OIITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Bureau of Agricultural Econoinics t RURAL LEVEL OF LIVING IND'SXES FOR COUIJTIES OP THE UNITED STATES, 1940 By : Margaret Jarnian Hagood Senior Social Scientist Vfeshington, D. C* October 1943 . ttoTHG K03X3S FOR COltt'lTIES RRRAL' maTED STATES, 1940 B, .^rgaret — Kagood. Senior Social Scientist •+• -1 nf the vdde difi'ered of ^rio^W cerned viitb daring the lt.st aecc ^ ^ ^ living in each ooa olevel of liyiag ’"f ^.^°!„,/si,aple form the other rural faidlies ^attempt to indicate a families on farffis, as ifejl ■ ^ g^re data provide^^ the fnited States for^f^aU®^^^^^ ooo oompoerae ae.sure^9 ^ ^living on lax^ms. '*iioh represent served to inoic^te IkStisfactlSravailable t° ^“''^p“opulation to as’^toultwal resomoes^are^^ «oes7hut alsd to population iri??fg-not":^ly to of faraang mortalxty. ^ char ac ter is tic G such r. g - _-r^T-rAirfi fo ^ r> 4 TnT^/’ar*+,3.Tit coiTi-ponei. St^rhuo^o suoh as raigratxon, xe. exx.,.., fo nrovide a .ore current .eas^ure of^thi® fr sctentSS d^rttoe f ®^®"op?^Uon, llouains, and Agriculture of the IQAO Censuses oi ro.vuxci j- } p^^,, rural-i£--riu ^ Titrpftp , ifivel of xiving To oroi^xue cx - ^-lor.rnnfT ss TfC-Li as xtji - coF-'birea ini-o ctn .^rttoe P“®^®"op?^Uon, llousins, and Agriculture ha^e oeen 1940 Censuses ol ro^\x±o. ^ . the rural-xarxu These lUe-A of average level thhlar inde:-. for the rural-nonfarm „j^oo are United States and in o of using information on g^gj;Bable for counti indexes are cased oi^ ,' +to-rc- From a larger nnmoei Ou. x index and five representative of manj^^ items 7 rore selected for tnc rur ^^^j^ships among from the 1940 Census ll'le basis of ar> analysis of .he .e_ for the I'ui’alruoniaixa the various items. .._xd /if Rijr — f arm i.nd ex ■ /.= vri th fewer than 1.51 persons per Percentage of occupied dwellxnga units wxoh rooiiUi' n - • -• A-i- rics--- R _ ‘.V f”“;« "j“ '‘S.P 1» SS!|S1«“ s ss ss. - over-o S * Humber reporting used as base . ■ f-ta on these items into the rural-farm The formula for oomoini g '‘foTlows- level of living “ follows. T = + .2811 + .2261 Percentag^^' occupied dv^elling units ^/ith ferer than 1.51 persons per roor;i-)<- — H Percentage of dwelling units -v.lth radios-*-:- — R Percentage of du^elling units ■>.ritii running ^rcter-:^ — Percentage of rural-nonfarm occupied dwelling units vlth necha.nical^ refrigeration-?:- — LI Lledian grade of school completed by persons y^ars of age and over-;r — S Nuiiber reporting used as base Tl'io formula for combining data on these itcias into tne rural—nonic.rm level of living index is as follows: = .718H + .462R + .34217 + . 5651 ! + 6.1043 - 77.6 'i^iHHipm^he items listed to forra indexes of level of living does not mean tiiaw, the concent of level of living of rural families involves only these- items. HoA.''evcr, t.ian the definition of icvsl of living iaiplied hj the indexes is more restricted^ sorae of the cur’rent concepts of level of living liiiicn involve intangible vaj.ucs, often varying from one region to another, flic level of living ..i,oa.surcd by these indexes is a composite of raaiay characteristics - some of them measurable, some pcriiaps not measurable - w’nich tend to be present when the index items arc present. For cxaiiTplo in a countj^ arherc the .median grade of. school corapleted by rtral persons 25 years of age and. over is rc3-ativcly high, the roportion corapl-ting^ coli'-gc a.a_.L. likely be high also, probabl^^' the proportion of time spent by persons in reading^ \111 be high, and v'o should expect to find grca.tcr than average degree of paroici- patioh in the various organizations of the rural communities of the county. Simi¬ larly, in a county whore a relatively great proportion of the rural-nonxam dv.^c-lling units; have running vmter, th:rc will likely be a relatively great proportion u-itn electricity, telephones, and other facilities, and the health conditions of no 'ocoplc arc likely to be relatively good. The num-erous associated characteristics will, not be found invariably, but on thn average, many oth..r_ olcnents making^-.or a higher lcv..l of living tend to occur in the sa.ic countios i;hich have nigh values on the items included in the index. Data on the items included in the index have bc^n ueightod^aid combined in such a way as to form an index of the composite characteristic -diich the group o± itms scl-cted can measure "best,” that is, can .,iost satis.ractoriiy discrimmnatc octi-con lev; and liigh counties. This composite characteristic is assumed to oc _evcl ox living." Stated in other terms, "level of living;" is defined as tnat composite cl-iaractoristic for data on. these items afford an aoproximatc^measure, wnen combined by the indicated formulas, dev-loped in such a v.'ay as to insui'c unat counties receiving the sa-ie index value T-ill bo as sirndlar as possiD.-.c math res¬ pect to each of the items inc.ludcd. Bcc..usc the itciis chosen arc rcorcscnoai-xve of a Y-'.rj much Icrgcr group, countios i.liich receive tne same, or nc<-r.^y . 1 ^ sm.-, i.ndcx value will tend to be alike ulth i-spcct to the much larger group oi related to the itcis cho:-3cn. i^eights for tlie items (expressou in standard dcvixtiox units) umre determined by the principal component solution of thm matrix oi tncir intercorrolations for a series of 200 saiplo counties. Ij T7 For o.n account of tlic development of the indexes, see ‘'Development of a 1940 4rrJ-Farm Level 01 Living Index for Counties," by Liargarct Jarman Hapod in R]^ Soe icloCT. Vol. 8 , Ho. 2, Jxoio -x943, pp. 171-180 ond "Sural Lovcl of UvinG Indexo' 1940" in Notes, Rural Sociolog:)'' September 1943. r f PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES OF THE UNITED ST ! BY RURAL LEVEL OF LIVING INDEXES, 1940 PERCENT OF COUNTIES 20 I 15 10 - 0 20 15 10 0 20 15 10 52 64 76 88 100 112 124 136 148 160 172 184 RURAL LEVEL OF LIVING INDEX VALUES U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 43202 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Flgpare 1 dex values shovm for counties in the table fol].o:/ing are relative rath? J.te measures of level of living. They shov; each county’s position only in [.on to the racan of all counties of the United States, and not in relation to prm. or accepted standard. For both the rural-farr.i index a,nd the rural-nonfarr the scales have been set so that the average for all counties of the United ;£) is 100. The units of the scale have been deterrrd.ncd so that a unit -c is comparable to a unit on the othen in terms of the variation of all counties" the mean value of 100 for each series of index values. TJ •^hc scales liave ?en chosen so as not to give negative values for any counties. On the rural-farm counties vary from a lov.'- of 3 to a high of 166, and on the rural-nonfam rinaex, from a lov;- of 4 to a high of 188. for The indexes v;ere developed for counties and are strictly appropriate only counties. Hov.'ever, values arc shov.n also for States, these values being simply th arithmetic mean of the corresponding indexes for the counties of each State. 'Re- cause co'unties vary in size, the index value for a State or for the United State is not necessarily equal to the value viiich v/ould be obtained by entering the appropriate State or national data for the equation. The scales for the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm indexes v;ero made comparable so that for each ccunty 'the tvro values could be combined to form a composite index for the total rural population of tlio county. The composite index for each county is an average of the tvro indexes vreighted together according to the proportions rural- farm and rvural-nonfarm persons comprise of the total rural pop-ula.tion of the county. For States and for the United States, the comx.)osite rural index shovm, as in' the case of tho other tvro indexes, is siriiply the aritlTvetic moan of 'the corresponding index values for all counties in the •^tate or the Nation. Counties of the United States differ by their rural femiilies. Sven though ’ddely in the ayorage level of livdng attained ounty averages vary loss than do individual o items level of li-ving. As many as 97 percent of the farras of certain counties had gross incomes of ^1)600 or .acre in 1939, v.iiereas rural faiailies, nevertheless, county variation is striking ulth respect ’.Thich have been used to indicate rural fevror tlian 5 percent reached this level in other counties* Over 95 percent of the rural-farm horaes of some counties had radios in 1940; fevrer than 10 percent had them in others. The median grade of school completed by rural persons 25 years of age and over varied from as lov; as 1 to more than 12 in the coimties of the United S'bates, Such differences reflect tlie '.aarked inequalities existing among areas i.ith respect to level of living. County vp,riation vrith respect to level of living is indicated in the accaapanying cbiart. ■‘■he distribution of counties of tho United States by their values on the rural-farm level of living index indicates a definitely bimodal form, vdth the larger peak centered at about 118 and the smaller peak at about 82. Tj^s is due primarily to the great difference betvroen the Soirbh and the rest of the Nation u-ith respect to riu’al-farm level of living, the ..ican for the co-untios in the three southern Census divisions being 82 and the mean for the counties in the other divisions being 115. The distribution of counties \pj rural-nonfarra level of living shows an_extended flat top, uhleh is likculsc the result of combining Southern counties'willch have a mean of 83 vrith those of the i-ost of the Nation, v;iiich have a mea,n of 114 • 2j One standard do-vlation unit is cciuaxl to 24 farm and on that for the rural—nonfarm index. points on the scale for the rural— Rurql IgvgI of living index vnlucs prcsjntod here for coimtics c ompo.rc.blc vmth thoso computed on the basis of 1930 dc.ta. Several iparisons of absolute values, the chief reason being a differen of coi.ibining data on itci.is and of choosing an index ccalo. In pr a similar nature, tlie principle goncrallp used has been that of a\i (i;cightcd or unv.'cighted) forii.od as the ratio of a couioty’s value United States. “I’hc method used here for the rural-farm and rura± actually combines measures in their "sta.ndard score” form, uiicre :.doptcd is likewise dotcrr.dned nlth regard to the variation of cou standard score of a county is equal to l/24 of the difference boi value and 100. Other differences make nonconparablc even the ran these indexes and on the 1930 indexes. In the 1930 rural-farm incl data on facilities and equipment ncrc used from the Ccnsiis o.f Agriculture, uiiich rovided such inforr.ic.tion only ab ut operator's dvroliings rather than about all ^ ural-farm dn'olli.ngs . This mould tend to give counties v.'ith relatively large proper tioiis of d'v.rcllings of does the 1940 indc: 1 ai'm idiich laborers a higher position in a ranlcing of countijs than includes housing and facilities in.L’or:-.iation for all rural farm derailing units. Kou'cvor, a comparison of the i(.o!PG .1-C index \;-ith those vj-hich are loir on the 1940 index indicates a stril'ing pattern j vhich is not obscured by the difforonccs in the t-t.'