The preceding chapters on hazards of production and of the cotton market show the great fluctuations in cotton yields and incomes. Table XVII showing the average per acre value of cotton to the producer has been translated into terms of annual cash incomes for family-sized cotton farms of ten and twenty acres. The purchasing power of cotton per pound and per acre in terms of the Bureau of Labor index is also given.
It was the conclusion of the Joint Commission of Agri cultural Inquiry of the U. S. Congress in 1921 that "as expressed in purchasing power cotton is relatively less profitable than either corn or wheat." " The reactions of these fluctuations on the farmer's budget deserve more than a passing word of comment. Students of the budgets of workingmen have pointed out the bad effect of alternating periods of prosperity and depression on the standards of living of workingmen's families. No regular planning for expenditures, it is held, is possible; extravagance dissipates the surplus during good times, and hard times can be met only by reducing standards below minimum levels of health and decency. It is likely that an income striking an average between the high and low levels would lead to progres sively rising levels of consumption in clothing and diet.
The relations that the hazards of the cotton industry hold to the standard of living of the producer are fairly well known. E. E. Miller reports a country banker as observing that "the farm deposits begin coming into his bank in the fall of a good year, piling up until about January, then decreasing until spring, when the bor rowing season begins, and finally giving away by mid summer almost altogether to farmers' Replies to questionnaires " sent out indicated that of the money received for the 1925 crop, 11.6 per cent would be spent for improvement, new machinery, buildings, and better live stock, 5.4 per cent would be placed in sound invest ments, and 17 per cent would be wasted.
The unwarranted expenditure of the higher cash in comes for cotton is found to a greater degree among many of the poorest producers. An investigator of the living conditions of the cotton farmers of North Caro lina in 1916 and 1917, years in which they had received high prices, says that in times of high cotton prices, "the farmer soon falls victim to the hordes of agents who radiate from the small towns and have just the thing the farmer needs, usually at exorbitant prices."' Automobiles, nostrums, horse doctor books, enlarged family portraits, expensive family Bibles, and large wall maps of the state and the nation are among the many things the farmer buys. "Because of lack of thrift and his ignorance, he soon parts with his money, and the essentials for the farm and the family are still lacking." e1 The student of the subject will agree with E. E. Miller when he says : "No part of the country needs the dis cipline of systematic saving or a realization of the im portance of a little accumulation as does the rural South," ' and will be tempted to add that no section has less opportunity to learn these principles as long as its cash income, dependent on cotton, is subject to vio lent fluctuations.
Yet another phase of family living purchased by the cotton farmer remains to be discussed—the vexatious problem of credit. It is difficult to state how many grow ers run accounts at supply stores, commissaries, or with landlords, but estimates previously cited run from 50 to 90 per cent.
Studies made in the field, cited in the chapter on the cotton system, seem to point to an interest charge on short-time merchant credit of 20 to 25 per cent per annum. If this figure is accepted as reasonable it is worth while to examine the bearing such a charge has on the farmer's standard of living. A likely procedure in arriving at real expenditures would be as follows : In the budget of farmer's living during the growing season on consumption credit, the items headed "family living purchased" should be credited to the family living at from 75 to 85 per cent of their money value. In other words, if the family while making the crop ran an ac count of $100 at a supply store, they may be considered as having consumed $75 to $85 worth of goods. The other has been paid for interest charges. To this extent the figures given us on livings of southern farmers are padded with high interest charges that do not represent goods consumed. For example, the average amount of credit advanced to 1,330 Negro families on cotton plan tations in 1920 and 1921 was previously cited at $289 for croppers and $555 for tenants. It may be safely as sumed that these families consumed goods to the value of from 75 to 80 per cent of the sums mentioned, the remaining being interest charges. This fact must be re garded as of particular importance, because the lower income groups, such as the croppers, tend to buy a large percentage of their food and are less able to pay cash for it. It is thus extremely likely that their living stand ards are even lower than the low figures secured suggest. It is desirable that future standards of living, studies among farmers in the South take this factor into account and estimate the percentage of the living that is bought on a time basis. At that, such a study will leave out of consideration the poverty of resources of the small town store in supplying a varied and healthful dietary. It may also be suggested that clothing cost will be found less likely in the Cotton Belt to come under merchant credit. The purchasing of needed articles of apparel is deferred until the cotton is sold. It is not uncommon in the fall to see a tenant's whole family invade the stores for shoes all around. The period after harvest at which credit relations are resumed by tenants depends upon their surplus after making settlement. If the yield has been poor and the price low, it will be necessary for them to resume credit relations at once. In such cases practi cally the whole living purchased will be subject to time prices.