting a membership of 730,000 in 1886, the year of its greatest strength. It was a national amalgamation of mixed local assemblies composed of workers of all trades who lived in the same locality. It held the theory that the interests of all members of the laboring class are identical and must be cared for at the same time, if possible, by political action, by co-operation, and by education. In 1886, however, it entered upon a series of disastrous strikes; later it came into conflict with trade unions which had not joined its ranks and were opposed to its policies; and finally it became entangled in politics. As it lost in influence and strength its place was taken by the American Federation of Labor, which was its very opposite in organization and government. This latter body is a “confederation of trade and labor unions,” each trade being organized separately into local unions which are given great autonomy, these unions alone being represented in the national body. Only matters of general interest come before it, all local trade matters being left to the local unions. In 1903 it claimed a membership of 1,745,000.
“The establishment of a standard rate of wages may perhaps be said to be the primary object of trade union policy. Without the standard rate the trade union, such as it is, could have no existence.”
A reduction in the hours of labor has been even more strenuously urged by progressive labor leaders in the United States than an increase in wages. “Organize and control your trade and shorten your hours,” is their contention, “and wages will take care of themselves.” Their arguments in favor of a general shortening of the working day are twofold. In the first place, owing to the intensity and strain of work under modern machine methods, the worker cannot work efficiently more than eight or nine hours a day. The work is too exacting and the strain on the attention too great; it is a noticeable fact that most of the accidents in industrial establishments occur in the last hour or two of the working day. Not only that, but the laborer is entitled to his share of industrial progress in the form of more leisure, giving him time for a better family and social life, affording opportunity for intellectual improvement, and permitting the development of more rational and higher wants. With the improvement in the condition of the laboring classes, will go the elevation of society as a whole.
The second argument in favor of shorter hours put forward by the trade unionist, is economic rather than social.
The limitation of output results almost necessarily from the above-mentioned practices of the unions: reduction of hours, prohibition of piece work, and the standardization of wages all tend to restrict the output of the individual worker. But some of the unions have gone further and have directly limited the amount that could be produced during a given period by the laborer. This has been particularly true of British unions and is the subject of common complaint by English employers and writers, but illustrations may easily be found in the United States. Thus in Chicago in 1900 “the lathers limited a day’s work to twenty-five bundles of lath, for which they received $3; they had formerly done thirty-five bundles for a daily wage of $1.75. Plasterers were limited to thirty square yards a day; the steam fitters were permitted to lay only ninety feet of steam pipe per day; but the plumbers had the most objectionable rules and restricted materially the amount of work that could be done in a day.”
Laboring men have never been quite able to divest themselves of their old antipathy to labor-saving machinery. They generally regard the introduction of a new machine as a displacer of men, a creator of unemployment, a depresser of wages. Some unions have successfully resisted the introduction of machinery into their trades, as the stone cutters in Chicago,
The policies and methods of the trade unions thus far discussed are those of a militant nature, but the fraternal objects of these associations, though less conspicuous, are none the less important. Labor organizations generally; have insurance and benefit features, by which sick, injured, or unemployed members are assisted. This is particularly true of the English organizations, which developed these features before the rise of the militant new unionism. They often possess large funds and have been rendered thereby more conservative and responsible. The educative effect of trade unionism among the members is marked; some of them possess libraries and all of them promote discussion and thought upon economic problems, while the administration of their affairs often gives valuable training. The older unions did much to encourage co-operation among their members, but today the tendency is to limit their activities to the essential one for which they are organized, namely, collective bargaining.
Intelligent unionists realize that they can secure the various objects for which they strive only by substituting collective bargaining for contracts between employers and individual laborers. Where this plan is accepted by employers, representatives of the two sides agree upon wage scales, usually for a year; during this period the chief task of union officials is to see that the agreement is lived up to, and if possible to add to their membership and strengthen the union. In the United States relatively few trades have adopted this method as a general practice, the employers still being able to dictate wages and conditions of employment in most of them, while the unions are still struggling for recognition, if not for existence. Employers insist, in refusing to make collective bargains with the unions, that, as they run all the risks, they must be permitted to manage their business as they see fit and without interference
“In the minds of a large section of the public,” writes President Hadley,
IX. WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT WORK.
While women and children have always assisted in the work of the home, it was not until the development of the factory system that they began to work for wages outside of the family. From the earliest days the preparation of food, spinning and weaving and making up of garments, and other branches of domestic economy had been the peculiar tasks of the housewife. With the removal of the textile industries from the home to the factory and the invention of light-running machinery, many women followed them and employment was found also for young children. Thus with the inception of the modern factory system and machine production there arose the problem of woman and child labor. In England the evils of the early factory system were incredibly bad. “The beginning of the present century,” wrote President Walker,
The field of employment for women has been a constantly expanding one. When Miss Harriet Martineau visited the United States in 1840 she found only seven occupations open to women, namely, teaching, needle-work,
An interesting question suggests itself at this point: Is the increase in the employment of women at the expense of men? Are the women crowding the men out of their occupations and taking their places? At first inspection the statistics of occupations would seem to lead to an affirmative answer, for the percentage of women breadwinners increased from 13.5 per cent of all such in 1880 to 16.6 per cent in 1900, while that of the men fell from 80 to 77.3 per cent, and that of the children remained about the same. The cause of the change in the proportion of the sexes was not due, however, to any falling off in the number of men, but to the great influx of women into the ranks of wage-workers. In some lines of employment, like those of bookkeepers, stenographers, typewriters,
As to the fact there is no doubt; one comparison taken from the Census of 1900 will be sufficient to illustrate it: the annual average earnings of men in mechanical and manufacturing industries were $490, and of women $272 per annum. The more important question is why this difference exists. A number of reasons suggest themselves at once. In the first place women are less efficient than men and
The third reason is, however, the most important, because
The presence of a large supply of cheap woman labor undoubtedly has a depressing effect upon men’s wages, and consequently upon the standard of life of the whole laboring class. George Gunton
What conclusion shall we draw then, in view of all these facts, as to the desirability of employment of women? The fact of their low wages and industrial dependence is not sufficient to lead one to condemn it. These are transitional phenomena and can be remedied. Women have always worked—on the farm, in the home, in making household supplies. When this work was taken over by the factory woman became a wage-worker in the modern sense. “The census records in respect to the labor of women, therefore, read in the light of collateral facts, are a history of industrial readjustment rather than a record of the relative extent of the employment of women, and it is impossible to say, so far as the census figures are concerned, whether a larger proportion of women are actively engaged in labor today than formerly or not. The one fact which is clear is that factory or shop work is displacing home work, and that this readjustment of industrial conditions is leading to the employment of women outside the home in constantly increasing numbers.”
Quite different must be our attitude towards child labor, which can only be condemned as a waste of labor power and as stunting the development of the children. The Census of 1870 stated for the first time the number of children at work in the United States; there were 739,164 between the ages of 10 and 15 years, of whom 114,628 were employed in manufactures. During the next decade the number increased over 58 per cent to 1,118,356 children at work in all occupations. The disclosure of such an undesirable tendency called forth restrictive legislation in most of the states and the number declined materially by 1890. Since 1890 however there has been a reversal of this tendency back to the conditions of 1880, owing chiefly to the
Labor legislation is the most effective method of improving the conditions of employment, and to a consideration of this subject we must devote the remainder of this section. We have already seen that the fundamental principle of our modern wage system is freedom of contract.
The factory acts may be divided into two classes, those that endeavor to secure the safe or healthful manner of conducting a business, and those that attempt to limit the occupations, the hours, and the methods of payment of the workers. Under the first head come such matters as fire protection, ventilation, guarding of machinery, inspection of boilers and mines, etc. Such legislation and inspection have in many states been extended to churches, schoolhouses, hotels, theaters and public buildings. The second group includes those laws which are usually meant when factory acts are referred to. In England there has been a very steady development and extension of such legislation, beginning in 1802, when Peel’s Act tried to protect the health and morals of the pauper apprentices in the
The greatest problem in modern industry as well as the greatest curse to the laboring classes, is unemployment. While unemployment has always existed under all systems of labor, it assumed added significance when the introduction of the wage system threw every worker upon his own resources and made him responsible for the care of himself and his family. Modern industry is sensitive and unstable and its delicate mechanism, very likely to get out of order; credit and fashion, to mention no others, are factors that make for instability, and these are essentially modern. Professor Marshall is of the opinion that the factory system has not increased inconstancy of employment, but has simply rendered it plainer by localizing it. But whether more or fewer than in earlier times, the number of the unemployed in modern industry is appallingly great. It is not easy to estimate correctly the extent and amount of this evil and we accordingly find considerable variations in the statistical presentations of fact. In 1885 two investigations of the amount of employment were made, one by Carroll D. Wright, in his report as United States Commissioner of Labor for 1886, and the other by the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor in its report for 1887. Mr. Wright defines the unemployed very narrowly as “those who under prosperous times would be fully employed, and who, during the time mentioned, were seeking employment”; using the term in this restricted sense he concluded that 7½ per cent of the working population engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits, and trade and transportation were idle during the year, which moreover he considered one of extreme depression. The Massachusetts statistics, on the other hand, were presented as indicative of general conditions in normal years and may safely be regarded as such. According to this report, 30 per cent of the total number of
Unemployment is such a broad term and covers so many different ideas that it will be well to classify the unemployed before proceeding further. They may be logically divided into the following classes: I. The temporarily unemployed, who comprise (a) those certain of work again, as efficient workmen who are temporarily out of work owing to seasonal variations, shut downs, etc.; (b) those without such prospect, a group which again divides into two groups, namely, (1) efficient and industrious workmen who have been thrown out of work by a change in fashion, the introduction of new machinery, foreign competition, a prolonged depression, etc., and (2) those whose work is essentially fluctuating and casual in its nature, as casual day laborers, charwomen, etc. II. The permanently unemployed, consisting in turn of (a) the “won’t-works,” as tramps, and (b) the “can’t-works,” or the defective and dependent classes generally. Such a classification renders much easier the analysis both of the causes and of the cure of unemployment.
The first question that presents itself in any discussion of the causes of unemployment is whether it is due primarily to personal causes, as inefficiency or intemperance, or to industrial causes over which the individual has no
Causes of poverty: charity organization society records.
Cause. | Per cent. | |
Drink | 13.7 | |
Shiftlessness and inefficiency | 7.5 | |
Other moral defects | 2.1 | |
Total, Character | 23.3 | |
No male support | 5.0 | |
Lack of other normal support | 3.6 | |
Total, Support | 8.6 | |
Lack of employment | 23.5 | |
Insufficient employment | 8.1 | |
Poorly paid, etc. | 3.3 | |
Total, Employment | 34.9 | |
Sickness and death in family | 21.1 | |
Insanity and physical defects | 4.1 | |
Old Age | 3.9 | |
Other incapacity | 3.2 | |
Total, Incapacity | 32.3 | |
100.0 | 100.0 |
The first group of causes indicates misconduct, as the last group indicates misfortune; the other two shade off into industrial causes, though lack of employment—the largest single cause—may in turn be ascribed to any one of several remoter causes according to the bias of the investigator. This table is a record of the causes of failure on the part of those who have fallen behind or dropped out altogether in the race of life. At the other end of the scale stand the members of labor organization, on the whole, the elite of the labor world. The following table gives the causes of unemployment of 31,339 cases at the end of September, 1900, as reported to the New York Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Causes of idleness, members of trade unions, 1900.
Cause | Per Cent |
No work | 75.5 |
Bad weather | .5 |
Strike or lockout | 13.0 |
Sickness | 4.7 |
Superannuation | 1.6 |
Other causes | 4.7 |
Total | 100.0 |
This table emphasizes very strongly the industrial causes of unemployment, three-fourths of which is ascribed to lack of work. In some cases, as the iron and steel
The foregoing analysis of the causes of unemployment shows that they are deep-seated in the nature of modern industry, and that it would be unjust to the workingman to attribute them in any large measure to his incapacity or indisposition to labor. The care of the unemployable must of course be undertaken by society, and such persons prevented as far as possible from depressing the wages of competent labor by their competition. Exceptional periods of distress may and should be met by temporary relief measures. But what we may call the normal unemployment in modern industry, which amounts to 2-2½ per cent of the labor force, cannot be overcome by direct methods. The remedy for this lies “in a better organization of employers and employes, more steady expansion of trade, and greater stability of industry and of legislation affecting industry. These are not problems directly of unemployment, but rather of taxation, currency, monopoly, immigration, over-production, and technical advances in industry. Their treatment must be undertaken, not primarily as measures of providing for the unemployed, but as measures for improving the conditions of business.”
Among the measures of relief for unemployment due to accident, sickness, and old age, none is more important or more deserving of a hearing in the United States than that of insurance against these evils. The earnings of the average male wage-earner are so small—half of the number earn annually less than $436, and half of the adult male factory workers earn less than $400 a year—that the unemployment, sickness, disablement, or old age of the breadwinner must throw a large proportion of families so afflicted into a condition of periodic poverty. Any remedies that will alleviate the miseries caused by fluctuations in employment, industrial accidents, diseases incident to industry, etc., deserve a respectful hearing.
No adequate statistics of industrial accidents exist in the United States, but a recent estimate by F. L. Hoffman
Accidents in German industries traceable to different causes.
Causes. | Agriculture (1891) | Industry (1887) | Mining (1887) |
Fault of employer | 18.2 | 19.8 | 1.3 |
Fault of injured workman | 24.4 | 25.0 | 29.8 |
Fault of both | 20.1 | 4.4 | … |
Fault of third person | 2.8 | 3.3 | 4.3 |
Unavoidable or indeterminable | 34.5 | 46.9 | 64.6 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The original legal doctrine regarding liability for accident in England and America, which is still practically unmodified in the latter country, was based on the principle of individual responsibility for acts of negligence. Briefly stated the common law doctrine is that an employer must provide reasonably safe conditions of employment, and that then the employe assumes the risks incident to the occupation, or arising from the carelessness of fellow-servants; moreover, even if the employer has been remiss, the employe cannot collect damages if he has been guilty of contributory negligence. These three doctrines—assumption of risk, doctrine of the fellow-servant, and contributory negligence—have been used practically to free the employer from all responsibility in cases where injured employes have sought to secure damages. Moreover, as
Germany was the first country to introduce the principle of compulsory accident insurance in 1884. Employers are there organized into associations and sections and are compelled to bear the expense of granting to injured workingmen compensation, which amounts to about two-thirds their average wages. England in 1897, by the passage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, adopted the principle “that a workman is entitled for all accidents of occupation to a moderate and reasonable compensation.” Twenty-three countries, or practically all the advanced industrial nations of the world except the United States, have passed laws to compensate sufferers for all accidents
As we have seen, sickness and old age are still more usual causes of poverty and unemployment than accident. All the arguments for compulsory insurance therefore apply with redoubled force to these evils. Germany was again the pioneer in the establishment of these forms of insurance. In 1883 sickness insurance was organized, being made compulsory for all persons with incomes under $500; the expense is borne one-third by the workers and two-thirds by employers, the main purpose being to secure a sufficient relief—amounting to one-half the wage—for a period of thirteen weeks. In 1889 invalidity and old-age insurance was introduced for the same class; contributions are made in equal proportion by employe and employer, the state contributing about $12 a year to each annuity. Pensions are granted after thirty years of payment or to those over seventy. In 1908 Great Britain passed a still more comprehensive measure, providing for pensioning all citizens of seventy years or over, who have been residents for twenty years, in accordance with a sliding scale based upon private income, the pensions ranging from five shillings weekly down to one shilling. The pensions were expected to cost $35,000,000 the first year, but will probably entail double that amount. Finally, insurance against unemployment was tried in Switzerland in 1893 to 1897, but was finally abolished, owing to abuses and difficulty of administration.
There are probably no more important practical economic problems than those connected with unemployment and workingmen’s insurance. Slowly the conviction has spread that under present conditions of industry workingmen cannot fairly be held responsible for industrial accidents, and that with prevailing wages they cannot be expected to save enough to maintain themselves in sickness and old age. It therefore becomes the duty of society so
XI. MACHINERY AND INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY.
So far in the discussion of modern capitalistic production and of the various labor problems to which it has given rise we have not treated in detail the question of machinery and its effects on labor. We cannot, however, leave this subject without taking up this phase of it with considerable care. The advantages of machinery have been more often emphasized than the evils, so that we may profitably begin with the darker side of the picture. President Hadley
In answer to the first charge President Hadley flatly denies that machinery has displaced labor, but insists that “there has been a most conspicuous increase of employment in those lines where improvements in machinery have been greatest,” giving the expansion of railroads as an illustration. But it is not possible to generalize from this case without further analysis. The immediate effect of improved machinery, especially if suddenly introduced, is practically always to throw men out of employment. The extent to which this will occur depends on the suddenness and extensiveness of the change, but fortunately, as Professor Nicholson points out, new inventions seldom come suddenly or are introduced all at once on an extensive scale. It took almost a generation, for example, for American
The elaborate investigation of the Department of Labor in 1898 regarding the relative merits of hand and machine labor shows clearly the effect on the displacement of labor by the introduction of machinery. A few cases will serve as illustrations (see table on next page).
Year of production | Article produced | Different operations performed | Different workmen employed | Time worked. | Labor Cost | |
Hours | Minutes | |||||
1829-30 | Wheat (hand) | 8 | 4 | 61 | 5 | $3.55 |
1895-96 | Wheat (machine) | 5 | 6 | 3 | 19 | .66 |
1859 | Boots (hand) | 83 | 2 | 1436 | 40 | 408.50 |
1895 | Boots (machine) | 122 | 113 | 154 | 5 | 35.40 |
1850 | Carpet (hand) | 15 | 18 | 4047 | 30 | 20.24 |
1895 | Carpet (machine) | 41 | 81 | 509 | 1 | .29 |
1891 | Loading ore (hand) | 1 | 1 | 200 | 0 | 40.00 |
1896 | Loading ore (machine) | 3 | 10 | 2 | 51 | .55 |
Year of production | Article produced | Different operations performed | Different workmen employed |
1829-30 | Wheat (hand) | 8 | 4 |
1895-96 | Wheat (machine) | 5 | 6 |
1859 | Boots (hand) | 83 | 2 |
1895 | Boots (machine) | 122 | 113 |
1850 | Carpet (hand) | 15 | 18 |
1895 | Carpet (machine) | 41 | 81 |
1891 | Loading ore (hand) | 1 | 1 |
1896 | Loading ore (machine) | 3 | 10 |
Year of production | Article produced | Time worked. | Labor Cost | |
Hours | Minutes | |||
1829-30 | Wheat (hand) | 61 | 5 | $ 3.55 |
1895-96 | Wheat (machine) | 3 | 19 | .66 |
1859 | Boots (hand) | 1436 | 40 | 408.50 |
1895 | Boots (machine) | 154 | 5 | 35.40 |
1850 | Carpet (hand) | 4047 | 30 | 20.24 |
1895 | Carpet (machine) | 509 | 1 | .29 |
1891 | Loading ore (hand) | 200 | 0 | 40.00 |
1896 | Loading ore (machine) | 2 | 51 | .55 |
These cases, chosen at random, all show an increase in the number of different men employed, and an immense saving in time and in labor cost. Nothing is indicated however as to the total amount of employment. Optimistic writers like Carroll D. Wright claim that if machinery has displaced labor in one direction it has created more employment for them in others. He shows for instance
The amount of labor is not the only factor to be considered; the regularity of employment, as we saw in the last section, is of hardly less importance. “Another danger of an entirely opposite kind,” says Professor Nicholson
“The second great charge made against the factory system is that it displaces a higher grade of labor by a lower
The final charge against the factory system is monotony of work. Many writers, from Adam Smith down, take the view that it is more stupefying to make a small part of an article, say the sixty-fourth part of a shoe, than to make the whole article. Professor Marshall, who has considered the subject carefully
Let us now try to summarize our conclusions on this intricate question. The first effects of the introduction of labor-saving machinery is to displace particular laborers; these suffer real injury, though they are often reabsorbed in the industrial organism. The social gain is undoubted, for the improved methods lead to lower prices and thus to an increase in the real wages of labor. To the improvement and wider use of machinery we must indeed look for the ultimate relief of the human race from exhausting toil. Says a socialist writer: “On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.... All unintellectual labor, all monotonous, dull labor, all labor that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing.” If labor today has a complaint to make against the use of machinery, it is that labor has not shared sufficiently in the improvements thus far effected. But the evil here is connected with the inequitable distribution of wealth, not with the methods of its production. In justice labor should share in the technical improvements which characterized the nineteenth century and will revolutionize to a still greater extent the industries of the twentieth. The practical question in this connection is as to the best method for labor to secure its claim to a share in the increased production. One answer, to which we will turn next, is by increasing its efficiency through better industrial education and training.
The subject of industrial education has recently been receiving considerable attention in the United States and the needs and shortcomings of our country in this regard
Beginning with Germany as the country in which industrial education has received the greatest attention, we find there three different kinds of schools, which we may call the lower, middle, and higher. The lower group includes artisan and specialized trade schools, and is intended to be a substitute for the apprenticeship system. While they have an important influence on the general industrial efficiency of the nation, they concern chiefly the small handicrafts. The middle group comprises the trade schools (gewerbeschulen), of which the most famous are the weaving and dyeing schools at Chemnitz; other branches taught are soap-boiling, milling, building, pottery, etc. These are the schools that provide technical instruction for
In England the last twenty years have seen a marvelous development in industrial education, brought about in part by the “made in Germany” agitation. The English system differs from the German in educating working-class boys, while at work in the mill or at the forge, into foremen, managers, etc., mainly by means of evening classes in trade or technical schools. The German system, on the other hand, trained men who already had a superior general education. These schools are regarded as stepping stones for the more ambitious and intelligent young workingmen. They give a practical grasp of the subjects, but do not teach actual processes of manufacture, owing to trade union objections. They thus come between the lower and middle schools in Germany. The higher technical schools also exist and have recently been greatly expanded.
The system of industrial education in the United States may be said to resemble that of Germany more than England in that it supplies industries from above rather than from below, but it is in a very chaotic state as yet. The most important schools are institutes of technology and the technical departments of the universities, but these train men only for the highest positions. Provision for the industrial training of the workingman is almost lacking
So far in their industrial development the people of the United States have been immensely aided by two factors: the rich natural resources of the country, and the high quality of the labor. But as we have already seen, the natural resources are being either rapidly exhausted or monopolized. As to the character of the second factor, we may quote from the testimony of a recent careful observer, Dr. A. Shadwell
Among the reforms suggested for remedying some of the evils incident to the modern wage system those of profit-sharing and co-operation occupy a prominent place. The separation of the community into capitalists and laborers, classes different in conditions and ideals, constitutes a menace to the peace and progress of industrial society. The wage system moreover is thought by many to have broken down the former intimate relation of employer and worker, and some scheme is needed to correlate their interests again and to bind them together. To secure this result profit-sharing is advocated. As defined by the International Co-operative Congress in 1897 this is “the agreement, freely entered into, by which the employe receives a share, fixed in advance, of the profits.” It is not a change from the present wage system, but simply a modification of that system according to which the laborer receives a share in the profits in addition to his wages. The purpose is to identify the interests of the employes with those of their employer and thus to give him some of the same motives for energy, care, and thrift in the conduct of the business. Three principal methods of profit-sharing may be mentioned, though the variations are manifold. The favorite method in England and the United
The economic theory of profit-sharing is that by inducing greater care and diligence on the part of the employe he will himself create the fund from which he is paid. It is claimed by its advocates that it increases both the quantity and the quality of the product and that it promotes greater care of implements and materials, thus reducing the cost at the same time that it increases the output. The classic example of this is the case of the original profit-sharing scheme, the Maison Leclaire, in Paris; the result of the first six years’ experiment was a dividend on wages of $3,753 a year, derived entirely from the increased economy and care of the workers. In some cases, however, the object of the employers is to secure immunity from strikes and other labor disturbances and a greater permanence of the labor force; and participation in profits is conditioned on the men abstaining from joining a trade union, or on uninterrupted service. In these cases the deferred participation plan is used. The advantages claimed for the system are not merely the increase in product already spoken of and the greatest efficiency of the worker, but also the improvement in his material and moral standards, and the promotion of industrial peace by lessening discontent and friction. The main basis for the system, since it is economic and not philanthropic in its nature, must of course be the increase in production brought about by its adoption.
More weighty, however, appear the objections against profit-sharing, which seem to have had sufficient force to cause the failure of a number of ventures in this direction.
This leads to the second objection, which is that profit-sharing paralyzes the efforts of the laborers to better their own conditions through trade unions, strikes or other methods. The trade union attitude was vigorously stated by President Gompers of the American Federation of Labor in his testimony before the Industrial Commission
In the actual practice of profit-sharing there have been many interesting experiments, and not a few failures. It may be said to date from 1842, when M. Leclaire, a Parisian painter and house decorator, introduced it into his business, and has since spread over France and England; it has met with little success in the rest of Europe. In the United States the movement has also been more recent and of smaller proportions. The reason for this is suggested by President Hadley as follows
More radical than profit-sharing, which involves only a change in the method of payment of wages, is co-operation, which involves a change of management as well. Its final goal, in the minds of its advocates, is the radical modification if not ultimate abolition of the present wage system. While profit-sharing is paternalistic and is directed to an increase of production, co-operation may be said to be democratic, and to aim at a more equitable distribution. Under this plan the laborers hope to divert to themselves the large amount of profits which they now see going into the possession of their employers. By eliminating the manager or enterpriser they hope to save his profits for themselves. Two different kinds of co-operation are usually distinguished—distributive or consumers’ co-operation, and producers’ co-operation—which we may profitably take up in turn.
Successful consumers’ co-operation may be said to have originated in Great Britain when twenty-eight Rochdale workingmen founded their famous society of Equitable Pioneers. The success and growth of this remarkable experiment, starting with a capital of £28, to a great system of 8,000 members with a capital of £200,000 in 1874, is a most romantic story. It was largely imitated and retail co-operative stores sprang up all over England. In 1864 the English Co-operative Wholesale Society was started, for the purpose of the joint purchase of supplies for the retail co-operative stores on better terms than these could secure singly from ordinary wholesalers. It effected large economies and was successful from the beginning; by 1901 it had a capital of £2,500,000 and acted as purchaser for over 1,000 retail societies. From buying, the society soon passed to making its own goods and now manufactures directly a long list of commodities. In 1868 the Scottish
The methods of the Rochdale Society will serve as an illustration of the way in which the savings effected by co-operation are distributed among the members. Any one might become a member upon payment of one shilling and was then entitled to trade at the store. The prices charged were those current in the town, but purity of goods was assured; cash payments were an essential feature. At the end of the year the profits were divided among the members in proportion to the amount of their purchases. On the other hand, it may be noted that no attempt was made to, introduce profit-sharing with the employes, who are paid ordinary but good wages only. Other forms of consumers’ co-operation are those which undertake to supply insurance, or credit, like the co-operative insurance companies, banks, and building and loan associations. The latter especially have had considerable success in the United
Producers’ co-operation differs from that just described in that it is a union on the part of laborers to do away with the employer and to secure for themselves the profits. The object of the first is to lower prices for the co-operators as consumers; the object of the second is rather to secure higher prices for themselves as producers by eliminating the profits of the industrial manager. They hope to perform his function by their collective effort, and to manage as well as labor; indeed, by diminishing friction and strikes they even hope to increase the profits. Examples of successful co-operation of this sort are not numerous, as it has great difficulties to contend with. Most of the experiments have failed, though recently it would seem that the movement is making substantial though slow progress, especially in France and England. Most of those in the latter country, however, seem to be of simple industries, as agriculture and dairy-farming. The most notable example of successful productive co-operation in the United States has been furnished by the coopers of Minneapolis, who organized a shop of their own in 1868 and have steadily increased their business since that time. Other instances often cited are the wood-workers in St. Louis and boot and shoe companies in Massachusetts. More recently there has been a considerable extension of co-operative creameries, cheese factories and similar businesses of a simple kind.
The advantages of co-operation are summed up as follows by President Walker.
The defects of co-operation have already been suggested in the account of their failure. In the first place, the importance and need of intelligent and efficient management are usually underrated by workingmen. They are unwilling to pay high salaries and as a consequence lose the best men and secure inefficient service. Co-operation has therefore succeeded best in retail trade where the processes are
It seems impossible, therefore, to expect from co-operation a final solution of the labor problem, such as John Stuart Mill, for instance, hoped for. Where successful, it has succeeded in distributing profits among a larger number of persons than would otherwise have received them. Its educative and moral effects, moreover, in the appeals which it makes to higher motives and to character, are of the highest value. But as an industrial system of enterprise it cannot supplant the present system as long as the manager of industry is needed. Today he performs a useful social service and profits are his pay therefor. If he is to be eliminated, society must first be raised to a higher plane of efficiency, intelligence, and morality. But just because it makes these high demands upon the members of
XIII. PROBLEMS OF DISTRIBUTION.
So far we have discussed for the most part those economic problems that center round the production of wealth, such as the use of natural resources, large-scale production, trusts and monopolies, labor organizations, unemployment, industrial education and co-operation. Now we shall consider briefly a few of the problems that are connected with the distribution of wealth. Professor Blockmar
Under the term distribution two different processes are included, which should be distinguished before going further. The first is called functional distribution, and concerns the distribution of the product of industry or the income of society, among the different factors of production.