-o indexes. '! on the 1930 nlmilarity of RURAL-FARM LEVEL OF LIVING INDEX, 1940 3 I u £ i 4 =* 5 r- ; ► 5 ■p §8 K13 c l n 9 a « 9 •pCja©© ®_3 Sono^SSSH ©£(0*0. f-IC4)(0C0 "S w S 9 © Q b CO •3 6< - ► H g I B c ® O ej I9 ^ JS m ^ § ® « -p 4J10 CO m £ Vi 4 > ® d ^ o V a ja t* vi o ® -p o o o o u 50 2 flj d ^ -p cfl c * 0 ^ ® n ^ o *d Q ® •H ® n 43 g rt ® vi -H •» d Itst , ^ -p o ® d “S) O ej ® CO O 3 d -p a b o ij a a 3l no® S.'g £1 i S 2 ^ o 3 S£ I 43 b ^_gjjz« JJ4»- S4> o vi n H ® ® o ^ u H _ ® • vi »cj 2 • ® I s g 3 g s I >4 *3 ® 0 9 >P ® -P d'd HISS’,5a3 D « O V > X .d ® “ 1 ”■3 s SJ! IIShh * V| 9 OH O d Vi • » ® ° <3 t g 0 ^ ® h H Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 ; Level of 1 ivlng ; Level of living • . index value : inde:: value xirea • • ;Com- Area • • ;Com- • ;Rural -:Rural- ;oosite ;Rural- :Rural- ;posit ;farm ;nonfarm;rural ; farm ; nonfarm. ; rural Ul'HTED STATES 100 100 101 64 66 Alabama (Continued) Alabama 73 Lowndes 33 54 40 Autauga 58 53 57 Llacon 50 98 56 Daldudn 84 73 78 Madison 70 69 70 Barbour 54 66 57 Llarengo 41 61 44 Bibb 62 80 71 Llarion 65 96 73 Blount 77 84 78 llarshall 80 107 84 Bullock 43 58 45 Mobile 81 76 77 Butler 61 47 57 Monroe 58 76 63 Calhoun 72 72 72 Llontgomery 55 78 63 C liam.be rs 62 90 75 Morgan 78 69 76 Clierokee 88 86 88 Peri*y 42 67 48 Chilton 71 60 69 Pickens 59 82 64 Choctav; 55 45 53 Pike 66 82 69 Clarke 55 71 61 Randolph 67 74 68 Clay 71 90 75 Russell 39 58 43 Clebuj’ne 63 68 64 St. Clair 70 77 73 Coffee 72 83 74 Shelby 72 70 71 Colbert 69 81 73 Sumter 40 74 48 Conecuh 58 66 60 Talladega_ 59 69 63 Coosa 66 70 67 Talls-poosa 66 99 78 Covington 69 62 68 Tuscaloosa 68 64 66 CrenshaiT 63 75 70 Malker 69 65 67 Cullman 33 77 82 ■Pashington 61 35 50 Dale ■ 73 76 73 \Iilcox 42 62 46 Dallas 41 73 45 T/inston 62 101 72 De Kalb 82 90 83 Elmore 69 86 74 Arizona 75 98 87 Escaivibia 64 46 55 Apache 5 67 26 Etowah SO 71 77 Cochise 111 119 117 Fayette 70 39 72 Coconino 19 87 40 Franlclin 65 75 67 Gila 69 104 97 Geneva 71 83 74 Gi-ahan 97 no 105 Greene 40 68 44 Greenlee 101 120 n6 Hale 43 84 50 ] kricopa 96 100 99 Henry 66 85 70 Mohave 83 106 102 Houston 74 76 74 I Java jo U 95 44 Jackson 67 56 64 i'^ima 70 113 107 Jefferson 84 89 88 Pinal 69 92 85 Lamar 71 88 74 Santa Cimz 111 66 78 Lauderdale Lav.Tence 68 64 67 Yavapai 105 106 106 67 62 66 Yuma 101 90 94 Lee 54 56 54 Limestone 66 41 63 10 Rural Level'of living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) / : Level of living : Level of living : index value : index value Area : : ;Con- Area : : :Cor]r- :Rural-:Rural- :positc : Rural-:Rurn.l- :pcsite •.farm :nonf am: rural :farm :nonfam:rura3 Arkansas 75 70 74 Arkansas (Continued) Arkansas 84 87 85 Marion 74 63 73 Ashley 68 80 71 Liller 73 62 70 Baxter 71 82 74 Mississippi 79 73 78 Benton 89 99 91 Monroe 70 49 67 Boone 85 61 81 Montgomery 72 69 71 Bradley 80 63 72 Nevada 78 77 78 Calhoun 76 64 73 Newton 61 60 61 Carroll 83 112 92 Ouachita 73 76 75 Chicot 60 72 63 Perry 67 57 64 Clark 79 80 79 Phillies 60 60 60 Clay 86 84 85 Pilce 75 77 76 Cleburne 78 82 79 Poinsett 75 76 75 Cleveland 75 67 73 Folk 74 86 77 Col'ombia 77 34 78 Pope 75 59 70 Conv/ay 73 50 69 Prairie 84 69 79 Craighead 88 74 85 Pulaski 78 73 7^ Craiyrford 75 55 68 Randolph 86 52 82 Crittenden 63 67 64 St. Francis 61 57 60 Cross 69 59 68 Saline 80 77 79 Dallas 79 52 69 Scott 77 71 74 Desha 58 75 62 Searcy 63 71 65 Drew 70 65 69 Sebastian 84 71 / i Faulkner 83 62 80 Sevier 74 69 73 FranlcLin 80 72 77 Sharp 78 73 78 Fulton 74 74 74 Stone 66 67 66 Garland 77 82 80 Union 76 83 33 Grant 78 78 78 Van Buren 71 66 70 Greene S3 51 79 Vash ington 83 73 82 Hempstead 76 65 74 Yliite 84 72 81 Hot Spring 76 52 68 w'oodruff 74 74 74 Howard 77 77 77 Yell 80 78 79 Independence 81 48 73 Izard 76 74 76 California 119 131 127 Jackson 79 58 75 xilaiiieda 120 137 132 Jefferson 64 50 60 Alpine 131 73 85 Johnson 76 48 67 iuaadcr 115 141 137 Lfifayette 68 84 73 Butte 118 122 121 la’.vrence 34 81 83 Calaveras 113 127 124 Lee 60 59 60 Colusa 132 153 145 Lincoln 63 69 64 Contra Costa L20 163 154 Little River 67 76 70 Del Norte 107 114 11^ Logan 81 76 79 El Dorado 111 111 11^ Lonoke 77 102 83 Fresno 120 142 130 Madison 70 74 70 Cienn 1:27 155 141 > ' Rural Level of living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) 11 •• Level of living. .... ; Level of liviii S . ’ index value : index value Area • • :Corr>- . Area . • • • • • COLV- Rural—:Rural- :po3ite ;Hural— : Ri.ral- : posit '■ fam :nonfair.i ; rural ; f arm : nonf aiva: rural California (Continued) f Colorado 13.1 101 106 Humboldt 117 125 ■ . -I 23 . Adams 114 109 n? Imperial 105 94 100 Alamosa no 79 . 97 Inyo 124 124 124 Arapahoe 116 ns 113 Kern 120 134 131 Archuleta 91 57 74 Kings 117 151 134 Baca 103 92 93 Lake 118 n7 136 Bent 116 88 103 Lassen 121 142 139 Boulder 123 113 117 Los Angeles 127 159 156 Chaffee no 96 102 Madera 115 n4 n5 Cheyenne 113 120 n6 Marin 101 163 157 Clear Creek 109 123 122 Mariposa 109 115 113 Conejos 35 56 70 Mendocino 111 114 n3 Costilla 81 24 50 Merced 121 137 128 Cronley 111 n2 ni Modoc 131 n7 122 Cus ter ■ . 109 88 100 Mono 116 no 111 Delta 107 108 107 Monterey Napa 126 122 123 n? 124 ■ 139 Dolores Douglas 98 125 75 125 87 125 Nevada 109 133 129 ^agle 122 106 in Orange 126 141 136 Elbert 115 101 111 Placer 117 132 126 El_ Paso ni 150 138 Plumas 125 123 123 ■^‘romont 106 101 103 Riverside 113 127 122 Garfield n3 128 122 Sacramento 117 135 129 Gilpin 103 97 93 San Benito 128 125 127 Grand 121 102 108 San Bernardino 124 137 134 Guimison n6 109 111 San Diego 120 144 135 Hinsdale 128 73 89 San Joaquin 117 133 12/, Huerfano 78 55 63 San Luis Obispo 120 130 126 Jackson 125 80 100 San iiateo 122 159 155 Jefferson 120 135 T on Santa Barbara 129 n6 140 Kiowa 112 n5 3J.3 Santa Clara 123 142 135 ‘ Kit Carson 100 124 no Santa Cruz 119 140 132 La.ko 107 98 93 Shasta 109 105 106 La Plata 93 70 85 Sierra 116 124 123 Larimer 121 111 117 Sislciyou 123 136 134 L'".s Animas 85 51 62 SoIeoio 115 162 143 Lincoln 109 130 n9 Sonoma 121 141 130 Logan 118 98 113 Stanislaus 125 131 128 Mesa no 107 109 Sutter 128 105 119 i.Iineral 113 92 95 Tehama 117 146 127 Ibffat 105 n7 112 ^ Trinity J Tulare 102 104 103 liontezuma 3.01 87 94 124 95 112 Montrose no 84- 102 Tuolumne no uo 135 Morgan n7 ni n5- Ventura 136 139 '138 Otero 114 97 106 Yola 126 126' *126 Ouray 116 127 123 Yuba 119 34 93 Park no 95 100 12 . Rurc,l Level of Li\'ln 2 Indexes , 1940 (Continued) ; Level of living : index value Level of living index value Area : ; ;CoLi- Area : :Cor>- :Rural-;Ruj*al- ;positc • Riu^ai-:Rural- rpositc ■" :farm :nonfarm: rural f arm : nonf arai: rural Colorado (Continued) Phillips 128 132 130 Pitkin 121 no 114 Proirars 111 99 106 Pu.oblo 112 107 109 Rio Elanco 121 112 no Rio Grande 125 66 96 Routt 116 104 108 Saguache' 111 69 86 San Juan — 119 no San Iliguel 103 100 101 Sedg^ji-ck 123 136 129 Summitt 128 95 100 Toller 101 121 11.9 ’Washington 110 111 no Vfeld 123 109 117 Yuma 121 no 140 Connecticut 120 151 145 Fairfield 122 165 161 Hartford 125 161 155 Litclificld 123 150 143 LUddlesex 119 151 145 Mew Haven 120 162 157 Now London 115 145 138 Tolland 116 ni 129 Windham 116 137 130 Delaware 116 130 126 Kent in 112 112 New Castle 124 153 148 Sussex 114 124 119 ’lorida 84 72 77 Alachua 79 78 78 Baker 65 40 50 Bay 82 67 68 Bradford 77 83 79 Brevard 104 102 102 Broi/'/ard 78 79 79 Calhoun 66 . 48 55 Charlotte 92 101 100 Citrus 37 75 77 Clay 86 86 86 Collier 82 • 52 56 Columbia 74 30 60 Florida (Continued) Dade 103 121 119 Do Soto 95 69 80 Dixie 72 45 47 Duval 99 105 104 Escambia 80 93 91 Flagler 96 63 71 Franklin 82 49 50 Gadsden 65 48 60 Gilchrist 83 55 74 Gla des 79 60 66 Gulf 73 63 64 Hai.iilton 70 55 63 Hardee 91 66 83 Hendry 87 68 70 Hernando 85 92 89 Highlands 98 97 97 Hillsborough 95 117 109 Holmes 66 53 62 Indian River 102 69 79 Jackson 60 53 58 Jefferson 52 57 54 la.fayctto 86 59 77 Lake 100 96 97 Lee 103 99 100 Leon 48 53 50 Levy 78 53 62 Liberty 71 39 49 Lladison 68 38 61 liana tee 100 98 99 Llarion 84 74 79 liartin 83 96 95 Llonroc 76 31 80 Nassau 87 57 68 Okaloosa 68 74 72 Okeechobee 84 80 31 Orange 106 108 108 Osceola 99 98 98 Palm Beach 75 66 63 Pasco 96 92 93 Pinellas no 135 131 Polk 99 89 92 Putnam 94 66 74 St, Johns 103 53 63 St, Lucie 89 93 91 Santa Rosa 72 50 59 Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) 13 ; Level of living : Level of living : index value _ ; index value Area • • :Rural- : farm : ;Com- •: Rural- :posite :nonfarm; rural Area Rural- farm ; ;Coi>- ;Rural- ;posit ;nonfarm:rur al Florida (Continued) Georgia (Continued) Sarasota 102 104 104 CoiIee 76 48 . 70 Sei;iinole 106 68 78 Colquitt 81 60 76 Sumter 87 75 80 Columbia 64 75 67 Smvannee 75 47 68 Cook 93 64 82 Taylor 70 46 53 Coweta 67 78 71 Union 74 57 64 Crav/ford 65 57 63 Volusia 101 103 103 Crisp 74 73 74 Vfakulla 71 47 52 Dade 74 58 68 Ualton 63 48 56 Dawson 65 92 68 V/asliington 63 57 60 Decatur 66 43 59 De Kalb 91 116 109 Georgia 72 74 73 Dodge 67 50 64 Appling 76 29 69 Dooly 74 80 75 Atkinson 33 67 77 Doughertjr 59 76 67 Bacon 80 71 77 Douglas 77 72 76 Baker 57 58 57 Early 64 53 63 Baldvrin 65 72 69 Echols 85 15 •Banks 74 68 73 Effingham 84 57 72 Barrow 85 90 86 Elbert 78 88 79 Bartow' 78 83 80 Emanuel 76 60 73 Ben Hill 83 37 76 Evans 83 81 82 Berrien 84 66 79 Fannin 63 96 74 Bibb 83 102 93 Fayette 69 77 70 Bleckley 72 81 74 I'lcyd S3 105 94 Brantley 81 50 69 ’ Forsjdih 78 90 79 Brooks 68 58 67 Franlclin SO 99 85 Bryan 76 40 52 Fulton 84 3f:3 115 Bulloch 86 58 82 GiDjner 61 74 65 Burke 62 64 62 Glasock 82 61 77 Butts 72 94 80 Gl;^nn 76 104 98 Calhoun 52 79 60 Gordon 84 84 34 Camden 60 55 57 •Grady 79 52 75 Candler 82 88 83 Greene ' 66 87 75 . Carroll 78 98 82 Gv.dnnett 79 91 82 Catoosa 87 118 101 Habersham 72 98 85 Charlton 66 47 53 . Hall 75 96 84 Chatham 88 88 88 Hancock 55 78 59 Chattahoochee 56 79 76 Haralson 76 115 90 Chattooga 87 80 84 Harris 62 73 65 Cherokee 75 91 80 Kart 80 114 86 Clarke , . 