Dear Hope: While scrubbing away with a hand power washer on my weekly laundry I was wondering why a farmer's wife has to do so much more real physical labor than the city man's wife.
The thought came to my mind of how the hard working farmer raises his grain, then who sets the price? We hear how it is controlled by the supply and demand, but in reality isn't it the speculator who sets the price? Of course the farmer does not receive a fair price for his grain, but the consumer pays enough for it, and if the government wants to help the farmer, why not abolish the speculator and then the middle men will only be those who are necessary to handle the grain, thus bringing the producers' and consumers' price closer together. There certainly is too wide a margin between the producer and consumer and where does it go?
A lot of it goes into the hands of the speculator who happens to be the lucky one. Wouldn't it be better if it were divided between the producer and consumer?
Much of our grain lies hoarded in the store house, benefiting no one except the speculator, and when our new cops come on this stored grain plays havoc with the prices.
I do not relish the idea of the farmer being referred to as a "down and outer" or "broke and don't know it." when the fact is he is the most independent and essential man in the world.
Of course, this is too big a question for a farm's wife to tackle, but I'm certainly anxious to see an improvement in farm conditions and it does seem to be a mistake to have our grain turned loose into the hands of the speculator. It's like throwing a bone to a pack of hungry hounds the way they grapple over it. Yes, I've watched "the pit," and it is one grand mass of scrambling, roaring, deafening excitement.
Hard work? Yes, mentally, but is it a legitimate business? And isn't it a detriment both to the farmer and to many a small speculator?
I enjoy your column. Some of the wives' troubles do seem trivial, but no doubt many of them will realize this as they grow older and have bigger trials come to them. I say just be thankful if you have good health and plenty of substantial food for your family and a comfortable home.
Best wishes to all. --M. E. H., Illinois.
None Too Big for Sincere
Too big a subject? There is no subject too big for any sincere person to tackle, and in this matter of the welfare of the agricultural population certainly the women not only have the right to express themselves but should consider it their duty. In no other business is the wife so intimately a part of the "firm." And in deciding what is wrong and what needs to be done to correct any existing evils, we need to take another of those "far looks." We need to look at the matter not only from an individual standpoint, not even from a class standpoint, but from the point of view of the whole nation. We must admit that middlemen fulfill a necessary function in such a complex civilization as ours. We must admit that even speculation (that is, dealing futures, taking a risk or making a gamble on the future) serves a legitimate and worthy purpose. If it were not for some form of speculation we could never hope to stabilize prices. But it is obvious that much of the speculation indulged in nowadays, both in farm products and in stocks and bonds, is only a mad orgy of buying and selling phantom values, resulting in bitterness of feeling and inequalities. Neither the profits nor the losses in such dealings are in proportion to the effort involved, nor to the value of the service. But just where to draw the line between helpful speculation (a wholesome risk on the future) and between pure gambling (an attempt to win at someone else's expense) is the problem which has never yet been solved. We hope that the new federal farm board, by building up co-operatives powerful enough to influence the market will be a solution. Only time will tell. Certainly the farm board is is functioning as actively and definitely as any federal board has ever done in its first half year.
Real Work Yet to Be Done
It is all very well to say that no legislation will be effective. It is true that we cannot expect legislation to solve the problem, and now that we have the legislation creating the farm board, the real work is still to be done. However, this much legislation was needed; for neither individual farmers nor small co-operatives were powerful enough to accomplish anything -- just as local option was not powerful enough to conquer the liquor evil. And with farm relief, as with prohibition, we must expect a long period of experimentation even after the law is passed. In both matters we may eventually have to "back track" (we hope not!), but it is only by trying out the experiment on a national scale that we can hope to make progress. Except for minor corrections in the operation of the board, we should not look to further legislation to solve our problems, except for a law modernizing our tax system to equalize the burden.
The individual farmer must still carry his own responsibilities. No law and no co-operative organization can make a shiftless farmer into an industrious one, nor turn a poor farm into a productive one. The inefficient farmers cannot expect to be carried long by the workers, but must turn to other occupations. The poor or marginal lands (that is, those which even with good management can barely pay their way) may need to be bought up by the government and re-forested, or in some other way withdrawn from competition. And new lands should not be opened up until they are needed.
But in other respects each farmer must work out his own salvation, and that means he must bring himself and his farm to the highest point of productivity. With the help of his big marketing co-operatives and the farm board, he can then demand an equitable reward for his efforts and his produce. The old law of supply and demand has been too many times manipulated to get desired effects for us to accept it as our fate. Any talk of a "farmer's strike" or arbitrary limitation of acreage is not only unwise but impracticable. Here is the straightforward way in which this principle was expressed by E. E. Stevenson, the president of our own country farm bureau at its recent annual meeting:
"Surplus Matter of Imagination"
"The farm bureau and the Illinois Agricultural association, officered as they are from the bottom to the top by actual farmers and producers, are lending valuable assistance to the co-operative societies for the handling and marketing of farm products...
"It is not the province of the farm bureau to encourage a decrease in production. With the best that we have been able to do, we are within six months of starvation. The surplus with which we are confronted is largely a matter of imagination and is but seasonable at the most.
"A plan of orderly marketing by which the price of a commodity may be stabilized throughout the year will do much more to settle the question of the surplus than a program of decreased production, which is to begin with, impracticable and could only result in great suffering to those least able to t stand it. Efficiency in production has been and must continue to be the watchword of the farm bureau. The fertility of the soil must at least be maintained or increased if possible. We have no moral right to burden the generations yet to come with a depleted soil in order that we may enjoy a temporary benefit in increased prices for our products."
(As space is running short we will conclude this discussion tomorrow with an article written by our own Faith Feigar a little over 10 years ago.)