John Stuart Mill held that production was governed by natural laws, which could be ascertained and stated, but that distribution was artificial and hence that it was not possible to discover constant and certain laws governing it. Beginning mainly with Mill, the ethical question has been more and more asked as to what share each factor in production ought to get, not merely what he does receive. “Hence the question is rising more and more as to what should be the basis of division, and many proposals have been made. It is proposed that laborers combine to get a larger share. Hence we have trade unions, Knights of Labor, etc. It is proposed that capitalists and landlords give a larger proportion of the produce to the laborers than they are able to secure by mere private struggle. Hence we have proposals for profit-sharing and various charities. It is proposed that laborers combine to be their own capitalists and landlords; hence we have all sorts of co-operative and communistic experiments. It is asserted that the wealthy classes have so much power in their hands
The first question that suggests itself in the discussion of functional distribution is as to whether it is actually governed by natural law, so-called. It is observable that the amounts which go to rent, to wages, to interest, and to profits are regularly quite constant. What determines this? The socialists contend that natural distribution is the only just method and insist that the state should regulate this just distribution; they are not clear, however, as to what this natural method is. Henry George uses the same phrase when he says, “the just distribution of wealth is manifestly a natural distribution of wealth, and this is that which gives to him who makes it and secures to him who saves it.” All such statements beg the question for they all turn on the use of the word natural. Many modern economists are inclined to assert that the question of distribution is not an ethical one, not a question of what ought
Rent is usually defined as the return for the use of natural objects and agencies. Rent has usually been low in the United States because of the large amount of land and other natural agents available. In general it may be said that when any factor of production is relatively abundant in comparison with the other factors, its share of the product will be small.
Interest is the amount paid for the use of capital.
Profits are the reward which the manager of a business receives for his services in organizing and superintending the business. This share of the social income was the last to be recognized by economists, and its rightfulness is even yet denied by the socialists. They insist that profits are really the earnings of labor which have been withheld from the laborer by the superior skill and economic strength of the capitalist manager; they are institutional robbery, the exploitation of labor. It is not possible to take up the arguments on this point, but it may be said in a word that the manager of business contributes a needed service to the work of society just as truly as the laborer does, and receives his earned reward in the form of profits.
Wages are the reward of labor. It is often assumed that wages are lower than they should be, that the laborer in some way is deprived of a portion of what he has rightfully earned. It is worth while inquiring briefly how the
Of more practical interest are questions connected with the personal distribution of wealth. In this connection arise such problems as the increase of large fortunes, the causes of poverty, and similar questions. The boast of our Republic has long been that here opportunity was open to all, that wealth was widely diffused, and that such inequalities of fortune as characterized the nations of the Old World were happily lacking. In the fifty-five years, 1850-1904, the per capita value of all property in the United States exactly quadrupled; how has this increase been distributed? Unfortunately we have no complete statistics on this point, yet reliable estimates by authoritative writers all tell the same story—of great concentration of wealth in the possession of a comparatively few rich families. In 1893 Mr. George K. Holmes concluded from a study of the statistics of farm and home ownership in the United States that “91 per cent of the families of the country own no more than about 29 per cent of the wealth, and 9 per cent of the families own about 71 per cent of the wealth.” A more accurate and satisfactory statement can be drawn from the income-tax returns for Prussia, which tells almost the same story with regard to income. The table on the following page is condensed from an article by Professor A. Wagner:
Income | Per cent of persons | Per cent of income |
Below $214 | 70.7 | 33.0 |
$214 to $714 | 25.8 | 34.9 |
Over $714 | 3.5 | 32.1 |
According to these figures over two-thirds of the persons—heads of families or single adults—had only one-third of the income, while 3½ per cent had another third. Another striking fact shown by the table is the large proportion of persons receiving incomes of less than $214 a year, the minimum taxable income. It shows the poverty of the mass of the people as well as the concentration of wealth among the few rich. In the United States, where the natural resources have been so much richer than in Germany, a similar table would probably show a much smaller proportion under the Prussian minimum, but on the other hand it would probably show a greater concentration of income in the hands of a few. Europe has as yet no billionaire. The great fortunes of the United States have been made possible by the unrivaled opportunities for the exploitation of rich natural resources, the appropriation of natural monopolies, and to special privileges and opportunities in manufactures and transportation. The importance of monopoly privileges in the distribution of wealth is well shown by the results of an investigation made in 1892 by the New York Tribune into the sources of the fortunes of millionaires. It was undertaken to show that protection was not the main cause; but while it proved this, it showed clearly that most of them were built up on monopoly. “Of the 4,047 millionaires reported, only 1,125, or 28 per cent, obtained their fortunes in protected industries.... About 78 per cent of the fortunes were derived from permanent monopoly privileges, and only 22 per cent from competitive industries unaided by natural and artificial monopolies.... Furthermore, if the size of fortunes is taken into account it will be found that perhaps 95 per cent of the total values represented by these millionaire fortunes is
The opposite question of poverty has already been discussed and some of the causes of poverty pointed out. It will be sufficient here to try to answer the question which has often been asked: Are the rich growing richer and the poor poorer? Though the first part of the question has just been affirmed, the second part may be denied. The nineteenth century has witnessed a vast improvement in the condition of the laboring man, who has shared in the increasing wealth which he has helped to produce. Wages have steadily increased, the hours of labor have been reduced, and the material well-being of the wage-earner is greater today than it has ever been before. It has more than once been pointed out by writers on this subject that with an equal distribution of wealth no one would be well-to-do, while many others insist that inequality in itself is a desirable thing. Greater diffusion of wealth can come about only by very slow processes, and permanent plenty can be secured only by a great increase in the accumulations of capital and the efficiency of each worker. Any suggested reform, therefore, that would weaken the motives to thrift and industry must be rejected.
XIV. SAVING AND SPENDING.
The goal and purpose of all economic activities is the satisfaction of human wants. The object of production is consumption. We work because we desire and need various things which we can get only if we produce them or earn the money to buy them. In this section we take
Expenditures for Different Purposes.
Items | United States 1903 | New York City | Great Britain | Prussia | Average |
Food | 43.1 | 43.4 | 51.4 | 55.0 | 48.2 |
Clothing | 13.0 | 10.6 | 18.1 | 18.0 | 14.9 |
Rent | 18.1 | 19.4 | 13.5 | 12.0 | 15.8 |
Fuel and light | 5.7 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 4.8 |
Miscellaneous | 20.1 | 21.5 | 13.5 | 10.0 | 16.3 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Items | United States 1903 | New York City | Great Britain |
Food | 43.1 | 43.4 | 51.4 |
Clothing | 13.0 | 10.6 | 18.1 |
Rent | 18.1 | 19.4 | 13.5 |
Fuel and light | 5.7 | 5.1 | 3.5 |
Miscellaneous | 20.1 | 21.5 | 13.5 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Items | Prussia | Average |
Food | 55.0 | 48.2 |
Clothing | 18.0 | 14.9 |
Rent | 12.0 | 15.8 |
Fuel and light | 5.0 | 4.8 |
Miscellaneous | 10.0 | 16.3 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
From this table it is seen that practically half of the income of average working-class families is expended for food, and five-sixths of it goes for the bare necessaries. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be spent wisely. The remaining one-sixth, included here under the head “miscellaneous,” comprises such items as education, care of health, comfort, mental and bodily recreation, etc. It is manifest that this group can be expanded in only one of two ways: either by enlarging the total income, or by economizing on the other items by a wiser and better-ordered expenditure. The former question has already been discussed; here we are concerned only with the latter. Dr. Frederick Engel, a Prussian statistician, laid down certain laws with regard to consumption: as the income of a family increases a smaller percentage is spent for food
One of the problems which has often proved very puzzling is the relation between saving and spending. At what point should one stop spending in order to save? If the satisfaction of our wants is the object of production, why should we save at all? This is the point urged by the author of a specious little book called “The Fallacy of Saving.” The problem can be most easily solved by a more careful analysis of terms. In the popular view, saving involves the withdrawal of goods or money from use, while spending means putting them to immediate use. The spendthrift is proverbially popular. “If the rich do not spend, the poor die of hunger,” said Montesquieu. Saving may take the form of hoarding or withdrawing things from use, but nowadays this is practised only by misers; saving ordinarily takes the form of investment in some productive enterprise, either directly or through a bank. In this way a demand is created for goods just as truly as though the money had been spent for a dinner or a suit of clothes. Saving is spending, but it is spending for the future rather than the present; it usually causes the production of permanent material goods rather than transient or immaterial pleasures. Another cause of the confusion
A third confusion of ideas that exists in the popular mind is due to an over-emphasis of the desirability of work for its own sake. The man who “makes work” is thought to be doing a desirable thing, even though this results from the unnecessary destruction of useful things. Now the real goal of all rational economic endeavor is not production for its own sake, but consumption; not work, but the gratification of wants. Every destruction of durable commodities which lessens the power to gratify wants is a loss to a community and no juggling with words can make it anything else. If it gives employment to labor, that means that the labor has been diverted from the production of other things to which it would have been devoted. Edward Atkinson several years ago calculated that every year fires destroyed property in the United States to the amount $150,000,000.
On the other hand, saving is socially necessary in every industrially developed community in order to furnish the requisite capital for the continued production of wealth. Professor Marshall has estimated that every year one-fifth of the wealth of a nation is used up in the processes of manufacture and production; just to keep machines, factories, railroads, and other instruments of production up to the point of efficiency and restore loss and depreciation would therefore require considerable saving. If the nation is to grow wealthier and is to accumulate additional capital, manifestly still more must be saved. This is done in all progressive countries. Saving is carried on by individuals, however, and not by nations, and the motives that lead to it are personal. The most important is probably the desire to provide for wife and children or other relatives; next to that is the wish to lay by sufficient for one’s old age. In our individualistic society, where each family forms an independent unit and is assumed to be self-supporting, it is very desirable that habits of thrift and saving
But what shall we say about expenditures for luxuries? Here the spending is for the gratification of a want, though it may be out of proportion to the results. What shall be our attitude to it? This question is not so easy to answer as the other. Three different schools have given as many answers to the problem of luxury: the first condemns it utterly; the second approves it wholly; and the third takes an intermediate position between the two extremes. Luxury is condemned by the first school from three points of view: as a question of individual morals, it is regarded as debasing and enervating, thus preventing the highest development of the human faculties; as a question of economics it is condemned as wasteful; and as a question of right and justice it is incompatible with an equitable distribution of wealth. It is upon this last point that the opponents of luxury lay the greatest emphasis. As the quantity of existing wealth is insufficient to satisfy even the primal wants of the large majority of our fellow-creatures, we should endeavor to increase this available store as much as we can, and should refrain from drawing upon it in a reckless manner in order to gratify superfluous wants. Furthermore, the productive powers that we can use are, as a matter of fact, limited; and therefore, if the wealthy classes divert a portion of these forces towards the production of articles of luxury, there will be so much the less available for the production of those staple articles that the masses require for their consumption. In the case of a Robinson Crusoe this would be perfectly clear: if he devoted several months to the polishing of a diamond for ornament, he would have to go without a house or other improvements he might have made in that time. Or, if he forced his man Friday to spend
The opposite school replies to these arguments that luxury is an indispensable stimulus to progress; that really all economic progress is first manifested in the form of a need of luxury, and that luxury therefore is a necessary phase of its development. Since luxury is wholly relative, every want or need is, on its first appearance in the world, regarded as superfluous; first, because no one has hitherto wanted it, and secondly, because its production probably requires a considerable amount of labor, on account of man’s inexperience and the inevitable gropings in the dark that attend all beginnings. The decencies of life today and even the necessities were once regarded as luxuries—chimneys in houses, shoes, forks and knives, linen for the body, bath tubs, etc. If all luxury had always been sternly suppressed when it made its appearance, all the needs that constitute civilization would have been nipped in the bud, and we should still be in the condition of our ancestors of the Stone Age. Civilization depends on the multiplication of wants. Economic progress is a process of converting superfluities into conveniences, and conveniences into necessities.
The attitude taken by practically all economists today is intermediate between these two extremes. Moderate
But the difficult question at once suggests itself: How can the surplus incomes of the rich be used so as to provide
Let us now finally take up the problem of economy in consumption. It is said that an American family will waste enough food for a French family to live on. The farmer who leaves his implements out in the rain or his cattle without proper shelter, is guilty of waste. We all waste clothing by frequent changes in fashion. Such waste is as much due to a lack of knowledge and training as to carelessness. The single example of the consumption of food will illustrate this point. “If we place the average income of an American family at $500—and it will not greatly exceed that figure—then nearly $250 of this amount is expended each year for food. Waste occurs in any or all of the following ways: (1) needlessly expensive foods containing little real nutriment are used; (2) there is a failure to select the foods best suited to the needs of the family; (3) a great deal is thrown away which ought to be utilized; (4) bad preparation of the food causes it to lose much of the nutriment which it does contain; (5) badly constructed ovens diffuse heat, instead of confining it, and cause enormous loss of fuel. We shall state less than the truth if we estimate that fully one-fifth of the money expended for food is absolutely wasted, while the excessive
The economic evils of intemperance have already been partially stated in the objections to luxury. There is, however, one additional objection to the excessive use of intoxicating liquor which is not true of most indulgences: it diminishes a man’s productive powers. It is harmful in its effects upon both consumption and production. Other items of consumption appear, however, not so clearly under the immediate control of the consumer. The housing accommodations in many of our large cities have often been unsanitary and unworthy of being called homes. Legislation has been necessary to compel the erection of better tenements and prevent the exploitation of helpless people. So too it has been found necessary to legislate against loan-sharks, in order to protect people against their own improvidence and ignorance. In addition to legislation against positive evils, we must of course look to education as the great remedy of waste in consumption.
There is one other phase of the subject of consumption that may well be mentioned before leaving this subject. Owing to the constant pressure of the consuming public for cheap goods, many articles are produced under conditions dangerous to the health, morality and well-being of the operatives, as in the case of the “sweated trades.” To remedy these evils consumers’ leagues have been started in many places, the members of which pledge themselves not to buy goods or to trade in stores where the conditions of work are not up to certain prescribed standards.
Probably on no subject has there been such confused thinking or have such widely varying views been held as on that of money. There is, however, substantial unanimity of opinion on the important points among economists today, though in practice there still remain many unsolved problems. The modern industrial system has already been characterized as one of capitalistic production, of large-scale enterprises with extended use of machinery. Not less fundamental are the processes of valuation and exchange made possible by the use of money and credit; and also by the machinery for the geographical distribution of goods, our railroads and steamship lines. The modern stage of economic development has been described by Hildebrand as one of “credit economy,” as opposed to those of barter and money economy, which preceded. It is inconceivable that the modern complex system of exchange could be maintained without the extended use of money and credit. Without attempting to define these terms or to trace their historical development, we may proceed at once to state some of the problems to which they have given rise.
The first question that suggests itself is, what determines the value of money? The generally accepted answer may be briefly stated: it is, that the value of money depends, other things remaining the same, upon its quantity. According to the quantity theory an increase in the
It is not a matter of indifference, however, whether prices be rising or falling, that is, whether inflation or contraction of the currency is taking place. A period of falling prices means hardship and injustice to debtors and producers of goods, as farmers, manufacturers, etc. Having
Down to 1870 practically all the nations of Europe and America had the system of bimetallism at ratios of 15½ or 16 to 1. About that date the great increase in the supply of gold and the fall in the value of silver led one country after another to abandon the latter and to adopt the system of gold monometallism. This was vigorously resisted by many persons and several fruitless efforts made to secure a system of international bimetallism. Failing that, the friends of silver in this country endeavored to secure independent action by the United States alone, and were ultimately successful in obtaining the purchase by the Federal Government of practically the entire silver output of the country during the years 1878-1893.
Development of the Manufacturing Industries in the United States, 1800-1905.
Fiscal Year, ending June 30— | Population June 1. | Wealth. | Production of wool.[B] | Raw wool imported. | |
Total. | Per capita. | ||||
Dollars. | Dollars. | Pounds. | Pounds. | ||
1800 | 5,308,483 | … | … | … | … |
1810 | 7,239,881 | … | … | … | … |
1820 | 9,638,453 | … | … | … | … |
1830 | 12,866,020 | … | … | 35,802,114 | 669,883 |
1840 | 17,069,453 | … | … | 52,516,959 | 9,898,740 |
1850 | 23,191,876 | 7,135,780,000 | 307.69 | … | 18,695,294 |
1851 | 23,995,000 | … | … | … | 32,607,315 |
1852 | 24,802,000 | … | … | … | 18,343,218 |
1853 | 25,615,000 | … | … | … | 21,616,035 |
1854 | 26,433,000 | … | … | … | 20,228,035 |
1855 | 27,256,000 | … | … | … | 18,599,784 |
1856 | 28,083,000 | … | … | … | 14,778,496 |
1857 | 28,916,000 | … | … | … | 16,505,216 |
1858 | 29,758,000 | … | … | … | … |
1859 | 30,596,000 | … | … | 60,264,913 | … |
1860 | 31,443,321 | 16,159,616,000 | 513.93 | 75,000,000 | … |
1861 | 32,064,000 | … | … | 90,000,000 | … |
1862 | 32,704,000 | … | … | 106,000,000 | 42,131,061 |
1863 | 33,365,000 | … | … | 123,000,000 | 73,931,944 |
1864 | 34,046,000 | … | … | 142,000,000 | 90,464,002 |
1865 | 34,748,000 | … | … | 155,000,000 | 43,877,408 |
1866 | 35,469,000 | … | … | 160,000,000 | 67,918,253 |
1867 | 36,211,000 | … | … | 168,000,000 | 16,558,046 |
1868 | 36,973,000 | … | … | 180,000,000 | 24,124,803 |
1869 | 37,756,000 | … | … | 162,000,000 | 39,275,926 |
1870 | 38,558,371 | 30,068,518,000 | 779.83 | 160,000,000 | 49,230,199 |
1871 | 39,555,000 | … | … | 150,000,000 | 68,058,028 |
1872 | 40,596,000 | … | … | 158,000,000 | 122,256,499 |
1873 | 41,677,000 | … | … | 170,000,000 | 85,496,049 |
1874 | 42,796,000 | … | … | 181,000,000 | 42,939,541 |
1875 | 43,951,000 | … | … | 192,000,000 | 54,901,760 |
1876 | 45,137,000 | … | … | 200,000,000 | 44,642,836 |
1877 | 46,353,000 | … | … | 208,250,000 | 42,171,192 |
1878 | 47,598,000 | … | … | 211,000,000 | 48,449,079 |
1879 | 48,866,000 | … | … | 232,500,000 | 39,005,155 |
1880 | 50,155,783 | 43,642,000,000 | 850.20 | 240,000,000 | 128,131,747 |
1881 | 51,316,000 | … | … | 272,000,000 | 55,964,236 |
1882 | 52,495,000 | … | … | 290,000,000 | 67,861,744 |
1883 | 53,693,000 | … | … | 300,000,000 | 70,575,478 |
1884 | 54,911,000 | … | … | 308,000,000 | 78,350,651 |
1885 | 56,148,000 | … | … | 302,000,000 | 70,596,170 |
1886 | 57,404,000 | … | … | 285,000,000 | 129,084,958 |
1887 | 58,680,000 | … | … | 269,000,000 | 114,038,030 |
1888 | 59,974,000 | … | … | 265,000,000 | 113,558,753 |
1889 | 61,289,000 | … | … | 276,000,000 | 126,487,729 |
1890 | 62,622,250 | 65,037,091,000 | 1,038.57 | 285,000,000 | 105,431,285 |
1891 | 63,844,000 | … | … | 294,000,000 | 129,303,648 |
1892 | 65,086,000 | … | … | 303,153,000 | 148,670,652 |
1893 | 66,349,000 | … | … | 298,057,384 | 172,433,838 |
1894 | 67,632,000 | … | … | 309,748,000 | 55,152,585 |
1895 | 68,934,000 | 77,000,000,000 | 1,117.01 | 272,474,708 | 206,033,906 |
1896 | 70,254,000 | … | … | 259,153,251 | 230,911,473 |
1897 | 71,592,000 | … | … | 266,720,684 | 350,852,026 |
1898 | 72,947,000 | … | … | 272,191,330 | 132,795,202 |
1899 | 74,318,000 | … | … | 288,636,621 | 76,736,209 |
1900 | 76,303,387 | 88,517,306,775 | 1,164.79 | 302,502,328 | 155,928,455 |
1901 | 79,003,000 | … | … | 287,450,000 | 166,576,966 |
1903 | 80,372,000 | … | … | 291,783,032 | 177,137,796 |
1904 | 81,752,000 | 107,104,211,917 | 1,310.11 | 295,488,438 | 173,742,834 |
1905 | 83,143,000 | … | … | 298,915,130 | 249,135,746 |
1906 | 84,216,433 | … | … | 298,294,750 | 201,688,668 |
1907 | 85,817,239 | … | … | 311,138,321 | 203,847,545 |
1908 | 87,189,392 | … | … | … | 125,980,524 |
Fiscal Year, ending June 30— | Production of cotton.[B] (500-lb. bales, gross weight.) | Manufactures of cotton. | |||||
Thousands of spindles in operation on Sept. 1st. | Thousands of bales of domestic cotton taken by mills. | ||||||
In Southern States. | In Northern States. | Total United States. | In Southern States. | In Northern States. | Total United States | ||
Number. | Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | |
1800 | 73,222 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1810 | 177,824 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1820 | 334,728 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1830 | 732,218 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1840 | 1,347,640 | 181 | 2,104 | 2,285 | 71 | 166 | 237 |
1850 | 2,136,083 | 265 | 3,733 | 3,998 | 78 | 497 | 575 |
1851 | 2,799,290 | … | … | … | 60 | 404 | 464 |
1852 | 3,130,338 | … | … | … | 111 | 588 | 699 |
1853 | 2,766,194 | … | … | … | 153 | 650 | 803 |
1854 | 2,708,082 | … | … | … | 145 | 592 | 737 |
1855 | 3,220,782 | … | … | … | 135 | 571 | 706 |
1856 | 3,873,680 | … | … | … | 138 | 633 | 771 |
1857 | 3,012,016 | … | … | … | 154 | 666 | 820 |
1858 | 3,758,273 | … | … | … | 143 | 452 | 595 |
1859 | 4,309,642 | … | … | … | 167 | 760 | 927 |
1860 | 3,841,416 | 324 | 4,912 | 5,236 | 94 | 751 | 845 |
1861 | 4,490,586 | … | … | … | 153 | 650 | 803 |
1862 | 1,596,653 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1863 | 449,059 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1864 | 299,372 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1865 | 2,093,658 | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1866 | 1,948,077 | … | … | … | 127 | 541 | 668 |
1867 | 2,345,610 | … | … | … | 150 | 573 | 723 |
1868 | 2,198,141 | … | … | … | 168 | 800 | 968 |
1869 | 2,409,597 | … | … | … | 173 | 822 | 995 |
1870 | 4,024,527 | 328 | 6,804 | 7,132 | 69 | 728 | 797 |
1871 | 2,756,564 | … | … | … | 91 | 1,072 | 1,163 |
1872 | 3,650,932 | … | … | … | 120 | 977 | 1,097 |
1873 | 3,873,750 | … | … | … | 138 | 1,063 | 1,201 |
1874 | 3,528,276 | … | … | … | 128 | 1,192 | 1,320 |
1875 | 4,302,818 | … | … | … | 130 | 1,071 | 1,201 |
1876 | 4,118,390 | … | … | … | 134 | 1,220 | 1,354 |
1877 | 4,494,224 | … | … | … | 127 | 1,302 | 1,429 |
1878 | 4,745,078 | … | … | … | 151 | 1,345 | 1,496 |
1879 | 5,466,387 | … | … | … | 186 | 1,375 | 1,561 |
1880 | 6,356,998 | 561 | 10,092 | 10,653 | 189 | 1,382 | 1,570 |
1881 | 5,136,447 | … | … | … | 225 | 1,713 | 1,938 |
1882 | 6,833,442 | … | … | … | 287 | 1,677 | 1,964 |
1883 | 5,521,963 | 860 | 11,800 | 12,660 | 313 | 1,759 | 2,072 |
1884 | 5,477,448 | 1,050 | 12,250 | 13,300 | 340 | 1,537 | 1,877 |
1885 | 6,369,341 | 1,125 | 12,250 | 13,375 | 316 | 1,437 | 1,753 |
1886 | 6,314,561 | 1,150 | 12,250 | 13,400 | 381 | 1,781 | 2,162 |
1887 | 6,884,667 | 1,200 | 12,300 | 13,500 | 401 | 1,687 | 2,088 |
1888 | 6,923,775 | 1,250 | 12,300 | 13,550 | 456 | 1,805 | 2,261 |
1889 | 7,742,511 | 1,360 | 2,700 | 14,060 | 480 | 1,790 | 2,270 |
1890 | 8,562,089 | 1,570 | 12,814 | 14,384 | 539 | 1,979 | 2,518 |
1891 | 8,940,867 | 1,740 | 12,900 | 14,640 | 613 | 2,027 | 2,640 |
1892 | 6,658,313 | 1,950 | 13,250 | 15,200 | 684 | 2,172 | 2,856 |
1893 | 7,433.056 | 2,100 | 13,450 | 15,550 | 723 | 1,652 | 2,375 |
1894 | 10,025,534 | 2,200 | 13,500 | 15,700 | 711 | 1,580 | 2,291 |
1895 | 7,146,772 | 2,400 | 13,700 | 16,100 | 852 | 2,019 | 2,871 |
1896 | 8,515,640 | 2,850 | 13,800 | 16,650 | 900 | 1,605 | 2,505 |
1897 | 10,985,040 | 3,250 | 13,900 | 17,150 | 999 | 1,793 | 2,792 |
1898 | 11,435,368 | 3,550 | 13,900 | 17,450 | 1,254 | 2,211 | 3,465 |
1899 | 9,459,935 | 3,950 | 14,150 | 18,100 | 1,415 | 2,217 | 3,632 |
1900 | 10,266,527 | 4,368 | 15,104 | 19,472 | 1,523 | 2,350 | 3,873 |
1901 | 9,675,771 | 5,500 | 11,700 | 20,200 | 1,583 | 1,964 | 3,547 |
1902 | 10,827,168 | 6,400 | 15,000 | 21,400 | 2,017 | 2,066 | 4,083 |
1903 | 10,045,615 | 6,900 | 15,100 | 22,000 | 1,958 | 1,966 | 3,924 |
1904 | 13,679,954 | 7,650 | 15,200 | 22,850 | 1,889 | 2,046 | 3,935 |
1905 | 10,804,556 | 7,631 | 16,056 | 23,687 | 2,140 | 2,139 | 4,279 |
1906 | 13,595,498 | 8,995 | 16,255 | 25,250 | 2,373 | 2,536 | 4,909 |
1907 | 11,375,461 | 9,528 | 16,847 | 26,275 | 2,411 | 2,574 | 4,985 |
1908 | 13,587,306 | 10,201 | 17,304 | 27,505 | 2,187 | 2,352 | 4,539 |
Fiscal Year, ending June 30— | Exports. (domestic) | Imports. | Unmanufactured silk imported. | Imports of crude rubber. |
Dollars. | Dollars. | Pounds. | Pounds. | |
1800 | … | … | … | … |
1810 | … | … | … | … |
1820 | … | 7,812,326 | … | … |
1830 | 1,318,183 | 5,774,013 | … | … |
1840 | 3,549,607 | 6,504,104 | … | … |
1850 | 4,734,424 | 20,781,346 | … | … |
1851 | 7,241,205 | 22,164,442 | … | … |
1852 | 7,672,151 | 19,689,496 | … | … |
1853 | 8,768,894 | 27,731,363 | … | … |
1854 | 5,535,516 | 33,949,503 | … | … |
1855 | 5,857,181 | 17,757,112 | … | … |
1856 | 6,967,309 | 25,917,999 | … | … |
1857 | 6,115,177 | 28,685,726 | … | … |
1858 | 5,651,504 | 18,584,810 | … | … |
1859 | 8,316,222 | 26,976,381 | … | … |
1860 | 10,934,796 | 33,215,541 | … | … |
1861 | 7,957,038 | 25,271,382 | … | … |
1862 | 2,946,464 | 8,890,119 | … | 2,125,561 |
1863 | 2,906,411 | 14,121,589 | … | 5,104,650 |
1864 | 1,456,901 | 14,341,501 | 407,935 | … |
1865 | 3,451,561 | 9,223,686 | 288,286 | … |
1866 | 1,780,175 | 27,502,194 | 567,904 | … |
1867 | 4,608,235 | 19,302,005 | 491,983 | … |
1868 | 4,871,054 | 17,335,406 | 512,449 | 8,438,019 |
1869 | 5,874,222 | 20,481,312 | 720,045 | 7,813,134 |
1870 | 3,787,282 | 23,380,053 | 583,589 | 9,624,098 |
1871 | 3,558,236 | 29,876,640 | 1,100,281 | 11,031,939 |
1872 | 2,304,330 | 35,307,447 | 1,063,809 | 11,803,437 |
1873 | 2,947,528 | 35,201,324 | 1,159,420 | 14,536,978 |
1874 | 3,095,840 | 28,193,869 | 794,837 | 14,191,320 |
1875 | 4,071,882 | 27,738,401 | 1,101,681 | 12,035,909 |
1876 | 7,722,978 | 22,725,598 | 1,354,991 | 10,589,297 |
1877 | 10,235,843 | 18,923,614 | 1,186,170 | 13,821,109 |
1878 | 11,438,660 | 19,081,037 | 1,182,750 | 12,512,203 |
1879 | 10,853,950 | 19,928,310 | 1,889,776 | 14,878,584 |
1880 | 9,981,418 | 29,929,366 | 2,562,236 | 16,826,099 |
1881 | 13,571,387 | 31,219,329 | 2,790,413 | 20,015,176 |
1882 | 13,222,979 | 35,719,791 | 3,549,404 | 22,712,862 |
1883 | 12,951,145 | 38,036,044 | 4,731,106 | 21,646,320 |
1884 | 11,885,211 | 29,074,626 | 4,284,888 | 24,574,025 |
1885 | 11,836,591 | 27,197,241 | 4,308,908 | 24,208,148 |
1886 | 13,959,934 | 29,709,266 | 6,818,060< 384 | |
1891 | 8,940,867 | 1,740 | 12,900 | 14,640 |
1892 | 6,658,313 | 1,950 | 13,250 | 15,200 |
1893 | 7,433,056 | 2,100 | 13,450 | 15,550 |
1894 | 10,025,534 | 2,200 | 13,500 | 15,700 |
1895 | 7,146,772 | 2,400 | 13,700 | 16,100 |
1896 | 8,515,640 | 2,850 | 13,800 | 16,650 |
1897 | 10,985,040 | 3,250 | 13,900 | 17,150 |
1898 | 11,435,368 | 3,550 | 13,900 | 17,450 |
1899 | 9,459,935 | 3,950 | 14,150 | 18,100 |
1900 | 10,266,527 | 4,368 | 15,104 | 19,472 |
1901 | 9,675,771 | 5,500 | 11,700 | 20,200 |
1902 | 10,827,168 | 6,400 | 15,000 | 21,400 |
1903 | 10,045,615 | 6,900 | 15,100 | 22,000 |
1904 | 13,679,954 | 7,650 | 15,200 | 22,850 |
1905 | 10,804,556 | 7,631 | 16,056 | 23,687 |
1906 | 13,595,498 | 8,995 | 16,255 | 25,250 |
1907 | 11,375,461 | 9,528 | 16,847 | 26,275 |
1908 | 13,587,306 | 10,201 | 17,304 | 27,505 |
Fiscal Year, ending June 30— | Manufactures of cotton. | ||
Thousands of bales of domestic cotton taken by mills. | |||
In Southern States. | In Northern States. | Total United States | |
Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | Thou- sands. | |
1800 | … | … | … |
1810 | … | … | … |
1820 | … | … | … |
1830 | … | … | … |
1840 | 71 | 166 | 237 |
1850 | 78 | 497 | 575 |
1851 | 60 | 404 | 464 |
1852 | 111 | 588 | 699 |
1853 | 153 | 650 | 803 |
1854 | 145 | 592 | 737 |
1855 | 135 | 571 | 706 |
1856 | 138 | 633 | 771 |
1857 | 154 | 666 | 820 |
1858 | 143 | 452 | 595 |
1859 | 167 | 760 | 927 |
1860 | 94 | 751 | 845 |
1861 | 153 | 650 | 803 |
ushright">7,813,134
1870 | 583,589 | 9,624,098 | |
1871 | 1,100,281 | 11,031,939 | |
1872 | 1,063,809 | 11,803,437 | |
1873 | 1,159,420 | 14,536,978 | |
1874 | 794,837 | 14,191,320 | |
1875 | 1,101,681 | 12,035,909 | |
1876 | 1,354,991 | 10,589,297 | |
1877 | 1,186,170 | 13,821,109 | |
1878 | 1,182,750 | 12,512,203 | |
1879 | 1,889,776 | 14,878,584 | |
1880 | 2,562,236 | 16,826,099 | |
1881 | 2,790,413 | 20,015,176 | |
1882 | 3,549,404 | 22,712,862 | |
1883 | 4,731,106 | 21,646,320 | |
1884 | 4,284,888 | 24,574,025 | |
1885 | 4,308,908 | 24,208,148 | |
1886 | 6,818,060 | 29,263,632 | |
1887 | 6,028,091 | 28,649,446 | |
1888 | 6,370,322 | 36,628,351 | |
1889 | 6,645,124 | 32,339,503 | |
1890 | 7,510,440 | 33,842,374 | |
1891 | 6,266,629 | 33,712,089 | |
1892 | 8,834,049 | 39,976,205 | |
1893 | 8,497,477 | 41,547,680 | |
1894 | 5,902,485 | 33,757,783 | |
1895 | 9,316,460 | 39,741,607 | |
1896 | 9,363,987 | 36,774,460 | |
1897 | 7,993,444 | 35,574,449 | |
1898 | 12,087,951 | 46,055,497 | |
1899 | 11,250,383 | 51,063,066 | |
1900 | 13,073,718 | 49,377,138 | |
1901 | 10,405,555 | 55,275,529 | |
1902 | 14,234,826 | 50,413,481 | |
1903 | 15,270,859 | 55,010,571 | |
1904 | 16,722,709 | 59,015,551 | |
1905 | 22,357,307 | 67,234,256 | |
1906 | 17,352,021 | 57,844,345 | |
1907 | 18,743,904 | 76,963,838 | |
1908 | 16,662,132 | 62,233,160 |
Development of the Manufacturing Industries in the United States, 1800-1905—Continued.
