maintained high ranking wage positions probably because of size, location, type of construction, degree of organization, and general wage levels— notably New York City and Newark. Although the $3.00 or higher minimum journeyman scale was first achieved in these two cities, by July 1948 bricklayers and plasterers had similar minimum scales in several widely scattered cities. The

scales for all journeymen in both Newark and New York City averaged $2.74 in July 1948. The average scale of $2.12 an hour for helpers and laborers in Newark, however was 19 cents higher than the New York level, which may be largely due to the fact that building laborers in Newark had a 42%-cent advantage over those in New York. The Newark scale of $2.125 an hour in

mid-1948 was the highest ever recorded for building laborers. Percentage and cents-per-hour increases in wage scales from July 1, 1947 to July 1, 1948, are shown in table 3, for all trades combined and for the journeyman and helper and laborer groups in selected cities.

When the various cities are grouped according to population, average scales for journeymen in the largest cities varied from $2.16 in Los Angeles to $2.74 in New York City; for helpers and laborers,

Includes Rock Island and Moline, Ill., and Davenport, Iowa.

from $1.32 in Philadelphia to $1.93 in New York. Among the 9 cities with populations from 500,000 to 1,000,000, the spread was less pronounced-for journeymen, from $2.03 in Milwaukee to $2.46 in Pittsburgh; for helpers and laborers, from $1.28 in Baltimore to $1.74 in Cleveland. Generally the lowest ranking cities in the other 3 population groups were located in the South. Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans, Charlotte, N. C., Savannah, Jacksonville, and Charleston, S. C., were

FARMER-NONFARMER CONTACTS within the cooperative movement have been increasing in recent years. Farmers' purchasing cooperatives, in growing numbers, have been admitting nonfarm people to membership, although to do so means forfeiting eventually their farmers' exemptions under the Federal income tax. In numerous places farm and village or city people have joined in the formation of new cooperatives, and in the operations of existing ones. A recent survey by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed numerous ways in which farmers and industrial workers are cooperating.

Cooperation Within Cooperatives

The membership composition of the reporting associations indicates in itself collaboration of farm and nonfarm consumers within the same association, to supply their families with commodities and services. Although there have been numerous scattered instances previously, such joint effort has become common only in comparatively recent years.

Mixed farm and nonfarm membership seems to be more common among the distributive associations (stores, gasoline stations, etc.) than among the service associations. However, in Nebraska a cooperative cold-storage association was organized by farmers and townspeople acting together, and now serves both. A new cooperative hospital association in Texas, the membership of which consists mostly of farmers, reports that a number of carpenters "have expressed a desire to become members, and want to earn their membership by doing construction work on our buildings." Some of the new hospital associations in the Pacific Northwest, also, are sponsored by both farm organizations and labor unions and have individuals of both groups as members.

Among the distributive associations in which industrial workers and farmers are cooperating are those in Crescent City and Fort Bragg, Calif., Bristol, Ind., Ogden, Utah, Pasco, Wash., and Burlington, Tomah, and Wausau, Wis.1

Cooperation Between Cooperatives

The recent attacks upon the cooperative movement (particularly the farmers' cooperatives) by private business groups have had the effect of drawing the two branches of the movement closer together in some cases. Thus, in a number of places in the Midwest, as well as in at least one New England State, cooperative councils have been formed in which both urban and rural cooperatives of all kinds participate. The purpose of these councils is not only defense, but also the exchange of experience and ideas and the further promotion of the cooperative movement.

On the national level, of the 17 regional wholesales in the United States 2 which are members of National Cooperatives, all but 3 are primarily of farmer membership. The Cooperative League of the United States of America, which is the national educational organ of the cooperative movement, was until the early 1930's almost entirely composed of urban associations. It recently reported that 80 percent of its membership is rural and only 20 percent urban.

1 The methods of associations mentioned in this article will be described in greater detail in a forthcoming bulletin.

It also has seven affiliates in Canada.

Direct Trading with Farmers' Cooperatives. In the United States, practically all of the regional wholesales which handle groceries and produce make it a practice to obtain their supplies from farmers' marketing and processing associations. These products include canned and fresh fruits and vegetables, butter, etc. Because of the large quantities involved, it is usually more feasible for such transactions to be carried on by the wholesales rather than the retail cooperatives. Nevertheless, nearly 27 percent of the 370 associations reporting in the Bureau's study used farmers' cooperatives as a source of supply, obtaining from them such things as milk, butter, eggs, and produce, and even meat products. The greater the proportion of farmers in the membership, the more common was the practice of direct trading. Even among the strictly nonfarm associations, over 21 percent reported such a policy; many others explained either that there were no farmers' cooperatives near enough to make it practicable or that their farm products were obtained through the regional wholesale.

An outstanding example of direct trading and cooperation with other cooperatives is the United Cooperative Society, in Maynard, Mass.

A single association reported having discontinued the practice of direct trading because of unfavorable experiences. Numerous reports from other associations indicated that such relationships were both practicable and satisfactory, when both parties to the transaction were reasonable in their expectations and demands.

Combined Trading and Membership

Certain cooperatives have worked out techniques combining membership and business relationships with farmers and the latters' cooperatives, and have devised ingenious methods for sharing the economic savings) resulting from the elimination of the middleman (between the producer-suppliers and member-consumers. Notable among these are Cooperative Trading, Inc., Waukegan, Ill. (the largest nonfarm consumers' cooperative in the United States) and ConsumerFarmer Milk Cooperative, Long Island City, N. Y. Consumer-Sponsored Farmers' Markets. A very recent development is the sponsoring of farmers' markets by urban consumers' cooperatives. The

advantages claimed for these markets are fresher produce at lower-than-current prices for the purchaser and, for the farmer, a channel for disposing of his products at more than would be realized through the usual channels of distribution. All of those which have come to the attention of the Bureau are in California-in San Jose, Santa Monica, Oakland, and Los Angeles.

* In some places in the United States (notably in Ohio, Indiana, and New York) farmers' marketing associations have opened retail outlets for their products; in such cases the patron may benefit under a profit-sharing arrangement but has no vote on policies and never becomes a member. Such enterprises were not included in the present study.

Construction Cost of

One-Family Houses Started, 1946-471

AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION COST of 1-family homes started during the period October 1946 to September 1947 was more than $7,250 in 14 of 32 areas surveyed in the Area Housing Program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.2 Twelve of these higher-cost areas were located in the North, 1 in the South, and 1 in the West. The highest average cost was $9,300 (in Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D. C.). Of the 18 areas in which the average construction cost was less than $7,250, 7 were located in the North, 7 in the South and 4 in the West. The lowest average cost was $3,400 (in Mobile, Ala.).

Construction cost, which must not be confused with selling price, includes the cost of labor, materials, all subcontracted work, and that part of the contractor's overhead and profit chargeable directly to the project. It excludes land and development cost, sales profit, selling costs, and such nonconstruction expenses as architectural and engineering fees.

The average construction cost figures presented in the accompanying table are based on estimates of construction cost of 1-family houses started during the entire year. Percentage distributions by cost classes are based on a study of units started during 4 survey months of the year.

1 Prepared by Frances J. Montgomery of the Bureau's Branch of Construc tion Statistics.

See Housing Statistics 1946 and 1947: Sampling Methods and Survey Techniques, in Monthly Labor Review, August 1948 (p. 161).

Details covering specifications of houses studied were not sufficient to make comparisons between areas or between regions of the cost of building identical houses. Data do reveal, however, that a greater proportion of the houses built in northern areas fell in the upper-cost brackets than of the houses built in the South and West.

In all but 5 of the 19 northern areas, the majority of the houses cost more than $7,250 to build, and in several areas, more than threefourths of the houses were in this class. In all the southern areas, on the other hand, a majority of the houses built were in cost classes under $7,250. The western areas were split between predomi

nance of the more expensive dwellings in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and a majority of lower-cost houses in the other 3 areas.

