-- 9. #Divergent views of effects on population.# The foregoing views of the effects of immigration upon wages, both of those favoring and those opposing it, are short-time views, relating to immediate rather than ultimate effects. If the immediate causes are continuously repeated throughout the lives of successive generations the results are for those mortal men as ultimate as anything that concerns them.
In this case it would make no difference to the millions of workers, whose wages are depressed, if it could be shown that wages fifty or a hundred years from now would be no lower as a result of continued immigration than they otherwise would be; or to the employer that wages would then be no higher. But to the social philosopher and to the statesman, interested in the abiding general welfare, the ultimate economic effects are of the greatest importance.
The question is: What will be the far-reaching, long-time effects of immigration upon the general economic situation, as that determines the welfare of the mass of the people? We confine ourselves here to the economic effects, leaving aside as far as possible the racial, moral, religious, political, and general social aspects of the subject.
We are met at the outset by two divergent opinions as to the permanent results of immigration upon the growth of population. The one is that all immigrants coming to our shores are net additions, hastening by so much the growth in density of population; the other opinion, the displacement theory, is that immigration has the effect of checking the natural increase of the native stock so much that it does not materially change the total population, or actually causes it to be less than it would have been had no immigration occurred.
-- 10. #The displacement theory; its fundamental assumption.# The latter opinion which still has many upholders[6] was first advanced by a distinguished economist, Francis A. Walker, but his first statement of it referred only to the period between 1830 and 1860. The main argument in support of this opinion was that in the three decades from 1830 to 1860 during which a large immigration occurred, the decennial rates of increase of the population were almost the same as in the three decades from 1800 to 1830.[7] The conclusion drawn from these figures is that the immigrants were the cause of the decline of the average birthrate that occurred in the families of native stock. The validity of this conclusion is absolutely dependent on the assumption that no other forces were at work to produce this result. Must we believe that, but for immigration, the native birthrate would not have declined at all? This is incredible. The birthrate of the native stock had already begun to decline before 1820 as is shown by many family records, and by the fall of the decennial rate of increase from 35 and 36 in the decades ending 1800 and 1810, to 33.1 and 33.5 in the next two decades. This occurred despite the enormous western settlement then under way on the Louisiana Purchase. The decline of the birthrate began at that time to appear as a world-wide phenomenon, accompanying improved transportation (roads, steamboats, steam railways), the rapid growth of cities, and the general industrial revolution. The general birthrate has declined of recent years in Australia and New Zealand, where there has been little immigration, more rapidly than it has in the United States.[8]
-- 11. #Magnitude of the inflow of immigrants.#In view of these facts it seems necessary to modify the displacement theory greatly. To the extent that the coming of immigrants caused a net addition to the population, it doubtless hastened the growth of cities and the development of industrialism, and thus helped to reduce the birthrate in some classes. But this view admits the effect upon population which the displacement theory denies. Probably, in a good many cases the more rapid business advancement of the natives, because of the coming of the immigrants, led to the decline of birthrate that is a consequence of economic success.[9] But a large part of this change would have inevitably occurred even if there had been no immigration after 1820. Between 1820 and 1910 the population increased 82,400,000, and the total number of immigrants was 27,800,000, or 33.7 per cent of the total increase. In an urban environment the birthrate among immigrants always has been very much higher than that of native Americans. This fact alone might well be taken as sufficient to offset whatever depressing effects the coming of the immigrants may have had upon the native birthrate, leaving the immigration nearly a net addition to population. It does not seem possible to believe that if there had been no immigration, our native population, rapidly advancing in average wealth, wages, and general education, would have continued with an unchecked birthrate, and would have filled all the places taken by immigrants. And no believer in the displacement theory has ever ventured to claim, as the argument requires, that if immigration were now stopped, the birthrate would again return to the old standard of 1820, or would cease to decrease somewhat. Especially of late, since the rate of increase of the native population has become much less, is the effect of continuing immigration apparent.
