Kat/Zelda 774 [annuity /954

s // 7 s  so     
 .1155

Q w

s The P armor Looks at His
" Economic Security

A Study of Provisions Made for Old Age by

Farm Families in Wharton County, Texas

in cooperation with the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

{l

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

R. D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR. COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

CONTENTS

Pa.

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................................... __

Economic Security ............................................................................................................... .. 
Retirement Plans ................................................................................................................................................................................ __
Attitude toward OASI ............................................................................................................... ..
Regular Hired Workers ........................................................................................................... __

 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... __

The Farm Operator .................................................................................................................................................................................. __ 

Economic Security ............................................................................................................................................................................. __ 5
Net Worth of Wharton County Farm Operators _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7
Types of Savings and Investments ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 9
Nonfarm Income ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 9
Insurance Coverage of Farm Operators _________________________________________________________ __ 11¢;
Family Support in Event of Death or Permanent Disability of the Operator ___________________________________________________________ __ 1311;’
Sources of Income in Old Age ______________________________________________________________________________________ __ 13F;
Other Sources of Support in Old Age _________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 14
Employment in Jobs Covered by Old-Age and Survivors Insurance ____________________________________________________________________________ __ 145
Monetary Needs of Farmers in Old Age _________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 15%
Prospects for ‘Financing Retirement Needs ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 15f

Attitudes toward Farming as an Occupation ................  _________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ w

Retirement Plans of Farm Operators _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1P
Consideration of Retirement ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1
Expectation Regarding Eventual Retirement _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ '1
Reduced Farm Operations as a Means of Retirement ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1‘
Retirement Discussions with Children _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1O "
Preferred Living Arrangements after Retirement ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ O

Attitudes toward OASI Program ................................................................................................................................................... __ ,
General Attitudes toward OASI ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ .
Attitudes toward OASI Coverage of Regular Farm Workers ________________________________________________________________________________________ __ A
Attitudes toward OASI Coverage of Short-time Farm Workers ___________________________________________________________________________________ __ I
Attitudes toward OASI Coverage of Farm Operators ..................................................................................................... __

     
    
   
 
 
   

The Regular Farm Worker ....................................................... ..

Economic Security . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _.
Assets of Regular Farm Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , _ _ _ _ __
Insurance Coverage of Regular Farm Workers 
Income Received by Other Family Members .............. .. .
Family Support in Event of Worker’s Death __________________________________________________________________________________ __ a
Sources of Support in Old Age  v
Monetary Needs of \Vorkers in Old Age
Attitudes toward Farm Work as an Occupation .... ..

Retirement Plans of Regular Farm Workers ..  ..... __

Attitudes toward OASI Program ...................................................................... ..
General Attitudes toward OASI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Attitudes toward OASI Coverage of Regular Farm Workers
Attitudes toward OASI Coverage of Short-time Farm Workers 
Attitudes toward OASI Coverage of Farm Operators ..... ..

Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . ..

Acknowledgments ___________________________________________________________________ __

SUMMARY

" ogressively more attention is being given to means for protecting the farm family against the misfortunes of the
_1 or disability of the breadwinner and for meeting the needs of retirement. Because of this interest, the Bureau of
' ultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the respective land-grant colleges, made
l: of these problems in Wisconsin, Connecticut and Texas.

   
   
   
 
  
   
 
  
  
   
  
  
  

‘age

‘In Texas, Wharton county was selected as the survey location. This report presents the results of interviews con-

» in July and August 1952 with 257 farm operators and 60 farm laborers and sharecroppers in that county. The
l; was designed to analyze the provisions that farm people make for retirement and related family contingencies,
_ems resulting from extension of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance to regular hired farm workers and the views of
V’ people toward further extension of the program to other groups in the farm population.

U! mum-aw

iomic Security

lThe present financial position of farm families was regarded in this study as the primary measure of their capacity
1:, thstand possible economic distress. In Wharton county, about a sixth of the operators reported net worths of less
 $1,000, and the debts of a third of these were greater than their assets. A fourth of the operators had net worths
1,000 to $4,999. Slightly more than 30 percent had net worths of $20,000 or more.

v Net worth was closely associated with several interrelated factors, chief of which were age, race or nationality back-
Ind, education and current nonfarm employment. Education was directly correlated with net worth and it was also
'nction of race or nationality background. Nearly 9 out of 10 Negro operators had a net worth of less than $5,000
_ little formal education. Mainly because of the race factor, the oldest operators (65 and over) had the greatest pro-
'on of any age group in both the lowest and the highest net-worth categories. Nonfarm income and property were
r items among the resources of some farmers. Operators whose principal earning activities in 1951 were nonfarm
a significantly higher average net worth than those who depended mainly or altogether upon farm income.

~- holdings, was the most common type of savings or investment; 60 percent of the operators reported this combina-

3 and the proportions increased as net worth increased. Thirteen percent had invested in farm property only, and 22
ent had invested in nonfarm property only. Five percent of the operators had no savings or investment.

- _ ‘now-qua: diUlUlnhnhQaaszgpepaqqg a,

' More than half of the operators in the sample had some income in 1951 from sources other than their farming op-

' _'ons. Nonfarm work was the chief source of outside income, followed by oil and gas royalties or rentals and non-

 investments. Such income varied with the size of farm and tenure of the operator. Owner operators received a

' ter share of their income from sources outside their farming operations than did tenants; 58 percent of the tenants
no outside income in 1951, as compared with 32 percent of the full owners.

i ’ Insurance was not widely used by farmers in Wharton county as a protection against the contingencies of death or
bility. Nearly a third of all farmers interviewed had little or no insurance protection. Most of the larger life in-

A nce policies were found among farmers 35 to 44 years of age. The highest proportion of operators who had no life
’ rance was among those 55 and over.

- Relatively few of the operators had even discussed the matter of planned economic security with their wives or other
f ‘ly members. Paradoxically, it appeared that those families which were in the weakest financial position had given
i“ least consideration to the problem. For many, this apparent apathy probably resulted from the dim prospects of
u actually achieving economic security. More than half of the operators indicated that they had made no real prog-
A in saving for old age. Most of those who had accumulated some assets believed that their farms would be their
A sources of income in old age. Old-age assistance-—“the pension”—was mentioned frequently by others as a source
upport in old age.

f» Translated into dollars at current prices, the estimated retirement needs of the operator (and his wife) ranged from

than $40 to more than $160 per month. Made by the operators themselves, these estimates obviously were closely
, ted to present levels of family expenditures. The figure most often named was $100 a month, although about a third
e operators mentioned a larger amount and more than a fourth thought they could live “fairly comfortably” on less
w $60 a month.

A Half of the farmers interviewed believed that farming gives them no better chance than other occupations to provide
‘Lold age. The rest were about equally divided between “uncertain” and the belief that farming offers superior oppor-
ties. Those answering “N o” to this question often reasoned that risks of weather, costs and prices make it difficult
lan for old age with confidence. Advantages cited included the opportunity that farming provides to buy land, the
ment that living costs on the farm are comparatively low and net savings are high, and that saving is easier when
mes are received in lump sums as when crops are sold.

    
 
  
  
  
  

 irement Plans

'1 Only 12 percent of the operators had made definite plans for retirement; 10 percent had given the matter some
ght without reaching a definite decision; and the remaining 78 percent had given little or no thought to retirement.
extent of planning for retirement was directly proportionate to the age of the operators, although a comparatively

3

  
   
   
  
 
 
  
   
   
  
  
  
 
   
   
  
  
   
   
   

high percentage of operators with some college training, most of them young men, had developed definite retireme
plans. Among all operators, as net worth increased, the disposition to plan for retirement tended to increase. Ma
operators in the lower net-worth categories said that they could not “afford” to quit: working in the foreseeable futur
About three-fifths of all farmers interviewed indicated that they did not expect to retire. About half the operators y
all classifications suggested they might ease into partial retirement by reducing the scale of their farm operations.

Only 1 operator out of 5 had discussed with his children, even casually, the possibility of their participating in so L.
plan to provide for the parents in old age. Of these, very few had make specific arrangements with the children. Mo
than 3 out of 4 operators said they would prefer to live on a farm after retirement, generally on the farm where -»_
were living at the time of the interview, and most of them preferred to live alone or with their respective spouses only
Only 1 out of 9 said he wanted to live with his children after retirement. '

Attitudes toward OASI

Eighty-three percent of the operators expressed general approval of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, 10 perce ,
disapproved of the program and the rest took no position on the question. Operators did not endorse coverage of ce“
tain farm groups as often as they did the OASI program in general. However, 69 percent favored the legislation ¢
1950 which extended OASI coverage to regular farm workers and 56 percent favored further extension of coverage '
include farm operators either with or without some qualification. Only 13 percent unqualifiedly opposed OASI cov
age of regular farm workers and 23 percent unqualifiedly opposed the inclusion of farm operators. The rest were unce
tain, usually because of their lack of knowledge of the program. With respect to OASI coverage of short-time fa.
workers, however, the prevailing attitude was one of opposition; almost two-thirds were opposed to this type of cov
age. Among operators who opposed one or more of the three types of coverage, many agreed that it was needed -
they doubted that the practical problems connected with administering such a program could be overcome.

The proportion of replies favorable to the OASI program was consistently higher among operators who had s ‘ c
security numbers than among those who did not have numbers. By race, approval was highest among Negroes and,
tenure, among tenants. Age apparently influenced attitudes at the two extremes; a more favorable attitude was fo
among the oldest and the youngest operators than among those in the other age groups. \

Regular Hired Workers a 

Regular hired workers (including workers who received a share of the crop as wages in kind) were notably defici
in financial assets. Thirteen percent had no assets and the main type of property owned by the others was an a“
mobile or motor truck. Forty-seven percent had a life or burial insurance policy; the latter was especially com”
among Negro workers because of their affiliation with fraternal organizations. Cash savings were rare. Of the r
percent who attempted to save money, most averaged no more than $5 to $10 a month. About a fifth of the wo
families had members other than the family head who earned some income during 1951, but the average income fr
this source was less than $1,000. a

Asked to estimate how long their families could live on the proceeds of all property, savings or insurance that
might have accumulated, should the family head die, more than half of the workers estimated less than 3 months. N
thought his family could be supported from such sources for more than 2 years.

Few workers, even those covered by OASI, were thoroughly familiar with the program. Only 4 out of the 60 in:
viewed had discussed with their families this or other aspects of family support in the event of their deathror disabi
Old-age assistance, followed by OASI, was regarded by most as their most likely source of support in old age. w“
workers thought they could live in retirement on a monthly cash income of less than $80 at present prices. Only

percent believed that they could meet even these needs. ~

   
 
 
 
   
    
   
   

The workers generally were pessimistic about the prospects of farming giving them an opportunity to provide}
old age or family emergencies. Three-fifths of the group did not anticipate that they would, or could, retire as lon
they were physically abIeIto work. About a fourth reported that their fathers were retired, but usually because of -
ability. In most cases,» the source of support for the fathers was old-age assistance. Some were helped by their p
dren and only 2 had been able to retire without public or private assistance. The average age of retirement for
fathers of workers was around 70 years.

Half of the workers, including sharecroppers, were covered by OASI and nearly 90 percent had social security I
bers. Yet, relatively few of them understood such features as the method of paying for the insurance, its retire,
benefits and its protection of survivors. Almost two-thirds of- them had only a hazy knowledge of the workings of.
program. Handicapped by language difficulties, Latin-American workers, in particular, were uninformed about -'

Thus, many workers were uncertain in their attitudes toward OASI coverage of various types of farm wo
Eight out of 10, however, favored the program in general. Almost all who had opinions concerning it approved 
coverage of regular hired workers on farms. Three-fifths of those with opinions concerning OASI favored its ex - A
to short-time farm workers. About 4 out of 5 of them favored extension of OASI to farm operators, although a ~ v
ity of the entire group were uncertain on this question.

QSPLI-I-aqa 4 Q- ..

*

   
   
  
  
  
   
  
    
 
  
  
   
    
  
    
   
  
   
 
  
  
   

CE THE FARM was regarded as a comparatively
fsufficient refuge for the family. Only calam-
j»; misfortune, it was reasoned, could endanger
family’s reliance upon the farm as a source of
n from youth to old age. The farm and
'ly relationship was something more than a
 cle of production. It tended to be an article
aith.

1. The depression of the 1930’s convinced many
le that the United States needed a social se-
ty system to provide a measure of economic
rity for the American worker. This objective
" embodied in the programs established by the
feral Social Security Act passed by the Con-
)’: in 1935 and amended in 1939. The contrib-
 aspects of the program providing retire-
I benefits to the aged and survivors’ benefits
1' the death of the insured breadwinner is
i n at Old-Age and Survivors Insurance. Es-
ially, the farm population was excluded from
provisions of OASI until the 1950 amend-
ts to include regular hired workers in agri-
Q re went into effect. Farm operators and
I: seasonal farm workers—unless they qualify
ugh the medium of nonfarm work--still are
leligible to participate in this program. Ser-
 study is being given, however, to the exten-
 of OASI coverage to these and other cate-
'es of workers not now covered.

QMany attempts have been made to explain
"a agricultural workers are among the last to
ive consideration for inclusion in the Old-Age
p, Survivors Insurance program. A plausible
_nation is in the historical evolution of agri-
_’ re itself. Technology, specialized production
‘the caprices of the modern market have made
F: upon traditional agrarian security. To-
, farming as a career is hardly more predict-
" or secure than any other occupation. Its

pectively, assistant professor, Department of Agricul-
‘l Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Ex-
fment Station; and labor economist, U. S. Department
~ griculture.

The Farmer Looks At His

Economic Security

A Study of Provision: Made for Uld A go by Farm Families in
Wharton Coumjl, Texa:

WILLIAM G. ADKINS AND Jon R. MOTHERAL*

INTRODUCTION

people are now exposed to many of the same
demographic, social and economic forces that have
led to increased insecurity in other segments of
the population. The aging of the country’s pop-
ulation has drawn increasing attention to the ne-
cessity for providing systematically, as individ-
uals or as groups, for the retirement needs of
both farm and nonfarm people. That farm peo-
ple have been relatively slow to seek the protec-
tion of such devices as Old-Age and Survivors In-
surance may reflect a reluctance to substitute the
techniques of the large group for the small, to
acknowledge the narrowing span between the
basic features of rural and urban life and to ac-
cept new values for old. But that farmers are
adjusting to changing conditions is evidenced by
their growing interest in providing for the haz-
ards of death and disability and the needs of old
age.

In recognition of this interest, the Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Ag-
riculture, in cooperation with the respective land-
grant colleges, has studied the problem of retire-
ment and economic security among the farm pop-
ulations of three states—Connecticut, Wisconsin
and Texas}

In Texas, complete geographic coverage of
the State was not practicable. So Wharton county
was selected for interviewing farm operators,
sharecroppers and hired farm workers. It was
regarded as a logical choice for the location of
the survey because of the variety of physical, eco-
nomic and social conditions in the Coast Prairie
area of which it is a part. During the last 2
weeks of July and the first week of August 1952,
257 farm operators and 60 farm laborers and
croppers in Wharton county were interviewed.

‘See “Old Age and Retirement in Rural Connecticut,” Bul-
letin 299, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Uni-
versity of Connecticut, June 1953, and “Farmers Concep-
tions and Plans for Economic Security in Old Age,” Re-
search Bulletin 182, Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Wisconsin, September 1953.

5

Few other Texas counties show greater di-
versity 0f farm employment conditions. Accord-
ing to the 1950 Census of Agriculture, half of the
2,724 Wharton county farm operators (including
213 croppers) were tenants. About 30 percent
of the operators were full owners. Except for a
few managers, the rest were part owners. The
scale of farm operations ranges from plantation
holdings and large cattle ranches to tracts less
than 40 acres in size.

The pattern of crop and livestock production
requires the employment of a large number of
seasonal and migratory farm workers in addition
to a substantial regular farm and ranch labor
force. Cotton and rice are the principal crops,
followed by corn, grain sorghum, hay, alfalfa,
clover, flax and truck crops. Raising of beef cat-
tle and poultry contributes importantly to farm
income and dairying is a growing enterprise.

Development of oil, gas and sulphur resour-
ces, together with small industries, provides many
opportunities for nonfarm employment. A mix-
ture of racial and ethnic groups is found in both
the farm and nonfarm population. In addition
to the predominant Anglo-Saxon population in
the county, there are many Negroes and persons
of Latin American and Czech descent.

Many of the replies summarized in this re-
port are classified by the race or nationality back-
ground of the farm family. Farm operators dif-
fered from farm workers in this category. Per-
sons of Czech extraction comprised about a fourth
of the operator group, but only about 3 percent of
the worker group. More than half of the work-
ers were Latin Americans, but less than 5 per-
cent of the operators fell in this nationality cate-
gory. Thus, while operators were classified as
Czechs, “other white” and Negroes, workers were
classified as Latin Americans, “other whites” and
Negroes.