76 80 73 Heard 65 82 67 Clay 57 66 60 Henry 73 117 82 Cla;^d:on 79 91 84 Houston 64 85 69 Clinch 92 43 53 In.'in 83 67 79 Cobb 83 104 93 Jackson 77 81 73 14 r Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) : Level of living-• ; ■ index value _^ Area : J rConi" :Rural-;Rural- tposite :far:a :nonf am: rural Georgia (Continued) • 76 Jasper 70 91 - Jeff Davis 79 72 77 Jefferson 74 87 78 Jenl'ino 63 51 67 ' Johnson 74 81 . 76 Jones 65 64 65 Lar.mr 73 69 72 Lanier 84 52 72 Laurens 69 73 69 Lee 58 81 62 Liberty 57 54 56 Lincoln 70 93 73 Long 74 38 57 Lo-vnades 76 58 71 Lumpkin 59 82 66 McDuffie 70 64 69 McIntosh 66 50 52 Macon 62 80 67 Madison 75 81 76 Marion 65 68 66 Meriwether 63 85 63 Miller 63 79 66 . Mitchell 62 52 61 Monroe 63 67 68 Montgomery 71 50 64 Morgan 71 90 76 Murray 77 91 80 L'luscogee 71 82 79 Nevrboh 77 79 78 Oconee 78 108 83 Oglethorpe 71 78 72 Paulding 74 88 77 Peach 73 72 73 Pickens 68 102 80 Pierce 86 69 81 Pike 74 82 75 Polk 75 57 68 p-ulaski 66 35 64 Putnam 58 87 68 Qui-bman 56 47 54 ■' Rabun 72 86 77 Randolph 59 61 59 Riebimond 77 98 89 Rockdale 75 87 80 Schley 73 83 75 /irea •• Lev-cl of-living index value Rural- farm ; :Co:>- -;Rural- iposite ;nonfarm:rural Georgia (Continued) Screven 66 43 - 63 Seminole 67 69 68 Spalding 78 92 85 •Stephens 75 83 77 Ste-vrart 55 65 58 Sumter 67 87 69 Talbot 57 49 54 Taliaferro 62 77 66 Tattnall 86 81 84 Taylor 67 75 69 Telfair 68 66 67 Terrell 60 90 63 Thomas 75 79 76 Tift 89 43 . 73 Toombs 77 67 75 To-v'ms 67 75 68 4 Treutlen 73 51 66 Troup 63 51 59 T'ui-'ner 77 82 78 T’rdggs 54 70 56 Union 65 68 65 U-'5son 68 50 61 •Mall: or 85 94 89 Walton 84 89 85 bare 85 52 71 Warren 67 90 72 Washington 67 61 66 Maj-TLo 85 32 67 Webster 63 79 65 V.lieeler 75 56 70 Wliite 71 74 72 Whitfield 80 86 82 Wilcox 73 72 73 Wilkes 64 76 65 Willcinson 69 53 64 Worth 67 66 67 Idaho 116 112 115 Ada 120 132 126 Adains 112 91 102 Bannock 112 122 116 Boar Lake 119 110 115r Bcnevra.h 104 113 109 Bingham 119 109 116 Blaine 117 123 121 Rural Level of li'v’lng Indexes, 1940 (Continued) 15 . Level of living index value Area Rural- farm • • •:Rural- inonfarm. :Cori>- :posite ;rural Idaho (Continued) Boise 105 87 93 Bonner 96 102 99 Bonneville 128 112 125 Boundary 101 122 111 Butte 116 106 112 CaiTias 127 no 119 Canyon 123 103 no Caribou 113 137 128 Cassia 124 119 123 Clark 115 133 125 Clearvra.ter . 103 102 102 Custer 117 91 102 E]-niore 10 6 130 122 Franklin 128 133 129 Fremont 122 106 n5 Gem 113 85 105 Gooding n9 137 124 Idaho 113 109 ni Jefferson 114 105 no Jerome 128 109 125 Kootenai 105 114 109 Latah 117 131 122 Lemhi 116 95 103 Levds 131 134 133 Lincoln 112 135 123 Uadison 115 104 n3 Ldnidoka 126 105 121 Kez Perce 116 116 116 Oneida 119 74 112 Ovr/^hee 104 87 97 Payette 119 100 n3 Power 118 127 122 Shoshone 107 130 128 Teton 116 106 111 Tvrin Falls 131 ni 123 Valley 107 li5 113 Washington 116 102 n3 Illinois 122 108 116 Adams 120 96 no Alexander 83 53 66 Bond 111 87 102 Boone 135 132 134 Bra\'m 115 103 no Bureau l^^O 129 134 : Level of living : index value Area ; ; :Cor>- :Rui'al~:Rural- :posit. :farm ; nonfarm: riu'al Illinois (Continued) Callioun 106 88 100 Carron 133 135 134 Cass 125 105 n6 Champaign U3 124 133 Christian 131 103 116 Clark 108 101 106 Clay 106 96 103 Clinton 115 93 105 Coles 129 97 118 Cook 124 141 138 Crawford 108 105 106 C\iiiiberland 112 100 107 Be Kalb L^4 U3 Do V;itt 135 114 126 Bovglas 135 120 127 Du Page 128 139 Edgar 132 104 122 Edwards 111 97 103 Effingham 111 no 111 Fayette 106 92 101 Ford L42 139 141 Franklin 96 80 86 Fulton 124 109 116 Gana tin 107 74 91 Greene 119 102 112 Grundy 141 129 135 Hamilton 92 70 89 Hancock 125 107 116 Hardin 83 84 83 Henderson 133 96 116 Henry 138 131 135 Iroquois 140 127 134 Jackson 102 88 96 Jasper no 104 108 Jefferson 98 82 93 Jersey 114 86 105 Jo Daviess 128 128 128 Johnson 91 84 89 Kane 135 137 136 Kankakee 135 130 132 KendaDJ. 143 141 142 Knox 133 111 123 Lake 130 139 13'7 In Salle no 126 134 LaT/rence no 105 108 16 Rural Level of Livinri Indexes, 1940 (Continued) ; Level of living : index value Area : . : ;Com- • • Rural- farm . :Rural- ;nonfarm eposite : rural Illinois (Continued) Lee 139 131 135 livings ton 142 134 138 Lop’an 140 ns 130 McDonough 133 102 122 McHenry 134 U1 138 McLean 139 122 131 Macon 135 114 123 Mhcoupin 117 98 107 Madison 119 120 120 Marion 102 87 95 Marshall 140 134 137 Mason 130 112 121 Massac 99 79 91 Menard 128 107 120 Mercer 136 116 127 Monroe no no no Montgomery 120 92 108 Morgan 125 109 118 Moultrie 129 106 120 Ogle 135 137 136 Peoria 128 137 135 Perry 100 83 92 Piatt 142 115 129 Pike 117 97 108 Pope 90 87 89 Pulaski 88 82 34 Putnam 138 no 122. Randolph 107 95 100 Richland 107 86 102 Rock Island 128 120 . 123 . St. Clair 115 121 120 Saline 97 82 89 Sangamon 128 116 121 Schuyler 120 105 n3 Scott 124 106 . 115 Shelby 120 98 112 Stark 139 129 134 Stephenson , 134 122 129 Tazewell 133 136 135 Union 100 90 96 Vermilion 129 102 n3 YiTabash 117 85 107 Yifarren 138 n3 130 Washington 109 102 106 Level of living index value Ivrea : :Com- Rural-;Rural— :po3ite f farm : nonfarm : rural Illinois (Continued) — . Wayne 101 78 96 V.Tiite 111 86 101 Whiteside 134 111 124 Will 134 129 130 Y^'illiarason 93 76 83 Winnebago 132 128 129 Woodford 137 141 139 Indiana 117 111 115 Adams 129 127 128 Allen 128 128 128 Bartholomenv 117 94 107 Benton 145 141 143 Blaclcford 126 132 120 Boone 129 121 L26 Broun 90 78 87' Carroll 133 123 128 - Cass 129 106 119 Clark 103 105 104 Clay 108 89 98 Clinton 133 109 L23 Crawford 84 107 91 Daviess 104 95 101 Dearborn 111 122 115 . Decatur 118 86 107 De Kalb 125 120 123 DelaT/are 133 127 L29 Dubois 102 93 99 Elkhart 119 123 121 Fayette 125 99 116 Floyd 100 113 105 Fountain 124 108 116 FranlaLin 108 114 no Fulton 127 121 125 Gibson 110 101 106 Grant 128 125 126 Greene 100 101 100 Hamilton 129 120 125 Hancock 130 122 127 Harrison 99 108 102 Hendricks 125 130 127^ Henry 130 123 ?J!6(_ Howard 131 113 123 Huntington 129 120 125 Rural Level of Living Indexes1940 (Continued) 17 / > Area Level of living index value Rural farm • • -:Rural- :nonfarm ;Coiii- :posite ;rural Indiana (Continued) Jackson 103 102 103 Jasper 123 112 120 Jay 124 115 121 Jefferson 105 93 101 Jennings 98 85 94 Johnson 124 117 121 Knox 115 94 106 Kosciusko 127 126 127 Lagrange 118 131 123 Lake 123 132 129 La Porte 122 n9 121 Lawence 96 75 87 Madison 127 129 128 Marion 124 139 136 Marshall 125 129 127 Martin 88 96 91 Miami 128 112 121 () Monroe 95 81 89 Montgomery 128 111 121 Morgan 110 101 106 NeTrbon 129 141 135 Noble 127 121 125 Ohio 117 116 117 Orange 95 ni 103 Ov,ren 97 108 102 Parke 116 100 108 Perry 85 85 85 Pike 98 98 98 Porter 124 138 132 Posey in 92 103 Pulaski 121 121 121 Putnam 116 108 113 Randolph 126 114 122 Ripley 106 106 106 Rush 135 108 125 St, Joseph 119 127 ]24 Scott 101 111 106 Shelby 128 96 n5 Spencer 103 96 100 Starke 106 117 in Steuben 126 120 124 ^Sullivan 102 85 93 . Svdtzerland 109 103 107 / Tippecanoe 132 n3 124 Tipton 135 103 123 : Level of living : index value Area ; : ;Com- ;Rural-:Rural- :posite : farm ; nonfarm: riiral Indiana (Continued) Union 134 125 130 Vanderburgh n4 128 125 Vermillion n2 88 95 Vigo no 102 104 uabash 131 115 125 T/arren 129 113 123 TTarrick 99 93 97 Washington 102 93 100 'iic.yne 130 133 132 Wells 129 111 124 Mhite 132 n7 126 bliitley 125 121 124 loTTa 131 119 127 Adair 130 122 127' Adams 125 324 n5 Allairiakee 124 112 120 Appanoose in 82 97 Audubon 131 125 129 Benton 141 121 135 Black Hawk 135 109 124 Boone 135 117 129 Bremer 132 122 129 Buchanan 133 113 125 Buena Vista 140 130 136 Butler 134 127 131 Calhoun 340 128 134 Carroll 137 131 135 Cass 131 125 129 Cedar 139 134 137 Cerro Gordo 137 118 131 Cherokee 139 130 136 Chickasaw 129 112 124 Clarke 122 94 n7 Clay 141 116 134 Clayton 130 122 126 Clinton 135 128 132 Crav/ford 130 127 129 Dallas 132 121 127 Davis 116 85 ni Decatur 117 in 114 Delaware 133 n6 128 Des iioines 127 119 124 Dickinson 139 138 138 Dubuque 128 119 124 18 . Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) r 1 / Area : Level of lining ' : . index value Area ; Level of ii'/ing : index value • « • i :Rural- ifarm : ; Corn- Rural- rposite nonfarm: rui’al • • :Rur?.l- : farm : : Cor>- :Rvra?.- ;posiV ; nc nf arm; rui’al Iowa (Continued) Iowa (Continued EiTunet 138 129 136' Pocahontas 1/a 136 139 Fayette , 130 127 129 Polk 127 117 121 Floyd 136 121 131 ?o t tawa tt ajni e 127 133 129 Franklin L'+O 117 134 Poweshiek 139 130 156 Fremont 130 120 125 Ringgold 124 113 120 Greene 139 131 137 Sac 139 137 138 Grundy U5 136 141 6cott 132 117 126 Guthrie 129 124 127 Siielby 131 116 127 Hamilton 139 131 137 Sioux 130 121 126 Hancock 138 133 136 Star y 140 128 135 Hai'din i;i ^126 135 Tama 135 131 133 Harrison 123 119 121 Try lor 123 113 119 Henry 128 115 122 Union 124 112 120 Ho\'rard 130 116 127 Van Buren 121 102 113 Humboldt ldv2 121 134 Mapello 116 113 115 Ida 135 136 135 barren 122 102 116 lovra. 135 133 134 Washington 131 116 126 ^ Jackson 129 118 125 ■Jayne 123 107 115 ; Jasper 133 117 127 vTcbster 135 111 126 Jefferson 124 93 116 IVimebagc 134 120 129 Johnson 132 123 129 linnesiick 128 110 124 Jones 13^. 113 129 Vi/bodbur^r 124 120 122 Keokuk 130 118 125 'v/orth 134 128 132 Kossuth 139 128 136 't bright 140 126 135 Lee 117 99 112 Linn 129 125 127 Kansas 115 120 118 Louisa 132 115 124 Alien 107 116 111 Lucas 117 97 112 Anderson 103 103 108 Lyon 134 118 129 Atchison lU ICl in Hadison 126 109 122 Barber 128 130 129 Mahaska 128 108 123 Barton 123 123 L?3 Marion 125 90 111 Bourbon 105 92 102 Marshall 139 122 133 Brov.n 122 111 119 LUlls 128 121 126 Bu.tler 119 125 122 I'H-tchell 134 117 129 Cliase 121 113 120 • Monona 126 122 125 Chautauo^ua 104 114 109 ■ Monroe 115 85 108 Cherokee 107 S3 98 Montgomeiy 133 127 131 Cheyenne 116 127 120 Muscatine 132 123 128 CLark 123 133 128 O’Brien 140 134 137 , 124 126 124 Osceola 139 127 134 Cloud 120 12.; 121 Page 129 106 121 Coffey 108 119 113 Palo Alto 137 126 134 Comanche 129 130 130 ^ Pl^.miouth 131 130 131 Cowley • X/C J 112 117 V 19 Rural lovcl of Livifig Indexes ^ 1940 (Continued) \ Level living index value 'Area » ■ * • • » • • :Rural- :farm : ^ iCom- • :Rural- ;posite : nonf arm: rural Kansas (Continued) Crawford 106 100 102 Decatur 107 126 115 Dickinson 128 123 126 Doniphan 111 104 108 Douglas 116 138 123 Edwards L19 132 126 Ellc 109 119 • 114 Ellis 101 107 103 Ellsvrorth 117 138 128 Finney 111 87 107 ^ord 112 130 120 Franklin 111 108 no Geary 123 126 125 Gove 103 109 106 Graham 100 98 99 Grant 113 131 121 Gray ' 102 134 116 Greeley 108 117 113 Greenwood no 122 n5 Hamilton 107 123 116 Harper 130 126 129 Harvey L25 145 133 ■ Haskell 116 137 125 Hodgeman 104 131 113 Jackson no . 