Summary

This study deals on a sample basis with the income levels, income sources and iarm and hum
source characteristics oi the 88,000 rural open-country iamilies in a 24-county area oi Northeast Tex

Low levels oi living and limited production on commercial iarms have not been a recent develo
in the area, but have persisted a long time. In recent decades, however. the economy oi the area 
dergone considerable change, involving a large shiit irom agricultural to noniarm employment, made

\

sible by the area's great industrial progress. ‘

Decline in iarm population has amounted to 50 percent or more since 1940.: The percentage 
area's labor iorce engaged in iarming decreased irom 68 percent in 1930 to 26 percent in 1950. This ch"
has continued at a reduced rate during the 1950's. "

Along with these changes the number oi iarms decreased irom about 103,000 in 1930 to 49,11
1954. The major changes in systems oi iarming, however, have been mainly irom small-scale crop to j
scale livestock iarming. T

In 1955, 49,000 oi the area's rural iamilies were iarm iamilies and 39,000 were noniarm iamili
55 percent and 45 percent, respectively. However, 21 percent oi all iarmers were iull-time iarmers.
time iarmers numbered 18,000, or 37 percent oi all iarmers, and residential iarmers, 16,000 or 32 perce
all iarmers. The iull-time iarmers, 17 percent oi all rural iamilies, were the only ones who obtained m“
their income irom iarming. ’ 1

The average annual net money income per rural iamily in 1955 was about $2,500. When a value,
placed on rent and on home-produced iood there was an average cash and noncash income oi some Y
per iamily, or about hali the average income oi the Nation's noniarm iamilies. The median income,
about $2,000. Twenty-seven percent oi the iamilies, had a net money income oi less than $1,000 wi
average oi about $500; and 22 percent had incomes oi only $1,000 to $1,999 with an average oi $1,450. F,

one percent oi the iull-time iarm iamilies had less than $1,000 net money income and averaged about ,

Another 25 percent had a net money income oi less than $2,000, averaging about $1,500.

-' a

Full-time, part-time and residential iarm iamilies had average total net money incomes oi $1
$3,280 and $2,170, respectively. About two-thirds oi the part-time iarm iamilies had incomes above $2 "p

The most important single source oi income was noniarm work. For all iamilies, 70 percent ‘it

total net money income irom all sources was irom noniarm work, 10 percent was irom iarming and 20

cent was irom nonwork sources such as military pensions, retirement annuities, old age pensions and g

eral lease rentals, with only a minor iraction irom work on other iarrns.
Full-time iarmers obtained about 77 percent oi their total cash and noncash income irom the

Most residential and some part-time iarm iamilies lost money on their cash iarm operations- Families y
incomes oi less than $1,000 received about hali oi their income irom nonwork sources, usually pensi

one kind or another.

Farm iamilies with cash incomes oi less than $1,000 received more cash income irom public we

sources than they did irom their iarm operations.

Income levels in the area were a result oi long-run iactors in both the general and the iarm econ’
However, diiierences in employment characteristics oi the iamily head were a major iactor accountin
diiierences between iamilies in the current income situation. Earnings by the iamily head accounted i

percent oi the income earned by all iamily members irom noniarm work sources.

Nearly one oi every iour iamily heads was 65 years oi age or over.
years oi age. Oi all iamilies with money incomes below $1,000, 47 percent oi the iamily heads we
years oi age or older, and 60 percent oi the noniarm iamily heads were 65 or older.

incomes above this amount.

About 77 percent oi all iamilies with incomes below $1,000 had a iamily head who was 65 y ' I

age or over, or had a physical handicap limiting the kind or amount oi work he could do, or was ie 
had completed iewer than iive grades in school. In the income class $1,000 to $1,999, 65 percent
iamilies had one or more oi these characteristics. Among the iull-time iarmers, 74 percent oi the I

with incomes below $2,000 had such limitations on productivity oi the human resource, or had --; 

sources oi less than $15,000. Nearly 40 percent oi all iull-time iarmers had total iarm resources oi 5'
$15,000. I

Mainly as a result oi noniarm employment opportunities there are iew able-bodied male wo a
under 45 years oi age with high school educations engaged in iull-time iarming in the area. Family he
with these characteristics in iull-time iarming comprised only about 1 percent oi all open-country -- _ _
heads in the area, and most oi these controlled enough iarm resources to earn net money iamily incl

oi considerably more than $2,000.

This study is part oi a research program undertaken to provide research analysis ior the Rural
velopment Program.

Another one-iiith was 55 t

Full-time -- Y
had the iewest iamily heads in the older group, but were heavily concentrated in the 45 to 64-age ~ 
Among all kinds oi iamilies there was a consistent diiierence in the ages oi iamily heads by income le '
with 61 years the median age ior those with incomes below $2,000 and 49 the median age ior those '

  
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
    
 
 
  

ING PROGRESS IN FARM PRODUCTIVITY has
j en achieved in America during the past 20
i. Yet, in large areas and among thousands
Jrmers, 10W per capita production and in-
fl; persist in spite of prolonged growth and
sed income in the general economy.

f‘: Secretary of Agriculture, in a report to
resident in 1955,1 identified the major areas
» e Nation in which low farm incomes were so
"lent as to be of public concern. In this re-
1L the 24-county area of Northeast Texas, in
Y Census Economic Area XII and sometimes
“ed to as the Northeast Texas Sandy Lands
gof farming area (see cover), was designated
l e of the serious problem areas (Figure 1).

 e 1954 census of agriculture indicates that
{s 24-county area, the volume of products
9' and marketed per farm has continued to
all? Average gross cash income from farm
g ction was $1,564 per farm. This was less
one-third of either the national average of
or the Texas average of $5,605.

Objectives of Study

0 explain this low-farm-income situation,
to describe its chronic characteristics, re-
h was begun in 1956 by the Texas Agricul-
i Experiment Station and the Agricultural
yrch Service, United States Department’ of
 ulture. The findings of one major phase of
research are reported here. This phase of
tudy attempted to answer the following ques-

H. When and how did the present rural in-
j- situation develop?

. What is the size and distribution pattern
mily incomes?

L. What are the sources of income and how
arm and nonfarm incomes compare in this
Ct?

. How do the human-resource characteristics
Wffhe conditions of employment differ by in-
levels?

. What are the farm and land-resource char-
 lstics associated with income differences?
i. i‘ z.»

n. Department of Agriculture. Development of Agri-
_= re’s Human Resources-—A Report on Problems of
v-Income Farmers. 44 pp., Illus. 1955.

E Census of Agriculture, 1954.

‘cultural economists, Farm Economics Research Di-
Vn, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department
i griculture, cooperating with the Texas Agricultural
riment Station.

INBUMES 0F llUllAl FAMIUES IN NURTHEAST TEXAS

"k
JOHN H. SOUTHERN AND W. E. HENDRIX

6. What are the major types of low-income
family situations?

7. What are the implications of these findings
for policies and programs, including research,
directed to the solution of the area’s income prob-
lems?

Methods of Study

The first of these questions was ‘approached
mainly with the use of secondary data.

In answering the other questions in the study,
primary emphasis was placed on the 1955 income

CONTENTS
Summary . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Objectives of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methods oi Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Background oi Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
General Description oi Human
and Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Income Levels and Sources of Income. . . . 9
Levels of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sources of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Human Resources and Income Levels. . . .13
Number of Family Members . . . . . . . .13
Age oi Family Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Physical Limitations of Family
Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Levels of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17
Sex and Marital Status of
Family Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Employment of Family Heads
and Other Family Members . . . . . . .19
Farm Resources and Income Levels . . . . . .22
Classes of Low-income Families by
Adjustment Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Families with Incomes of
Less than $1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Families with Incomes of $1.000
to $1.999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Families with Incomes of $2.000
and Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Some Implications of Findings . . . . . . . . . . .26
Low Incomes oi the Occupationally
Handicapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Low-income Families not
Occupationally Handicapped . . . . . .30
Industry Development and the
Rural-low-income Problem . . . . . . . .31
Current Trends and Outlook . . . . . . . .32
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

situation of these rural families. Survey records
obtained in 1956 from a representative sample of
rural families provided the main source of data.
Rural families, as the term is used in this study,
are families living in the open country, outside
towns, cities and villages. Randomly drawn area
segments, each containing approximately the
same number of families, provided the basis of
family selection. Records were obtained from
all families, both farm and nonfarm, within each
segment, except for a small number of families
that could not be contacted because of prolonged
absence, illness or other reasons.

Usable records were obtained from 1,189 fam-
ilies. Each record included, for the year 1955,
(1) the number and characteristics of family
members, (2) the kinds and quantities of farm
resources, (3) the level and sources of income
and (4) the kinds and amounts of employment of
all members of the family. The sample included
1 of every 74 families in the open-country area.
Hence, for some items, area-wide estimates have
been developed by expanding the sample 7 4 times.
Reliability of these estimates varies from item to
item.

The study was based on the income and re-
source situation of each family for a single year.

Income in any 1 year does not necessarily i
resent a family’s normal income situation. I
not unusual for farmers with adequate reso a
bases to have an occasional drop in income
cause of adverse weather or temporarily unfa
able price and cost conditions. But 1955 w,
fairly normal year for Northeast Texas, _
only the usual variations in prices of comm
ties grown in the area.  '3: 

The term farm is used in this study in p
same sense that it is used in the census of a,
culture. It applies to all units having 3 acres
more of land producing farm products 
value of $150 or more, and all units with 
than 3 acres having sales of farm produi
amounting to $150 or more. As this inclu
many units on which farm production, especia,
for market, is of little importance, and as ma,
farm people in the area depend mainly on ij
farm employment for their income, a more me;
ingful picture of the area’s agriculture is pi
vided by classifying the area’s farms into t,

following three groups : 

Full-time farms are defined as those havi
gross sales of farm products of $250 or m0 ,1
with the. operator working less than 100 days 
the farm and with family income from nonfa 

  
   
  
   
   
   
    
 
 

LOW-INCOME AND LEVEL-OF-LIVING AREAS IN AGRICULTURE

GENERALIZED AREAS

. APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS AND BORDER AREAS.
. SOUTHERN PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAINS.

. SOUTHEASTERN HILLY.

. MISSISSIPPI DELTA.

SANDY COASTAL PLAINS OF ARK , LA., AND TEX.
OZARK-OUACHITA MOUNTAINS AND BORDER.

. NORTHERN LAKE STATES.

. NORTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO.

\ CASCADE AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREAS

~OG>\J_O-_U\bwN-

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Figure 1. Twenty-four counties in Northeast Texas were designated as a serious problem area in 1955 by the Secret‘

oi Agriculture.
4

        
 

PREPARED BY AMS AND ARS

   
  
  

SERIOUS
E (all 3 criteria)

(sussrAuruAi "j
a ‘- i

ny 2 criteria)

MODERATE

(any I criteria)

CRITERIA * v »_
I. Less than SL000 residual larm f; ‘

income to operator and lamily '
with level-of-living index below
the regional average and 25% 9 ~
or more of commercial larms a
classiliecl as "low-production". . 
2. level-ol-living index in I l
lowest lilth ol the nation.
3. 50% or more at commercial

farms classilied as
"low-production".

itlorrA AS 01-‘1949

COUNTIES HAVING URIANIZED AREAS
OF 250,000 OR MORE EXCLUDED

lSYAIE ECONOMIC AREA BASIS)

NEG. 1804-55 (9) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE?

l!

 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
    
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 of less than the value of farm sales (Fig-
. The families on these farms were pri-
A». dependent on farming.

 -time farms are defined as those having
fsales of farm products of $250 or more,
f; e operator working 100 days or more off
 or with family income from nonfarm
‘i; of more than the value of farm sales.
_ '45s on these farms were chiefly dependent
g arm jobs or other nonfarm sources of in-
 This differs from the agricultural census
_'on of a part-time farmer, which limits
,e of farm products to $1,199, in placing
per, limit on gross sales of farm products.
phasis is on source of income.

iwential farms are defined as those having
f sales of farm products of less than $250.
ies on these farms were dependent almost
getely on nonfarm work or other nonfarm
75-; of income. Essentially, they lived in the
area for residential purposes. And in most
ces they were more similar to nonfarm
es than they were to families on full-time
v en all farm operators in the area were
_ied in this manner, the distribution was
p,» rcent full-time farmers, 36.8 percent part-
 armers and 32.3 percent residential farm-
‘According to the census definitions, the dis-
'on would have been 41.5 percent full-time
I ercial), 26.2 percent part-time and 32.3
a residential.

Background of Problem

-i 24-county study area lies in the East Tex-
mberlands land-resource area. Soils are
y upland, are rolling to hilly and are sandy
‘ture. They are naturally low in fertility,
g basically deficient in most of the major
nutrients, but are highly responsive to man-
‘nt and fertility practices. Serious soil ero-
5 water is common. The climax vegetation
‘, arily loblolly and shortleaf pine and oak
 uplands and hardwoods and pine in the
1| lands. The climate is temperate, with
f'nters and hot summers, frequently accom-
..» by drouth. Rainfall averages from about
l 48 inches annually.

w production and incomes have persisted
_1 rural families in Northeast Texas for a
Itime. In 1910, a comparatively good year
rmers, the average gross sales per farm
earea amounted to only about $1,000, which
bout half the “average for the State, and
‘l: low volume of production for that time.
‘ap has widened in recent years because of
i eater progress in the other areas of the
_ Also, differences have become more notice-
~- ause of the growing need for cash in-
 in farming.

In its earlier agriculture, as far back as 1850,
Northeast Texas depended almost solely on cot-
ton for its cash income. Corn and other feed
crops were grown for livestock feed; otherwise,
farming was self-sufficient. There were some
large units, but most farms were small, with
only a few acres per farm cleared and in crops.
All the land had originally been covered with
heavy timber, and cultivation was carried on» only
in cleared patches. Cotton gained in importance
until the peak of production in the late 1920’s.
At about this time, the invasion of the bollweevil,
lower prices of cotton and the general deteriora-
tion of soils from continuous cropping under poor
management combined to decrease production of
cotton. ‘

Thus, the farmers of the area entered the ser-
ious general depression of the 1930’s with dimin-
ishing opportunities for production and market-
ing of cotton, their chief source of cash income.

Migration of farm population from the area
was relatively high from 1920 to 1930 but slow-
ed down during the depression, and farm popu-
lation decreased only a little during the decade
1930 to 1940. Farm production, never highly
commercial, increasingly took on the appearance
of a subsistence economy. Meanwhile, in the
1930’s and 1940’s, farming technology and farm
production advanced rapidly in much of the Na-
tion. Farm population in the area declined about
43 percent during 1940-50 but despite this de-
crease and the various farm assistance programs,
most of the people depending mainly on agricul-

100
9Q ..
80 —
7O —
6O -

AIL FARMS

5Q ..

40-

PERCENT 0F FARM SALES

3O ' RFULL-TDIIE FARMS
2O n-
1o _ PART-TIME runs

. ZRESDENTIAL FARMS _

O

10 2O 30 4.0 50 60 70 80 90 100

PERCENT OF FARMS

Figure 2. Total farm sales and percent of sales by
various kinds of farms in rural Northeast Texas. The sale
of farm products is relatively concentrated among small num-
bers oi farms. Fifty percent of all iarms sell less than 30
percent oi total sales. In contrast, 12 percent of the farms
sold about this same proportion of total sales. Full-time
farms. about 31 percent of all farms, sell nearly 7O percent
of total sales. Residential farms sell less than 2 percent of
total sales.

