Another charge is that they work for lower wages than the white laborers. This may have been true several years ago, but at present it is claimed that the exact reverse is the case. The answers received by the State Board of Control of California to questionnaires sent out by it (one of which was, “Give wage comparisons, with notes on living conditions,”) to the County Horticultural Commissioners and County Farm Advisers in the State, agree on one essential; namely, that Japanese farm hands are receiving wages equal to or higher than those paid the white workers.[32]
Mr. Chiba, the managing director of the Japanese Agricultural Association of California, gives the following figures as to wages of Japanese and white farm laborers[33]:
| During Harvest. | After Harvest. | |||
| Japanese common laborers, | $4 per day with meals. | $3.50 per day with meals. | ||
| White common laborers, | $3.50 per day with meals. | $3 per day with meals. | ||
| White teamsters, | $4 per day with meals. | $3.50 per day with meals. |
The charge that the living conditions of Japanese are lower is a thing which cannot be determined by off-hand judgment. Reliable statistics are lacking in this line. In fact, the standard, by which we may safely pronounce our judgment on the question, is not easy to establish scientifically. Food, dress, and dwelling may, on the whole, be taken as the criteria for comparison. The food, however, when it happens to be different in kind between two groups of people, unless the prices are compared, cannot be taken as a sure measure for estimating the higher or lower standard of living. The diet of the Japanese farmer is different in kind from that of the American; but it will be rash to conclude that the Japanese standard of living is thereby lower than that of the American. As a rule, the Japanese feed and dress well. There is perhaps no more liberal spender than a Japanese youth. His weakness lies rather in taking too much delight in making display than in taking to heart the qualities of a miser. In dwellings the Japanese have nothing to compare with the comfortable and durable homes of the Americans. The reason for this deficiency is that the Japanese have no assurance for the future; hence they have no incentive to build permanent homes. At any rate, as long as the Japanese are getting higher wages than the white laborers, and are not underbidding the latter, frugal living and money-saving are wholly a matter of individual freedom, which should not give cause for criticism.
That there are still other shortcomings in Japanese farm laborers must be conceded. They are irascible, unstable, complaining, unsubmissive. These are inborn tendencies of the Japanese, and it is not easy to correct them in a short time.
Concerning the question as to what extent the Orientals displace white labor, the replies given by the County Horticultural Commissioners and the County Farm Advisers of California disclose this interesting fact; namely, that in most counties where Japanese are engaged in farm work they are not displacing white labor, and only in a few counties where fruits are the chief products do they appear to displace white labor to any extent.[34] The truth is that the supply of Japanese farm labor has been diminishing noticeably since the virtual stopping of immigration, while the demand has been on the increase. In 1910, it was reported that 30,000 Japanese were engaged in farm labor in California[35]; in 1918, there were only 15,794 employed.[36] Professor Millis observed
The number of Japanese available for employment by white farmers has diminished, and in certain communities to a marked degree. The total number of such laborers has decreased with restriction on immigration, and the increase in number of Japanese farmers.[37]
Japanese Farmers.
While Japanese farm labor has been diminishing, the responsible farmers have been increasing. As already stated, in 1909 the Japanese controlled 1816 farms, covering 99,254 acres; but in 1919 they cultivated 6000 farms, embracing 458,056 acres. The value of the annual farm products also jumped from $6,235,856 to $67,145,230 during the ten-year period. Thus the increase of cultivation area has been approximately four-fold and that of the crop value ten-fold.