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.
Your data shows nothing about “non-professional” or “professional” income. The table says it is posting
PER CAPITA INCOME. NOT “paid labor per capita income” whatever that is. TOTAL POPULATION not just Free White. TOTAL POPULATION. These are all YOUR figures
PER CAPITA INCOME
National avg. 128
North 141
Northeast 181
Northcentral 89
South 103
South Atlantic 84
E. S. Central 89
W.S. Central 184
What is so hard for you to understand? The avg for the South was 19%+ lower than the avg for the North. YOUR source says this is true, not mine YOURS.
Of course, it is totally consistent with common knowledge.
Actually your statistics show a hell of a lot more than you realize. They clearly demonstrates the cotton planters need for new lands and why they had to expand. The only section of the South that was profitable was the new lands of AR, MS, AL, LA where per capita income by YOUR figures was slightly above the income of N. Englanders. The rest of the South was about a third below the national average according to YOUR figures.
And your other claim is just laughable crap it is so wildly inaccurate.