In the decade of 1900-1910 the total population increased 16,000,000, while nearly 9,000,000 immigrants arrived. Of the remaining increase, 3,000,000 consisted of children born of foreign parents. That leaves three or at the most four million (4,000,000) increase attributable to the native stock, white and negro combined.
-- 12. #Earlier and recent effects of immigration upon wages.# Let us now correlate the principle of decreasing returns and the facts as to the exploitation of our natural resources[10] with the growth of our population, on the assumption that immigration has been a net contribution to our numbers. While the vast frontier was open to settlement, the growth of population could not fail to be looked upon as a blessing, even tho somewhat mixed with political evils, immorality, and pauperism. Beginning in colonial times, the policy of "the open door" to immigrants came thus to be deemed the traditional, patriotic American policy. Yet there is grave reason to believe that the rate of growth in the nineteenth century was wastefully rapid and that a slower and sounder growth might have been better.[11] However, this rapid growth was largely extensive, spreading over wider areas, and was consistent with a pretty steady rise of real wages in America until about 1895,[12] the level continuing higher than that of Europe despite the contemporaneous rise of wages there. Much of this general rise is undoubtedly attributable to the adoption of better tools, machinery, and industrial processes, the more so as inventions and new methods have rapidly become free goods.[13] The beneficial improvements long cooperated with the rapid exploitation of rich resources to raise real wages, and then undoubtedly continued to offset for a time the unfavorable effects as the richer resources began to show signs of exhaustion. Since the end of the last century, however, the net trend upward seems to be checked, and "the rising cost of living" (real cost) has come to be a serious actuality for larger sections of the population.[14]
Yet so long as wages are enough higher in America to pay the passage of the low-paid workers of the industrially backward nations, they will continue to come. The ease and cheapness of migration in these days of steamships, the encouragement of immigration by the agencies and advertisements of the steamship lines, and the increasing readiness of the peasantry to migrate, have become well known through recent discussions. Unless immigration is limited, it must continue to depress the wages of American workingmen, through both its immediate and its ultimate effects.
-- 13. #Laissez-faire policy of immigration.# There are those who take a fatalistic, or a _laissez-faire_, view of the subject, and declare that the problem will solve itself as the level of American wages comes to be nearly the same as that of the countries of Europe from which our immigration is coming. True enough, if this can be called a "solution." There are many who cherish the commercial ideal according to which cheap labor is absolutely desirable and needful to produce cheaper products. This ideal has spread to wider circles. Here, for example, are the words of a man who combines wide knowledge of the facts of immigration with keen sympathy for the working classes:[15]
"The past industrial development of America points unerringly to Europe as the source whence our unskilled labor supply is to be drawn . . . America is in the race for the markets of the world; its call for workers will not cease." Yet a little further on he must say: "All wage-earners in America agree that it is not as easy to make a living to-day as it was twenty years ago, and the dollar does not go so far now as it did then. The conflict for subsistence on the part of the wage-earner is growing more stern as we increase in numbers and industrial life becomes more complicated, and the fact must be faced that the vast army of workers must live more economically if peace and well-being are to prevail."
-- 14. #Social-protective policy of immigration.# A different kind of solution is offered by those who favor the strict limitation, if not the complete prohibition, of immigration.
The foregoing study indicates that the time has come, if it is not far past, when the traditional policy of fostering immigration is opposed to the welfare of the masses of the people. This belief can be based solely on grounds of numbers, the relation of population to resources, quite apart from a preference for particular races or the familiar arguments regarding social and political evils and lack of assimilation, however valid they may be. The limitation of immigration would immediately improve working-class conditions where they are worst in America,[16] and would check and probably reverse the tendency to diminishing returns already manifest in many directions.
This opinion does not necessitate an absolute prohibition of immigration; it is consistent with the continuance of immigration of a strictly selected character, and in numbers so small that all European immigrants now here could be rapidly and completely assimilated, economically and racially. With a slow national increase of population and with the continued progress of science and the arts, it should be possible for real wages to continue indefinitely rising in America.