lass="center r">Cents.Year. | Prices of staple commodities. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Middling cotton per pound.[C] | Standard sheetings per yard.[C] | Washed Ohio fleece wool, per lb., in eastern m’k’ts, July 1. Medium. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cents. | Cents. | Cents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1800 | … | … | … | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1810 | … | … | … | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1820 | … | … | … | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1830 | … | … | 50..0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1840 | … | … |
Decade | Relative Wages |
1800-10 | 55-65 |
1810-20 | 65-70 |
1820-30 | 65 |
1830-40 | 60 |
1840-50 | 60 |
1850-60 | 65 |
1860-70 | 75 |
1870-80 | 95 |
1880-90 | 90 |
1890-1900 | 100 |
Without investigating the validity of the figures too closely, it may safely be affirmed that the movement of wages has been distinctly upward, and that the rise was certainly not less than 50 per cent. For the United States the increase has not been so great, probably because wages started at a higher level. According to the Aldrich report, if wages and prices in 1860 in the United States be taken as 100, relative wages in 1840 were 82.5 and relative prices 98.5; in 1880, they were respectively 143 and 103.4; in 1903, they were 187 and 103. That is to say, relative wages showed a marked advance and real wages, owing to the fact that general prices remained almost stationary, an even greater improvement. So, too, the hours of labor appear to have been shortened in Great Britain about two hours a day (from 10 to 14 hours to 8 to 12), and in the United States probably as much, the average length of the working
In the field of production the most dramatic and striking advances have been achieved. The application of steam and more recently of electricity as the motive power for the newly invented and constantly improved machinery has permitted an enormous expansion of production, which has been made still greater by the opening up of new mines and new lands and improvements in the machinery of transportation and exchange and in the organization of business. Especially in the United States where the natural resources were especially rich and the people energetic and ingenious, has the growth of wealth been marvelous. And yet almost a century after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England, Mill alleged that labor-saving inventions had not lightened the toil of any human being; they have only enabled a greater number to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment. What answer can we make to this indictment today? Why is it that the working class still has so little of this vast increase of wealth and still lives so close to the border line of poverty?
To answer this question thoroughly would require an analysis of the subject of distribution, but a few reasons may be briefly suggested.
One reason then why labor has not profited more by the great increase in wealth is that the other factors in production have laid claim to their shares also. There is good reason for believing, however, that the share of labor has been steadily growing greater all the time, and that it today gets a larger proportion of the social income than ever before. This fact is obscured by the great growth in population, which has more than doubled in the last hundred years in Europe and has shown a twentyfold increase in the United States. The larger income is divided among more people, and though each today gets more than his grandfather, there is not yet enough produced to make all rich. Indeed, if the wealth of the United States were divided equally, it would not provide a competence for anybody. The difficulty is not merely that there is inequality in distribution, but that the need of a much greater production of wealth must also be met. Inequalities may be adjusted by such measures as progressive inheritance taxes, but resort to this or similar methods must not be so severe as to weaken the motives for the accumulation of capital. That must form one of the strongest reasons for rejecting the drastic proposals of socialism.
Improvements in production have, however, not merely increased the total output; they have greatly reduced the
The task of prophecy is usually a fruitless one, but at least it is now possible for us to indicate some of the lines along which reform is needed, and the goal towards which the future of progress will probably move. The natural resources of the nation must be more carefully conserved and reckless destruction prevented; at the same time the monopolization of limited resources by private individuals or corporations must be rigidly restricted. The growth of trusts seems but the last step in a steady growth in size of the business unit and may be accepted as an economical method of industrial organization, but the evils of corporate financial management must be carefully guarded
Reforms in our banking and currency laws, an extension of banking facilities to the working classes, the more careful regulation of railroad rates, reforms in methods of taxation, and a reduction in the tariff—all are called for by the development and readjustment of industry. On the other hand, much remains to be done in the education of the mass of the people to habits of rational living and enjoyment. In the great cities housing conditions should be effectively regulated, sweatshops suppressed, intemperance discouraged, and where possible a love of art and outdoor life promoted. A more rational use of income would increase the material well-being of the people considerably. Problems of distribution are still more insistent. No one who has the welfare of the laboring classes or of our democratic society at heart can view with approval the existence of widely separated classes, with disproportionate political and economic power. Greater equality in fortunes—a leveling up of incomes—must certainly be regarded as a sound social ideal. On the other hand, we have seen reason to reject the drastic remedies of socialism as a cure for the injustices of present methods of distribution or production. Improvement must come by conservative
MANUFACTURING.
BY O. P. AUSTIN.
[Chief of Bureau of Statistics, Department of Commerce and Labor. Native of Illinois. Engaged in newspaper work on arriving at manhood, and so continued in Chicago, Cincinnati and Washington, as reporter, editor and Washington correspondent, until appointed Chief of the Bureau of Statistics in 1898. Author of many official monographs, including: “Commercial Orient,” “Commercial Porto Rico, Hawaii and Philippine Islands,” “Commercial Alaska,” “American Commerce,” “Submarine and Land Telegraphs of the World,” “Transportation Routes and Systems of the World,” “National Debts of the World,” “Great Canals of the World,” “Colonies of the World and Their Government,” “Colonial Administration,” “Territorial Expansion of the United States,” etc., etc. Also author of publications for instruction of youth in national and international affairs. Member of American Academy of Political and Social Science, American Association of Geographers, American Economic Association, International Union for Comparative Jurisprudence and Political Economy, Central Statistical Commission of Belgium, Associate Editor National Geographic Magazine; Lecturer.]
INTRODUCTION.
The production of manufactures for the requirements of the world’s population is conducted in a comparatively small section of its land surface. Just as the manager of a great estate devotes one section of his estate to the production of certain articles, and other sections to certain other articles, so the great business instinct which rules the business of the world carries on in its various sections the varied industries best suited to the physical, ethnological and financial conditions of its various sections.
The people of western Europe and eastern United States are, for various reasons better able to produce the manufactures required by the world than are those of South America, Africa or the Orient; while, on the other hand, the people of South America, the Orient, Australia, Canada, the western part of the United States or the eastern part of Europe are better able, for various reasons, to produce the raw materials of manufacturing and the food supplies required by those engaged in the manufacturing industry than are the people of western Europe or eastern United States. South America and Australia produce wool in large quantities; Africa and the Amazon Valley produce the chief supply of india rubber; the Malayan peninsula and adjacent islands produce the bulk of the world’s tin; India produces jute; the Philippines, Manila hemp; Mexico,
The manufacturing industries of the world—confining this term for the moment to those industries in which the great proportion of the work is performed by machinery—are conducted chiefly in, it might almost be said confined to, western Europe and eastern United States. True, the exclusive application of the word “manufactures” to that portion of the world’s product of this character made by the use of machinery in conjunction with large sums of capital—the factory method—carries one beyond the original meaning of the word “manufactures,” which primarily meant, of course, made by the hand (from manus, the hand; and facere, to make); but the industrial habits of the world have also passed beyond that stage in which manufacturing for the masses is carried on by hand methods.
It must not be understood from this that all of the world’s manufactures are produced in western Europe and eastern United States, or produced by modern machine methods in conjunction with the investment of great sums of money—the factory system. On the contrary, large quantities of manufactures are still produced by hand in various parts of the world other than those in which manufactures by modern machine methods are a leading characteristic of the occupations of the people. Nor must it be assumed that the areas designated as the non-manufacturing sections are entirely dependent upon the manufacturing sections for their manufactures. On the contrary,
But the statement is still true, that the great manufacturing areas of the world—the areas which give their chief attention, or the continuous attention of a large part of their population, to the production of those requirements of man other than the natural products and do this through the application of power, machinery and capital, and the operations thereof under the factory system, are western Europe and the eastern part of the United States, though the systems which prevail there are gradually extending to other parts of the world—eastern Europe, central, southern and western United States, Japan, India, Australia, Canada and South America.
As to the relative share of the world’s manufactures now produced by the use of machinery, power and capital—the factory method—and by the hand process, respectively, no exact statement can be made; nor are there facilities for even offering an intelligent estimate of the relative production by these two methods. There is reason to believe that two-thirds of the cotton cloth consumed in China is still made by the hand process, and if this be true it may be estimated that perhaps two-thirds of the
This brings us to a consideration of the exchanges of the world—the exchanges of natural products for the products of the factory. This exchange, as already intimated, occurs chiefly in the requirements of the manufacturing section—raw materials and food—for manufactures. Western Europe, the great manufacturing section of that grand division, does not produce cotton, jute, or a sufficient supply of wool, silk, or hemp. For its india rubber, its tin, its copper and the numerous articles of tropical production required for manufacturing, it is dependent wholly or chiefly upon other parts of the world. The United States, while producing a large share of the world’s cotton and copper and iron, and a considerable supply of wool, must rely upon other parts of the world for its hemp and jute and sisal and india rubber and silk and many other of its tropical requirements. As a result the Orient exchanges its raw silk, its jute, its Manila hemp, its tin,
Thus the business intelligence that rules the world, adapting one to another those various conditions which prevail in its varying sections, has built up in certain sections of its great area—Europe and the United States—a great factory system, operated by the great supplies of power (coal) which there exist in conjunction with the wealth, the intelligence, the climatic conditions and the quality of population, which system, besides supplying its own six hundred millions of people with their own requirements, sends to the other ten hundred millions of people in other parts of the world its surplus products and takes in exchange the natural products, the manufacturing material and food required by its own people and its own industries.
George J. Chisholm, in the Introduction to Bartholomew’s Atlas of the World’s Commerce, outlines the history of the development of manufactures and the relation thereof to commerce as follows:
“In the latter part of the eighteenth century there took place in England a number of inventions which have brought about a change in the conditions of manufacturing industry and of commerce, and an acceleration of the rate of the economic development of the world, to which all previous history presents no parallel or approach to a parallel. It is a change that has affected the entire world,
I. MODERN MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD.
The manufacturing systems of the world have developed from mere hand and household industries to those of the machine and factory in less than two centuries. For thousands of years the simple requirements of men—of clothing, of domestic life, of agriculture and of transportation—were met with articles produced by hand labor, performed for the greatest part in the household or in simple workshops adjacent thereto. Then, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, man discovered that he could harness the power of the waterfall and, by making the wheels which it turned turn other wheels, could utilize that power in performing many tasks which he had hitherto performed laboriously by hand. The turning wheels twisted the wool and flax and cotton into threads stronger and finer and better than his wife had been accustomed to twist with the spinning wheel and distaff, and produced in a single day as much of this yarn as a hundred industrious women could produce in a week or a fortnight. By gearing the wheels to operate a loom he could weave the yarn into cloth with a small fraction of the labor and time which had been required to weave it by the hand loom and obtain better results.
Thus arose the custom of manufacturing by machinery operated by the power of the waterfall the cloth which had hitherto been manufactured by hand labor in the household; this was the beginning of the modern manufacturing industry.
To do this, however, it was necessary to plant the machines beside the waterfall and bring to them the raw material and the persons necessary to operate them, for the machine was unable to perform its task unless assisted by the intelligent labor and guidance of experienced men and women. Thus arose the system of performing in a
This new system developed new occupations. The buildings in which the work was carried on must be constructed. The machinery required for operating the factory must be made and kept in repair, and new machines made to take the place of those worn out. So there came occupation for mechanics and skilled machinists in manufacturing and repairing the machines, and for others skilled in operating them. The material used in manufacturing the cloth must be transported to the factory, instead of being used at the place where it was grown as formerly; and the cloth must again be transported to the consumer; and thus there were new occupations for man and beast in transportation and in constructing and maintaining the roads over which the material was transported. Still another, and equally important, industry developed was that of supplying the food and other requirements of the men and women engaged in the factory, and this gave new activity to the agricultural industries near the factory and further occupation to those engaged in transportation.
To supply the wants of those employed in the factories, who were so busily engaged that they could not find time to grow their own food, or make their own clothing, other enterprising men and women established themselves near the factory to sell the required food and household supplies, to supply the fuel with which they cooked their daily food, to buy small portions of the cloth made in the factory and turn it into clothing to sell to the operatives, to shave their rough beards and occasionally trim their hair—and thus arose the factory town.
Meantime man was learning another important lesson, one which was to develop even more rapidly the art of manufacturing. He found through a long series of experiments that power could be generated by heating water until it turned into an expansive vapor which he called steam, and that this expansive force could be controlled in such manner as to put in operation a machine which he called the steam engine, which could in turn transmit its power to that machinery formerly operated exclusively by the power of the waterfall.
This discovery again revolutionized the manufacturing industry, which had hitherto been limited in the scope of its operations by the supply of water power so located that the raw material could be transported to it and the finished products in turn transported thence to market. With this new force, steam, by which the manufacturing machinery could be made entirely independent of the waterfall, the factories were located at points convenient to the natural supply of fuel and manufacturing material or to the market for the finished products. Where this was not practicable the factories were located at places to which the materials could be readily and cheaply carried by water transportation, either on some navigable stream or the sea-coast.
Thus the application of steam to manufacturing and transportation multiplied the power of production. The area over which it could be performed was greatly enlarged, the cost of materials was reduced through cheaper transportation, new devices and processes were developed as a result of the competition, cheaper raw material was obtained from countries where plentiful supplies and cheap labor give low prices, and the opportunity of locating the factory near the place of production or at some convenient meeting point between the various places of production—all these contributed to reduction of cost and increase of supplies of material of manufacture. The great iron and steel works of western Pennsylvania, and northern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, for example, are located not at the iron mines or the coal fields, but at places between these two fields to which these materials can be cheaply carried from their respective places of production. The iron ore is chiefly produced in the Lake Superior region and carried at a very low cost by vessels especially constructed for this purpose to the southern shores of Lake Erie. The coal is chiefly produced in western Pennsylvania and central Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The cost of transporting the coal from the mine to the lake shore, or the ore from the lake shore to the mine, or both coal and ore to some mutually convenient meeting point by river or canal or railroads constructed for this purpose across a comparatively level country, is extremely small, less in many cases than that of carrying material to the waterfall which is not infrequently located at places difficult of access. The vessels carrying the manufactures of the United States
One very recent contribution to the convenience and cheapness of manufacture is found in the transmission of power in the form of electricity. Formerly the machines of the factory were operated by power obtained from the steam engine or the water wheel through lines of shafting, gearing, belts, friction pulleys, etc. This made it necessary that the factory operated by water power be placed alongside the waterfall, or at least within a comparatively short distance of the source of power. Recent inventions have made it possible to transform power into electricity, carry that electricity hundreds of miles on a wire, and transform it back into power for the operation of the machinery of the factory or the transportation of the raw material or the finished product. This has increased greatly the value of the world’s water power in its relation to manufacturing. Formerly only a small part of the waterfalls of the world were used at all, largely because of their comparative inaccessibility and the cost of transporting the raw material to them and the finished product from them. Now that power, generated at any point, however inaccessible for freight handling, may be transmitted in the form of electricity on a simple piece of wire to any convenient point within a hundred or even two hundred miles of the place of production, and by a simple process applied to the operations of machines small or large, simple or complex, the possibilities of the waterfall in supplying power for the manufacturer are greatly enlarged.
Another possibility of the use of this new distributor of power, electricity, is the multiplying of workshops and the return in some instances and certain articles to household or small shop manufacture. It is now so easy to introduce the electric wire and a small electric motor into the household or the shop adjoining the household and to so operate small machines for the various processes in many of the manufacturing industries, that this new use of electricity for the transmission of power is already making visible changes in the factory systems of the world, and promises still greater changes. In many lines of manufacture in which the machinery occupies small space and requires little power and the quantity of material handled is not great, such as watch and clock making, the manufacture of clothing, boots and shoes, toys, etc., a part or all of the work can now be performed in the household or small shop through the power generated miles away and brought into the workman’s home on a simple piece of wire.
On the other hand the use of electricity in the great factory or manufacturing establishment is equally important. Instead of transmitting the power of the engine to the various classes of machinery by belts, shafting and
Cassier’s Magazine, an accepted authority on engineering matters, publishes with favorable editorial comment, in its issue of September, 1909, a statement by Sylvester Stewart that “we could take out in regions where water power is needed at least a hundred times as much water power as is now employed, furnishing a safer and cleaner power than steam, at a lower cost, and thus prolong the existence of our coal fields. * * * A running stream may be compared to an endless driving belt only awaiting connection to the machinery it is capable of driving, but it has not been appreciated because we have become so familiar with it; if it had suddenly been discovered, doubtless it would have been harnessed immediately. Coal is passing away, but water flows continuously. A hundred thousand horsepower may be taken from a river and its place is still filled, but the coal vein once emptied is emptied forever.” Mr. Stewart adds that probably not one-thousandth part of the water power of the world is now utilized, and that while the greater part of this power is not at present available, because of its existence in out-of-the-way places, or in rivers so deep and sluggish that the energy obtainable from them would cost more than steam power, at least a hundred times as much water power as is now used could be, under present conditions, utilized in a manner to supply it at less than the cost of coal at present prices.
The statements made in this discussion that the great expansion in the production of manufactures came with the adoption of machinery for manufacturing must not be understood as meaning that no machinery was used in manufacturing prior to the period of expansion. Machines have been used in manufacturing for many centuries.
The spinning wheel, used many hundred years ago, was a machine, and so was the hand loom, by which the threads spun by the wheel were woven into cloth. Flax and wool were originally turned into thread by the use of the distaff, a stick to which the spinner attached a small portion of the fiber, and by revolving the stick against his body twisted the fibers into a thread. Then by letting the end of the stick drop downward he drew out the thread, and with another roll of the stick against his body again twisted the fibers and lengthened the thread, which he then wound around the distaff. After many years of this process it occurred to somebody that by setting the distaff in a frame and passing a cord or a piece of rawhide around it and also around a large wheel and turning the wheel he could get a much more rapid and regular revolution of the distaff. This was the beginning of the use of the “machine” in the making of yarn, for the spinning wheel was a machine, of a crude type, to be sure, but a machine. This served many generations of men and women for the manufacture of thread and yarn, from flax, from wool and from cotton.
To turn this thread or yarn into cloth another “machine” was used, the loom, which, by fixing the thread on certain frames and passing other threads back and forth as the frames were raised or lowered, formed the cloth. But this “machine,” the loom, was operated by human power, as was that other machine, the spinning wheel. The women and children spun the thread or yarn, the father
These are pictures of the manufacturing industry in England as late as 1770. “Machines” were in use, but of the simplest type, and all operated by the power of the man or woman using them, or at the best by human or animal power, and in most cases the work was performed in the household or a small shop adjoining the household.
The new and enlarged machines which were thus operated by water power and brought together in factories had been invented chiefly during the eighteenth century. John Kay, in 1738, invented what was known as the flying shuttle, which doubled the amount of weaving which could be performed by one man in a given time. Hargreaves, in
The effect of the development of the machine and factory system, through the devices of these thoughtful men, enormously increased the manufacturing industries of England and later of the other parts of the world. The importations of cotton into England prior to the invention of the spinning jenny averaged less than 2 million pounds per annum. With the invention of the spinning jenny and the water frame the importation of cotton and cotton manufacture quickly doubled and trebled and then grew at such rapid rate that by 1800 the importation was about 40 million pounds, by 1830, 260 million pounds and by 1840 over 400 million pounds. The importation of wool grew from less than 2 million pounds in the latter part of the eighteenth century to 150 million pounds in 1860 and over 700 million pounds in 1890, though in this article of manufacture the growth in importation was less strongly marked than in cotton because of the fact that much of the wool used in manufacture was produced at home, while all of the cotton used was imported.
In the iron and steel industry the growth in the use of machinery was even more closely connected with the great development of recent years than in that of textiles.
This was the process by which men made iron for many generations. But it was a very expensive process, for the quantity of wood which must be used to produce
In the United States the charcoal process was used until a period much later than that of its abandonment in England, for the supplies of timber were very great and men who were clearing the land for use in agriculture were glad to turn the wood into charcoal and find a market for it. The simple charcoal furnace and forced draft by a simple process furnished the iron-making systems of the world until the early part of the nineteenth century. As a result there were hundreds of small furnaces, simply operated, and turning out small quantities of iron, in various sections of the United States. Meantime somebody discovered that if the air which was forced into the furnace was heated before being sent into the fire it would greatly increase the heat-giving power of a given quantity of charcoal or coke, and the hot blast became a part of the larger furnaces. Then it was found that the anthracite coal of the United States was hard enough to bear the weight of the ore and would produce a heat sufficiently intense to melt it; and so a great iron industry developed in the anthracite region of the United States. Then it was found that certain bituminous coal in western Pennsylvania would make excellent coke for the manufacture of iron, and the Connellsville coke became a successful competitor of anthracite coal, and later other cokes were also used. Later came the natural gas discoveries and they contributed to iron making and working. Meantime railways were
While all this was happening—indeed long before the later happenings above mentioned—workers in iron had found that the pig iron coming from the furnaces contained so much carbon that it could not be successfully worked. So they managed to get rid of the carbon, by melting the iron in an open hearth and passing flames over it, and as the carbon is combustible it was gradually burned out. This made soft malleable iron, but not of the consistency to have the required strength or serve the purposes that are now served by steel. To bring it to the proper condition it was necessary to reintroduce a very small quantity of carbon so evenly that both the quantity and the distribution could be determined. This was done for many years by placing the bars of iron in a crucible or other
In all the processes by
“Perhaps the greatest difference between English and American steel works,” said an English writer on this subject, “is the absence of laborers in the American mills. The large and growing employment of propelling and directing machinery is responsible for this. In a mill rolling three thousand tons of rails in a day not a dozen men
These are some of the steps by which the systems of the manufacturing world have been, in the past 150 years, transformed from household work, or that of the small shop, into that of the factory—and the factory developed into enormous establishments through the investment of great sums of money in the purchase and installation of ever-improving machinery, more ingenious, more productive, more costly, but turning out more and better of the finished product with each new device and new investment of capital.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACTORY SYSTEM.
The inventions by which the manufacturing of the world was transformed from the household and the workshop to the great factory were the result of years, generations indeed, of study of conditions one by one as they arose. “No one of the inventions which were greatest in their effect,” says Hobson, “was in the main attributable to the effort or ability of a single man: each represented in its successful shape the addition of many successive increments of discovery; in most cases the successful invention was the slightly superior survivor of many similar attempts. This is the history of most inventions. The pressure of industrial circumstances directs the intelligence of many minds toward the comprehension of some single point of difficulty, the common knowledge of the age induces many to reach similar solutions, that solution which is slightly better adapted to the facts comes out victorious, and the inventor, purveyor or in some cases the robber is crowned as a great inventive genius.”
Much of the wool and flax required in the English industries was produced at home. The colonies supplied the other fibers; the ships returning from their voyages to the colonies brought the raw silk; the absence of mountains to separate the country and the people into districts and classes enabled the interchange of labor and materials; the
It must not be supposed, however, that this transformation was, by any means, instantaneous. It was, in fact, a matter of slow growth, even in the older countries, and still more so in those countries which had not yet developed their natural products or their agricultural industries. In the case of the United States, for example, the transformation from the hand to the machine methods did not come until many years after that of the leading countries of Europe. The reason for this slow movement on
So it is not surprising to see that Mr. Mulhall’s figures show that English manufactures in 1820 were nearly 6 times as much as those of the United States, and in 1840, 4 times as much as those of this country; and even in 1860, considerably exceeded our own. But in the next twenty-year period there came a great change. The Civil War in the United States, with the home demands in the manufacturing section, the North, rapidly developed the manufacturing industries, and the development thus created continued after the close of that unhappy period. So his figures indicate that in 1888, the next date which his table touches, that our manufactures were 1¾ times as much as those of the United Kingdom, and in 1896, 2¼ times as much in value as those of the United Kingdom and half as great as those of all Europe. Accepting the figures of Eugene Parsons, elsewhere referred to, for the European countries in 1904, and accepting the official figures of the United States for that same year, we find that the figures of the value of manufactures in the United States are nearly 3 times those accredited to the United Kingdom and but little less than those of all Europe.
It is proper to say, however, that these statements, whether of Mulhall, Parsons, or other authorities on this subject, are liable to be extremely misleading unless carefully
Taking Mulhall’s figures for the other countries which he includes, as presented in a table on another page of this text, it will be seen that the chief growth in manufacturing during the 116 years covered by the table under consideration has occurred in the last third of the period. English manufactures, he says, grew from 177 million pounds sterling to 290 million in the 40-year period from 1780 to 1820; from 290 to 577 million in the next 40 years, from 1820 to 1860; and from 577 to 976 million in the 36 years from 1860 to 1896—a growth of 113 million pounds sterling in the first 40 years, of 287 million in the second 40 years, and of 400 million in the third period of 36 years. Germany showed a more rapid growth in the third period; the growth in the first 40-year period being from 50 million pounds sterling to 85 million; in the second 40-year period, from 85 to 310 million; and in the third period, of 36 years only, from 310 to 690 million. France has not made as rapid a gain as Germany, the figures showing her products in 1780, 147 million pounds sterling; in 1840, 220 million; in 1860, 380 million; and in 1896, 596 million.
The total of Mulhall’s table, including the somewhat over-estimated figures of the United States, and relating chiefly to the products of Europe and the United States, show total manufactures of all the countries named, in 1780, 480 million pounds sterling; in 1820, 865 million; in 1860, 2,404 million; and in 1896, 5,710 million, again indicating that the chief growth has occurred in the last third of the period under consideration, the period of transformation from the hand industries to those of machine production in conjunction with vast sums of capital and plentiful transportation facilities for collecting the raw material and distributing the finished product.