5

TABLE 1. MAIOR TRENDS IN FARMING IN NORTHEAST
TEXAS SPECIFIC CENSUS YEARS. 1920-54‘

Year
1920 1930 1940 1945 1950 1954

Item

Number
oi iarms 97,815 102.504 81,035 71.005 60,122 49.123
Percent oi area

in larms 67 64 70 66 69 65
Average size of

farm-acres 76 70 98 105 130 150
Value oi land

and buildings ,
per larm $3,220 $2,020 $1,990 $2.750 $5,590 $8,020
Percent oi
iarmland in

cropland 58 53 60 40 40 34
Percent of

owners and

part-owners 53 38 51 61 69 80
Percent of

tenants 47 62 49 39 31 20
Percent oi

croppers 15 12 8 8 5 3
Percent oi

colored

tarm operators 29 32 29 25 25 23

‘U. S. Census oi Agriculture, 1920-54.

ture have been unable to make the adjustments
that are needed to increase their production and
raise their incomes. The number of farms de-
creased about 26 percent during the 1940’s, and
the average size of farms increased by 50 percent
in 1940-54, to 150 acres. But farm production is
still on a small scale, With thousand of small units
remaining (Table 1). ‘By 1955, the average size
of farm had risen to 158 acres but this still was
slightly smaller than the 1880 average of 163
acres. The fairly large increase in average size
of farms from 1940 to 1955 was not the result of
farm reorganization toward larger scale, but Was
brought about mainly by the movement of many
small holdings into the “nonfarm” classification.
The major adjustment in the agriculture of the
area has been a shift from small-scale crops to

7o -)
Illllll FARMNQNFAW
60 9 6" l|||

so _> 
w a 
3o —>
2o ->
- 1° —>

O a :0 u
a 1930 1940 1950

Figure 3. Workers in Northeast Texas by types of em-
ployment. 1930, 1940 and 1950. The trend of employment
toward nonfarm occupations has continued since 1950 as
will be revealed by the 1960 Population Census.

6

l»

32.2

 

PERCENT OF WORKTIIRS EldPLOYED

    

  
 
 
 
   
  
  
  
    
   
 
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
 
  

small-scale livestock farming. In 1940, onl
percent of the total value of farm products »_
came from livestock and livestock products? .
1954, this proportion had increased to 64 pe ,
of the total value, and the proportion of .
sales had decreased from 82 to 34 percent.
1955, crop sales amounted to less than 30 j
cent of the cash receipts from farming in;
area.  ~, a

In contrast to the decline in the area’s =
culture in terms of land in cultivation and of g
duction volume, the nonfarm economy of the -
has been highly dynamic since 1930. Hence’;
justments in agriculture have been mainly!
sponses of its labor resources to the rapidly,
veloping nonfarm employment opportunities.
nearby centers. The movement of persons in ._
area from farm to nonfarm employment has r
large, both for workers shifting occupations u
pletely and for workers taking nonfarm j;
While continuing to farm part-time. Form:
dependent mainly upon agriculture, the area .
has become an important industrial locality. y
rural landscape is changing rapidly toward I
extensive land-use patterns of farming and 
farm use of What was formerly farmland. r.
these shifts have been made, the farm and n
farm economies have become so interrelated i
one can no longer explain the area’s recent ;-
cultural history or intelligently evaluate its f
adjustment opportunities and problems W113i
reference to its industrial development. ‘

In 1930, 68 percent of the area’s emplo
persons Were engaged in farm Work (Table 2 =
Figure 3) ; by 1940, only 47 percent were in fa ,
ing. During the 1930’s, several types of nonf. Q
employment grew in importance. Oil Was u
covered in the area, and although the oil ind

3U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1940 and 1954.

TABLE 2. WORKERS IN NORTHEAST TEXAS BY TYPES‘.
EMPLOYMENT, 1930, 1940 AND 1950‘ ‘F

1930 1940 1950
Type oi 
employment Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- P
ber cent ber cent ber c .
Agriculture 165,088 67.8 110,163 47.1 57,964
Wholesale 1
and retail 13,440 5.5 28,421 12.2 40.678 l1
Prolessional 4
and - i
government 10,486 4.3 17,285 7.4 27,202 1 g
Manufacturing 15.221 6 3 18,712 8 0 26,923 l i
Domestic and 3
personal
service 9,879 19.302 18,291
Construction 3,966 8,153 15,251
Transportation 9,612 9,451 13,049
Service

Oil and gas2 2,214 9.539 9,377
Other 2,408 . 2,479 . 3,575
Total 243.453 10 . 233,857 10 . 223.989 I"

‘U. S. Census of Population, 1930, 1940 and 1950.
“Classified as “mining" in census.

4 1 8 2
1 6 3 5
3 9 4 0
businesses 11,139 4.6 10,352 4.4 11,679
0 9 4 1
1 0 1 1
0 0 0 0

   
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  

f-like the general economy was in a depressed
ition, production expanded rapidly, offering
_e for industry diversification and income
_rment. The number of workers in oil and
j-production increased fourfold. Construction
i, expanded considerably, furnishing employ-
f» to additional thousands of workers. Em-
. i, ent in the wholesale and retail trade more
_ ;= doubled, and there was a significant in-

é; in the number of professional and govern-
j Workers. These changes in the character
1;. ployment were accompanied by a slight drop
§u g the decade in overall number of employed,
ugh total population increased by about 15
‘I nt.

By 1950, the pattern of employment and in-
e in the area had developed toward a diver-
. that furnished a much broader base for
ige and adjustment on the part of farm fam-
1': even though there was a slight decline in
énumber of persons gainfully employed be-
 1940-50. Total population, rural and ur-
l. declined nearly 11 percent during the 1940’s.
k e farming still was the most important
le type of employment, its importance had de-
ed greatly by 1950, to include only about one-
 h of all workers. Several types of employ-
t had increased and thousands of new job op-
' nities had been made available to family
's and family members who had been under-
"loyed in low-production farming. Nonfarm
1 more than doubled between 1930-50 an in-
.,se from about 78,000 to about 166,000. Since
,, farm families have continued to take ad-
' ge of nonfarm employment opportunities,
the movement from farms continues though
v slower rate.

Lneral Description of Human
and Physical Resources

MAN RESOURCES

Total Number of Pe0ple.—According to expan-
_ of data obtained in this study, there were
tut 88,000 family units in rural Northeast Tex-
 | 1956 with a total of some 306,000 people, an
. age of 3.4 persons per family. Of these fam-
f. 48,900 were operators of farms, and 39,100
'_ nonfarm families. The farm families in-
» about 175,000 people or 3.5 persons per
I y. The nonfarm families had 130,000 mem-
f; or 3.3 persons per family.

Rana-The area has a predominantly white
“ulation. In 1955,, =79 percent of the popula-
was White. Noriwhites made up 18 percent
he farm operator families and about 24 per-
 of the rural nonfarm families. The non-
te farm operators were heavily concentrated
arrison and nearby counties, localities where
fcotton-cropper system was once relatively im-
nt.

Age and Sex.—In 1955, persons 14 years and
older, or of labor-force age by census definition,
comprised 67.6 percent of the area’s rural popu-
lation (Table 3). The percentages did not vary
appreciably between the farm and nonfarm pop-
ulation.

Males made up slightly more than 51 percent
of the area’s rural population 14 years of age
and over. They comprised 52 percent of the
farm population in this age group, and nearly
50 percent of the nonfarm population, a distri-
bution in general similar to that in all of the Na-
tion’s agricultural areas.

The area’s rural population was heavily
weighted by persons under 19 years and over 44
years of age. These groups accounted for 41 per-
cent and 34 percent, respectively, leaving only
25 percent in the ages 19 to 44 years. This com-
pares with percentages in the 19 to 44 years of
age group, of 39 percent for the Nation’s total
population and of 31 percent for its total farm
population.‘

The area’s farm population has more persons
45 years of age and over than does its nonfarm
population. Nearly 40 percent of the males and
38 percent of the females on farms were 45 years
of age and over, compared with 29 percent and
27 percent, respectively, in the nonfarm popu-
lation. Nearly 6 percent of all males on farms
and 10 percent of all males in the nonfarm pop-
ulation were from 25 to 34 years of age. The
smaller percentage on farms may be associated
with the fact that children under 6 years of age
comprised only 10 percent of the area’s farm pop-
ulation, compared with 23 percent of the non-
farm population. Comparable differences are
not observed in the other age groups under 14
years which suggests that this area has had rapid
farm-to-nonfarm transfers by young married
couples, especially since 1950.

Education.—At the time of the study, family
heads in rural Northeast Texas had achieved an
average level in school of 7.7 grades. _Heads of

4U. S. Census of Population, 1950.

TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF FARM AND NONFARM POP-
ULATION BY AGE AND SEX. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS.

1955
Farm Nonfarm Total

A991 Years Fe- Fe- Fe-

Male male Male male Male male Total

— — — — ——Percent——————
Under 6 years 9.9 10.3 23.2 23.2 15.9 16.3 16.1
6 - 9 7.7 8.1 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7
10-13 9.4 9.8 7.3 7.4 8.5 8.6 8.6
14-18 11.0 8.9 7.7 6.6 9.5 7.9 8.7
19-24 4.0 4.1 4.6 5.0 4.2 4.5 4.4
25-34 5.9 7.3 9.5 11.2 7.5 9.1 8.3
35-44 12.2 13.6 11.7 11.8 12.0 12.8 12.4
45-64 27.9 27.4 17.8 16.6 23.3 22.4 22.8
65 and over 12.0 10.5 10.8 10.7 11.5 10.6 11.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q

farm families had about the same average level
of schooling as nonfarm family heads, the aver-
ages being 7.8 and 7.5 grades, respectively. Only
6 percent of the family heads had schooling above
the high school level, 32 percent had completed
9 to 12 grades, 43 percent had completed 5 to 8
grades, and 19 percent, or nearly 1 of every 5,
had not gone beyond the fourth grade.

As is often true among rural people, the wife
usually had more schooling than the family head,
the average for wives being 8.9 grades, slightly
more than one grade higher than family heads.
Wives under 25 years of age had completed an
average of 10.6 grades.

Young adults in the ages 19 to 24 years had
an average level of schooling of about 12 grades,
with little difference between males and females
or between members of farm and nonfarm fam-
ilies. Most children below 19 were still in school.
With existing school opportunities, most of them
may be expected to complete at least their high
school programs.

Occupations.—As indicated earlier, 55.5 per-
cent of the area’s rural families operated farms,
according to the census definition of a farm. But
when asked what they considered their occupa-
tion to be, and what work they did most of in
1955, only 52 percent of the family heads in this
group reported farming as their occupation.
More than a third ofthese farm family heads
were engaged in nonfarm work during most of
1955. Twenty-eight percent reported wage or
salary work and 6 percent reported self-employ-
ment in nonfarm work. Others reported miscel-
laneous occupations, such as housekeeping, and
still others reported that they were disabled.

Of the nonfarm family heads, about half re-

-» ported nonfarm wage or salary work as their

main occupation in 1955; 1O percent were self-
employed; and about 9 percent worked mainly
as farm wage workers. Very few of the family
heads reported that their main activity was look-
ing for work.

Only about 12 percent of the wives who were
not family heads reported employment outside
the home as their main occupation in 1955. Only
10 percent of the wives of farm operators re-
ported such work, compared with nearly 14 per-
cent of those in nonfarm families. Most wives
employed outside the home were wage or salary
workers.

Nearly 25 percent of the children 14 years of
age or over, still living at home were reported
as employed in farm or nonfarm civilian work.
This was 13 percent of the females and 31 per-
cent of the males. The differences probably are

attributable in large part to kinds of employment

available in the area.

Tenure.—Nearly half the families had lived at
their present place 10 years or more. The farm

   
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
   
    
  
   
    
  
  
   
  
   
  
    
 
     
  
   
   
 
  
 

operators were largely full or part-owner
percent and 20 percent, respectively. .5,
was chiefly of the cash or share rent kind. H
croppers, once important in the area, mad
only 3 percent of the operators studied.

Although the tenure status of the non .
families is not as relevant as that of the A
operator families, it should be noted that a
40 percent of the nonfarm families were ren 1_
These nonfarm renters were paying cash _
usually on a monthly basis, as would an u.
resident. Fifty-seven percent of the nonf‘
families were full owners, compared with 60
cent of the farm families. ’ >

PHYSICAL RESOURCES ;

Land Area.—The 24-county study areal?
cludes 17,691 square miles, or 11,322,240 a»;
At the time of the study, 7,900,000 acres We 
farms and 641,000 acres were held by rural 
farm families for uses other than farming. p,
remainder of the acreage was in timberland, ~
public and private, military installations, r
ways, city and town sites, and a large tract .
privately for its iron ore deposits. *

Size 0f Farm.—The area is characterized?’
a rural ownership pattern of small holdingsff
recent land ownership study revealed that i;
than 40 percent of all rural landowners o
20 acres or less? Over 90 percent held 
of less than 200. Data from the study repo _
here show that most holdings were less than ,
acres in size. Farms, too, are small. The 
age size of farm in 1955 was 158 acres, with f
34 acres of cropland. Two-thirds of the fa
were 120 acres or less in size. Average total?
vestment per farm, including land and build"_
livestock, and machinery, was about $15,000. l_

5Southern, John H. and Miller, Robert L. Ownershi
Land in the Commecial Timbe Area of Northeast -»___
Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Progress Report 1903, 7 pp.,"?,
Nov. 1956, College Station, Texas. ~:

TYPES 0F FAMILIES

HILL-TIME FARM . . . . .

IVESTOCK EQUIHENI‘ i I

I I I I
o 5 1o 15 2o
VALUE or FARM nssouncss ($1,006)

  
 

 
  
    

Figure 4. Average value of farm resources held by ‘A
oi families in rural Northeast Texas. The lull-time t;
controlled larger resources than any other type oi 
The value of the nonfarm family holding was made up ~
ly of the value of the dwelling.

 
  
 
   
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
  
   
  

1 all farms had $10,000 or less. Nonfarm
y»: had an average total investment of about
,4 practically all in land and buildings (Fig-

other measure of size of farm is gross pro-
n. About two-thirds of all farms had gross
‘ct sales of less than $1,200 (Table 4). Only
f11 percent had product sales above $5,000.
verage for all farms was $2,200. Nearly
’ rcent of farmers had sales of less than
:9

pe of Farm-The chief characteristic of
 ming pattern of the area Was the prepond-
A of residential and part-time farms and
_ all number of commercial farms. These
Q ime and residential farms made up about
rcent of all farms, but sale of products on
Jusually was so small that for the most part
 sus did not classify them as to type. Sur-
ecords show that, according to the census
,4 of classification, the most important
».- type of farm in the area was the cotton
M which comprised 34 percent of the com-
_'al farms, and 14 percent of all farms. Sec-
in importance were livestock (beef cattle)
 which comprised 20 percent of the com-
fiial farms and 8 percent of all farms. Live-
1 dairy and poultry farms combined made up
~ 40 percent of the commercial farms and
 17 percent of all farms. Farms of a gen-
type and vegetable farms made up the re-
der of the commercial farms.

 Use.—The average size of all farms
ed was 158 acres, of which only about 27
nt Was in cropland, and about one-fifth Was
 This cropland, about 34 acres, was usually
 red among three or more fields, evidence
y, “patch” type of land utilization. Most of
remaining acreage was usually in pasture,
 unimproved and Woodland pasture. On
average, only about 22 of the 116 acres in
_ re was improved. The nonfarm holdings
V, ged 16 acres in size. They had an average
 acres of cropland, all of it idle.

4. FARMS IN NORTHEAST TEXAS CLASSIFIED BY
VALUE OF PRODUCT SALES, 1955

l- of sales. Average per farm.

Percent

dollars dollars
.. p?
p’ 30.7 100
,_ 199’ 35.6 590
2,499 13.3 1.730
. 999 9.0 3,520
. .999 5.8 7.800
l 24,999 h 4.8 13,370
1' and over  A 0.8 41.490
i‘ 100.0 2.200

"ed by the Census of Agriculture as "residential"

‘iv-four percent of these would be classified by the
 of Agriculture as “part-time" farms and the re-
‘ er as “commercial" farms. All farms with sales above
‘I are “commercia1" according to the census.

Income Levels and Sources
of Income

A major objective of this report is to describe
the area’s rural income situation. It is concerned
with the questions: What is the average income
of farm families in the area? How does this com-
pare with incomes of the area’s rural nonfarm
families and with incomes in other parts of the
Nation? How extensive are low incomes in the
area and to what extent are these associated with
farming? What are the sources of income of the
area’s farm and nonfarm people? How do these
differ by income levels?