The specific purposes of the Wharton county
study were to analyze:

1. Provisions made by farm people for re-
tirement and related family contingencies.

2. Problems of farm employers and workers
resulting from the extension of social security
coverage to regular wage earners on farms.

3. Possible consequences of the extension of
social security programs to other groups in the
farm population.

The present report does not include an ap-
praisal of the consequences of further extension
of social security. It does provide a basis from
which such appraisals may be made. It is antic-
ipated that further consideration will be given
to this matter by farmers and other groups, with
encouragement from extension editorial services.

Attitudes of farm people toward retirement
programs were considered to be important in the

6

prospects for further development of such o,
grams. Several questions, therefore, were ._
signed to learn the opinions of persons intervi
ed regarding the operation of the amended as
Security Act and the extension of coverage
other farm groups. Additional data collected
cluded a work history of farm operators a
workers, their present accumulations of reso
ces and their plans for retirement or for meeti
financial emergencies. Previous research in 5
general field suggested that many Texas fa .
ers are without effective protection against fa
ily financial crises. Within the limitations of t,
area surveyed, the Wharton county study co
firmed and clarified this supposition. 

Three short reports based on Wharton cou
ty findings were published in 1953 by the Te fi

Agricultural Experiment Station. These repo 

are: Life Insurance Protection of Farm Operat
Families, Wharton County, Texas, 1952, Progr
Report 1529; Retirement Plans of Farm 0pc

tors, Wharton County, Texas, 1952, Progress "
port 1565; and Attitudes Toward the Old-Age a

Survivors Insurance Program, Wharton Coun »

Texas, Farm Operators, 1952, Progress Rep
1584. ' ~

THE FARM OPERATOR
ECONOMIC SECURITY

Some occupational groups in the Uni '
States depend upon organized programs spons
ed by government and private enterprise for,
basic amount of old-age protection and econo ‘
security against misfortunes. The farm ope 
tor, however, to meet the financial adjustmen
associated with death, disability, unemployme,
and old age, must rely primarily upon his indi,
idual efforts and those of his family unle
through certain types of nonfarm work he a
quires benefit rights under these programs.

To accomplish his individual task of achie
ing economic security against emergencies, t’
farmer has a limited number of means availab
to him. He may seek to protect himself throu1
ownership of land. This goal has become incre _,
ingly difficult of attainment in recent years a
when obtained might prove to be inadequate pr
tection. Other methods accessible to the farm
for dealing with economic hazards are inves,
ments in retirement annuities, life insurance, no
farm real estate, stocks and bonds and other no
farm holdings. The farmer may seek to build I
curity by accumulating a herd of livestock or
may consider the residual value of his farm J
chinery as some protection. Cash savings in ‘

regular bank account or in a postal or bank sa‘

ings account may be used.

The farmer’s use of these investment an
saving means is a subject for later attention. -.-
worth is considered first, however, because 1t 1‘

  
 
  
  
  
   
    
  
   
   
 
   
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
 
  
    
   
 

haps the best single index of a farm opera-
’s progress in making use of the methods avail-
 to him for protecting himself and his family
U the consequences of emergencies and old-
 dependency.

l Worth of Wharton County Farm Operators

 Farm operators were asked to estimate their
ncial condition by subtracting their existing
Aebtedness from the value of farm real estate,
"pment and nonfarm property owned by them.
 answer in each case was a rough measure

‘ the net Worth of the operator.

 The net worth of the 257 farm operators in-
_ ‘ iewed ranged from debts greater than assets
‘ lwell over $30,000. Seventeen percent of the
rators were worth less than $1,000 and about
 of 3 had debts greater than assets. The net
a h of 19 percent was $30,000 or more (Table
 Of the latter group, about two-thirds had a
i  worth of $40,000 or over. A fourth had a net

__rth of $1,000 to $4,999. The remaining oper-
i‘ rs were about evenly distributed in the other
l  -worth categories.

I Most of the operators—56 percent--had a
 Worth of less than $10,000; 42 percent were
qssed in the less-than-$5,000 group. Since ad-
ncing years indicate the length of time that
F: operators have had to accumulate net worth,
e effect of age on amounts of savings and in-
ments is revealing.

The proportion of operators 65 and older
ving a net worth of $30,000 and over was great-
$1‘ than for any other age group (Table 1). How-
fiver, this older age group also had the largest
i portion of operators with a net worth of less
 n $1,000. Thirty-eight percent of those 65
p. nd older had a net worth of less than $5,000 and
{i2 percent of less than $10,000.

The youngest operators, those under 35, ap-
arently had made less progress toward security
 n any other age group. Sixty-two percent of
T em had accumulated less than $5,000 net, and
~5~percent less than $10,000. Thus, operators in
1;: 65-and-over age group, some of whom had as
i]: as 40 years of active working time, were in

better financial condition than operators in the
group under 35.

The oldest age group, however, had not made
more progress than all of the younger age groups.
The 35-44 age group had made considerable prog-
ress in relation to other groups. Half of the
farmers in this age group had a net worth of $10,-
000 or more. The only other age group with a
higher proportion of its operators having a net
worth of $10,000 and over consisted of operators
from 55 to 64 years of age. Seventy percent of
the 35-44 age group had a net worth of $5,000
and over, a proportion not equaled by any other
age group.

Operators from 45 to 54 years of age had
better financial conditions than operators under
35 but apparently were not as well off as opera-
tors from 35 to 44 years old and those 55 and
older. The 55-64 age group had made more prog-
ress than any other age group except perhaps the
35-44 group.

The relationship between age and net worth
for Wharton county farmers was not constant.
However, it was evident that many operators had
failed to attain adequate economic security. In
view of the limited number of productive years
left to them, many of the older operators face de-
pendency in old age and, in the meantime, may
not be able to cope independently with economic
emergencies.

Another factor which affects net worth, and
in turn the adequacy of a farm operator’s pro-
tection for himself and his family, is the compo-
sition of the farmer's family. One measure of
family composition is, of course, family struc-
ture. The families of Wharton county farm op-
erators fell predominantly into two major types
—operator and spouse alone, and operator, spouse
and children alone. Because of few occurrences,
other family types were combined, as shown in
Table 2.

Net worth averaged higher for families com-
posed of the operator and his spouse alone than
for any other family type. Only 29 percent of
this type of family had a net worth of less than
$5,000. Nearly two-thirds of the operators living

Table 1. Relationship between net worth and age of farm operators

   
  
   
  

 

Age of operator
Net worth All ages Urgger 35 _ 44 45 _ 54 55 _ 64 63;?!
Dollars Number — — — — — — — — — — — —— — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -— —
jTotall 257 100 100 100 100 100 100
i‘? Leis than 1,0002 44 17 21 10 21 12 28
,4 ,000 to 4,999 63 25 41 20 24 26 10
q 5,000 m 9,999 37 14 1a 20 14 9 14
 10,000 to 19,999 35 13 11 20 12 13 10
f 20,000 to 29,999 30 12 3 15 14 15 3
1 80,000 and over?‘ 48 19 11 15 15 25 35

 

    
 

 ludes 15 operators having “debts greater than assets.”
t’ ludes 33 operators having net worth of $40,000 and over.

number of operators in each age group was: Under 35, 37; 35-44, 60; 45-54, 77; 55-64, 54; 65 and over, 29.

Table 2. Relationship between family structure and net
worth of farm operators

Structure of operator's family
Operator, Operator,

Net worth operator spouse, spouse and

and children other not other
59ml” and with their ‘V9951

akme others children

Dollars - — — — — — Percent — — — — — —

Total? 100 100 100 100
Less than 5,000 29 42 54 64
5,000 t0 9,999 B l6 8 18
10,000 t0 19,999 12 15 15 4
20,000 and over 51 27 23 14

‘Includes operators living alone, those having children with them, and
a few having other kin with them.

ZFrom left to right, the types of family structure included 49, 173, 13
and 22 operators, respectively.

alone or with others not their spouses had a net
worth of less than $5,000, and more than four-
fifths had a net worth of less than $10,000. This
latter group, therefore, appeared to be in poorer
financial condition than the other types of fam-
ilies.

A majority of the families in the sample con-
sisted of the farm operator, his spouse and their
children; some had other persons in the house-
hold. Forty-two percent of these operators had
a net worth of less than $5,000. Age did not seem
to influence this family financial relationship.

Age, however, did have a positive associa-
tion with the net worth of an operator living with
his spouse only. Forty-six percent of such opera-
tors under 45 had a net worth of less than $5,000,
as compared with 30 percent of the operators 45
to 54 years old and only 20 percent of the opera-
tors 55 and older.

There was a fairly high inverse relationship
between the number of persons in the households
of operators and the net worth of operators. In
other words, operators with large households
were likely to have a small net worth. Of opera-
tors with households of 4 persons and fewer, older
operators generally had a larger net worth than
did the younger operators. For households con-

 

Figure 1. Texas Guli Sulphur Company plant, Newguli.
Another source oi noniarm employment, sulphur production
provides economic security for some families.

8

- “~ Education of operator

Table 3. Relationship between net worth and race or i
nationality background

‘Race or nationality background of operatol

Net worth
I Czech I Other white | Negro
Dollars - — — — — — Percent — — — — — -

Total1 100 100 100
Less than 5,000 39 25 87
5,000 to 9,999 20 14 9
10,000 to 19,999 15 17 4
20,000 and over 26 44 0

166 Czech, 138 other white and 53 Negro operators.

taining more than 4 persons, younger operators
appeared to have slightly higher average net
worth than older operators.

Race or nationality background is significant
in appraising economic status. The average net
worth of Negro operators, for example, was small-
er than that of the other race or nationality
groups. Eighty-seven percent of the Negro oper-
ators interviewed had a net worth of less than
$5,000 (Table 3). None reported a net worth o
$20,000 and over. Many of the Negro farme _
classed in the less-than-$5,000 category in realit
had a minus net worth. . *

 
  
 
   
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
   
  
   
  
  
 

This condition was not restricted to Negr
farmers, however, for about two-fifths of Czec
American farmers also had a net worth of le
than $5,000. Although operators classified -
“other white” were in a much better financial I
sition than Negro and Czech farmers, a fourt
owned less than $5,000 in net assets. In each rap,
or nationality group, older operators had a hig _
er average net worth than younger operators.

Education apparently influences the chan -
that farm operators have for accumulating ca
ital. In general, the more formal education po-

was the level of their net worth (Table 4). Th
relationship was striking; 59 percent of the op t‘
ators who had 4 years or less of schooling we i
in the lowest net worth group and only 19 perce a
were in the highest, while these percentages We a
almost exactly reversed for operators whose ed
cation was equal to 4 years completed in hig
school or more. 

  

In the several age and race or nationali
groups it appeared that relatively greater edu ’
tion improved the chance of operators to acqu’
a larger net worth. Similarly, of course, the sa 

economic conditions that make education possi

Table 4. Relationship between net worth and educaii I

     

Net worth 4 years 5-7 years 1-3 years 4 years
and less in in ‘gh sc
in school school high school and m .v
Dollars —— — — — — Percent — — — — — — —
Totall 10o 10o 10o 10o 
Less than 5,000 59 43 33 20
5,000 to 9,999 15 20 10
10,000 to 19,999 7 17 16 l3
20,000 and over 19 20 41 60

 

   

lThere were 68 operators with 4 years and less schooling, 89 with
yearsi 70 with 1-3 years and 30 who had had at least 4 years of 
schoo . "

  

Relationship between net worth and nonfarm
work experience

 le 5.

    

 

Nonfarm work of operator

 

  
 
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
    
  
  
  
 

j I No Nonfarm Nonfarm Nonfarm
‘ Net worth nonfarm wor wor work
f work, past prior to 1951 in 1951, but in 1951
” nor in but none in not as main as main
1951 1951 activityl activity‘
Dollars — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — -
mu 100 100 10o 100
 than 5,000 43 42 51 11
, 0 to 9,999 15 17 10 11
_' ,000 to 19,999 10 18 12 28
.000 and over 32 23 27 50

II- out regard to nonfarm work prior to 1951.

i0 left to right the nonfarm-work categories included 126, 72, 41
. 18 operators, respectively.

' the individual tend t0 improve his chance of
_' reasing his net worth.

Other variables may affect net Worth and in
p n may be affected by it. A farmer may turn
. i“ nonfarm work because his farm income is in-
ficient to meet his needs. Or, the farmer’s
1 farm work may be an important factor in rais-
 his net worth above that of his neighbor’s.
. arton county farmers whose main earning ac-
'ties in 1951 were nonfarm in nature had a
 her average net worth than did other opera-
3 (Table 5). About 4 out of 5 operators who
ported nonfarm Work as their main activity in
51 had a net worth of $10,000 or more. Only
f?» ut 2 out of 5 of the other operators had a net
‘orth of $10,000 or more. Half of the operators
7th nonfarm Work as their main activity in 1951
f== a net Worth of $20,000 or more, as compared
f 'th about a third of the operators with no non-
work.

es of Savings and Investments

One out of 20 operators in Wharton county
ted that he did not use any type of saving or
qvestment (Table 6). Such operators indicated
at they were “just getting along.” All of these
rators were in the less-than-$5,000 category
 net worth and most of them had a net worth of
 than $1,000. But many other operators hav-
i; a 10W net worth—some with no net worth—
' ed various methods they were using to save

0* ble 6. Types of savings or investment of 257 farm op-
~ era-tors, by net worth

‘ es of savings I Net worth of operator

 
   
   
     
      
  

s _ °1' I All Less than $5,000- $10,000- $20,000
- Investment operators $5,000 9,999 19,999 and over
1 Number - — — — -- Percent — — — — — —
01:91 257 100 100 100 100 100
P- one 13 5 12 0 0 0
arm land, live-
_ (ck or improve-
‘m; only 33 13 22 14 s 4

rm land, live-
 ~ k or improve
ents and some
er type 153 60 29 54 83 93
vings or invest-
. ts other than
. land, live-
I k or improve-
a ts 58 22 37 32 11 3

or invest money. Most frequently these were life
insurance and farm machinery.

Thirteen percent of all operators had invest-
ments in farm land, livestock or farm improve-
ments as their only method of increasing their
security. Successively higher net worth groups
made less use of this type of saving or invest-
ment alone. For example, 22 percent of the op-
erators with a net worth of less than $5,000 used
this method and no other, while only 4 percent of
the operators with a net Worth of $20,000 and
over used this method by itself.

Sixty percent of all operators were using
some other medium for investment or saving, in
addition to farm land, livestock or improvements.
Greater proportions of operators in each succes-
sively higher net-worth group were investing in
farm land, livestock or improvements and also
were using other Ways to invest or save money.

Life insurance was named more often than
any single item as a means of obtaining family
security. The residual value of farm machinery
was named frequently as a “saving.” Life insur-
ance and farm machinery were often the only
ways of saving or investing that operators hav-
ing a net worth of less than $5,000 were using to
gain security. Since life insurance amounts are
not reflected in net Worths as are other types of
savings and investments, more detailed attention
is given later to this method of protection against
economic hazards.

Nonfarm Income

More than half of the farm operators had
some income from sources other than their farm-
ing operations in 1951 (Table 7). Of the opera-
tors who had such additional income, a large per-
centage received the income for their own per-
sonal labor or investments. Comparatively few
reported that income was received by other mem-
bers of the operator’s family.

The most frequent source of supplemental in-
come was nonfarm Work (Table 8). Of operators
Who had income in 1951 in addition to that from
their farming enterprise, more than half receiv--
ed all or a part of such income from working at
nonfarm jobs. These operators comprised 28 per-

Table 7. Income in 1951 from sources other than farm-
ing operations

. . All
Income and recipient operators

Number I Percent

Total 257 100
N0 source of income from other

than farming operations 121 47
Source(s) of income from other

than farming operations 136 53
Income received by farm

operator only 110 43
Income received by other member(s)

of family only 13 5
Income received by operator and

other member(s) of family 13 5

Table 8. Sources of income of farm operators in 1951
other than farming operations, by net worth

Source of income A" Net worth of operator
“her than, farm operators Less than $5,000- $10,000- $20,000
"Pemtw" $5,000 9,999 19,999 and over
Number — — — — — Percent — — — — — -
Total 257 100 100 100 100 100
No other source 121 47 56 68 43 27
Other sources 136 53 44 32 57 73
Labor on other
farms 14 5 12 0 3 0
Custom work on
other farms 9 4 6 0 3 3
Nonfarm work 71 28 23 22 31 35
Investments 28 11 5 3 14 23
Oil and gas royalty
or rental 41 16 0 3 17 44
Veterans’ benefits _ 12 5 6 5 6 3
Other 5 2 3 0 3 1

cent of all operators interviewed. Second in freq-
uency were oil and gas rentals and royalties which
were received by 16 percent of the operators. This
type of income was usually a small proportion of
the operator’s total income. Investments in farm
land, nonfarm real estate and other holdings pro-
vided varying amounts of income to 11 percent of
the operators. Smaller proportions of operators re-
ceived income from labor on other farms, custom
work on other farms, veterans’ programs and
other sources, among which old-age assistance
was the most common.

