ing table gives comparison between the average wages of the
Japanese on a time basis and the average of other races: *

Regular
without

Race

  

RORINGHE. 30.15 -sccestnc<teorss ‘
PAVBMECBO . oc csi scessernes eo ; 5 APE ae
PATNI) Aiscss cbsviccaa.c tepeestecctnatals vakiihauy « GB4E. <.-250hewagaeeee

Commenting upon the table the report says: “It will be |
seen that the average wages for both Japanese and Chinese
regularly employed and receiving board, $1.396 and $1.406,
respectively, are higher than those for ‘miscellaneous white’
men, $1.311 and Italians $1.108.” 2 However, Professor Millis)
reminds us that “only the averages for those employed without| >
board are comparable, for they alone are net figures.” Then he!
goes on to explain the differences in wages as follows: “The!
differences in wages indicated are not to be explained by sub-|):
stantial differences in efficiency. In most instances the Japanese! ):
were regarded as better than “the class of white men available|}:
for such work. It did measure substantially the difference in the ?
cost of subsistence, which for Japanese was reckoned at 20 to 30/):
cents per day, while for white men it was from 50 to 75 cents/}s
per day.”’* At the same time, “It should be added, however, that! }*
most of the Italians investigated were employed by their|}»
countrymen and were paid as little, if not less than the Japanese.”* 9),

The Immigration Commission states further on the basis of
3,650 Japanese farm laborers investigated: “Of the 863 regular

employees not boarded, 86.4 per cent received between $1.50 ?
and $1.75, and of the 2,654 temporary men not boarded, 90.3 i

1 Immigration Commission Reports, Vol. 23, p. 65. ¥
2 Ibid., p. a
3 Millis, Ibid., p, 119. {

4 Ibid.

34