LEVELS OF INCOME

The approximately 49,000 farm families in
Northeast Texas had an average net money in-
come in 1955 of about $2,510 (Table 5). This
represented the net money income of all family
members from all sources, both farm and non-

TABLE 5. NET MONEY INCOME OF FAMILIES. BY KIND
OF FAMILY. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955

Average
Net money Families Families cash
income class income
Number Percent Dollars
Full-time farm families
Under $1,000 6,144 40.7 297
1,000-1,999 3.757 24.9 1.465
2.000-2,999 2.219 14.7 2.423
3.000-4.999 1.721 11.4 3.923
5.000 and over 1,258 8.3 8.055
All families 15.099 100.0 1.960
Part-time farm families
Under $1.000 2.882 16.0 594
1.000-1.999 3.301 18.4 1.536
2.000-2,999 3.037 16.9 2.457
3,000-4.999 5.218 29.0 3.856
5.000 and over 3.552 19.7 6.910
All families 17.990 100.0 3,278
Residential farm families
Under $1.000 5.034 31.8 556
1.000-1.999 3,524 22.3 1.455
2.000-2.999 3.180 20.1 2.487.
3,000-4,999 3.125 19.8 3.882
5,000 and over 962 6.0 6.596
All families 15.825 100.0 2.169
All farm families
Under $1.000 14.060 28.7 448
1.000-1.999 10.582 21.6 1.458
2.000-2.999 8.436 17.3 2.459
3.000-4,999 10.064 20.6 3.914
5,000 and over 5.772 11.8 7.060
All families 48.914 100.0 2.510
Nonfarm families
Under $1.000 9.916 25.3 562
1.000-1,999 9.102 23.3 1.416
2.000-2.999 6.660 17.0 2.517
3.000-4.999 8.732 22.3 3.955
5,000 and over 4.736 12.1 6,206
A11 families 39.146 100.0 2.532
All rural families
Under $1,000 23.976 27.2 500
1.000-1.999 19.684 22.4 1.446
2,000-2.999 15,096 17.1 2.478
3,000-4,999 18.796 21.3 3.933
5.000 and over ~ 10.508 12.0 6,675
All families 88.060 100.0 2,529

TYPES OF FAMILIES

    

 

  
  

PART-TIME FARM . . . . .

RESIDENTIAL FARM . .. t

ALL FARM . . . . . . . . . ..

NONFARM . . . . . . . . . . . .

1o 2o 3o 1,0 so 6o 7o so
PERCENTOFFAMILIES

Figure 5. Percent of families with specific money income
levels in rural Northeast Texas, 1955.

farm. In addition to their net money income, the
area’s farm families obtained food and fuel from
their farms worth, at farm prices, an average of
$345 per family. This, together with the “free
house rent” they received, gave them a noncash
income of about $800 and a cash and noncash in-
come combined of about $3,300.

This income compared favorably with that of
the area’s rural nonfarm families, who had an
average cash income in 1955 of $2,530 and food
and fuel from their home places worth an aver-
age of $105 per family. It was low, however,
when compared with income of farm families in
the Nation as a whole, and more especially when
compared with income of the Nation’s nonfarm

100

9o.

80

70

60

5O

4O

30

2O

PERCENT 0F AGGREGATE NET FAMILY MONEY INCOME

l0

IEHGENT OF FAMILIES

Figure B. Lorenz curve illustrating the distribution of
income among families in rural Northeast Texas. There was
a relatively poor income distribution among farm families.
For example. 6U percent of the full-time families had only
about 23 percent of the total income of that group.

l0

  
   
 
  
 
  
   
    
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
   
   
   
    
    

families. Whereas farm families in North
Texas had an average cash and noncash inc
combined of about $3,300, the average incom
all farm families in the Nation in 1955 *
$3,934. And the average income, cash and .
cash combined, of all the Nation’s nonfarm f,
ilies in 1955 was $6,568.“ 

When the area’s farm families were classi
according to the relativeimportance of their;
come from farm and nonfarm sources, it p
found that those on full-time farms had the j
est incomes. The net money incomes of full-t
farm families averaged $1,960 and income;
part-time and residential farm families averfi
about $3,280 and $2,170, respectively. The a
age of $1,960 for full-time farmers is consi
ably less than the average $2,510 for all 
families. To evaluate these differences one '
consider distribution of the families by size
income, and also must consider possible diff
ences among the groups in characteristics of A
human resource. These human-resource dif
ences are treated in another part of this rep

Among all open-country families, more t.
one of every four had a net money income f,
all sources of less than $1,000, averaging t
$500 (Table 5). Almost half of these familie
nearly 44,000, had net money incomes of i
than $2,000 (Figure 5). The highest inc,
class, with incomes of $5,000 and over, inclu.
about 12 percent of all families, a total of ,
500. Their average income was about $6,70

Thepercentage of families in each of _
several income classes did not differ appreci
between farm and nonfarm families. Bu a;
closer look at the data on farm families rev
that almost two-thirds of the full-time farm f i
ilies had net money incomes of less than $2,
In contrast, about a third of the part-time f
families had incomes of less than $2,000. w?
half the part-time farm families had income,
over $3,000; less than a fifth of the full-t
farm families had incomes above this amo
The residential farm families were similar to ~
nonfarm families in distribution among in o.
groups but had a lower average income. l

Although full-time farm families had the A
est average income, and the largest concen
tion of families in the low-income level, the ,
very high-income families in the area were h
ily concentrated in the full-time farm gr’.
Hence, there was a more unequal distributions.
income among full-time farm families than am
part-time and residential farm families (F1
6). Part-time families were the most evenly
tributed, with about the same number in each‘
come class.

Thus, the area’s rural population, inclu‘,
both farm and nonfarm families, had relatl

(‘Survey of Current Business, Office of Business Eco‘
ics, U. S. Department of Commerce, Aprll 1953- '

 

 

 

. |
' - I
 l
.140 - :
I l ‘Simmer: moons
|
3° ' , ($2,529)
I
l ‘mm INCOME
($2,008)

fi 1o - l

 o a l I | I 1 | | |
z o 1 2 3 I. 5 6 7 a 9 1o
m FAMILY MONEY mcoms ($1.000)

 Figure 7. Percent of open-country families in rural
 east Texas with specified levels of net family money
I me. This chart illustrates the income distribution among
' -country families. Fifty percent of the families have less
;-- the median income of $2.008. and 58 percent have less
 the average. About 20 percent of the families have
(mes above $4.000.

 
   
    
  
   
   
  
  
  
 

j money incomes when compared to national
State averages of money income per family
fgure 7). Full-time farmers had the lowest
;erage incomes of any major group, about two-
rds of them having less than $2,000 net money

$01116.

IURCES OF INCOME

5 Rural families in the area derived only about
of every 10 dollars of total net money income

1~ Ai- 6. PROPORTION OF INCOME FROM FARM AND
_NFARM SOURCES. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955

from farming (Table 6 and Figure 8).
chief source of money income was nonfarm work.
This would be expected of the area’s 39,000 non-
farm families, but even farm families as a group
had nearly three times as much money income
from nonfarm sources as from farming. Al-
though these are rural families, their nonfarm
Work on the average has become much more im-
portant to the area’s economy than their farming

  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 

Percent
 Average Percent of total Percent
Sources of money of net income of
~ income income, money including families
dollars income home use reporting
products
.= -- families
3 ash farm income 495 19.7 17.3 ' 96.7
me use products 12.1 95.2
orlr on other farms 86 3.4 3.0 16.3
 onfarm work 1.476 58.8 51.7 55.4
 work sources 453 18.1 15.9 61.0
o 1 2.510 100.0 100.0
 arm families A
§'_ -= farm income —62 —2.5 —2.3 57.3
f1 me use products 4.0 66.5
;.“ on other farms 146 5.8 5.5 16.5
nfarm work 2.102,, 83.0 79.7 68.8
onworlr sources 3.46 13.7 13.1 48.7
 otal 2.532 100.0 100.0
.1 families
‘ ash farm income 247 9.8 9.0 79.2
me use products 8.6 82.4
1 ork on other farms 112 4.5 4.1 16.4
_,onfarm work 1.755 69.6 63.6 61.3
f nworlr sources 406 16.1 14.7 55.5
 total 2.520 100.0 100.0

  

Their

activity. Only the full-time farmers, comprising

about one-sixth of all open country families were

primarily dependent on farm income.

Income from nonfarm work, so important in
the money income_picture, varied a great deal
among families. The average per family was
$1,755, of which 82 percent was earned by the
head of the family, 9 percent by the wife, and 9
percent by children or other members of the fam-
ily (Table 7). In the average farm family, the
operator earned about 77 percent of the income
from nonfarm work; in the average nonfarm
family, the proportion was about 86 percent.

Besides income from farming and other em-
ployment, most families, both farm and nonfarm,
had some income from nonwork sources, such as
old age pensions, military pensions and allow-
ances, retirement pensions, social security pay-
ments, rental of other real estate owned, mineral
leases and royalties, money gifts from children,
and sale of property. These nonwork sources ac-
counted for an average money income of $406
per family for all rural families, about one-sixth
of their total money income. A large part of the
income of the area’s lower income families was
from nonwork sources. Income from welfare
sources alone was larger than cash income from
farming for farm families with incomes under
$1,000 (Table 8).

   
 
    
   

709
w»

s
J1

i

i’.

PERCENT or MONEY moons
8

SOURGI 0F MONEY DICIME

Figure 8. Percent of net money income from maior
sources for all families in rural Northeast Texas. Nonfarm
work stands out as the largest single source of money in-
come among all families. Nonwork income. including pen-
sions. military service connected benefits. retirements. min-
eral lease rentals. and such, is the second most important

source of income.

11

By definition; nonfarm families cannot be do-
ing much farming (Figure 9). However, more
than half of them did engage in a small amount
of farm production but had cashexpenses above
cash sales. This loss was partly offset by pro-
duction and home consumption of some food
items or by use of fuel wood, but home consump-
tion of products averaged only about 4 percent of
total income, and about a third of the nonfarm
families made no use of their land resources even
to raise products for home use. Nonfarm work
was the source of about 89percent of the total net
money income of all nonfarm families. But the
group of families receiving incomes of less than
$1,000 obtained most of their income from non-
work sources, chiefly old age and other pensions.
Families in higher income classes consistently
obtained most of their income from nonfarm
work (Table 9 and Figure 9).

TABLE 7. EARNINGS PER FAMILY FROM NoNFAIIM EM-
PLOYMENT BY FAMILY MEMBER, BY KIND 0F FAMILY AND
LEvEL 0F NET Momégxgrgcglgf. RURAL NORTHEAST

Income per family earned by

K‘ a ff '1 -
afirfrl lgvelarcxalfly Wife Children Ollie!‘

net money Family not 13f: gags house- Total
income head family and hold
head over members
_ _ - — ——Dollars——————
Full-time
farm families
 Under $1,000 29 7 2 38
1,000-1,999 62 20 8 90
2,000-2,999 184 86 84 354
3,000-4,999 9 265 95 , w,  369
5,000 and over 103 291 235  ” 529
All families 64 74 46 184
Part-time
farm families
Under $1,000 337 5 10 352
1,000-1,999 533 71 12 23 639
2,000-2,999 1,081 174 219 1,474
3,000-4,999 2,965 296 85 44 3,390
5,000 and over 3,481 720 554 150 4,905
All families 1,872 271 A 175 46 2,364
Residential
farm families
Under $1,000 136 10 146
l,000-l.999 606 49 130 785
2,000-2,999 1,676 143 140 42 2,001
3,000-4,999 3,075 242 380 178 3.875
5000 and over 3,453 582 1,176 5,211
All families 1,324 126 203 43 1,696
All farm
families »
Under $1,000 130 8 3' 141
1,000-1,999 376 45 49 8 478
2,000-2,999 1,069 139 154 15 1,377
3,000-4,999 2,462 284 187 ‘ 76 3,009
5,000 and over 2,740 603 595 92 4,030
All families 1,133 166 147 30 1,476
Nonfarm families
Under $1,000 96 9 6 111
1,000-1,199 620 52 37 17 726
2,000-2,999 2,030 112 113 13 2,268
3,000-4,999 3,230 174 298 6 3,708
5,000 and over 4,763 533 370 59 5,725
All families 1,810 138 140 14 2,102
All rural
families 1,434 153 144 24 1,755
12

  
 
  
  
   
   
    
   
  
 
 
  
   
   
   
   
  
   
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
    
 
  
  
  
   
   

The nearly 49,000 farm families showed a ,
ferent income-source pattern. Nearly a fift
all money income of these families came >
farming. Generally, products raised and cons
ed in the home constituted a significant pa r,
their total farm income. Home consumed I‘
ducts averaged about $344. Including such I‘
ducts, these families obtained nearly 30 per
of their total income, bothnjgoney and nonmo
from the farm. a

"In appraising income sources of farm f0
ilies, it is advisable to classify them as full-ti?
part-time and residential, as was done in ,
sidering levels of income. With this classi,
tion, it is evident that ‘part-time and residen
families were dependent on nonfarm work
their main source of income (Table 9). In 0t
words, they resembled nonfarm families ml
than they did full-time farm families. Like s”
farm families, they obtained about three-fou i.
of their total income from nonfarm work. ,
cept in the lower income levels, part-time faj
families made some net cash return on their fa 4
ing activities, but the average was small even
the highest income level.

The full-time farm families, about 15,000” ’
all, depended primarily on farm income in 
the proportion that the other farm families I»,
pended on nonfarm work. A little less than a teIj
of their money income was from nonfarm o,
Even the families with incomes of less ti‘
$1,000 received more money income, though I;
a major part, from the farm than from any I3
single source. At no income level was nonfa
work income very important on full-time fa I"
This is in contrast to the part-time and reside
ial farm families among whom even families.
the lowest income level depended very little
nonfarm work income. *

Among full-time farm families, home produii
were especially important, with an average va '
of over $400. Among the full-time farmers,
the highest income group, home-consumed p
ducts averaged over $500 per family, but this A
a very small part of total income. Home-c
sumed products were a major part of the I‘
income of all farm families with net money '
comes under $1,000. The same was true for t‘
income class among full-time farmers. 5

In summary, the open country families of l:
area depended primarily on nonfarm work '0
their source of income. Only one-tenth of the to
net money income was from farming. For family
with net money incomes below $2,000, the ma A
sources of income were mostly nonwork, incl “
ing pensions‘ and welfare payments. For all fa
ilies, nonwork income ranked second in impo ,_
ance, with public welfare payments the chief it, I
For full-and part-time farmers the chief sou l,
of nonwork income was mineral leases or mine,
production. Homeeuse products were import
as a source of income among both farm and n_

   
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
    
 
  
    
 
   

w-income families, although of lesser im-
 w among the latter. Only for the full-
j: rm families, constituting about one-sixth
i- open-country families, was farming the
~,;source of income and only these could be
}bonafide farm families. Among the full-
 families with lowest incomes, home-
led food was a chief source of income.

Human Resources and
  Income Levels

 preceding section indicates that increases
f;i_,money income of families were in general
ted with an increase in percentage of in-
-erived from work sources, including farm-
lThis association raises the question: Do
‘racteristics and employment of the human
l es of the area help explain the low levels
fduction and income prevailing among
inds of farm and nonfarm families? Spe-
uestions are: How do families in the dif-
' income levels differ in their employment
ties? How do they differ in the way in
they employ their labor capacities?

Because of the difficulties of comparing work-‘

ers who differ in age, sex, educational level, phys-
ical condition and other personal characteristics,
there is no wholly satisfactory measure of the
quantity and quality of a family’s labor resources.
For this reason, in this section families in dif-
ferent income levels are first compared by refer-
ence to each of several indicators and then by
reference to the number of man-equivalents in
each family, a composite measure which, though
taking account of several factors, involves a large
element of judgment as to the measure of human
capacities,

Since most of the Work income was earned by
the family head, the analysis of human resource
characteristics centers about that person.

NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS

When the area’s rural families are grouped
by the size of their cash income, it is evident that
those in the lower income classes have fewer fam-
ily members of all ages and fewer members 14
years of age and over than do those in the higher
income groups (Table 10). The average num-
ber of persons per family was slightly larger

p 8. NONWORK INCOME PER FAMILY BY SOURCE. BY KIND OF FAMILY. AND BY LEVEL OF NET MONEY INCOME.
t RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955

  
 

 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

' Social . .
i, - Military . .
I family and level Mineral Other ctsrfglgilfilér service 5211:1152 ‘gigs! Other Total
 my Income fights property retirement connecfed assistance relatives sources
< » income benefits
A A — — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — —— —
'  farm families
'7 $1.000 41 15 4 5 24 6 14 109
_ 1.999 44 7 153 60 7 3 274
_ 72.999 33 39 21 92 14 199
T .999 331 39 58 41 469
j and over 295 675 17 336 * 12 1,335
- ‘lies 94 74 6 87 34 4 8 307
 farm families
fr $1.000 45 31 83 138 129 23 14 463
a 1.999 61 60 67 125 161 13 19 506
V, 2.999 97 67 89 194 63 46 556
~ 999 141 171 16 60 5 6 399
Hand over 741 105 43 59 22 9 78 1.057
 milies 222 98 54 107 66 8 31 586
tial farm families
 $1.000 44 28 26 46 283 28 15 470
h 1.999 37 52 96 145 188 36 34 588
 2.999 34 55 28 192 124 84 517
 .999 25 20 18 46 29 28 32 198
 and over 44 97 74 62 63 8 69 417
3 --- ilies 37 42 43 98 167 23 39 449
 families
 $1.000 43 23 28 47 137 17 14 309
' 1.999 47 38 52 139 135 19 I8 448
i 2.999 57 55 48 166 73 - 48 447
 4.999 138 101 14 55 18 9 13 348
 and over 528 228 42 120 24 7 62 1.011
a ‘lies i‘, 1.123 72 35 98 88 10 27 453
-- families "'
p $1.000 17 21 11 45 321 26 8 449
 1.999 24 21 50 57 172 73 42 439
2.999 6 3 11 54 36 68 178
p .999 7 26 19 95 29 2 81 259
and over 11 108 71 96 34 34 354
 - ilies 14 29 29 B: 133 24 45 346
8 1 17 35 406

   

j a1 families 5s 14 as

13

among farm thanamong nonfarm families, and
among part-time farm families than among full-
time and residential farm families. These gen-
eral relationships held also with respect to the
number of persons per family 14 years of age and
over.

AGE OF FAMILY HEADS

The age of a breadwinner may have an im-
portant bearing both on his present employment
and earnings and on his adjustment opportuni-
ties. Farm work, as well as much of the non-
farm work available to people in this area, re-
quires considerable physical strength and stam-
ina, qualities most commonly found in younger
workers. Even under full employment condi-
tions, many employers discriminate sharply
against workers who are over 45 years of age.
Few employers hire new workers past 65 years
of age for any kind of task. Within agriculture,
older farmers do not usually have large farm ad-
justment potentials. Credit agencies, both pub-E
lic and private, often look with disfavor on large
loans to farmers past middle age. The age of 65
is now the official retirement age, not only un-
der the Social Security Program but under most
other retirement and pension plans.

Forty-seven percent of the family heads of
all rural families in the area with net money in-
comes of less than $1,000 were 65 years of age
or older; 40 percent were 45 to 64 years of age,

and only 13 percent were under 45 years of age

(Table 11). Heads of nonfarm families in the
under-$1,000 income class were even older; near-
ly 60 percent were over 65, and only slightly more
than 10 percent were less than 45 years old. Many

 

       

9° \ m CASH mm 83
8o m...
80 - ORKF 
'13 72 lllm"°‘%é‘éll°“

g 7° " NOIMORK moor/E
l)
E so - 59
5
a 59 -
5
E2 1,0 -
E

30 "

9 21 2o 1s
2O _  no‘.
14
1o - 6 "I;
3 3 '
o "m 
_ -3
4mm ART-T vsmmi- ALL NON-
FARM FARM m. FA FARM FARM

TYPE OF FAMILIES

Figure 9. Proportion of net money income from major
sources by types of families in rural Northeast Texas. Among
all families only the full-time farmers have their major
source of income from the farm. Other types of families
obtain nearly three-fourths or more of their income from
nonfarm work.

14

   
   
  
   
  

of these family heads had retired from far
and ‘were living on old age or other pensf
Among low-income farm families the percen
of family heads over 65 was not so high;
about 38 percent fell in this group. But 86 ;
cent of these low-income farm families had fa 
heads who were 45 years of age or older.

In general, in both farm; and nonfarm f
ilies, the average age of family heads decreasy

TABLE 9. PROPORTION OF INCOME FROM VA I
SOURCES, KIND OF FAMILY AND LEVEL OF NET M
INCOME. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955

Aver-
age Total income by sources

Kind of family '21::
and net

Farm Work on Non- Non-

money income tlmncash opera- other farm work _
mmme lions farms work sources '-
per 
family
Dollars — — — — Percent — — — — — 
Full-time
f f '1'

Urxfilegxglfflellal] 666 17.4 4.9 5.9 16.4
1.000-1.999 1.841 56.7 3.1 4.8 14.9
2.000-2.999 2.896 60.7 3.9 12.2 6.9
3.000-4.999 4.395 70.2 0.4 8.0 10.7
5.000 d

over an 8.592 70.8 0.1 7.3 15.5
All families 2.374 59.9 2.0 7.7 12.9
Part-time
f f '1'

(Uffldegrgllleflsll 922 —26.8 2.8 38.2 50.2
1.000-1.999 1.897 12.5 7.4 34.4 26.7
2.000-2.999 2.806 5.2 10.0 52.5 19.8
3.000-4.999 4.241 2.4 0.5 78.8 9.4
5.000 d

over an 9.130 10.2 1.6 67.9 15.9
All families 3.628 5.6 3.0 65.4 16.3
Residential
farm families
Under $1.000 793    
1.000-1.999 1.748 — . . .
2.000-2.999 4.517 —3.7 2.6 72.2 18.7
3.000-4.999 4.180 —4.5 2.2 90.5 4.7
5.000 d
over an 6.824 —6.5 8 3 88.8 6.1
All families 2.439 —4.8 4 0 71.3 18.4
All farm
f '1'

‘Ugldleis $1.000 761 ——3.2 2.9 19.2 40.2
1,000-1.999 1.799 23.5 5.9 27.1 24.7
2.000-2.999 2.816 17.0 5.6 48.8 15.9
3.000-4.999 4.304 12.3 1 0 69.9 8.1
5.000 d

over an 7.415 24.9 2.4 54.4 13.6

All families 2.854 17.3 3.0 51.7 15.9

Nonfarm
families

Under $1.000 659 —l0.0 10.3 16.9 68.1
1.000-1.999 1.522 ——3.l 19.5 47.7 28.9
2.000-2.999 2.635 —2.8 5.5 86.0 6.8
3.000-4.999 4.055 —1.5 1.2 91.5 6.4
5.000 and

over 6.317 —1.1 3.1 90.7 5.6

All families 2.637 —2.3 5.5 79.7 13.1

All rural
families

Under $1.000 722 -—5.8 5.7 18.4 50.7
1.000-1.999 1.679 12.3 11.6 35.8 26.4
2.000-2.999 2.732 8.6 5.6 64.6 12.0
3.000-4.999 4.179 6.1 1.1 79.6 7.3
5.000 and

over 6.918 14.2 2.7 69.3 10.3

All families 2.758 9.0 4.1 63.6 14.7

 

  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 

 y incomes increased. The median age of all
f. of families with incomes of less than $2,000
 years, compared with a median age of 49
__for all heads of families with incomes above
 , a difference of 15 years.

‘mong the farm families, the residential farm
fes had the highest proportion (33 percent)
; ily heads 65 years old or older. Many of
‘ family heads were retired, and were called
i rs only because they obtained a minimum of
cts from their land. Family heads of part-
‘and full-time farm families were only slightly
Yer on the average than heads of residential
 families (52 and 53 years, respectively, as
Ln with 56 years).

' appears that many farmers had curtailed
f farm operations as they grew older and were
{a part of the nonfarm propulation. This
y explains why, among nonfarm families
_' incomes below $1,000, 60 percent of the

TABLE 10. AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS, AND OF-PER-
SONS 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER PER FAMILY, BY
LEVEL OF NET MONEY INCOME. RURAL NORTHEAST

TEXAS. 1955
N t Farm families New A11
e money -
income Fu11- Part- Resi- A11 faiglififes ffirensh
time time dential farms

’ Number of persons per family
Under $1.000 2.1
1.000-1.999

3 3
3.4

2,000-2.999 3.6
3 2
4
3

r-zoiooa
mama:
I-ll-lb-l

3.000-4,999
5.000 and
over

All families I

. ‘P PP°°E°
5 pm
=" s»? P-PPP
n. u".

P? PP?

G569

lamb cr-tocn

s 14 a over pe

Under $1.000
1.000-1.999
2.000-2.999
3,000-4.999
5.000 and
over

All families

PP PPPPO w
01M CDQCBQ
P? PPPP
03¢ QGDUIOJ
PP PPNF
(0% UIUICDQN

Uh

Q

5

I—l
PP PPPP‘ we PPPP
01$ OQQ|§Q

A 11. AGE AND PHYSICAL LIMITATION OF FAMILY HEADS. KIND OF FAMILY AND NET MONEY INCOME LEVEL.
 RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955

 

Family heads

 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
   
   
  
 

of family and level Number Age Unighss
of money income families Under 25 to 45 t 65 d Average phy Si c a1
,8 o an age HmL
25 44 64 over tations
\ — — — — — — — --Pe1'Ceni — — — — — — — — Years Percent
p -- farm families
er $1.000 6.144 1 18 66 15 54 25
v -1,999 3.757 14 74 12 53 44
.1 -2,999 2.219 38 45 17 50 24
 -4.999 1.721 36 46 18 52 32
.11 and over 1.258 6 47 41 6 45 24
~ families 15,099 1 24 61 14 53 30
_ -- farm families
er $1.000 2,882 16 41 43 60 21
' -1.999 3.301 29 40 31 56 22
y -2.999 3.037 3 19 61 17 54 24
E -4.999 5.218 49 47 4 46 17
J and over 3.552 33 61 6 49 27
, families 17.990 32 50 18 52 22
g ntial farm families
er $1,000 5.034 5 30 65 65 18
j -1,999 3.524 21 45 34 57 19
‘ -2,999 3.180 2 28 56 14 51 26
, -4.999 3.125 44 51 5 47 17
‘I and over 962 54 38 8 45 46
y families 15,825 24 43 33 56 21
 -- families
be! $1.000 14,060 14 48 38 59 21
 -1.999 10,582 22 51 27 56 27
f; -2.999 8.436 2 28 55 15 51 24
:1 -4.999 10.064 45 48 7 48 19
A and over 5.772 40 54 6 48 29
g families 48,914 1 27 50 22 53 23
i‘ -- families
or $1,000 9.916 1 10 30 59 63 22
* -1.999 9,102 3 22 43 32 55 16
f‘ 2,999 6.660 3 49 41 7 44 18
-4,999 »,. 1w 8.732 3 62 30 5 42 13
‘=1 and over  i 4,736 6 50 41 3 43 11
A families 39.146 3 36 36 25 52 16
 al families
er $1.000 23,976 1 12 40 47 62 22
h -1.999 19,684 2 22 47 29 56 22
I-2.999 15.096 3 37 49 11 48 21
j -4.999 18,796 2 53 39 6 45 16
J and over 10.508 3 44 48 5 46 21
families 88,060 2 31 44 23 53 20

 
 

15

family heads were 65 years of age or older, and
why_ more than half the family income of these
families was from public welfare sources, mainly
old age assistance.

PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF FAMILY HEADS

Migration from rural areas not only is selec-
tive with respect to age, but apparently is also
highly selective with respect to occupational po-
tentialities. As a consequence, many persons
who are seriously limited in the kinds and
amounts of work they can perform are left be-
hind. One reason for this may be that certain
handicaps are less serious or restrictive in farm-
ing than in other occupations. The presence of
such physical limitations cannot be considered as
a prima facie cause of low income, as many per-
sons with such limitations have relatively high
incomes. It is true, however, that low incomes
are common among persons having serious phys-
ical limitations. Such persons are severely re-
stricted in opportunities for improving their in-
comes, either by making major farm adjustments
or by transferring into nonfarm work.

In an attempt to determine the extent to which
low incomes in the region may be associated with

TABLE 12. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ABLE-BODIED FAMILY MEMBERS 14 TO 64 YEARS OF AGE BY KIND OF FAMILY
LEVEL OF NET MONEY INCOME. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955 »._

Wife _ .
Kind of family and level Family not Chlldren 01h“ Pawns To
of net monev inwme head familiar Boys Girls Males Females I
ea ‘
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -——Number————--—-——————-—-Q
Full-lime farm families:
Under $1.000 .60 .69 .19 .14 .02 .04 1 1
1.000-1.999 " .44 .72 .28 .10 .02 1 I
2.000-2.999 .60 .87 .40 .33 l_
3.000-4.999 .50 .81 .27 .18 .04 1 A
5.000 and over .71 .82 .24 .24 .06 *
All families .56 .76 .30 .18 .02 .06 1
Part-time farm families: 1
Under $1.000 .36 .51 .18 .13 .03 1 -‘
1.000-1.999 .47 .67 .16 .16 .07 .09 1
2.000-2.999 .59 .66 .44 .37 .02 .02 2. l
3.000-4.999 .78 .90 .22 .26 .01 .07 ~ "I
5.000 and over .67 .81 .42 .17 .04 2.1
All families .60 .74 .29 .24 .03 .05 1.
Residential farm families: I ~
Under $1.000 .18 .34 .06 .06 ' .01 .04 I I
1.000-1.999 .49 .47 .19 .26 .02 .02 1
2.000-2.999 .63 .63 .35 .21 .07 .09 1.
3.000-4.999 .78 .90 .34 .20 .05 .02
5.000 and over .38 .85 .92 .08 .15 2.
All families .47 ~ .57 .27 .17 .03 .05 1
All farm families:
Under $1.000 .41 .54 .15 12 .01 .02 1
1.000-1.999 .46 .61 .22 19 .03 .03 1
2.000-2.999 .61 .68 .42 32 .03 .04 2.1
3.000-4.999 .73 .88 .31 24 .02 .04
5.000 and over .64 .86 .50 18 .03 02
All families .55 .69 .29 20 .02 03 1
Nonfarm families:
Under $1.000 .18 .20 .03 05 .01 .01 0
1.000-1.999 .52 .53 .16 17 .02 .04 1
2.000-2.999 .46 .51 .15 13 .01 .02 1
3.000-4.999 .87 .92 .34 23 .02 .03 2
5.000 and over .86 .91 .45 19 .01 .03 2.
All families .57 .62 .21 16 .02 .03 1 -_
18 .02 03 1.

All rural families .56 .65 .25

    
   
   
   
 
   
   
  
  

physical handicaps, information was obta
for all families interviewed, on physical lip
tions of family members between the ages o,
and 64 that might interfere with the kin
amount of work they could do. The handi
reported included such conditions as pa
blindness; loss of hand, foot or limb; crip
limb or back; medically diagnosed lung or g
defects; asthma; and serious hernia. Minoi;
temporary ailments were excluded. Although:
tent of permanent physical disability can be
curately determined only through medical ed
ination, it is believed that most known phy,
disabilities were reported and that the inf
tion obtained is helpful in understanding
area's income situation. .

Of all family heads in the region, 56 per
were able bodied and under 65 years of ;
(Table 12). A fifth Were under 65 years of ;
but reported a major physical condition that
terfered with or limited the kind of Work t
could do (Table 11). There was little differe
between all farm families and all nonfarm 
ilies in the percentage of family heads who w'
able bodied and under 65 years of age. When f :
families were further classified, it Was fo_

16

   
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
  
  
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

j~56 percent of the family heads 0n full-time
is were under 65 and free of physical condi-
delimiting their work capacity, compared with
rcent on part-time farms and 47 percent on
ential farms. The relatively 10w percentage
le-bodied residential farm family heads un-
 years 0f age reflects the large number of
getired persons in this class.

 e proportion of able-bodied family heads
r 65 years of age was, in general, lowest in
Ower income classes. Among farm families,
Y 41 percent of those With net cash incomes
r $1,000 had able-bodied family heads under
ears of age, compared with 61 percent of
* with net cash incomes of $2,000 to $2,999
574 percent of those with incomes of $3,000
,999. Among nonfarm families with money
p es under $1,000, only 19 percent had able-
_-» family heads under 65 years of age com-
y» with more than 80 percent for families
; incomes of $3,000 and over.

