From 1929 to 1933 the value of California's agricultural production, and therefore the farmer's income, has been declining steadily, as the following data on the total farm income in California shows. This decline in the total agricultural income was the inevitable result of the declining agricultural prices for California farm products. This is seen in the following average monthly index of farm prices in California. 1929 1930 1931. Monthly average index of farm prices in California for all products 2 1932. Percent 136.5 139.5 84.7 69.8 The diminution of the State's agricultural income has been occasioned almost wholly by declining prices rather than decreased production, as the above data clearly indicate. Confronted with a reduced income for his crop, the California farmer was forced to reduce his operating expenses, and this was achieved to an appreciable degree. Like in all other industries, the cost of production in agriculture is distributed between the operating expenses, such as labor, fuel, etc., and fixed charges, such as interest payment, irrigation cost, power cost, and so on. Despite the depression and number of these costs, mainly the so-called "fixed costs", remained practically the same as in the predepression period. This, for example, was true of the power charges for irrigation and other purposes, of agricultural machinery, and interest payments. None of these elements of cost are under farmer's control and he, therefore, had to accept them as they were if he was to stay in business. The only cost that could be changed without much difficulty was the labor cost, and the farmer naturally took advantage of the fact as a means of reducing his costs in the face of declining prices. The shifting of the burden of depression on the agricultural laborer was the road of least resistance, and the ability of many farmers to survive during the trying years was due directly to the large reductions made in the wages of agricultural labor. One example will suffice to indicate what happened in this connection. According to the records of the State employment office at Bakersfield, cotton-picking price for 100 pounds was as follows: 1 Source: California Journal of Development, State Chamber of Commerce, January 1934. 2 Source: Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. University of California. As an average picker can pick approximately 200 pounds per day, the daily earning of the cotton picker in 1929 was $3 and in 1932 was only 80 cents, a decrease of $2.20 or 73% percent. So that the income of the farmer was greatly reduced during 1930, 1931, and 1932; it was the worker's income that suffered most phenomenally during this period. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT IN 1933 After declining steadily for 3 years, the value of California's agricultural production increased during 1933 and exceeded the 1932 total by $36,450,000, or 9.8 percent, although it was still considerably below the 1926-29 average. The total farm income in California in 1933 was $408,395,000, as against $371,965,000 in 1932, while the 1926-32 average was $613,203,000. So that while the total agricultural income in 1933 exceeded the 1932 income by 9.8 percent, it was still 33.4 percent below the 1926-32 average.' The following table compares the agricultural income of 1933 with that of 1932. Agricultural income of California1 (value at the farm) The general improvement in agriculture in 1933 may be traced directly to Government efforts. In this connection the introduction of a new form of production and marketing control under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, passed by Congress in May 1923, has been of vital significance in raising the level of agricultural prices of those commodities for which agreements were established. Agreements affecting production and marketing have been drawn already for many crops, such as clingstone peaches, rice, oranges, grapefruit; while growers of cotton and wheat have benefited from the appreciable rise in the price of commodities which was due, at least in part, to the crop-reduction efforts of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. It was, therefore, not accidental that the largest gains in prices registered by individual commodities were those commodities which were affected directly by the Agricultural Adjustment Act agreements, such as clingstone peaches, which was the only fruit for which a control agreement was completed in time to affect 1933 production and prices, and cotton. A comparison of the farm value of California crops and crop production for 1932 and 1933 shows that the increase in farm income for crops was due largely to increasing of prices for agricultural crops in 1933 as compared with 1932. Farm value of crops and crop production in California, 1932 and 19331 1 Source: California Journal of Development, State Chamber of Commerce, January 1934. As the above table shows, the harvested production of the 1933 California fruit and nut crop was 2.4 percent larger than in 1932, while the farm value for the group was 19.5 percent greater in 1933 than in 1932. In other words, for approximately the same amount crop the fruit and nut growers in California received $20,899,000 more for the sale of their products in 1933 than in the previous year. In the fruit group the most outstanding improvement in 1933, as compared with 1932, was in the peach industry. The total earnings for peach growers in 1933 amounted to $9,869,000 which was 147 percent above the farm value for the whole peach crop in 1932. This increase was due to the fact that the average price of both clingstone and freestone peaches in 1933 was almost double that of 1932, while for clingstone peaches alone, which came under the Agricultural Adjustment Act agreement, the