While certain of the European countries were earlier in the manufacturing field than the United States, the larger population, the greater supply of natural materials, the larger supplies of fuel for cheap power, the ingenuity of the American workman, and the enormous domestic demand of an active and prosperous people, have brought the United States clearly to the head of the list of manufacturing nations. It may safely be said that the value of manufactures produced in the United States is approximately twice as great as that of any other manufacturing nation, and that the stated value of our manufactures is nearly as great as the estimated value of the manufactures of all Europe. The latest official figures on the value of the manufactures of the United States are those of the Census Bureau, which put the value of manufactures produced in the calendar year 1904, as recorded by the Census of 1905, at 16,867 million dollars, including in this an
No other country than the United States takes a periodic census of its manufactures. The United Kingdom is at the present time about taking for the first time a census of its manufactures, but no figures with reference thereto are as yet available. As a consequence all statements regarding the value of manufactures of European countries, or indeed of any country other than the United States, are estimates and estimates only. True, they are based upon certain known facts of quantities of raw materials consumed in manufacturing, values of manufactures exported, and the estimated proportion which these form of the total manufactures; but in no other country than the United States are there available official statements of the total value of manufactures produced in the country in question. Therefore the estimates of the value of the manufactures produced by European countries which are quoted from time to time and which are presented elsewhere in this text, must be accepted as merely estimates. A comparatively recent estimate, and one which has been given wide publicity, and appears to have been generally accepted, is that of William J. Clark, published in The Engineering Magazine in 1904, which put the value of the manufactures of the United Kingdom at 5 billion dollars, Germany 4,600 million, France 3,450 million, Austria-Hungary 2 billion, Russia 1,980 million, Italy 1,700 million, Belgium 750 million. These estimates, if accepted, would bring the value of the manufactures of the countries enumerated to a figure slightly in excess of that officially reported by the Census Office as the value of the product of all manufacturing establishments of the United States in
It is proper, however, before leaving this question of the relative value of the manufactures of the various countries, to again call attention to the fact that the official figures of the value of manufactures produced in the United States include certain articles not classed in certain other countries as manufactures, and in addition to this contain many duplications due to the fact that the products of one manufacturer frequently become the raw material of another, and thus the grand totals which merely combine the stated value of the product of each manufacturer necessarily include a second and in some cases a third valuation of the products thus utilized. The manufacturer of yarn, for example, reports to the Census Office the full value of the product of his factory. The manufacturer of cloth, who utilized that yarn, also reports the full value of the product of his factory, and thus includes in that valuation the value of the yarn purchased by him but already reported by the manufacturer of yarn. The manufacturer of clothing, in stating the value of the product of his factory, includes the sums which he paid for the cloth already reported by the manufacturer of clothing and included in his statement. Thus many duplications occur in our census statement of the gross value of the products of the manufacturing industries of the United States. “This gross value,” says the Census Report of 1900, page cxxxix, “does not represent the final value of the manufactured products of the country. It does fairly represent
When it is further considered that the Census of Manufactures in the United States includes in its list of manufactures all products of slaughtering and meat-packing establishments wholesale, valued in 1905 at 112 million dollars, the product of printing and publishing newspapers and periodicals only, valued at 309 million, and the product of canning and preserving fish, oysters and vegetables, valued at over 100 million—it will be seen that an effort to determine even approximately the share of the world’s manufactures produced by the United States or by the various manufacturing nations of the world is a difficult—an impossible—task.
It may safely be asserted, however, that the United States is the world’s greatest manufacturing nation, and that the value of our manufactures exceeds those of any other country. This is due, as already indicated, to the
The growth of the manufacturing industry in the United States has been phenomenal. Stated in the methods of valuation followed by the census above referred to—the gross valuation—the value of manufactures produced in the United States has been, speaking in round terms, in 1850, 1 billion dollars, in 1860, a little less than 2 billion, in 1870, 4¼ billion, in 1880, 5? billion, in 1890, 9? billion, in 1900, 13 billion, and in 1905, a little less than 17 billion, though the figures usually quoted for 1905 are 14.8 billion, owing to the fact that the Census of 1905 only included factory products, and added parenthetically an estimate of 2 billion as the probable value of the “mechanical and neighborhood industries,” thus bringing up to nearly 17 billion the total properly comparable with
That this rapid growth in the value of manufactures has been far in excess of the consuming capacity of the home population is evidenced by the growth in exportation of manufactures, which aggregated in 1880, 122 million dollars, in 1890, 179 million, in 1900, 484 million, and in 1908, 750 million. Manufactures formed in 1880 but 15 per cent of the total exports, in 1890, 23 per cent, in 1900, 35 per cent, and in 1908, 41 per cent of the total merchandise exported from the United States.
IV. CAPITAL IN MANUFACTURING.
Another factor which entered into the modern system of production, and a very important one, was that of capital. The factory could not be established or operated without considerable amounts of money or its equivalent, credit. The machinery which transformed the raw material into the finished product, the material itself, the very buildings in which the work was performed, the payment for the transportation which brought it together, the wages of the men and women engaged in the work, all required capital, and in large sums. The accumulation of this capital, its management, the keeping of accounts of cost of material and labor and of the finished product, required financial skill and acquaintance in the markets in which this capital could be obtained; for often the sums required were in excess of the quantity possessed by the individual who had invested his all in the buildings and machinery, and must needs borrow of some other capitalist the additional sums required for purchasing material and paying the wages of his workmen. Sometimes the owner of the capital preferred to supply it and take a proportionate share in the earnings of the factory, and thus developed the company. Then, as the business grew and the investments of various men in a single establishment increased,
Thus arose the successors of the individual manufacturer, the company, and the corporation. Man must die and the death of an individual manufacturer, or the manager of a manufacturing firm or partnership, must affect disadvantageously the interests of the factory and its employes. Thus the importance of organizations which would continue unchanged in form and general management in case of the absence or death of any individual. This was one of the reasons for the establishment of the corporation. More important than this was the facility which it offered to holders of capital in sums large or small to invest their money in manufacturing without being compelled to give their individual attention to the industry in which the money was invested. The board of directors, which the investors might choose, managed the business either by personal attention or by the selection of competent and experienced persons for that service, and the investor felt assured that his money would be properly managed by the competent business men forming the board of directors and the experts whom these directors might employ to manage the details. Hence the corporation, under which the manufacturing establishments grew to enormous proportions, employing thousands and tens of thousands of people, and bringing material from the places in which it could be most cheaply obtained, investing money if need be in facilities for transporting and even producing the raw material, and cheapening the cost of production.
Another step which increased the importance of capital as a factor in the great manufacturing industries of the world came in more recent combinations of great corporations, in which a number of great manufacturing establishments agree to operate under one general management,
While these great organizations, made up by placing under one general management a number of great establishments manufacturing articles of like character, are doubtless able to reduce the cost of production and distribution and prevent production in excess of probable demand, it is also true that they are in many cases able to exercise a greater control over prices of labor, of material and of finished product than when operating singly.
Meantime the world’s supply of money for investing in manufacturing, and the industries which contribute thereto, greatly increased. The world’s gold production in the decade ending with 1840 averaged but 13½ million dollars per annum. Then, owing to the gold discoveries in California and a little later in Australia, the production so much increased that the annual average in the decade ending with 1860 was 135 million dollars per annum, or ten times as much as on the average in the decade ending with 1840. For the next 35 years the production averaged about 125 million per annum. Then, suddenly, through the discoveries of great gold deposits in Africa and Alaska, the production began to exceed 200 million per annum, then 300 million, and in 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909 averaged
Gold, unlike most other productions prized by man, is not consumed. It has enduring qualities; and the facility with which it can be transformed without material loss from one form for use to any other required form enables man to retain and accumulate a large part of the products of a long period. The wheat produced in one year is eaten before the next year is ended. The cotton crop of one summer is turned into clothing and worn to rags by the time another crop is ready for the factory and workshop. But the gold is conserved and utilized as money or the basis of money, and the accumulations of the recurring years merely increase the stock of that generally accepted medium of exchange. To be sure a small share, perhaps one-fifth, is used in manufacturing and the arts, and a small percentage lost in various ways; but probably three-fourths of the gold product enters circulation in the form of money or its equivalent, and thus increases very rapidly the world’s money supply.
Meantime the systems built up in the business world by which business is performed with mere pieces of paper which represent the gold and silver accumulations have greatly multiplied the available stock of money; and the ease with which it may be transferred from place to place, from country to country, and from continent to continent also adds to its availability and frequency of use in the world’s transactions. The supply of that article which the manufacturing and business world terms “money,” whether in the form of gold, silver, paper, credits, instruments of exchange, or otherwise, has increased beyond accurate computation. The world’s stock of gold has, according to the estimates of experts, doubled in the last 25 years; and it is probable that the supplies of other forms of currency; which serve as money; have increased quite as rapidly.
Census year. | Establish- ments, number. | Capital, million dollars. | Wage- earners, number. | Wages Paid, million dollars. | Cost of Material, million dollars. | Value of Product, million dollars. |
1850 | 123,025 | 533 | 957,059 | 237 | 555 | 1,019 |
1860 | 140,433 | 1,010 | 1,311,246 | 379 | 1,032 | 1,886 |
1870 | 252,148 | 2,118 | 2,053,996 | 776 | 2,488 | 4,232 |
1880 | 253,852 | 2,790 | 2,732,595 | 948 | 3,397 | 5,370 |
1890 | 355,415 | 6,525 | 4,251,613 | 1,891 | 5,162 | 9,372 |
1900 | 512,254 | 9,817 | 5,308,406 | 2,322 | 7,345 | 13,004 |
1905 | 533,769 | 13,872 | 6,157,751 | 3,017 | 9,498 | 16,867 |
Census year. | Establish- ments, number. | Capital, million dollars. | Wage- earners, number. |
1850 | 123,025 | 533 | 957,059 |
1860 | 140,433 | 1,010 | 1,311,246 |
1870 | 252,148 | 2,118 | 2,053,996 |
1880 | 253,852 | 2,790 | 2,732,595 |
1890 | 355,415 | 6,525 | 4,251,613 |
1900 | 512,254 | 9,817 | 5,308,406 |
1905 | 533,769 | 13,872 | 6,157,751 |
Census year. | Wages Paid, million dollars. | Cost of Material, million dollars. | Value of Product, million dollars. |
1850 | 237 | 555 | 1,019 |
1860 | 379 | 1,032 | 1,886 |
1870 | 776 | 2,488 | 4,232 |
1880 | 948 | 3,397 | 5,370 |
1890 | 1,891 | 5,162 | 9,372 |
1900 | 2,322 | 7,345 | 13,004 |
1905 | 3,017 | 9,498 | 16,867 |
It will be seen from a study of this statement, which compares conditions in the manufacturing industries at each recurring census from 1850 to 1905, that while the number of establishments in 1905 was four and one-third times as many as in 1850 the number of wage-earners was six and one-half times as many, the wages paid twelve and one-third times as much, the value of the product sixteen and one-half times as much and the capital employed twenty-six times as much.
This gives at least a suggestion as to the growth of investment in manufacturing. So far as relates to the United States, the only country for which we have statistics on this subject, the enormous increase in the use of costly machinery in manufacturing has increased the sums required for carrying on the industry, and machinery has in a marked degree been substituted for man in the
Even these figures do not, however, give a complete view of the relative growth in the number of large manufacturing establishments, the capital invested and the product turned out, because of the fact that the census enumeration of “manufacturing establishments” includes hand and household industries, such as blacksmith shops, wheelwright and wagon repair shops, boot and shoe repairers, harness makers, tailor shops, dress making, millinery, carpenter shops, custom, saw and gristmills, etc., etc., in all of which the capital invested or the product per establishment at this time averages probably little more than formerly. It is in the greater establishments, the factories, that the increase in investment and in producing power per factory has occurred. The Census of 1905, which was by law confined to manufacturing establishments conducted under the factory system, and that exclusive of neighborhood and mechanical industries, found that the number of establishments manufacturing for the general market and not merely for local orders or neighborhood consumption, and which could thus be considered as manufacturing establishments conducted under the factory system, was but 216,262, while under the former method of including hand and neighborhood industries the number of establishments would, it is estimated by the census, have been in 1905, 533,769. The 216,262 establishments enumerated as “conducted under the factory system” employed $12,686,000,000 capital and 5,470,321 wage-earners,
It will thus be seen that the larger manufacturing establishments, those “conducted under the factory system producing articles for the general market as distinguished from the product made upon order for a customer,” are those proper to be included in a study of the development, capital invested, persons employed, wages paid, material used and value of the product turned out. Unfortunately a study in this form cannot be extended over any considerable term of years, because of the fact that the United States census only began in 1905 to make this distinction or separation of the true “factory” from the great mass of establishments turning out manufactured products. It did, however, present in 1905 an estimate for the year 1900 of the number of establishments properly comparable with those enumerated in the factory census of 1905. This estimate puts the total number of “establishments conducted under the factory system” in 1900 at 207,562, and in 1905 at 216,262, an increase of but 4.2 per cent in the number, while the capital employed in 1900 was $8,979,000,000, and in 1905, $12,686,000,000, an increase of 41.3 per cent; the wage-earners in 1900, 4,715,023, and in 1905, 5,470,321, an increase of 16 per cent; wages paid in 1900, $1,736,000,000, and in 1905, $2,266,000,000, an increase of 30.5 per cent; materials used in 1900, $6,578,000,000, and in 1905, $8,504,000,000, an increase of 29.3 per cent; value of product in 1900, $11,411,000,000, and in 1905, $14,802,000,000, an increase of 29.7 per cent.
It will thus be seen that even in the recent period, 1900 to 1905, the percentage of growth in “capital invested”
Unfortunately the facilities for comparing the capitalization, product, etc., in 1905 with that of earlier years only extends, in its relation to all the factory industries, to the Census of 1900. In a few of the important industries, however, it is possible to compare conditions in 1900 with those of earlier censuses. The Census of 1900 shows that the number of boot and shoe factories in the United States fell from 1,959 in 1880 to 1,600 in the year 1900, while the capitalization increased from an average of $21,957 per factory to $63,622 per factory, the number of wage-earners from 57 to 89 per factory, the wages paid from $21,951 to $36,985 per factory, and the value of the year’s product turned out from $84,763 per factory to $163,142 per factory. In cotton goods the number of establishments in 1880 was 1,005, and in 1900, 1,055, the capital per establishment in 1880, $218,412, and in 1900, $442,882, the number of wage-earners in 1880, 185 per establishment, and in 1900, 287, the wages paid in 1880, $45,387 per establishment, and in 1900, $80,180, the value of product in 1880, $209,901 per establishment, and in 1900, $362,349. In iron and steel the number of establishments was in 1880, 699, and in 1900, 668, average capital per establishment in 1880, $294,652, and in 1900, $858,371, wage-earners per establishment in 1880, 197, and in 1900, 333, wages paid per
It will be seen from the figures above presented that in these four great industries the tendency from 1880 to 1900 was distinctly in the direction of reduction of the number of factories, and a greater increase in capitalization than in that of persons employed, wages paid or in value of product turned out; while the figures covering the operations of the entire factory system for the period 1900 to 1905 also show a continuation of this same tendency toward a greater growth in capital than in persons employed, wages paid or value of product turned out.
The great increase in the size of the manufacturing establishment and of the capital invested in the manufacturing industry which necessarily followed the adoption of expensive machinery for manufacturing purposes was followed by a tendency toward co-operation and mutual agreements among the great organizations engaged in similar lines of work, the purpose being to reduce expenses, increase profits and control prices. Originally the persons, firms or companies engaged in manufacturing disposed of their products as best they could and in direct competition with others in their own line of manufacture. If the market for their product was good they demanded higher prices. If there was an oversupply they sold for whatever profit they could get, or if necessary at cost or even lower than cost, in order to prevent accumulations of stocks or the closing of their factories. The competition thus grew intense. In order to dispose of their goods they must put
This competition of one manufacturer with another making the same line of goods was not only expensive but resulted in working at cross purposes in many ways, and in loss of energy and money. So certain of the companies or corporations engaged in like industries began to make agreements among themselves by which they could co-operate in distributing their supplies to a given field and reduce the expenses of supplying that field. It was argued that the people of any section would only use a given amount of any standard product, and that the expense which the various manufacturers were incurring in competing among themselves for their respective shares in that trade might be materially reduced by an agreement through which the extraordinary efforts to sell in competition with each other should be abandoned and each manufacturer receive the share of the sales to which his proportion of production would entitle him. Not only would this reduce unnecessary expenses but it would in some degree render possible the maintenance of prices as they might be mutually agreed upon.
The first steps in combinations or agreements of this sort are known as “pools.” “This form of agreement,” says J. Russell Smith, “provides that each of the makers of a certain material for a certain territory should make a stipulated proportion of the product to be sold at an agreed price. If a factory made more than its share the owner made a cash payment to the pool and the money went to some manufacturer who had made less than his share. The weak spot of these pools was their absolute lack of power of coercion and that no member had faith in the others.” Often members took advantage of technicalities to violate the spirit of the agreement, and the agreements were short-lived.
To overcome these defects and create a system of division of production, control of prices and distribution of profits in proportion to the value of the plants co-operating, a new form of agreement was devised. It provided that the companies or corporations entering the agreement for mutual operation and proportionate distribution of profits should transfer the shares of their respective properties to a new corporation with full powers to manage the same, receiving in lieu thereof certificates which should entitle the holder to his proportionate share of the net earnings of the new corporation. “Under this form of organization,” says the Universal Encyclopedia, “the stockholders of each of the separate companies assigned their stock to a few trustees, giving thus an irrevocable power of attorney. In lieu of the stock assigned the trustees issued stock certificates to the stockholders of the separate companies and upon these trust certificates profits were divided. All of the earnings of the different members of the company were pooled and each manufacturer received his proportionate share as evidenced by the certificates, regardless of the question whether his establishment was running or closed. The trustees, having in their hands the voting power of all the stockholders, elected whatever persons seemed to them best as officers of the separate companies. In this way the management was absolutely unified and the interests of all parties concerned became as one. The courts finally holding that this trust agreement was illegal, the plan was later adopted of organizing a new company which should buy up all of the separate plants of the different companies entering the combination, so that in this way a unified management was secured within the law. In order
The advantages of this combination over competition are summed up by the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its 1902 edition, as follows: (1) The cost of selling may be greatly lessened; (2) the salaries of commercial travelers and their traveling expenses can be largely reduced; (3) if different manufacturing establishments, scattered throughout the country, are brought under one management it will be possible for orders for goods to be distributed so that goods can be dispatched to customers in each case from the nearest establishment and freight expenses reduced; (4) when several establishments are combined the most skillful of the managers can be selected for the general manager; (5) each business manager is likely to have some special excellence in his methods of management, and by combining the establishments it is possible to so distribute this managerial skill as to give to each branch of the work the man best suited to its conduct; (6) it is also possible to distribute the various branches of the manufacturing to the various mills or factories of the combination best suited for that particular branch of the work; (7) the advantages of unifying in one establishment the machinery of selling the product of all; (8) the ability of an establishment to fill large orders on short notice gains and retains business; (9) the great financial and business strength and skill of the combined organization gives it special facilities for pushing its goods into foreign markets, as is shown by the success
Whether trusts, through their control of prices of the particular commodities which they manufacture, have actually advanced the selling price to the consumer, has been and is still the subject of much discussion. It has been urged that the mere reduction of the cost of production and distribution which results from the combinations would enable them to realize larger profits than formerly, even if the manufactures are sold at former prices, and that although their profits have doubtless been large it has not been accomplished through an actual advance in prices to the public, but rather through economies of production and sale. Nelson’s Encyclopedia, issued in 1908, discussing this subject, says, “The weight of evidence indicates that, judged from the margin between price and finished product and cost of raw materials, prices are increased somewhat by the existence of trusts. It is a fair conclusion that the actual prices of goods have as a rule been somewhat increased by trusts, although not in the measure that was anticipated at the inception of the trust movement.” The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1902 in discussing this subject says, “Experience seems to show beyond question that whenever the combinations are powerful enough to secure a monopolistic control it has usually been the policy to increase the prices above those obtained during the period of competition which preceded the formation of the combination.”
As to the effect of trusts upon wages it may be said that up to the present time no very strongly marked change is perceptible in the matter of rates of wages paid by the trusts as compared with other employers in the same line. Doubtless the combinations of numerous establishments under one general management have reduced the numbers of employes in certain lines, but in those lines in
An example of the causes and methods of the combination of kindred manufacturing interests under one general central organization is found in the United States Steel Corporation as described by J. Russell Smith, in his “The Story of Iron and Steel.” No industry, he says, is naturally so uncertain and consequently so competitive as the steel industry. The demand for the product is fitful and uncertain because most of it goes into new constructions and new enterprises, and these are notorious for the spurts and depressions of demand which affect them.... The uncontrolled iron and steel market can make wild rises unknown to many commodities, because it is difficult to suddenly increase the amount of manufactures in response to sudden demand. A wave of prosperity sends a thousand industries which must have iron and steel clamoring, begging for steel. When the industrial sky darkens purchases of iron and steel cease as suddenly as they began and the price must tumble if the output is sold. These were the normal conditions through which all steel makers lived down to the depression of 1893-98. The numerous independent
The failures in the attempt at price control resulted in the consolidation of many companies, formerly rivals, under one control. The chief companies which later became members of the United States Steel Corporation formed two distinct groups, each group classified according to the product. One group included the manufacturers of unfinished steel, such as ingots, billets, plates and slabs, and included the Carnegie Steel Company, the Federal Steel Company, and the National Steel Company. Other companies which purchased the product of these manufacturers of unfinished steel and turned it into the finished state included the American Tin Plate Company, the National Tube Company, the American Steel and Wire Company and others. The first thought which came to the minds of this finishing group when hard times compelled them to cut down costs was to cheapen their raw material (such as pig iron, steel ingots, billets, etc.) by becoming manufacturers of their own pig iron. The Carnegie Steel Company had already done this and had obtained facilities for transporting the ore to the coal fields of Ohio and Pennsylvania and facilities for transforming the ore into the classes of material which it supplied. The Carnegie Steel Company thus became independent of other companies in the supply of its fuel, its ore, and the transportation of the same, and all of the requirements of operation. When the finishing companies announced their purpose to also
The new company began business in April, 1901, and a comparison of prices since that date with those of earlier years shows regularity and steadiness of prices rather than any marked decline or advance. “This price-steadying,” says J. Russell Smith, “is of incalculable benefit to the independent manufacturer (as well as to the combinations) even when it limits the heights to which a price spurt will go. Rapidly rising prices start a feverish, intoxicated condition of the market very pleasant while it lasts, but followed by a more unpleasant reaction; therefore the Trust tries to keep sober and keep its little brothers sober also, and all are profiting by the new temperance.... Despite its efforts at control, the Trust is not as near monopoly as it was the day it began. The four full years of its operation, 1902-1905, inclusive, did not indicate any increased share of production. The bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Association shows that during these four years there was an almost universal decline in the percentages of iron and steel products made by the Trust.”
VI. THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
The history of the iron and steel industry of the world forms an excellent example of the recent advance in manufacturing. The manufacture of iron and steel has made perhaps a more rapid advance than have many others, and its development is due in such a marked degree to the use of machinery and the investment of large sums of capital in the industry that a detailed study of the history and causes of its development seems justified.
Pig iron is the basis of all iron and steel manufacturing, in whatever form, and the record of production of this single article gives at least a suggestion of the growth in the other lines of the industry, the growth in production
Great Britain was the world’s greatest pig iron producer in 1800 and in 1850. In 1800 she produced 41 per cent of the world’s pig iron, and in 1850, 50 per cent. By 1895, however, she had begun to take second place, the United States standing at the head of the list of pig iron-producing countries at that time, the product of Great Britain forming 27 per cent of the world’s total and that of the United States 32 per cent. In 1903 the United States showed a still greater lead in this industry, producing in that year 39 per cent of the world’s total product; while Germany, which held a low rank as a producer in 1800 and 1850, actually exceeded Great Britain in 1903, producing 22 per cent of the world’s total, while Great Britain produced but 19 per cent of the total. Great Britain’s production grew from 190,000 tons in 1800 to 8,935,000 tons in 1903; Germany, from 40,000 tons to 10,085,000 tons; the United States, from 40,000 tons to 18,009,000 tons; and all other countries, from 190,000 tons to 9,352,000 tons. In 1800 the United States produced but 9 per cent of the world’s pig iron; in 1903, 38 per cent; and in 1907, 41 per cent.
It will be seen from these figures that the greatest growth in the world’s pig iron production has occurred in the United States.
Turning from the comparison of growth in pig iron production in the leading iron-producing countries of the world and comparing the growth of the iron industry in the United States with that of other manufacturing industries,
This increase in value of the various classes of iron and steel products does not by any means show the actual increase in quantity produced, because of the fall in prices meantime. Practically all of the important classes of iron and steel products have fallen greatly in price as the quantity produced has increased. Pig iron, for example, averaged $33 per ton in 1870, and $18 per ton in 1908; steel rails, $107 per ton in 1870 and $28 per ton in 1908; bar iron, rolled, $79 per ton in 1870 and $38 per ton in 1908; and cut nails, 4.4 cents per pound in 1870 and 2.2 cents in 1908. The iron ore production in the United States grew from 3 million tons in 1870 to 52 million in 1907; pig iron, from 1.6 million tons to 26 million; and from 69 thousand tons in 1870 to 23 million tons in 1907.
The tendency to concentrate the production of manufactures into great establishments is also strikingly shown in the record of the iron and steel industry in the past few years. The census figures show the number of establishments in the United States in the group, “Iron and steel, including blast furnaces, steel works and rolling mills” at 1,005 in 1880, 645 in 1890, 668 in 1900, and 605 in 1905. The 1,005 establishments in 1880 produced 297 million dollars’ worth of the product; the 645 establishments in 1890 produced 431 million dollars’ worth; the 668 establishments in 1900 produced 804 million dollars’ worth; and the 605 establishments in 1905 produced 906 million dollars’ worth of the product. Thus the average production per establishment was, in round terms, in 1880, $296,000 worth; in
That the iron and steel industry is especially suited to production in large establishments is indicated by the fact that the value of the product of the steel works and rolling mills of the United States in 1905 averaged nearly four times as much per establishment as that of those engaged in cotton manufacturing.
Even these figures of value of product per establishment at the various dates and in the various industries do not, by any means, measure the degree of concentration of the industry which has come in recent years, because of the fact that under the most recent methods, many of the establishments are managed in groups, many large mills or factories which were considered by the census as separate establishments being, in fact, combined under one management, as is shown in another part of this work in which trusts and combinations are discussed.
The manufacture of iron and steel is older than history. The material is so widely distributed over the surface of the globe that man in every part of the world and in nearly every stage of civilization long since learned its value. There is evidence that it was known to the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Babylonians, the Israelites, the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans. Caesar found the Britons in possession of iron weapons which they had made, and the Scandinavians of that period were also acquainted with its manufacture. The people of Spain seem to have been early and successful workers in iron and steel, if the wonderful stories about the swords and other weapons of the early history of that country are to be believed.
Iron, wherever found in the native condition, is so mixed with rock, dirt and other foreign matter that it can only be utilized by heating and hammering or rolling until the pure iron is separated from the foreign substances. Originally the method seems to have been to heat the ore in fires built on the ground until it became softened, and by hammering it in this condition work out the foreign substances. Then man found that by building the fire in a hole at the top of a hill and leaving an opening at the bottom so that air could be forced into it, the heat could be intensified. Then he learned to build up a wall of mud and stones with an opening at the bottom, and by placing in it alternate layers of charcoal and iron ore and forcing in air at the bottom with rude bellows similar to those now used by blacksmiths, he was able to heat the ore until the iron melted and ran together into a mass which he worked into the steel with which the famous “Toledo
Meantime the making of iron began to develop in the United States. The early colonists found ore in Virginia and New England. Small quantities of pig iron were made in Virginia within a few years after the settlement of Jamestown, and in the latter half of the century New England began manufacturing iron from bog ore and charcoal made in the forests which were then so plentiful. Most of these early iron furnaces were “bloomaries,” merely heating the iron so that it formed a lump of 100 to 200
The history of the early iron industry in Massachusetts is not materially different from that of others of the colonies and early settlements. Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and the Carolinas all had numbers of small furnaces capable of making from a half ton to two or three tons of iron per day. They used charcoal altogether as the fuel, and it was estimated in Virginia and Maryland that for one furnace of average size four square miles of woodland and 100 slaves were required. The fact that there were then no means of transportation other than pack trains and that iron was too heavy to transport any considerable distances, encouraged every neighborhood to sustain its furnace and forge, and from these local factories of pig iron and iron bars the local blacksmith and others who aided him in supplying local wants drew their supplies. It is probable that the number of furnaces and forges in the United States at the beginning of the nineteenth century was much greater than at the end of the century, though the product of 1800 was but 40,000 tons of pig iron, against 14,000,000 tons in 1900 and 26,000,000 tons in 1907.
Meantime the English iron manufacturers had learned to smelt the ore with coke instead of charcoal. The quantity of wood required to make charcoal for smelting the ore
With iron being made by the use of anthracite coal and coke made from bituminous coal, the people began to realize
So, with the advent of the railway and the steamship the methods of iron making changed. The railway and the river or lake steamer could carry the finished product at such low cost that it was no longer necessary that each county should make its own iron, and more than that, they could carry the ore and the limestone and the coal or coke to any place convenient for assembling these necessary materials and distributing the finished product.
This combination of the raw materials and the manufacture of the iron in a few great establishments instead of many small ones encouraged the use of machinery in manufacturing. Machines were wanted for handling the ore, for handling the coal, for handling the limestone, for handling the molten material which issued from the furnace, and for turning it into the finished form, sometimes
The iron as it leaves the blast furnace is not in a condition in which it can be used for manufacturing. It contains so much carbon and other impurities that it is brittle and breaks easily. This condition is similar to that of the “blooms,” or chunks of metal which came from the early furnaces and which had to be refined by laborious processes of reheating and hammering until the impurities were worked out.
Before the year 1800 it had occurred to somebody in England that if flames could be forced across the surface of the molten iron and the iron kept in a state of constant agitation the flames would burn out the carbon. This was accomplished by making an open hearth to contain the molten material and “puddling” the iron as the flames were forced across the surface. Then a series of grooved rollers was devised, between which pieces of partially cooled iron could be passed and repassed, and this machine process worked out the “slag” and other impurities which had been formerly worked out with hammers. This puddling and rolling began in England before the year 1800 and “the puddle and the grooved roll,” says J. Russell Smith, “closed the era of the blacksmith’s supremacy and opened the era of machine manufacture.” It was an adaptation of these methods and combination of them with the concentration of the material at convenient centers that proved the beginning of the machine-manufacturing methods in the United States at a considerably later period than in England.
The most notable step in developing the use of iron, however, was that by which it was quickly and cheaply turned into the reliable form known as “steel.” As already explained,
This process of burning out the carbon and other impurities from the molten iron by forcing air and thus combining the oxygen of the air with the carbon of the iron, although it seems to have been devised almost simultaneously by Kelly in the United States and Bessemer in England, is usually denominated the “Bessemer process,” and while Kelly obtained certain patents and a half million dollars for his invention, Bessemer also obtained other patents and it is said ten millions of dollars for his.
The process of transforming iron into steel by the Bessemer process is described by Herbert N. Casson in “The Romance of Steel,” as follows:
“A converter is a huge iron pot twice as high as a man. It is swung on an axle, so that it can be tilted up and down. Although it weighs as much as a battalion of five hundred men, it can be handled by a boy. About thirty thousand pounds of molten iron are poured into it; and then, from two hundred little holes in the bottom, a strong blast of air is turned on, rushing like a tornado through the metal. Millions of red and yellow sparks fly a hundred feet into the air.
“The converter roars like a volcano in eruption. It is the fiercest and most strenuous of all the inventions of man. The impurities in the iron—the phosphorus, sulphur, silicon and carbon—are being hurled out of the metal in this paroxysm of fury. The sparks change from red to yellow; then suddenly they become white.
“‘All right!’ shouts the grimy workman in charge.
“The great pot is tilted sideways, gasping and coughing like a monster in pain. A workman feeds it with several hundred pounds of a carbon mixture, to restore a necessary element that has been blown out. Then it is tilted still farther; its lake of white fire is poured into a swinging ladle and slopped from the ladle into a train of huge clay pots,
Discussing the importance of the discovery of the method by which common iron is thus cheaply and quickly transformed into steel, J. Russell Smith, in his “The Story of Iron and Steel,” says:
“Archaeologists and ethnologists agree that before the dawn of datable history a milestone of progress was marked when our ancestors had, at enormous cost, won a pound or so of iron per capita and begun the iron age. The keen analyst of the present, seeing our railways, our ships, our cannon, our sky scrapers, has erected another milestone, and this he calls the Age of Steel.
“The close of the Civil War found the iron-making world in full possession of the Bessemer process of converting that metal into steel.... The variety of uses for this metal is absolutely beyond enumeration.... Within the space of a generation we have increased our iron consumption fourfold.... This is the age of power. Man has changed his economic and social conditions in that he has harnessed the forces of nature to make them do his work. Our main dependence, thus far, has been upon fuel, chiefly coal. The power in the form of the steam generated in the boiler is kept imprisoned in iron pipes until released in the steel cylinder, where a steel piston drives forward a steel rod, which communicates the force to a steel fly wheel, turning on a steel shaft, and sending the power away to various places where man wishes to use it.
“Portable engines, entirely made of iron and steel, are drawn about the country, or move themselves and carry
“It is therefore natural to expect that the blast furnace should be among the most thoroughly organized and most highly developed pieces of mechanism yet devised. It is certainly the most fearful of all man’s creations, and considering the character of the process which goes on within it and its unapproachable heat, it is under a wonderful degree of control. At the present time, the blast furnaces are a hundred feet high, consist of a great iron stack lined with some nonfusible material, and when in operation are filled
The iron obtained by this Bessemer process, by which the carbon and other impurities are burned out, is, when it leaves the converter and cools, merely soft, malleable iron, and to transform it into steel there must be re-inserted a small but fixed and definitely determined amount of carbon. “Steel,” says J. Russell Smith, “is simply a mixture of iron with a small amount of carbon, very intimately and evenly associated in its mass. The carbon content of steel varies from .40 per cent to 1.50 per cent. Steel making is, therefore, a process of mixing carbon and iron in proper proportions. Inasmuch as it cannot be made satisfactorily in a puddling furnace, by reducing the carbon to a proper point and then stopping the furnace, it has been found necessary to burn the carbon all out, making wrought iron, and then working it back to steel by recarbonizing under such conditions that the carbon can be controlled. The iron, after having all of its carbon and other impurities burned out by the Bessemer process, is raised to steel by having thrown into it spiegel
“The steel for the greater industries is shaped in a rolling mill. It comes from the Bessemer or open-hearth converter molded into a great billet like a piece of a large wooden beam, and this billet is carried red-hot to a so-called soaking pit, where the tongues of a flame from a gas-fire keep it heated until it is ready to start on its journey through the mills. This soaking pit is the starting point of many roads through the mill. It goes off in one direction, and successive rollers squeeze it, crush it, and lengthen it into steel rails, in which form it emerges a thousand feet away. Other sets of rolls make the billet into flat beams for bridges or elevated railways. A third set of rolls, also starting near the soaking pits, send the product out of the distant door of the steel mill in the form of great flat plates to make the boiler of a locomotive, or a marine engine, or the sides of a steamship, and yet other sets of rollers will make square rods which finally pass under heavy shears and are chopped into pieces called billets or blooms. These pieces of steel are the raw material for other mills which may make wire, nails, or manufacture steel of any other of a thousand forms. Some billets are as big as cord wood, some no larger than lead pencils—thus it passes out into the manifold world of manufacture.”
Cotton manufacturing is an important illustration of the growth in the textile industries of the world during the period in which the use of machinery has multiplied the producing power of man in the industrial lines. In all lines of textile manufacture the growth has been rapid, but especially so in cotton, which has made greater gains in the work of supplying man with the necessary requirements of life, in clothing for his body and the comforts of life, than other branches of the textile industries and than many other branches of manufacture. Mulhall estimates the consumption of cotton by all nations at 303 million pounds in 1800 and 5,900 million pounds in 1896; wool, 460 million pounds in 1800 and 2,400 million pounds in 1896; flax, 600 million pounds in 1800 and 200 million pounds in 1896; silk, 30 million pounds in 1800 and 50 million pounds in 1897. It will be seen from these estimates that the growth in consumption of cotton has been far in excess of that of any other of the important fibers. Cotton consumption in 1896 was, according to these figures, 5,900 million pounds, against 303 million in 1800, or practically 20 times as much in 1896 as in 1800, while wool consumption is set down at 2,400 million pounds in 1896, against 460 million in 1800, or only about 5 times as much in 1896 as in 1800; while in the other materials used in textile manufactures the growth has been much less than that of cotton.
Before entering upon a discussion of the growth in cotton manufacturing and the causes thereof, it is proper to say that the value of all textile manufactures in the principal countries of Europe has, according to Mulhall, grown from £96,000,000 in 1800 to £660,000,000 in 1896, and in the United States, from £3,000,000 in 1800 to £188,000,000 in 1896, the value of textile manufactures produced in Europe having thus increased about sixfold in the period in question, and in the United States about sixtyfold. It is apparent
The disposition to increase production through enlargements of existing factories rather than by the establishment of new ones, or the combination of existing factories as an offset to the establishment of new ones, is indicated by the fact that the total number of establishments, which was reported in 1880 at 1,005, was, in 1905, but 1,154, an increase of about 12 per cent in the number of establishments, while capital was increasing nearly 200 per cent, the value
Great Britain is in proportion to population the greatest cotton-manufacturing country of the world. She was earliest in the field as a manufacturer, developing that industry while the countries of continental Europe were engaged in wars and while the United States, now the leading producer of cotton, was developing her agricultural industries and had scarcely as yet entered upon the development of her manufacturing possibilities. The United States, by far the largest producer of raw cotton, ranks second as a manufacturer of cotton goods.
Accurate estimates of the relative standing of the various countries in the manufacture of cotton are difficult, almost impossible, especially in view of the fact that no country other than the United States takes a periodic census of its industries. There are, however, three ways by which the production of cotton manufactures in the various countries can be approximately measured: first, by the number of spindles in cotton mills; second, by the quantity of cotton used; and, third, a method which has been suggested in some quarters, a measurement of the quantity or value of cotton goods exported. This, however, would not give at all an accurate picture of the quantity produced, since the population of the cotton-manufacturing countries varies so greatly and, what is more important, the habits of life, the climatic conditions, and therefore the quantities of cotton cloths and cotton manufactures of various sorts used by their respective populations renders the third method of estimate of little value. Even the first and second methods mentioned—the determination of the number of spindles and the determination of the quantity of cotton used—do not, by any means, give an accurate picture of the relative quantity or value of cotton goods manufactured. In the United States, where cotton is plentiful, much larger quantities of cotton are used per
It will be noted that although the number of spindles in the cotton mills in the United States was but 25¾ million, against 52 million in Great Britain, or about half as many in the United States as in Great Britain, the quantity of cotton used in the United States was greater than
The textile industry of the United States, according to census reports, represented in 1900 investments amounting to 1,043 million dollars, employed 661,000 wage-earners, paid 209 million dollars per annum of wages, used 521 million dollars’ worth of materials, and turned out products valued at 931 million dollars. The number of establishments was 4,312. Cotton manufactures formed a larger share of these enormous totals, both as to investment, wages paid, and value of products, than did any other of the manufacturing industries included under the general term of textiles. The value of cotton manufactures in 1900 was 339 million dollars, while that of wool manufactures was 297 million; silk manufactures, 107 million; hosiery; and knit goods, 95 million; and flax,
“Textiles,” or “textile fabrics,” may be properly described as stuffs made by weaving together of threads of any sort to produce a material with a nearly solid surface. “A fishing net,” says the Encyclopedia Americana, “is not a textile, because the cords which compose it are not woven together but merely cross one another at equally distant intervals and are strongly knotted at those points. But mosquito-netting is a textile, although very open, because the threads are merely held by their own friction.” Textiles in the usual sense are made of the twisted fibers spun into thread of flax or linen, cotton, hemp, jute, silk or wool, woven together by the use of a loom. “The general nature of a loom,” says the above quoted authority, “is that the threads of the warp are divided into two sets, one of which is thrown upward, while the other is thrown down, and at the same moment a shuttle carrying a thread of the woof is driven through between the two sets of warp
The above description of the method of producing textiles is sufficiently elaborate for a study of this character. The methods of producing brocades, satins, velvets and other elaborately figured textiles of any sort may be studied
The fact that cotton is, as has been already shown, the most important of the textile industries, utilizing larger sums of capital, turning out greater values of product, distributing its products over a wider area and to a larger number of people than any other of the textiles, justifies a somewhat more elaborate discussion of this industry and its development during the period in which the manufacturing industries of the world have been transferred from hand labor to that of machines, and in which capital has come to form so important a factor in production.
The manufacture of textiles from cotton is, like that of iron and steel, “older than written history.” The art of cotton spinning and weaving is believed to have been practised in India, still a great cotton-producing section of the world, from 20 to 30 centuries ago. From India the production of cotton and manufacture of cotton goods moved westward into Persia, thence to the area immediately east of the Mediterranean, then to Egypt, and even southern Europe. The Moors are said to have introduced the cultivation and manufacture of cotton into Spain during their control of that section of Europe, but the cotton-manufacturing industry which existed at Seville, Cordova and Grenada fell into decay after their expulsion from Spain and was only resumed after the British, followed by the French and Germans, had developed the art of manufacturing cotton goods by machine methods. While the manufacture of yarn or threads from cotton declined in Spain, it later made its appearance in Italy in the fourteenth century and in Germany, Prussia, the Netherlands and England in the sixteenth century, and France in the seventeenth century, but it was not thought practicable to manufacture cloth exclusively from cotton until toward the close of the eighteenth century, the cotton yarn being used only for woof, while the warp used in conjunction therewith
Prior to the latter part of the eighteenth century all cloths, whether of wool, cotton, silk, or flax, were manufactured by hand labor. The natural fabrics were, as described elsewhere in this work, spun into threads by the use of the simple spinning wheel, chiefly by the labor of women who were termed “Spinsters.” The threads thus obtained were made into cloth by the use of a loom upon the general principles above described, but of extremely simple design and operated solely by human power. Up to this time the making of threads or yarn and their transformation into cloth by the weavers, chiefly men, kept pace fairly with one another, the supply of thread or yarn being about equal to the demand by the weavers. “One good weaver,” says Dr. Ure, “could keep three active women at work spinning weft. In operating the loom, the shuttle which carried the thread back and forth between the raised and lowered sections of the warp was thrown back and forth with the hand, which required a constant extension of the hands to each side of the warp. In 1738 John Kay, an Englishman, devised a system by which the shuttle was thrown back and forth by means of strings attached at opposite ends of the lathe in which the shuttles ran, enabling a weaver to double the amount of cloth which he could manufacture within a given space of time, thus making the demand for yarn in excess of the supply.” “It was no uncommon thing,” says a writer on that subject, “for a weaver to walk three or four miles in a morning, and call on four or five spinners, before he
This stimulated active minds in those industries to devise some method for increasing the facilities for turning the wool or cotton or flax into the needed yarn, and James Hargreaves, a weaver, devised about 1764 a machine which he called the “spinning jenny,” in which were set eight spindles in a frame put in motion by a single wheel, and by moving backward and forward a moveable carriage containing a horizontal clasp to hold the material being twisted into threads, the quantity of yarn which one person could produce in a given length of time was greatly increased. Subsequently the number of spindles in the frame was increased to 20 or 30, and in time to more than 1,000. Hargreaves kept this invention secret for a time, using it merely to manufacture yarn for his own weaving, but it finally became known and the spinners of the neighborhood, believing that it would throw many out of employment, broke into his establishment and destroyed the machine. He, however, retired to Nottingham, erected a small mill and took out a patent for the “spinning jenny,” and in time it became to be an established method of manufacturing yarn and in a more elaborate form is the principal factor in the manufacture of cotton yarns in the great factories today, the number of spindles which a modern machine of this character now uses being often in excess of 1,000, instead of the 8 utilized by the original spinning jenny.
Meantime another method was being utilized and brought into operation, by which a stronger yarn could be produced. It seems to have been originally devised by John Wyatt, of Birmingham, England, and operated upon a system entirely different from that of the jenny. “The method adopted,” says Ellison, in his “Cotton Trade of Great Britain,” “was to pass the cotton through pairs of small grooved rollers placed horizontally, the upper and
“With the invention of the jenny and water frame,” says Ellison, “commenced a new era in the history of the cotton trade; in fact, so far as Europe is concerned, it may be said that the history of the cotton manufacture, as a separate and distinct industry, began with the invention of these two machines; for until the introduction of Arkwright’s contrivance for spinning by rollers, it was impossible to produce a piece of cloth composed wholly of cotton.”
Still another important device for use in the manufacture of cotton cloths was the “carding machine.” Originally the raw cotton was prepared for spinning by the use of brushes made of short pieces of wire instead of bristles, the wire being stuck into a sheet of leather at a certain angle, the cotton being spread upon one piece and combed with another until the fibers were laid straight, when it was ready for the use of the spinner. In 1748 a carding machine was devised to supersede the hand process,
Another device which added greatly to the manufacturing possibilities with reference to cotton was the invention by Eli Whitney in America of the cotton gin, a machine for stripping the cotton fiber from the seeds and technically called the “gin,” probably a contraction of the word engine. It performs its work through the operation of a series of revolving saws which come in contact with the cotton through openings sufficiently narrow to prevent the passing of the seeds but permitting the fibers torn therefrom to pass downward into a receptacle, while the seeds, freed from the fiber, pass through another opening and are subsequently utilized in the manufacture of oil; though this utilization of the seeds did not develop until long after the cotton gin had become an important factor in the cotton-manufacturing industries of the world.
True, other branches of the textile industry have also benefited by the application of machine methods of spinning and weaving similar to those above described; but no other important textile has seen such a remarkable growth under the stimulus of machine production as has cotton. Even as late as 1830 the cotton consumed by those sections of the world for which statistics are available only amounted to about 500 million pounds, against 8,500 million in 1907, while, as already indicated, a pound of cotton under present conditions of manufacture produces probably twice as much of a given line of manufactures as a century ago. When it is remembered that the population of the world has only doubled since 1830 and the consumption of cotton is 17 times as great as at that time, the relative growth of cotton consumption to population will be seen to have been very great.
The above figures relating to consumption of cotton and to comparison of present consumption with that of a
The relative growth in the manufacture of cotton in recent years by the principal countries in which this industry has developed is indicated by the fact that the quantity of cotton consumed in Great Britain in 1887 was 2,955,000 bales and in 1907, 3,900,000 bales; that of the continent of Europe, in 1887, 2,912,000 bales, in 1907, 5,460,000 bales; in the United States, in 1887, 1,939,000 bales,
With this elaborate use of machinery and increase of cotton production, manufacture and consumption, has come great reduction in cost of production and in prices. “In the last half of the nineteenth century,” says S. N. D. North, late Director of the Census, in the Encyclopedia Americana, “there was an increase in value of textile products in the United States of about six times and not less than ten times if it were possible to measure this product by quantity instead of by value. Even the largest figures convey an inadequate idea of the relative importance of our textile mills in the industrial economy of the nation, for those mills supply the materials for a great group of subsidiary factory industries, such as the wholesale clothing manufacture, etc. When we aggregate these, and add to them the value of the products of the linen, jute, hemp, and bagging mills of the country, we find that the product of our textile mills is larger in value than that of any single line of related industries, iron and steel excepted. The decrease in the cost of goods during the last half of the century has been one of the most striking phases of the development. This decrease is due—in some measure, of course, to the decreased price of the raw materials, but in even larger measure to the remarkable advance in methods of manufacture—to the new and more perfect machinery employed, in the invention of which American mechanical genius has contributed certainly as much as that of any other people, and perhaps more. All the fundamental inventions in spinning-machinery were of English origin. The French and Germans have also done much in the invention of labor-saving textile machinery,
The Census of 1905 shows the value of cotton manufactures of the United States in 1850, 62 million dollars; in 1860, 115 million; in 1880, 192 million; in 1900, 331 million; and in 1905, 442 million; the capital invested in 1850, 75 million dollars; and in 1905, 605 million; the wages paid in 1860 (no figures for 1850), 24 million dollars; in 1905, 94
A marked characteristic of the cotton industry of the United States in recent years has been the gradual movement of the industry away from New England, where it was originally established, toward the cotton-producing section, the South. The number of cotton-manufacturing establishments in the New England States fell from 439 in 1880 to 308 in 1905, while those in the South increased from 161 to 550 in the same time. The number of spindles as shown by the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor, in the Northern States as a whole, increased from 10 million in 1880 to 17? million in 1908, while those in the Southern States increased from a little over a half million in 1880 to over 10 million in 1908. In the principal cotton-manufacturing countries of the world the increase in spindles during the last decade has been as follows: Great Britain, from 44½ million in 1897 to 52 million in 1907; continental Europe, from 30? million in 1897 to 36 million in 1907; the United States, from 17 million to 25¾ million; India, from 4 million to 5? million; and Japan, from a half million to a little over 1½ million. The 36 million cotton spindles in continental Europe are, according to Ellison, distributed as follows: Germany, 9 million; Russia and Poland, 7 million; France, 6 million; Austria-Hungary, 3¾ million; Italy, 3 million; Spain, 2¾ million; Switzerland, 1½ million; Belgium, 1? million, and the remainder distributed among Switzerland, Holland, Portugal and Greece.
VIII. THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES OF THE UNITED STATES.
The fact that this story of the world’s manufactures is intended primarily for the information of people of the United States, coupled with the further fact that the United States is itself the world’s largest producer of manufactures, seems to justify a somewhat detailed study of the manufactures of this country, the growth of the manufacturing industry, and especially the part which they bear in our foreign commerce. Originally the United States, like all new countries, devoted its attention chiefly to agriculture. The products of the soil are man’s first requirements. He must have food. When he obtains food his next thought is of clothing, but that he can obtain temporarily from the skins of the beasts whose bodies supply him with food. So the production of manufactures was of secondary importance in the early development of that part of the North American Continent which is now known as the United States. The eastern part of the area being densely wooded, the work of the first and second and third generations of our forefathers was to fell the trees and prepare the ground for agriculture for the production of the wheat and corn and other foodstuffs which they must have to sustain life. If there came as a result a given quantity of potash and pearlash and leather and other manufactures of this crude type which could be utilized by the people or exported to foreign countries they accepted this thankfully, but made no special effort to develop the manufacturing industry. During the colonial days little effort was made in the development of manufacturing, except to supply the household requirements. The housewife spun and wove the wool and flax into threads and cloth, and a large part of the population was clothed in “linsey-woolsey,” produced in this manner. Even during the period of the Confederation, which immediately
1. Skins.—Tanned and tawed leather, dressed skins, shoes, boots and slippers, harness and saddlery of all kinds, portmanteaus and trunks, leather breeches, gloves, muffs and tippets, parchment and glue.
2. Iron.—Bar and sheet iron, steel, nail rods and nails, implements of husbandry, stoves, pots and other household utensils, the steel and iron work of carriages, and for shipbuilding, anchors, scale beams and weights, and various tools of artificers, arms of different kinds; though the manufacture of these last has diminished for want of a demand.
3. Wood.—Ships, cabinet wares and turnery, wool and cotton cards and other machinery for manufacture and husbandry, mathematical instruments, coopers’ wares of every kind.
4. Flax and hemp.—Cables, sail cloth, cordage, twine and pack thread.
5. Bricks and coarse tiles and potters’ wares.
6. Ardent spirits and malt liquors.
7. Writing and printing paper, sheathing and wrapping paper, pasteboard, fullers’ or press papers, paper hangings.
9. Refined sugars.
10. Oils of animals and seeds, soap, spermaceti and tallow candles.
11. Copper and brass wires, particularly utensils for distillers, sugar refiners and brewers; andirons and other articles for household use, philosophical apparatus.
12. Tinware for most purposes of ordinary use.
13. Carriages of all kinds.
14. Snuff, chewing and smoking tobacco.
15. Starch and hair powder.
16. Lampblack and other painters’ colors.
17. Gunpowder.
In addition to the industries above enumerated, which were carried on as regular trades in many localities, Mr. Hamilton went on to describe—“a vast scene of household manufacturing, which contributes more largely to the supply of the community than could be imagined without having made it an object of particular inquiry—” and he continues—
“Great quantities of coarse cloths, coatings, serges and flannels, linsey-woolseys; hosiery of wool, cotton and thread; coarse fustians, jeans and muslins; checked and striped cotton and linen goods; bed ticks, coverlets and counterpanes; tow linens; coarse shirtings, sheetings, toweling and table-linen, and various mixtures of wool and cotton, and of cotton and flax are made in the household way and, in many instances, to an extent not only sufficient for the supply of the families in which they are made, but for sale, and even, in some cases, for exportation. It is computed in a number of districts that two-thirds, three-fourths and even four-fifths of all the clothing of the inhabitants are made by themselves. The importance of so great a progress as appears to have been made in family
The “manufactories carried on as regular trades,” and included in Mr. Hamilton’s category, says the U. S. Census Report of 1900, comprised such as would naturally spring up in a new country to supply the immediate necessities of the inhabitants, together with those whose materials were most abundant and inviting. Agricultural implements and other tools of industry were made in quantities fully equal to the demand. Firearms were also made. The dressing of skins, especially tanning, had become an important industry, and was carried on both in establishments exclusively devoted to the purpose, and by many shoemakers and farmers as a subsidiary occupation. The number of brewers and distillers was remarkable, and nearly the entire domestic demand for beverages was supplied by home production. Sawmills, gristmills, brick kilns, wool-carding mills, and fulling mills existed in great number, but always on a small scale, supplying only local needs. The manufacture of paper, which had been a successful colonial industry, also supplied the domestic requirements, and several glass works existed. “Iron works have greatly increased in the United States,” said Mr. Hamilton, “and are prosecuted with much more advantage than formerly.”
Such was the general condition of our manufactures at the opening of the nineteenth century. Although some progress in this direction has been made, the occupations of the people were chiefly agricultural; commerce was becoming a factor of constantly increasing importance in the development of the industrial resources of the country, while manufactures occupied the third and subordinate position.
In 1810 Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, in response to a resolution of the House of Representatives of June 7, 1908, made a report which is an admirable summary of the condition of American manufactures at that date. Secretary Gallatin estimated that in 1809 the value of the products of American manufactures exceeded $120,000,000. Tench Coxe’s estimate, based upon the returns obtained at the Census of 1810, was $198,613,471. The censuses of 1810, 1820, 1830 and 1840 gave certain figures on the manufacturing industries of the United States, but they did not approach the completeness of the censuses of recent years, and the figures of those earlier records must be accepted only with this view of their incompleteness. Tench Coxe, as already shown, estimated the real value of the manufactures of 1810 at a little less than 200 million. The censuses of 1820 and 1830 were confessedly incomplete and their showing of manufactures does not compare favorably with the Coxe estimate for 1810. In 1840 the value of the manufactures was put at about 500 million dollars; in 1850, at one billion; in 1860, a little less than 2 billion; in 1870, 4¼ billion; in 1880, 3? billion; in
It must be remembered, however, that these figures of the value of the manufactures of the United States are “gross values,” or, in other words, contain many duplications, as explained elsewhere, and that the net or real value of the manufactures of the country was but two-thirds of the figures above named. Even this estimate which puts the net or true value of the manufactures of the country at about two-thirds of the census gross valuation still leaves the United States so far in the lead that there can be no doubt that it is the greatest manufacturing nation of the world. Tables printed elsewhere in this text show that her production of manufactures is, even under an acceptance of the “net” value and an exclusion of certain articles not classed as manufactures by other countries, far in excess of that of any other country.
The growth by industries cannot be shown in detail in a work of this character. Suffice to say that every line of manufactures is now produced in the United States, save only those in which the work is wholly, or chiefly, performed by hand labor. The growth of the more important industries, such as iron and steel, textiles, etc., is pictured in sections devoted to those industries, and an outline of the growth in the principal articles is shown in the table on another page which presents official figures of the number of factories, persons employed, capital invested and product turned out in the principal manufacturing industries of the country in 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1905.
The increase in the production of manufactures in the United States, far in excess of home requirements, has forced our manufacturers to seek markets in other parts of the world for their surplus product. The result has been a rapid increase in the exportation of manufactures.
That this growth has been especially marked in recent years is shown by the fact that the actual increase by decades in exports of manufactures has been as follows: During the decade ending with 1830, 1.8 millions; 1840, 5.8 millions; 1850, 7.8 millions; 1860, 25.2 millions; 1870, 21.6 millions; 1880, 51.8 millions; 1890, 57.2 millions; 1900, 305.9 millions; and during the eight years ending with 1906, 265 millions. Thus the growth of exports of manufactures in the eighteen years following 1890 was practically three times as great as that of the entire seventy years preceding that year.
Exports of manufactures from the United States now exceed 750 million dollars per annum and have doubled in value in a single decade. Not only has the exportation of manufactures doubled in a decade, but the share which products of the factory form of the total exports is steadily increasing. In 1880 manufactures formed but 15 per cent of the total exports of domestic products; in 1890 they formed 21 per cent, in 1900, 35 per cent, and in 1908, 41 per cent.
With the rapid increase of population in the United States, and therefore of the consumption of natural products,
In the decade ending with 1905 exports of manufactures from the United States increased 198 per cent, while those from Germany increased 75 per cent, those from the United Kingdom 40 per cent, and those from France 25 per cent. This rapid increase in the exports of manufactures from the United States has brought her to the third rank in the list of the world’s exporters of manufactures. The four greatest producers of manufactures for exportation and the value of manufactures exported by each of them in 1906 are as follows: The United Kingdom, 1,400 million dollars; Germany, 1,000 million; the United States, 700 million; and France, 500 million.
To Europe the exports of manufactures from the United States in 1892 was 76 million dollars, in 1901, 213 million, and in 1908, 368 million. To North America the exports of manufactures from the United States in 1892 were 33 million dollars, in 1908, 189 million; to Asia and Oceania the total was 25 million dollars in 1892 and 112 million in 1908; to Africa, in 1892, less than 4 million dollars, in 1908, more than 10 million; to South America, in 1892, 17 million, in 1908, 72 million. Considering the distribution by principal countries, it may be said that the total
Considering the exports by great articles or groups of articles, it may be said that manufactures of iron and steel as a group form the largest item in the exports of manufactures, having grown from 52 thousand dollars in 1800 to 322 thousand in 1830, 1 million dollars in 1850, about 6 million in 1860, 13 million in 1870, 25 million in 1890, 121 million in 1900, and 184 million in 1908. Mineral oils form the second largest item among the groups of manufactures, having grown from 30 million in 1870 to 98 million in 1908. Copper manufactures rank third, the total exports having grown from 1½ million dollars in 1860 to 2? million in 1890 and 104 million in 1908. Leather and its manufactures have increased their exportations from 1½ million in 1860 to 6¾ million in 1880, 12 million in 1890, 27 million in 1900, and 41 million in 1908. Exports of agricultural implements have grown from 1 million dollars in 1870 to 4 million in 1890, 16 million in 1900, and 24 million in 1908. Thirty articles or groups of articles exceeded 1 million dollars in the value of their respective exports in the fiscal year 1908. Of these thirty groups now exceeding 1 million dollars each in value annually, not one aggregated as much as a million dollars in 1820, and only three groups exceeded 1 million in 1850; in 1860 eight groups exceeded each 1 million; in 1880 the number of groups exceeding 1 million in value was 13; in 1890, 20; and in 1908, as already indicated, 30 exceeded 1 million each in the value of their annual exportations.