The selection of immigrants to be admitted should be a part of a national policy of eugenics,[17] which aims to improve the racial quality of the nation by checking the multiplication of the strains defective in respect to mentality, nervous organization, and physical health, and by encouraging the more capable elements of the population to contribute in due proportion to the maintenance of a healthy, moral, and efficient population. In such a view, a eugenic opportunity is presented in the selection and admission of immigrants that are distinctly above (not merely equal to) the average of our general population.
-- 15. #Population and militarism#. In view of the recrudescence of the spirit of armed national aggression evident of late, and especially in the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the military aspect of the population question deserves serious consideration. The growth of savage and barbarian tribes in numbers, so that their customary standards of living were threatened, frequently has led to the invasion and conquest of their richer neighbors.[18] To-day nations on a higher plane of living are probably repeating history. The nation with an expanding population is tempted to seek an outlet for its numbers and for its products by entering upon a policy of commercial expansion, which in turn has to be supported by stronger military and naval establishments. It is led by primitive impulses that to it carry their own moral justification, to possess the territory of its neighbors. The immediate occasion is probably some matter of internal politics, such as growing discontent and democratic sentiment among the people. Nations with slowly growing populations, and still possessed of ample territories to maintain their accustomed standards of life, naturally favor the _status quo_, and are pacifist or nonmilitarist. If they arm it is for their own safety. In this view, militarism is seen to consist not in having drilled soldiers and stores of munitions, but in the national state of mind that would use these for aggression, not merely for defense. When, therefore, a powerful nation has reached a certain stage in the relation of its population to resources, limitation of population not limitation of armaments is the real pacifism; and increase of population, not increased military training or a larger navy, is the real militarism.
-- 16. #Problem of maximum military power.# It is a grave question, however, whether a nation with a comparatively sparse population, high wages, and great wealth can safely limit that population in the presence of a capable, ambitious, and efficient rival that covets such opportunities. On the one hand, a population may be so sparse that it has not soldiers enough to defend its territory against a numerous enemy; on the other hand, it may be so dense, and consequently average incomes be so low, that it cannot properly train, arm, and support its population of military age. The recent developments in the art of warfare call for great use of the mechanical industries, for great power to endure taxation, and for great financial resources, conditions found only where the average of national income is high.
The point of maximum military power must be far short of the maximum possible population. It would seem that a nation of 100,000,000 inhabitants favorably situated to resist aggression, well supplied with the natural materials for munitions, and well equipped to produce them, might safely limit its numbers so as to ensure a high level of popular income. This safety would be greatly increased by permanent alliance with other peoples likewise limiting their numbers and, therefore, interested in maintaining the peace of the world. In this way it would be possible for them all to maintain a standard of popular well-being even higher than is fully consistent with the maximum military power, even in the presence of prolific and aggressive rival nations.
[Footnote 1: Even more important than these is the relative decrease of the successful strains of the population, briefly treated in Vol.
I, ch. 33. This is the problem of eugenics, the choice and biologic breeding of capable men to be the citizens of the nation, and broadly understood, it includes both the negro and the immigrant problems.]
[Footnote 2: See Vol. I, p. 430, figure 58, showing the fall in the decennial rate of increase of negroes compared with whites; and see comment in accompanying note.]
[Footnote 3: See above, ch. 20, sec. 11, and references in note.]
[Footnote 4: See below, sec. 12.]
[Footnote 5: See Vol. I, p. 221, on non-competing classes.]
[Footnote 6: The latest and best statement is that of H.P. Fairchild, "Immigration," pp. 215-225, citing various opinions, and accepting the view of Walker. But he says (p. 216): "It must be admitted that this is not a proposition which can be demonstrated in an absolutely mathematical way, which will leave no further ground for argument."]
[Footnote 7: See Vol. I, p. 429, for figures of population and of decennial rates of increase.]
[Footnote 8: The effect of the growth of cities is discussed in the "American Journal of Sociology," Vol. 18, p. 342, in an article on "Walker's Theory of Immigration," by E.A. Goldenweiser.]