Operators who had a net worth of $20,000
or more Were far more likely to have income from
sources other than farming than were other op-
erators. Almost three-fourths of these operators
with a relatively high net worth had such income,
as compared with less than half of the operators
with a net worth of less than $5,000. The farm-
er with a substantial net worth is able to invest
his surplus capital in holdings which return an in-
come. Moreover, a large number of the Wharton
county farmers with a high net worth were part-

Figure 2. Many farms in Wharton County are in or
near areas of oil or gas production. Income from mineral
rights frequently figures in the economic security of land-
owners. For others. nonfarm employment supplements farm
wages.

10

   
 
 
  
  
 
   
    
   
 
 
   
 
   
 
  
   
   
   
  
  
 
     
    
  
 
 
   
  
 
   
   
  

time farmers who owned and operated nonfar ,
businesses or perhaps held full-time nonfarm j obs j
Many of these wealthier farmers were landowni
ers, and 44 percent received mineral royalties o s’
rentals. Farmers with a net worth of less tha 
$5,000 were more likely to have nonfarming in f
come than were operators in the $5,000-9,999 ne
worth bracket. i

Slightly more than half of the operators in,
terviewed received some income in 1951 other tha i
from their farming operations (Table 9). Abou
1 operator out of 6 received 50 percent or mor
of his income from sources other than farming.
Three-fourths of the farmers either had no in-i
come from sources other than farming or receiv 
ed less than one-fourth of their total income from
such sources.

 

Both tenure status and size of farm influen
ced the proportion of a farmer’s income whic
came from sources other than farming (Tabl
10). a

Among the tenure groups, without regar
to size, tenants were least likely to have an {
come from sources other than farming; 58 pe
cent had no such income. Most of the remaini
tenants received less than a fourth of their it
come from nonfarm sources. Only 9 percent  
the tenant farmers received as much as half 1
their total income from such sources. Full ow 4
ers were the most likely to have some proporti
of their income from nonfarm sources; 68 pe
cent received such income. Part owners fell b
tween tenants and full owners in the degree  
dependence on supplemental sources of ineom
46 percent having no income except from the
farming operations. 

Within tenure groups, farm size was close
related to the composition of operators’ income
Among tenant farmers, two-thirds of those o”
erating large farms had no nonfarm income. i,
the tenants on large farms who had other incom‘
the majority had less than a fourth of their t0 i
income from such sources. Tenants on mediut
sizefarms differed only slightly from large-fa  y
tenants in types of income. Small-farm tena p,
however, having more free time and probably,‘
greater need for supplemental income, frequen
received income from outside sources.

Among full owners, the effect of farm s
seemed to be reversed. Forty-eight percent i.

Table 9. Percent of total income in 1951 from sou l
other than farming operations and net wor 1

Percent of income All I Net worth of operator ' j
from other than operators i Less than’ $5,000- $10,000-| $203

farming "Peratims I $5.000 9,999 19,999 and e
Number - -- — — — Percent — — — — 
Total 257 100 100 100 100 “
None 121 47 5s 0s 4s 
1 - 24 0s 20 23 17 29
25 - 49 27 11 9 5 0
50 - 74 22 9 s 5 11
75 and more 19 7 4 5 17

  
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
   
  
   
    
  
   
  
   
   
   
  

 full owners of small farms had no outside
lice of income, as compared with 28 and 15
ent of the owners of medium-size and large
p) s, respectively. When small-farm owners
pfihave nonfarm income it was likely to make
‘three-fourths or more of their income. Of the
percent of the full owners of large farms hav-
I supplemental income, the majority reported
n: such income was less than a fourth of their
l: income.

. Age of operators apparently had little to do
eh proportions of income from nonfarm sour-
i. On the other hand, race and nationality back-
,und did have some effect, especially within
lure groups. Among full owners and part own-
 fewer Negro farmers had a nonfarm income
f, rce than did white farmers. In contrast, Ne-
 tenants often had income from nonfarm sour-
1 and white tenants seldom had nonfarm in-
L: e.

purance Coverage of Farm Operators

 Farmers are accustomed to dealing with tan-
le things in their day-to-day activities. Their
nomic interests are naturally centered on ma-
2 'al production and their savings tend to flow
.1 land, livestock and equipment. In Wharton
g nty, it was found that many farmers had giv-
 little serious consideration to such intangibles
1 insurance, either for investment purposes or
ja means of family protection. Some operators
p e even uncertain as to the status of their life
lurance; wives often were better informed than
fir husbands as to the type and amount of in-
A nce owned by the family head.

  Information was obtained on burial, life and
kness and accident insurance. Burial policies
s  classified separately because they have a

0,111 face value which ordinarily covers little more
 funeral expenses? Standard types of life
iurance, including endowments, are usually

n rial insurance,” as used in this report, is a term of
lnvenience to identify small policies of several types re-
,rted in the sample area. Under Texas law, true burial
nsociations are usually serviced by undertakers, with
“nefits payab-le in funeral goods and services. Under
I) insurance, a maximum benefit of only $150 may be
fered (Ch. 22, Art. 5068-1, Sec. 3, and Ch. 274 of the
fits of the 41st Legislature, 1929, and amendments there-

size of farm

Figure 3. Negro Masonic Lodge, Glen Flora. Fraternal
organizations are a significant factor in the lives of Negro
farm families in Wharton county. Besides their social im-
portance, these lodges provide members with minimum
financial protection in the event of death.

bought in units of $1,000 and, therefore, provide
some additional funds above the minimum finan-
cial requirements occasioned by the death of the
family head. Fraternal organizations and lodges
are the main source of burial insurance in Whar-
ton county, and the holding of such policies in-
volves membership functions of a broader social
character than that of policyholding in commer-
cial or government insurance programs.

Fourteen percent of the farmers did not have
any of the types of insurance on which informa-
tion was obtained (Table 11). Fifteen percent
had burial insurance only and 3 percent had sick-
ness insurance and no other. Thus, about 32 per-
cent of the farmers had little or no insurance pro-
tection. i

Thirty percent of the operators had life in-
surance alone or with burial insurance. Life and
sickness insurance policies, with or without burial
insurance, were held by 16 percent of the opera-
tors. Eleven percent had life, sickness and acci-
dent insurance. Very few farmers had all the
types of insurance.

Life insurance was used more frequently by
Wharton county operators than any of the other

ljble 10. Percent of income in 1951 from other than farming operations of 257 farm operators, by tenure status and

 
 

f’ Percent of income

Tenure status and size of farml

Tenure status without regard

  
 

, from other than Fun owner

Part owner

Tenant to size of farm

_ farming operations

  
 

5. 5:512

   
   

v.1 - 100 33 8 8 0

100 100 100 100 100
, one 48 28 15 70 38
‘j -24 11 32 47 12 25
w -49 4 15 15 s 31
= - 74 4 17 15 12

Small | Medium l Large l Small I Medium | Large I Small I Medium I Larg-e Full owner | Part owner | Tenant

100 100 100 100 100 100 100
33 40 63 67 32 46 58
42 32 24 21 28 27 25
10 8 7 8 11 15 8

5 16 6 0 13 6 7
10 4 0 4 16 6 2

    
  
 

 acres or more.

i all farms are defined as those of less than 80 total acres; medium-size farms are those of 80-159 total acres, and large farms are those of 160

ong the 87 full owners, 39 operated small farms, 31 medium-size farms, and 17 large farms; of the 54 part owners, 19 operated small farms, 9
_ium-size farms, and 26 large farms; of the 116 tenants, 43 operated small farms, 41 med1um-s1ze farms, and 32 large farms.

11

Table 11. Types of insurance held by farm operators‘

. All t
Types of insurance opera ors

Number | Percent

Total 257 100
No insurance 35 14
Burial only 40 15
Sickness only 7 3
Burial and sickness and/or accident 12 5
Life only and with burial 78 30
Life and sickness with or without burial 41 16
Life and accident with or without burial 9 4
Life, sickness and accident with or

without burial 30 l1
Accident and sickness 5 2

1Without regard to combinations of types of insurance, 20 percent of
the operators had burial, 61 percent life, 37 percent sickness and 19
percent accident insurance

types. Eighteen percent, however, had neither
life nor burial insurance, the latter being life in-
surance of a small amount (Table 12). A fifth
of the total sample group carried policies with
face values of less than $500. Another fourth
were insured for amounts between $500 and $1,-
500, most of which consisted of $1,000 policies.
Nearly one-fourth of all operators owned policies
providing for $1,500 to $5,000 in death benefits.
Slightly more than 1 operator out of 16 was in-
sured for amounts ranging from $5,000 to $10,-
000 and a similar proportion was insured for $10,-
000 or more.

In general, the amount of life insurance car-
ried by farm operators in Wharton county was
inversely related to the age of the operator. Six-
teen percent of the operators under 35 years of
age were insured for $10,000 or more, as contrast-
ed with only 3 percent of those 65 and over. The
highest proportion of uninsured farmers, 28 per-
cent, was among those 55-64 years of age.

Burial policies were far less popular with the
younger than with the older operators. Only 3
percent of those under 35 years of age were in-
sured for sums of less than $500, but 45 percent
of those 65 and older had such protection. In-
surance coverage in the next smallest category—
$500-1,500—Was common in all age groups, rang-
ing from 17 percent for those 65 and over to 30
percent for those under 35.

Younger farmers attached more significance
to life insurance than did the older farmers. Sev-
eral tentative explanations might be offered for
the effect of the age factor upon the maintenance
of some kind of insurance program. Most of the
veterans of World War II who were interviewed

Table 12. Amount of life insurance of farm operators, by
age of operator

Amount of l Age of operator

 

life insurance All Under _ 65 and
i operatorsl 35 l 35'“ i 45'“ l 53454 over

Dollars Number- —- — — — Percent — — — — — — —
Total 257 100 100 100 100 100 100
None 47 18 16 15 14 28 21
l-4991 52 20 3 16 24 18 45
500-1,499 63 25 30 22 27 24 17
1,500-2,999 31 12 13 15 10 15 3
3,000-4,999 28 11 11 10 17 7 4
5,000-9,999 17 7 11 12 3 4 7
10,000 and over 19 7 16 10 5 4 3

1All policies in the $1-499 class are burial policies.

12

   
  
    
  
 
 
 
 
    
  
   
   
   
  
 
   
 
   
  
  
   
  
 
 
  
    

were under 35 years of age; virtually all of th'
group had at one time carried a National Servi
Life Insurance policy and a fairly large num
had kept it active. Educational levels were hig '1
er among the younger farmers, and they m
have developed a keener appreciation for the val
of life insurance than had their elders. The old
farmers who did not take out life insurance.’
their youth now find it impossible to obtain, 
too expensive, even though their recognition 
the need for additional protection may be as gr Q
or greater than that of the younger operators.
third possible reason is that the family respo
sibilities of the average younger farmer were o,
ten greater than those of older farmers. Finall
a much higher proportion of the older farme
owned land and other property which would l
sen the financial impact on their families in t
event of their deaths.

Tenure of the operator bore comparative
little relation to the amount of life insurance 
ried by Wharton county operators. Landowne
generally had greater amounts of life insuran
than tenants, but the difference was not striki - -
and fewer tenants than full owners were actua , I
without insurance protection. ‘

In each tenure group, it was chiefly the 0
erators of large farms who had the great
amount of life insurance. For example, only
percent of all the operators were insured for
much as $10,000 but on large farms 18 perce
of the full owners, 34 percent of the part own
and 12 percent of the tenants were insured f
$10,000 or more. None of the operators of sm
farms carried this much insurance, and few
them were insured for more than $3,000.

A high percentage of the small operators h
burial insurance; among full owners it was 
percent, among part owners 74 percent and amo
tenants 40 percent. Virtually none of the ope»
tors of large farms confined his insurance cov
age to one of these small policies.

As might be expected, net worth and t
amount of life insurance were closely associa
in most instances. This relationship, howev
was probably modified by the “G. I.” insura
program available to many young farmers. '

r-Fl-I-z‘ fh b-kbd f\ iiixlh-l

The proportion of operators with no life
surance did not vary much with net Worth. 

Table 13. Amount of life insurance of farm o

perat ~
by net worth ,

r4

 
   
  

A“ Net worth of operator

I
operators l Less than $1,000- lsaooo- l$10,000-'$20,000- 7
1 $1,000 4,999 9,999 l19.999I29,999

Amount of
li

 

insurance I

Dollars — — — — — —— — Percent —- — —- — g

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

None 18 14 20 16 26 20
l-499 20 55 30 11 8 3
5004.499 25 23 25 41 11 30
1,500-2,999 12 2 16 13 20 17
3,000-4,999 11 2
5,000-9,999 7 4 2 8 6 7
10,000 and

over 7 0

 

  
 

rators with net worths of $30,000 or more were
exactly as well represented in the uninsured
group, at 14 percent, as were operators in the
lowest net-worth class. The lack of insurance
among those farmers having little 0r no net as-
. sets is easily understood, but in the case of those
with substantial amounts of unencumbered prop-
erty the explanation probably is found in differ-
entials of age, education, veteran status and in-
Vestment preferences. The $10,000-19,999 net-
Worth bracket contained the highest percentage
of operators with no life insurance-—26 percent.
éMore than half of these operators, however, had
life insurance of $1,500 or more.

  
  
   
  
   
 
   
   
    
  
   
   
    
  
 
  
  

Burial policies appeared in a familiar pattern,
suggesting not only a difference in wealth but in
social status as well. The relationship was al-
’ ost straight line, ranging from 55 percent of
’ he operators in the lowest net-Worth class to only
i" percent of the operators in the highest net-
» orth class.

_ amily Support in Event of Death or Permanent
‘sability of the Operator

A Three-fourths of the operators had not dis-
a ssed with their families the problem of family
pport in the event of either the death or per-
anent disability of the operator (Table 14). Al-
ost all of the operators who had considered fam-
' support in the event of their death also had
cussed family support in the event of their
rmanent disability.

A greater proportion of the operators in high
t-worth categories had discussed these prob-
l s with their families than had operators of
s secure financial standing. While questions
pncerning the specific planning of the families
vealed little, it was evident that the plans of
milies in higher net-Worth brackets were more
act and complete than the plans of operators
fth a lower net Worth. The latter operators of-
j said that they and their families had “just
; ked about it.” Family discussions of these

if le 14. Consideration through discussion with family
= of family support in event of death or total dis-
ability of operator, by net worth

Net worth of operator

I iscussion A" l
a "f “"1"” operators Less than $1,000 ' $5,000 $10,000 $20,000
‘. Illvlmt $1,000 4,999 9,999 19,999 and over
u’ Number - — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — —
257 100 100 100 100 100 100
event of death
f operator
18 7 2 3 5 9 13
event of per
anent dlsa
llty of oper-
tor only 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
event of death
of perman
t disability
1 operator 45 18 7 11 16 20 28
i e not dis-
sod either
blem 193 75 91 84 79 71 59

i : than .5 percent.

Table 15. Sources of income in old age of farm opera-
tors, by net worth

l
N t th f t
Sources of income All l e war o opera or

 

in old age operators Less than $5,000- $10,000- $20,000
$5,000 9,999 19,999 and over
Number — — — — — — Percent — — — — — —
Total 257 100 100 100 100 100
Farm land, live-
stock or im-
provements 102 40 5 30 54 86
Other sources
of incomel 24 9 5 ll 17 11
No source of
income 131 51 90 59 29 3

llncludes cash savings and nonfarm investments.

problems had occurred with greatest frequency
among White operators of comparatively high ed-
ucational attainment. Similarly, older operators
and operators With large amounts of life insur-
ance had more often discussed family support
with the families. Each of these classes of op-
erators was generally identified with the high
net-Worth categories. Thus, While race, educa-
tion, age and experience with formal types of fi-
nancial security were all related to an apparent
consciousness of the need for family protection,
these in turn were associated with the economic
means for providing such protection.

Sources of Income in Old Age

Each farm operator was asked if he held a
saving or investment which he expected to be of
importance as a source of income in old age. Op-
erators having more than one type of saving or
investment were asked to name the type they be-
lieved would be the most important. About half
of the operators, while having some saving or in-
vestment, did not believe that any of their hold-
ings would serve as important sources of income
in old age (Table 15).