.' en families at all income levels are com-
"1 , it was found that physical limitations were
1 less common among nonfarm than among
, family heads. This suggests that such lim-
ns often may be an important factor, along
j old age, in impeding the transfer of fam-
lads into nonfarm employment.

EELS OF EDUCATION

 is true throughout the United States, in
- the farm and nonfarm economy of North-
Texas low incomes are common among poor-
‘ucated people. Job opportunities for such
le are limited to certain types of work, and
ey are in low-income situations they find it
j ult to improve their situations. The prob-
ty of out-migration is small except when
_ is unusual demand for workers at tasks
I do not require much education. Only during
u of great economic activity, such as the
j. years of the 194.0’s, is there active recruit-
‘~ of poorly educated rural people for jobs
ide agriculture, and even during such periods
 often fill only the more menial jobs.

t is realized that grade completed in school
4 not indicate exactly the educational achieve-
t of an individual. Furthermore, educational
, as measured by grade completed, may be
ed closely to age. Formal schooling perhaps
,4 not available to the aged when they were
g. Education beyond the lower grades was
ilwailable in this rural area much before 1920.
l recent decades compulsory school attend-
J was not the rijle» in rural areas. In exam-
,_: educational levels, it is necessary to keep
'- qualifications in mind.
- ong all rural families in the area, there
_ a direct relationship between educational
» of the family head and level of family in-
 (Table 13). The average grade of all fam-
 eads was 6.2 for those with incomes below

   
    
 
 

$1,000, compared with a
completed by heads of f
The o

$5,000 and over.

Thirty-one perc
with incomes of les
not more than four gra
cent had not gone beyon
Among heads of all -fa
than $2,000, less than thre
yond the fourth grade, an

TABLE 13. LEVEL OF EDUCATION
OF FAMILY AND LEVEL OF NET M

n average of 10.2 grades
amilies with incomes of
ldest family heads were
concentrated in the lowest income groups.

ent of the heads of families

s than $1,000 had completed
des in school, and 81 per-

d the eighth grade.

milies wi

NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955

th incomes less
e-fourths had gone be-
d less than one-fourth

OF FAMILY HEAD. KIND
ONEY INCOME. RURAL

N b Aver-
Kind of iamily “mi er Grade completed age
find 1'19! T011611 iaznL Under Over grade
income c ass - - - <10!"-
hes 5 9 10 11 plemd
— — — — ——Percent——————
Full-time farm
families:

Under $1.000 6.144 22 47 25 6 7.0
1.000-1.999 3.757 22 52 16 10 7.0
2.000-2.999 2,219 17 47 23 13 7.8
3.000-4.999 1.721 18 23 50 9 8.5

5.000
and over 1.258 6 6 59 29 10.7
All families 15.099 19 42 29 10 7.6

Part-time farm "
families:

Under $1.000 2.882 23 54 18 5 6.7
1.000-1.999 3.301 22 58 20 6.4
2.000-2.999 3.037 17 44 34 5 7.8
3.000-4.999 5.218 4 29 39 28 9.8

5.000
and over 3.552 6 33 34 27 9.9
All families 17.790 13 42 30 15 8.3

Residential farm
families:

Under $1,000 5.034 35 53 9 3 5.8
1.000-1.999 3.524 36 41 17 6 6.1
2,000-2,999 3.180 12 53 19 16 7.7
3.000-4.999 3.125 5 58 25 12 8.4

5.000
and over 962 8 15 62 15 10.2
All families 15.825 23 49 19 9 7.0

All farm
families:

Under $1.000 14,060 25 51 19 5 6.6
1.000-1.999 10.582 25 51 18 6 6.6
2,000-2.999 8.436 14 49 25 12 7.8
3.000-4.999 10.064 4 38 38 20 9.5

5.000
and over 5,772 6 24 44 26 10.1
All families 48.914 17 45 26 12 7.8

Nonfarm
families:

Under $1.000 9.916 39 47 10 4 5.6
1.000-1.999 9,102 29 44 23 4 6.5
2.000-2.999 6.660 17 44 30 9 7.7
3.000-4.999 8.732 9 38 32 21 8.8

5,000
and over 4.736 3 27 45 25 - 10.6
All families 39.146 22 41 26 11 7.5

All rural
families:

Under $1.000 23,976 31 50 15 4 6.2
1.000-1.999 19,684 27 47 21 5 6.6
2.000-2.999 15.096 16 46 27 11 7.8
3.000-4.999 18.796 6 39 34 21 9.2

5.000
and over 10.508 5 25 44 26 10.2
All families 88.060 19 43 26 12 7.7

TABLE 14. PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH FEMALE

HEADS OR MALE HEADS WITHOUT WIVES PRESENT, BY

LEVEL OF NET MONEY INCOME. RURAL NORTHEAST
TEXAS. 1955

Farm families N°n_ A11
Level of net pu11_ part Resb All farm rural

m°n°Y lnwme time time dential farms kfmi‘ fQmi‘
farms farms farms hes hes

Female family head

Under $1.000 2.4 5.1 17.6 8.4 26.1 15.7
1.000-1.999 4.4 12.8 4.2 14.6 9.0
2.000-2.999 3.3 9.8 . 4.7 5.3 4.4 4.9
3.000-4.999 4.5 4.9 7.2 8.3 7.5
5.000 and over 5.9 4.2 5.3 1.9 0.0

All families 2.3 4.1 10.4 5.7 12.7 8.8

Male family head without wife

Under $1.000 9.9 8.1 14.3 10.1 18.9 13.7
1.000-1.999 12.0 7.0 7.3 8.4 7.4 7.9
2.000-2.999 2.7 9.8 4.4 0.0 2.5
3.000-4.999 2.9 2.6 2.4 3.4 2.7
5.000 and over 4.3 7.7 3.9 0.0 1.6

All families 7.1 4.7 8.9 6.4 7.2 6.8

had completed more than the eighth grade. Only
about 4 percent of the heads of families with in-
comes less than $1,000 had completed 11 grades
or more. In contrast, more than a fifth of those
in the two highest income groups had completed
high school or had done college study. At the
highest income level, $5,000 and over, 26 percent
of the farm family heads and 25 percent of the
nonfarm family heads had completed high school.

The differences among income classes in aver-
age educational level of family heads were some-

TABLE 15. RACE OF FAMILIES. BY KIND OF FAMILY AND
LEVEL OF NET MONEY INCOME. RURAL NORTHEAST
TEXAS. 1955

Kind of family Kind of family

and level of . Non- and level of . Non-
net money whlle white net money while white
income income

— Percent — — Percent —
Full-time farm All farm
families families:

Under $1.000 38.1 59.3 Under $1.000 26.3 39.5
1.000-1.999 23.9 29.6 1.000-1.999 19.7 31.1
2.000-2.999 15 9 7.4 2.000-2.999 16.9 19.3
3.000-4.999 13.1 3.000-4.999 23.2 7.6
5.000 5.000
and over 9.0 3.7 and over 13.9 2.5
All families 100.0 100.0 All families 100.0 100.0
Part-time farm Nonfarm
families: , families:
Under $1.000 13.8 28.2 Under $1.000 22.5 33.3
1.000-1.999 16.8 28.2 1.000-1.999 21.5 28.6
2.000-2.999 15.8 23.1 2.000-2.999 17.3 16.7
3.000-4.999 31.0 15.4 3.000-4.999 24.3 16.7
5.000 5.000
and over 22.6 5.1 and over 14.4 4.7
All families 100.0 100.0 All families 100.0 100.0
Residential All rural
farm families: families:
Under $1.000 29.4 39.6 Under $1.000 24.7 36.3
1.000-1.999 18.7 32.1 1.000-1.999 20.4 29.8
2.000-2.999 19 4 22.6 2.000-2.999 17.0 18.0
3.000-4.999 24.4 5.7 3.000-4.999 23.7 12.3
5.000 5.000
and over 8.1 and over 14.2 3.6
All families 100.0 100.0 All families 100.0 100.0

18

     
  
   
  
   
   
   
    
   
   
   
  
    
 
   
   
   
   
 
   
   
    
   
   
   
   
  

what smaller for farm than for nonfarm f
ilies. Among farm families, part-time far »
had the highest educational levels and residen
families the lowest. About 80 percent of all f 5
time farmers had incomes below $3,000 and I
educational level of not more than eight gray,
In contrast, more than 60 percent of all 
time farmers had incomes above $3,000 and
nine or more grades of schooling. Residen
farmers were similar to nonfarm family heads“
that a high proportion of those in the lowest _
come classes had less than a fifth grade edu
tion. Y

The level of schooling of the wives was i;
tively correlated with family income but not _i
the same extent as was true of the husba i
There was no appreciable difference amongi
come levels in average grades completed by c
dren 18 to 25 years of age. The public resp
sibility for education through high school
helped to equalize educational opportunity 
spite of large differences in income levels.

SEX AND MARITAL STATUS OF
FAMILY HEAD

A female family head is usually at a consid
able disadvantage in the operation of a fa
This is particularly true if she has depended
children or is a widow without experience in I
operation and management of a farm. A m
family head without a wife may also be at a d'_
advantage in farming, as well as in other t
ployment, especially if he has been left with d,“
pendent children. =

At the time of the survey, 5.7 percent of t
farm families in Northeast Texas had fem
family heads and 6.4 percent had male fam'
heads without wives (Table 14). Both situatio
were more numerous among the area’s low-i
come farm families than among those in high
income classes, and among nonfarm than amo
farm families, especially at the lower inco
levels.

.

RACE

At one time, this area had many Negro fa .1
ilies in its rural farm population. Since 194
however, rural-urban migration of the area’s no i .
white population has proceeded rapidly. In 195
21 percent of the area’s rural families were w‘
white. Of these, slightly less than half, or abo 
8,000 were farm-operator families. a

The area’s nonwhite families were heavil ‘
concentrated in the low-income classes. Thirt
six percent had cash family incomes under $1,00 .
30 percent had incomes of $1,000 to $1,999 
only 16 percent had incomes of $3,000 and ov
(Table 15). The concentration in low-inco i
classes was especially high among the nonwhi
farm families, of which about 40 percent had i“
comes under $1,000. About 90 percent of t
nonwhite full-time farm families had incomes v

   
  
  
  
 
 
   
   
  
   
  
 
   
  
   
  
   
   
   
    
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
   
   
   
  
   
  
   

Qthan $2,000. Thus, nearly all nonwhite full-
farm families were found in the lowest in-
;' groups. As among white families, nonwhite
f’ ies on part-time farms or in nonfarm situa-
.; had more income than did those on full-
_  farms.

LOYMENT OF FAMILY HEADS AND
I; ER FAMILY MEMBERS

Northeast Texas probably has had as much
wth since 1930 in its nonfarm enterprises as
 occurred in any equally rural part of the
_thern low-income farm region. Also, the area
_‘f_ near the main centers of growth in one of
_” Nation’s most rapidly growing industrial reg-
i, the Fort Worth—Dallas and Houston—Gulf
 region. Under these conditions, the domi-
Qt change in Northeast Texas agriculture has
l, the shift by the area’s farm people, not from
_ n to other farm enterprises, but from farm-
i into nonfarm employment utilizing diverse
, relatively high-level skills, at as high wages
iiiare now paid in any part of the old cotton
1th. Hence nonfarm employment is the most
'rtant source of income of the area’s rural
4.1168. From this, it would seem to follow that
erences in employment, especially of the fam-
Ighead as the main breadwinner, are closely as-
'ated with family income differences.

QIn the field enumeration, family heads in both
I and nonfarm families were asked “What is
' main occupation?” In answer to this ques-
2| only about half the heads of farm families
 only 32 percent of the heads of all rural fam-
g in the area, reported farming as their main
pation (Table 16). Those who reported farm-
_.as~their main occupation had an average cash
ily income in 1955 of $2,033. This amount
j ers only a little from the $1,960 money income
orted by full-time farmers. Among major
.-- of gainful employment outside the house-
‘f- farm occupations ranked lowest in terms of
2h family income.

" Each household member 14 years of age and
 including the family head, was asked,
that did you do during most of 1955 ?” In an-
lering this question, only 57 percent of all farm-
 ily heads reported the operation of a farm as
Air main activity in 1955, and 30 percent re-
A ed nonfarm employment as a salary or wage
g A q er as their main activity. For those report-
the operation of a farm as their main activ-
, the median cash family income was $1,242,
ereas for those reporting wage or salary work
~ median cash family income was $3,474. These
f]. data suggest. that the area’s farm people
ve shared little in-Ithe benefits of its rapid eco-
.1. ic growth, except as they have moved into
arm employment.

V The occupations of the remaining two-thirds
the open-country family heads reflected the
e diversity of occupational activities avail-

able to the area’s rural residents. The area has
developed a base of income diversification that
furnishes rural residents with major opportuni-
ties for employment other than farming. Indus-
trial and manufacturing wage work, engaged in
by nearly 19 percent of all family heads, was sec-
ond in importance to farmers. The generally ad-
vanced age of family heads is reflected in the
proportion—nearly 14 percent—who reported
their occupation as retired. Incomes for these
retired people were relatively low; the average
was $1,260 annually, or about $100 monthly. In-
comes of other occupational groups ranged be-
tween this low of $1,260 and a high of $4,500.
The highest average incomes were found among
the professional people and industrial and manu-
facturing wage workers, about $4,500 and $3,700,
respectively.

Because of the large movement of area farm
workers into nonfarm employment and the highly
selective character of this movement, compari-
sons of farm and nonfarm incomes alone, with-
out reference to distribution of the rural people
among different kinds of employment, gives an
incomplete view of the area’s labor allocation pro-
cesses. Very few of the area’s able-bodied Work-
ers in the more productive age groups who have
high school educations or better have remained
in full-time farming. In the area’s total rural
population in 1955, there were about 6,600 hus-
band-and-wife families in which the husbands
were able-bodied, 30 to 44 years of age, and had
completed high school (Table 17). Of these fam-
ilies, only one of every eight was engaged in full-
time farming. Two-thirds of these full-time
farmers had net cash incomes of $2,000 and over,
and the relatively low incomes of most of the re-
maining families could be accounted for by con-
ditions of a temporary nature. In other words,
employment opportunities open to people in the
area have been favorable enough, and persons
with these characteristics have been sufficiently
responsive to income incentives, that virtually
none remain in full-time farming unless they can
command farm resources that will yield about as
much income as they can earn in nearby non-
farm work. Of these 6,600 husband-and-wife

TABLE 16. AVERAGE NET FAMILY MONEY INCOME, BY
OCCUPATION OF FAMILY HEAD, RURAL NORTHEAST

TEXAS, 1955
Occupation Percent 1:33:28‘?
Professional 4.8 $4,494
Industrial and manuiacturing 18.4 3.695
Building and construction 9.0 3,541
Retail owners and clerks 5.4 3,168
Timber work 3.5 2,345
Domestic and custodial 2.2 2,237
Other 1.5 2,104
Farming 32.3 2,033
Farm laborer 4.6 1,976
Housekeeper 4.4 1,313
Retired 13.9 1,260
All 100.0 2,520

19

.3

.flVV\nI£.LYA\w rzflvlzikuvrfinkg. . .. .