94 107 Jefferson 108 108 108 Jewell 114 116 115 Johnson 117 167 152 Kearny 108 113 no Kingiiian ^ 128 n9 126 KioTf/a 124 139 131 Labette 111 107 109 Lane 115 115 n5 Leavenworth 111 109 no Lincoln • 117 123 119 Linn 103 111 106 Logan 99 138 119 Lyon ni 104 109 McPherson 126 139 131 Marion 123 128 125 Marsiiall 120 121 120 Meade 119 139 129 Miaiiii 111 102 no IVIitchell 122 116 120 Level of living index val.ue Area :Rural- : farm ; :Com- ;Rural- rposite :nonfarm:rur^ ansas (Continued) Montgomery no 95- 105 Morris 117 106 114 Morton 108 123 117 Nemaha 117 128 122 Neosho 107 101 105 Ness 108 n9 113 Norton 102 106 103 Osage 111 120 115 Osborne 121 130 125 Ottawa 126 132 129 Pawnee 126 n9 123 Phillips 107 113 no Pottawatoiiii.e 116 124 120 Pratt 132 126 130 Rawlins n? 123 119 Reno 126 133 129 Republic n7 108 115 Rice 130 145 138 Riley 122 114 120 Rooks 114 128 121 Rush 1]-1 128 n9 Russell 118 118 118 Saline 124 116 122 Scott 115 134 125 SedgiAuck 126 129 128 Sev:ard 115 130 ns Shawiee 114 129 123 Sheridan 107 120 in ^herman n2 120 n3 Smith 106 120 ni Stafford 133 140 136 Stanton 111 115 113 Stevens n3 123 ns Sumner 130 125 • 128 Thomas 116 143 131 Trego 103 125 n5 ■ •I'abaunsee n3 108 111 Mallace 106 127 115 T/’ashm.ngton n8 119 118 "'.Tichita 112 119 115 ''■iloon 109 94 104 T/oodson 105 122 113 ITyandotte 106 135 127 20 Rural Level of Living Inde^ies, 1940 (Continued) : Level of living . ■ ■ ’it —Level of living : index value ; index value Area ; ; ;Con>- • - Area ; ; :Cor.-i* '■ tRural-iRufal- :posite •Rural— : Rural- :posite :farm :nonfarm: mral farm :nonfarEi : rural- Kentucky 84 79 83 Kentuclcy (Continued) Adair 77 82 78 Hancock 85 91 37 Allen 79 77 79 Hardin 88 89 83 Anderson 101 116 105 Harlan 60 74 72 Balls, rd 99 77 91 Harrison 108 71 101 Barren 39 73 87 Hart 35 81 84 Bath 93 75 87 Henderson 100 72 92 Bell 51 31 37 Henry UO 87 101 Boone 110 111 UO Hickman 98 99 98 Boui’bon 121 76 106 Hopkins 84 65 75 Boyd 85 74 73 Jackson 60 36 56 Boyle 100 84 93 Jefferson 109 139 131 Bracken 112 105 110 Jessaiiiine 112 82 102 Breatiiitt 44 78 49 Johnson 68 87 77 Breckinridge 81 83 82 Kenton 105 155 U1 Bullitt 93 86 90 Knott 47 50 48 Butler 65 52 62 Knox 54 69 59 Caldwell 83 61 78 Larue 92 94 93 C alio//ay 90 97 91 Laurel 63 75 7!r Campbell 102 uo 123 Lav/rence 69 30 72^ Carlisle Q2 92 92 Lee 60 62 61 Carroll 106 84 100 Leslie • 41 41 41 Carter 68 68 68 Letcher 57 66 62 Casey 68 55 66 Levds 79 81 80 Christian 85 81 Lincoln 84 75 81 Clark 108 .74 101 Livingston 85 63 73 Clay 49 50 49 . Logan 89 89 89 Clinton 69 62 68 Lyon 83 102 91- Crittenden 85 85 85 LIcCracken 95 90 93 Cumberland 66 63 65 McCreary 54 72 62 Daviess 96 88 94 McLean 95 83 90 Edr.'tonson 61 55 60 Madison 91 100 94 Elliott 60 35 58 Magoffin 57 65 53 Estill 59 73 63 Marion 88 56 83 Fayette 123 153 143 LarshaU 82 92 86 Eleming 100 91 97 ifertin 45 45 45 Floyd 55 75 66 Mason U7 85 104 Franklin 108 109 108 lieade 93 74 87 Eulton 96 79 89 Menifee 61 56 60 ■Gallatin 97 88 93 Mercer 107 83 102 Garrard 101 85 96 Metcalfe 80 56 77 Grant 102 95 100 Monroe 77 76 77 Graves 90 73 86 Montgomery 102 45 84 Orayson 68 32 71 Morgan 65 71 66 Green 84 80 83 Mulilenberg 72 60 L Greenup 72 104 90 Nelson 101 81 21 Rural Level of Livirip; Indexes, 1940 (Ccnt:jiued) Level of li-'.’inc index value Level of living index value Area • • Rural—: farm : RuraL- nonfarm :Co]n— rposite ;rural Area : ;Rural : farm • * Rural- ;nonfarm :Coi:w ;posite : rural Kentuck^^ (Continued) Louisiana (Continued) - Nicholas 107 ■ 98 104 Claiborne 64 115 75 Ohio 79 76 78 ' Concordia 52 58 54 Oldham 108 103 105 De Soto 53 57 ChTen 103 90 100 East Baton Rouge 79 113 106 Owsley 60 50 59 East Carroll 60 30 58 Pendleton 106 108 107 . East Feliciaaia 50 8.4 56 Perry 50 60 55 Evangeline 49 50 49 Pike 54 66 59 Frani:lin 61 79 62 Pov^ell 61 52 58 Grant 64 67 66 Pulaski 71 71 • 71 Iberia 67 44 58 Robertson 105 • 93 103 Iberville 60 39 49 Rockcastle 57 59 58 Jackson 69 82 75 Rov>ran 65 90 76 Jefferson 97 105 105 Russell 72 54 69 Jefferson Davis 69 60 65- Scott 113 81 106 Lafayette 48 53 50 Shelby 120 89 113 Lcafourche 61 34 46 Simpson 101 57 99 La Salle 77 76 76 1 Spencer 102 93 100 Lincoln 77 90 79 Taylor 90 104 95 Livingston 74 55 67 Todd 78 77 78 Uadison 57 35 55 Trigg 80 70 78 Morehouse 56 79 60 Trimble 101 91 100 Natchitoches 54 49 53 Union 107 82 94 Ouachita 67 98 80 Warren 90 82 88 Plaquemines 65 58 60 Vi/ashington 100 107 102 Pointo Coupee 55 66 58 Wayne 62 54 60 Rapides 66 61 64 Yfebster 86 75 80 Red River 58 89 64 YJliitley 6C 61 60 Richland. 60 91 66 V>'olf e 59 62 59 Sabine 66 62 64 Yfoodford 119 73 101 St# Bernard 91 69 71 St# ^harlcs 67 68 68 Louisiana 64 66 64 St. I-Ielena 61 62 61 )i.cadia 61 48 57 St. Janes 68 38 49 Allen 68 63 65 St. John tiic Ascension 61 44 54 Baptist 62 42 46 Assumption 69 35 53 St# Lanciiv 44 39 43 Avoyelles 61 58 60 St, I'^rtin 41 26 36 Beauregard 78 50 70 St, liary 63 47 54 Bienville 69 94 76 St, Taamaany 74 58 63 Bossier 58 107 76 Tangipahoa 69 82 73 Caddo 59 109 82 Tensas 51 66 54 Calcasieu 82 79 30 Terrebonne 60 31 44 -V Caldwell 74 79 76 Union 74 97 79 ^Cameron 70 76 • 72 •V ermilion 66 34 55 Catahoula 58 68 61 Vernon 73 51 64 The value £)r the State in each case is the '.iiean of the values for the counties. The composite rural index of a State i;iay be the State rural-farm or rural-nonfarm index the county Level# liigher or lov;or than, because of rraighting or ecual to, introduced at 22 . R’jral Lc:vel of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) C ; Level of living : index value Area : : :Com!» :Rui’al-;R'eral- :po3ite :farm :nonfarm;rural Lo'oisiana (Continued) Washington 73 92 77 Webster 69 103 80 Y/est Baton Rouge 53 75 62 West Carroll 73 79 74 YiTest Feliciana 39 51 41 Y/inn 73 36- 60 Lfcine 111 121 1L8 Androscoggin 112 130 123 Aroostook 117 93 102 Cumberland 118 134 129 Franlvlin 111 129 124 Hancock 109 119 117 Kennebec 113 125 120 Knox ra 121 118 Lincoln 110 131 122 Oxford 110 122 118 Penobscot 112 123 120 Piscataquis 107 127 122 Sagadahoc 113 111 111 Somerset 108 124 118 Waldo 106 110 108 Washington 104 100 101 York 116 136 133 Maryland 108 109 1105:- Allegany 94 113 114 Anne Arundel 109 131 126 Baltimore 117 149 143 Calvert 92 92 92 Caroline 106 114 110 Carroll 115 119 117 Cecil 116 118 117 Charles 96 97 ‘ 96 Dorchester 106 75 89 Frederick 114 108 ■ 111 Garrett 95 98 96 Harford 120 127 ' 124 Hovard 120 320 120 Kent 122 30 97 Montgomery 114 138 174 Prince Georges 105 146 137 The value for the State in ca .ch case Level of living inde:; value Area iRui’al- :farm ; ; Cor.>- ;Rural- tposite ;nonfarm;r’aral Maryland (Continued) Queen Annes 112 79 95 St. ILrys 97 60 81 Somerset 101 73 83 Talbot 116 93 104 Washington no n6 134 W'icomico 104 100 102 Worcester 102 97 99 I.&ssachusetts 121 143 142 Barnstable 113 152 345 Berkshire n9 341 136 Bristol 120 135 131 Dukes 111 150 U5 Essex 124 348 144 Franklin 121 349 136 Haiiipden 120 347 341 Heumpshire 122 344 132 (. Middlesex 130 US Li6^ Norfolk 130 162 159 Plymouth 120 346 ‘.Torcester 123 U3 139 Micl'iigan 112 115 114 Alcona 111 106 109 Algor 93 69 SO Allegan 121 131 126 Alpena 101 15 96 Antrim 105 n2 108 Arenac no n5 n2 Baraga 95 101 98 Barry 119 128 321 Bay 120 133 125 Benzie 104 130 ns Berrien 118 136 126 Branch 124 127 125 Calhoun 322 148 137 ^100 Ow.oo ns 119 118 Charlcvoi;': 104 120 112 Cheboygan 97 103 101 Gh.ippcv.’-a 100 lU 88 Clare ni 125 117 Clinton 130 126 129^ the ip.can of the values for the countie^ The composite rural index of a State may be higher or lover than, the State rural—farm or rural-nonfarm index because of vreighting or Gcual to, introduced at the county level. Rural Level of Living Indcxen, 1940 (Continued) 23 ; Level of living ’ : Level of li-'/ing ; index value _ . : index value _ Area : : :Com-- ;RuraLw^jRi:ral- :positc ;farm : nonfarm; Rui’al Area • • ;Ilural-. tfarm ; ;Com~ • ;Rvral- rposito ; nonfarm : rural Ilichigan (Continued) I 'ichigan (Continued) Crau-f ord 103 104 104 Ogemaw 109 109 109 Delta 99 79 88 Ontonagon 92 115 105 Dickinson 100 107 105 Osceola ni 129 118 Eaton 127 126 127 Oscoda n5 92 103 Emet 101 106 103 Otsego 101 108 105 Genesee 123 134 130 Ottawa 122 136 128 Gladv/in llA 121 116 Presque Isle 100 93 97 Gogebic 91 108 102 Roscommon 105 107 106 Grand Traverse 111 103 109 Saginaw 122 125 123 Gratiot 124 120 123 St. Clair 121 137 128 Hillsdale 123 126 124 St. Joseph 121 132 126 Houghton 90 n6 no Sanilac 127 128 127 Huron 127 127 127 Schoolcraft 101 73 35 Ingham 127 129 128 ShiaTf^assco 127 127 127 Ionia 124 125 124 Tuscola 122 132 125 Iosco no 127 120 Van Bur on 115 131 121 . Iron 97 112 108 Yfeshtenaw 130 U3 138 1 Isabella 121 108 118 llaync 222 139 136 Jackson 124 134 130 ' IJcxford 101 no 104 Kalamazoo 122 152 143 Kalkaska 100 89 - 95 IHnnesota 121 112 118 Kent 120 137 132 A:.tkin 101 97 100 Keweenaw 76 100 98 Anoka 112 1C7 ni Lake 101 86 95 Becker 106 76 98 Lapeer 126 123 125 Beltrami 94 61 83 Leelanau 106 114 109 Benton 116 108 114 Lenav/ee 130 137 133 Big Stone 127 126 126 Livingston 127 135 190 Blue Earth 134 121 130 Luce 97 51 6o Brovm 135 125 132 Llackinac 99 81 88 Carlton 103 107 104 I'iacoinb 127 131 130 C:rvcr 132 119 126 Llanisteo 103 109 105 Cass 96 82 90 Llarquette 97 96 96 Chippewa 134 n5 128 Llason 113 n3 113 Chisago 118 123 120 Llecosta 114 105 n2 eny 122 ni 118 Llenominee 105 98 103 Clcan'fater 97 81 93 O-dland in 112 113 Cook 93 81 85 LILssaukeo lOS no 109 Cottonv.’ood 133 n4 130 Llonroe 123 123 126 Crow T/ing 99 94 97 Lbntcalm ne 122 n9 Dakota 125 127 126 Llontmorency 99 81 91 Dodge 129 129 129 Lkiskegon 112 121 118 Douglas 113 no n6 ^ Noi’/aygo 108 m 109 