In terms of their net worth, a few operators
perhaps were unduly pessimistic. For example,
3 percent of the operators who had a net worth
of $20,000 or more were not certain that they held
any saving or investment which would serve as
an important source of income in old age. Ninety
percent of the operators with a net worth of less
than $5,000 did not believe that they had yet ob-
tained an important source of income for old age.

Farm land, livestock or improvements most
often were given as an important income source
in old age. Forty percent of the operators listed
these sources. Only 9 percent of the farmers
named other types of holdings as future sources
of income. These consisted mainly of life insur-
ance, cash savings and nonfarm real estate. Sour-
ces of income in old age were related to race or
nationality background in much the same way as
net worth. Negro operators, who were predom-
inantly in the low net-worth categories, also were
the most likely to be without a source of income
in old age. Czech farmers had much brighter ex-
pectations than Negroes but were not as well off
as other white operators.

13

Table 16. Sources of support in old age of farm opera-
tors, by net worth

Net worth of operator
Sources of support All
in old age operators Less than $5,000- $10,000- $20,000
$5,000 9,999 19,999 and over
Number — — — — -— — Percent — — — — — —- -
Total 257 100 100 100 100 100
Saving or invest-
ment already
eldl 126 49 9 40 71 98

Continue farming
only 45 18 28 27 14 0

Continue farming

and other sources

of support 53 20 41 14 9 1
Sources of sup-

port other than

continue farm-

ing 23 9 17 5 6 1
Uncertain regard-

ing sources
of support 10 4 5 14 0 0

lOperators in this category were not asked specifically about sources
of support in old age because they had previously reported assets
which would be important sources of income and support 1n old age.

Other Sources of Support in Old Age

Farmers not reporting assets which would
be important sources of income in old age were
asked what they thought would be their sources
of support in old age. Many of these operators
replied that they Would continue farming as long
as they were able. Continuing to farm was the
only source that 18 percent of the farmers named
(Table 16). Twenty percent said that they would
continue to farm to support themselves but
thought they Would have other sources of sup-
port. Only 4 percent of the operators failed to
name an expected source of support.

None of the operators With a net Worth of
$10,000 or more failed to name a source of sup-
port. The majority of these operators already
had established that they had a source of income
in old age from their present holdings. Sixty-
nine percent of the operators with a net Worth of
less than $5,000 believed that farming would con-
tinue to be their source of support even in old
age. For 28 percent of these operators, farming
was the only anticipated source of support, while

Table 17. Source-s of support in old age of 131 operators
not having sources of income in old age, by
race or nationality background

Sources of A“ Race or nationality background
support
in old age operators Czech Other white Negro
Number — — —- —- — Percent — — — -— —

Totall 131 100 100 100 100
Continue farming 98 75 74 76 75
Other job 13 10 6 7 17
Expects to

acquire land 12 9 9 15 2
Old-age assistance 36 28 6 15 62
Assistance from

relatives 10 8 6 5 12
Old-age and sur-

vivors insurance 2 2 3 2 0
Other source 14 11 12 9 12
Uncertain regarding

sources of support 10 4 15 7 2

lThe number of operators in each of the race or nationality groups
was: Czechs, 34; other whites, 55; Negroes, 42.

14

41 percent felt that their support would com
from farming and other sources.

When only those operators without a sourc

of income were considered, it was found that th
race and nationality groups were very similar n

their dependence on farming in old age. Abou

three-fourths of each group said that they woul

continue farming as a means of support in ol

age (Table 17). The groups differed Widely i ’

their thinking about other sources of suppor
For example, 62 percent of the Negro farmers, I
percent of the Czechs and 15 percent of the othe
Whites named old-age assistance as anothe
source. Negro operators also considered assis
ance from relatives as sources of support mor
often than did the other groups. Many Negr
farmers also stated that they Would continue

farm or do odd jobs and, when too old and feebl
to work, would get the “old-age pension.” Czec,
and other White operators quite often did not co a
sider any source of support except continuing

arm.

Very few operators under 45 named assis i

ance from relatives and old-age assistance as r

able sourcesof support in old age. These young
operators stressed sources of support which woul,
involve Work on their part, either on the farm l.
in nonfarm employment. Older operators reco
nized the possibility that their own efforts mig

prove inadequate and often placed their main r
liance in aid from relatives and the old-age peg
s1on. _

Employment in Jobs Covered by Old-Age
and Survivors Insurance

Since social security laws went into effect '
1936, only 36 percent of the farmers for who
Work histories were available had Worked in jo
now covered by OASI (Table 18). Some of t
operators having such Work experience did n
have social security numbers. Therefore, n
more than 29 percent of all operators interview
could have obtained any social security credits.
far smaller proportion actually had participa

Table 18. Employment of farm operators since 1936.
jobs now covered by old-age and survivors
surance, by possession of social security nu
ber and age of operator

Covered employment

Age of operator

and possession ll 1
of social operators Underl 35- I 45- I 55- I65 f
security number 35 44 54 64 o l
Number - — — — — —- Percent — — — —
Totall 234 100 100 100 100 100 1
No covered
employment 150 64 12 61 70 78 ‘>7

Had covered em-
ployment but not
social security
number 16 7 26 4 3 4

Had covered em-
ployment and pos-
sessed social secur-
ity number 68 29 62 35 27 18

lComplete work histories were not obtained for 23 operators. The l
ber in each age group from whom this record was obtained was:
der 35, 34; 35-44, 54; 45-54, 71; 55-64, 46; 65 and over, 29.

 
  
   
  
     
 
   
  
  
 
  
 
  
   
   
 
 

> OASI program because some of the jobs
overed by OASI were not covered when the
tors were doing the work.

s ounger operators were more likely to have
’ ch employment now covered by OASI than
lolder farmers. Only 12 percent of the op-
s under 35 had not worked in employment
covered; 62 percent possessed social security
u- and had worked in jobs now covered by
. The remaining 26 percent did not have
 security numbers but had worked in jobs
‘covered. Operators in the next oldest age
u to 44—were less likely to have had
_ d employment; 61 percent of these opera-
‘had had none. Smaller proportions of suc-
ely older age groups had been employed
? 1936 in jobs which are now covered by
q . The oldest group of operators, 65 and old-
(‘ldom had been employed in jobs for which
j: is now OASI coverage. Only 7 percent of
tter operators had held such jobs.

,Of the operators who had worked in jobs now
l” ed, the majority had worked in such jobs for
rs or more. These operators, however, com-
w less than one-fifth of the total. About 14
‘nt of all operators had worked from 3 to 5
p; in covered employment and 4 percent had
rs or less in such employment.

"Farmers as a whole had few OASI credits.
i if all of the jobs now covered by OASI had
 covered at the time of their employment, few
ese operators would be able to depend upon

I benefits in old age.

  
  
    
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
 
   
 
    
  
  
    
   
  
  
    

tary Needs of Farmers in Old Age

“If prices stay the same as they are now,
‘_t how much cash per month will be required
ivou (and your wife) to live fairly comfortably
q retirement?” This question was asked of
ers in order that a comparison could be made
(tirement needs and the adequacy of the farm-
program toward economic security. At the
e time, the opinions of farmers concerning
_ requirements in old age could be compared
J the benefit payments available to persons
‘red by OASI. (The maximum OASI benefit
a husband and wife is $127.50 per month.)

~ Monthly cash requirements after retirement,
timated by the farmers, ranged from below
" to above $160. The figure most commonly
 was about $100 a month (Table 19). About
y of the farmers estimated their monthly needs
$100 or more, while the rest guessed their
thly retirement needs would be less than
y. Comparatively few operators believed that
could live fairly comfortably on less than $40
011th.

a Operators of higher net worth usually fore-
» higher cash requirements than did operators
‘ lower net worth. Thirty percent of the farm-
jin the net worth class of $20,000 and over felt

Table 19. Monthly cash retirement needs by net worth

Monthly cash A“ Net worth of operator
retirement

needs operators Less than $5,000- $10,000- $20,000

$5,000 9,999 19,999 and over
 

   

Dollars Number - — — — — — Percent — — — — — -—
Totall 251 100 100 100 100 100
Less than 40 11 5 8 6 0 1
40-59 43 17 26 20 8 8
60-79 41 16 28 12 3 9
80-119 75 30 26 34 43 27
120-159 41 16 8 14 26 25
160 and over 40 16 5 14 20 30

lSix operators did not estimate their retirement needs.

that their retirement needs would be $160 or more
each month.

The needs of the operators in the lowest net-
worth bracket seemed to center around the $60-
79 requirement interval, and each successively
higher net-worth group showed a tendency to con-
centrate its needs around a higher amount. It was
evident that the retirement needs of farmers are
conditioned by the level of living to which they
have been accustomed, although net worth as a
measure of level of living does not account for all
of the variation between the expressed needs of
the farmers.

Apparently, age also affected the opinions of
operators as to what their retirement needs would
be. Forty-two percent of the farmers under 35
set their retirement needs at $120 or more per
month. Smaller proportions of each older age
group named this relatively high amount. Three-
fourths of the younger operators felt that $80 a
month or more would be required to allow them
to live comfortably after retirement. Successive-
ly older age groups predicted successively smaller
retirement needs. Only about half of the older
operators would require $80 or more.

Race and nationality background appear to
have had more effect on expectations with regard
to retirement needs than can be accounted for by
net worth. A tenth of the Negro operators felt
that they could live comfortably after retirement
on less than $40 a month, but, only 3 percent of
the other two groups named sums this small.
About 3 out of 4 of the Negro farmers believed
that less than $80 a month would meet their re-
tirement needs, as compared with fewer than half
of the Czech farmers and only 20 percent of the
other white operators.

Prospects for Financing Retirement Needs

About half of the operators interviewed felt
that they would be able to finance their retire-
ment (Table 20). Twenty-eight percent were un-
certain as to their ability to meet retirement needs
and 22 percent believed that they would not have
the cash requirements that would allow them to
live comfortably in old age. Operators with
monthly cash requirements of $160 or more, more
often than others, expressed confidence in their
ability to meet retirement needs; three-fourths of

15

   

Table 20. Confidence of farm operators in their ability to finance retirement, by amounts of retirement need
Confidence in ability A“ Monthly cash retirement need of operator
to operators Less than $160 and Needs ~
finance retirement $40 $4o'59 $6049 $80419 $120459 over unknown
Number - — — — — — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 257 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Will be able to finance retirement 128 50 55 44 27 51 51 75 50
Uncertain as to ability to 72 28 36 30 46 21 34 13 17
finance retirement
Will not be able to finance retirement 57 22 9 26 27 28 15 12 33

these operators believed that they would be able
to meet their retirement needs.

Farmers with very lOW retirement needs also
were fairly confident of their ability to finance
retirement, but operators with retirement needs
of $60-79 a month were least assured about their
retirement income prospects. Landowners were
generally confident of their ability to support
themselves in old age. More than three-fourths
of the farmers who owned all of the land they op-
erated felt that they could finance their retire-
ment. Only about a fourth of the tenant opera-
tors believed that they would be able to meet these
needs. Farmers who owned part of the land they
operated fell between full owners and tenants in
this degree of confidence. »

To all operators, the size of the farm under
their operation largely determines the capacity
of the operator to gain economic security. Full
owners with large acreages were more certain of
their ability to finance retirement than were other
tenure groups in Wharton county; nearly 90 per-
cent expressed such confidence. Less than half
of the tenants operating large farms were certain
that they would have sufficient funds to permit
them to live comfortably in old age. Full owners
and part owners who operated medium-size and
large tracts also were quite confident regarding
financing their retirement. Only the small-farm
owners were uncertain about the outlook for fi-
nancial security in old age.

Attitudes Toward Farming as an Occupation

It is frequently asserted that farming is dif-
ferent from other occupations because it gives
farm people a better chance to provide for their
old age. Almost without exception, Wharton
county farmers were profoundly interested in the
subject. The argument provoked a great deal of
deliberation, for it necessitated a critical compari-
son of their chosen occupation with all others.

Many of the Wharton county farmers in re-
cent years had an opportunity to go into other oc-
cupations. Some had come into farming from
other occupations. Some of the farmers inter-
viewed had left farming at some time for other
types of work, but later returned to farming.
These farmers would be expected to have a strong
preference for farming as an occupation, but they
failed to show it in their opinions. Almost half
of them expressed the belief that farming gave

16

no better chance to provide for old age than an?

other occupation.

About a fourth of the farmers believed t g
farming did give them a better chance than oth
occupations. Twenty-seven percent, who were u
decided on the question, felt that under some co
dition farming presented the best opportunity f,
providing for old age. These operators often s
ted that landowners, but not other farm peop
had a better opportunity to achieve economic fl
curity than people in most nonfarm occupatio

Of those who thought that farming did -
give a better chance to provide for old age, so ,
believed the opportunity depended upon the '
dividual rather than his occupation. A signific l
majority, however, went a step further and f
clared that farming did not provide as good l
opportunity as other occupations. They poin
out that “farming is just like gambling” beca 
of weather, cost and price risks, and that the i
come of a great many farmers is so irregular t _
planning for old age is difficult.

Those favoring farming as an occupation oft
supported their views by reasoning that farm v
ple had an opportunity to buy land. That fa 
ers could live more cheaply and thus save m,
of their earnings was another common reas
given in support of farming. Some operators f 5
that farmers have a better opportunity to sa
because their incomes usually are received in lu
sums. »»

The size of the farming operations seem
to have a greater effect on attitudes toward fa .
ing than any other operator characteristic.
third of the large-farm operators regarded fa '
ing as the best occupation in which to provide i
future security; less than a fourth of the ope
tors of medium-size farms and only a sixth of t
small-farm operators held the same opinion. ‘
certainty on this question was found among »
erators in each of the different farm-size grou_
The conviction that farming is not a supe
method for attaining economic security was =
pressed most frequently by the operators of
smaller units. .

RETIREMENT PLANS OF FARM OPERATE

Many factors act as conditioners of the
gree of interest that farm operators show to i
retirement. Age itself is such a factor. The .-
1ty to finance retirement, of which net wort

*1

‘one. :-<::-_*=:: o. v1.5»

is

<:*_<-.+l

mOZfc-FQQQ,‘ qfrQmv-Gqy-lg

ifmeasure, is another such factor. The owner-

‘p of land seems to encourage feelings of se-
A 'ty which in turn make the retirement outlook
f. e promising. Hopes for retirement may cause
 ers to strive for land titles. The views of
l arton county farmers on this subject are an

dication of the possible outcome for many farm-
a = in their efforts to attain economic security in

d age.

nsideration of Retirement

 It seems that farmers do not yet accept re-
= ement as a normal conclusion to their work his-
’ y. Only 12 percent of the farm operators in-
i ded in the survey had considered retirement
g the extent of developing definite retirement
ns (Table 21). Another 10 percent had given
me consideration to retirement. The remaining
5' percent had given little or no consideration
‘ the question.

The proportion of operators having made
finite plans increased from 4 percent for oper-
1 under 45 years of age to 31 percent for
se 65 and over. Of operators who had given
a e or no consideration to retirement, the per-
‘ntage decreased from 90 for the youngest oper-
rs to 55 for operators in the oldest age group.

Almost all of the operators with definite re-
ment plans, and who were 65 and over, already
I curtailed their operations or their degree of

icipation in such operations. Of the younger
rators with definite retirement plans, some had
‘red from other occupations and considered
ir farming a state of semiretirement. A few
ng operators with definite retirement plans
e part-time farmers and were providing for
 ement through nonfarm organizations. A
ytively high proportion of operators with some
ege education had developed definite retire-
nt plans. Most of the operators with some col-
e training were younger operators; thus, the
ect of education on retirement planning tends
counteract the effect of age. it

‘ The most common reasons that farm opera-
t ~ gave for their reluctance to retire were that
y did not wish to “quit work” and that they
11d not “afford” retirement. As net worth in-
sed, therefore, the disposition to form definite

le 21. Consideration given to retirement by farm op-
erators, by age of operator‘

Consideration Age of “Pent”!

. given A" ages‘ Under 45- I 55- as and

- retirement 45 l 54 64 over

_ Number - — — — — -— Percent — — — — — —
 l 257 100 100 100 100 100

i ve definite plans 3o 12 4 9 19 s1

i e consideration,

j ~~ no definite

1 ecision reached 25 10 6 7 19 14

A ve given little or
f‘ > consideration
. ~ retirement 202 78 90 84 62 55

number of operators in each age group was: under 45, 97; 45 to
77; 55 to 64, 54; 65 and over, 29.