Differences in costs between sections of the country may be due to higher wage levels and higher material prices in certain sections as well as to differences in characteristics of the homes built, such as type of material used for exterior walls, and presence or absence of central heating, basements, and wall insulation.3

See Characteristics of One-Family Houses Started, 1947, p. 46 of this issue. Data on characteristics, which are based on surveys covering only 1 month in the first quarter of 1947, cannot be related to the cost data which cover the entire year October 1946 September 1947.

Based on reports from individual construction contractors who provided cost figures for a large and representative sample of projects at or near completion. Construction costs exclude sales profit, selling costs, the cost of land and site improvements and all such nonconstruction expenses as architectural and engineering fees. They cover only cost of labor, materials, and subcontracted work, and that part of the builder's overhead and profit chargeable directly to the construction project.

These data were compiled by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in con

nection with the Area Housing Program. See Housing Statistics 1946 and 1947: Sampling Methods and Survey Techniques, Monthly Labor Review, August 1948, (p. 161).

An area is composed of a county or group of counties surrounding the principal city or cities.

Surveys were conducted in 4 specified months of the year according to the cycle designations-I, October, January, April, and July; II, November, February, May, and August; III, December, March, June, and September.

Characteristics of

One-Family Houses Started, 1947

A SURPRISINGLY LARGE PROPORTION of the 1family dwellings placed under construction in 32 areas during the first quarter of 1947 contained less than 800 square feet of floor space and less than 5 rooms. Surveys for each area covering only 1 month of the quarter showed that a third or more of the new dwellings in 19 areas contained less than 800 square feet of floor space and that in 18 areas, a third or more had less than 5 rooms. The proportion of small houses based on floor space, was as high as 80 percent in Mobile, Ala., and, based on room count, as high as 96 percent in Wichita Falls, Tex.

Frame construction predominated over masonry

and masonry veneer in a majority of the areas studied. Masonry and masonry veneer exterior walls were in the majority in several of the large industrial areas of the North and East and in Miami and Denver. Stucco and composition shingle walls prevailed in Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento.

The figures presented in the accompanying table are based on the results of surveys conducted in 32 areas as part of the Area Housing Program1 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data regarding three major characteristics of housing, floor area, number of rooms, and type of exterior wall material are shown. These three characteristics materially affect the cost of housing, but as the surveys were made during only 1 month of the

1 See Housing Statistics 1946 and 1947: Sampling Methods and Survey Techniques, in Monthly Labor Review, August 1948 (p. 161).

1 These data were compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in connection with its Area Housing Program. See Housing Statistics, 1946 and 1947: Sampling Methods and Survey Techniques, Monthly Labor Review, August 1948, (p. 161).

? An area includes a county or group of counties surrounding the principal city or cities. Floor area was measured as gross finished floor area of interior of each unit; excludes areas of garages, basements, and unfinished attics.

One full room count given to each of following: Living room, dining room, library, bedroom, kitchen, kitchenette and dining alcove in combination, and permanently enclosed sunroom or porch or nursery; half-room count given to each of following: small space devoted to kitchenette, dinette,

breakfast room or dressing room; excluded from room count were bathroom, pullman kitchen, hall or foyer, open porch, pantry, laundry, closet, storage space, basement room not intended for living space, office and garage.

Exterior wall materials cover (1) masonry: (Solid wall of mortar-set brick, stone, concrete block, structural tile, etc).; (2) masonry veneer (frame struc ture with exterior veneer of some unit of masonry); (3) frame-wood (frame structure with exterior of any type of wood siding); (4) other (frame structure with exterior of nonwood material except masonry, as for example, stucco or composition siding or shingles, and various metal construction, frame type constructions in which steel members are used in place of wood studs, concrete walls above first floor level, factory-made concrete wall panels, adobe, etc.).