CHAPTER III

PASSING BEYOND THE HALF CENTURY MARK

The aged, for the purposes of our discussion, may be classified into three distinct groups. First, the small group of wealthy and independent persons whose economic and social security is assured. This group presents no problem such as those which are discussed in the pages that follow, and may be dismissed. Secondly, the great mass of the aged wage-earners who are presumably non-dependent because, in order to avoid the stigma of pauperism, they do not, as a rule, seek aid from charitable and philanthropic sources. These will prefer to make all sorts of sacrifices rather than seek asylum for their last days in either county poorhouse or benevolent home. Many of this group, therefore, while nominally non-dependent, may nevertheless be below the poverty line, and very often, although they find themselves in want through no fault of their own, will prefer to endure hardship rather than accept charity. From any point of view this group, which represents the great majority of wage-earners, has the greatest claim to protection and relief in old age. Their problems must not merely attract attention but must be studied thoroughly and met squarely with a constructive social policy. The third group, which is considerably smaller, is composed of the institutional and pauper classes and includes the inmates of the State, county and private charitable institutions, as well as the recipients of public or private relief from local poor boards, philanthropic organizations, churches and similar institutions. Knowledge of the actual conditions which compelled this unfortunate group to seek relief; an examination of the effects and consequences of our present methods of relief distribution; and a revaluation of these methods in terms of social justice, are essential in a study of this aged pauper group.

The proportion of the presumably “non-dependent” aged persons in the United States who are actually living in want and are in need of systematic relief is difficult to estimate accurately. The Census reports supply very meagre data for the determination of the extent of old-age dependency in the United States; especially is this true with regard to the non-institutional aged. However, a number of studies have been made recently which may be considered fairly indicative of the magnitude of the problem. The first study of dependency of the aged was made in 1908–9 by the Massachusetts Commission on Old Age Pensions, Annuities and Insurance. This Commission estimated the number of persons 65 years of age and over in Massachusetts to be 177,000 in 1910. Of this number 41,212, or 24 per cent., were found either to be residing in correctional institutions and public or private pauper and benevolent homes, or were the recipients of public or private outdoor relief, or United States pensions. One hundred and thirty-five thousand, seven hundred and eighty-eight, or 76 per cent., of these aged in Massachusetts were “non-dependent,” as far as could be ascertained. Basing his calculations upon the Massachusetts figures, L. W. Squier estimated that approximately 1,250,000 of those 65 years of age and over in the United States are dependent upon public and private charity.

This estimate was admittedly conservative, as Mr. Squier’s calculations were based upon cases of relief granted by the organized charitable agencies; and even the recipients of this form of relief could not have been, in the nature of such studies, completely gathered by the Massachusetts Commission. No account was taken of the unofficial and less known relief agencies, and it goes without saying that neither the Massachusetts Commission nor Mr. Squier could determine the amount of private charity extended. That Mr. Squier has under-estimated rather than over-estimated the total number of aged dependents, is shown by the 1915 decennial census of Massachusetts. In this state-wide enumeration there were found 189,047 persons 65 years of age and over, of whom 34,496, or 18.2 per cent. of the total population of that age, were receiving aid from one source or another. However, this number did not include those aged who were receiving pensions from the United States government. The number of this group was estimated at 29,150, or 14.8 per cent. The aggregate number of dependents thus constituted 33 per cent. While many of the latter did not need such assistance, their number doubtless increased the total dependents, and if used as a basis for the entire United States would have increased Mr. Squier’s estimate considerably.

Statistics dealing with those aged persons in the United States who are definitely dependent upon public or private relief are scanty and incomplete. The various groups of dependents are classified according to age in only a few instances by the United States Census. The 1910 Census reports that of a total of 84,198 paupers in almshouses in the United States, 35,943 or 42.7 per cent. were 65 years of age and over. In the same year there were 187,791 known insane and feeble-minded persons in the United States, 21,881 or 11.8 per cent. of whom were 65 and over. Of a total of 19,153 deaf and dumb persons in 1910, only 797, or 4.1 per cent., were 65 and over. The number of prisoners 65 and over is not given by the Census, but of the number committed to penal institutions during the year 1910, only 1.6 per cent. were 65 years of age and over. There were in 1910 also 98,846 adult inmates over 21 years of age in benevolent institutions, the large majority of whom were obviously of advanced age. Of the total 57,272 blind persons in the United States, 23,746 or 41.4 per cent. were past threescore and five years. There were in addition in that year 72,948 dependent adult inmates in hospitals and sanitoriums. No data are available to show the number of aged persons in receipt of either public or private relief. The recipients of this form of charity, however, generally constitute the large majority of dependents, and as shown by the different State Commissions, exceed the aggregate number of dependents of all other classes. Neither do the classes enumerated above include the great number who are in receipt of State and Federal pensions, as well as those receiving pensions from industrial establishments. It is, of course, impossible even to estimate the number of those receiving partial or entire support from individuals.