Table 22. Consideration given to retirement by opera-
tors, by net worth of operator

Net worth of operator

$l0,000- $20,000
19,999 and over

Consideration given
retirement Less than $5,000-
$5,000 9,999

—————-Percent — — — — —--—

Total 100 100 100 100
Have definite plans 2 8 11 27
Some consideration, but no

definite decision reached 8 11 6 13
Have given little or no

consideration to retirement 90 81 83 60

retirement plans also increased (Table 22). In
contrast with 27 percent of the farmers with a
net worth of $20,000 or more, only 2 percent of
those with a net worth of less than $5,000 had
made such plans. The middle net-worth classes
were somewhat similar as far as retirement plan-
ning was concerned, but fell between the lowest
and highest classes in their degree of planning.

Tenants who ordinarily had the least security
on the land among the tenure classes, also had the
lowest degree of confidence in their ability to fi-
nance retirement. These circumstances may have
kept tenant-operators from considering retirement
for only 3 percent of the tenants interviewed had
made definite retirement plans, whereas 25 per-
cent of the full owners had made such plans (Table
23). Part owners, whose security on the land is
between these two groups, had made definite
plans in 10 percent of the cases. The proportions
of the tenure classes who had considered retire-
ment without reaching definite decisions showed
about the same pattern.

Only a few Negro operators had considered
retirement as compared with Czech and other
white farmers. Most Negro farmers had a low
net worth and were either tenants, small part
owners or very small owners.

Expectations Regarding Eventual‘ Retirement

Farmers in the sample were asked if they
expected to retire and give up all work as a farm
operator. About 1 operator out of 6 answered
affirmatively (Table 24). Three out of 5 were
sure that they would not go into full retirement
unless forced to do so by ill-health. The remain-
ing 23 percent were uncertain as to whether they

would eventually give up all work as farm oper-
ators.

Table 23. Consideration given to retirement by farm op-
erators, by tenure classes

I Tenure of operator

Consideration given
retirement Full Part
owner owner Tenant
- — — — ——Percent-——————

Totall 100 100 100
Have definite plans 25 10 3
Some consideration but no

definite decision reached 15 9 7
Have given little or no con-

sideration to retirement 60 81 90

lThere were 83 full owners, 58 part owners and 116 tenants included in
the survey.

17

Table 24. Expectations with regard to retirement of farm
opera-tors, by age groups

_ _ A f t
Expectations regarding ge o opera or

retirement Under I 45- . 55- 65 and
A" ages 45 54 s4 over
Number — — — — — Percent — — — — — —

Total 257 100 100 100 100 100
Expect to retire 41 16 9 13 26 28
Do not expect

to retire 158 61 60 68 57 53
Uncertain as to

whether will retire 58 23 31 19 17 14

The percentage of operators who expected t0
retire increased for each successively older age
group. The greatest difference in expectations
to retire was between operators under 55 and op-
erators in the 55-64 and 65-and-over age groups.
More than a fourth of the operators in these two
older age groups expected to retire, while 13 per-
cent of the 45-54 group and 9 percent of those
under 45 had such expectation. Operators in the
youngest age group showed the most uncertainty
about the question of retirement.

Tenure status apparently influenced expecta-
tions as well as considerations of retirement. Sev-
en percent of the tenants expected eventually to
go into full retirement. Part owners and full
owners were similar in their expectations, how-
ever, as less than a fourth of each group antici-
pated full retirement. Within tenure groups, size
of farm had little apparent effect on retirement
expectations. Race and nationality groups also
were similar in their expectations.

Two-thirds of the operators who anticipated
full retirement thought that they would be able
to meet their retirement needs, whereas a fourth
felt that they would not (Table 25). Less than
half of the operators who did not expect to retire
thought that they would be able to finance retire-
ment. A slightly smaller proportion, 43 percent,
of the farmers who were uncertain about retiring
felt that they could finance retirement. Over
half of the uncertain farmers also were uncertain
of their ability to meet retirement needs.

Reduced Farm Operations as a Means
of Retirement

Partial retirement for farm operators is either
more acceptable or more practicable than full re-
tirement. Almost half of the farm operators in-
terviewed had reduced their operations or plan-

Table 25. Relationship between expectations in regard to
retirement and ability to finance retirement of
farm operators

Confidence m ablhty t‘ xpectatlons regarding re irement

to finance retirement Expect to Do not expect Uncertain as to
retire to retire whether will retire
— — — — ——-—Percent———————
Total 100 100 100
Will be able to finance
retirement 68 47 43
Will not be able to
finance retirement 24 28 5
Uncertain as to ability to
finance retirement 8 25 52

18

Table 26. Plans made by farm operators to reduce farlmi
ing operations as they grow older, by age.
groups

Plans regarding Age “f “peramr -'i
reduction 0f Under I 45- ' 55- e5 and

farming operation All ages 45 54 64 over
Number — — — — — Percent — — — — — —
Total 257 100 100 100 100 100
Reduction of farm
operation plannedl 127 49 33 41 72 83

Uncertain regarding
reduction of
farm operations 46 18 30 16 8 3

No reduction of farm

operation planned 84 33 37 43 20 14 .

lOperators of any age who had made definite plans for retirement wet:
included in this group, although they were not asked this specifi
question. Operators 50 years of age and over who had already cur-i
tailed farm operations also were included. '3

ned such reductions as they grow older (Tabld
26.) Older operators reported past or expected?
curtailments of farming operations in greater pro-g
portions than did younger operators. About 4 out;
of 5 of the operators 65 and over either had re-g
duced, or planned to reduce their farming opera-l
tions. A third of the operators under 45 reporte
plans for a reduction of operations. The propor
tion who had no plans for reducing their opera’
tions, or who were uncertain about such plan
decreased for successively older age groups.

Tenure status, in addition to age, apparent]
influenced plans to curtail farming operation
Only 26 percent of the tenant-operators expect
to cut down on their farming operations as the
grow older, whereas about 70 percent of the fu
owners and part owners had such expectations.

There was some indication that Negro an
Czech farmers were not as likely to curtail oper .
tions as were other farmers. Also, farmers in th
higher net-worth groups more commonly predi
ted partial retirement than farmers of small
net worth. However, age and tenure were th
most significant characteristics affecting the a ~
titudes of farmers toward partial retirement. ‘

Operators 50 years of age and older were ask
ed if they already had begun to reduce their farm
ing operations. More than half reported that the 3
had (Table 27). The rest often replied that the *

   
   
  
    
 
   
   
   
 
   
   
  
 
 
  
   
   
  
  
 
   

  

i

Table 27. Reports from 122 farm operators 50 years a
age and older, on reduction of farming acti“
ities, by tenure groups ’

Tenure status of operator A"
50 and over

Full owner [Part owner | Ten:

All operators

Reduction of farming 5o and older

activities

Number —————Percent—-—-———ij
Total 122 100 100 100 100 
No reduction '3
of activities 58 4B 35 52 67
Reduced activities 64 52 65 48 33

Reduced size of

farming operations

onlyi 27 22 32 1s
Reduced personal

participation in

activities only‘: 23 19 18 30 12
Reduced both size of

farming operations

and own activities 14 11 15 0 15

1Reduced acreage operated or adopted a less intensified type of farm‘
fiReduced amount of personal labor or transferred management to
others.

  
    
  
 
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
   
  
    
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
 

‘w not afford to reduce their farming opera-
 . The tenure status of these older operators
i ently had a great deal of influence on their
ing activities. Almost two-thirds of the full
7- 50 and older had reduced farming activ-
. Nearly half of the part owners and about
‘third of the tenants reported reductions. The
proportion of tenants who had reduced opera-
;: is not surprising in view of the joint land-
-tenant decisions involved on rented farms.

Y Full owners most often curtailed their opera-
»: by reducing the acreage operated and by
ging to a less intensified type of farming
ing beef cattle instead of cotton, for exam-
. Part owners most frequently retained the
1- of their operations but hired more labor or
a ferred some management activities to others,
El as sharecroppers and members of the opera-
is family. Tenants who had curtailed their
ing operations most often did so by reducing
1.: the size of operations and the degree of per-
_: participation in such farming activities by
v g more labor.

iirement Discussions with Children

v Operators with children 1'6 years or older
Le asked the following question: “Have you
~ talked with your children about their taking
; in some plan to provide you (and your wife)
income after you retire?” Less than 20 per-
~ had talked with their children about such a
y» Most of the latter operators had not de-
f0 on a definite plan but had merely touched
Y he subject in casual conversation. These farm-
; often said that their children had agreed to
lp them some.” A few operators had taken
I: into partnership with them but this arrange-
t usually was not a plan to support the opera-
; after his retirement.

 Only 16 farmers had made definite plans with
 children. Three of these were to be parti-
I supported by regular contributions from chil-
i but no land transfer would be involved. In
‘zses the farmer had made plans with his chil-
if whereby they would buy the farm and the
i,- er would live on the proceeds of the sale. But
details had been worked out. Another infor-
i understanding between operators and their
dren, reported by 3 operators, was that the
i, would be transferred to the child (or chil-
n) who in turn would contribute to the sup-
, of the operator (and his wife) for the rest
his life. The remaining 6 operators, having
'nite arrangements with their children, plan-
 to rent the farm to the child (or children)
derive support from the rent payments. In
I j the 6 cases this plan was already in effect.

erred Living Arrangements After Retirement

I Farmers in the sample who had not express-
enied the intent to retire were asked about
_ preferred living arrangements after retire-

Table 28. Preferred living arrangements after retirement
of 97 farm operators, by race or nationality
background of the operator

   

Preferred living A“ Race or nfiititgrgalligiolbackground
arrangement operators Czech | Other white I Negro
— — — — — -——-Percent—————————

Total1 100 100 100 100
On a farm 78 70 S0 80
Alone or with spouse

only 57 40 67 45
With children 10 13 6 20
With other arrangement 11 17 7 15
In village or city, alone

or with spouse only 10 l3 9 10
Uncertain about place

of residence 12 17 11 10
Alone or with -

spouse only 8 13 7 5
With children 1 0 2 0
With other arrangement 3 4 2 5

1Out of the 97 operators, 23 were Czech, 54 were other white and 20
were Negro.

ment. Specifically, they were asked where and
with whom they would live. More than 3 out of
4 replied that they preferred to live on a farm
after retirement (Table 28). Of those who pro-
ferred living on a farm, about 4 out of 5 chose to
live “on this farm.” These operators were also
predominantly in favor of living alone or with
their respective spouse. Thus, the first choice of
most operators who were asked about living ar-
rangements was to live on a farm after retire-
ment and to live alone or with their spouse.
Another 10 percent preferred to live in a village
or city and all of these operators chose to live
with their spouse only, or alone.

More than 80 percent of the operators who
chose to live “on this farm” owned the farm to
which they referred. Less than half that propor-
tion of the other operators owned farm land. Op-
erator characteristics seemingly did not influence
preferred living arrangements to a great extent.
There was some indication, however, that Negro
and Czech farmers were less likely to live alone
than were other farmers.

ATTITUDES TOWARD OASI PROGRAM

Many of the Wharton county operators re-
ported some experience with the Old-Age and Sur-
vivors Insurance program. More than half of
those in the sample possessed social security num-
bers. Many had worked in nonfarm jobs since
1936 and some held such jobs in 1951. Other op-
erators with no recent experience in nonagricul-
tural industries reported that members of their
immediate families had done such work. Some
operators were, at the time of the interview, pay-

ing social security taxes on their regular farm
workers.

Due largely to this experience, more than a
fifth of the farmers in Wharton county were fair-
ly well informed about the functions of the OASI
program (Table 29). These operators knew how
the program is financed, of the retirement and sur-
vivors’ benefits available under the program and

19

Table 29. Knowledge of the Old-Age and Survivors In-
surance program indicated by farm operators

Knowledge of OASI program All operators

Number Percent
Total 257 100
Fairly well informed on program 56 22
Some knowledge of program 40 16
Hazy understanding of program 68 26
No knowledge of program 93 36

of the eligibility requirements of workers. A sixth
had some knowledge of the program but were un-
certain about one of the major provisions; an op-
erator in this group may have known about the
financing of the program and its retirement bene-
fits without being aware of the provisions pro-
tecting the survivors of the insured. A fourth
had some understanding of the program without
knowing any of its specific provisions. The last
group, comprising the remaining 36 percent, had
no apparent knowledge of OASI. Some confused
the program with other major divisions of the
broad federal social security program, while others
could not recall having heard of the program at
all?

General Attitudes Toward OASI

Eighty-three percent of the farm operators
included in the survey expressed general approval
of OASI, 10 percent disapproved the program and
the remaining 7 percent took no position on the
question (Table 30). Inability of people to pro-
tect themselves from financial emergencies
brought about by old age, ill-health and economic
depression, was the most common reason for ap-
proval. Operators who disapproved felt that the
program was an overextension of federal respon-
sibility and that individuals should provide their
own economic security. Some dissenting opera-
tors thought that the benefits of the program
were outweighed by the costs involved. Opera-
tors who qualified their disapproval usually held
that an altered or improved program would be
acceptable. Similarly, operators who approved
with qualifications were dissatisfied with some
aspect of the existing program.

“A short statement of the general plan of the OASI pro-
gram was read to those operators who had shown they
did not have a comprehensive understanding of the pro-
gram. In many cases this review of the program stirred
the memory of the operator and it often developed that
he actually was not as uninformed as he had indicated
originally.

Table 30._ Attitude of farm operators toward the OASI
program, by tenure status of operator

Attitude toward A" Tenure status of operator
9703mm “Erato” I Full owner | Part owner | Tenant
Number - — — — — -— Percent — — — — — — -

Total 257 100 100 100 100
Approval 153 59 58 56 62
Qualified approval 61 24 20 27 25
No position 17 7 7 4 8
Qualified

disapproval 10 4 6 2 3
Disapproval 16 6 9 11 2

2O

Table 31. Attitude of farm operators toward the 0A
program, by age groups of operator a

‘ Age of operator

Attitude toward program Under 35_ 45_ 55_ 65 ‘

l 35 l 44 54 64 0v

—-————Percent—-——

Total 100 100 100 100 100
Approval 67 55 58 54 73 ’

Qualified approval 27 25 19 26 24
No position 0 5 13 6 3 ‘-

Qualified disapproval 3 5 3 7 0

Disapproval 3 l0 7 7 0

Tenure status apparently affected attitud

toward OASI. Tenant-operators generally enji
less security on the land than other tenure grou

In addition, they usually fall into a smaller 

worth bracket than farmers who own all or a 
of the land they operate. Consciousness of th
lack of economic security may be reflected in th
attitudes toward OASI. Eighty-seven percent V
the tenants interviewed expressed approval of 
program. Only 2 percent disapproved the p
gram without qualifying their opinion. Of r
full owners, 78 percent approved the progra

Akin to both groups, part owners fell between f '

owners and tenants in the degree to which th

favor OASI. Eighty-three percent of the p a

owners approved the program.

Operators in the oldest age group expres
approval of the program more often than u
other operators, 97 percent approving it (Ta
31). None of the operators in this group of ’
years of age and over disapproved the progra
The youngest operators were almost as likely
approve OASI, as 94 percent of those under g
favored the program. Operators in the 45 to '

age group approved the program least often, . Y

percent approving.

Approval of the program appeared to be e
lated to the possession of a social security nu,
ber, which is some indication of an operator’s e
perience with the program. Eighty-eight perce
of the farmers possessing social security numbe
approved the program (Table 32). A smaller p _'
portion, 78 percent, of the farmers without nu
bers approved the program. A high proporti
of Negro operators with social security numb
approved OASI, 92 percent favoring the progra
None of these operators opposed OASI. Eighs.
three percent of the Czech farmers with social "
curity numbers approved the program and 78 O
cent of the other white farmers with numbers -.i
pressed approval. "

Of the farmers not having social securi
numbers, Negro operators again were the mi
likely to approve OASI, as 81 percent either A
proved the program outright or expressed J
proval but were dissatisfied with some part of f

Without regard to possession of social 
curity numbers, Negro farmers commonly qu,
fied their approval of OASI by saying that t
coverage of the program should be extend,

‘he same operators often stated, in support of
 approval, that the program forced people to
 money and provide for their own old age.

 

 “Net worth, size of farm and other operator
' , acteristics did not appear to have much in-
jnce on the attitudes of the Wharton county
‘  ers toward the general OASI program. There

 an indication, however, that high school grad-

' s and farmers with some college education
fie more likely to favor OASI than were farm-
: with less formal education.

   
 

 itudes Toward OASI Coverage of
ular Farm Workers

.2 Farmers did not endorse OASI coverage of
; in farm groups as often as they did the OASI

 gram in general. However, 69 percent favor-
Ithe legislation of 1950 which extended OASI

erage to regular farm workers (Table 33).
=1 13 percent felt that regular farm workers
 ld not be covered, while the remaining 18
f ent were uncertain.

_  Farmers approving coverage of regular work-
l felt that these workers needed protection and
 - just as entitled to OASI as any other group
“people. Many said that unless farm workers
 e forced to save they would not provide secur-
.- for themselves. Farmers who opposed such
erage gave a variety of reasons in support of
" views. About 20 percent thought that the
kkeeping and administrative tasks were too
jh trouble. A few opposed the interference
. government in their activities as employers.
; er reasons for opposition were that social se-
‘ty tax payments increased labor costs, that
 kers did not want the tax withheld from their
{*1 es and that many regular workers, as defined
..:law, do not “deserve” OASI coverage. With-
, regard to their opinions of the coverage of
lar workers, many farmers said that loop-
 in the present law were distasteful to them.

   
  
 
  
  
  

 Like the approval of OASI in general, ap-
val by the operators of the coverage of reg-
 workers appeared to be more closely related
possession of a social security number than to
v other apparent characteristic of the opera-
 Operators with social security numbers ap-
Lved the inclusion of regular workers in the

9*‘.

   

Ole s2.
r possession of a social security number

Table 33. Attitudes of operators toward OASI coverage
of regular hired farm workers, by possession

of a social security number

Attitude toward OASI A" V o”§,'i‘t‘f,°'s i fifiifjiyg;
“fvemge 0f regular operators social security social security
hired farm workers i number number

Number — — — -— Percent —‘ — — — -

Total 257 100 100 100

Should be covered 177 69 73 64

Should not be covered 34 13 11 16

Uncertain 46 18 16 20

OASI program in 73 percent of the cases (Table
33). A smaller proportion, 64 percent, of farm-
ers not having numbers expressed approval.

Attitudes Toward OASI Coverage of
Short-time Farm Workers

As a whole, Wharton county farmers were
predominantly in favor of the OASI program in
general and almost 7 out of 10 felt that the cov-
erage of regular farm workers was justified.
These favorable attitudes, however, did not ex-
tend to the coverage of short-time workers. Only
17 percent of the farmers interviewed favored the
coverage of such workers (Table 34). Twenty
percent were uncertain, but 63 percent opposed
the inclusion of short-time workers in OASI. Of
those who opposed such coverage, 60 percent sta-
ted that the bookkeeping task would be prohibi-
tive and that keeping up with names alone would
be almost impossible. Some of the operators who
were uncertain about the coverage of short-time
workers also gave these objections but were im-
pressed by the need of this category of workers
for such protection. Some of the operators who
opposed such coverage commented that migra-
tory and local seasonal workers needed a program
of this type, but were extremely doubtful that
administrative difficulties could be overcome.
Other operators who opposed the extension of
coverage felt that short-time workers were em-
ployed irregularly by choice and were not en-
titled to coverage, that such workers would op-
pose the deduction of taxes from their wages, that
they would not understand the deductions and
that these workers could not afford even the
small amount withheld. Labor costs of farmers
would rise and could not be passed on, argued
some of the operators.

Attitudes of farm operators toward the OASI program, by race or nationality background of operator and

Attitude toward

Race or nationality background of operator

DPOQTEIII

Operators with social security number

Operators without social security number

Czech I Other white | Negro I All Czech I Other white I Negro I All
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —-—-Percent—————————————-———
_ t 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
l val 65 63 62 63 59 50 68 55
fied approval 18 25 30 25 19 27 13 23
position 7 3 8 5 3 9 l9 8
» ied disapproval 0 7 0 3 8 4 0 5
proval 10 2 0 4 l1 10 0 9

134 operators with social security numbers, 29 were Czech, 68 other white and 37 Negro.

(‘l7 Czech, 70 other white and 16 Negro.

Of the 123 operators not having numbers, there

21

szaapom » - ‘Q5219
1 01 1° 1 A00 104210d0 p12m04 u014100d 110114 111 1112410011n
a , . .

,1 10m 0104210d0 0130M 0114 ;0 p11114 2 112114 e10u1
j 21301d 2 110n0 ;0 0110141p1100 0114 ;0 3111p11240
epun ;0 11021 12101103 110114 ;0 00n200g1 '00pn414
2 110114 3u1A;112nb 4n01141m 010u112; ;0 032101100

v VQ p010A2; 110111m 01101410d01d 0114 111 A14113110

" 10;;1p 0dn013 A411211014211 pu2 0021 0111

 
  
   
   
  
   
    

1 _" 0104210d0 400p10
. 1 ;0 411001011 9g A1110 1141m p012d11100 02 ‘032101100
 p0A01dd2 g3 10p11n 01eu112; 0114 ;0 411001011 g9
1 114 puno; 02m 41 ‘p0111q11100 010m 0dn013 “IBAOJG
. f» A112u0141p110011n,, pu2 “pe1e1100 0q p1n0110,, 0114
1 11M ‘(Lg e1q211j) 410ddn0 11n; 032101100 0114 01x23
' p.112 917 1100m40q 0104210d0 10m0; A10A1421e1 p112
' ~~112110141p110011n 0104210d0 11112; 10; ISVQ p0A01d
11 10p10 p112 g9 0104210d0 010111 A10A1421041

‘Kllqglls

1110 p01e;;1p 01111013 0m4 0114 ‘10A0m011 ‘12A01d

. 1 12110141p1100 p112 pe1;112nb11n 114oq 311110p10110Q

10qu1n11 4n01141m 000114 p1p 112114 032101100 1042

0d0 ;0 12A01dd2 4113114n0 p00001dx0 1104;0 010111
0qu1nu A411n000 121000 p211 011m 010u112&

l0 9-19 ‘0104210d0 11112; 10; 4n0 p0>110m eq p1n00
301919 2130111 A10402;01420 2 42114 p04qn0p p112 0d24 p01
LII 00111 004 eq p1n0m 010114 42114 410; me; V '9A[OA

1 p1n0m 032101100 110n0 42114 00110101104111 4u0u1

101x03 0114 10; 0>11101p 2 p00001dx0 0104210d0 ;0
LL 2101100 0114 31110011110 0101140 0104210d0 311141100
- '_p 0114 ;0 0p11114-0m4 40011112 Aq p1011 u01u1d0 112
00111001110114 ;0 0120 01124,, p1no110 01011112; 42114

9 490m A0110q A1110u111100 00pn41442 0111423011 1141m 010

[elqold 12g '1u21301d 0114 1114011 010m A0114 001110 40111232
m I919 4211111111001p 31110q 010m 01011112; 42114 p120 g ;0
1'3 9N9 0 1 4n0qV 110140040111 110n0 p211 A0114 000111n e32
ll-Itwas- o u1 411ep110d0p111 eq 4011 p1n0m 1110114 ;0 A112u1
3 SIB“? 114 p112 A1p2q 110140040111 e114 p0p00u 01011112;
‘Hllgnb ‘ 114 410; 032101100 1o4210d0 ;0 12110111112 p01;112nb
lVOf 1° ’n p00001dx0 011m 01011112; g ;0 4n0 g 4n0qV

igoigltx; A V " 'A112u0141p1100un
H391 (‘n i A112u0141p1100 1011410 0104210d0 11112; ;0 03210
M 0961 00 ISVQ p0A01dd2 0104210d0 0114 ;0 4001 0114 ;0
1 111913 1 1114-0m4 4n0q2 ‘p0p1230101p e12 01011112; 11124100
1211M u! 1 n 0114 ;1 'u121301d 0114 111 0104210d0 000 04 0x111

uI " 1 0m A0114 10114011m u1241e011n 010m 4u0010d 1g
11 03210A00 104210110 ;0 12A01dd201p p01;112nb11n

{ml  s001dx0 0104210d0 0114 ;0 411001011 g3 A1111)

0 11 1
4-‘1111111958 'A1110402;01420 ped01eA0p eq 40n111 1112130111
pnwne 4 ;0 011240p 0A1421401111111p2 0114 42114 1101421110001
a ;

L ‘ ‘5101810110 Z l0; PQIQRQQO 10H SUM IIOHRHIJOJIII;
Hvm-"JWI ‘ oz IZ IZ as 111011001111
$00011 . 92 zz sz 09 0010M” =11 1w P1110110
‘l plnoqs t 51 11 g1 3g 03210000 ;o

o - ' 1200111112 1uuo141puog
11,12,131,” as 0v 1v s01 P°1°A°° aq 111M110
l plums __ ’ 001 001 001 99a 118101.

any“ - — — — 4u0010J — — - — xaqumN
1:02? 1:000 54112010211121000 slovuado slolulado
Fi-‘f molngi ' In!» ' “m; ,s‘“f,"i,.i‘l.if‘i‘§’.fl‘ii,v
l‘ gflnmnv = ‘uouuado s1o4010dQ "v v '
1 _ Y

   

Jequmu A411n0
v 121000 ;0 u01ss0ss0d Aq ‘0104210d0 ;0 03210

L8 alqel l  PJHMO’) SJOIBJOdO “LIBJ J0 SGPIIZHQQV ‘Q8 GIQBL

ZZ

0.10m .10 ()9
p01111 0104210d0 g1» pun 253-03 110.1111 0104210d0 09 £61411 p0J1q 0.104210
-do 9g 2010311000 011114410110 ()1 112114 0001 110.1111 0104210d0 u0A0s-A40u1N,

0 8I LZ 93 u104100uf1

00I 99 L9 97 11010000 eq 4ou p1n011s

0 LI 9I 93 11010000 0q p1n011s

00I 00I 00I 00I 119391,
— — — — — -——-4u00.10(1—-——---

01w PW 0v I 0s - oz l 61 - 01 I 01 “w: 0001 010x10» um;
I BUJQ-JJOQS J0

{Q51 111 104210110 Aq
1101401111110 010x110.» 0u114-410L1s ;0 laqumN I piimlgaxoglglgxg

1951 u1 1042.10d0 Aq p0A01du10 s10>110m 110110 ;0
10qu1nu Aq ‘s10>110m 11112; 0u114-41011s ;0 03210
-A09 ISVO p12m04 0104210d0 11112; ;0 s0pn4144V ‘gg 01112111
0114 1141m p0A01dd2 0101149 'p010A00 0q 4011 p1n0110
0104210d0-1e11m0 “03121” A11210ed00 p112 0104210
-cI0 “03121” 42114 410; u121301d 0114 p0A01dd2 A112
-110141p1100 011m 0104210d0 0114 ;0 011103 0104210d0
u112; 12np1A1pu1 04 1211014110 0p2u1 02m 1112130111
0114 ;1 A1110 e1q21100p s10u112; 04 ISVQ ;0 110101104
—x0 p011100p 1104;0 12A01dd2 12110141p110Q '0110141p
—u00 11124100 10p11n 0104210d0 ;0 e321eA00 p0A01dd2
‘JQAQMOQ ‘1u99l9d 9T JQWIOUV ‘(98 QIQBL) ISVO
10p11n 032101100 110114 ;0 12Ao1dd2 pe1;112nb11n p0
-00e1dx0 0104210d0 0114 ;0 411e010d euo-A41od

s104210d() u112¢1
;0 03210109 ISVO p12m01 sepn4144V

'010>110m 011114-412d 04 pepu04
-x0 02m 032101100 ;1 00n 100121012011 ;0 0p0110d
31111np 010d0e>1>100q 01111 04 011211 p1n0m A0114 42114
p120 010>110m ;0 010q111n11 03121 A10A p01111 011m
01eu112; 0114 ;0 011mg "(gg 01q21L) 010>110m 000114
;0 032101100 ISVQ p00odd0 1951 111 01e>110m 0u114
-410110 ()1; 02 A112111 02 p01111 p211 011m 0104210d0 0114
;0 11V 'A0A1n0 0114 3111p0001d 120A d010 0114 3111
-1np p01111 p211 0104210d0 0114 010>110m 011114-410110
;0 10q111nu 0114 02m u01400nb 0114 110 epn41442 00110
-n1;111 04 pe120dd2 110111m 10402; 3111p112404n0 0111,
117g 0101211) 010q111n11 4n01141m 01011112; p1p 112114
010>110m 011114-410110 04 032101100 ;0 u010u04x0 p0
-A01dd2 010q111n11 A411n000 121000 p211 011m 010u112;
;0 1101410d01d 10113111 A14113110 V 032101100 041
p112 ISVQ p12m04 epn41442 01q210A2; 2 311100010110
0‘10u112; 2 ;0 p001111e>111 0114 4211m011100 p002010111
10qu1n11 A411n000 121000 2 ;0 1101000000d 01111

1110114 0pn10111 04 4011 A1042u1
-11111001p 01 41 42114 p112 032101100 04 p01414u0 012
010>110m 110110 42114 p120 0104210d0 m0; v 'A4110_E
-2u1 0114 Aq 110013 1100201 2 02m 1111013 101140 A112
112114 010u1 A1012q01d p112 A1p2q 02 110140040111 p00u
010>110m 110n0 42111 '010>110m 011114-410110 ;0 03210
-A00 0114 10; 01100201 0102q 0m4 01x23 01001112151

OZ IZ OZ Z9 "Wilwufl
99 09 £9 I91 P919499 4"] 1°" PlnmlS
VI GI LI W’ P9195” 9'1 PlnmlS
00I 00I 00I L92 IWIKL
- — — — — 41100103 — — — — wIBQU-IIIN
1011mm: Jequmu | 010111000 uuu;
A411n000 121000 A411n000 121000 0104210d0 011114-410110
31110211 401.1 1141M 11V J0 032.101\00 ISVO
0104210d0 0104210d0 pnzm04 0pn4144v

     

10qu1nu A411n000 121000 2
;0 u01ss0ss0d Aq ‘s1ex11om u112; eu114-41011s ;0

03210000 ISVO p12m04 0104210d0 _.10 sepn4144v '79 01q2_L

 

.-.. .,~.-- - <-
 0am» - 1mg‘. . _



3
1»

 

37. Attitudes 0f farm operators toward OASI cov-

wages only, while the other depends partially or
erage of opera-tors, by age groups

completely on a share of the crop for his compen-
sation. Many of the latter may be classified as

 w: farm operators Ivgger]  l 455a-   figvigd sharecroppers, as they own no farm implements,
v - exercise few if any functions of management and
-  - "‘ " " " P°’°°“‘ _ "' " " " receive the customary one-half share of the cash
crop. In most instances, however, the crop share

-  toward OASI coverage l Age of operator

_  1 100 100 100 100 100

l‘ d be covered 41 47 as as 52 . 1 . f 1 . h

 itional approval 1s mere y _a_dev1ce or supp ementing cas wages
 "everage 24 l" 16 19 3 and stabilizing the labor force; essentially 1t rep-
j be °°"°'°d      resents Wages paid in kind. As the differences

   _ _ in the economic and social status of straight wage
_ , “m” m‘ "blamed f“ 2 °P°'°‘°'s' workers and crop-share workers were generally
minor, the same questionnaire was used for inter-

iTenure Status had no apparent effect upon viewing both groups in Wharton county and the

. tudes toward operator coverage. Size of farm, Of the <60

a-——z|‘gr

yingly had some influence. A higher propor-
of small farmers favored the coverage than
large farmers.

zln summary, it appears that farm operators
harton county are. receptive to the OASI pro-
p. in general. They favor the legislation of
 which extended the benefits of the program
,f=l1 farm workers. They oppose the exten-
of coverage to short-time farm workers. A
rity of farm operators approve the extension
ASI to operators, although some of these
 ied their approval. The belief that indivi-
fare generally unable to provide their own
"ty was the most common reason for favor-
jxattitudes toward the OASI program in gen-
i-land its coverage of various farm groups.
lems of administering the program were the
p common reason for not favoring it.

HE REGULAR FARM WQRKER
 ECONOMIC SECURITY

In terms of their relations with the farm op-
r, regular farm workers in Wharton county
f two principal types. One type is paid cash

 

results are combined in this report.
workers in the sample, 29 were wage workers and
31 were crop-share workers.

Assets of Regular Farm Workers

A preliminary survey in the sample area
showed that the net worth of workers would be
quite difficult to determine. Thus, instead of be-
ing asked to estimate their net worth, workers
were asked to name the items that they owned.

The asset or item which was most commonly
named by workers was an automobile or a truck,
'68 percent reporting this asset (Table 38). For
35 percent this was the only asset except for per-
sonal effects. Less than half of the workers had
life insurance-—either burial or larger policies—
and this holding was the only asset that 18 per-
cent of the workers did have. None of the work-
ers owned farm land and only 3 percent owned
dwellings. Savings, bonds and other securities
of small value were held by 8 percent of the work-
ers interviewed. Thirteen percent reported no
assets.