aribault 139 128 135 * Oakland 125 145 142 Fillmore 126 123 125 Oceana ni 123 n5 Freeborn 133 n3 127 24 Rnral Level of Living Indexes^ 1940 (Oortinued) ( : Level of living : index value Area ; : :Coni- ;Rural-:Riixal- eposite ; farm : nonfarm:rural Minnesota (Continued) Goodhue 129 128 129 Grant 129 123 127 Hennepin 123 13'8 132 Houston 126 119 123 Hubbard 98 80 94 Isanti 113 123 116 Itasca 94 114 104 Jackson 136 121 134 Kanabec 108 116 110 Kandiyohi 128 105 120 Kittson 117 103 112 Koochiching 93 76 85 Lac qui Parle 132 126 130 Lake 105 80 96 Lake of the Y/oods 92 92 92 Le Sueur _\ 131 127 129 Li.ncoln 131 115 126 Lyon 134 112 127 McLeod 131 123 128 l/Iahnomen 102 77 02 Marshall 114 109 113 Martin 139 129 136 Meeker 127 119 125- L'lille Lacs 111 99 106 Morrison 108 97 106 Movrer 132 121 128 liurray 138 122 133 Nicollet 138 117 135 Nobles 138 106 128 Norman 118 119 118 Olmsted 127 114 123 Otter Tail 114 102 111 Pennington 112 78 106 Pine 107 112 109 Pipestone 136 116 130 Polk 119 105 116 Pope 124 113 121 Ramsey 116 138 132 Red Lake 112 109 111 Red'TOod 136 121 131 Renville 137 128 133 R^ce 127 105 123 Rock 136 112 131 Roseau 106 93 102 St. Louis — 97 109 103 Scott 128 121 124 Level of living/ indc;: vaD.ue / * iirca Rural- farm • • • • Rural- : ; nonfarm: Com¬ posite rural !S.nnesota (Continued) Sherburne 115 117 1-16 Sibley 134 126 131 Stearns 122 108 116 Steele 131 130 131 Stevens 130 123 128 Saift 129 119 126 Todd L16 ].03 112 Traverse 133 126 130 habasha 128 126 127 Wadena 105 92 102 Waseca 134 1 0/ 131 Washington 121 127 124 Watonv,’’an 135 124 131 Wilkin 127 111 123 Winona 125 124 125 Wright 121 122 Icl Yellow Medicine 133 121 “fr- LN-ssissipp-'i 69 SO 70 47 49 48 ilcorn 74 90 78 Amite 70 86 73 ^^tta].a 71 63 71 Benton 61 83 63 Bolivar 64 70 • 65 Calhoun 77 90 80 Carroll 64 91 67 Chickasav/ 67 96 75 Choctaw 72 93 76 Claiborne 61 59 61 Clarke 66 67 66 Clay 63 56 62 Coahoma 63 70 64 Copiah 72 62 70 Covington 75 91 78 De Soto 60 93 64 Forrest 85 73 79 Franklin 71 58 66 George 74 63 70 Greene 72 43 61 Grenada 60 70 62 Hc.nccck 83 - 66 71 Harrison 86 37 ar Hinds 60 91 lioioes 53 36 62 Humphre 3 ’'s 61 77 62 25 Riiral Level of Living Indexes^ 1940 (Oontinned) Area ; Level of living : index value Area ' ; Level of living : index value • 4 • 4 t'Rural-: ;’farm Rura?_— nonfarm :Com~ :posite rui'al 4^ : Rural- : farm : :Com- :Rural- tposit ; nonfarm; ri iral Mississippi (Continued) . . . IsLssissippi (Con tinned) Issaquena 54 71 55 Walthall 72 120 77 Itawamba 71 103 74 ITarren 63 46 56 Jackson 09 63 74 Washington 59 62 59 Jasper 72 83 74 'uayne 64 56 62 Jefforson 53 66 55 Webster 79 83 SO Jefferson Davis 73 102 76 Tfilkinson 51 59 54 Jones 79 68 77 Winston 70 71 "’O Kemper 60 69 62 . Yalobusha 67 107 71 Lafayette 69 77 70 Yazoo 59 69 60 Lamar 78 73 76 -- Lauderdale 71 61 69 I'issoui’i 98 91 96 Lawrence 71 so 73 Adair 10/+ 73 97 Lcako 73 80 ^4 Andrevj" 116 113 115 Lee 74 86 77 Atchison 129 121 126 Leflore 65 83 67 Audrain 111 91 1C6 Lincoln 76 49 72 Barry 89 91 89 ^ Lowndes 61 88 66 Barton 104 93 101 P liadiscn 54 78 57 Bates 104 88 99 Liirion 73 64 72 Benton 91 98 93 Liar shall 50 74 52 Bollinger 82 79 82 lioriroe 70 78 71 Boone 100 98 99 Montgomery 73 81 74 Buchanan 109 121 114 Noshoba 77 73 77 Butler 67 38 62 NcT/ton 76 107 84 Caldwell 113 104 109 Noxubee f4 86 51 Callauiray 93 93 97 Oktibbeha 58 , 107 63 Camden 81 31 81 Panola 60 97 68 Cape Girardeau 102 80 98 Pearl River 86 66 77 Carroll 112 95 107 Pcrr3^ 71 60 67 Carter 73 61 68 Pike 73 69 71 Cass 111 110 111 Pontotoc 75 105 80 Cedar 92 95 93 Prentiss 72 95 77 Chariton 103 102 106 Quitman 67 99 72 Christian 93 94 93 Rankin 72 74 73 Cl'ork 108 94 102 Scott 76 83 77 Clay 117 126 122 Sl'^arkey 67 94 72 Clinton 114 105 110 Simpson 77 97 82 Cole 99 100 99 SiAith 79 101 82 Cooper 105 34 100 Stone 85 74 79 Crawford 82 34 83 Sunflower 68 105 72 Dade ]-00 105 101 Tallahatchie 65 90 69 DS-HS-S 87 85 87 Tate 62 100 68 Dav3.css 108 98 104 ^ Tippah 74 102 80 De Kalb 11.5 103 no " Tishomingo 71 85 74 Bent 87 42 SO Tunica 62 92 65 Douglas 79 78 79 Union 77 70 76 Dunklin 91 75 87 26 Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) Leve]. of living j.ndox value Level of living index value Area • ;Rural~! : farm zCom- iRural- :positc nonfarm;rural Area Rural— farm : tCor.'i- ;Rural- rposite : nonfarm ; rural LC-ssouri (Continued) Missouri (Continued) Franklin 97 107 101 Phelps 85 87 86 Gasconade 94 122 107 Pike 106 94 102 Gentry 113 112 n3 Platte 114 109 112 Greene 104 99 102 Polk 99 83 96 Grundy 108 84 102 Pulaski 87 87 87 Harrison 112 86 105 Putnam 100 93 98 Henry 102 101 102 Rans 107 93 102 Hickory 94 84 92 Randolph 102 94 99 Holt 122 104 m Ray 108 88 102 Howard 105 no 107 Reynolds 72 53 66 Howell 83 93 85 Ripley 75 89 78 ^ron , 76 74 75 St, Charles 106 96 103 Jackson 112 145 137 St, Clair 94 83 92 Jasper 105 100 103 St. Francois 91 95 94 Jefferson 98 109 103 St, Louis n2 149 145 Johnson 106 96 103 Ste, Genevieve 95 80 91 Knox 108 98 105 Saline 112 99 107 Laclede 84 60 81 Schuyler 113 99 108 (f Lafayette in 101 107 Scotland in 102 108 Lavjrence 100 106 102 Scott 98 86 93 Levds 112 105 109 Shannon 77 53 69 Lincoln 103 101 102 Shelby no 103 107 Linn 111 90 104 Stoddard 87 79 85 Livingston no 82 104 Stone 81 87 83 HcDonald 83 94 86 Sullivan 108 89 102 Uacon 103 97 101 Taney 76 92 81 Madison 85 57 77 Texas 87 S3 26 Marios 83 87 84 Vernon 93 35 94 Marion no 115 n2 iTarren 100 109 103 Mercer 107 99 105 V/ashington 79 36 53 Miller 88 86 88 Mayne 76 71 74 Mississippi 78 60 74 V/ebster 90 96 92 Moniteau 100 89 97 bbrth 114 100 no Monroe no 109 no bright 84 90 86 Montgomery 102 99 101 • Morgan 86 89 87 Montana lU no n3 New Madrid 86 65 79 Beaverhead 123 98 n3 Neirdon 94 86 92 Big Horn no 99 105 Nodaway 118 96 111 Blaine 106 109 107 Oregon 78 93 82 Broadwater 124 104 n2 Osage 87 87 87 Carbon 115 117 n6 Ozark 75 61 74 Carter 108 87 103 Pemiscot 88 66 84 Cascade n6 112 lU . Perry 99 80 95 Chouteau n9 127 122 Pettis 106 91 103 Custer 109 106 108 Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) 27 ; Level of living : Level of living f ; index value : index value Area : ^ • tGom*^ Area • : : tCoiii- :Rural-iRural- :poalte ** : Rural-‘.Rural- :posite :farm :nonfarm:rural rfarm :nonfarm:rural Llontana { Continued) Montana (Continued) ' Daniels 118 106 113 V/heatland 123 140 135 Dawson 108 90 105 Wibaux ns 103 n3 Deer Lodge 115 n5 n5 fclloT,’■stone 118 n? 118 Fallon 113 128 120 Fergus 118 98 ni Nebraska ns no no-''- Flathead 107 n4 no Adams 114 no 112 Gallatin 125 n9 123 Antelope 121 123 122 Garfield 95 78 90 Arthur 122 62 no Glacier 95 82 87 Banner 123 78 120 Golden Valley 122 no n? Blaine 118 no 116 Granite 121 n9 120 Boone 106 134 n7 Hill 113 93 106 Box Butte 113 n6 118 Jefferson 117 124 122 Boyd 111 109 no Judith Basin 128 ns 124 Brov/n 113 125 119 Lake no n9 114 Buffalo 114 129 120 Lewis and Clark n7 no 113 Burt 130 131 130 Liberty 122 n6 120 Butler 109 no n3 ^^piincoln 97 n7 no Cass 123 125 124 LIcCone 106 90 101 Cedar • 125 126 125 Madison 121 109 n5 Chase 123 120 122 Meagher 124 114 no Cherry 123 125 124 Mineral" 102 120 n6 Cheyenne 126 127 126 Missoula 105 127 no Clay n2 127 no Musselshell 110 104 107 Colfax n5 no n6 Park 125 98 114 Cuming 124 131 126 Petroleum " 107 n3 no Custer n5 122 117 Pliiilips no • 103 106 Dakota 124 105 ns Pondera 121 126 123 Dawes 124 324 124 Pov;der River 103 90 100 Dawson 122 125 123 Powell 117 85 103 Deuel 126 U3 135 Prairie n3 102 106 ^ . Dixon 124 126 125 Ravalli n3 123 n7 Dodge 125 129 127 Rj^chland no 95 106 Douglas 122 126 125 Roosevelt 106 no 108 Dundy 121 107 .n5 Rosobud 104 102 103 Fillmore 113 132 122 Sanders 102 114 108 Franklin 105 no ni 'Sheridan 112 101 i07 Frontier no 130 n7 Silvar Bow 109 138 137 Furnas no 131 121 StillT:ater 120 no 120 Gage 122 325 123 Sweet Grass ns 133 125 Gar den 126 107 no Teton 123 123 123 Garfield 107 122 n3 Toole 122 126 124 Gosper 106 131 n2 ^Treasure in 127 . . n6 Grant 136 129 132 WV alley uu, 97 103 Greeley 108 125 115 ^5- The value for the State in ca ch case is the mean of the values foi‘ the counties, The coLipositc rural index of a State r.iay be higher or loi/er than, or equal to, the State rural—farm or rural-nonfarm index because of v/eighting introduced at the county level* 28. i^ural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 on tinned) C Level of living index value •Level of living index vc.lue Area Rural- farm • • zRural- cnonfarra ;CoiTW :posite :rural Area : Rui-al- fana • • tRural- : nonfarm :Coi.>- :posite i: rural lebraska (Continued; It .. Nebraska (Continued) Hall m 123 116 Thayer 115 126 120 Hamilton 115 135 123 Tj^omas 114 n2 n3 Harlan 110 131 119 T'^urston no 97 104 Hayes 124 82 117 Valley 109 129 n7 Hitchcock 118 120 n9 lias hing ton 124 125 124 Holt 118 in 116 ■Jayne 126 120 125 Hooker 113 133 125 li'cbster 104 123 112 Hovrard 110 120 114 LT.celer n3 96 no Jefferson 121 in 118 York 118 119 ns Johnson 119 128 123 Kearney 118 136 126 Nevada no 122 121 Keith 128 104 120 Churchill n5 133 124 Kcya Paha 116 97 112 Of ark 103 144 138 Kimball 120 143 133 Douglas 132 122 126 Knox in 115 n2 Elko 113 107 109^ Lancaster 116 112 114 Esmeralda 98 104 104(1 • Li-ncoln 120 100 n3 Eureka 115 88 95^ Logm 117 103 112 Humboldt 102 123 n9 Loup 116 98 n2 Lander no 97 99 McPherson ni 31 106 Lincoln in 139 134 Madison 116 128 < 120 Lyon 120 126 123 Merrick 120 132 126 Mineral 56 105 98 Morrill 118 n7 118 Nye 95 n9 n5 Nance no 131 119 Ormsby 123 167 165 Nemaha 127 ni 122 Pershing 121 112 114 Nuckolls no 115 112 Storey 133 144 143' Otoe 123 129 125 Washoe n6 114 115 Pa-vmee 120 120 120 YJiite Pine in 136 134 Perkins 128 136 131 — Phelps 120 UQ 120 Nct: Hampshire n6 130 126 Pierce 120 121 120 Bclioaao 116 127 124 Platte ni 117 112 Carron 117 125 123 Polk' ns 136 125 Cheshire •' n5 128 124 Red'wlllcnY ni 100 107 Coos 115 137 131 Richardson 123 in n9 Grafton n6 138 132 Rock n? 104 n2 Hinsborough n7 135 129 Saline n6 129 121 Merrimack n6 126 123 Sarpy 122 137 131 Rockingham 117 130 126 Saunders 118 126 . 