1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928.

1929

1930.

1931.

1932

APPENDIX 6-B

Average cost per family of new dwellings in 257 identical cities 1

1 This table does not show change in cost of erecting building but does show change in cost of such buildings as were erected. Does not include land costs.

2 1 includes multiple-family dwellings with store.

Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

APPENDIX 7

The following percentages are inserted to show the relative building cost during the years 1936-43, and is for reference in connection with the charts contained herein.

Building costs, standard 6-room frame house (indexes 1936–43)

Appendix 8 shown in chart form shows the allocation of cost of a $5,000 pre-war house divided as to distribution, labor, and material.

We believe that much can be done to lower area of cost designated as distribution cost and by the development of more efficient building methods, and by encouraging wholesale rather than retail building. We have attempted to emphasize this in the body of the report.

EXPLANATION OF APPENDIXES 9-A AND 9-B

We have shown in appendix 9-A in chart form the new dwellings in nonfarm areas 1920-43, which shows great peaks and depths in the total volume as between the various years during the period. It is our estimate that the number of building units in the post-war years will more nearly approximate the averages over the period from 1920 to 1941 whan the figures previously shown by many of the Federal agencies.

It is the consensus of opinion among our members that the total number of new dwelling units in nonfarm areas in the years following the war will range from 500,000 to 750,000 units and we recognize that there may be wide variance from these figures based upon many other conditions which will control construction activity.

$5000 PRE-WAR HOUSE COSTS

SOURCE-PRODUCERS COUNCIL

DISTRIBUTION 48%

LABOR 29%

MATERIAL 23%

CHART PREPARED BY

J.R.MILLER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN.OF AMERICA

JAN. 8, 1945

APPENDIX 9.-New dwelling units in nonfarm areas, 1920-431

EXPLANATION OF APPENDIX 10

Appendix 10 is placed in this report for reference only as it is compiled from rather accurate sources and shows the large amount of cash and Government bonds and net working capital of the United States Corporations for the years 1939-44.

These large current resources did not exist in the period following World War I, and it is the opinion of the Mortgage Bankers Association that corporations will be able to finance from reserves a large proportion of plant expansion and this type of demand upon banks and others for credit following the war will not be as great as in previous periods.

1

YEARS

EXPLANATION OF APPENDIX 11

Appendix 11 is included in this report to show the distribution of net income of families in various areas throughout the United States, and the figures are compiled from Agricultural Statistics, 1942, and are the basis of many of the statements made in the section of our report designated as rural housing.

APPENDIX 11

The following shows the distribution of net income of farmers in various areas throughout the United States:

Senator TAFT. The committee will adjourn until 2:30 this afternoon, when Secretary Wickard will appear on rural housing.

(Whereupon, at 1:15 p. m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened at 2:30 p. m.)

Senator TAFT. The committee will come to order. You may proceed, Mr. Wickard.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE R. WICKARD, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE (ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND C. SMITH, CHIEF PROGRAM ANALYST OF THE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S INTER-BUREAU COMMITTEE ON POST-WAR PROGRAMS)

Secretary WICKARD. About two-thirds of the Nation's farm families are ill-housed. Nearly half the inadequate houses are beyond repair. Slums usually are associated with cities, yet the average level of farm housing is far below that of the city dwellings. This is true of what might be termed the settled farm families. Housing conditions for most migrant farm workers are on an even lower level.

Adequate steps to improve farm housing would advance the health, happiness, and general effectiveness of millions of farm people. Also, the resulting volume of new construction and repairs would contribute greatly to national employment and general business activity in the years after the war.