Clarence D. Long. Wages and Earnings in the United States, 1860-1890. (Na tional Bureau of Economic Research, No. 67, General Studies.) Pp. xvii, 169. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1960. $4.00

• Author: Michael O'Connor
• Published date: 01 September 1961
• Date: 01 September 1961
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/000271626133700166
• Subject Matter: Articles

202

garding

the

Beard

controversy

over

the

Constitution,

the

author’s

unwillingness

to

follow

his

analysis

and

data

to

their

psy-

chological,

if

not

logical,

conclusion

leaves

him

on

the

safe

middle

ground.

CHARLES

HOFFMAN

Assistant

Professor

of

Economics

Queens

College

Flushing

New

York

CLARENCE

D.

LONG.

Wages

and

Earnings

in

the

United

States,

1860-1890.

(Na-

tional

Bureau

of

Economic

Research,

No.

67,

General

Studies.)

Pp.

xvii,

169.

Princeton,

N.

J.:

Princeton

University

Press,

1960.

$4.00.

This

valuable

National

Bureau

report

is

far

and

away

the

best

thing

available

on

American

wages,

1860-1890.

Dr.

Long

analyzes

the

procedures

of

his

predecessors,

is

explicit

about

his

own,

and

sets

up

new

series.

He

treats

not

only

money

wages,

cost

of

living,

and

real

wages,

hourly

and

daily,

but

also

annual

earnings

and

their

variations

according

to

industry,

region,

occupation,

sex,

and

age.

Basically,

the

work

centers

on

wage

rates

in

manufactur-

ing

and

in

building.

Quite

by

chance,

a

narrowing

process

has

been

going

on

among

the

scholars

who

are

deciding

how

much

rise

in

real

wages

oc-

curred

between

the

year

1860

and

the

year

1890.

The

end-result

of

each

principal

index

created

thus

far

falls

in

between

the

end-results

obtained

by

the

two

immedi-

ately

preceding

studies.

For

example,

Long’s

end-result

of

a

50

per

cent

over-all

rise-manufacturing-falls

in

between

Hansen’s

68

per

cent

rise

and

Phelps

Brown’s

32

per

cent

rise

(p.

64).

Some

earlier

real-wage

indexes

for

1860-

1890

tended

to

climb

very

high

partly

because

the

compilers

used

essentially

wholesale

prices

for

a

cost

of

living

index

which

fell

over

6

per

cent.

Other

real-wage

indexes

rose

much

less,

over-all,

partly

because

they

relied

on

the

Mitchell-Burgess

retail-price

series

which

want

up

from

100

to

124.

Now

Long

uses

a

new

Hoover-

Long

retail-price

index,

which

actually

drops

from

100

to

98.

Partly

for

this

reason,

his

end-product

of

a

50

per

cent

rise

in

real

wages

falls

in

the

middle

of

the

earlier

results.

There

are,

of

course,

other

highly

important

factors

involved

that

relate

to

his

money-wage

index

(pp.

13,

19,

39,

64).

But

the

various

investigators

have

dis-

agreed

much

less

on

the

amount

of

over-all

rise

in

money

wages,

1860-1890,

than

they

have

on

real

wages.

At

the

end

of

a

substantial

study,

Long

adds

a

few

pages

of

eclectic

interpreta-

tion-with

cautions

placed

around

each

conclusion

like

guards

on

a

castle

wall.

Still,

some

emphasis

manages

to

emerge

on

the

influence

of

the

capital

factor.

Long

does

say

(p.

115):

&dquo;Between

1860

and

1890,

capital

per

wage

earner

approxi-

mately

doubled,

with

the

entire

increase

apparently

concentrated

in

the

1880’s,

the

decade

of

the

greatest

rise

in

productivity

and

real

wages.

Thus

the

lag

of

real

wages,

real

earnings,

and

productivity

between

1860

and

1880

was

probably

due

to

the

dilution

of

the

capital

endowment

per

worker

during

these

years.&dquo;

This

quotation

must

be

based

on

the

fact

that

real

daily

wages-manufacturing

-rose

from

$1.19

in

1860

to

$1.40

in

1880,

to

$1.79

to

1890;

and

so

about

40

cents

of

this

total

60-cent

rise

occurred

after

1880

(p.

152,

Aldrich

series).

But

the

same

table

also

shows

that

real

wages

dropped,

1860

to

1864,

and

then

rose

from

84

cents

in

1864

to

$1.41

in

1876,

to

$1.79

in

1890.

So

57

cents

of

this

total

95-

cent

rise,

60

per

cent,

took

place

between

1864

and

1876.

Are

we

to

believe

that

an

1864-1894

study

would

produce

results

the

reverse

of

Long’s

conclusions

on

1860-

1890 ?

But,

regardless

of

questions

on

any

in-

terpretive

embroidery,

it

is

enough

that

a

man

produces

a

solid

and

significant

sta-

tistical

report.

MICHAEL

O’CONNOR

Professor

of

Economics

Central

Michigan

University

EGAL

FELDMAN.

Fit

for

Men: A

Study

of

New

York’s

Clothing

Trade.

Pp.

vii,

138.

Washington,

D.

C.:

Public

Affairs

Press,

1960.

$3.25.

This

austerely

printed

little

book

with

the

enigmatic

title

is

an

excellent

study

of

the

rise

of

the

New

York

City

men’s

clothing

trade

between

1800

and

1860.