WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION 215

reagon why the inefficient laborer in America should make more? Twenty to
25 cents a day is about what the Egyptian cotton-field laborer makes, what the
Chinese coolie makes, what the African laborer makes, and the Mexian peon,
the European peasant and the laborer in the East Indian rubber plantations.
Twenty to 25 cents a day appears to be about what the world pays for common,
ordinary labor, in which one man does the work of only one man. And 20 to
25 cents a day, we now find by actual survey in the field, is what our American
laborers actually do make in producing world-market crops by labor that does
only one man’s work a day.
But if you were to charge American agriculture with the basic world wage of
25 cents a day, paving the man who does the work of one man, 25 cents, and the
man who is geared up so that he can do the work of two men, 50 cents, and the
man who does the work of four, $1, and so on, then the profit-and-loss sheet of
American agriculture would probably just about balance or show a profit,
And here in these figures and considerations, we suddenly realize is actually the
arm problem.
If Mr. Carr’s conclusions, supported by the best economists, are
correct, and in the long run what a man can earn on a commodity
that enters into the world markets can only be what other producers
on the same basis earn from the same crop, then we must face some
hard conclusions. The reason the cotton grower in the South can
earn, as has been proven, but 20 to 25 cents a day for his labor in
producing his cotton crop is that he can not multiply his efficiency
by the use of labor-saving devices, nor, conversely, can he utilize
his own time to the full, because he can not afford to plant and care
for more cotton than he himself, with his family, can harvest. In
other words, his peak labor demand limits his activities for the rest
of the year.
An application of the facts just cited from Mr. Carr leads, I believe,
to the inevitable conclusion that there are three ways out for the
American farmer.
One is to follow the suggestions of Congressman Box and others,
to do away with itinerant laborers and have our people settle down
in one locality and operate our farms on a ‘‘one-man-one-farm’”
basis, thus bringing them to practical peasantry, as these men admit
is the case now in the South.
Another is to encourage our American farmers to make the most
of what they have and of what is in them by enabling them profitably
 to employ their own labor throughout the entire year, or practically
 so, and then, through the use of itinerant labor, moying from
one crop peak to another, as they do in the Southwest, make it possible
to increase the efficiency of the individual farmer and automatically
multiply his earning power by his increased ability to produce. }
Another alternative, which we might discuss here every briefly, is
the development of an entirely new system of handling both industry
and agriculture in this country, by so decentralizing industry that
the employees of industry may live on and operate their “one-man ”’
farms and may utilize their spare hours, which will be many, in
industrial employment. } } .
Such a plan will tend to equalize the economic status of the industrial
 worker and the farmer by combining the two into one. CL
Mr. Box. Do you see anywhere where we can have such a condition
as that?
Mr. Tavror. I will come to that in a moment. In doing so it will
reduce the earning capacity of the industrial plant during the peak of
crop labor demands, but will on the other hand bring up the returns