aggregate earnings in 1933 were more than triple those of 1932, with approximately $5,731,000 being paid to growers. The next fruit crop to register a substantial increase in 1933 as compared with 1932 was the grape crop. Profiting by the repeal of prohibition, California grape growers received $25,000,000 for their crop in 1933, as compared to $20,785,000 in 1932, or 20.5 percent more. The mean average price per ton to the grower for all grapes produced in California was $16.10 in 1933 as compared to $11.72 per ton in 1932; the largest gain in prices was for wine grapes, the price per ton in 1933 averaging $19.75 as against $12 per ton in 1932. In the field crops, although production in terms of tonnage declined by 6.8 percent in 1933 compared to 1932, the farm value of field crops in 1933 amounted to $106,330,000, which was an increase of approximately $24,555,000, or 30 percent over 1932. Here the most pronounced gain was registered by the cotton industry, as the following tabulation shows: The total value of cotton and cottonseed in 1933 was $12,397,000 as against $5,051,000 in 1932, or 145 percent above the 1932 figure. That the increase was not due to the increased production alone, but also to the increase in the price of cotton and cottonseed received by the farmer is clear from the data on unit prices, as the following tabulation shows: In 1933 the price of cotton was thus 51.4 percent above 1932, while the price of cottonseed per ton brought the farmer 25.5 percent more in 1933 than in 1932. Among the other field crops in California which showed substantial gains in 1933 as compared with 1932 was the sugar-beet crop. In 1933 the sugar-beet crop gave sugar-beet growers $12,544,000 as against $8,528,000 in 1932, or 42.6. percent more, although the 1933 crop was only slightly above the 1932 crop. Truck crops, however, showed a decline both in acreage planted and in total farm value in 1933, as compared with 1932. The amount of vegetables planted 133130-35- -23 decreased by 10 percent and the total value of truck crops decreased by 8.2 Among the few exceptions to the general decline in prices of vegetables in The following table shows the value of leading agricultural crops of Cali- The improvement of the economic conditions of California agriculture in Wholesale commodity prices during the depression were declining until CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF COTTON PICKERS STRIKE, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, (Ex: San Francisco News, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Exam- SEPTEMBER 18 Tulare Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union announce cotton strike involving thousands of Mexican, Negro, white workers (men, women, and children), would be called within 10 days unless demands of $1 per hundredweight for picking is paid, instead of present 50-cent rate. (See Oct. 2 other demands.) SEPTEMBER 23 Fresno Over 300 growers offer 60 cents per hundredweight-compares with 40 cents, 1932. OCTOBER 2 Tulare General strike set for Wednesday October 4 by conference of 25 locals of Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union (4,000 organized workers, acreage over 100,000). Ten workers arrested at Wasco. Eight hundred already out at Bakersfield, Earlimart, Lerdo, Corcoran. Strike to begin in Southern regions;; to sweep North as crop ripens. Small farmers organizing United Farmers League locals: willing to grant pickers' demands; uniting with pickers in fight against Finance Corporation. American Federation of Labor Building Trades Council at Visalia pledges support. (See Oct. 9 counter action State American. Federation of Labor.) Additional demands of strikers include recognition of Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union no discrimination against workers for strike activity. Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union reports locals in 21 towns; others being organized daily. Unemployed being organized not to scab but to help strikers. OCTOBER 3 Tulare: 1,000 on strike; 5,000 threaten walkout tomorrow. OCTOBER 6 Fresno: Growers start organization against demands for increased pay; Kern County growers form Agricultural Protective League (vigilantes); Rabbi I. F. Reichert makes public letter to Governor Rolph stating "In the great majority of clashes between the peace officers and the strikers, the former were responsible for inciting to violence." OCTOBER 7 Fresno: Ranchers in Corcoran District arm themselves. Strike grows more intense. Strikers arrested: Frank Lopez, Louis Bradley, and 3 others, on vagrancy charge after conducting pickers' strike meeting. Mediation offered by State Labor Commissioner Frank C. MacDonald. Growers (San Joaquin Labor Bureau) refuse. Kern County, Fresno: Growers increasing organization to "Drive strike agitators out." MacDonald says refusal to mediate is unjustifiable and tends to encourage communism. Strikers have not yet replied to mediation offer. Growers order pickers to vacate picking camps. Evicted pickers camp in vacant lots; hundreds forced from camps. OCTOBER 9 Kern County, Arvin: Growers accused of boycott threat and starvation plot (accused by State Labor Commission). Pickets in valley strike invade fields; defy ouster. Cotton strike peace fails; clash feared. Rabbi Reichert declares employers' treatment of men outrageous. (All newspapers; 7-8 column, front page headlines.) Woodville strikers resume picketing (Vigilantes). Farmers threaten to disband picket lines by force. County highway patrolmen and sheriff's deputies mobilized. Three counties strike spreads over Tulare, Kings, and Kern Counties, all demand $1 a hundredweight; 10,000 now out. Growers declare "We can't pay a cent more than 60 cents." Vigilantes keynote: Direct action against strikers. |