. NUN N.N N.N N-NN N.v A.v N.A N.NA N.N N.N N.N A.N A.N N.v N.NA NNN.NN . A0A0.A.
».»» Q : Q4 Q.“ Q.» ».» Q ».» ».»» Q Q Q ».» NA N.N ».» NNN.N 3.6 A50 $980 :
N.NA N.N v.NA N.A N.N N.v N.v N.A N.NA N.N N.v N.N A.N A.N N.N N.NA NNN.vA 0200.5 NA 0A N
N.N N.N v.NA N.N A.N A.N N.N N.v N.v v.NA N.N A.N N.v N.N A.N v.NA NAN.N wwvun. NANA .835

n50 vN 0A Nv
NmNN NmNA N.N N.N N.N A.v A.N N.A N.NA N.A N.N N.A N.N N.N N.N N.N NNN.NA A0A0.A.
N NN N NA N.NA N.v N A.N v.N N N.v A.N v.N N N N N.v N.N NNN.N 233002
N.AN A.N N.N N.A N.N N.v N.A N.A N.NA N.A N.A N.N A.v N.N N.A N.v NNN_vA oAAmA>>
mAo>oA 0A0?» AAA».
NmAN N.N   N.N N.N N.N N.N N.A N.NN N.A N N.N N.v v.N NA ».», NNN.N AuA0.A.
N Nv N N.vA . N N N.vA N.vA N N.vA N N N N N N N NNN 0AAAA3Q02
N.NN N.N NA N.N N.N N.N NA N.A N.NN NA N N.N N.N N.N NA N.N NNN.N 0AAAA>>
.330 A050 mwwunm AA
NmAN N.NA N.N v.A N.N N.N A.N N.N N.N A.N N.v N.N N.N N.N A.N N.N NvN.NA A0A0.A.
N NN N.NA N.NA N.N N N A.N N N.N N.N A.N N N N N.N A.NA NNv.N 333002
N.NN N.A A N.v N.N N.A A N.v N.N N.N N.A A N.A N.N N.N N.N N.N N.A N.v NNN.N oAA-A?
mowubm NA 0A N
N.N NmNN N.NA N.N N N N N N N N N N N v.N N.N NNN A0A0.A.
N N Nv N.NN N.vA N N N N N N N N N N N.vA N NNN 0AA»A3a02
N.NA N.NN N N N N N N.NA N N N N N N N N.NA NNv 0AAAA>>
muAvuum N ufimvfib
|m50o> vv 0A NN
2Q» N.NA AAA N N.N N.N N N N.N N N N v.N NA N N.A NvA.v AuA0.A.
NNN N.vA N.N N N.N N.N N N N.N N N N N.AA N.N N N NvN_N ~0>0 A000 mmwuQm AA
N.Nv N.NN N.NN N N.N N.N N N N N N N N N N N.N NNNA Hmmwuhm NA 0A N
|IA0 mnAAooAAun
»AAA3 .95»; NN A0105
AQomu AQQUQAm-SA
AvoAwonéAnu AAAA>>
NmN N_N N_N NwN N@N vmv N.N N.v A.NA v.v N.v v.N N.N v.N N.NA N.N NNN.NA AuA0.A.
N.N N.v N N N N N N N N N.N N.N AAA N.v N.N N.N N.N N.N N.NA N.NA NANAA 500w vN 0A Nv
Q: Q: ».» Q4 ».» S Q.» Q4 A.NA Q.» N.NA Q.» N.N ».» NA NA 2Q.» 28> z. 2 Q»
N.NA N N.NA N.NA N.NA N N N N N.NA N N N.NA N N N Nvv 300w NN $25
A0900 ~UflUJmAA£ AuonAQAuuAAvzua
wAAuuAuw-An QAAA3 moAAAEUA
oA...3 100 AQEUQABAAA
N.N v.N A.NA N.NN N.N N.N N.N N.v N.N N.v N.v N N.N N N.v N.N NvN.N mwAAAfiuA
0AA3 1:0 Avnunmn-A A02
"mun. A0 mach
. . . NN 3A5: mAQUoAA hAAfiuhA
N N N N N NA N.NN AA N.N N.N N.NA N.N N.N A.N A.N NA .NA N.N N.v NNN.NN Qo>0 A50
300w NN dAQUQAA Nani.»
||||| I. | I. I. |.l||l||||||l|||||.|||||||||||Anounom| ||l.||l | | | | | | |l||.l||||||||.|.
. $5 QQQQQ QQSQ . ~26 »»».QQ QQQNQ . Q25 NNN.NN 83 . 5B NNN.N NNNAN .
A50 0A 0A  1nd 0A 0A wwoAAvN-QAN Aid 0A 0A N woNcnAN wad 0A N 0A N0NN AN wmuAu
NNN.NN NNN.NN NNNAN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNNAN a QQQ.»Q QQQ. . Q a . . . A E5 5 MOA m2 Q5 0
NN NNN AN NNN NN NNN NN NNN AN .A A A A
558002 niuA AuAAAAoAQAQQQAA 55A oEAA.A..0»A EQuA wfiAAAAs-A wwfiwwwsfi mQAGAAQAuUAUQAU

05005." #0208 Awfl 15d >355“ m0 12AM >8 GOAASAANANAQ

-2A >M2OA>A BN2 mo AW>NA 92¢ .554.» QAO nAZAM Na 2022mm.»

NNNA NGNPA. HmANNNAHAAOZ AAAJADAA @200

mAQ MUFNZNUAAHm AAANE 92¢ wOAhmAmAmhUflmAfiAmU nuEAuumm 22>? 335mm ...AO mmfizaz .NA HAQFA.

   
  
  
   
    
  
  
   
  
  
  

'  'es, 31 percent were nonfarm families and
“u cent were part-time farm families with net
Qfamily incomes of $3,000 and over.

l 1955, there were 22,000 husband-and-Wife
'_ies in the area in which the husband was
Qbodied and 45 to 64 years of age. Of these,
rcent were in full-time farming. Nearly
{of them had a net cash family income of less
V‘ $1,000. Of these 22,000 family heads, 3,875
a high school education or better. Of these,
16 percent were in full-time farming, and
f 6 percent were in full-time farming and had
mes of less than $1,000.

 0t only the kind of Work in which the fam-
 engaged but the amount of work they did
 a bearing on the size of their incomes. Among

full-time farm families, days of work per family

on their farms averaged only 87 for those With

incomes of under $1,000 compared with 308 days
for those with incomes of $5,000 and over, with
days of work on farms increasing consistently
from lower to higher income classes of families
(Table 18). Estimates have not been made of
the days of work done on their farms by part-
time farm families, but this was of minor im-
portance compared with their nonfarm work.
Part-time farm families with incomes under
$1,000 reported work off their farms averaging
75 days per family, compared with 231 days for
those with family incomes of $2,000 to $3,000
and 289 days and 330 days for those with family
incomes of $3,000 to $4,999 and of‘$5,000 and
over, respectively. Similar relationships between

 18. AGGREGATE DAYS OF OFF-FARM WORK BY ALL FAMILY MEMBERS AND DAYS WORKED PER MAN EQUIVA-
l ‘ LENT BY KIND OF FAMILY AND NET MONEY INCOME LEVEL. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955

Work off the farm by all family

 

  
   
  
  
    
  
   
     
  
 
 
   
    
   
 
   
   
 

members  Ddlysd 
2 equiva- wor e o - arm
, m ney income class w k d T 1 Aggregate lents per man work by
 ° onoltfer Nonfafim o“ 12mm part of p9}. equivcb family
farms w” work wgflggdi family lent heads
— — — — — — — — — — — ——Average per family——————————————
—-—-l——Days—-———— Percent No. ——Days———
time farm families
2 der $1.000 7 8 15 0.05 1.09 14 11
‘l 0-1.999 7 12 19 0.07 1.11 17 10
= I -2.999 21 43 64 0.23 1.29 50 25
2' 0-4.999 2 35 37 0.13 1.03 36 15
,'I and over 1 78 79 0.28 1.36 58 7
‘ All families 8 23 31 0.11 1.14 27 13
-time farm families
. ” der $1.000 8 67 75 0.27 0.71 106 62
 I I -1.999 36 99 135 0.48 0.89 152 97
02.999 61 171 232 0.83 1.19 194 156
j 0-4.999 3 286 289 1.03 1.28 226 235
H and over 6 324 330 1.18 1.35 244 207
 All families 20 204 224 0.80 1.11 202 162
 dential farm families
nder $1.000 2 29 31  0.40 76 27
 ,000-1.999 28 136 164 .5 0.75 219 115
_ 0-2.999 9 254 22g  1.0g 244 198
:.000-4.999 7 335 3 1. 1.3 48 251
i H and over 41 382 423 1.50 1.41 300 243
 All families 13 179 192 0.69 0.87 221 138
l’ farm families
nder $9l.000 25  1g:   45 27
,000-1.9 9 3 . . 117 72
3 0-2.999 31 169 200 0.71 1.14 175 138
.000-4.999 4 259 263 0.94 1.27 207 200
.000 and over l0 280 290 1.04 1.35 214 169
j All families 14 140 154 0.54 1.03 150 108
 yarm families
222"" 22 .2: .22 2:2 222  4:
' -1. 9 1 . . 256 150
 22 :22  222 2:: :22 
2 .000-4.99 33 . . 256
, 00 and over 19 373 392 1.40 1.43 274 269
» All families i; t 28 208 236 0.84 0.96 246 176
rural families  
der $1.000 11 31 42 0.15 0.57 74 34
0-1.999 41 108 149 0.53 0.85 175 108
I 0-2.999 32 212 244 0.87 1.18 207 183
I 00-4.999 4 294 298 1.06 1.31 227 225
I>I and over 14 322 336 1.20 1.39 242 214
‘ All families 20 170 190 0.69 0.99 192 138

  

  

 on 280 working clays per year.

Includes work on other farms and nonfarm work.

21

days worked and “family incomes also held for the
area's nonfarm families. In all classes of fam-
ilies, both days of work done and earnings per
day worked increased with the size of family in-
comes, indicating that family income differences
grow in part out of differences in both kind and
amount of employment in which the family, main-
ly the family head, engaged. At the higher in-
come levels, labor resources of the families were
being rather fully utilized in terms both of time
worked and quality of employment.

Farm Resources and

Income Levels

Farm resources held by full-time farm fam-
ilies averaged significantly larger than for any
of the other groups. The slightly more than one-
sixth of the open-country families on full-time
farms had farm units averaging 260 acres in
size. They controlled 3,925,700 acres of the total
farmland, which equalled the acreage held by
the residential and part-time farmers combined.
The average value per farm of their resources
was about $21,450, and they held 36 percent of
the value of all land and other farm resources
held by rural families (Table 19). One-fourth of
their farmland was in cropland, about 18 percent
of which was idle. In contrast, part-time and
residential farmers had about one-third and two-
thirds, respectively, of their cropland idle. Fam-
ilies with incomes of $5,000 and above had about
950 acres of land per family, with a considerable
acreage in woodland (Table 20). A little more
than 20 percent of the value of total resources of

TABLE 19. ACRES OF LAND PER FAMILY BY MAIOR LAND

AREA AND VALUE OF LAND AND OTHER FARM RE-

SOURCES PER FAMILY, BY KIND OF FAMILY. RURAL
NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955

Farm families Non.

_ P _ R '_ farm

“em E111‘. .35.‘. 1,212.1 All- fam-
farm farm farm farm flies

———-——Number--————
Number of families 15,099 17,990 15,825 48,914 39,146
Acres per family by
major land use

—--—-—-—Acres——————-—

Total cropland 65 27 12 34 3
Idle cropland 11 8 8 9 3
Pasture '
Improved 30 33 2 22 1
Other open pasture 77 50 18 ‘48 5
Woodland 78 47 14 46 5

Total 185 130 34 116 11
Other woodland 6 6 5 6 1
Farmstead 4 2 2 2 1

Total farmland 260 165 53 158 16

Value per family of land
and other farm resources
—————Dollars—————-

Land 16,860 12,800 6,071 11.876 3,898
Livestock 2,648 1,846 347 1,610 110
Equipment 1,943 1,375 592 1.299 543

Total 21,451 16,021 7,010 14.785 4,551

22

 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  

the full-time farms was in livestock and eqf
ment. ,1

Amounts and value of farm resources vat
considerably by income levels (Figure 10). N
ly two-thirds of the full-time farm families.
incomes below $2,000; these families had a
160 acres per family, which was slightly ui
the average size of all farms. The average v ,
of their resources was nearly $13,000 (Table 2
The median value of resources was about $12,,

In general, the full-time farm families _
incomes above $2,000 had correspondingly lar
acreages of farmland with greater total val 
farm resources. The few highest-income I
ilies, with nearly 950 acres of farmland per =5
ily and an average investment of about $66,,
had about 5 times the resources of families in
lowest income class (Figure 11). Value of li,
stock and equipment also increased consiste 1,
from the lowest to the highest income levels. A
the higher income levels, livestock and equipm
resources averaged about $9,000 and $6,200, '
spectively. However, land was the major
source, making up nearly 80 percent of total fl
sources at all income levels. i

One of the major characteristics of the f i
time farms in the area is their small size, whet 
measured by total acres in farmland, acres
cropland, total value of farm resources or =§ .
farm income. Half the farms had a total inv
ment of less than $12,000 and about tWo-th' :
had net money incomes of less than $2,000 a
an average total investment of nearly $13,0,
The latter group averaged about 160 acres of to
farmland, with about 50 acres in cropland. _
adequate size of farms does not explain the n
velopment and persistence of low farm prod
tion and incomes, but farm production and I
come in a particular and current situation is!
function of farm resources and how they are ,
ganized. Farm resources, as they existed amo
these full-time farmers, were the bases fr
which specific incomes were obtained. Also, th_
are the resources that individual farmers m 
consider in reorganization and recapitalization (I
they are to move toward higher production a
incomes. ‘

A large percentage of the heads of these f 5
time farm families had a human resource limii
tion of one kind or another (Table 11).‘ But ,5
spite these limitations the labor resource on f v _
time farms was in excess of one man-equivale 1i
even on farms with income levels below lg‘
(Table 18). These data suggest that, on the av
age, a rather large degree of partial underemplo
ment existed among the two groups with low
incomes and least farm resources (Figure 1
The small land resources held by the lowest-f
come group, 166 acres valued at nearly $13,7
furnished about 100 man-equivalent days, ’
slightly less, of employment. As both acre
and total value of resources increased, progre

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
   
  

" greater amounts of employment were fur-
0-. up to full employment or an average of
it 300 days, 0n farms in the group with great-
_esources and highest incomes. Amount of
‘oyment on farms thus was associated close-
‘th the scale of operations, particiularly as a
q was reached that allowed a sizeable live-
i enterprise.

if ll-time farmers obtained about 60 percent
 eir total income and about three-fourths of
f} money income from farming (Table 9). Un-
farming systems and levels of management
A ing in the area, total resources of about $15,-
iéwere usually required to return a $1,500 in-
l As pointed out previously, this $15,000
‘Th of resources, as generally utilized in the
l» provided employment for only about one-
1 man-equivalent, with a resulting low vol-
f; of production. Among full-time farm fam-
_f with incomes of less than $2,000, about 73
jent had resources of less than $15,000, and
L tly more than two-thirds had net farm in-
yes of less than $1,500. Stated another way,

7.1
1»

of family and level

of the full-time farmers with farm incomes be-
low $1,500, over 80 percent had resources under
$15,000. The $12,000 median value of resources
was inadequate, for 84 percent of the farmers
with this size resource, to return a $1,500 in-
come. The problem of low level of resources may
be more sharply defined by pointing out that
about 40 percent of the full-time farmers had net
family incomes of less than $1,000 and total re-
sources of less than $10,000. These farmers ob-
viously did not have an adequate farm-resource
base to employ their labor resources full-time,
and consequently could not obtain a satisfactory
money income. Over and above this 40 percent
was a group of farmers who had resources valued
between $10,000 and $15,000, the adequacy of
which was doubtful. A few of these, probably
owing to superior management or because of spe-
cific enterprises, apparently were obtaining $1.,-
500 or more of net money income from resources
of less than $15,000. Therefore, not all operators
having resources of less than $15,000 were found
in the income groups below $2,000. Similarly, it

i 20. MAIOR LAND USE PER FARM BY KIND OF FAMILY AND LEVEL OF NET MONEY INCOME, RURAL NORTHEAST
 TEXAS. 1955

Major land uses

Pqsturel Farmstead T o‘ a1

 

 
 
 
 
  
   
 
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
    

 money income cropland wgghlzrnd waste, land
‘ Idle Total Improved Woodland 61¢-
. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- A¢res — — — — — — — — — — — -
fime farm families
der $1,000 44 7 113 25 31 6 3 166
~| -1,999 58 12 84 9 35 2 144
’ l -2,999 53 0 I40 22 41 9 2 204
‘T 1 4,999 79 2 335 52 109 8 2 424
0 and over 191 s2 11s 104 46s 1s 20 94a
 families 65 11 185 30 78 6 4 260
"lime farm families
er $1.000 24 7 80 12 27 15 2 121
l: a -1,999 22 9 68 13 25 3 2 95
'41 1| -2,999 33 14 111 64 22 1 2 147
 111 4,999 30 9 168 27 78 7 1 206
a. 0 and over 24 2 191 48 62 7 2 224
{All families 27 8 130 33 47 6 2 165
 ntial farm families
der $1.000 15 10 a7 2 14 1 1 s0
w -1,999 15 9 33 14 4 1 53
.1 1 -2,999 11 6 20 2 7 4 2 37
 I 4,999 6 5 44 1 21 1 51
HI and over 6 3 32 3 14 17 1 56
 families 12 8 34 2 14 5 2 53
 families
der $1.000 30 8 79 15 24 8 2 119
 33 10 62 7 25 2 2 99
30 9 84 30 21 4 2 120
,_ 30 7 154 23 64 5 2 191
II and over 57 13 279 53 142 _ll 6 353
‘i111 families 34 9 116 22 46 6 2 158
I -- - families
der $1,000 1‘,  7 6 16 1 7 2 1 26
=» 0-1.999  4 3 8 1 4 1 1 14
$1 I -2.999 2 1 9 3 1 1 13
314,999 2 1 7 1 3 1 1 11
i» II and over 2 1 14 9 1 17
All families 3 3 11 l 5 1 1 16
‘rural families 20 6 69 12 28 4 2 95

 

   

S, unimproved pasture accounts for remainder of pasture acreage.

should be pointed out that resources of more than
$15,000 did not assure an adequate money income,
as a little more than one-fourth of the farmers
with the lower incomes had resources exceeding
this amount.