Whether one was a wage or a crop-share
worker seemed to have some effect on the type

 

iigure 4. Headquarters, Pierce Ranch. Pierce. Size oi operating units in Wharton County range from iarm tracts
 20 acres to large-scale ranch enterprises. This is an 8U.UUD-acre ranch which employs about 150 regular hired
and combines the production of cotton. rice and feed crops with beef cattle.

23

Table 38. Assets of regular farm workers, by type of

worker
It All Wage Crop-share
em workers workers workers
Number — — — Percent — — — —

Assets and combinations of assets:

Totall 60 100 100 100
Automobile or truck only 21 35 24 45
Life and/or burial insurance only 11 18 28 10
Automobile or truck and life

and/or burial insurance 13 22 24 19
Other combinations 7 12 14 10
None 8 13 10 16

Total occurrence of types of assets:

House without farm land 2 3 7 0
Automobile or truck 41 68 62 74
Savings, bonds or

other securities 5 8 7 10
Life and/or burial insurance 28 47 66 29

1Of the 60 workers, 29 were wag-e and 31 were crop-share workers.

of assets held. Seventy-four percent of the crop-
share Workers owned motor vehicles, as compared
with 62 percent of the Wage workers (Table 38).
Life insurance of some kind was held by almost
two-thirds of the wage workers and by consider-
ably less than a third of the crop-share workers.
The workers who owned dwellings were wage
workers. The fact that crop-share workers re-
ceive a fairly large lump sum of money at least
once a year may contribute to their chance of
owning an automobile.

Workers in the 35-44 age group were the
most likely to own motor vehicles, 84 percent
owning a car or truck (Table 39). About three-
fourths of the workers in this group were crop-
share workers. A car or truck was the only as-
set that about half of the workers from 35 to 44
claimed. But workers in this age group appar-
ently were better off than other workers. Almost
as large a proportion of this group as of other
groups had life or burial insurance, and only 5
percent were without assets. Workers under 35
apparently had the fewest assets, 20 percent hav-
ing none at all.

Other white workers seemingly had more as-
sets than Latin American or Negro workers. Due
to the few cases observed however, clear and con-
sistent differencesdid not appear among the race
and nationality groups nor in relation to a great
many other worker characteristics.

Table 39. Assets of regular farm workers, by age groups
Age of worker1

Occurrence of

assets Under 35 | 35-44 | 45-54 | 55 and over
— — — — ——Percent———————
None 20 5 13 17
House without farm
land 5 0 0 17
Automobile or truck 55 84 73 50
Savings, bonds or
other securities ' 5 5 13 17
Life and/or burial
insurance 45 42 53 50

lPercentages for each age group total more than 100 because some
workers owned more than one type of asset.

24

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  

Insurance Coverage of Regular Farm Workers

As has been seen, Wharton county worke
as a whole, had little insurance protection. r
than half of them had neither burial policy n,
any other life insurance (Table 40). Of the g
percent that had burial policies only, many -
pecially Negro workers—he1d such insurance   a
cause of their affiliation with fraternal organi A
tions. Only 22 percent of the workers had l’
insurance other than burial policies, 8 perce
having burial policies also. The life insuran
policies were not for large amounts; three Wor
ers had policies of $2,000 each and the remaind,’
were insured for $1,000 or less. |

The influence of race or nationality ba
ground on insurance coverage was quite evide
Only a third of the Negro workers had no ins '
ance and the remainder had burial policies. p
contrast, two-thirds of the Latin Americans 
more than half of the other white workers 
no insurance. Burial insurance was seldom u
by other white workers and only about a fou ]
of the Latin Americans had such insurance, b
this was the main type of insurance held by th
latter workers. When other white workers 
insurance, it was usually a regular life insura l
policy. Age of workers apparently had little ' a
fluence on insurance holdings.  '

The workers were asked if they had follow
any regular plan for saving a part of their wa
during the past 2 years. Many of the work
replied that they would like to follow such a pl”
but less than 10 percent reported such savin
The amounts that these workers had been savi
were usually $5 or $10 each month.  

Income Received by Other Family Members

About a fifth of the workers who were fa
ily heads reported that other members of th
families worked in 1951. Earnings of these 0th‘
members ranged from $150 to $4,000 during t  
year but were usually less than $1,000. In t
cases involved, however, the amounts earned we
important contributions to the family’s incom a

Two of the Workers reported parents who
ceived old-age assistance. The amount receiv
in each case was about $350 for the year.

Family Support in Event of Worker’s Death
Workers with families were asked the folld
ing question: “If you were to die now, about 

Table 40. Burial and life insurance of regular far
workers, by race and nationality backgrour

A" Race or nationality backgro’

Type 0f insurance workers Latin | Other

. . l;

American | white
Number — — — — — — — Percent - — A
Total 60 100 100 100 100 ,
None 32 53 61 55 33 i
Burial insurance only 15 25 21 0 54 F
Life insurance only 8 14 12 36 0 ,
Life and burial insurance 5 8 6 9 l3 _g

 

  
   
  
  
   
 
 
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
   
   
  
    
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
   

fuld your family be supported by the pro-
from the sale of your property, your sav-
 your insurance after paying off all
‘.1’, More than half of the workers answered
heir families could be supported from such
f; for less than 3 months. Another 31 per-
timated a period of 3 months to a year.
.13 percent named a period of 1 to 2 years,
Jne of the workers estimated a time of 2
 or longer.

amilies of wage workers seemingly were a
better protected than were those of crop-
workers. A smaller proportion of the wage
* s reported less than 3 months as the length
‘e their families could be supported and a
p. proportion reported a period of 1 to 2 years
did crop-share workers.

qld-age and survivors insurance coverage was
liken into account in the preceding question.
l, ld be pointed out, then, that wage workers
g ch better off than crop-share workers when
ijs considered. Twenty of the 22 wage work-
 o were family heads were covered by OASI
i; time they were interviewed. Only 4 of 28
“j are workers who were family heads were
q OASI program. Some indication of the
of OASI for these workers is given by an
gation of the benefits involved. A widow
 rviving child of an eligible worker would
Te $37.50 per month in case of the worker’s
if the worker had established his eligibility
i average monthly wage of $50. The child
 less than 18 years of age if in school and
p?! 16 years of age if not in school. The
yity requirements and program benefits are
p broader than described here, of course.

nly 4 of the workers reported that they had
,consideration to means of family support in
10f the death of the worker by discussing the
6m with their families. One of these said
y and his family had not been able to reach
 ision. Two workers said that their chil-
ould help the surviving family and one re-
'8 that his wife would go to work. Workers
ad not discussed specifically the problem
their families stated that the family would
yve to do the best it could. These state-
indicate, to some extent, that many of the
' s were not familiar with OASI benefits
hich about 40 percent of the family heads
tablished or were establishing eligibility.

 of Support in Old Age

 e operators, workers were asked what they
 t, their sources of support would be in old
 ighteen percent reported that they did not
of any source of support that they would
‘i?”(Table 41). Old-age assistance was the
most frequently named andwas reported
percent. OASI was considered as a source
tly more than a fourth of the workers, as
f1. jobs and assistance from relatives. Sav-

Table 41. Sources of support in old age of regular farm
workers, by type of worker

Sources of support All Type °f "Mk"
1n old age workers wage l Crcpqhare
Number — — — Percent — — - -
Total 60 100 100 100

Sources and combinations
of sources:

None 11 18 21 16
OASI only 4 7 10 3
OASI and other sources 12 20 31 10
OAA only 5 8 7 10
OAA and other sources

except OASI 15 25 7 42
Other combinations 13 22 24 19

Total occurrences of sources:

OAA 25 42 24 58
Odd jobs 17 28 28 29
OASI 16 27 41 13
Assistance from relatives 16 27 17 16
Savings and insurance 4 7 7 6
Other 5 8 10 6

ings or insurance were mentioned by 7 percent of
the workers and 8 percent were hopeful that they
would acquire land, keep Working on a farm or
have a little business of their own. The most
frequent combination of sources named by indi-
vidual workers was old-age assistance plus some
other source, a fourth of the workers naming this
combination. OASI and some other source form-
ed a combination name by a fifth of the workers.

Wage workers tended to rely more on OASI
and less on old-age assistance than did crop-share
workers. This is not surprising since 90 percent
of the wage workers were covered by OASI, as
compared with about 13 percent of the crop-share
workers.

Latin American and Negro workers were
more likely to name old-age assistance than were
other white workers. Workers under 35 more
frequently gave no sources of support than older
workers, but other differences between age groups

were not evident.

Monetary Needs of Workers in Old Age

Each worker was asked to estimate the
amount of cash per month that would allow him
(and his wife) to live comfortably after retire-
ment. The workers, as a whole, estimated much
smaller amounts than farm operators (Table 42).
Only 5 percent of the workers felt that they would
need $120 or more each month. Almost a third of
the operators named needs of $120 and over. A

Table 42. Monthly cash retirement needs of regular farm
workers, by race or nationality background

Monthly cash retirement All Latin Other
needs workers American white l Neg“
Number- — — —- — Percent — -— — — -
Total 60 100 100 100 100
Less than $40 3 5 3 0 13
$40 - 59 17 28 21 46 33
$60 - 79 13 22 26 0 27
$80 - 119 17 28 35 36 7
$120 and over 3 5 0 18 7
Uncertain 7 12 15 0 13

25

 

  V1991 91PM
A II U9~IPHQ9 119911 9A9q ~19 H9-IPIUI9 H9111 91PM 9AH

  p9119191d 19pu19u191 9111 ‘1119119011n 919m 011m
  0111 101 111901113 99A1m 119111 1111m 10 911019 91111

'n0m A9111 19111 p919m91112 u19111 10 190u1 ‘1119111
  11191 19119 p9119191d A9111 9111911193119119 3u1

 911i], lflOqB PGXSB 9.19M SJGXJOAA 91,11} IIGLIAA

, 9199A Q1, pun019 912m 91911191 999111 10
91119111911191 939191112 9111, 901112191999 919A11d 10
 1qnd 1n01111m 911191 01 91q9 119901 p911 3 A1u0 p119

1p11110 119111 Aq p9d1911 919m 911103 '901191919912

12-p10 99m 91911191 9111 101 110dd119 10 901n09 9111
1 990 190u1 111 'A1111q991p 10 991190901 A119n9n ‘p9111
1 .1 p911 91911191 119111 19111 p9110d91 919>110m 9111
11111101 9 1n0qV '11199p 01 1011d p911191 p911 10
11191 99m 1911191 9111 11 p9>199 0919 99m 19>11om
1211 91911901111 919m 19p111911191 9111 p119 9111
  1 A1112n1119A9 p1110m A9111 19111 p9A9119q g1 10 1n0
VZKIIIQ “'01 9111211 1 99911111 10u,, 99011919111 A119111
  3111A1d91 ‘1011 p1110m A9111 19111 1191 919>110m 9111
  g 9111111-991111 ‘911191 p119 >110m 1121n391 119 dn
13 01 p9109dx9 A9111 11 p9>199 919m 91911101111

 '1119u1911191 101 9119111 91111119p p9110d

 111901911 g A1110 p119 9119111 A119 311139111 1n01111m

9u1911191 1110019 1113n0111 p911 1u9019d g 1n0qV

' 19 11011919p191100 011 u1910101d 9111 1191113 p911
1 9019d 0m1-A19111M 'A1111100 110119111111 111 9101919
A ‘.1 u1191 p911 119111 1119111911191 01 u011119119 9991
1 119 1191113 p911 919>110m 111191 p91111 19111393

SHHHHOM WHVJ
HVTIIDHH ¢IO SNVTd LNHWHHILHH

'99PnlIl19 11991 u! Kllllmlllugls 1911!]? 1911

A i1 9dn013 93V '9110119d11000 191110 119111 939 p10

19p1A01d 01 90119110 19119q 9 991113 3111u1191 19111

91 919>110m 939m 1190119u1V 1111911 9111 10 111901911

5 0 119111 9991 9991911m 3111u11121 p910A91 919>110m

0 9119-11010 u90119u1V 11111211 9111 10 111901911 (117

1 0qV 919>110m 9112119-d010 9111 10 911111101-991111

0119 p9911d11100 91190119u1V 1111911 991190901 901

p. 111 91111 ‘19A9m011 919>11om 191110 u9111 3u1u1191

, Vm01 99pn11119 91019101191 910111 p911 919>110m 11901
  101V 1111911 19111 90119p1A9 911109 91 0919 919111,

A, '919>110m

12m p1p 119111 3111111191 p19m01 9pn11119 91019101191

01119 p911 A119191193 9939m 119111 01 110111pp9 111
A   0 9 10 919119 911109 p9A19091 011m 9191101111

 
  
  
   
  
  

2 “'9910m
2 ‘19119q 011-1101191111000 191110 A119 91111 19111,,
m 11 19111 p199 91109391119Ap12 3111901 3111u1191 1111m
13991p 011m 919>110m 9111 10 A1110_f9111 V '90u9110
19q 9 911911 11131111 9101919110 u1191 19111 p9A911901
A1 9 1nq 91101119001 11m0 119111 A1110 p919p191100 919
0m 9111 10 1901,11 'p.99119 193 01 90u9110 9 19>110m
1991u9p 99111911p111 191110 111 >110m 119111 191n39111
1 3111901 >110m u1191 19111 1191 9191119 “1119111
 190111 —— 3111111A119 911911 1,1101) 919>110m 111.191,,
1 1091 9111 90119p1A9 119111 99 91193 111911111319
1111m p9913991p 011m 919>110m 9111 10 911103

A ‘"199 01 3111111911109 193 9A9m19 u90 u9111 9,,
,1 p119 “u1191 9 110 91111 01 19d99110 9,11,, 19111 3111

 

98

Li’ SI 88 98 ZZ 31911191991 99“9"!J
01 9199 9Q 1°" [HM
9V 99 £9 Z9 1"9'1l91!191 -99u9“!J
01 A1111q9 01 s1: u1121190u11
L L; 6 g1 L 1u9u1911191 90u9u11
91 9N9 99 [HM
00I 001 001 001 09 ["1011
- - -- — — 1u9019J — — — —-.19qumM
0139M 9111101 u90119u1V
191119 u1191 919311011 1u9u1911191 90uuu11 o1

punoxfispeq A1119u0119u .10 99123 "V mmqe u! aauapguoo

pun013>109q A1119
-u0119u .10 90121 Aq ‘9p99u 1u91u911191 90u12u11 101
A1111q12 u1 919111011 1111-121 191n391 10 90u9p11u09 ‘g7 91q91

-A99 ‘3u1111191 10 1091199 90119191901119 9111 p911011u9111
m91 V ‘gumo 9111 110 3111u1191 01111 193 A119np913
01,, 90119110 9 9911 19>110m 12 19111 p119 91101191111000
191110 u9111 110119011p9 9991 9911111091 3111u1191 19111
919m 3111u1191 3111101191 101 91109991 11011111109

'91019190[0 10 999110d991 9111 01 191111119
A1911 919m 111911111319 9111 110 9p11919 911011911 3u1>191
919>110m 9111 10 9u01110d01d 9111, 'p9p109p11n 919m
p11111 9 A119911 p119 1u9u191919 9111 1111m p99139
-91p 919>110m 9111 10 11911 1901111V ‘939 p10 101 9p1A
-01d 01 A1111n110dd0 19119q 9 91d09d 911 991113 3u1
‘U119; 19111 119} 91931-191“ 991 J9 ‘FL-TH 9 QTIOQV 9191
-919d0 u1191 01 99m 11 99 919>110m 1u191 19111391 01
p91119991d 99m 939 p10 101 9p1A01d 01 90119110 191
-19q 9 91d09d 911 991113 p119 9u0119dn000 191110 u1011
111919111p 91 3111111191 19111 11011190110111 9111

IIOHBdHQDQ III? SB HJOM 11111211 PIRMOL 

9p9911
119111 199111 p1n00 A9111 19111 1191 111110u1 19d 910111
.10 951$ 10 9p9911 p91911 011m 919>110m 9111 10 9u0M
'u0119911b 9111 110 1119119011n 919m 011m 919>110m 10
91101110110111 91019219 p911 9dn013 11V '919>110m u901
-19111V 11111211 p119 0139M u9111 90u9p11u00 910u1
p911 A13111u1999 919>110m 91111m 191119 '1011 p1n0m
A9111 19111 11191190 919m 111901911 9g p119 9p9911 1119111
01110-1 110111 100w 01 01010 001 0100M X0111 10111 1101
111901911 g1 A1119 ‘(g7 91q911l) p9111911 91119u191111b
-91 11990 9111 911911 p1n0m A9111 19111911m 01 99 11191
-1901111 919m 919>110m 9111 10 11911 u9111 9101/11

