The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1913-10-02
A WASTE OF MONEY
DR.. Peters Advises Farmers to Take
Up the Task of Reducing the
Cost of Marketing.
He Says That to the High Cost of
Selling Is Largely Due the
High Cost of Living.

High Cost of Living.
DR.. Madison G. Peters, an eminent
economist, in a recent article gives
the producers something to think
about. The high cost of living is
largely chargeable to the high cost
of selling, and neither the producer
nor the consumer is benefited there
by. The article, which is herewith
reproduced, will repay careful Pc
rusal:
Last year the farmers of this
country marketed products which
brought them return of six billion
dollars for which the consumer paid
Sl3, 900, 900, 900. 1t costs $1,000, OO0,-
900 to get the commodities from the
farms to the families. In what way
was this enormous sum spent?
When the farmer is told the high
figures at which his produce sells
and realizes that he gets less than
half the final retailing price, in his
innocence he believes that the
freight charges for carrying the food
stuffs consume the greater part of
the sum mentioned.
The total earnings of the railroads
for carrying farm freight for the
year, including the transportation of
animals, was less than 4 per cent of
the sl3, 900, 900 paid by the public
for the products of the farm. Where
did the remainder go? 1t went to
non-producers who grow fat at the
consumers expense and at the ex-
pense of the producers.
First comes the buyer who pur-
chases from the farmer. He has to
bring the commodities to the cities
and towns and pay the railroad. He
has to make his profit when he sells
to the dealer. The latter in turn
sells to the retailer and has to make
his profit. Finally, the retailer has
to pay storage, rent and the salary
of help and has to make his profit.
The consumer has to foot all the
bills and pay the profits of these
middlemen, hence the high prices.
New York, the largest concen-
trated market of the country, strik-
ingly typities the enormous waste in
our marketing methods. The an
nual total cost of the food supply at
the city terminals, that is, with all
freight charges paid. is estimated at
$3.50, 100000. The consumers pay
$500, 100000, the increase of $3.50,
100000 being swallowed up in the
handling. At least 100000 could
be saved yearly by New Y ork alone if
scientific method of marketing
was adopted, almost one-fifth of the
total amount the producer receives
for his produce.
If New York is to be taken as an
average this means that about II per
cent of the total amount the con-
sumers pay throughout the country
is paid to make up for waste in
marketing methods. This would
account for 81, $50, 100000 out of the
S13, 900, 900, 900, or more than 81, 500, .
100000 thrown away in single year.
Let us now roughly reckon up the
ways in which the total amount is
spent:
The farmers receive. $4,000, 900, 900
The railroads. ........ 495, 900, 600
Legitimate selling ex-
penSeS. ........... l,2OO, OOO, OOU
Waste in selling. ...... 1850, 900, 200
Profits of dealers and
retailers .......... 3,745, 900, 600
Total. %. ........ s13, 900, 0oo,Oo
Out of that the sum of IS, 3O5, 900,
900 could be saved, that is the waste
in marketing and the dealers and
retailers profits, if a commonsense
method of marketing was adopted.
For their eggs the people of New
York city paid last year 1928, 73O, 900,
the farmers received 81, 238, 900; for
the cabbages the people paid SO, l25,
900, the farmers received 81. 1926, 900 :
for milk the people paid $48, $50, 900,
the farmers received S22, 9l2, 900;
while for the potatoes for which the
people of New York city paid $780,
100000 the farmers received sS,437,-
600.
. The farmers must waken IN TO