121 Strafford ns 131 128 Scotts Bluff 125 107 n9 Sullivan n3 122 ■ n7 Sevrard n3 116 n4 — Sheridan 125 123 124 Nevi’ Jersey 124 146 143^- Sherman 100 n6 106 Atlantic n3 136 131 Sioux 120 125 121 Bergen 126 163 161 Stanton 114 130 119 Burlington 125 145 142 29 Rural Level‘of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) ; Level of living : Level of living ; index value : index value r ^ Area • • ZCODr- Area • • zCom- . :Rural~ ; Rural- zpositc zR'oral- z Rural- zpositc zfarm inonfarn ; rural zfarm znenfarn zruiviL •levf Jersey (Con tinued) Mev/ Mexico (Cent im:ed) Graaden 112 151 U7 Santa Fc 62 33 47 Cape ilay 119 134 132 Sierra 72 58 64 Cumberland 117 130 125 Socorro 63 34 52 Essex 127 170 168 Taos 41 29 ■ 35 Gloucester 122 141 136 Torrance 73 45 61 Hudson - L-U 141 Union 99 63 91 Hunterdon 125 145 137 Vsloncia 53 14 32 Mercer 129 153 150 iB.ddlosex 125 1^3 uo L'ev York 121 138 132 Hormiouth 123 150 146 Albany 121 159 151 ilorris 125 152 149 Allegany 119 144 134 Ocean 118 146 144 Broome 116 149 140 Passaic 129 150 149 Cattarauigus 117 140 130 Salem 126 143 138 Cayuga 123 135 128 Somerset 125 149 1.4 Chautauqua 121 U3 132 Sussex 127 136 133 Chemung 117 147 138 ^^Union ^Plfanren 131 163 162 Chenango 119 142 130 126 130 129 Clinton 114 112 113 Columbia 122 138 132 levr Mexico 73 57 67 Cortla nd 124 134 128 Bomalillo 71 78 76 Delaware 123 134 229 Catron 33 45 64 Dutchess 131 149 U5 Chaves 105 70 94 Erie 122 156 34s ^cliax 99 69 79 Essex 115 129 125 Curry 119 85 107 Irankl.in 108 109 108 Dc Baca 100 77 86 Fulton' 109 120 11.6 Dona Ana 39 41 69 Genesee 126 130 123 Eddy 101 78 88 Greene 121 136 131 Grant 109 77 83 Hamilton 104 130 ]14 Guadalupe 51 34 39 Herkimer 121 130 125 Harding 90 48 71 Jefferson 121 132 128 Hidalgo 107 87 98 Leads 119 123 121 Lea 117 142 136 Liulngston 126 142 136 Lincoln 89 72 78 • Madison 123 141 132 Luna 107 54 62 Monroe 129 167 157 McKinley 3 57 25 Montgomery L22 138 132 Ilora 40 8 29 Nassau 129 163 162 Oterc 96 69 82 Niagara 125 146 136 Qn^7 105 76 97 Oneida 121 1'^ 135 Rio Arriba 41 7 26 Onondaga 124 139 Roosevelt 106 78 102 Ontario 128 135 132 Sandoval 39 9 21 Orange 126 143 138 ASan Juan 29 103 50 Orleans L24 149 122 ™dan i.aguGi 40 12 28 Osvogo 117 130 123 30 Rurr.l Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) Area : Level : index of living value • • • ■ : Rural-; • •f' n • : Com- . Rural- :posito nonfarm: riiral Novj- York (Continued) Otsego 121 133 127 Putnam 128 152 148 Rensselaer 118 147 138 Rockland 131 153 152 St» Lavu’ence 113 116 117 Saratoga 116 133 127 Schenectady 122 160 155 Schoharie 120 126 123 Schuyler 117 128 122 Seneca 124 122 123 Steuben 117 132 125 Suffolk 131 144 U2 Sullivan 117 135 128 Tioga 117 130 123 Tompkins 120 152 138 Ulster 13-9 132 *1 -L/co Warren 105 133 126 Washington 123 128 126 Wayne 122 133 127 Westchester 128 173 171 Wyoming 124 139 132 Yates 120 123 121 North Carolina 84 85 85-a- Alamance 100 106 104 Alexander 81 96 85 Alleghany 79 82 79 Anson 74 78 75’ Ashe 73 80 74 Avery 72 71 72 Beaiifort 90 66 83 Bertie 83 82 83 Bladen 80 68 77 Brunswick 75 58 67 Buncombe 89 109 100 Burke 73 76 75 Cabarrus 96 118 111 Caldwell 77 74 76 Camden 97 64 85 Carteret 95 62 74 Caswell 80 90 81 Catav/ba 94 107 100 Chatham 87 101 91 Cherokee 63 101 77 Chowan ' 88 65 87 -A- The value for the State in each case T^e composite rural index of a State the State rur< il-farm or rural- -nonfariT the county level. Area : Level of livi ; index value ng ; Rural- tfarn • • Rural- ; nonfarm: Comr- posite rurr.l North Carolina (Continued) Clay 63 63 67 Cleveland 89 106 93 Colximbus 86 66 81 Craven 89 61 79 Cumberland 81 78 79 Currituck 92 55 77 Dare 98 83 34 Davidson 100 96 98 Davie 89 107 96 Duplin 86 87 86 Durham 89 116 104 Edgecombe 77 61 75 Forsyth 99 114 108 Franklin 86 35 Gaston 92 101 99 Gates 38 68 84 Graham 62 55 60 Granville 83 72 81 Greene 96 123 99^ Guilford 103 111 107 Halifax 64 64 64 Harnett 91 90 91 KajnTOod lU 73 74 Henderson 87 106 95 Hertford 85 99 90 Hoke 75 96 79 Hyde 83 57 74 Iredell 92 98 94 Jackson 66 83 71 Johnston 92 76 88 Jones 86 69 82 Lee 94 90 93 Lenoir 93 78 90 Lincoln 95 38 93 licDo'v^ell 71 72 72 I. fee on 72 79 74 Lladison 69 95 73 Hartin 87 87 37 L'ecklcnburg 94 125 112 I.Iitchcll 72 38 77 Ilontgomery 81 97 89 Moore 87 96 91 Nash 83 85 83 Not; Hanover 102 125 123^ Northampton 72 74 73^ is the r.ieen of the values for the counties, raay be higher or lovrer than, or equal to, i index because of 'weighting introduced au Rural Level of Living Indexes^ 1940 (Continued) 31 Level of li\d.n 2 index value Area • • :Rural- :fariii • • :Rural- ;nonfanii :Com- . cposite : rural North Carolina 0ns lov; (Continued) S3 71 80 Orange' 91 97 93 Panaico 92 54 70 Pasquotank 95 69 85 Pender 79 54 70 Perc[uimans 91 77 86 Person 85 86 85 Pitt 90 85 89 Polk 80 119 96 - Randolph 90 104 96 Richraond 73 81 77 Robeson 80 77 79 Rockingham 93 92 92 Rowan 98 112 106 Rutherford 84 98 90 Sampson 90 66 87 Scotland 64 57 62 , tanly ^^Stokes 90 99 95 91 110 93 Surry 85 72 81 S?rain 60 86 63 Transylvania 80 82 81 Tyrrell 88 67 81 Union 91 106 93 Vance 84 69 79 Vfeke 94 112 102 Vlarren 70 88 75 VfasI ling ton 83 79 81 Uatauga 78 117 87 ITa^me 92 71 87 Uilkes 67 78 69 Ifilson 90 77 88 Yadkin 95 92 94 Yancey 65 74 66 .'orth Dakota 112 100 108 Adar;^ 106 115 no Barnes 120 94 113 Benson 116 87 ].04' Bi].lings 37 105 90 Bottineau 117 99 no Boivinan 110 125 116 Burke 107 99 103 ^^'urleigh ^pass 111 84 104 132 107 122 Level of living index value Area ; : Corn- Rural-;Rural~ :posite fam : nonfarm ; rural North Dakota (Continued) Cava].ier 115 100 no Dickey 117 124 120 Divide 108 104 106 Dunn 96 94 96 Eddy 119 113 116 Emiaons 98 81 92 Poster 120 111 116 Golden Valley 113 124 121 Grand. Forks 127 106 121 Grant 97 90 95 Griggs 119 107 115 Hettinger 104 117 109 Kidder 109 89 103 La Lloure 114 107 111 Logan 101 79 94 LIcHenry 111 97 106 LiClntosh 93 76 86 McKenzie 103 89 99 McLean 107 98 104 Mercer 99 88 94 Horton 10 b 94 102 Mountrail 105 99 103 Nelson 121 105 115 Oliver 107 86 103 Pembina 130 95 114 Pierce lU 99 108 Rains ey 122 97 114 Ransom 122 127 124 Renville 116 112 115 i.icM-and 126 113 122 Rolette 88 98 91 Sargent 124 113 120 Sheridan 112 97 108 Sioux 84 69 77 Slope 111 125 - 115 Stark 104 86 99 Steele 122 96 n4 Stutsman 115 86 104 Tovnier 128 105 119 Traill 128 112 121 Y/'alsh 1 90 97 115 V;ard 112 99 107 w'ells L22 113 118 Milliams 101 91 98 32 Pa^ral Level of Ij.v:Lng Indexes, 1940 (Continued) Area Level of livijig index value ' •' Area ; Level of lining : index value • • Hur al~ Hhural- farm rnonfanTi :Com-. :po3ite '.rural • • :Rural- : farm : / tRurai- :noniaia :Coa>- ;posite It rural Ohio 119 117 119-?- Ohio (Continued) — AdaiilS 101 94 98 Licking , L21 131 126 Allen 128 122 125 Logan 124 117 121 Ashland 123 134 128 Lorain 126 137 1^2 Ashtabula 116 1A2 1 OQ Lucas 121 142 138 Athens 103 82 91 Iladison 12.5 112 121 Auglaize 128 1 126 127 lialioning 121 144 137 Belriiont 106 101 103 lirrion 131 112 123 BrOT.TL 109 107 108 llodina 127 141 132 Butler 124' 117 r3o iiloigs 97 89 94 Carroll 114 109 112 licrcor 128 113 124 Ciiariipaign 131 110 122 idami 131 134 132 Clark 131 129 130 Monroe 97 97 97 Clermont 112 120 117 ilontgoncry 128 344 140 Clinton 123 112 121 Morgan 107 124 114 Columbians. 116 119 118 MorroVrf 122 116 120 Cosliocton 116 106 112 Muskingum 112 122 117^ Cravjford 132 114 127 Noble 104 ICO 103 Cuyahoga 122 155 L48 Otta'v.'a L26 3-36 132 Barke 126 123 125 Paulding 1 oo 114 121 Defiance 126 112 124 porrv 103 103 105 Delciware 125 113 121 Pickrvray 123 95 114 Erie 125 134 130 Pike 90 82 87 Fairfield L22 13.6 .1.19 Purtage 122 134 128 Pa^X'tte 127 91 117 Preble 128 340 125 Fr;:n.klin 127 131 130 Putnam 132 127 130 Fiji ton 129 138 133 Rich3.and 124 127 126 Gallia 97 73 91 , Koss 103 90 97 Geauga 118 Lt5 129 Sandusky 128 L23 128 Greene 132 136 134 Scioto 92 c/ 87 Guernsey 105 95 100 Seneca 130 116 L25 Hai.Aiton 118 149 l;3 Shelby L29 107 121 Haxicock 133 118 128 Stark 121 139 133 Hardin 128 116 12? Summit 120 341 135 Harrison 112 3J.9 116 Trumbull 120 127 125 Kerny 131 121 128 TuscaraTi/as 114 3.17 13.6 Higliland 117 95 110 Union 123 109 L21 Hocking 99 85 92 Van TTcrt 131 110 125 Holmes 112 126 117 Vin ton 94 92 93 Hui'on 125 130 1 ■ )n Varron 125 ILl ns Jackson 97 73 85 V/ashington 93 111 104 JoffervSon 105 114 112 T/a^vie 125 125 32 5. Knox 123 128 125 Y/illianriG 130 123 12 S( Ij3.iZG 123 158 148 hood 132 124 128 Las,r on.ee 88 80 84 ■fyandot 129 108 123 The value for che State in each case is the mean of the values for the counties. The composite rural index of a Sto.te may be liigh-r or lexer than. or equal to. the State rural --farm or rural -nonfarm index because of 1 •reighting introduced at the county level. 33 Rural Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) Area : Xevcl of li"ving ; . index value Area Level of livi index value ng :Rural- :farm : ;Com- ;Rural- :posite ;nonfarm;rural Rural- farm • • • • ; Rural- : ; nonfarm; Com- posi"*" rural Oklahoma 91 89 9B- Oklahoma (Continued) Adair 63 69 65 Logan 103 100 102 Alfalfa 126 113 122 Love 76 95 81 Atoka 61 31 54 McClain 90 68 84 Beaver 110 116 112 McCui’tain 60 53 58 Beckham 101 93 99 McIntosh 68 89 74 Blaine • 106 107 106 • ilajor 106 111 107 Bryan 80 64 76 Marshall 78 55 73 Caddo ' 96 101 98 Mayes 79 55 71 Canadian 112 112 112 Murray 85 84 85 Carter 78 101 89 Muskogee 76 67 72 Cherokee 59 31 55 Noble 115 121 117 Choctavj" 64 47 59 No"'.;ata 89 76 84 Cimarron ^ 109 106 108 Okfuskee 73 78 74 Cleveland 94 95 94 Oklahoma 98 122 111 Ooal 70 77 73 Okinulgee 77 75 77 Comanche 97 83 90 Oeage 100 118 111 Cotton 101 no 104 Ottaira 89 81 84 Craig 39 66 80 Pawnee 95 85 92 Creek 81 103 88 Payne 97 106 100 Cus ter 113 100 no Pittsburg 77 70 74 Delavrare 71 63 69 Pontotoc 81 89 84 Dewey 100 98 99 PottawatomiLe 87 103 93 Eliis 109 115 111 Pushraataha 64 29 52 Garfield 126 125 126 Roger mis 97 95 96 Garvin 82 87 84 Rogers 81 84 82 Grady 90 87 89 Seminole 72 no 92 Grant 130 125 128 Sequoyah 56 69 60 Greer 106 107 106 Stephens 85 84 85 Karmon 103 112 104 Texas 111 130 121 Harper "• 108 105 107 TilLman 116 111 115 Haskell 70 73 71 Tulsa 95 99 98 Hug; he s 78 81 79 Magoner 75 55 70 Jackson 110 96 106 Washington 97 89 93 Jefferson 94 96 95 Washita 113 102 111 Johnston 73 73 73 Woods 115 108 113 Kay 119 108 lU '"oodward 106 82 97 Kingfisher 116 117 116 Kiowa 107 100 105 Oregon n 9 124 122 Latimer 68 64 66 Baker 120 113 419 Le Elore 69 57' 63 Benton 118 131 L23 Lincoln 87 102 92 Clackamas 113 142 130 The value for the State in each case is the aean of the values for tl:e counties. The coraposite rural index of a State may be higher or lovrer than, or equal to, the State rural— farm or rural—nonfarm index because of "weighting introduced at the county level* 34. Rural Level of Livi.ng Indexes, 1940 (Continued) : Level of 1 iving i.ndex va lue Area • • :Com- : Rural Rural- ;posite : farm :nonfarni:rural Oregon (Continued) Clatsop 118 129 126 Columbia 107 129 119 Coos 113 112 112 Crook 128 120 123 Ciu'ry 113 107 109 Deschutes 114 121 118 Douglas 114 117 116 Gilliaia 134 149 1-42 Grant 1.27 ].U 119 Harney 120 127 123 Hood River 120 124 1.21 Jackson 113 114 114 Jefferson 117 116 116 Jos ephine 105 90 99 Klaoaath 119 120 Lake 118 121 120 Lane 1J.6 122 119 Lincoln 102 120 115 Linn 117 111 115 Lialhei'r 106 107 106 Marion 118 127 . 