The Census figures seem to indicate also either a steady increase in aged dependency in the case of most pauper classes, or an increase in the longevity of most aged dependents. Thus, the blind 60 years of age and over increased from 36 per cent. of the total blind population in 1860, to 41.4 in 1910. The deaf and dumb of the same age group constituted 4.9 in 1860 and increased to 6.7 per cent. in 1910. In the case of almshouse paupers the percentage of the aged increased from 25.6 in 1880 to 42.7 in 1910.

Recently a number of special State Commissions on Old Age Pensions have added further light upon the extent of dependency in old age. The Wisconsin Industrial Commission in its report on old-age relief in 1915, states:

“The number of persons 60 years of age and upwards in Wisconsin may be estimated at 185,000. Of this number, probably two per cent. are recipients of public or private relief. Even including United States pensioners, the proportion scarcely exceeds 12 per cent. But that very much unrelieved distress exists no one can doubt who is familiar with the statistics of other countries. The inauguration of systematic old age relief invariably brings to light a vast mass of unsuspected poverty among the aged. Thousands of old people contrive to escape the clutches of the poor laws who nevertheless endure a pitiful struggle for existence. They work beyond their strength, they deny themselves proper food and clothing, they are aided by friends and neighbours, or they are supported by their children, too often at the expense of growing families.”[14]

The Ohio Commission on Health Insurance and Old Age Pensions states:

“The number of aged persons aided by private families or by relatives and friends is unknown and cannot be estimated. The Hamilton and Cincinnati surveys indicate that 15 to 25 per cent. of people over 50 were dependent upon relatives or friends. Nor can the number who are living an independent but precarious existence be accurately estimated.”[15]

The Pennsylvania Commission concludes that:

“Aside from the aged dependents found in almshouses, benevolent or fraternal homes, and those receiving public or private relief, there is a considerable proportion (43 per cent.) of the aged population, 50 years of age and over in the State, who, when reaching old age have no other means of support, except their own earnings.”[16]

As the studies made by the Pennsylvania Commission in regard to this phase of the problem of the aged, go into greater detail than those of the other State Commissions, its conclusions may perhaps be considered as fairly indicative of the extent of destitution in old age among the industrial population of this country. Based on the percentage found in Pennsylvania, it may be said that in 1910 there were approximately 1,700,000 persons in the United States who had passed beyond the half century mark and who had had no other means of support in their old age except what they could earn themselves. While it may be conceded that this proportion may be smaller in the less industrial States, the above estimate may nevertheless be fairly accurate for the entire United States, as the districts studied by the Pennsylvania Commission were largely inhabited by better paid American-born workers as contrasted with the more thickly populated foreign sections. Of course, it must not be presumed that all of these will apply for relief, either public or private, but it is obvious that the great majority of these will have to face a pitiful struggle for subsistence. Ultimately the majority of this number will become dependent, if not upon public charity, then upon children or relatives at the expense of self-respect, and in many cases also to the great detriment of the growing generation.

In the discussions that follow, the individual and social forces, as well as the moral factor that go to make for dependency and pauperism will be dwelt upon at length. At this juncture it is important first to examine and endeavour to understand sympathetically the immediate conditions confronting multitudes of superannuated workers which compel many to become paupers in their old age. Indeed, a comparison of the circumstances of the dependent aged, as disclosed by the different State Commissions’ reports, with those of the so-called non-dependent, discussed in the preceding pages, sheds much light upon the frequently repeated question: “Why is it that some workers succeed in remaining away from the pauper homes, while others, apparently of the same class, become dependent upon public charity?”

AGE

The age relativity among the different classes is significant. In the total population of 1910 the group between 65 and over constituted 4.3 per cent. of the population, and contained 4.2 per cent. of the males and 4.4 of the females of all ages. This percentage held true for the native whites of native parentage. Among the native whites of foreign or mixed parentage the aged constituted only 1.4 per cent., while of the foreign born whites, the same age group contained 8.9 per cent., and among Negroes 3.0 per cent. The proportion of the aged varies also considerably in the different sections. According to the 1910 Census, the percentage of those 65 and over to the total population was highest in the New England States, with 5.9 per cent., and lowest in the West South Central States with 2.8 per cent. The Middle Atlantic States gave 4.4 per cent.; East North Central, 5.1 per cent.; West Central, 4.6; South Atlantic, 3.6; East South Central, 3.5; Mountain, 3.0, and Pacific, 4.5 per cent.

The dependent classes, as is to be expected, are largely made up of those of advanced ages. The relation of dependence to old age is so clearly indicated in the following reports that no additional comment is necessary. The Massachusetts Commission in 1910 found that:

“Less than one per cent. of those for whom the age at entrance was stated in the returns became inmates before the age of 40; only eight per cent. entered before the age of 60; thus 92 per cent. had passed the sixtieth year before they took up residence in the almshouse.”[17]

Commenting on this, the Commission adds:

“The strikingly high proportion of persons entering pauper institutions late in life points to the close connections between old age and institutional pauperism. It is clear that such pauperism is in most cases the result of the infirmity of advancing years, rather than of the misfortunes of earlier years.”[18]

The Wisconsin Commission reports regarding the almshouse population of that State, as follows:

“A very large proportion are of advanced age—only 17 per cent. are under 65, 40 per cent. are 75 and over and nearly 25 per cent. are 80 or above. In the population of the state at large, one-third of all persons over 59 fall in the age group 60 to 65 and only one-fourth are above 74. This fact, taken in connection with the great proportion of the entire almshouse population who are 60 and over, indicates a close co-relation between destitution and old age.”[19]

The Ohio Commission states:

“In regard to age distribution, the records of the Ohio Board of State Charities show that 4,772, or 60 per cent. of the regular infirmary inmates were over 60 years of age, 2,926 or 37.1 per cent. between 16 and 60 and 219, or 2.78 per cent. under 16 years of age.”[20]

The Pennsylvania Commission concludes that:

“It appears that only about 13 per cent. were admitted under 50 years of age; 24.87 per cent. were admitted between the ages of 50 and 60; 31.9 per cent. between 60 and 70, while over 24.78 per cent. were admitted after they had reached their seventieth year. A comparison between our figures and those obtained by the Massachusetts Commission on Old Age Pensions in 1908 is of interest. In the New England State only eight per cent. of those investigated entered the almshouses before the age of 60, and 92 per cent. had passed their sixtieth year before they took up residence in the almshouse. The higher rate of those entering almshouses below the sixtieth year in Pennsylvania may be explained by the highly developed industries peculiar to this Commonwealth, which, requiring greater physical strain, wear out and incapacitate men at an earlier age. For those admitted during the year 1910 to the almshouses of the entire country, the percentages were 17.7 between 50 to 59; 18 from 60 to 69 and 15.3 per cent. over 70 years.

“It is obvious, that the great majority of the aged inmates enter the institution late in life. This would indicate a close relationship between institutional pauperism and old age. The combination of advanced years and infirmity, when coupled with the fact, that in most cases these people have no one to depend or fall back upon is—as will be seen later—the chief cause compelling an aged person to go to the poorhouse. Most men will stay out of an almshouse as long as they can. When they are compelled to take up residence there, it is usually not due to personal or other misfortunes in earlier years, but in most cases, is the result of feebleness and lack of assistance from other sources.”[21]

[Illustration: PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS IN STATE PAUPER INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER.

_Massachusetts_ _92%_ _Wisconsin_ _87%_ _Pennsylvania_ _62%_ _Ohio_ _60%_

]

SEX

Of the 3,949,524 persons 65 years of age and over in 1910, 1,985,976, or 50.5 per cent., were males, and 1,963,548, or 49.5 per cent., were females. This group was, in addition, divided as follows in 1910: 1,693,010, or 42.8 per cent., urban, and 2,256,415, or 57.2 per cent. rural, while 1,183,349, or 29.9 per cent. were of foreign birth.

The 1910 Massachusetts Commission found the proportion of males and females in the almshouses of that State to be 61.4 per cent. and 38.6 per cent. respectively. In this respect, the Commission declares:

“The figures for the aged poor present a contrast to those for the general population of the State, which is divided between the sexes very evenly, with 48.7 per cent. males and 51.3 per cent. females. The lack of any uniformity in the division between the sexes in the case of the various classes is also striking. In the classes of almshouse inmates, recipients of State and military aid and non-dependent poor, the males preponderate; in the classes of inmates of benevolent homes and recipients of public and private outdoor relief, the males are greatly outnumbered. It appears that relief in charitable institutions and in the homes through public or private agencies is given more largely to women than to men.”[22]

In Wisconsin, the proportion of women in almshouses, the Commission finds,

“Is very small—only 20 per cent. as against 47 per cent. of the State’s population of 60 and over. This showing is the more remarkable because the Commission’s sample census indicates (what is true in other countries) that the number of aged widows and single women exceeds the number of aged widowers and single men. The explanation is that an elderly woman is better able than an old man to maintain a home of her own or to fill a useful niche in the household of a relative.”[23]

The Pennsylvania Commission found the almshouse population to be composed of 62.7 per cent. males and 37.3 females. It comments as follows:

“It is interesting to remark that the above percentages found by the Commission are in exact agreement with the percentages found by the Massachusetts Commission on Old Age Pensions in its study in 1908. The comparative difference between the sexes in the almshouses and that prevailing in the entire State population is significant. According to the Thirteenth United States Census, the percentage of males in the entire State population was 51.4 per cent. and that of females 48.6 per cent. The reasons for the disproportionate number of male paupers in institutions over female paupers may be explained in several ways. Children or relatives will make greater sacrifices in order to keep an old mother at home and prevent her going to a poorhouse, than they would for an aged father or other male relative. Aside from the sentimental reasons involved, the presence of an old woman around the home—unless she is absolutely invalided—entails little burden, as she can be made useful in numerous ways. This, however, is not the case with an aged man. Aged women are also more generously provided for by private charity than are aged men. The percentages of aged men and women who are inmates of benevolent and private Homes for the Aged, are 23.54 and 76.46 per cent. respectively. The relationship here is thus radically reversed from that of the almshouse population.”[24]

FAMILY CONNECTIONS

[Illustration: PERCENTAGE OF MALES IN ENTIRE U. S. POPULATION, AND IN PAUPER INSTITUTIONS.

_% of males in U.S. population_ _= 50.5%_ _Wisconsin_ _80%_ _Pennsylvania_ _62.7%_ _Massachusetts_ _61.4%_

]

The number of old persons applying for charity in no way indicates the degree of destitution in old age. Much of this suffering is kept concealed from the public eye by timid and sensitive children or relatives. This is borne out by the available data on the family connections of aged persons. Indeed, the investigations seem to disclose that pauperism among the aged is in inverse ratio to the number of family relations and is largely a result of the lack of family connections. The data below indicate that, in most instances, children or relatives will endeavour to support their aged dependents, regardless of the sacrifices thereby required of themselves or of their children.

The Thirteenth United States Census gives the marital relationship of the aged as follows:—males, 6.2 per cent. single, 65.6 per cent. married, 27.1 per cent. widowed, and 0.7 per cent. divorced; females, 6.3 per cent. single, 35 per cent. married, 58.1 per cent. widowed, and 0.4 per cent. divorced. The Massachusetts Commission found that 6.2 per cent. of the aged persons investigated were single; 53.8 married; and 39.7 widowed. In Wisconsin, in 1915, in a sample census of 1,395 persons, 60 years of age and over, there were 35, or 2.5 per cent. single; 885, or 63.4 per cent. married; and 456, or 32.5 per cent. widowed. Of these, 76, or 5 per cent., lived alone; 885, or 63.4 per cent. lived with a spouse; 168, or 11 per cent. had unmarried children; and 206, or 14 per cent., had married children. The Wisconsin Commission concludes:

“It will be seen that substantially one-half of the women enumerated are widowed, divorced, separated or single, whereas nearly 80 per cent. of the men are married. The explanation is partly that women on the average live longer than men and partly that husbands very generally are older than their wives. The result is that a vast number of aged women are left without homes of their own.”[25]

[Illustration: MARITAL RELATIONS OF PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER IN THE ENTIRE POPULATION IN THE CENSUS OF PAUPERS AND IN PAUPER INSTITUTIONS.

Single Married Widowed _U.S. 65 or over 6.2%_ _U.S. 65 or over 65.6%_ _U.S. 65 or over 27.5%_ _U.S. paupers 50.2%_ _U.S. paupers 15.7%_ _U.S. paupers 32.5%_ _Ohio paupers 47.5%_ _Ohio paupers 37.8%_ _Mass. paupers 54.5%_ _Pa. paupers 40.0%_ _Mass. 24.7%_ _Pa. paupers 39.1%_ _Mass. 19%_ _Pa. 16.9%_ _Ohio 10.9%_

]

The preponderately greater number of elderly widows is also shown in a study of 100 aged persons in Greenwich Village, made by Miss Nassau in 1915.[26] Of 65 women investigated, Miss Nassau found 54 widowed, nine single, and two separated, while of the 35 men interviewed, 21 were still married, three were single, and two separated or divorced.

The Ohio Commission, in discussing this subject, states:

“In old age, marital condition, especially as regards women, is very important. The woman who becomes a widow after 50 is ill prepared to make her own living. She must, therefore, depend on her children or on the property left her by her husband. If her husband was a wage-earner, the most she can expect to inherit is a little home. One hundred and sixty-six or 50.8 per cent. of the 329 widows in the Hamilton survey owned their own homes. While the children remain unmarried, they contribute to the maintenance of their mother, but after marriage she can no longer depend upon them with any feeling of security. The single woman who has had to make her own living is also insecure in her old age. After 50 she finds it difficult to obtain steady employment and her wages, as a rule, have not been such as to permit much saving for old age. Only 37 of the 114 single women over 50 had any savings.”[27]

“When aged persons who have been unable to save lose their economic usefulness, they must depend on their children or relatives or on public charity. Three hundred and fifty-four, old, or invalided persons in Hamilton were dependent on children or relatives. One hundred and fifty of these were dependent on married children, all with families of their own; 144, on unmarried children, and the remaining 60, on relatives. Forty-eight of the 416 aged persons studied in Cincinnati were dependent on their children and 13 on other persons.”[28]

The Pennsylvania Commission found the marital conditions of 3,477 non-dependent persons 50 years of age and over, as follows: 5.4 per cent. single; 55.5 married; and 38.3 widowed. It also found 37.8 per cent. who have no one depending upon them; 31.5 having their wives to support, while the rest had one or more children in addition to support. It concludes that:

“It is evident that the possession of children in old age is a great protection against dependency. Thirty-one per cent. had one or two children living; forty-five per cent. had from three to six children living; while 12.7 per cent. had more than six children living. Of those children, only 3.3 per cent. were still under 16 years of age; 16 per cent. of the adult children were married, while 80.7 per cent. were still single.”[29]

The marital condition of paupers is given by the 1910 Census as follows: 50.2 per cent. single; 32.5 per cent. widowed, and 13.7 per cent. married. The 1915 Massachusetts Decennial Census found the percentages of the marital dependents to be: single 19.0; married 24.7; widowed 54.4. In Ohio, 47.5 were single; 37.8 married, and 10.9 widowed. In Pennsylvania 40 per cent. were single; 16.9 married; and 39.14 widowed. The report of the last named Commission goes on to point out that the single and widowed in the almshouses of the State constitute nearly eighty per cent. of the total number of inmates. However, the marital conditions of people over forty-five years of age in the entire State, as given in the United States Census for 1910, was: for males, single, 9.1 per cent.; married, 77.7 per cent., and widowed, 12.6 per cent.; and for women the percentage for those over 45 years of age was, single, 10 per cent.; married, 60.3 per cent., and widowed, 29.2 per cent.

