these figures may be accepted as indicating that the increase in the physical volume of production was roughly commensurate with the natural increase in man-power and was about what would normally have been expected. It is certain that the war did not have the effect of enriching us by stimulating our workers as a whole to extraordinary effort.
Examination of the figures in more detail throws further light on the subject. It appears that the production of lumber, cement, sand, gravel, stone and lime, grouped as building material, fell off from 274,000,000 tons in 1913 to 211,000,000 in 1918 and in 1920 had risen only to 236,000,000. The production of fibers showed but little change from year to year. The total tonnage in 1920 was less than in 1913. On the other hand the production of metals rose from 36,000,000 in 1913 to 47,000,000 in 1916 and in 1920 was still 43,700,000. Fuels rose from 605,000,000 in 1913 to 728,000,000 in 1918 and fell to 599,000,000 in 1919, rising again to 708,000,000 in 1920. Of agricultural products, other than fibers, there was a large and generally increasing production right along. In 1913 the total was about 185,000,000 tons. In 1915 it was 219,000,000 and in 1920 it was 227,000,000.
tons per man, are based largely on crude products. The agricultural statistics, especially those for the cereals and the dairy products, reflect the marketable concentrate. In getting a ton of shelled corn the farmer handles more tons of cob and stover. Similarly with wheat, oats, etc. The bulk of the substance to be handled is also a factor for consideration as well as weight. The average marketable crop of the farmer in 1916 was only a little more than 25 tons, while a man will easily shovel that weight of coal or ore in a day. Nevertheless, upon any basis of figuring, it is true that the farmer produces much less in weight per man per annum than the miner, and the fundamental explanation of this is that the work of the miner is immensely multiplied by machines and engineering methods.