[Footnote 9: See Vol. I, p. 420.]
[Footnote 10: See Vol. I, chs. 34 and 35.]
[Footnote 11: E.g., see above ch. 14, sec. 11 on the prodigal land policy.]
[Footnote 12: See Vol. I, p. 436 ff.]
[Footnote 13: See Vol. I, ch. 36, on machinery and wages.]
[Footnote 14: For analysis of the available statistics bearing on the subject, with conclusions that real wages are no longer rising, see H.P. Fairchild, in "American Economic Review" (March, 1916), "The standard of living-up or down?"]
[Footnote 15: Peter Roberts, in "The New Immigration," 1912, preface, p. viii, and p. 47.]
[Footnote 16: See above, sec. 7; also ch. 21, sec. 9.]
[Footnote 17: See above, sec. 2, note; also Vol. I, p. 422.]
[Footnote 18: See Vol. I, p, 412, on war and the pressure of population.]
PART VI
PROBLEMS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
CHAPTER 25
AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL POPULATION
-- 1. Agriculture and farms in the United States. -- 2. Rural and agricultural. -- 3. Lack of a social agricultural policy in America. -- 4.
Period of decaying agricultural prosperity. -- 5. Sociological effects of agricultural decay. -- 6. Fewer, relatively, occupied in agriculture; use of machinery. -- 7. Transfer of work from farm to factory. -- 8. The rural exodus. -- 9. The farmer's income in monetary terms. -- 10.
Compensations of the farmer's life. -- 11. Ownership and tenancy.
-- 1. #Agriculture and farms in the United States#. There were nearly 12,400,000 persons in the United States gainfully occupied in agriculture in 1910, this being 32.5 per cent of all in occupations.
These, together with other family members not reported as engaged in gainful occupations, constitute the agricultural population, and comprize more than one third of the total population of the country.
"Agriculture" is here used in a broad sense, including floriculture, animal husbandry (poultry, bee culture, stock raising), regular fishing and oystering, forestry and lumbering. Agriculture thus produces not only the food but (excepting minerals, including coal, stone, natural gas, and oil) the raw or partly finished materials for all the manufacturing and mechanical industries.
With the exception of areas devoted to forestry on a large scale and to fishing, the industry of agriculture is pursued on the 6,400,000 farms, covering 46 per cent of the total land area of the country. Of the land in farms, a little over half is classified as improved. The estimated value of farm property, including buildings, implements, machinery, and live stock, was, in 1910, about $41,000,000,000, somewhere near one fourth of the estimated wealth of the country at that date.[1]
-- 2. #Rural and agricultural.# The adjectives rural and agricultural are often used loosely as synonyms. Agricultural refers primarily to the occupation of cultivating the soil, and is properly contrasted with other occupations, as mechanical and professional; whereas rural refers to place of residence outside of incorporated places of a specified minimum population (of late, 2500), and is properly contrasted with urban, applied to those living in larger population groupings. In 1910 the rural population comprised 53.7 per cent of the total population. It is true that the two groups of the agricultural and the rural populations are largely composed of the same persons, but to a considerable extent they are not. Many farm houses, together with part or all of the farm lands, lie inside urban boundaries, and, besides, some persons engaged in agriculture reside in urban places.
On the other hand, any one acquainted in the least with a rural district (in the statistical sense) can at once think of many persons living there that are not engaged in agriculture; they may be merchants, warehousemen, railway employees, physicians, handicraftsmen, teachers, artists, retired business men, and others.
The percentages given in this and in the preceding section indicate that about two fifths of the rural families are not engaged in agriculture.
It is often important to make this distinction, tho it is difficult to do; for some of the much-discussed rural questions are of a broad social nature, are matters of rural sociology, relating pretty generally to the rural population; while other questions of "rural economics" are more strictly matters of agricultural economics and relate to the farm as a unit of industry, or to agriculture as an occupation.