A study of the production in the United States of a few of the great articles which form the basis of manufactures and the manufacturing industries offers ready explanation of the great increase in the production of manufactures and the consequent marked increase in the exportation of manufactures. Six great articles supply the principal requisites for manufacturing, viz, iron, copper, wood, cotton, wool, and coal as the material which supplies the power by which they are first assembled and afterwards converted into manufactures. The production of pig iron in the United States which up to 1880 had never reached 4 million tons, was by 1890, 9 million; in 1900, 13½ million, and in 1907, 25 million. Of steel, the production in the United States in 1880 for the first time exceeded 1 million tons; in 1890 it exceeded 4 million tons; in 1900, more than 10 million, and in 1907, more than 23 million. Of copper, for which the demands of the world are now
Of the six great articles here enumerated as the chief requisites of manufacturing, the United States is the world’s largest producer of all except wool. Of cotton, the United States produces three-fourths of the world’s entire supply; of copper, fully one-half; of pig iron and steel, the United States produces 40 per cent of the world’s entire supply; and in 1907 produced more than Germany, the United Kingdom, and Belgium combined, these three countries being, in the order named, the world’s next largest producers of pig iron. Of timber and wood suitable for use in manufacturing, the United States is the world’s largest producer at the present time. Of wool, the United States is only exceeded in its production by Australasia, Argentina and Russia, its total product being in 1901, 302 million pounds against 360 million in Russia, including Poland, Argentina, 370 million, and Australasia, 510 million.
Proportionately the growth in exports of manufactures has been even greater than that in production of manufactures. The census figures show that the gross value of manufactures produced in 1850 was, in round terms, 1 billion dollars, and in 1905, nearly 17 billion, so that the product of 1905 may be said to be about seventeen times as great as that of 1850; while the exportation of manufactures, which in 1850 was $17,580,456, was in 1908, $750,000,000, or forty-two times as great as in 1850, indicating that the percentage of growth in exportation has been more than twice as great as that in the production of manufactures.
Of the articles which form the great and growing export trade of the United States, those grouped under the term “manufactures” number over two hundred distinct articles, though many of these are included within the special groupings, such as agricultural implements, iron and steel manufactures, mineral oils, leather and its manufactures, etc. The group agricultural implements, for example, is subdivided into mowers and reapers, plows and cultivators, and “all other,” the latter term including numerous articles which are not of sufficient value to justify at present a separate statement. The group cotton manufactures includes cloths colored and uncolored, wearing apparel,
Taking up the various groups or classes, and with them the articles which are not subdivided, it may be said that thirty general articles show a total exceeding $1,000,000 in the exports of recent years. Exports of iron and steel manufactures as a whole amounted in 1908 to 184 million dollars; manufactured or refined mineral oils, 99 million; copper manufactures, 100 million; cotton manufactures, 25 million; leather and its manufactures, 27 million;
Tracing the more important of these articles through the period from 1790 to 1908 it may be said that iron and steel manufactures, which began their record in 1790 with a total exportation of $117,060, did not reach $1,000,000 until 1840, when the total export was $1,127,877. Even in 1850 it was only $1,953,702, but by 1860 was $5,870,114; in 1870, $13,483,163; in 1880, $14,716,524; in 1890, $25,542,208, and in the decade from 1890 to 1900 it increased nearly fourfold, the total for 1908 being $183,982,182 against $25,542,208 in 1890. The growth in the exportation of manufactures of iron and steel has been more strongly marked than that in any other important article of export except copper. It has been coincidental with the development of the great iron mines of the United States and the production of pig iron and steel.
The next article in the order of its magnitude in our exportations is refined mineral oil, which only became an article of export after the great oil discoveries in the decade 1860-1870. Its first appearance in the list of exports was in 1864, in which year the total amounted to $6,918,502, the small quantities exported in preceding years not having separately enumerated in the list of articles exported. The value of the exportations of mineral oil increased very rapidly, the total for 1864 being slightly less than 7 millions; for 1865, nearly 10 millions; 1866, over 18 millions; 1867, 22 millions; 1870, 30 millions; 1880, 34 millions; 1890, 44 millions; 1900, 68 millions, and 1908, 99
Leather and manufactures thereof grew from 1½ million in 1860 to 6½ million in 1880, 12½ million in 1890, 27 million in 1900, practically 30 million in 1902, and 42 million in 1909. Agricultural implements have also shown a rapid increase in exportation. In 1870 they amounted to only 1 million dollars in value; in 1880, to a little over 2 million; in 1890, nearly 4 million; in 1900, 16 million; and in 1902, 16¼ million.
Chemicals, drugs, dyes, etc., formed the largest single item of exports in 1790, pot and pearl ashes being then the principal article in the list, and have slowly but steadily increased, reaching a million dollars in 1830, 2½ million in 1870, 5½ million in 1890, 12 million in 1902, and 21 million in 1908. It is proper to add that in the later years patent medicines, which are included under this general
Considering the grand divisions and countries to which we send this $750,000,000 worth of manufactures exported from the United States, it may be said that literally every country of the world is a purchaser of American manufactures. In each grand division and in every country of the world the manufactured products of the United States are being consumed in steadily increasing quantities and varieties; and this consumption of the products of the manufacturing establishments of the United States by other parts of the world is a voluntary one, and not an “invasion” in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term. The growth in the consumption of American manufactures in other parts of the world is quite as voluntary as is the consumption of American flour, or meat, or cotton. This is illustrated by the fact that, while the iron and steel manufacturing establishments have been unable to meet the orders of the home consumers, and, therefore, have made little effort to “invade” other markets, more than $184,000,000 worth of iron and steel manufactures was exported in 1908, presumably, in most cases, to fill orders from other parts of the world. The fact that the home demand for iron and steel manufactures was in 1907 so great as to more than double the importation of iron and steel manufactures
The large share which manufactures form in the exports of the United States is shown by an analysis by the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor of the trade, by articles and groups of articles, with every country and grand division of the world. These figures show that manufactures formed 86 per cent of exports to South America in 1906, 85 per cent of the exports to Oceania, 75 per cent of the exports to Asia, 66 per cent of the exports to Africa, 62 per cent of the exports to North America, while even to Europe manufactures formed 27 per cent of the total domestic merchandise sent in the fiscal year 1906.
Of the 75 million dollars’ worth sent to South America, 72.4 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 14.02 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. Of the 105 million dollars’ worth sent to Asia, 65.79 was manufactures ready for consumption and 9.14 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. Of the 35 million dollars’ worth sent to Oceania, 72.97 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 11.78 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. Of the 20 million dollars’ worth sent to Africa, 58.79 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 6.85 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. Of the 295 million dollars’ worth exported to North America, 50.46 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 11.37 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. Of the 1,189 million dollars’ worth of domestic merchandise sent from the United States to Europe in 1906, 12.72 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 14.06 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing.
Thus, more than one-half of the domestic merchandise sent out of the United States to each grand division except Europe goes in the fully manufactured form, ready for consumption; in the case of South America and Oceania practically three-fourths, in the case of Asia practically two-thirds,
Taking up the principal countries, the figures of the Bureau of Statistics show that 11.85 per cent of the exports of the United Kingdom was manufactures ready for consumption and 11.22 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. Of the exports to Germany, 10.98 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 12.96 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To France, 12.67 per cent of the exports was manufactures ready for consumption and 18.44 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To Canada, 48.8 per cent of the exports was manufactures ready for consumption and 13.1 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To Mexico, 58.77 per cent was manufactures ready for consumption and 11.61 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To Cuba, 45.94 per cent of the exports was manufactures ready for consumption and 9.31 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To Argentina, 79.93 per cent of the exports was manufactures ready for consumption and 18.67 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To Brazil, 72.9 per cent of the exports was
Foodstuffs and manufacturers’ material form the larger share of the merchandise sent to Europe and a considerable percentage of that sent to North America, while to the other grand divisions neither foodstuffs nor raw material for manufacturing form any considerable per cent of the total. To Europe, foodstuffs (chiefly wheat flour, corn and meats) formed 36.3 per cent of the total merchandise sent in 1906, while raw materials for use in manufacturing (chiefly cotton) formed 36.83 per cent of the total, the remainder being, as above indicated, manufactures ready for consumption or manufactures for further use in manufacturing. To North America, foodstuffs formed 20.23 per cent of the total and manufacturers’ raw material 16.12 per cent. To South America, foodstuffs formed 13.32 per cent of the total and manufacturers’ raw material less than 1 per cent. To Asia, foodstuffs formed 13.83 per cent and manufacturers’ raw material 11.2 per cent, this larger percentage of the raw material being due chiefly to sales of raw cotton to Japan. To Oceania, foodstuffs formed 9.65 per cent of the total and manufacturers’ raw material 4.96 per cent. To Africa, foodstuffs formed 28.39 per cent of the total exports and manufacturers’ raw material 5.86 per cent.
Taking up the analysis of exports to other parts of the world, the figures show that of the exports to the United Kingdom 34.07 per cent was crude materials for use in manufacturing; 27.29 per cent foodstuffs partly or wholly manufactured, including in this group flour, meats, dried and preserved fruits, etc.; 15.46 per cent foodstuffs in a crude condition, and food animals; 13.1 per cent manufactures for further use in manufacturing, and 11.85 per cent manufactures ready for consumption. Of the exports to Germany, 48.28 per cent was crude materials for use in manufacturing; 19 per cent foodstuffs partly or wholly manufactured; 8.65 per cent foodstuffs in a crude condition, including
Summing up this study of the share which manufactures formed of the exports of the United States to the principal countries and grand divisions in 1906, the figures show that 151 million dollars’ worth of manufactures ready for consumption went to Europe, 149 million dollars’ worth to North America, 69 million dollars’ worth to Asia, 54 million dollars’ worth to South America, 26 million dollars’ worth to Oceania, and 11 million dollars’ worth to Africa; while of the manufactures for further use in manufacturing 167 million dollars’ worth went to Europe, 33 million to North America, 10 million to South America, 10 million to Asia, 4 million to Oceania, and a little over 1 million dollars’ worth to Africa. Thus while manufactures formed but a comparatively small percentage of the exports to Europe because of the large quantities of foodstuffs and raw material demanded by that country, they actually aggregated a greater sum than the manufactures sent to any other of the grand divisions, though in the other cases the percentage which manufactures formed of the total was much larger than in the trade with Europe.
Even with this large production of manufactures in the United States it may safely be said that less than one-tenth
The Census of 1905 shows the gross value of the factory product of manufactures in 1904 at 14,802 million dollars, and estimates the value of all other manufactures, mechanical and neighborhood, at about 2 billion, making the gross value of all manufactures produced in the United States in 1904, 16,867 million dollars. This gross valuation, however, includes many duplications, because the products reported by one manufacturer often become the manufacturing material of another, who also includes their cost in the report of the value of the products of his factory. By deducting from the gross valuation the value of this manufacturing material used in a partly manufactured form, the Census Office states the net or true value of the manufactures of the country in the census year. This process reduced the valuation of the factory product of 1904 from the gross figure of 14,802 million, to a net valuation of 9,821 million; and an application of the same method of reduction to the non-factory manufactures would place the net value of all manufactures in 1904 at 10,892 million dollars. The Census of 1900, which reported the gross value of all manufactures in 1899 at 13,014 million dollars, places the net value for that year at 8,371 million.
The Bureau of Statistics’ figures show that the exportation in the year ending June 30, 1905, of all articles classed by the census as manufactures, amounted in value to 895 million dollars, a sum which equals 8.2 per cent of the 10,892 million estimated as the net value of all manufactures
Even these figures, which show that the valuation of manufactures exported equals 8.2 per cent of the valuation of the manufactures produced, and that the valuation of the manufactures imported equals 5.3 per cent of the valuation of the manufactures produced, are, however, only approximate, in an attempt to determine the true relation of imports or exports of manufactures to the home production. The valuation of manufactures, supplied to the Census Office, by the various manufacturers, states the value of the product at the place of production; while the Bureau of Statistics’ figures of exportations state the wholesale market value of the article at the port from which exported. Thus the stated values of the articles exported are doubtless in most cases higher than the stated values of the same articles at the place of production since the cost of transportation and dealers’ profits are presumably added in the valuations at which the domestic merchandise in question is wholesaled at the various ports whose current prices determine the valuation placed upon the articles when exported. On the other hand, the values of the imported articles quoted by the Bureau of Statistics are by law “the actual market values or wholesale prices of such merchandise in the principal markets of the country whence imported,” and if freights and profits are added to this figure the valuation at the point where it actually enters the United States would be somewhat in excess of that quoted. Thus the value of manufactures produced are those of the place of production, the figures of exports are those of the wholesale markets of the port from which exported, and those of importation are those of the wholesale market of the country
The share exported of the manufactures of the country seems to have slowly but steadily increased. The gross valuation of manufactures produced was, speaking in very round terms, in 1850, 1 billion dollars; in 1860, 1¾ billion; in 1870, 4¼ billion; in 1880, 5? billion; in 1890, 9?% billion; in 1900, 13 billion; and in 1905, 16¾ billion. Reducing these gross valuations to net value at the same ratio as that indicated by the census reduction of 1900, the net value of manufactures in 1850 would stand at ? of 1 billion dollars, in 1860 at 1¼ billion, in 1870 at 2¾ billion, in 1880 at 3½ billion, in 1890 at 6 billion, in 1900 at 8? billion, and in 1905 at a little less than 11 billion. The exportation of all articles now classed by the census as manufactures was in 1850, 43 million dollars; in 1860, 87 million; in 1870, 160 million (currency values); in 1880, 315 million; in 1890, 404 million; in 1900, 803 million; and in 1905, 895 million. These figures of net products and exports, when compared statistically, show that the exports equalled in 1850, 6.6 per cent of the figures of net production; in 1860, 7.2 per cent; in 1870, 5.9 per cent; in 1880, 9.1 per cent; in 1890, 6.7 per cent; in 1900, 9.6 per cent; and in 1905, 8.2 per cent. That the exportation has grown even more rapidly than the production is also apparent from a comparison of the figures of 1905 with those of 1850, since the production of manufactures in 1905 was practically seventeen times as great as that of 1850, while
On the import side the ratio of imports of manufactures to production has steadily fallen. Imports of all articles now included by the census classification of manufactures amounted in 1850 to 143 million dollars, in 1860 to 267 million, in 1870 to 433 million (currency values), in 1880 to 426 million, in 1890 to 481 million, in 1900 to 470 million, and in 1905 to 576 million. The percentage which imports of manufactures bore to production of manufactures was, in 1850, 21.8 per cent; in 1860, 22 per cent; in 1870, 15.9 per cent; in 1880, 12.3 per cent; in 1890, 8 per cent; in 1900, 5.6 per cent; and in 1905, 5.3 per cent.
It is proper to add that the figures above cited as representing the exportation of articles classed by the census as manufactures do not coincide with the usual statement of “Manufactures Exported,” as issued by the Bureau of Statistics from month to month and year to year, but includes many articles classed as manufactures by the census, but ordinarily classed by the Bureau of Statistics as “Foodstuffs Partly or Wholly Manufactured.” The Bureau of Statistics in its import and export statements groups under one title of “Manufactures Ready for Consumption” all articles completely manufactured and ready for use, such as boots and shoes, cars and carriages, and illuminating oil; under another head, “Articles for Further Use in Manufacturing,” all articles in a partially manufactured state, but requiring further processes before ready for final use, such as pig copper, pig iron, pig tin, lumber, etc.; while the group “Foodstuffs Partly or Wholly Manufactured” includes food articles which have undergone certain processes of preparation for use, such as salted meats, canned fruit and vegetables, dried fruits, flour, sugar, and other articles usually classed by the great importing and exporting nations under the general title of foodstuffs. The two groups, “Manufactures Ready for Use,” and
Turning to the individual articles forming the great mass of manufactures produced or exported, the percentage of the product exported varies greatly with the various articles or groups of articles. Comparing the Bureau of Statistics’ figures of exports for the fiscal year 1905 with the census figures of production in the calendar year 1904, the percentage which the export figures bear to those of production are, in the case of agricultural implements 18.5 per cent, bicycles and tricycles 26.8 per cent, cash registers 20.6 per cent, sewing machines 29.3 per cent, and typewriters 44.6 per cent; while in a large proportion of articles the percentage is very much less—boots and shoes 2.5 per cent, carriages and wagons 2.7 per cent, structural iron 4 per cent, furniture of wood 2.6 per cent, flour and gristmill products 5.6 per cent, and automobiles 8.3 per cent.
Note.—The figures (Mulhall’s estimates prior to 1900) here given for the United States are those of gross values. The relation of “gross” to “net” value of the manufactures of the United States is explained at page 211.
Approximate Annual Value of Manufactures Produced In the Principal Manufacturing Countries at dates named, 1780 to 1900.
Countries. | 1780. | 1800. | 1820. | 1840. | 1860. | 1888. | 1896. | 1900. |
Millions of Dollars. | ||||||||
United Kingdom | 861 | 1,119 | 1,411 | 1,883 | 2,808 | 3,991 | 4,263 | 5,000 |
Germany | 213 | 292 | 414 | 730 | 1,509 | 2,837 | 3,358 | 4,601 |
France | 715 | 925 | 1,071 | 1,285 | 1,849 | 2,360 | 2,900 | 3,450 |
Austria-Hungary | 146 | 243 | 389 | 691 | 973 | 1,231 | 1,596 | 2,000 |
Russia | 49 | 73 | 97 | 195 | 754 | 1,767 | 1,849 | 1,980 |
Italy | 49 | 73 | 122 | 195 | 389 | 589 | 925 | 1,700 |
Belgium | .... | .... | .... | 292 | 438 | 496 | 574 | 750 |
Spain | 49 | 97 | 146 | 219 | 292 | 414 | 589 | 615 |
United States | 48 | 81 | 179 | 311 | 1,272 | 4,681 | 6,426 | 8,371 |
Various | 151 | 219 | 292 | 438 | 779 | 1,767 | 2,097 | 2,317 |
Total | 2,311 | 3,122 | 4,121 | 6,239 | 10,063 | 20,133 | 24,577 | 30,784 |
Countries. | 1780. | 1800. | 1820. | 1840. |
Millions of Dollars. | ||||
United Kingdom | 861 | 1,119 | 1,411 | 1,883 |
Germany | 213 | 292 | 414 | 730 |
France | 715 | 925 | 1,071 | 1,285 |
Austria-Hungary | 146 | 243 | 389 | 691 |
Russia | 49 | 73 | 97 | 195 |
Italy | 49 | 73 | 122 | 195 |
Belgium | .... | .... | .... | 292 |
Spain | 49 | 97 | 146 | 219 |
United States | 48 | 81 | 179 | 311 |
Various | 151 | 219 | 292 | 438 |
Total | 2,311 | 3,122 | 4,121 | 6,239 |
Countries. | 1860. | 1888. | 1896. | 1900. |
Millions of Dollars. | ||||
United Kingdom | 2,808 | 3,991 | 4,263 | 5,000 |
Germany | 1,509 | 2,837 | 3,358 | 4,601 |
France | 1,849 | 2,360 | 2,900 | 3,450 |
Austria-Hungary | 973 | 1,231 | 1,596 | 2,000 |
Russia | 754 | 1,767 | 1,849 | 1,980 |
Italy | 389 | 589 | 925 | 1,700 |
Belgium | 438 | 496 | 574 | 750 |
Spain | 292 | 414 | 589 | 615 |
United States | 1,272 | 4,681 | 6,426 | 8,371 |
Various | 779 | 1,767 | 2,097 | 2,317 |
Total | 10,063 | 20,133 | 24,577 | 30,784 |
Note.—Figures are those of Mulhall, except for 1900, the figures of gross manufactures for the United States having been reduced to net on the basis of net equal to 66? per cent of gross; figures for 1900, estimate of Wm. J. Clark, in Engineering Magazine, May, 1904.
Importation of Manufactures into United Kingdom and United States, respectively, at quinquennial years, 1870 to 1908.
[From official statistics of the respective governments.]
Year[D] | Into the United Kingdom. Millions dollars. | Into the United States. Millions dollars. |
1870 | 277 | 229 |
1875 | 354 | 241 |
1880 | 405 | 307 |
1885 | 406 | 261 |
1890 | 478 | 348 |
1895 | 483 | 296 |
1900 | 630 | 337 |
1905 | 707 | 430 |
1907 | 754 | 638 |
1908 | 696 | 528 |
Commerce of the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, from 1875 to 1908. Showing exports of domestic merchandise, and exports of domestic manufacture from each country named.
Imports of merchandise. | |||
Year. | United Kingdom. | Germany.[E] | United States.[F] |
Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. | |
1875 | 1,819,779,000 | 839,590,000 | 533,005,000 |
1880 | 2,001,251,000 | 670,945,000 | 667,955,000 |
1885 | 1,805,316,000 | 699,067,000 | 577,527,000 |
1890 | 2,047,298,000 | 990,023,000 | 789,310,000 |
1895 | 2,027,822,000 | 980,719,000 | 731,970,000 |
1900 | 2,545,544,000 | 1,372,216,000 | 849,941,000 |
1901 | 2,540,264,000 | 1,290,254,000 | 823,172,000 |
1902 | 2,571,416,000 | 1,340,178,000 | 903,321,000 |
1903 | 2,642,054,050 | 1,424,080,000 | 1,025,719,000 |
1904 | 2,681,629,000 | 1,514,660,000 | 991,087,000 |
1905 | 2,749,669,000 | 1,696,660,000 | 1,117,513,000 |
1906 | 2,958,289,000 | 1,909,210,000 | 1,226,562,000 |
1907 | 3,143,293,000 | 2,046,187,000 | 1,434,421,000 |
1908 | 1,194,342,000 |
Exports of domestic merchandise. | |||
Year. | United Kingdom. | Germany. | United States.[F] |
Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. | |
1875 | 1,087,497,000 | 593,052,000 | 499,284,100 |
1880 | 1,085,521,000 | 688,500,000 | 823,946,353 |
1885 | 1,037,124,000 | 680,551,000 | 726,682,946 |
1890 | 1,282,472,000 | 791,717,000 | 845,293,828 |
1895 | 1,100,453,000 | 789,660,000 | 793,392,599 |
1900 | 1,417,086,000 | 1,097,509,000 | 1,370,763,571 |
1901 | 1,362,729,000 | 1,054,685,000 | 1,460,462,806 |
1902 | 1,379,283,000 | 1,111,008,000 | 1,355,481,861 |
1903 | 1,415,179,000 | 1,113,313,000 | 1,392,231,302 |
1904 | 1,463,412,000 | 1,242,987,000 | 1,435,179,000 |
1905 | 1,605,053,000 | 1,364,131,000 | 1,491,745,000 |
1906 | 1,827,737,000 | 1,513,449,000 | 1,171,953,000 |
1907 | 2,074,125,000 | 1,634,803,000 | 1,853,718,000 |
1908 | 1,834,786,000 |
Exports of domestic manufactures. | |||
Year. | United Kingdom. | Germany. | United States.[F] |
Dollars. | Dollars. | Dollars. | |
1875 | 978,886,000 | .... | 101,962,000 |
1880 | 970,681,000 | 460,279,000 | 121,818,000 |
1885 | 913,353,000 | 504,623,000 | 150,256,000 |
1890 | 1,118,657,000 | 511,096,000 | 178,982,000 |
1895 | 953,800,000 | 518,723,000 | 205,058,000 |
1900 | 1,142,603,000 | 709,806,000 | 484,846,000 |
1901 | 1,110,131,000 | 688,409,000 | 465,778,000 |
1902 | 1,127,606,000 | 735,182,000 | 453,865,000 |
1903 | 1,163,812,000 | 780,925,000 | 467,898,000 |
1904 | 1,204,359,000 | 819,196,000 | 523,320,000 |
1905 | 1,322,851,000 | 910,017,000 | 611,426,000 |
1906 | 1,523,699,000 | 1,046,938,000 | 686,023,000 |
1907 | 1,690,038,000 | No data. | 740,123,000 |
1908 | 750,576,000 |
Exportation of Manufactures from United Kingdom and United States, respectively, at quinquennial years, 1870 to 1908.
[From official statistics of the respective governments.]
Year[G] | From the United Kingdom. Millions dollars. | From the United States. Millions dollars. |
1870 | 888 | 70 |
1875 | 979 | 102 |
1880 | 965 | 122 |
1885 | 915 | 150 |
1890 | 1,112 | 179 |
1895 | 941 | 205 |
1900 | 1,126 | 485 |
1905 | 1,329 | 611 |
1907 | 1,694 | 740 |
1908 | 1,445 | 751 |
Coal Production of the World by Principal Countries, at quinquennial periods from 1870 to 1895 and annually since that date.
[From reports of the United States Geological Survey.]
Year. | United States. | Great Britain. | Germany. | France. | Total production of the world. | Per cent of U. S. |
Short tons. | Short tons. | Short tons. | Short tons. | Short tons. | ||
1870 | 33,035,580 | 123,682,935 | 37,488,312 | 14,530,716 | 34,850,088 | 14.07 |
1875 | 52,348,320 | 149,303,263 | 52,703,970 | 18,694,916 | 308,479,177 | 16.97 |
1880 | 71,481,570 | 164,605,738 | 65,177,634 | 21,346,124 | 369,413,780 | 20.62 |
1885 | 111,160,295 | 178,473,588 | 81,227,255 | 21,510,359 | 447,783,802 | 24.82 |
1890 | 157,770,963 | 203,408,003 | 98,398,500 | 28,756,638 | 563,693,232 | 27.99 |
1895 | 193,117,530 | 212,320,725 | 114,561,318 | 30,877,922 | 644,177,076 | 29.98 |
1896 | 191,986,357 | 218,804,611 | 123,943,159 | 32,167,270 | 664,001,718 | 28.92 |
1897 | 200,229,199 | 226,385,523 | 132,762,882 | 33,938,987 | 697,213,515 | 28.72 |
1898 | 219,976,267 | 226,301,058 | 144,283,196 | 35,656,426 | 738,129,608 | 29.80 |
1899 | 253,741,192 | 246,506,155 | 149,719,766 | 36,215,026 | 801,976,021 | 31.63 |
1900 | 269,684,027 | 252,203,056 | 164,805,202 | 36,811,536 | 846,041,848 | 31.88 |
1901 | 293,299,816 | 245,332,578 | 168,217,082 | 35,596,536 | 870,711,044 | 33.69 |
1902 | 301,590,439 | 254,346,447 | 165,826,496 | 33,286,146 | 888,453,950 | 33.95 |
1903 | 357,356,416 | 257,974,605 | 179,076,630 | 38,466,873 | 972,195,531 | 36.76 |
1904 | 351,816,398 | 260,319,665 | 186,785,378 | 37,663,349 | 983,527,562 | 35.78 |
1905 | 392,722,635 | 264,464,408 | 191,576,074 | 38,951,360 | 1,034,156,604 | 37.98 |
1906 | 414,157,278 | 281,195,743 | 222,350,526 | 37,828,931 | [H]1,106,478,707 | 37.43 |
Year. | United States. | Great Britain. | Germany. |
Short tons. | Short tons. | Short tons. | |
1870 | 33,035,580 | 123,682,935 | 37,488,312 |
1875 | 52,348,320 | 149,303,263 | 52,703,970 |
1880 | 71,481,570 | 164,605,738 | 65,177,634 |
1885 | 111,160,295 | 178,473,588 | 81,227,255 |
1890 | 157,770,963 | 203,408,003 | 98,398,500 |
1895 | 193,117,530 | 212,320,725 | 114,561,318 |
1896 | 191,986,357 | 218,804,611 | 123,943,159 |
1897 | 200,229,199 | 226,385,523 | 132,762,882 |
1898 | 219,976,267 | 226,301,058 | 144,283,196 |
1899 | 253,741,192 | 246,506,155 | 149,719,766 |
1900 | 269,684,027 | 252,203,056 | 164,805,202 |
1901 | 293,299,816 | 245,332,578 | 168,217,082 |
1902 | 301,590,439 | 254,346,447 | 165,826,496 |
1903 | 357,356,416 | 257,974,605 | 179,076,630 |
1904 | 351,816,398 | 260,319,665 | 186,785,378 |
1905 | 392,722,635 | 264,464,408 | 191,576,074 |
1906 | 414,157,278 | 281,195,743 | 222,350,526 |
Year. | France. | Total production of the world. | Per cent of U. S. |
Short tons. | Short tons. | ||
1870 | 14,530,716 | 34,850,088 | 14.07 |
1875 | 18,694,916 | 308,479,177 | 16.97 |
1880 | 21,346,124 | 369,413,780 | 20.62 |
1885 | 21,510,359 | 447,783,802 | 24.82 |
1890 | 28,756,638 | 563,693,232 | 27.99 |
1895 | 30,877,922 | 644,177,076 | 29.98 |
1896 | 32,167,270 | 664,001,718 | 28.92 |
1897 | 33,938,987 | 697,213,515 | 28.72 |
1898 | 35,656,426 | 738,129,608 | 29.80 |
1899 | 36,215,026 | 801,976,021 | 31.63 |
1900 | 36,811,536 | 846,041,848 | 31.88 |
1901 | 35,596,536 | 870,711,044 | 33.69 |
1902 | 33,286,146 | 888,453,950 | 33.95 |
1903 | 38,466,873 | 972,195,531 | 36.76 |
1904 | 37,663,349 | 983,527,562 | 35.78 |
1905 | 38,951,360 | 1,034,156,604 | 37.98 |
1906 | 37,828,931 | [H]1,106,478,707 | 37.43 |
Note. The use of coal for the production of power for use in manufacturing has such an important relation to that industry that the presentation of this table in this study seems justifiable.
World’s Production of Cotton.
[From Latham, Alexander & Co.’s “Cotton Movement & Fluctuation,” 1902-7.]
Estimated Number of Cotton Spindles at Work on the Continent of Europe, Sept. 30, 1907.
[From Alfred B. Shepperson’s “Cotton Facts,” December, 1907.]
Russia and Poland | 7,000,000 |
Germany | 9,000,000 |
Austria | 3,700,000 |
France | 6,200,000 |
Spain | 2,800,000 |
Switzerland | 1,550,000 |
Italy | 3,000,000 |
Belgium | 1,300,000 |
Sweden, Norway, etc. | 550,000 |
Holland | 420,000 |
Portugal | 210,000 |
Greece | 70,000 |
Total | 35,800,000 |
Annual Consumption of Cotton in Cotton Mills.