Classes of Low-income Families
by Adjustment Potentials

One of the objectives of this study has been
t0 provide a classification of the families with
lower incomes that will indicate their income sit-
uation and define their income improvement po-
tential. Such a classification should help to guide
future policy and research directed toward the
low-production farm problem and toward rural
development. In placing emphasis in such a
classification upon the lower income families, it
is recognized that some families were only tem-
porarily in this status and may make adjustments
to higher-income levels. Many higher-income
families have income-maintenance and resource-
adjustment problems or may have large adjust-
ment potentials of which they are unaware. But
because of the national concern with the prob-
lems of low farm incomes and rural development,
primary emphasis in the study was placed on
classifying families with incomes under $1,000,

40-9
35-)
30-9
25-}

PERCENT OF TOTAL
N
i

UNDER $1,000 $1,000 - 1,999

4 FAMILIES
' FARM RESOURCES

NET FARM INCOME

$2,000 - 2,999

followed by those with incomes of $1,000 to $1,
and finally those with incomes of $2,000 or m

In this classification an attempt has ~-
made to distinguish two main classes of low
come families: (1) those families who, des,’
their income situation, were about as produc
as could reasonably be expected, such as thos
which the family breadwinjner was of advan
age or otherwise occupationally limited and i:
those families whose low incomes did not ap
to be a result of significant limitations in -
labor capacities of the family heads (Table I
Familes in the latter class are further grou
by age of family head, and the farming vj
tions of those in full-time farming are exam'
to see to what extent their incomes in 1955 r
have been abnormally low. Also, the full-t
farmers are classified further in terms of 1'
farm resource, to associate the adequacy of t_
factor with level of income. —

FAMILIES WITH INCOMES OF
LESS THAN $1,000

Of the area’s rural families having a net 
income in 1955 of less than $1,000, 3 of ever

had a family head who was 65 years of age
older, or had a physical limitation that restric

the kind or amount of work that could be doc

$3,000 - 4,999

NET MONEY INCOME CLASS

L‘
IQ
l:
'1
m
F‘
a
"U
o
'1
n
m
E‘.-
0
i
Ffi
E-
i"
3
o
Ilk
Q
'1
5
i
Q
.5
17'
o
m
'0
o
'1
n
o
U
I
o
‘Q
'1
o
U!
o
S:
'1
n
m
tn
Q
5
Q-
'0
co
'1
n
m
5
It
o
It
5
n
o
3
o
U‘
*<
c?
<
‘l.
m
o
U‘!
5
o
F.‘
5
o
l5
m
w:
'5
O

in rural Northeast Texas.

--:
B‘
0
F
'1
m:
(D
If!
IIOI
u:
'1
O
c:
'0
bl
s
2.
s
n.
III
s
w:
0h
¢
w:
0
'1
O
0
P.
9..
:3’-
0
U!
0
B‘
i‘
5
U!
s-
Q
n.
F
U!
U!
Ii
5"
D
s
3
I—l
Q
Q
Q
s
2.
B
O
s
0
'4

O
s
O-
O
E.
-<
Q
i:
0
E!
O
"1
0
I'll
B"
Q
s
$3
w:
0
'1
0
0
s
IIII
O
III!
E?-
0
i
9.
B.
s
0
F.‘
bl
s
Q
O
E!
0
O
lilo
§
0
IQ
'1
O
F!
'0
L‘
o
E
1s
(D
'1
O
0
P.
é
E
5
2
B
O
l5
(‘D
'4
bl
5
O
O
E!
0
III
9..
3:2

and over received nearly 36 percent of the total net income and controlled nearly as many resources as did the largest gr

oi families.

24



$5,000 AND w c» I

  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
   
  
 
 
   
   
   
  
   
 
  
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
    
  
  
   
  

completed fewer than five grades in school,
,1: female (Figure 13). Of the remaining 23
_j= of the families, more than three-fifths
mily heads who were already past 45, an
f;- by many nonfarm employers as a stand-
e-break in screening job applicants.

and nonfarm families differed signifi-
i in the percentage of families with incomes
Y $1,000 that fell in the above general classes.
also was true among the farm families.
1 families with incomes of less than $1,000,
 7 of every 10 on farms, as compared with
- ery 10 in the nonfarm group, reported one
re serious occupational limitations. As in-
j- earlier, however, the latter group included
. retired family heads who after reaching an
ced age had ceased farming. Only 10 per-
2f the nonfarm families with incomes under
p had able-bodied male family heads under
rs of age, and half of these were 45 years
e or over. Thus, less than 5 percent of all
_. of nonfarm families in this income class
c free of occupational limitations and were
 an 45 years old.

 en farm families with incomes under $1,-
ere further grouped as full-time, part-time
“esidential, it was found that the full-time
group had the smallest percentage of fam-
pads with major occupational limitations.
7 in the residential farm group had the high-
rcentage, hence were in the most disad-
ged position in terms of labor capacities.
rcentages were 49 percent for full-time
 70 percent for part-time farms, and 90
H for residential farms. On all farms, near-
Yen-tenths of the able-bodied male family
under 65 years of age had already passed
l"_45th birthday. Two-thirds of those on the
time farms were 45 to 64 years of age.

amination of the full-time farm families
jinet cash incomes under $1,000 indicates that
ly high percentage had command of enough
Jresources so that their income might be ex-
7,1 to be above $1,000 (Table 23 and Figure
iOf the full-time farm families with incomes
= $1,000, 37 percent had resources worth
H and over. These percentages varied sig-
ntly between the occupationally handicap-
_amilies and those without occupational limi-
1,1: Only 22 percent of those in the former
shad farm resources worth $15,000 or more,
, s 52 percent of those without occupational
‘caps had resources of this amount or more.

IILIES WITH INQOMES OF
m TO $1,999 

 families with incomes of $1,000 to $1,999,
‘ational handicaps are less of a problem, and
l; use of labor capacity becomes more im-
nt. Even so, 65 percent of the family heads
ese families, both farm and nonfarm, re-
‘>0 one or more major occupational limita-

tions. Farm and nonfarm families displayed no
difference in this regard, and there was little dif-
ference between full-time, part-time, and resi-
dential farms. But among families in this income
group, 3 out of 4 able-bodied male family heads
under 65 years of age on the full-time farms were
over 45 years of age, compared with only 5 of
every 9 on part-time farms and 2 of every 3 on
residential farms.

Of the full-time farm families with incomes
$1,000 to $1,999, 60 percent had farm resources
worth less than $15,000. Among the occupation-
ally handicapped, 74 percent had resources worth
less than $15,000, compared with 40 percent of
those without occupational handicaps‘ (Table 23).

FAMILIES WITH INCOMES OF
$2,000 AND OVER

Among all rural families with net cash in-
comes of $2,000 and over, only 35 percent re-
ported one or more major occupational limita-

TABLE 21. AVERAGE VALUE PER FAMILY OF FARM RE-
SOURCES. BY KIND OF FAMILY AND BY LEVEL OF NET
MONEY INCOME. RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS. 1955

K_ d i i _l Resources
in o ami y
and level of net Luann: Live- F52? Total
money income buildings stggk chinery
_ — — — —— Dollars —————-—
Full-time
farm families
Under $1.000 10,923 1.629 1.141 13.693
1.000-1.999 9.296 1.238 1.068 11.602
2.000-2.999 15.313 2.503 2.344 20.160
3.000-4.999 31.612 4.833 3.043 39.488
5.000 and over 50.861 9.075 6.227 66.163
All families 16.860 2.648 1.943 21.451
Part-time
farm families
Under $1.000 8.251 1.043 523 9.817
1.000-1.999 6.550 783 597 7.930
2.000-2.999 11.134 1.321 1.457 13.912
3.000-4.999 16.159 2.431 1.599 20.189
5.000 and over 18.752 3.068 2.384 24.204
All families 12.800 1.846 1.375 16.021
Residential
farm families
Under $1.000 5.498 274 189 5.961
1.000-1.999 4.795 326 286 5.407
2.000-2.999 4.932 399 705 6.036
3.000-4.999 6.929 411 1.024 8.364
5.000 and over 14.677 425 2.031 17.133
All families 6.071 347 i 592 7.010
All farm families
Under $1.000 8.422 1.023 673 10.118
1.000-1.999 6.852 787 653 8.292
2.000-2.999 9.894 1.284 1.407 12.585
3.000-4.999 15.987 2.220 1.681 19.888
5.000 and over 25.071 3.937 3.164 32.172
All families 11.858 1.607 1.297 14.762
Nonfarm families
Under $1.000 2.859 76 186 3.121
1.000-1.999 3.296 131 293 3.720
2.000-2.999 3.376 56 540 3.972
3.000-4.999 4.613 159 786 5.558
5.000 and over 5.859 108 1.218 7.185
All families a 3.803 108 530 4.441
All rural families 8.277 941 956 10.174

25

AVERAGE INCOME ($1,000)
4*
I

 

UNDER $1,000

increased.

tions (Table 22). In other words, comparison of
the human resource characteristics reveals that
most of the family heads in the income groups
above $2,000 were without occupational limita-
tions. This is in contrast to the lower income
groups where the reverse was true. Such hand-
icaps were reported by 49 percent of those on
full-time farms, and by 38 percent and 36 percent
of those on part-time and residential farms, re-

   
 

10o
9Q _
8° 1-
'70 - 1
H l
g e0 - 1
t. I
E 5o - :
‘é ’ 15lwzmcz: VALUE
E 4o _ 1 ($21,450)
1
lWmnmn 1
3o _ VALUE |
l(t11,9so) 1
I
2o - I
1
I
1O - - l
I
O 1 1 l 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1o 2o 30 1.0 50 60 7°

VALUE or ram. assormcas (81,000)

Figure 12. Percent of full-time farm families with spe-
ciiic total resource values in rural Northeast Texas. Half oi
these families had total resources of less than $12,000. Near-
ly 60 percent had less than $15,000 and about 73 percent had
less than the average of $21,450. Only about ll percent had
total resources of $40,000 or above.

26

$1,000 - 1,000 $2,000 - 2,999 $3,000 - 4,999
NET MONEY INCOME LEVEL

Figure ll. Average net money income and average resources held by full-time farmers by levels of net money
in rural Northeast Texas. Generally. there was a consistent increase in the level oi income as the amount oi farm reso a

$5,000 and OVER

spectively. These data further indicate that,
the highly dynamic economy of this area, I
transfer of labor into nonfarm employment V
been a highly selective process leaving in .;
ing, especially in full-time farming, a high 1
centage of the aged and the occupationally ha 1i
capped. - ;

Occupational limitations among the full-y
farmers were about as prevalent at the higher»
come levels as at the lower. At the lower inc,
levels, the farm resources held by those with
cupational limitations were less than $15,00
about two of every three families. ‘l

Some Implications of Findin

This study has been directed to an exam
tion of the rural income situation in an area
before 1930 was like much of the rest of an I
tensive southern low-income region. Since 1
however, the area has experienced great ='
nomic growth in the nonagricultural sector, I
also has come within the influence of the rap
growing Fort Worth—Dallas and Houston-
Coast industrial complexes. An attempt has ’
made to provide a classification of present 
income situations that will help workers in I
Rural Development Program and other agen '
to evaluate alternative ways of attacking the
come problems of the area and that will pro
guidance to further research. The study also I

 

  
   
   
   
 
   
  
   
  
 
   
  
  
   
  
   
  

 
  
    
    
       
 
 

5

' a basis for examining the effects of indus-
‘development on rural incomes and resource
fv Its findings also have important implica-
f for policies and research related to rural
j come problems in other parts of the Nation.

" N e major classes of low-income situations
been identified as (1) those in which the
y heads had a human resource limitation, of
.1; 'nd or another and (2) those in which family
a had none of these resource limitations.

{t addition to the human resource character-
, the adequacy of farm resources of the full-
“farm families has been examined, and- situ-

ations among these families have been further
classified on this basis. Some of the implica-
tions of these findings are outlined below, some
of them in the form of unanswered questions.

LOW INCOMES OF THE
OCCUPATIONALLY HANDICAPPED

Probably as a result of the area's recent eco-
nomic development and the process of selectivity
of manpower for off-farm jobs, the study reveal-
ed that family heads with occupational limita-
tions comprised 77 percent and 65 percent of the
rural families with money incomes of under $1,-

) 22. CLASSIFICATION OF ALL FAMILIES BY MAIOR CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD AND LEVEL OF NET
MONEY INCOME, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1955

Farm families

  

    
  
 
  
    
   
   
    
 
   
   
   
  

" oi net money income and Noniarm r31‘;
Q cteristic oi family head Full- part Resp An families {amines
1, time time dential

'es with net money income under $1,000 ’

-- er oi families with 6,144 2,882 5,034 14,060 9,916 23,976

ajor occupational limitations — — — — —> — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — --

 Males t,

l 65 years oi age and over 15 43 65 38 60 47
Under 65 with physical handicap 25 21 18 21 22 21
Under 65 without physical handicap

but less than 5 grades completed

p; in school 9 3 3 7 4 6

 Female heads — 3 4 2 4 3

g Total 49 70 90 68 90 77

i es without major occupational limitations
55 to 64 years oi age 8 5 1 5 1 3
45 to 54 years oi age 27 15 6 17 5 12
Under 45 years oi age 16 10 3 10 4 8

Total 51 30 10 32 10 23

c’ families in income class 100 100 100 100 100 100

'es with net money income of $1,000 to $1,999

A er oi families with 3,757 3,301 3,524 10,582 9,102 19,684

ajor occupational limitations — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — - -

* Males
65 years oi age and over 12 31 34 27 32 30
Under 65 with physical handicap 44 22 19 27 16 22
Under 65 without physical handicap

but less than 5 grades completed

l. in school 4 7 8 6 9 8

"~ Female heads — 4 8 4 7 5

- Total 60 64 69 64 64 65

' es without major occupational limitations

" 55 to 64 years oi age 8 — 2 4 1 2
45 to 54 years oi age 22 20 19 20 17 19
Under 45 years of age 10 16 10 12 18 14

w Total 40 36 31 36 36 35

1* families in income class 100 100 100 100 100 100

"es with net money income over $2,000

ber oi families with 5,198 11,807 7,267 24,272 20,128 44,400

- ‘or occupational limitations — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — - - - - -- -

a ales

" 65 years oi age and over 14 8 9 10 5 8

' Under 65 with physical handicap 26 22 23 23 14 19
Under 65 without physical handicap ‘

but less than 5 grades completed
 in school 9 5 2 5 6 6
a Female heads i‘,  — 3 2 2 3 2
F» Total  49 38 36 40 28 35

r- es without major occupational limitations
55 to 64 years oi age 13 12 5 10 1 6
45 to 54 years oi age 8 22 26 20 23 21
Under 45 years oi age » 30 28 33 30 48 38

_ Total 51 62 64 60 72 65

3 iamilies in income class 100 100 100 100 100 100

 

 

27

23,976 families
(27 percent) V
Net money incomes below $1,000

2a

77% 23%
With human Without human
resource limitations resource limitations
47% 1/ 21% 6% 2% 3% 12% 8%.
Education Female 5
65 and Handi- less than family 55 - 64 45 - 54 Under 1
over capped 5 grades head years of years of years
age age ‘ age

19,684 families
(22 percent)
Net money incomes $1,000 - $L999

5__--"""""""""""t'VH_____________________““-~__

65% U 35%
With human Without human
resource limitations resource limitations

20% U 22% 5~ 8% 5% 2% 19% 14%;
Education Female -
65 and Handi- ;<_less than family 55 - 64 45 — 54 Under '

over capped . 5 grades- head years of years of years

age age 1 age

44,400 families
(51 percent)
Net money incomes over $2,000 '

/\

. 35% _ 55%
Wlth human _ Without human
resource limitations 1 resource limitations

/4\\

‘Includes all heads 65 and over; other groups are less than 65 years of age and mutually exclusive.