122 Morrow 129 U2 135 likQ.tnomah 116 150 L53 Polk 118 130 124 Slieriaan 1/^5 146 145 Tillanook 125 125 125 Umatilla 121 125 Union 123 127 125 Vfelloi'fa 124 133 123 Wasco 120 116 118 Washington 1]..7 135 126 Wiiecler 116 12/;. 121 Yamliill 118 128 122 Pennsylvania 114 L23 121 Adorns 115 123 119 Allegheny 116 139 137 Armstrong 109 116 1L4 Beaver 112 133 128 Bedford 110 100 104 Berks 116 136 130 Blair 113 116 115 Bradford 117 125 ^20 Bucks 125 145 138 Butler 113‘ 127 122 G Level of liwlng ii^dex value Area : iCosi- R’oral-:Rural- :po3ite farm tnoiif arm: rural Pennsylvania (Continued) Cambria 103 114 ■ 112 ■ Caiueron 107 125 122 Carbon 111 118 117 Centre 116 na n? Chester 128 U3 137 Clarion 114 117 116 Clearfield 101 107 105 Clinton 115 124 122 Columbia 114 119 n? Crai.dord 116 137 125 Cuiuberland 120 125 123 Dauphin 116 140 135 Delaware 130 161 159 • Elk 105 117 114 Erie 117 143 132 Fayette 105 1L2 in^ Forest 105 120 n6 V Franlilin 123 107 n5 Fulton no 102 107 Greene 108 112 in Huntingdon ni 105 107 Indiana Jefferson TOO 109 m Juniata 115 112 1Z3 I,ackawanna 113 126 1^ Lcsiccister 121 132 I28 La^grence 121 127 n5 Lebanon 123 131 128 Lehigh 118 122 121 Luaerne 103 120 n9 Li'coming ns 119 117 McKean n3 147 141 Mercer 120 129 125 Mifflin 112 115 114 Monroe llA 131 125 Montgomery 123 15'^ U 9 Montour n4 99 105 Hortha:.ipton ng 129 126 Northumberland 116 119 113 Periy 116 124 121 Pike no 133 127 Potter 114 125 120 Schuylkill 109 122 120r Snyder 111 112 112^ Somerset n3 104 107 Sullivan in 108 109 Rural Level of Living. IndeS;e8, 1940 (Continued^ 35 “■ ■- } ' Level of living'" ■ ■■ Level of living ; index value : index value Area : : ;Com- Area ; : :Con- :Rural-:Rural- :posite :Hural-:Rural- :positi; ;farm :nonfarm:rural : f arm : nonf am : rural Poimaylvania (Continued) South Carolina (Continued) Susquehanna 115 131 122 Kershaw 62 53 60 Tioga 120 127 124 Lxncastcr 76 84 79 Union 120 124 123 Laurens SO 84 81 Venango 107 127 120 Lee 67 65 67 ITari'en 109 129 122 Lexington 85 97 90 L'ashington 115 122 121 ifcCormick 58 72 62 'Wayne 116 124 120 Marion 75 45 69 ITestmor eland 115 117 117 Ii'Iarlboro 64 59 63 Wyoming 115 131 124 KcYtrborry 80 77 79 York 118 135 129 Oconee 74 94 81 Drangeburg 69 83 72 Rhode Island 123 137 135 Pickens 82 110 94 Kent 122 131 130 R.; chland 65 93 81 NoT^port 124 U1 138 Saluda 79 , 115 84 Providence 123 138 135 Spartanburg 34 98 92 ^ Washington 124 138 136 Snmtcr 63 57 61 I Union 63 90 76 South Carolina 69 78 72 Vfilliamsburg 62 85 64 Abbeville 75 82 77 York 72 81 75 Aiken 71 81 76 Allendale 60 84 67 South Dakota 111 103 108 Anderson 85 100 91 Armstrong 89 89 Bambv^rg 70 71 70 Aurora 111 121 114 Earnv/oll 62 78 67 Bco.dle 113 115 113 Beaufort 46 44 45 Bennett 94 57 79 Berkolcy 49 52 50 Bon Homin.e 112 111 112 Calhoun 71 91 75 Brookings 130 107 124 Charleston 51 82 72 Bronn 124 122 123 Cherokee 76 80 77 .Brule 117 124 120 Chester 63 99 77 Buffalo 111 38 74 Chesterfield 71 77 72 Butte 118 126 122 Clarendon 61 86 66 Co.mpbell 100 83 95 Colleton 67 41 61 Gl'arles lib: 102 116 107 Darlington 76 56 ■ 70 Clark 117 114 116 Dillon 78 59 74 Clay 126 110 123 Dorchester 69 56 64 Codington 122 102 118 Edgefield 68 95 75 Corson 87 79 84 Fairfield 60 73 64 Custer 111 94 100 Florence 79 83 80 Davison 116 118 116 GeorgetoYm 53 34 45 Diy 119 112 116 Greenville 88 114 . 105 Deuel 126 109 121 k Greciwood 75 102 89 Dowoy 85 75 80 " He jiipton 60 76 66 113 122 116 Horry 83 76 £2 Edmunds 112 102 108 Jasper .50 51 50 Fall River 110 120 114 Rural Level of Living Indexes ^ 1940 (Continued) 36 . ; Level of living : index value Area • • ;Rural- : farm • • ■ :Rural- ;nonfarm : Con- tposite ; rural louth Dalcota (Continued) Faulic 120 133 125 Grant 127 96 n9 Gregory 111 115 113 Kr.akon 109 120 113 Hamlin 123 ni 118 Hand 120 128 122 Hanson 121 117 120 Harding 109 83 102 Hughes 115 99 no Hutchinson 117 no 114 Hyde 117 125 120 Jackson 109 105 107 Jerauld 116 122 118 Jones 113 118 115 Kingsbury 122 122 122 Lake 129 109 125 Lawrence 115 T 00 120 Lincoln 130 109 124 L3'"man 115 101 no McCook 121 114 ns McPherson 100 88 96 Lfershall 116 111 114 Meade lOG 99 106 Mellette 86 56 76 Miner 117 122 119 Minneliaha 130 122 127 Moody 134 128 132 Pennington no 95 101 Perkins 101 115 106 Potter 116 no 113 Roberts 115 97 111 Sa.nborn 117 116 117 Sharnen 50 53 51 Spink 120 141 130 Stanley no 136 121 Sully 111 128 116 Todd 91 45 70 Tripp n2 122 115 Turner 122 n5 119 Union 127 124 126 TiTalYj'orth 107 102 105 Tfcshabaugh 82 20 66 VJashington 57 22 51 Yankton 116 83 104 Ziebach 89 49 75 Area ; _ Level of living ; indc:; value • • ;Rural- ;farm • • • • '.Rural- : : nonfarm; Com¬ posite rural Tennessee 78 74 77 Anderson 71 80 76 Bedford 96 100 97 Benton 73 63 69 Bledsoe 71 67 70 Blount 85 96 89 Brc-dloy 84 80 82 Campbell 66 57 61 Cannon 71 74 71 Carroll 80 93 85 Carter 77 70 74 Cheatham 84 86 85 '^hestcr 78 72 76 Clairborne 71 82 74 Clay 68 64 67 Cocke 69 45 65 ^ Coffee 77 94 81 C Crockett 83 90 88 ^ Cumberland 71 60 70 Davidson 101 145 134 Decatur 76 63 71 Dg Kalb 76 84 78 D2_ckson 76 65 73 Dyer 89 79 87 Fayette 50 73 53 Fentress 57 43 53 Franlclin 85 89 86 Gibson 88 93 89 Giles 83 83 83 Grainger 71 53 69 Greene 91 75 89 Grundy 74 44 53 Hamblen 88 61 83 Hamilton 84 113 105 Hancock 67 26 64 Hardeman 67 so 72 Haixiin 73 64 69 Hawkins 79 86 81 Ha;jn,vood 61 53 60 Henderson 80 36 69 Henjay 84 66 79 Hicleman 79 70 76 f Houston 76 83 78 V Plimiplircys 77 81 78 Jackson 70 76 71 Jefferson 84 83 84 Rural Level of Living Indexes^ 1940 (Continued) 37 : Lev j 1 of living : Level of living : • index value ; index va lue Area • • :C6in- Area • • ;Cora!- : Rural- Rural- ;positc ; Rural Rural - :posite :fa.na ;nontax ■m: rural : farm tnonfa rmiriiral Tennessee (Continued) Tennessee (Continu cd) Jolmson 73 68 72 Viashington 94 74 87 Knox 91 104 98 Mayne 63 76 67 Lake 90 88 89 Tnaklcy 86 90 37 Lauderdale 74 31 75 Vdiite 70 35 62 La.uTcnco 69 70 69 Millicxiison 85 81 34 Lei7is 74 73 74 Yfilson 94 82 92 Lincoln B8 80 87 I/3udon 82 65 78 Texas 98 100 99 iicLUnn 82 37 83 Anderson 74 96 80 IIcNairy 71 69 70 A^drovra 118 U9 14.0 liacon 77 72 76 Angelina 82 78 80 Uadison 76 93 81 ' Aransas 87 101 98 Lt.rion 69 70 75 Archer 110 131 124 Marshall 93 95 97 Armstrong ]40 U5 141 liauiy 93 75 87 Atascosa 66 69 67 Meigs 30 GO 80 Aus tin ■ 79 102 86 Moni'oe 70 35 73 Lailcy 117 100 112 liontgoncrj’’ 32 63 79 Bandera 108 96 104 iborc 89 95 90 Bastrop 63 ryr^ UO 75 Morgan 69 68 69 Baylor 104 90 102 Obion 101 78 93 Bee 77 98 83 Overton 59 55 58 Bell 101 106 102 Perry 82 56 73 Bexar 82 126 115 Pickett 63 50 61 Blanco 107 L20 111 Polk 69 94 82 Borden 124 78 117 Putnara 63 59 65 Bosque 105 127 113 Rhea 79 92 86 Boude 79 80 79 Roane 75 68 72 Brazoria 83 114 99 Robertson 90 S/i- 89 Brazos 74 137 89 Rutherford 86 84 86 Brevi-ster 104 35 62 Scott 59 52 55 Briscoe 112 127 113 Sequatchie 60 68 63 Brooks 44 36 39 Sevier 71 91 76 Brovn 106 107 106 Shelby 78 91 83 Burleson 69 90 75 Smith 89 85 88 Burnet 106 109^ 107 Steivart 76 68 74 Caldvrcll 60 112 73 Sullivan 36 94 90 Calhoun 93 91 92 Sumner 86 77 84 Callahan 103 128 114 Tipton 76 56 74 Cameron 74 40 61 Trousdale 95 i-'rv uO 93 ‘ Cnap 81 35 31 Unicoi 66 60 63 Carson 138 158 152 Union 70 52 68 Cass 77 92 82 Van Buren 66 28 52 Castro 130 LVl 133 Marron 80 59 77 Cha.mbcrs 100 110 108 38. Riiral Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) : Level of living ; index value Area ; ; :Corn!- . :Rural-'.Rural- :posite :farm :noniarm: rural Texas (Continued) Cherokee 81 72 79 Childress 110 102 109 Clay 104 no 106 Cochran 101 84 94 Coke 112 96 107 Coleman 110 108 no Collin 109 ni 109 Collingsvrorth 114 108 113 Colorado 79 93 86 Comal 88 66 81 Comanche 103 114 106 Concho 118 ■ ni 115 Cooke 106 115 107 Coryell 101 100 101 Cottle 111 80 no Crane 134 158 157 Crockett 155 100 108 Crosby 122 116 120 Culberson 126 85 90 Dallam 109 124 113 Dallas 105 117 113 Dawson 124 87 120 Deaf Smith 124 102 121 Delta 105 74 99 Denton 109 107 108 De Vifitt 79 91 82 Dickens 107 127 115 Diminit 75 28 43 Donley 118 137 127 Duval 40 102 71 Eastland 93 111 100 Ector 129 136 136 Edwards 127 104 116 Ellis 101 no 103 El Paso 83 69 73 Erath 98 84 96 Falls 81 78 80 Fannin 103 103 103 Fayette 76 Q8 81 Fnsher no 101 107 Flo;>^ 129 127 129 Foard 120 112 117 Fort Bend 69 98 78 Franl-:lin 91 no 96 Freestone 73 100 79 Frio 70 48 63 Area : Level of living : index value ;Rural- ; farm • • :Rural- ; nonfarm ;Co:>- ;posite : rural Texas (Continued) ■ > Gaines 100 99 99 Galveston 98 124 117 Garza 118 135 125 Gillespie 102 32 99 Glasscock 133 154 L55 Goliad 73 83 77 Gonzales 76 91 79 Gray 122 144 139 Grayson 106 102 105 Gregg 78 116 108 Grimes 71 99 76 Guadalupe 69 SO 71 Halo '' 126 120 124 Hall 103 93 105 Hamilton 107 105 107 Hansford 132 144 133/- Hardeman 112 110 lllV. Hardin 78 94 87 Harris 99 120 114 Harrison 62 31 66 Har tley 121 145 130 Haskell 114 106 112 Hays 77 95 82 Fiuaphill 121 140 132 Henderson 83 38 84 Hidalgo 78 24 58 ■ Hill 102 108 104 Hockley 122 89 117 Hood 95 110 100 Hopkins 94 3o 93 Houston 73 96 77 Howard 117 121 119 Hudspeth 79 73 76 Hunt 104 101 103 Hubchinson 135 172 164 ■ Irion 131 97 103 Jack 97 121 108 Jackson 89 95, 91 Jasper 76 77 7o Jeff Davis 117 62 76 Jefferson 103 136 129 Jim Hogg 65 67 SlC Jim bells 79 61 74^ Johnson 103 118 103 Jones 108 :i^o 11^ Karnes 61 84 66 V 39 • Rrral Love], cf Living : Lev el of living ; index value Area • • :Com- cRural- :Rural- :posite ; farm :nonfarn ;rural Texas (Continued) Kaufi;is.n 91 83 89 Kendall 104 100 102 Kenedy 37 17 59 Kent 93 94 97 Kerr 109 105 107 Kiiuble 123 103 113 Kins 121 100 114 Kinney 111 67 84 Kleberg 33 79 81 Kno:c lie no no Lcitiar 83 77 86 Lamb 121 ni 119 Ltunnasas 113 100 no La Salle 74 17 49 Lavaca 74 97 79 Leo 74 100 81 ^^Lcon ^Liberty 71 109 SO 75 94 86 Limes tone 87 107 Q2 Lipscomb 128 130 129 Live Oak 76 106 87 Llano 117 78 108 Loving 139 149 14.8 Lubbock 132 114 127 Lynn 128 122 126 IlcCulloch 114 90 1C7 lIcLcniian 95 108 100 Llc^iiull-en 111 32 98 lit-dison 77 99 83 Llarion 63 64 63 ]:!ax"tin 114 119 115 L^son , 122 m Lauagorcia Ifevericik S 48 Lcdina 3b 66 77 ilenard 127 93 no I ad], and 115 103 114 ] 'ilam 79 87 31 I.'ills 107 120 111 Llitcbell no 119 112 Ilonte.guc 39 93 92 Ilontgoi.iory 73 31 79 liooro 133 147 145 ^|k'orris ^^brley 74 37 78 112 97 105 IlQcogdochcs 77 63 74 Indexes, 1940 (Continued) Level of living index value Area : " : Corn- Rural— : Rmal— ; po s i i:o farm ; nonfarm:rural Texas (Continued) Navarro 91 95 92 Newton 63 73 67 Nolan 123 116 120 " Nueces 94 91 93 Ochiltree 137 U3 no Oldham 127 155 n5 Orange 100 31 91 Palo Pinto 101 100 100 Panola 75 93 79 Parker 94 73 90 Parmer 123 124 127 Pecos 103 no 125 Polk 74 9i S3 Potter 121 136 131 Presidio 41 4 n Rains 87 69 83 Randa 11 132 L-n 133 Reagan 166 172 171 .Real 107 62 35 jled River 34 75 32 Reeves 33 38 Refugio 91 126 109 Roberts 123 161 n6 Robertson 67 90 73 Rockwall 96 107 100 Runnels 115 115 115 Rusk 79 no 99 Sabine 74 36 73 San Augustine 70 95 75 San Jacinto 61 53 59 S-an Patricio 89 103 95 Sclll SelOCl 107 63 96 Schleicher 132 103 116 Scurry n5 103 113 Shackelford n6 139 132 Shelby 30 75 79 Sherman 132 no 136 Smith 79 107 38 Somervell 37 93 . 