991111m
191110 10 99191111199 9111 u9111 9991 1nq 919>110m

0139M 10 990111 119111 910111 A119n9n 919m 919>110m

1190119u1V 1111911 10 9p9911 9111 93$ 119111 9991 10
99191111199 3u1>19111 1119111 10 190u1 ‘9111n0u19 191191119

p91119u 919>110m 0139M ‘910111 10 03$ 10 9111n0u19
p9u1911 11911 119111 910111 ‘9p99u 01 99 1119119011n
99m 9110a pu9 111110111 19d 017$ 119111 9991 p9911 p1n0m
K0111 10111 1101 0101-100 10111101 101110,, 0111 10 000M
919>11om 10 9p9911 1119111911191 9111 109119 01 u1999
p1p ‘19A9mo11 ‘p1111013>109q A111911011911 10 909g
9p9911 1119111911191 10 91111101119 111 919>110m 919119
-d010 pu9 939m u99m19q 99011919111p 919111 919m 1011
f919>110m 9111 10 9939 9111 pu9 91119u191111b91 11990
9111 1199m19q d1119110119191 19910 011 99m 919111

99191111199 9>19111 1011 p1p 919>110m 9111
10 111901911 9A19m1 ‘111110111 19d 991$ p119 99$ 919m
p911011u9111 A1111911b911 190111 9111n0u1V 93$ 119111
9991 10 9111n0u19 p9u1911 919>110m 9111 10 A1110_f9u1

LZ

£I 6 88 LZ 9I "FW-"mlfl
L 0 0 g I p919K00 9q 4011 p1n011s
08 I6 Z9 IL £7 P°1°A°° ‘"1 PI"°‘IS
00I 0M 00I 00I 09 191°].
._ __. _ - — 4u9919J — — —- — —19qu1nN
°13°N 1  “Bfigzlfv $13,110,, 9.191110.» uua; J91n391

J0 939191109 ISVQ
ifll-WM J0 Pml°13 llV pmmo; 9pn4144v

419911 K4119110149u .10 999g

pun013
->109q K4119u0149u .10 909.1 Kq ‘s.19x1.1om mm;
.191n39.1 40 939.19A09 ISVQ p.19m04 s9pn4144V '97 91q-9,1,

-9p p.104;9 40uu90 $.19>1.10m 490111 49114 419,1 939191100
9114 p9$0dd0 011m .19>1.10m 911,1, “'41 p9911,, K9114 49114
p9494$ K1d1111$ K411019111 911], ‘939 p10 u; 3111114K119
911911 4,up1n0m $.19>1.10m ‘41 4n01141m 49114 p9494$
K14u9nb91; 939191100 9114 3111110111119 $191.10,“

'9n$$1 4911; 9114 110 11194.19011n
9.19m 011m $.19>1.10m 9u19$ 9114-——$11901.19111V 111491
K14119u11110p91d 9.19m $.19>1.10m 1119419011n 9114 111939
p119 9n$$1 9114 110 u19419011n $9m 110141011010 91q9-z1s
9 ‘u193v ‘(917 9101911,) 939191100 .19>1.10m 10 101191
111 9.19m 1101111110 119 p911 011m $19>110m 9114 10 119
4$01111V 19.191193 111 1119130111 9114 04 9.19m K9114 $9
1119130111 ISVQ 9114 u; 1101$n10111 11m0 119114 04 91x14
-d909.1 $9 4$011119 9.19m $.19>1.10m a119,; 191113911

$1911.10,“ 111.1911 .191n3911
40 939191103 ISVQ p.19m0_1, $9pn4144V

'99Pnl!'-W?
119114 10 K41119419011n 9114 1119111119 04 p1194 K9111 $914
‘IHQIJJIP afimlmml 119W 1111M ~19IH95°4 ‘JIWIM 4931
9 ‘.19A9m011 ‘>1.1om 11119111011 111 90u9119dX9 011 p911
u19114 40 4$0w ‘$199K 11, 04 1g 1110.11 p93u91 $939
119111, '$.19q111n11 K411n09$ 19100$ p911 9110 4nq 119
pu9 ISVQ Kq p919K00 9.19m 9 ‘9n$$1 9114 110 110141$0d
ou >1004 011m $.19>1.10m 119011911191 111491 9114 1Q

‘Igvg Kq p919A00 9.19m 111011m 10 91110$ ‘$11901
-.19111V 1114911 9.19m 9110 4d90x9 119 ‘uo14s9nb 9114 110
u0141$0d 011 >1004 49114 11110.13 9114 111 ‘(Q17 91q9,1,)
41 p9A01dd9 .1011 p9$0dd0 191141911 19p1119u191 9114
p119 1119130111 9114 40 19110111119 119114 p9$$91dx9 $.19
->1.10m 9114 10 ()1 10 4n0 4113111 9014901111119 19.191193
$41 111 1119.130.1d ISVQ 911a, p9A0.1dd9$1p 91d1119$ 9114
u1 $.19>1.10m 111191 p91111 .191n39.1 9114 10 9110M

ISVO PRMQL saPnllllV [9-191191‘)

'1119.130.1d 9114 10 $91d101111d 19.19
-u93 9114 p1194$19p11n 04 910191111 9.19m—— $1190119u1V
11149q K119109d$9—$.19>1.10m 91110$ 49114 ‘.19A9m011
‘11014901p111 9u10$ $9m 9.19111, 'K9K.1n$ $1114 110 .19

0 0 0 0 0 19K01dd9s1q
L 0 Z2 0K ZI "0111504 °N
26 001 89 08 8V lmW-"idV
00I 00I 00I 00I 09 FWKL
— -- -— -- — 41199195 -- — — — —.19qum1q
“$9M 1 94111.10 \ uuogzamv 8 d
"W10 “E191 $1911.10.“ mfg‘;
1911mm 10 punoxfi 11V 91,11,111“,
419911 K4119u01413u .10 999g

pun013>109q K4119u0149u .10 999.1 Kq ‘ISVQ
p.19m04 $1911.10,“ u1.19_1 .191n39.1 40 s9pn4144V ‘Qf; 91q9_1,

    
    

's.19qunu1 ~V
191909 ssassod 4011 pgp 919111010 g pu9 unufioxd 91|4 u; 401x _j
sxaqumu K41Jn99s 191909 p911 g3 ‘ISVQ Kq 11919109 9.19m 919111051

09 2v s sz s1 “If ~ 
33W ‘

  
    
  
  
  
  
    
 
  
    
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
  
   
 
 
 

09 0? L8 0V VZ “T313015 ‘
-pun4s.19p a.
0 0I 07 SZ VI u"! ‘ ‘
93119141011‘-
0 9 0Z ZI .
-0.1d uo '-
-u1 119A ,7
001 001 001 001 09 '
- — — — — — — 4u9019J —- - - - — — JOQIIIIIN
Jaqumu “qmnu 1'
K411n99s ‘Il-"was [W305 ISA“) sun-pom 18:0
191905 3u1ss9ss0d sufiszssmi 3m] 9.19.409 "v J ~r 1
4011 191911.10 ,“ 13x8 8113:3320” $1911.10,“ “P314” 

       

Jaqumu K411n0 ,9
-9s 19100$ 10 uogssassod pu9 939191109 ISVQ Kq ‘,‘
‘s19)[.10m u1.19_1 .191n39.1 40 ISVQ 40 93p91m0u}1 '77 .1

-m91A.194111 9114 Kq 1119114 04 p911191dx9 111913010
10 $9.1n499_.1 1119111 9114 p911 1119130111 ISVQ 9114}
p9111.101111 119m Kp99119 4011 9.19m 011m $1911.10 M,

939 p10 111 4.10ddn$ 10 $9 f;
p9409dx9 119114 p9u1911 K9114 11911m 939191100 110n
90119p119d9p 40 11091 119114 .10; 411n0009 K9111 1 “
10 914411 0$ m911>1 $.19>110m p919K00 9114 10 K “
49114 409; 911,1, 'p9u1.10_.1111 K1100d K1911 9.19m 
-u1n11 K411n09$ 19100$ 4n01141m $19>110m pu9 1 '_
1141m 1911111191 $$91 9.19m 1119.130.1d 9114 111 4011 .
$.19q111n11 K411n09$ 19100$ 1141m $1911.10,“ ‘1119 
9114 4n0q9 3111114011 .10 914411 m911>1 411901911 ()1; f1 
10 93p91m011>1 19141194$qn$ 9 p911 41190.19d Q3 K
‘$$919114.19A9N '$.19>1.10m 191140 u9114 1119130111 ,
4n0q9 910111 m911>1 ISVQ Kq p9.19A00 $1911.10,“ 

'901194$1$$9 939-
p119 ISVQ 9$n11100 04 $.19>1.10m 9$9114 .10; K0u9pu
$9m 919111, 'p9.10$110d$ 411911111191103 $9m u1913
9114 49114 K1110 m911>1 K119u1 pu9 119 49 93p91m0u11_
p911 9$9114 10 91110$ f93p91m011>1 K2911 9 119114 9.1
011 p911 $.19>1.10m 9114 10 $p.11114-0m4 4$01111V ‘dn:
4$.111 9114 Kq 11m0u>1 $409d$9 9114 40 119 m0u>1 4011 =f
4nq 1119130111 9114 4n0q9 311111491110$ m911>1 $19111
9114 40 411901911 99.1114-K4119m,1, (,,'p9u1.10_1111 119m ,
-.119_1,, 9.19m $.1049.19d0 9114 10 41190.19d 0m4-K4119 ‘ a
‘(W 910191,) $.10A1A.1n$ 40 110140940111 $41 10 p, p
$4119119q 4119111911491 $41 ‘.10; p19d $1 1119.130.1d 9'
m011 m911>1 41190.19d g1 K1119 '$.1049.19d0 111.191 
$9 1119130111 ISVQ 9114 1141m 1911111191 $9 ‘.19/mm
‘4011 9.19m p9m91A194111 $.19>1.10m .191n39.1 911,1,

'1119.130.1d ISVQ 9114 10 11.1991 pu9 9A.19$q0 04 1101 r‘
1110.1; 110141$0d 91q9.10A9_1 9 111 119901 911911 910 f7
9 $9 $.19>1.10m 9114 ‘$9111, '$.19qu1n11 K411n09$ [91 
911911 4011 p1p $.19>1.10m ()9 9114 10 3 K1110 '$.19qu1
K411n09$ 19100$ p9$$9$$0d $p.11114-0m4 119114 9.10
‘ISVQ Kq p9.19A00 4011 $.19>1.10m 3110111V ‘$19311
939m 9.19m Lg 3111111911191 9114 f $19>110m 9.1911$-d 
9.19m $.19K01d1119-.1049.19d0 111.191 119114 Kq $93 y‘
11$90 119114 110 p19d x94 ISVQ 9114 311111911 9.1
011m $.19>1.10m 9$9114 10 g K1110 ‘Igvg Kq p9.19
9.19m p9m91A194111 $.19>1.10m K411n00 11041911,“ r;

10 11911 '$939m 11$90 p9K1909.1 011m $.19>1.10m ”
p91111 .191n39.1 191x00 04 p9p1194x9 $9m u19.130.1d 90 .

-1n$111 $.10K1A1ng p119 93V-p1O 9114 ‘@961 111 1
WVHDOHJ ISVO (IHVMOL SEIGHLILLV? '

Table 47. Attitudes of regular farm workers toward OASI
coverage of short-time farm workers by race or
nationality background and type of workers

           

Attitude toward OASI Latin Other Crop-
coveraqe of short-time A" American white New" wage share
farm workers workers workers “WW5 "We" workers
Number — — — — — —- Percent — — — — — — —
Total 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 _
Should be covered 19 32 38 0 40 24 39
Should not be
covered 13 22 15 36 27 31 13
Uncertain 28 46 47 64 33 45 48

ductions from their wages. Some of the workers
who took no position on the issue gave the same
reason.

Attitudes Toward OASI Coverage of
Short-time Farm Workers

The extension of OASI to cover short-time
farm workers was approved by about a third of
the regular workers and a smaller proportion op-
posed its extension (Table 47). Nearly half of
the workers were uncertain on the question.

Workers approving the coverage emphasized
the need of short-time workers for protection and
many felt that their needs were greater than those
of any other group of workers. Opposition to
short-time worker coverage usually was based
upon the bookkeeping difficulty. A few regular
workers, however, felt that short-time workers
do not “deserve” coverage. One indignant work-
er said: “If they take our money, they should
take theirs and include them.” Workers who
were uncertain on the issue were uncertain in-
deed for only one made a comment other than
“don’t know.” This worker felt that short-time
workers cannot afford deductions from their
wages.

None of the “other White” workers approved
short-time worker coverage, while about two-
fifths of the Negro and Latin American workers
had favorable attitudes. More of the crop-share
workers approved the coverage than opposed it;
the opposite was true for wage workers.

Attitudes Toward OASI Coverage of
Farm Operators

Relatively fewer regular farm workers ap-
proved operator coverage than was the case with
the operators themselves. Only a fourth of the
workers believed that OASI should be extended
to farm operators (Table 48). A far smaller pro-

Table 48. Attitudes of regular farm workers toward OASI
coverage of farm operators, by race and nation-
ality background and type of worker

           

Attitude toward All Arheariiigarr  Negro Wage Ear’:
operator coveraoe workers worker, workers workers workers workers
Number — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — -

Total 60 100 100 100 100 100 100
Should be covered 15 25 23 27 27 10 39
Should not be

covered 4 7 12 0 0 7 6
Uncertain 41 68 65 73 73 83 55

28

portion, however, were opposed to coverage fo
operators. Most of the workers were unable -
make a decision on the question. Some of the i
thought that it should be optional with the oper
tors. Others said that they did not know whether
farmers actually need it.

  
    
   
    
  
   
  
 
 
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
   
    
 
 
 
  
   
  

Workers approving extension of coverage i
operators felt that small farmers are particularl
in need of protection. Other common statemen v
were: “Everybody should be under it,” and “Mo
farmers need it because they may have 
years.” The few workers opposing the covera
generally felt that operators do not need OASI.‘

Ten percent of the wage workers approv
the inclusion of operators in OASI. A substant
ally larger proportion, 39 percent, of the cro
share workers approved. The degree of approv
by the crop-share workers cannot be ascribed r
any particular race or nationality group; with
the race or nationality groups crop-share worked a
were far more likely to favor operator covera
than were wage workers.

SURVEY METHODS

Sampling was confined to the open count
and to “farms” as defined by the U. S. Census I
Agriculture. .

Area sampling was used as a basis for selec
ing the farm operators to be interviewed. Sch
dules also were completed on the regular fa
laborers and sharecroppers who were identifi
with farms falling in the sample. Wharton cou
ty has a total of 459 sample segments ‘as defin
in the development of the Master Sample of A g
culture. From these a geographically stratifi
random sample of 77 segments was selected.
farmers with their farm headquarters inside the
segments were to be interviewed. Farmers w
owned land inside these segments but had th
farming headquarters outside were not includ
Farmers who merely lived elsewhere, as in Wh
ton or El Campo, but did not farm there, we
counted in the segment in which they had th
farming headquarters. ’

The sampling rate was 17 percent (1 out,
6). Usable schedules were completed for 2
farms, or 93 percent of 276 farms identified g
being in the sample. In addition to the 257 fa L
operator records, schedules were completed on
regular wage workers and sharecroppers. T
ratio of laborers and sharecroppers to farm op
ators was higher than these figures indica
Headquarters of several of the largest farms a
ranches in the county, which employed many 0'
operator workers, were outside the sample s
ments. In other instances, the laborer divided .
time approximately evenly between two or m
farms and was, therefore, not clearly identifi
with the sample unit. '

 

   
 
 
   
  
   
   
 

" his study is one of a series on problems of
 'ty and retirement of farm people made by
vureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. De-
_'ent of Agriculture, in cooperation with sev-
{state land-grant colleges. The study was
Sunder the direction of Louis J. Ducoff for
ureau of Agricultural Economics and Joe R.
jlieral, formerly of the Texas Agricultural Ex-
Aent Station.

Acknowledgment is made to Roy L. Roberts
 Social Security Administration for techni-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

cal advice in planning the study, for assisting in
the field survey and in planning tabulations. Other
field enumerators, besides the authors, were Ralph
Nichols of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics
and R. L. Skrabanek and R. G. Thompson of the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Special
credit is due R. L. Smith, Jr., statistical super-
visor, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, for
his services in handling the machine tabulations
of survey data.

SCHEDULE AVAILABLE

Persons interested in the techniques used in field
interviews in Wharton county may obtain a copy
of the schedule for farm operators from the Agri-
cultural Information Office, Texas A&M College
System, College Station, Texas. With some mod-
ifications, the same schedule was used for inter-
viewing hired farm workers and sharecroppers.

29