Fortschritt und Armut

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1027863817

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-43741

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: George, Henry http://d-nb.info/gnd/118716948

Title:: Fortschritt und Armut

Edition:: Sechste, unveränderte Auflage

Place of publication:: Jena

Publisher:: Verlag von Gustav Fischer

Year of publication:: 1920

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XII, 407 Seiten)

Digitisation:: 2018

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Buch II. Bevölkerung und Unterhaltsmittel

Collection:: Economics Books

34 COSTS OF PRODUCING SUGAR BEETS The proper basis for prorating the costs of such items is that which most equitably distributes them according to the benefits derived. The amount of indirect labor varies with the individual farm and farmer. Investigations of detailed cost accounts kept on represent- ative farms in Minnesota, Kansas, and New York show that the total indirect labor on such farms amounts to from 10.8 to 23.4 per cent of the total labor.” The variation in rates is due in part to differences in cost-accounting methods and in part to differences in the types of farms considered. Analysis of these data shows that indirect labor, such ‘as is chargeable to sugar beets, ranges from 614 to 10 per cent of the total direct labor. As 614 per cent of total direct labor on sugar beets amounts to approximately 15 per cent of the labor on machine operations on beets, indirect labor is calculated by adding 15 per cent of labor on machine operations to the total direct labor charges. The hours of direct labor have been used as the basis of prorating the indirect labor. Contract or hand-labor costs include blocking, thinning, hoeing, pulling, topping, and sometimes the loading of the beets onto wagons. All such work is “hand” labor, as distinguished from ‘machine’ labor, such as plowing and harrowing, which are usually performed by the farmer and operator or by his regular hired help. Because such hand labor is largely done under contract and because the con- tracts are uniformly drawn to include the same items it is grouped under “contract labor.” Hand labor, whether performed by labor- ers under contract for so much an acre, by the farm operator and his family, or by the regular farm-hired help, is charged at the contract rates. To the amount charged at the regular contract rate are added extra wages where actually paid for harvesting a crop yielding more than a specified tonnage or for extra hoeing, and also the estimated value of perquisites actually furnished the contract laborers by the grower of the beets. The contract rates were charged for these labor items because on the average for all the areas investigated in the nine States 82.4 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 77.3 per cent of the hoeing, and 82.1 per cent of the pulling and topping were actually done under contract by laborers hired specifically for this work at so much an acre; while 13.5 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 16.2 per cent of the hoeing, and 13.1 per cent of the pulling and topping were done by members of the growers’ families, other than the growers them- selves, and 4.1 per cent of the blocking and thinning, 6.5 per cent of the hoeing, and 4.8 per cent of the pulling and topping by the growers and their regular hired help other than the contract beet laborers. The interest on the advances made by the sugar companies to the farmers for the payment of contract labor is treated separately as a capital charge, and is therefore not included as part of contract labor costs. } Horse costs, often referred to as horse-labor costs, were determined by separate inquiries carried on concurrently with the farm study of sugar-beet costs. These inquiries were conducted on a number of the same farms for which beet costs were ascertained. Feeds 11 Minnesota Experiment Station Bull. 205, p. 92, shows that on 21 farms in 1920, 16.3 per cent of total labor was indirect labor; on 22 farms in 1921, 10.8 per cent of total labor was indirect labor; and on the average for the two years 1920, 1921, the indirect labor was 15.7 per cent of the direct labor. U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Bull. 1271, p. 68, shows a rate of 13.5 per cent on Minnesota farms. U. S. Department of Agriculture manuscript, in press, shows a rate of 16 per cent on Kansas farms. New York Experiment Station Bull. 414, p. 44, shows a rate of 23.4 per cent on Mew York farms.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Fortschritt und Armut

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation