Replies

I’ll provide a little more education for you since you are clearly without a clue here.

In 1860 the vast majority of people worked in agriculture, in the South as high as 70% so “wage rates” rarely affected their income. Hence, the per capita income does not reflect wage rates of mostly non-agricultural workers. It would have to reflect agricultural income. So you are equating things which are widely different.

And you continually (though corrected on several occasions) keep trying to use a figure for the South which does not consider the WHOLE population. When you do it shows per capita income to be about 30% less (from your own figures) than the North (which is not clearly defined). Income in the South was higher than the Midwest but nothing close to NE and the North as a whole.

You have been attempting in dozens of posts to make the point that per capita income in the North was higher than in the South.

That is factually wrong. I have given you documented data on non-professional employment as well as professional per capita income.

Your response has been to deny both while throwing out non-sensical, undocumented answers, suitable for a third grade student who is not doing his work, and is attempting to BS the teacher with rambling, senseless drivel.

You have been given several specific document references that all say the following:

The paid labor per capita incomes were $150 in the South to $144 in the North, so per capita income was higher in the South.

Those are the non-professional wages earned as documented by the 1860 census.