91 Starr 24 27 /*> Stephens 107 L20 in Sterling 140 120 128 Stonewall 104 111 106 Sutton 124 4 93 Swisher 135 152 . 137 40. Rural Level of Living;; ludciccs, 1940 (Oontinued) : Level of living : Level of living wP.d' jx value ; index value Area • • ; Com- /.rca • • Con- : Rural- Rural- :positc :Rural-:R^ral- : posi’ ;farm : nonfarm : rura 1 : farm : nonfarm: ruraj T exas (C ontinued) Utah (Continued) ■ Tarrant ioc 114 112 Garfield 105 93 95 Taylor IOC 103 103 Grand 94 lU ICC T crroll 133 73 33 Iron 117 112 114 Terry ].15 111 115 Juab 93 135 Throcloaorton 110 119 114 Kane 100 122 n6 Titus Cl 101 36 miard 116 132 12 c Tom Qroon 115 31 97 Ilorgan 129 139 134 Travj.s 93 73 33 Piute 117 115 116 Trinity 79 90 34 Uich 130 116 122 Tyler* 76 36 30 Salt Lake 113 151 143 Upshur 32 95 35 Gan Juaa 30 101 56 Upton 144 162 159 Sanpete 110 127 124 Uvalde no 72 90 Sevier 117 114 n5 Val Verde IOC 73 93 Summit 126 13s 133 Van Zandt 91 116 99 Tooele 107 L21 n7 Victoria cc 32 36 Uintah 96 105 100 TJellccr 63 66 64 Utah 119 119 nn TJaller 73 99 33 'iTasatch 106 no 108 ( Hard 63 131 113 bashington 102 m 108 17'ashin[?;ton 69 66 69 T.a;>aie 113 102 106 'kTebb 50 100 69 Heber 12i 139 128 Viharton 73 92 32 b'hcolcr 106 lie no Vermont 117 134 127 Hichita n4 no 111 Addison 121 137 129 Hilbarger 114 U.1 122 Bennington 119 136 131 V[illacy 79 49 71 Caledonia 116 141 129 HiU.iemson 94 106 97 Chittenden 122 133 128 Hilson 66 76 69 Essex 110 139 128 Vfinkler 139 151 151 FrarJelin 120 ■ 125 123 Hise 93 93 93 Grand Isle 119 116 118 bbod 36 104 91 Lamoille 115 no 128 Yoaku'.i 103 102 102 Orange 114 141 126 Young . 103 104 103 Orleans 119 137 127 Zapata 25 11 15 Rutland 120 131 128 Zavala 53 42 54 Hashington 115 132 124 Hindham 114 126 12c Utah 109 121 117 Hindsor 118 143 133 Beaver 114 133 133 - — Box Elder 123 130 Virginia 86 83 88* Cache 127 121 127 Ac comae 96 S3 88 Carbon 95 133 125 -^Ibcnarle 90 76 85 Daggett CrO ✓ y 79 91 illeghany 95 103 101 Davis 122 150 137 /nclia 79 87 30 ^ Duchesne 96 104 99 :’enherst 73 95 85 ^ Emery 97 120 n3 Appomattox 64 95 87 * The value for the State in each case is the mean of the values fer the counties. Tlie composite rurel i ndox of £ \ State may be hj.gher or lovfer tlian. or equal to, the State rural-farm or rm-al- -nonfarm index because of v;oigating introduced at the county level# Rioi’al Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) 41 Area • • • • • • : • f Level of l.iving index value I ;Coh>* Rural—xRural- xposite farm ; nonfarm: rural i■••ginia (Continued) — /lagusta 106 96 102 Bath 102 105 103 Ledford 84 74 82 Dl. • -d 92 89 91 Bo ^etourt 95 88 00 '.irrusi'/ick 75 116 83 Luciianan 53 62 58 Buckingham 72 55 68 Campbell 86 81 84 C.aroline 80 76 79 Oarroll 74 70 73 Che rlos City 81 13 46 Ch..r lotto 73 86 75 Chesterfield 99 129 119 Clarke 111 96 103 Craig 96 101 97 Culpeper 95 105 99 ft Cur.berland 70 84 72 Bichenson 60 73 65 Din..iddic 83 73 81 Elizabeth City 103 147 144 Essex 79 97 84 Fairfax 112 134 129 F;-.uquicr 98 99 98 Floyd 84 82 84 Fluvanna 81 no 85 Franklin 79 98 83 Fr ode-rick 101 94 98 Giles 88 108 98 Gloucester 83 69 78 •Goochland 75 69 75 Grayson 82 71 79 Arc -^e 69 52 67 Groeisville 66 49 61 Halif^ 77 62 75 ■f.^-ueo . of 38 94 90 ILenrico 106 162 153 iloni’y 78 85 82 highland 99 99 99 Isle of ITight 39 82 87 Jaacs Oi-ty 97 80 86 King and Queen 82 55 78 ing George 87 76 83 ^p/ring William 80 99 90 .'■jancastor 92 72 80 i Level of living : index value Area • • : Rural :farm • 4 -xRm’al- ; nonfarm ; Cor.v-' fXDSiti xrura; Virginia (Continued) Lee 69 61 65 Loudoun 112 106 109 Louisa 79 80 79 Lunenburg 81 122 90 Lhdison 88 58 81 Lle.thews 101 68 88 Llccklcnburg 78 103 84 Iliddlcscx 82 77 80 Liontgomery 92 105 100 l'I''.nsoi.iond 91 53 73 Nelson 77 85 79 Nev; Kent 83 51 70 Norfolk 96 128 121 Northampton 100 94 97 Northumb crland 92 80 87 Nottoway 80 119 94 Orange 93 103 97 Page 87 89 88 Patrick 60 85 70 Pittslvania 82 83 82 Powhatan 81 80 81 Prince Ed'Virard 74 75 74 Prince George 80 no 96 Prince YALlliam 94 116 109 Princess Anno 96 106 102 Pulaski 85 72 79 Ra.ppahanno ck 77 70 75 Riclrmond 87 74 83 Roanoke 99 137 128 Rockbridge 96 82 91 Rockingham 105 101 104 Russell 74 84 78 Scott 74 83 76 Shenandoah 103 115 109 Sm3’i:,h 83 63 74 Southampton 77 69 75 Spotsylvania 91 96 93 Sta,fford 98 91 95 Surry 88 72 S3 Susso:: 74 82 76 Tazevrcll 89 03 85 Warren 92 108 100 WaiTdck 94 152 140 Washington 87 82 85 Wes tiaor eland 81 82 81 42. Hvjral Level of Living Indexes, 1940 (Continued) : Level of living :_ index value Aree. • • " s Gon>«"~ •Rural- :Rmx.l- :positc ^;farra ; nonfarm; rural Virginio. . (Continued) liVis e 64 67 66 Wythe 95 72 86 York 96 83 86 Yfcshington 116 129 124 Adams 344 149 347 Asotin 116 344 133 Benton 112 143 125 Ohelan 121 135 129 Clallam 103 112 no Clark 112 130 119 Columbia 127 103 122 Covditz 106 , 1 133 123 Longlas 124 152 136 F erry 98 98 96 Frankli.n 123 1 I 132 126 Gar field • 138 j 124 ' 161 150 G-rant 136 133 Grays Harbor no 118 115- Island 112 121 116 Jefferson 108 103 105 King 114 144 139 Kitsap no 141 131 Kittitas 124 126 125 Klickitat 113 132 124 Louis no 120 115 Lincoln 139 148 344 Mason 102 113 109 Okanogan no 134 123 Pacific n2 n7 116 Pend Oreille 101 120 114 Pierce 111 135 128 San Jucji ' 112 120 115 Skagit 117 119 118 Skamania 109 121 119 Snohomish 109 127 119 Spokane 114 134 124 Stevens 105 118 111 Thurston no 129 120 WahJeiakum 121 123 125 Walla Walla 125 143 134 Yi/hatcom 116 129 121 Y\/hitman 137 344 140 Yakima \ 119 114 116 West V'irginia 85 97 92 Barbour 89 93 91 Berkeley 3.07 96 101 Boone 72 82 BO Braxton 75 99 82 Level of living' " index ■'xoLue Area :Rural- •farm • • • :Rural- tnonfarm :CoEW rposito :rural West Virginia Brooke (Continued 106 114 . 113 Cabell" 84 in 95 Calhoun 77 ni 83 Clay 62 72 66 Doddridge 86 112 94 Fayette 83 98 96 Gilraer 78 97 63 Grant 89 99 C'3 Greenbrier 91 105 99 Hampshire 93 107 97 Hancock 104 142 138 Hardy 90 92 91 Harrison 99 94 95 Jackson 89 109 94 Jefferson 113 99 105 Kanawha 77 97 93 Le-ins 97 92 95 Lincoln 60 67 62 Lagan 54 85 82. McDowell 54 90 85^ tSarion 92 112 107 Marshall 93 n5 107 Mason 85 77 82 Mercer 84 86 85 Mineral 94 93 93 Mingo 54 66 62 Monongalia 97 95 96 Monroe 95 90 94 L'brgan 96 107 . 102 Nicholas 77 61 72 Ohio 114 120 n9 Pendleton 95 92 94 Pleasants 95 133 nz-. Pocahontas 89 100 94 Preston 91 98 95 Putnam SO 92 84 Raleigh 78 95 91 Randolph 90 85 87 Ritchie 90 n4 100 Roane 85 no 93 Summers 77 •70 75 Taylor 92 85 88 Tucker 81 ns 106 Tyler . 39 109 96 Upshur 35 69 Wa-aie 63 77 Webster 67 87 Wetzel 35 106 96 Y'irt 35 oa u'ood 95 1^3 nr Y.’yoming 64 82 75 I Rural Level of Li.ving Indexes , 1940 (Continued) 43 Area : Level of living ;_ i ndex value : ; :Co!Ti- ;Rural-:Rural- :posite ;farm : nonfarm:rural Area Level of living index value : :Coi>- Rural~:Rui"al- :positc fai’in § non.farm s rural # Wisconsin Adams xishland Barron Bayfield Brovni Buffalo Burnett Calumet Chippewa Clark Oolumbia Crawford Dane Dodge Door Douglas Dunn . - Eaii Claire Florence Fond du Lac Forest Grant reen Green Lake Iowa Iron Jackson Jefferson Juneau Kenoslia Kewaunee La Crosse Lafayette Langlade Lincoln tlianitowoc Llarathon Lferinette Iferquette” Llilvraukee Monroe Oconto Oneida Outagamie Ozaukee Pepin Pierce Polk rtage ice 117 106 100 118 100 1 on 123 106 121 113 117 127 121 130 130 117 100 121 ILi 128 88 128 130 126 128 94 114 129 112 130 125 126 130 110 104 129 114 103 118 123 118 113 100 125 128 11.6 124 118 111 97 113 115 102 118 111 120 116 93 128 117 122 123 95 139 127 106 84 108 1.U 100 127 87 120 131 119 117 110 1I5 ii3 132 104 117 124 79 85 117 118 107 106 130 106 105 90 103 UO 117 115 3-23 105 96 116 109 101 118 105 122 120 102 130 114 118 125 113 135 129 114 95 -LL8 114 99 128 87 125 130 123 123 104 108 131 112 131 121 121 127 100 101 125 no 112 113 129 115 111 94 119 134 116 121 120 109 97 Uisoonsin (Continued) Racine 127 133 130 Richland 126 101 119 Rock 13'0 131 130 Rusk 3.05 97 103 Sto Croix 126 131 128 Sauk 124 117 122 SaTJ3'er 95 88 91 Shawano 119 94 no Sheboygan 126 127 126 Taylor 100 116 104 Trempealeau 119 117 118 Vernon 122 102 116 Vilas 102 99 100 falvrorth 132 142 137 Dashburn 105 91 101 1/as 1 ling ton 128 126 127 T/aukesha 130 137 134 baupaca 123 108 118 Y/aushara 114 106 111 Y/innebago 130 114 123 Food 3J-6 128 121 .'/^/oming 116 116 117 Alban^^ 120 85 107 Big Horn 115 143 131 CGmJ)bell 112 124 117 '■^arbon 118 119 LI9 Converse 116 142 131 Crook 109 90 102 Fremont 93 79 89 Goshen 118 127 122 Hot Springs 108 120 117 Johnson 118 131 125 Larar.iie 123 126 125 Lincoln 119 121 120 Natrona 117 13s 133 Niobrara 118 323. 116 Park 124 122 123 Platte 115 136 126 Sheridm 118 105 112 Sublette 121 102 112 Sweetwater 103 126 123 Teton 121 lU 117 Uinta ]J.9 79 100 Y/asha]:ie 122 105 119 l/ccton 118 112 114 ihe value for die S^-ato in each case is tlio mean of the values for tlio counties* rne compoGiue rural index of a State may bc’iiighcr or lovrer than, or coual to, the otate rural-farm or rui-al-r.onfarm index because of weighting introduced at the'County level*