[From Alfred B. Shepperson’s “Cotton Facts,” December, 1907.]
Season of | Great Britain. | Continent Europe. | Northern States of U. S. | Southern States of U. S. | Total of United States. | India. |
In bales of 500 pounds net. | ||||||
1896-7 | 3,224,000 | 4,368,000 | 1,771,000 | 946,000 | 2,717,000 | 1,041,000 |
1897-8 | 3,432,000 | 4,628,000 | 1,771,000 | 1,151,000 | 2,922,000 | 1,185,000 |
1898-9 | 3,519,000 | 4,784,000 | 2,218,000 | 1,364,000 | 3,582,000 | 1,340,000 |
1899- | 3,334,000 | 4,576,000 | 2,163,000 | 1,524,000 | 3,687,000 | 1,162,000 |
1900-1 | 3,269,000 | 4,576,000 | 1,909,000 | 1,526,000 | 3,435,000 | 1,087,000 |
1901-2 | 3,253,000 | 4,836,000 | 1,996,000 | 1,912,000 | 3,908,000 | 1,384,000 |
1902-3 | 3,185,000 | 5,148,000 | 1,980,000 | 1,910,000 | 3,890,000 | 1,362,000 |
1903-4 | 2,977,000 | 5,148,000 | 1,980,000 | 1,795,000 | 3,775,000 | 1,368,000 |
1904-5 | 3,572,000 | 5,148,000 | 2,112,000 | 2,063,000 | 4,175,000 | 1,473,000 |
1905-6 | 3,766,000 | 5,244,000 | 2,364,000 | 2,239,000 | 4,603,000 | 1,587,000 |
1906-7 | 3,915,000 | 5,444,000 | 2,460,000 | 2,362,000 | 4,822,000 | 1,562,000 |
Season of | Great Britain. | Continent Europe. | Northern States of U. S. |
In bales of 500 pounds net. | |||
1896-7 | 3,224,000 | 4,368,000 | 1,771,000 |
1897-8 | 3,432,000 | 4,628,000 | 1,771,000 |
1898-9 | 3,519,000 | 4,784,000 | 2,218,000 |
1899- | 3,334,000 | 4,576,000 | 2,163,000 |
1900-1 | 3,269,000 | 4,576,000 | 1,909,000 |
1901-2 | 3,253,000 | 4,836,000 | 1,996,000 |
1902-3 | 3,185,000 | 5,148,000 | 1,980,000 |
1903-4 | 2,977,000 | 5,148,000 | 1,980,000 |
1904-5 | 3,572,000 | 5,148,000 | 2,112,000 |
1905-6 | 3,766,000 | 5,244,000 | 2,364,000 |
1906-7 | 3,915,000 | 5,444,000 | 2,460,000 |
Season of | Southern States of U. S. | Total of United States. | India. |
In bales of 500 pounds net. | |||
1896-7 | 946,000 | 2,717,000 | 1,041,000 |
1897-8 | 1,151,000 | 2,922,000 | 1,185,000 |
1898-9 | 1,364,000 | 3,582,000 | 1,340,000 |
1899- | 1,524,000 | 3,687,000 | 1,162,000 |
1900-1 | 1,526,000 | 3,435,000 | 1,087,000 |
1901-2 | 1,912,000 | 3,908,000 | 1,384,000 |
1902-3 | 1,910,000 | 3,890,000 | 1,362,000 |
1903-4 | 1,795,000 | 3,775,000 | 1,368,000 |
1904-5 | 2,063,000 | 4,175,000 | 1,473,000 |
1905-6 | 2,239,000 | 4,603,000 | 1,587,000 |
1906-7 | 2,362,000 | 4,822,000 | 1,562,000 |
World’s Supply and Distribution of Cotton.
[From Latham, Alexander & Co.’s “Cotton Movement & Fluctuation,” 1902-7.]
Year. | Visible and Invisible Supply at beginning of year. | Crops. | Total Actual Consumption. | Balance of Supply End of year. | |||
United States | All Others. | Total. | Visible. | Invisible. | |||
Bales of 500 pounds each. | |||||||
1884-5 | 1,550,000 | 5,136,000 | 2,101,000 | 7,237,000 | 7,444,000 | 984,000 | 359,000 |
1885-6 | 1,343,000 | 5,984,000 | 2,234,000 | 8,218,000 | 8,120,000 | 968,000 | 473,000 |
1886-7 | 1,441,000 | 5,960,000 | 2,577,000 | 8,537,000 | 8,505,000 | 999,000 | 474,000 |
1887-8 | 1,473,000 | 6,400,000 | 2,309,000 | 8,709,000 | 8,891,000 | 772,000 | 519,000 |
1888-9 | 1,291,000 | 6,463,000 | 2,632,000 | 9,095,000 | 9,267,000 | 682,000 | 437,000 |
1889-90 | 1,119,000 | 6,820,000 | 2,933,000 | 9,753,000 | 9,795,000 | 846,000 | 231,000 |
1890-1 | 1,077,000 | 8,137,000 | 3,039,000 | 11,176,000 | 10,511,000 | 1,315,000 | 427,000 |
1891-2 | 1,742,000 | 8,640,000 | 3,001,000 | 11,641,000 | 10,565,000 | 2,310,000 | 508,000 |
1892-3 | 2,818,000 | 6,435,000 | 3,296,000 | 9,731,000 | 10,291,000 | 1,903,000 | 355,000 |
1893-4 | 2,258,000 | 7,136,000 | 3,314,000 | 10,450,000 | 10,580,000 | 1,792,000 | 336,000 |
1894-5 | 2,128,000 | 9,640,000 | 2,978,000 | 12,618,000 | 11,543,000 | 2,185,000 | 1,018,000 |
1895-6 | 3,203,000 | 6,912,000 | 3,421,000 | 10,333,000 | 11,605,000 | 1,231,000 | 700,000 |
1896-7 | 1,931,000 | 8,435,868 | 3,438,000 | 11,873,868 | 11,880,332 | 1,295,636 | 628,000 |
1897-8 | 1,923,636 | 10,890,000 | 3,316,290 | 14,206,290 | 12,888,768 | 1,905,158 | 1,336,000 |
1898-9 | 3,241,158 | 11,078,000 | 3,694,934 | 14,772,934 | 14,014,728 | 2,371,364 | 1,628,000 |
1899-1900 | 3,999,364 | 9,137,000 | 3,092,897 | 12,229,897 | 13,772,772 | 1,071,489 | 1,385,000 |
1900-1 | 2,456,489 | 10,218,000 | 3,414,454 | 13,632,454 | 13,415,916 | 1,549,027 | 1,124,000 |
1901-2 | 2,673,027 | 10,380,380 | 4,038,569 | 14,413,949 | 14,414,908 | 1,306,068 | 1,366,000 |
1902-3 | 2,672,068 | 10,511,020 | 4,215,661 | 14,726,687 | 14,477,694 | 1,177,677 | 1,743,384 |
1903-4 | 2,921,061 | 9,841,671 | 4,317,670 | 14,159,341 | 14,310,158 | 1,085,237 | 1,735,007 |
1904-5 | 2,770,244 | 13,420,440 | 4,524,000 | 17,944,056 | 15,541,667 | 2,501,469 | 2,671,164 |
1905-6 | 5,172,638 | 11,048,000 | 4,612,553 | 15,660,553 | 16,328,804 | 1,702,485 | 2,801,897 |
1906-7 | 4,504,382 | 13,346,000 | 5,232,000 | 18,578,000 | 17,005,640 | 2,215,497 | 3,861,245 |
Year. | Visible and Invisible Supply at beginning of year. |
Bales of 500 pounds each. | |
1884-5 | 1,550,000 |
1885-6 | 1,343,000 |
1886-7 | 1,441,000 |
1887-8 | 1,473,000 |
1888-9 | 1,291,000 |
1889-90 | 1,119,000 |
1890-1 | 1,077,000 |
1891-2 | 1,742,000 |
1892-3 | 2,818,000 |
1893-4 | 2,258,000 |
1894-5 | 2,128,000 |
1895-6 | 3,203,000 |
1896-7 | 1,931,000 |
1897-8 | 1,923,636 |
1898-9 | 3,241,158 |
1899-1900 | 3,999,364 |
1900-1 | 2,456,489 |
1901-2 | 2,673,027 |
1902-3 | 2,672,068 |
1903-4 | 2,921,061 |
1904-5 | 2,770,244 |
1905-6 | 5,172,638 |
1906-7 | 4,504,382 |
Year. | Crops. | ||
United States | All Others. | Total. | |
Bales of 500 pounds each. | |||
1884-5 | 5,136,000 | 2,101,000 | 7,237,000 |
1885-6 | 5,984,000 | 2,234,000 | 8,218,000 |
1886-7 | 5,960,000 | 2,577,000 | 8,537,000 |
1887-8 | 6,400,000 | 2,309,000 | 8,709,000 |
1888-9 | 6,463,000 | 2,632,000 | 9,095,000 |
1889-90 | 6,820,000 | 2,933,000 | 9,753,000 |
1890-1 | 8,137,000 | 3,039,000 | 11,176,000 |
1891-2 | 8,640,000 | 3,001,000 | 11,641,000 |
1892-3 | 6,435,000 | 3,296,000 | 9,731,000 |
1893-4 | 7,136,000 | 3,314,000 | 10,450,000 |
1894-5 | 9,640,000 | 2,978,000 | 12,618,000 |
1895-6 | 6,912,000 | 3,421,000 | 10,333,000 |
1896-7 | 8,435,868 | 3,438,000 | 11,873,868 |
1897-8 | 10,890,000 | 3,316,290 | 14,206,290 |
1898-9 | 11,078,000 | 3,694,934 | 14,772,934 |
1899-1900 | 9,137,000 | 3,092,897 | 12,229,897 |
1900-1 | 10,218,000 | 3,414,454 | 13,632,454 |
1901-2 | 10,380,380 | 4,038,569 | 14,413,949 |
1902-3 | 10,511,020 | 4,215,661 | 14,726,687 |
1903-4 | 9,841,671 | 4,317,670 | 14,159,341 |
1904-5 | 13,420,440 | 4,524,000 | 17,944,056 |
1905-6 | 11,048,000 | 4,612,553 | 15,660,553 |
1906-7 | 13,346,000 | 5,232,000 | 18,578,000 |
Year. | Total Actual Consumption. | Balance of Supply End of year. | |
Visible. | Invisible. | ||
Bales of 500 pounds each. | |||
1884-5 | 7,444,000 | 984,000 | 359,000 |
1885-6 | 8,120,000 | 968,000 | 473,000 |
1886-7 | 8,505,000 | 999,000 | 474,000 |
1887-8 | 8,891,000 | 772,000 | 519,000 |
1888-9 | 9,267,000 | 682,000 | 437,000 |
1889-90 | 9,795,000 | 846,000 | 231,000 |
1890-1 | 10,511,000 | 1,315,000 | 427,000 |
1891-2 | 10,565,000 | 2,310,000 | 508,000 |
1892-3 | 10,291,000 | 1,903,000 | 355,000 |
1893-4 | 10,580,000 | 1,792,000 | 336,000 |
1894-5 | 11,543,000 | 2,185,000 | 1,018,000 |
1895-6 | 11,605,000 | 1,231,000 | 700,000 |
1896-7 | 11,880,332 | 1,295,636 | 628,000 |
1897-8 | 12,888,768 | 1,905,158 | 1,336,000 |
1898-9 | 14,014,728 | 2,371,364 | 1,628,000 |
1899-1900 | 13,772,772 | 1,071,489 | 1,385,000 |
1900-1 | 13,415,916 | 1,549,027 | 1,124,000 |
1901-2 | 14,414,908 | 1,306,068 | 1,366,000 |
1902-3 | 14,477,694 | 1,177,677 | 1,743,384 |
1903-4 | 14,310,158 | 1,085,237 | 1,735,007 |
1904-5 | 15,541,667 | 2,501,469 | 2,671,164 |
1905-6 | 16,328,804 | 1,702,485 | 2,801,897 |
1906-7 | 17,005,640 | 2,215,497 | 3,861,245 |
Stocks of Money in Thirteen Principal Countries of the World in 1873, 1896 and 1906.
Relative increase in use of gold, silver and paper money illustrated.
Countries. | Stock of Gold. | ||
1873. | 1896. | 1906. | |
United States | $135,000,000 | $696,300,000 | $1,593,300,000 |
Great Britain | 160,000,000 | 584,000,000 | 486,700,000 |
France | 450,000,000 | 772,000,000 | 926,400,000 |
Germany | 160,200,000 | 654,500,000 | 1,030,300,000 |
Russia | 149,100,000 | 586,900,000 | 939,400,000 |
Italy | 20,000,000 | 96,900,000 | 215,500,000 |
Belgium | 25,000,000 | 35,000,000 | 31,100,000 |
Netherlands | 12,000,000 | 21,900,000 | 45,900,000 |
Austria-Hungary | 35,000,000 | 178,500,000 | 306,400,000 |
Australasia | 50,000,000 | 132,100,000 | 125,000,000 |
Denmark | 4,100,000 | 15,400,000 | 22,600,000 |
Sweden | 1,800,000 | 10,600,000 | 22,600,000 |
Norway | 7,600,000 | 7,500,000 | 8,300,000 |
Total | 1,209,800,000 | 2,791,600,000 | 5,753,500,000 |
Countries. | Stock of Silver. | ||
1873. | 1896. | 1906. | |
United States | $ 6,150,000 | $364,500,000 | $698,700,000 |
Great Britain | 95,000,000 | 121,700,000 | 116,800,000 |
France | 500,000,000 | 443,900,000 | 411,100,000 |
Germany | 306,235,000 | 212,800,000 | 219,700,000 |
Russia | 18,600,000 | 74,200,000 | 77,900,000 |
Italy | 23,000,000 | 45,400,000 | 31,700,000 |
Belgium | 15,000,000 | 57,000,000 | 24,700,000 |
Netherlands | 37,300,000 | 56,100,000 | 52,600,000 |
Austria-Hungary | 40,000,000 | 63,700,000 | 105,300,000 |
Australasia | 3,000,000 | 7,000,000 | 10,000,000 |
Denmark | 7,500,000 | 5,400,000 | 6,100,000 |
Sweden | 4,300,000 | 4,900,000 | 7,700,000 |
Norway | 1,600,000 | 2,000,000 | 3,100,000 |
Total | 1,057,685,000 | 1,728,600,000 | 1,765,400,000 |
Countries. | Uncovered paper. | ||
1873. | 1896. | 1906. | |
United States | $749,445,000 | $397,000,000 | $610,800,000 |
Great Britain | 59,800,000 | 112,100,000 | 116,800,000 |
France | 385,300,000 | 119,200,000 | 269,200,000 |
Germany | 90,800,000 | 123,800,000 | 267,100,000 |
Russia | 618,400,000 | 467,200,000 | No data. |
Italy | 87,800,000 | 161,000,000 | 150,600,000 |
Belgium | 35,100,000 | 72,500,000 | 125,800,000 |
Netherlands | 15,300,000 | 37,900,000 | 57,800,000 |
Austria-Hungary | 265,800,000 | 177,600,000 | 119,300,000 |
Australasia | .... | 22,500,000 | No data. |
Denmark | 6,500,000 | 6,400,000 | 10,700,000 |
Sweden | 6,000,000 | 19,000,000 | 34,800,000 |
Norway | 2,300,000 | 3,800,000 | 7,000,000 |
Total | 2,322,545,000 | 1,720,000,000 | 1,769,900,000 |
Countries. | Total money in countries named. | ||
1873. | 1896. | 1906. | |
United States | $890,595,000 | $1,727,800,000 | $2,902,800,000 |
Great Britain | 314,800,000 | 817,800,000 | 720,300,000 |
France | 1,335,300,000 | 1,335,100,000 | 1,606,700,000 |
Germany | 557,235,000 | 991,100,000 | 1,517,100,000 |
Russia | 786,100,000 | 1,128,300,000 | [K]1,017,300,000 |
Italy | 130,800,000 | 303,300,000 | 397,800,000 |
Belgium | 75,100,000 | 164,500,000 | 181,600,000 |
Netherlands | 64,600,000 | 115,900,000 | 156,300,000 |
Austria-Hungary | 340,800,000 | 419,800,000 | 531,000,000 |
Australasia | [K]53,000,000 | 161,600,000 | [K]135,000,000 |
Denmark | 18,100,000 | 27,200,000 | 39,400,000 |
Sweden | 12,100,000 | 34,500,000 | 65,100,000 |
Norway | 11,500,000 | 13,300,000 | 18,400,000 |
Total | 4,590,030,000 | 7,240,200,000 | 9,288,800,000 |
Note.—The great increase in the use of capital in the manufacturing industries in recent years seems to justify the presentation of this table showing the general growth of money in the manufacturing countries.
Annual Average Gold Production of the World.
Period. | Gold— million dollars. |
1493 to 1700 | 5.4 |
1701 to 1850 | 13.1 |
1851 to 1890 | 120.2 |
1891 to 1900 | 210.1 |
1901 to 1905 | 322.1 |
1906 | 400.3 |
1907 | 410.0 |
(estim.) 1908 | 444.0 |
The World’s Production of Pig Iron from 1800 to 1907.
[In gross tons of 2240 lbs.]
Note.—Official figures of the respective national statistical offices of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France. Figures for all other countries taken from the French and Swedish Mineral Statistics.
Commerce of the World since 1830.
[Aggregate of imports for consumption and domestic exports in millions of dollars.—Mulhall’s figures prior to 1890.]
Country. | 1830. | 1840. | 1850. | 1860. | 1870. | 1880. | 1890. | 1897. | 1903. | 1907. |
United Kingdom | 422 | 547 | 811 | 1,800 | 2,625 | 3,350 | 3,552 | 3,389 | 4,056 | 5,217 |
France | 197 | 317 | 456 | 801 | 1,089 | 1,627 | 1,493 | 1,450 | 1,747 | 2,237 |
Germany | 220 | 249 | 336 | 624 | 1,017 | 1,411 | 1,761 | 1,996 | 2,621 | 3,681 |
Russia | 134 | 158 | 192 | 230 | 494 | 629 | 566 | 618 | 867 | [M][N]834 |
Austria-Hungary | 72 | 105 | 139 | 225 | 398 | 513 | 441 | 609 | 813 | 949 |
Italy | 96 | 144 | 182 | 249 | 317 | 437 | 451 | 438 | 652 | [M]821 |
Spain | 33 | 48 | 53 | 120 | 197 | 240 | 283 | 301 | 257 | [M]325 |
Portugal | 14 | 19 | 24 | 38 | 48 | 67 | 86 | 73 | 97 | [O]100 |
Holland and Belgium | 144 | 216 | 293 | 413 | 653 | 1,137 | 1,488 | 1,915 | 2,614 | [M]3,010 |
United States | 105 | 197 | 297 | 653 | 702 | 1,478 | 1,536 | 1,815 | 2,453 | 3,318 |
Spanish America | 168 | 230 | 336 | 451 | 648 | 768 | 797 | 826 | 965 | 1,802 |
India | 48 | 96 | 144 | 249 | 408 | 518 | 629 | 440 | 761 | [M]913 |
British colonies, other | 43 | 101 | 211 | 494 | 614 | 974 | 1,430 | 1,550 | 2,292 | [O]2,169 |
Other countries | 264 | 323 | 326 | 853 | 1,200 | 1,351 | 2,287 | 3,020 | 2,866 | [P]3,733 |
The world | 1,960 | 2,750 | 3,800 | 7,200 | 10,500 | 14,500 | 16,800 | 18,500 | 23,061 | 29,109 |
Country. | 1830. | 1840. | 1850. | 1860. | 1870. |
United Kingdom | 422 | 547 | 811 | 1,800 | 2,625 |
France | 197 | 317 | 456 | 801 | 1,089 |
Germany | 220 | 249 | 336 | 624 | 1,017 |
Russia | 134 | 158 | 192 | 230 | 494 |
Austria-Hungary | 72 | 105 | 139 | 225 | 398 |
Italy | 96 | 144 | 182 | 249 | 317 |
Spain | 33 | 48 | 53 | 120 | 197 |
Portugal | 14 | 19 | 24 | 38 | 48 |
Holland and Belgium | 144 | 216 | 293 | 413 | 653 |
United States | 105 | 197 | 297 | 653 | 702 |
Spanish America | 168 | 230 | 336 | 451 | 648 |
India | 48 | 96 | 144 | 249 | 408 |
British colonies, other | 43 | 101 | 211 | 494 | 614 |
Other countries | 264 | 323 | 326 | 853 | 1,200 |
The world | 1,960 | 2,750 | 3,800 | 7,200 | 10,500 |
Country. | 1880. | 1890. | 1897. | 1903. | 1907. |
United Kingdom | 3,350 | 3,552 | 3,389 | 4,056 | 5,217 |
France | 1,627 | 1,493 | 1,450 | 1,747 | 2,237 |
Germany | 1,411 | 1,761 | 1,996 | 2,621 | 3,681 |
Russia | 629 | 566 | 618 | 867 | |
Austria-Hungary | 513 | 441 | 609 | 813 | 949 |
Italy | 437 | 451 | 438 | 652 | [M]821 |
Spain | 240 | 283 | 301 | 257 | [M]325 |
Portugal | 67 | 86 | 73 | 97 | [O]100 |
Holland and Belgium | 1,137 | 1,488 | 1,915 | 2,614 | [M]3,010 |
United States | 1,478 | 1,536 | 1,815 | 2,453 | 3,318 |
Spanish America | 768 | 797 | 826 | 965 | 1,802 |
India | 518 | 629 | 440 | 761 | [M]913 |
British colonies, other | 974 | 1,430 | 1,550 | 2,292 | [O]2,169 |
Other countries | 1,351 | 2,287 | 3,020 | 2,866 | [P]3,733 |
The world | 14,500 | 16,800 | 18,500 | 23,061 | 29,109 |
Imports and Exports of Manufactures into and from the Principal Countries of the World and the Share Which Manufactures Formed of their Total Commerce.
The Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor published in 1903 a series of tables showing the imports and exports of manufactures of the principal countries of the world and the share which manufactures formed, respectively, of the imports and exports of each of the countries named. The following is a summarization of that table:
Countries. | Iron and Steel. | Textiles. | Other Manufactures. | |||
Import. | Export. | Import. | Export. | Import. | Export. | |
Austria-Hungary (1901) | $13,942,000 | $10,667,000 | $34,696,000 | $27,659,000 | $65,350,000 | $149,038,000 |
Belgium (1902) | 19,083,000 | 46,144,000 | 21,652,000 | 41,722,000 | 63,475,000 | 90,974,000 |
Denmark (1901) | 9,415,000 | 1,711,000 | 12,699,000 | 245,000 | 17,741,000 | 1,926,000 |
France (1902) | 31,336,000 | 42,238,000 | 44,611,000 | 188,338,000 | 136,645,000 | 278,227,000 |
Germany (1901) | 42,186,000 | 207,951,000 | 65,290,000 | 204,789,000 | 259,193,000 | 411,311,000 |
Italy (1901) | 31,318,000 | 1,523,000 | 17,116,000 | 36,399,000 | 53,305,000 | 37,451,000 |
Netherlands (1901) | 92,446,000 | 58,045,000 | 41,172,000 | 29,668,000 | 108,121,000 | 143,797,000 |
Portugal (1902) | 6,431,000 | 249,000 | 7,253,000 | 1,171,000 | 10,302,000 | 1,946,000 |
Russia-European frontier (1901) | 48,538,000 | 818,000 | 23,728,000 | 9,942,000 | 85,900,000 | 45,309,000 |
Spain (1902) | 19,448,000 | 955,000 | 11,032,000 | 6,977,000 | 27,463,000 | 33,398,000 |
Sweden (1902) | 11,916,000 | 15,402,000 | 13,306,000 | 796,000 | 26,613,000 | 23,221,000 |
Norway (1901) | 11,672,000 | 963,000 | 8,886,000 | 257,000 | 13,037,000 | 10,863,000 |
Switzerland (1902) | 17,366,000 | 10,704,000 | 27,205,000 | 76,447,000 | 48,478,000 | 47,960,000 |
United Kingdom (1902) | 74,685,000 | 298,945,000 | 175,194,000 | 547,325,000 | 478,821,000 | 294,861,000 |
United States (1903) | 51,617,000 | 96,642,000 | 146,202,000 | 39,641,000 | 369,310,000 | 654,860,000 |
Canada (1902) | 34,727,000 | … | 10,060,000 | … | 67,719,000 | 18,076,000 |
Mexico (1901) | 18,457,000 | … | 10,294,000 | … | 18,170,000 | 9,178,000 |
Argentina (1902) | 18,343,000 | … | 28,700,000 | … | 20,674,000 | 704,000 |
Brazil (1901) | 7,034,000 | … | 14,032,000 | … | 21,954,000 | 43,000 |
China (1902) | 4,721,000 | … | 79,580,000 | … | 56,239,000 | … |
Japan (1902) | 13,878,000 | … | 15,380,000 | 31,729,000 | 39,637,000 | 28,173,000 |
India (1902) | 54,302,000 | … | 125,356,000 | … | 74,123,000 | … |
Australia (1901) | 36,066,000 | … | 54,540,000 | … | 65,598.000 | 13,754,000 |
New Zealand (1900) | 12,088,000 | … | 12,821,000 | … | 16,732,000 | 970,000 |
Countries. | Total Manufactures. | Percent which manufactures form of total. | ||
Import. | Export. | Import. | Export. | |
Austria-Hungary (1901) | $113,988,000 | $187,364,000 | 32.63 | 48.35 |
Belgium (1902) | 104,210,000 | 178,840,000 | 23.72 | 49.89 |
Denmark (1901) | 39,855,000 | 3,882,000 | 37.47 | 4.96 |
France (1902) | 212,592,000 | 508,803,000 | 24.95 | 62.22 |
Germany (1901) | 366,669,000 | 824,051,000 | 28.42 | 78.13 |
Italy (1901) | 101,739,000 | 75,373,000 | 30.68 | 28.50 |
Netherlands (1901) | 241,739,000 | 231,510,000 | 29.54 | 33.27 |
Portugal (1902) | 23,986,000 | 3,366,000 | 39.96 | 10.96 |
Russia-European frontier (1901) | 158,166,000 | 56,069,000 | 56.37 | 14.45 |
Spain (1902) | 57,943,000 | 41,330,000 | 37.60 | 29.04 |
Sweden (1902) | 51,835,000 | 39,419,000 | 42.08 | 41.61 |
Norway (1901) | 33,595,000 | 12,083,000 | 43.46 | 28.78 |
Switzerland (1902) | 93,049,000 | 135,111,000 | 42.72 | 80.07 |
United Kingdom (1902) | 728,700,000 | 1141,131,000 | 27.92 | 82.70 |
United States (1903) | 570,129,000 | 791,143,000 | 55.58 | 56.83 |
Canada (1902) | 112,506,000 | 18,076,000 | 57.26 | 10.47 |
Mexico (1901) | 46,921,000 | 9,178,000 | 75.11 | 27.78 |
Argentina (1902) | 67,717,000 | 704,000 | 68.13 | .41 |
Brazil (1901) | 43,020,000 | 43,000 | 44.87 | … |
China (1902) | 140,540,000 | … | 71.36 | … |
Japan (1902) | 69,895,000 | 59,902,000 | 51.73 | 47.05 |
India (1902) | 253,781,000 | … | 88.15 | … |
Australia (1901) | 156,204,000 | 13,754,000 | 76.35 | 10.23 |
New Zealand (1900) | 41,641,000 | 970,000 | 83.82 | 1.72 |
The Manufacturing Industry of the United States, 1850 to 1905, showing Value of Product, Capital Invested, Wage-Earners Employed, Wages Paid, and Number of Establishments in each census year in the period under consideration.
[From official records of the United States Census Office.]