Figure l3. Human resource classification of all rural family heads in Northeast Texas.

28

8% 1/ 19% 6% 2% 6% 21% ' 38% 

Education Female
65 and Handi- less than family 55 _ 64 45 _ 54 Under 4
over capped 5 grades‘. head years of years of years a
age _ age I a 6-

 

6,144 families
(41 percent)
Net money incomes below $1,000

‘_______________‘__“_‘"--____

   

   
    

   

49% 5 //I 51% 4]
With human reso rce limitations Without human resource limitations
1 1 2 4 . f 8% J f 27% J
5% _/ 5/ Education less 55 ' 64-Years 45 " 54 years
L65 and over Handicapped than 5 grades
Farm Resources
5% 1/ 3% 11% 16% 9% 7%
[Under _ Over ,Under ,0ver ‘Under p Over
£15,000 515,000 015,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
25% ' 26%
Under $15,000 Over $15,000
A—_——.’-_-—-——w“_'—__—__'_____________£a§m resources farm resources
E_ 74% with limitations 45] ll 26% Without limitations J
3,757 families
(25 percent) _
3 Net money incomes §1,000-01,999
5
| . . 69% .. . | 1 49% . J
With human resource limitations Without human resource limitations
12% 1_/ 44% 4% 8% 22%
gf Education less - 6 ears " ears
Q65 and over Handicaooed than 5 grades
Farm Resources
2% 1/ 6% 8% 14% 6% 4%
_Under V Over Under ‘Over Under ,Over
$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $151000 015.000

16% 24%
Under $15,000 Over $15,000
‘_-——-_-_-—__——__.—_.__—_—_____.._______£arm_resources farm resources
76% With limitations I i 24% Without limitati0ns__J

5,198 families

(34 percent)
Net money incomes @2000 and over

 
 
 

  

49% l
i_7With human reso rce limitations Without human res

1 1 2e 9% l 10% J l 14% l Y 27% l
pa 4% ‘/ % Education less 55 — 6 vears 45 — 54 vears Under 45 Years
i5 and over Handicapped than 5 grades \\\\\

1 Farm Resources
‘ 1% 1/ 9% 1% 13% 3% 24%
‘Under Over ,Under _Over Under I Over
$15,000 '15 000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 015,000

 

. 573 46%
K .~ Under $15,000 Over $15,000
1- -—___——-——-—~_-—__—___—__~——___________3EggL3§§gurgg§________ farm resources
54% With limitations J if 46% Without limitations J

udes all heads 65 and over: other groups are less than 65 years of age and mutually exclusive. Farm resources based
otal value of land, livestock and equipment. .

0- igure 14. Human and {arm resource classification of all full-time farm iamily heads in Northeast Texas.

29

000 and 0f $1,000 to $1,999, respectively. A ma-
jor implication of this is that the potential for
adjustment toward increased productive activ-
ities of most of these families is limited. This
suggests that welfare programs dealing with fam-

TABLE 23. CLASSIFICATION OF FULL-TIME FARM FAMI-
LIES BY NET MONEY INCOME LEVELS ON THE BASIS OF
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FAMILY HEAD AND THE VAL-
UE OF FARM RESOURCES, RURAL NORTHEAST TEXAS.

1955

Farm Farm All

Level oi net money income re- re- idm:
and characteristics oi sources sources ilies 1n
family head under over income

$l5.000 $15,000 class

Families with net cash incomes
under $1.000
Number oi families in class 3.871 2.273 6.144
With major occupational

limitations: — — — Percent — — —
Males
65 years oi age and over I6 13 15
Under 65 with physical handicap 31 16 25
Under 65 without physical
handicap. but less than 5
grades completed in school 15 9
Female heads
Total 62 29 49
Males without major occupational
limitations:
55 to 64 years oi age 8 l0 3
45 to 54 years oi age 17 42 28
Under 45 years oi age 13 19 15
Total 38 71 51
All families 100 100 100
Families with net money incomes
oi $1.000 to $1.999
Number oi iamilies in class 2.254 1.503 3.757
With major occupational
limitations: — — —- Percent — — ——
Males
65 years oi age and over l0 15 12
Under 65 with physical handicap 57 25 44
Under 65 without physical
handicap. but less than 5
grades completed in school 7 4
Female heads
Total 74 40 60
Males without major occupational
limitations:
55 to 64 years oi age 3 15 8
45 to 54 years of age I3 35 22
Under 45 years oi age l0 I0 I0
Total 26 60 40
All families ' I00 100 100
Families with net money incomes
above $2.000
Number oi iamilies in class 884 4.314 5.198
With major occupational
limitations: —- _— — Percent — — —
Males
65 years oi age and over 8 16 14
Under 65 with physical handicap 25 26 26
Under 65 without physical
handicap. but less than 5 grades
completed in school 33 3 9
Female heads
Total 66 45 49
Males without major occupational
limitations
55 to 64 years oi age 8 l0 l0
45 to 54 years oi age 8 I6 I4
Under 45 years oi age I8 29 27
Total 34 55 51
All iamilies 100 I00 100
30

  
  
   
  
   
  
  
    
   
 
  
   
 
  
  
   
   
  
 
   
   
  
 
  
   
   
  
   
  
  

ilies in place, and involving cash grants and,
cial assistance in meeting dietary and =5
needs, may have to be a major feature of
general area development program designe
assist large numbers of the area’s low-in
people. Not all of these families were nee
the extent of requiring public welfare assist
nor were all beyond any kind of personal adj

ment to other situations“ 

Better practices in such small underta
as home gardening could result in a conside _
rise in the level of nutrition. Health levels of
aged might be improved by recognizing thattr-“jt
requirements are different from a populatio
young family heads. Raising the level of liq
by health and nutritional measures may not q
much to the total income of the area, but can 1
much to human welfare. l

Family heads with occupational limitati
comprised such a large part of the area’s low
come rural population that their resource sip
tions, opportunities, and problems are worthy‘
special concern under present area programs. 7
is probable that a reexamination of agency ac
ities would reveal that some emphasis could,
placed on alleviation of the low-income situa
in place by a redirection of efforts under pres
program authorizations. Such a redirection,
conjunction with the direct money payments .4
technical assistance services that are now av
able through agency programs operating in ~
area, might do much to improve production
food, level of consumption and health conditio

Some problems of this group have not b
touched on by this research. Further study
needed, for example, to answer such questions -

1. What is the real extent _of depende
among such families, and what is the level
living and health supported by current welf
payments?

2. At these income levels, What are the M
cational and training opportunities available
younger family members?

3. What do the physical handicaps as
ported by family heads really mean in terms i
productivity limitations?

4. What are the possibilities of raising ',
come levels by use of resources now in the u
session of these families?

LOW-INCOME FAMILIES NOT
OCCUPATIONALLY HANDICAPPED

Family heads 45 to 6!, years 0f age.— 
though the occupationally handicapped compris '
a large part of the area’s lower income famili
more than a third of the farm families with '
comes under $2,000 had male family heads und
65 years of age, with five or more grades ~
schooling and without major physical handica
That is, low incomes are prevalent among ma

   
 
  
   
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
  

ies whose human resource characteristics
f ently did not limit their productive capa-
Two-thirds of the heads 0f families with
mitations, however, were between 45 and 64
p; of age. As a consequence, many family
~ in full-time farming were already at an
k hat might limit the kind of farming adjust-
'  that were economically feasible for them
» ake. In past research and programming,
w mendations for farm adjustments by these
A family heads have seldom been separated
‘ those for younger farmers. Yet age is of
 importance in obtaining long-term credit
 in a farmer’s long-run expectations that
(- is a need to treat these older families as a
'al group in proposing any farm adjust-

 research and programming there is a need
‘ to distinguish between families in full-time
‘ing and families receiving a large part of
income from nonfarm employment. For
group of families, there is need especially
_ research on the following questions:

. How does the age of these family heads
it both their farm adjustment opportunities
jtheir nonfarm employment opportunities?

, T0 what extent do these effects grow out
clining labor capacities and to what extent
they a result of credit policies, employee hir-
practices and other conditions of an institu-
,1 nature?

, v Taking account of any declining labor ca-
Z ies and the increasing uncertainty about the
‘ of work life they have left, in what ways
.f.these family heads most effectively improve
i incomes?

 amily heads under 1,5 years 0f age.—It is a
1 economic paradox that so many family
k in rural Northeast Texas under 45 years
ge, without major occupational handicaps,
ld have family incomes of less than $2,000.
some of those in full-time farming, an im-
iate and current explanation is the limited
tity of their land and other farm resources.
The time of the study, 60 percent commanded
_ than $15,000 worth of farm resources; the
f ining 40 percent controlled enough farm re-
A es to have had at least a good start toward
-'ng into a higher income position. In the
% group, many would need capital and an in-
‘se in scale of operations to enable them to in-
} e their incomes. In the latter, the adoption
A. efficient practices and some farm reor-
' ation may be tlzgeyanswer.

Future research directed to the problems of
l. families with very limited resources should,
condition for evaluating their adjustment op-
unities, answer the following questions:

Do they have limited resources?
a. Because of inadequate credit facilities?

b. Because of the area’s shortage of land
suitable for farm enlargement?

c. Because of a general lack of knowledge
of leasing arrangements needed for new
kinds of farming?

d. Because land prices are so much above
their values for farm production that it
is difficult, under known ways of farm-
ing and present farm price-cost relation-
ships, to develop profitable systems of
farming of kinds needed to increase the
scale of operations?

2. Does the dynamic character of the area’s
nonfarm economy fight against the development
of its agriculture on the basis of large-scale full-
time farms?

It may be that it is easier and more remuner-
ative for the family head to seek off-farm em-
ployment than to assume the economic risk and
uncertainty of long-range farm adjustments. For
younger family heads, farm and nonfarm, there
remains the question of why, in view of the em-
ployment opportunities available in Northeast
Texas, they have not moved into jobs that yield a
much higher income. The answer to this ques-
tion might shed light on the rural-low-income
problem not only in Northeast Texas but in many
other parts of the Nation. It may be that family
heads have failed to move from their present sit-
uations into higher income jobs because of the
high valuations they place on nonpecuniary val-
ues associated with their present situation. Or
more likely, the number of jobs available in the
area may be below the number of workers avail-
able to fill them. In other words, perhaps many
have remained in a state of underemployment be-
cause the supply of labor in the area exceeded the
demand for labor at prevailing wages in more
remunerative jobs. If such is the case, the se-
lectivity processes determining which workers
get the better paying jobs and which are left be-
hind need to be explored. Factors for investiga-
tion might be distance from the centers of eco-
nomic development, individual inertia and special
employment standards involving selectivity on
the basis of special aptitudes, personal charac-
teristics or race.

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT AND THE
RURAL-LOW-INCOME PROBLEM

As has been pointed out, after large economic
development in its nonfarm sector, there are still
many families in rural Northeast Texas whose
low incomes cannot be explained by such factors
as advanced age, physical disabilities, other ma-
jor occupational handicaps or limited farm re-
sources. Nonetheless, the findings of this study
indicate that incomes in the Nation’s low-income
rural areas can be greatly improved by rural eco-
nomic development that has a sound economic
base, is large in scope and is associated with ex-
tensive industrial development in the larger reg-

31

 

ions of which the areas are a part. The recent
economic development achieved in this area and
in nearby regions generally has enabled the area’s
farm people to achieve incomes approximating
those of its rural nonfarm residents—many of
them doing this by moving into nonfarm employ-
ment. This is much more a result of increased
incomes from nonfarm work than it is of in-
creased farm incomes obtained through adjust-
ment and reorganization of farm units. But even
with improvements that have been made, incomes
of the area’s rural people still are below those of
nonfarm families in the Nation as a whole, with
cash and noncash income combined in 1955 aver-
aging less than $3,500 per rural family in North-
east Texas compared with about $6,570 for non-
farm families in the Nation.

In view of the continuing large income dif-
ference between rural Northeast Texas and the
nonfarm economy of the Nation as a whole, and
of the large economic growth of recent decades
in the Southwestern region, the following ques-
tions appear to be significant for the Nation’s
rural low-income problems when considered in
the aggregate view:

1. How much will it be necessary for the Na-
tion’s nonfarm economy to grow within a decade
in order to bring the Nation’s rural low-income
people" into full“ production and employment—
i.e., employment which is as productive and which
yields as large incomes as are received by people
of comparable ability in more productive parts of
the Nation’s economy?

2. Short of such full employment for the Na-
tion as a whole, what, if anything, can be done
to help the Nation’s low-income rural areas to
share more fully in the benefits of general eco-
nomic growth, especially in that growth which
results from Federal spending policies?

3. What are the relationships, if any, between
the income problems of the Nation’s low-income
farm areas, those of agriculture as a whole, and
those growing out of underemployment and un-
employment in the nonfarm economy? Are these
all the same general kind of problems in terms of
basic causes and in terms of the possibilities for
solution? In short, can the Nation’s rural low-
income problems be successfully attacked except
through policies and programs that are an in-
tegral part of the policies and programs that are
needed to promote the economic health of all of
agriculture and the rest of the Nation’s econ-
omy?

CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK

A pertinent question arises: Is the low-iii-
come situation in farming being resolved in this

    
   
   
   
   
    
   
   
  
  
   
    
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  

area? The answer is: Yes, partly. The »
ment in recent years of thousands of famil
higher income situations through nonfa u
ployment has been detailed earlier. 
growing industries within the area, as w
economic expansion outside the area, have i
ated to bring about this partial solution.
children of present farm families have r
mained in farming, but have left at the r
9 of every 10 who have left home. Appa
these trends are continuing, but at a slower;-
Thus, the pressure of a labor resource t
large in relation to farm and land resource
been and is being relieved. e

Yet, in terms of farm adjustment and p,
ganization, this large-scale movement of v
lation has brought only moderate adjustme
the farms that remain. There has been li ‘
any recombination of land and labor res
around larger and more efficient full-time '1
Much land is being left unused among a__
proportion of the rural families who have,
farming but who still reside in the rural y,
Farm and land resources, at least in the
run, are not being effectively adjusted t“
achievement of more efficient production;
higher income levels. Underemployment is
widespread among the families in full-time _
ing than amongilother rural families. Thi"
ture of what has occurred implies that/n
tion of the farm production potentials 0
area will not automatically follow the trad
of labor resources out of farming, but will
to be implemented in some manner if full
farming is to continue as a major feature o
area’s economy. 

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment is made to E. L. Lang's
Farm Economics Research Division, Agricu,
Research Service, U. S. Department of Ag
ture, and A. C. McGee, Texas Agricultura
periment Station, for consultation in pla‘
and carrying out this study. 5

Acknowledgment is also made to Robe
Smith, Jr., Data Processing Center, Texas
cultural Experiment Station, and his staff ff
sistance in constructing precoded schedules‘
in machine tabulation of data. i

Special acknowledgment is made to Ri
H. Wright, graduate research assistant, l j
Agricultural Experiment Station, for prelimi
data summaries and calculations, and to the
families who cooperated in the study.

a

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. D. Lewis, Director, College Station, Texas.

32