Date of Census. | ||||
1850 | 1860 | 1870 | 1880 | |
Number of establishments | 123,025 | 140,433 | 252,148 | 253,852 |
Capital | $533,245,351 | $1,009,855,715 | $2,118,208,769 | $2,790,272,606 |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | [S] | [S] | [S] | [S] |
Salaries | [S] | [S] | [S] | [S] |
Wage-earners, average number | 957,059 | 1,311,246 | 2,053,996 | 2,732,595 |
Total wages | $236,755,464 | $378,878,966 | $775,584,343 | $947,953,795 |
Men, 16 years and over | 731,137 | 1,040,349 | 1,615,598 | 2,019,035 |
Wages | [S] | [S] | [S] | [S] |
Women, 16 years and over | 2,225,922 | 270,897 | 323,770 | 531,639 |
Wages | [S] | [S] | [S] | [S] |
Children, under 16 years | [S] | [S] | 114,628 | 181,921 |
Wages | [S] | [S] | [S] | [S] |
Miscellaneous expenses | [U] | [U] | [U] | [U] |
Cost of materials used | $555,123,822 | $1,031,605,092 | $2,488,427,242 | $3,396,823,549 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | $1,019,106,616 | $1,885,861,676 | $4,232,325,442 | $5,369,579,191 |
Date of Census. | |||
1890 | 1900.[Q] | 1905. | |
Number of establishments | 355,475 | 512,254 | 588,769 |
Capital | $6,525,156,486 | $9,817,434,799 | $13,872,035,371 |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | 461,609[R] | 396,759 | 566,175 |
Salaries | $391,988,208[R] | $403,711,233 | $609,200,251 |
Wage-earners, average number | 4,251,613 | 5,308,406 | 6,152,443 |
Total wages | $1,891,228,321 | $2,322,333,877 | $3,014,389,372 |
Men, 16 years and over | 3,327,042 | 4,110,527 | 4,792,874 |
Wages | $1,659,234,483 | $2,016,677,789 | $2,629,747,837 |
Women, 16 years and over | 803,686 | 1,029,296 | 1,194,083 |
Wages | $215,367,976 | $279,994,396 | $356,992,855 |
Children, under 16 years | 120,885 | 168,583 | 167,066 |
Wages | $16,625,862 | $25,661,692 | $29,228,667 |
Miscellaneous expenses | $631,225,035 | $1,027,775,778 | $1,651,603,535 |
Cost of materials used | $5,162,044,076 | $7,345,413,651 | $9,497,619,851 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | $9,372,437,283 | $13,004,400,143 | $16,866,706,985 |
Per cent of Increase. | ||||||
1850 to 1860 | 1860 to 1870 | 1870 to 1880 | 1880 to 1890 | 1890 to 1900 | 1900 to 1905 | |
Number of establishments | 14.1 | 79.6 | 0.7 | 40.0 | 44.1 | 4.2 |
Capital | 89.4 | 109.3 | 31.7 | 133.9 | 50.5 | 41.3 |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | … | … | … | … | 13.9[T] | 42.7 |
Salaries | … | … | … | … | 3.0 | 50.9 |
Wage-earners, average number | 37.0 | 56.6 | 33.0 | 55.6 | 24.9 | 15.9 |
Total wages | 60.0 | 104.7 | 22.2 | 99.5 | 22.8 | 29.8 |
Men, 16 years and over | 42.3 | 55.3 | 25.0 | 64.8 | 23.5 | 16.6 |
Wages | … | … | … | … | 21.5 | 30.4 |
Women, 16 years and over | 19.9 | 19.5 | 64.2 | 51.2 | 28.1 | 16.0 |
Wages | … | … | … | … | 30.0 | 27.5 |
Children, under 16 years | … | … | 58.7 | 33.6[T] | 39.5 | 0.9 |
Wages | … | … | … | … | 54.3 | 13.9 |
Miscellaneous expenses | … | … | … | … | 62.8 | 60.7 |
Cost of materials used | 85.8 | 141.2 | 36.5 | 52.0 | 42.3 | 29.3 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | 85.1 | 124.4 | 26.9 | 74.5 | 38.8 | 29.7 |
Date of Census. | ||
1850 | 1860 | |
Number of establishments | 123,025 | 140,433 |
Capital | $533,245,351 | $1,009,855,715 |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | [S] | [S] |
Salaries | [S] | [S] |
Wage-earners, average number | 957,059 | 1,311,246 |
Total wages | $236,755,464 | $378,878,966 |
Men, 16 years and over | 731,137 | 1,040,349 |
Wages | [S] | [S] |
Women, 16 years and over | 2,225,922 | 270,897 |
Wages | [S] | [S] |
Children, under 16 years | [S] | [S] |
Wages | [S] | [S] |
Miscellaneous expenses | [U] | [U] |
Cost of materials used | $555,123,822 | $1,031,605,092 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | $1,019,106,616 | $1,885,861,676 |
Date of Census. | ||
1870 | 1880 | |
Number of establishments | 252,148 | 253,852 |
Capital | $2,118,208,769 | $2,790,272,606 |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | [S] | [S] |
Salaries | [S] | [S] |
Wage-earners, average number | 2,053,996 | 2,732,595 |
Total wages | $775,584,343 | $947,953,795 |
Men, 16 years and over | 1,615,598 | 2,019,035 |
Wages | [S] | [S] |
Women, 16 years and over | 323,770 | 531,639 |
Wages | [S] | [S] |
Children, under 16 years | 114,628 | 181,921 |
Wages | [S] | [S] |
Miscellaneous expenses | [U] | [U] |
Cost of materials used | $2,488,427,242 | $3,396,823,549 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | $4,232,325,442 | $5,369,579,191 |
Date of Census. | |||
1890 | 1900.[Q] | ||
Number of establishments | 355,475 | 512,254 | |
Capital | $6,525,156,486 | $9,817,434,799 | |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | 461,609[R] | 396,759 | |
Salaries | $391,988,208[R] | $403,711,233 | |
Wage-earners, average number | 4,251,613 | 5,308,406 | |
Total wages | $1,891,228,321 | $2,322,333,877 | |
Men, 16 years and over | 3,327,042 | 4,110,527 | |
Wages | $1,659,234,483 | $2,016,677,789 | |
Women, 16 years and over | 803,686 | 1,029,296 | |
Wages | $215,367,976 | $279,994,396 | |
Children, under 16 years | 120,885 | 168,583 | |
Wages | $16,625,862 | $25,661,692 | |
Miscellaneous expenses | $631,225,035 | $1,027,775,778 | |
Cost of materials used | $5,162,044,076 | $7,345,413,651 | |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | $9,372,437,283 | $13,004,400,143 |
Date of Census. | |||
1905. | |||
Number of establishments | 588,769 | ||
Capital | $13,872,035,371 | ||
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | 566,175 | ||
Salaries | $609,200,251 | ||
Wage-earners, average number | 6,152,443 | ||
Total wages | $3,014,389,372 | ||
Men, 16 years and over | 4,792,874 | ||
Wages | $2,629,747,837 | ||
Women, 16 years and over | 1,194,083 | ||
Wages | $356,992,855 | ||
Children, under 16 years | 167,066 | ||
Wages | $29,228,667 | ||
Miscellaneous expenses | $1,651,603,535 | ||
Cost of materials used | $9,497,619,851 | ||
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | $16,866,706,985 |
Per cent of Increase. | |||
1850 to 1860 | 1860 to 1870 | 1870 to 1880 | |
Number of establishments | 14.1 | 79.6 | 0.7 |
Capital | 89.4 | 109.3 | 31.7 |
Salaried offi
cials, clerks, etc., Number | … | … | … |
Salaries | … | … | … |
Wage-earners, average number | 37.0 | 56.6 | 33.0 |
Total wages | 60.0 | 104.7 | 22.2 |
?Men, 16 years and over | 42.3 | 55.3 | 25.0 |
??Wages | … | … | … |
?Women, 16 years and over | 19.9 | 19.5 | 64.2 |
??Wages | … | … | … |
?Children, under 16 years | … | … | 58.7 |
??Wages | … | … | … |
Miscellaneous expenses | … | … | … |
Cost of materials used | 85.8 | 141.2 | 36.5 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | 85.1 | 124.4 | 26.9 |
Per cent of Increase. | |||
1880 to 1890 | 1890 to 1900 | 1900 to 1905 | |
Number of establishments | 40.0 | 44.1 | 4.2 |
Capital | 133.9 | 50.5 | 41.3 |
Salaried officials, clerks, etc., Number | … | 13.9[T] | 42.7 |
Salaries | … | 3.0 | 50.9 |
Wage-earners, average number | 55.6 | 24.9 | 15.9 |
Total wages | 99.5 | 22.8 | 29.8 |
?Men, 16 years and over | 64.8 | 23.5 | 16.6 |
??Wages | … | 21.5 | 30.4 |
?Women, 16 years and over | 51.2 | 28.1 | 16.0 |
??Wages | … | 30.0 | 27.5 |
?Children, under 16 years | 33.6[T] | 39.5 | 0.9 |
??Wages | … | 54.3 | 13.9 |
Miscellaneous expenses | … | 62.8 | 60.7 |
Cost of materials used | 52.0 | 42.3 | 29.3 |
Value of products, including custom work and repairing. | 74.5 | 38.8 | 29.7 |
Manufactures in the U. S.: Gross and Net Values of Products, Census Years 1900 and 1905, by Industry Groups.
The gross value of manufactures as reported by the census contains many duplications because the finished products of some factories frequently become the material for other factories. In this way not only one but several duplications of the cost of materials often occur. The net value of productions eliminates these duplications by deducting from the gross value the cost of all materials which have undergone any process of manufacture covered by the census reports on manufactures. For further explanation of the relation of “gross” and “net” values, see page 211.
[From reports of the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor.]
Manufactures: Percentage Distribution, by Groups of States, Census Years 1850 to 1905.
[From reports of the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor.]
Group of States and census years.[X] | Establish- ments | Capital. | Wage-earners | |
Average number. | Wages. | |||
Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | |
New England States: | ||||
1850 | 18.3 | 31.1 | 32.7 | 31.8 |
1860 | 14.7 | 25.5 | 29.9 | 27.5 |
1870 | 12.8 | 23.1 | 25.7 | 27.2 |
1880 | 12.4 | 22.4 | 23.7 | 23.9 |
1890 | 13.6 | 18.0 | 19.3 | 19.0 |
1900 | 10.9 | 16.8 | 18.1 | 18.3 |
1905 | 10.3 | 14.7 | 17.2 | 16.8 |
Middle States: | ||||
1850 | 43.9 | 44.2 | 43.9 | 44.3 |
1860 | 37.9 | 43.1 | 41.6 | 40.2 |
1870 | 34.7 | 42.7 | 39.2 | 41.4 |
1880 | 35.3 | 42.1 | 41.7 | 42.8 |
1890 | 35.2 | 39.2 | 38.5 | 40.8 |
1900 | 34.1 | 40.7 | 36.6 | 38.4 |
1905 | 33.6 | 39.5 | 36.7 | 37.3 |
Southern States: | ||||
1850 | 16.7 | 12.6 | 11.5 | 9.5 |
1860 | 17.2 | 11.5 | 10.1 | 9.2 |
1870 | 15.4 | 6.6 | 9.1 | 5.8 |
1880 | 14.6 | 6.9 | 8.2 | 5.6 |
1890 | 13.1 | 7.8 | 9.7 | 7.1 |
1900 | 15.1 | 9.0 | 13.3 | 9.2 |
1905 | 15.3 | 11.0 | 14.0 | 10.7 |
Central States: | ||||
1850 | 20.2 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 12.7 |
1860 | 23.4 | 17.1 | 14.2 | 14.9 |
1870 | 33.5 | 24.4 | 23.8 | 22.6 |
1880 | 32.3 | 25.1 | 23.6 | 24.1 |
1890 | 31.8 | 29.7 | 28.2 | 27.6 |
1900 | 32.0 | 27.8 | 27.4 | 28.3 |
1905 | 31.3 | 28.2 | 27.0 | 28.4 |
Western States: | ||||
1850 | [Y] | [Y] | [Y] | [Y] |
1860 | .5 | .4 | .3 | .4 |
1870 | 1.5 | 1.0 | .8 | 1.1 |
1880 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
1890 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
1900 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 2.5 |
1905 | 4.2 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 2.7 |
Pacific States: | ||||
1850 | .9 | .3 | .4 | 1.7 |
1860 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 7.8 |
1870 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
1880 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 2.5 |
1890 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 2.5 | 3.3 |
1900 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
1905 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 4.1 |
Alaska: | ||||
1890 | [Y] | [Y] | [Y] | [Y] |
1900 | [Y] | .1 | [Y] | .1 |
1905 | .1 | .1 | [Y] | [Y] |
Group of States and census years.[X] | Miscel- laneous expenses. | Cost of materials used. | Value of products. |
Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | |
New England States: | |||
1850 | … | 27.6 | 27.8 |
1860 | … | 23.8 | 24.8 |
1870 | … | 24.3 | 23.8 |
1880 | … | 19.4 | 20.6 |
1890 | 15.7 | 15.3 | 16.0 |
1900 | 12.2 | 13.8 | 14.6 |
1905 | 11.5 | 13.1 | 13.7 |
Middle States: | |||
1850 | … | 47.9 | 46.4 |
1860 | … | 43.1 | 42.5 |
1870 | … | 41.7 | 41.8 |
1880 | … | 41.1 | 41.3 |
1890 | 36.3 | 38.1 | 38.9 |
1900 | 39.1 | 37.6 | 38.1 |
1905 | 38.7 | 37.0 | 37.3 |
Southern States: | |||
1850 | … | 9.5 | 9.9 |
1860 | … | 10.6 | 10.3 |
1870 | … | 6.5 | 6.6 |
1880 | … | 6.3 | 6.3 |
1890 | 8.2 | 7.4 | 7.5 |
1900 | 9.1 | 8.6 | 8.9 |
1905 | 10.1 | 10.2 | 10.5 |
Central States: | |||
1850 | … | 14.5 | 14.3 |
1860 | … | 19.5 | 18.1 |
1870 | … | 24.9 | 24.9 |
1880 | … | 29.4 | 28.0 |
1890 | 34.7 | 32.5 | 31.4 |
1900 | 35.6 | 31.4 | 30.9 |
1905 | 34.3 | 30.7 | 30.5 |
Western States: | |||
1850 | … | .1 | .1 |
1860 | … | .2 | .4 |
1870 | … | 1.0 | 1.1 |
1880 | … | 1.4 | 1.4 |
1890 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 3.0 |
1900 | 1.9 | 5.2 | 4.3 |
1905 | 2.4 | 5.3 | 4.3 |
Pacific States: | |||
1850 | … | .4 | 1.5 |
1860 | … | 2.8 | 3.9 |
1870 | … | 1.6 | 1.8 |
1880 | … | 2.4 | 2.4 |
1890 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
1900 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
1905 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 3.7 |
Alaska: | |||
1890 | [Y] | [Y] | [Y] |
1900 | [Y] | [Y] | [Y] |
1905 | .1 | [Y] | [Y] |
Summary of Manufactures in the U. S., by States and Territories, Census Years 1900 and 1905.
[From reports of the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor.]
State or Territory. | Census year. | Number of establish- ments. | Capital. | Wage-earners. | |
Average- number. | Total wages. | ||||
Dollars. | Dollars. | ||||
United States | 1900 | 207,562 | 8,978,825,200 | 4,715,023 | 2,009,735,799 |
1905 | 216,262 | 12,686,265,673 | 5,470,321 | 2,611,540,532 | |
Alabama | 1900 | 2,000 | 60,165,904 | 52,711 | 14,911,683 |
1905 | 1,882 | 105,382,859 | 62,173 | 21,878,451 | |
Alaska | 1900 | 48 | 3,568,704 | 2,260 | 1,374,680 |
1905 | 82 | 10,684,799 | 1,938 | 1,095,579 | |
Arizona | 1900 | 154 | 9,517,578 | 3,126 | 2,287,352 |
1905 | 169 | 14,395,654 | 4,793 | 3,969,248 | |
Arkansas | 1900 | 1,746 | 25,384,636 | 31,525 | 10,184,154 |
1905 | 1,907 | 46,306,116 | 33,089 | 14,543,635 | |
California | 1900 | 4,997 | 175,467,806 | 77,224 | 39,889,997 |
1905 | 6,839 | 282,647,201 | 100,355 | 64,656,686 | |
Colorado | 1900 | 1,323 | 58,172,865 | 19,498 | 11,707,566 |
1905 | 1,606 | 107,663,500 | 21,813 | 15,100,365 | |
Connecticut | 1900 | 3,382 | 299,206,925 | 159,733 | 73,394,062 |
1905 | 3,477 | 373,283,580 | 181,605 | 87,942,628 | |
Delaware | 1900 | 633 | 38,791,402 | 20,562 | 8,457,003 |
1905 | 631 | 50,925,630 | 18,475 | 8,158,203 | |
Dist. of Columbia | 1900 | 491 | 17,960,498 | 6,155 | 3,022,906 |
1905 | 482 | 20,199,783 | 6,299 | 3,658,370 | |
Florida | 1900 | 1,275 | 25,682,171 | 35,471 | 10,916,443 |
1905 | 1,413 | 32,971,982 | 42,091 | 15,767,182 | |
Georgia | 1900 | 3,015 | 79,303,316 | 83,336 | 19,958,153 |
1905 | 3,219 | 135,211,551 | 92,749 | 27,392,442 | |
Idaho | 1900 | 287 | 2,130,112 | 1,552 | 818,239 |
1905 | 364 | 9,689,445 | 3,061 | 2,059,391 | |
Illinois | 1900 | 14,374 | 732,829,771 | 332,871 | 159,104,179 |
1905 | 14,921 | 975,844,799 | 379,436 | 208,405,468 | |
Indian Territory | 1900 | 179 | 1,591,953 | 1,087 | 379,188 |
1905 | 466 | 5,016,654 | 2,257 | 1,144,078 | |
Indiana | 1900 | 7,128 | 219,321,080 | 139,017 | 59,280,131 |
1905 | 7,044 | 312,071,234 | 154,174 | 72,058,099 | |
Iowa | 1900 | 4,828 | 85,667,334 | 44,420 | 18,020,653 |
1905 | 4,785 | 111,427,429 | 49,481 | 22,997,053 | |
Kansas | 1900 | 2,299 | 59,458,256 | 27,119 | 12,802,096 |
1905 | 2,475 | 88,680,117 | 35,570 | 18,883,071 | |
Kentucky | 1900 | 3,648 | 87,995,822 | 51,735 | 18,454,252 |
1905 | 3,734 | 147,282,478 | 59,794 | 24,438,684 | |
Louisiana | 1900 | 1,826 | 100,874,729 | 40,878 | 14,725,437 |
1905 | 2,091 | 150,810,608 | 55,859 | 25,315,750 | |
Maine | 1900 | 2,878 | 114,007,715 | 69,914 | 25,730,735 |
1905 | 3,145 | 143,707,750 | 74,958 | 32,691,759 | |
Maryland | 1900 | 3,886 | 149,155,313 | 94,170 | 32,414,429 |
1905 | 3,852 | 201,877,966 | 94,174 | 36,144,244 | |
Massachusetts | 1900 | 10,929 | 781,867,715 | 438,234 | 195,278,276 |
1905 | 10,723 | 965,948,887 | 488,399 | 232,388,946 | |
Michigan | 1900 | 7,310 | 246,996,529 | 155,800 | 62,531,812 |
1905 | 7,446 | 337,894,102 | 175,229 | 81,278,837 | |
Minnesota | 1900 | 4,096 | 133,076,669 | 64,557 | 29,029,190 |
1905 | 4,756 | 184,903,271 | 69,636 | 35,843,145 | |
Mississippi | 1900 | 1,294 | 22,712,186 | 26,799 | 7,909,607 |
1905 | 1,520 | 50,256,309 | 38,690 | 14,819,034 | |
Missouri | 1900 | 6,853 | 223,781,088 | 107,704 | 46,713,734 |
1905 | 6,464 | 379,368,827 | 133,167 | 66,644,126 | |
Montana | 1900 | 395 | 38,224,915 | 9,854 | 7,376,822 |
1905 | 382 | 52,589,810 | 8,957 | 8,652,217 | |
Nebraska | 1900 | 1,695 | 65,906,052 | 18,669 | 8,842,429 |
1905 | 1,819 | 80,235,310 | 20,260 | 11,022,149 | |
Nevada | 1900 | 99 | 1,251,208 | 504 | 352,606 |
1905 | 115 | 2,891,997 | 802 | 693,407 | |
New Hampshire | 1900 | 1,771 | 92,146,025 | 67,646 | 25,849,631 |
1905 | 1,618 | 109,495,072 | 65,366 | 27,693,203 | |
New Jersey | 1900 | 6,415 | 477,301,565 | 213,975 | 95,164,913 |
1905 | 7,010 | 715,060,174 | 266,336 | 128,168,801 | |
New Mexico | 1900 | 174 | 2,160,718 | 2,490 | 1,199,496 |
1905 | 199 | 4,638,248 | 3,478 | 2,153,068 | |
New York | 1900 | 35,957 | 1,523,502,651 | 726,909 | 337,323,585 |
1905 | 37,194 | 2,031,459,515 | 856,947 | 430,014,851 | |
North Carolina | 1900 | 3,465 | 68,283,005 | 72,322 | 14,051,784 |
1905 | 3,272 | 141,000,639 | 85,339 | 21,375,294 | |
North Dakota | 1900 | 337 | 3,511,968 | 1,358 | 671,321 |
1905 | 507 | 5,703,837 | 1,755 | 1,031,307 | |
Ohio | 1900 | 13,868 | 570,908,968 | 308,109 | 136,427,579 |
1905 | 13,785 | 856,988,830 | 364,298 | 182,429,425 | |
Oklahoma | 1900 | 316 | 2,462,438 | 1,294 | 514,879 |
1905 | 657 | 11,107,763 | 3,199 | 1,655,324 | |
Oregon | 1900 | 1,406 | 28,359,089 | 14,459 | 6,822,011 |
1905 | 1,602 | 44,023,548 | 18,523 | 11,443,512 | |
Pennsylvania | 1900 | 23,462 | 1,449,814,740 | 663,960 | 296,875,548 |
1905 | 23,495 | 1,995,836,988 | 763,282 | 367,960,890 | |
Rhode Island | 1900 | 1,678 | 176,901,606 | 88,197 | 35,995,101 |
1905 | 1,617 | 215,901,375 | 97,318 | 43,112,637 | |
South Carolina | 1900 | 1,369 | 62,750,027 | 47,025 | 9,130,269 |
1905 | 1,399 | 113,422,224 | 59,441 | 13,868,950 | |
South Dakota | 1900 | 624 | 6,051,288 | 2,224 | 1,129,787 |
1905 | 686 | 7,585,142 | 2,492 | 1,421,680 | |
Tennessee | 1900 | 3,116 | 63,140,657 | 45,963 | 14,727,506 |
1905 | 3,175 | 102,439,481 | 60,572 | 22,805,628 | |
Texas | 1900 | 3,107 | 63,655,616 | 38,604 | 16,911,681 |
1905 | 3,158 | 115,664,871 | 49,066 | 24,468,942 | |
Utah | 1900 | 575 | 13,219,039 | 5,413 | 2,762,522 |
1905 | 606 | 26,004,011 | 8,052 | 5,157,400 | |
Vermont | 1900 | 1,938 | 43,499,633 | 28,179 | 11,426,548 |
1905 | 1,699 | 62,658,741 | 33,106 | 15,221,059 | |
Virginia | 1900 | 3,186 | 92,299,589 | 66,223 | 20,273,889 |
1905 | 3,187 | 147,989,182 | 80,285 | 27,943,058 | |
Washington | 1900 | 1,926 | 41,574,744 | 31,523 | 17,065,140 |
1905 | 2,751 | 96,952,621 | 45,199 | 30,087,287 | |
West Virginia | 1900 | 1,824 | 49,103,138 | 33,080 | 12,639,856 |
1905 | 2,109 | 86,820,823 | 43,758 | 21,153,042 | |
Wisconsin | 1900 | 7,841 | 286,060,566 | 137,525 | 55,695,816 |
1905 | 8,558 | 412,647,051 | 151,391 | 71,471,805 | |
Wyoming | 1900 | 139 | 2,047,883 | 2,060 | 1,209,123 |
1905 | 169 | 2,695,889 | 1,834 | 1,261,122 |
State or Territory. | Census year. | Cost of materials used. | Value of products, including custom work and repairing. |
Dollars. | Dollars. | ||
United States | 1900 | 6,577,614,074 | 11,411,121,122 |
1905 | 8,503,949,756 | 14,802,147,087 | |
Alabama | 1900 | 37,998,233 | 72,109,929 |
1905 | 60,458,368 | 109,169,922 | |
Alaska | 1900 | 1,762,583 | 4,194,421 |
1905 | 3,741,946 | 8,244,524 | |
Arizona | 1900 | 7,876,542 | 20,438,987 |
1905 | 14,595,057 | 28,083,192 | |
Arkansas | 1900 | 18,288,045 | 39,887,578 |
1905 | 21,799,346 | 53,864,394 | |
California | 1900 | 164,894,269 | 257,385,521 |
1905 | 215,726,414 | 367,218,494 | |
Colorado | 1900 | 60,750,784 | 89,067,879 |
1905 | 63,114,397 | 100,143,999 | |
Connecticut | 1900 | 169,671,648 | 315,106,150 |
1905 | 191,801,881 | 369,082,091 | |
Delaware | 1900 | 24,725,317 | 41,321,061 |
1905 | 24,883,806 | 41,160,276 | |
Dist. of Columbia | 1900 | 7,475,216 | 16,426,408 |
1905 | 7,731,971 | 18,359,159 | |
Florida | 1900 | 12,847,187 | 34,183,509 |
1905 | 16,532,439 | 50,298,290 | |
Georgia | 1900 | 49,356,296 | 94,532,368 |
1905 | 83,624,504 | 151,040,455 | |
Idaho | 1900 | 1,438,868 | 3,001,442 |
1905 | 4,068,523 | 8,768,743 | |
Illinois | 1900 | 681,450,122 | 1,120,868,308 |
1905 | 840,057,316 | 1,410,342,129 | |
Indian Territory | 1900 | 1,697,829 | 2,629,067 |
1905 | 4,848,646 | 7,909,451 | |
Indiana | 1900 | 195,162,566 | 337,071,630 |
1905 | 220,507,007 | 393,954,405 | |
Iowa | 1900 | 85,778,867 | 132,870,865 |
1905 | 102,843,892 | 160,572,313 | |
Kansas | 1900 | 120,737,677 | 154,008,544 |
1905 | 156,509,949 | 198,244,992 | |
Kentucky | 1900 | 67,406,202 | 126,508,660 |
1905 | 86,545,464 | 159,753,968 | |
Louisiana | 1900 | 75,403,937 | 111,397,919 |
1905 | 117,035,305 | 186,379,592 | |
Maine | 1900 | 61,210,327 | 112,959,098 |
1905 | 80,042,090 | 144,020,197 | |
Maryland | 1900 | 129,354,412 | 211,076,143 |
1905 | 150,024,066 | 243,375,996 | |
Massachusetts | 1900 | 498,655,033 | 907,626,439 |
1905 | 626,410,431 | 1,124,092,051 | |
Michigan | 1900 | 175,966,128 | 319,691,856 |
1905 | 230,080,931 | 429,120,060 | |
Minnesota | 1900 | 150,299,277 | 223,692,922 |
1905 | 210,553,949 | 307,858,073 | |
Mississippi | 1900 | 16,543,029 | 33,718,517 |
1905 | 25,800,885 | 57,451,445 | |
Missouri | 1900 | 184,189,030 | 316,304,095 |
1905 | 252,258,417 | 439,548,957 | |
Montana | 1900 | 30,068,101 | 52,744,997 |
1905 | 40,930,060 | 66,415,452 | |
Nebraska | 1900 | 95,925,178 | 130,302,453 |
1905 | 124,051,628 | 154,918,220 | |
Nevada | 1900 | 662,284 | 1,261,005 |
1905 | 1,627,776 | 3,096,274 | |
New Hampshire | 1900 | 60,163,380 | 107,590,803 |
1905 | 73,216,387 | 123,610,904 | |
New Jersey | 1900 | 334,726,094 | 553,005,684 |
1905 | 470,449,176 | 774,369,025 | |
New Mexico | 1900 | 1,998,593 | 4,060,924 |
1905 | 2,235,934 | 5,705,880 | |
New York | 1900 | 1,018,377,186 | 1,871,830,872 |
1905 | 1,348,603,286 | 2,488,345,579 | |
North Carolina | 1900 | 44,854,224 | 85,274,083 |
1905 | 79,268,004 | 142,520,776 | |
North Dakota | 1900 | 4,150,860 | 6,259,840 |
1905 | 7,095,986 | 10,217,914 | |
Ohio | 1900 | 409,302,501 | 748,670,855 |
1905 | 527,636,585 | 960,811,857 | |
Oklahoma | 1900 | 3,732,618 | 5,504,869 |
1905 | 11,545,306 | 16,549,656 | |
Oregon | 1900 | 20,788,833 | 36,592,714 |
1905 | 30,596,763 | 55,525,123 | |
Pennsylvania | 1900 | 958,301,272 | 1,649,882,380 |
1905 | 1,142,942,707 | 1,955,551,332 | |
Rhode Island | 1900 | 87,951,780 | 165,550,382 |
1905 | 112,872,261 | 202,109,583 | |
South Carolina | 1900 | 30,485,861 | 53,335,811 |
1905 | 49,968,626 | 79,376,262 | |
South Dakota | 1900 | 6,483,677 | 9,529,946 |
1905 | 8,696,831 | 13,085,333 | |
Tennessee | 1900 | 54,559,039 | 92,749,129 |
1905 | 79,351,746 | 137,960,476 | |
Texas | 1900 | 54,388,303 | 92,894,433 |
1905 | 91,603,630 | 150,528,389 | |
Utah | 1900 | 11,440,250 | 17,981,648 |
1905 | 24,939,827 | 38,926,464 | |
Vermont | 1900 | 26,384,812 | 51,515,228 |
1905 | 32,429,852 | 63,083,611 | |
Virginia | 1900 | 59,359,484 | 108,644,150 |
1905 | 83,649,149 | 148,856,525 | |
Washington | 1900 | 38,276,944 | 70,831,345 |
1905 | 66,166,165 | 128,821,667 | |
West Virginia | 1900 | 37,228,253 | 67,006,822 |
1905 | 54,419,206 | 99,040,676 | |
Wisconsin | 1900 | 185,695,393 | 326,752,878 |
1905 | 227,255,092 | 411,139,681 | |
Wyoming | 1900 | 1,369,730 | 3,268,555 |
1905 | 1,300,773 | 3,523,260 |
State or Territory. | Census year. | Cost of materials used. |
Dollars. | ||
United States | 1900 | 6,577,614,074 |
1905 | 8,503,949,756 | |
Alabama | 1900 | 37,998,233 |
1905 | 60,458,368 | |
Alaska | 1900 | 1,762,583 |
1905 | 3,741,946 | |
Arizona | 1900 | 7,876,542 |
ft r">South Carolina | 1900 | 53,335,811 |
1905 | 79,376,262 | |
South Dakota | 1900 | 9,529,946 |
1905 | 13,085,333 | |
Tennessee | 1900 | 92,749,129 |
1905 | 137,960,476 | |
Texas | 1900 | 92,894,433 |
1905 | 150,528,389 | |
Utah | 1900 | 17,981,648 |
1905 | 38,926,464 | |
Vermont | 1900 | 51,515,228 |
1905 | 63,083,611 | |
Virginia | 1900 | 108,644,150 |
1905 | 148,856,525 | |
Washington | 1900 | 70,831,345 |
1905 | 128,821,667 | |
West Virginia | 1900 | 67,006,822 |
1905 | 99,040,676 | |
Wisconsin | 1900 | 326,752,878 |
1905 | 411,139,681 | |
Wyoming | 1900 | 3,268,555 |
1905 | 3,523,260 |