The Commission adds:

“Some light may be shed on the problem of aged pauperism by comparing the preceding figures with those obtained from the house-to-house studies conducted by the Commission. In the latter group the respective percentages are: Single 5.4 per cent.; married 55.5 per cent., and widowed, 38.3 per cent. These figures would seem to indicate that the prime reason why the aged poor cannot remain in their own homes, or in those of their parents or close relatives is because, as a rule, most of these institutional paupers have no one to fall back upon in their declining days. Having no children of their own, their parents dead, and in many cases, with few relatives, to be relied upon, these paupers seek the institution as the last resort for shelter and nourishment. The wide difference between the populations of single people in the almshouses and those living at home, doubtless, explains why the former are inmates of pauper institutions and the latter are classed as non-dependent.”[30]

In Massachusetts in 1910, the proportion of inmates of almshouses and of benevolent homes who had adult children living at the time of entrance, was found to be nearly the same, being 43.7 per cent. for the former and 39.4 per cent. for the latter. On the other hand, the percentage of non-institutional poor, both public and private, who had adult children living at that time, was higher, standing at approximately 60.

The Commission further states in its report:

“The number of almshouse and benevolent home inmates having adult children or near relatives who are able to aid them at present is, as one would infer, very small, namely, 7.7 per cent. for the almshouse class and 13.2 per cent. for the benevolent homes. Here the percentages are much higher for the non-institutional poor, being 46.4 for the recipients of public relief, and 57.5 for recipients of private relief.”[31]

In 1918 in Ohio, Dr. John O’Grady states in the report of the Ohio Commission:

“A study of the domestic relations of 2,260 infirmary patients showed that 1,023 or 45.6 per cent. were never married. Those, as a rule had no one on whom they could depend. Their parents were dead, and brothers and sisters, even when in good circumstances, cannot be relied upon to maintain a disabled brother or sister. Of the 822 inmates who had been married, 605, or more than half, had one or more children living; of these 232 had children able to support them. The children of the remaining 373 were generally ordinary unskilled workingmen with large families of their own. These could scarcely maintain their parents without depriving themselves or their children of some of the necessaries of life.

“About seven per cent. of the inmates studied were in the infirmaries because their children, although in fairly good circumstances, were unwilling to maintain them. In comparison with the total infirmary population, this number may seem very small, but of 232 inmates with children able to support them only 88, or 37.9 per cent. had children able and willing to support them.”[32]

Also, in Pennsylvania, the Commission found further substantiation of the isolation of the majority of the inmates who must avail themselves of the comforts of the almshouse.

“Sixty-three and fifty-one hundredths per cent. of those investigated have no children living; 13.5 per cent. have but one child living, while only 23 per cent. have two or more children living. A comparison at this point with the same aged group studied in the house-to-house canvasses is significant. In the latter group, only 10.63 per cent. had no children living; 15.8 per cent. had only one child, while nearly 70 per cent. had two or more children alive.

“The data obtained with regard to the ages of the children living shows that more than 13 per cent. of them are adult, indicating that this aged group has few dependents. On the other hand, 89.93 per cent. of these children are reported as unable to support their parents. The majority of these children are burdened with large families of their own. Most of them also belong to the ranks of the unskilled workers and earn wages which are hardly sufficient to maintain their own families in comfort. Only a very small percentage, namely 4.15, have children believed to be fully able to support their parents, while an additional 6.86 per cent. are able to help support the parents if ready to make the required sacrifices.

“Nearly 95 per cent. of the aged inmates investigated, have no other relatives able to help support them.”[33]

PHYSICAL CONDITION

The degree of physical welfare and the capacity of maintaining one’s grip upon life in old age, under our present industrial conditions, may be gleaned from the following: Of the non-dependent persons, just above the poverty line, 65 years of age and over, investigated by the Massachusetts Commission in 1910, 40.3 per cent. were found physically defective. In Wisconsin in 1915, out of a total of 1,395 persons 60 years of age and over, 489, or 35 per cent., were “able to follow gainful occupation”; 493 others could do light work; 245 were “able to take care of their own person;” and 42 required attendance. In Pennsylvania, in 1918, 36 per cent. of the aged 50 and over in the cities investigated were found to be physically defective. Sixty-four per cent. of these were found to be still in fair or sound health.

Quite a different tale is told by the investigations of the dependent groups. Of the 57,049 paupers without age classification, enumerated on January 1, 1900, in the United States, 15.4 per cent. were able-bodied, 40.5 were able to do light work, and 44.1 per cent. were incapacitated. The Massachusetts Commission found among almshouse inmates 93.8 per cent. defective; the next highest percentage of defectives was 86.0 for recipients of State and military aid, and 82.7 for those who received public outdoor relief. On the other hand, the defectives among the non-dependent poor, as found by the same Commission, was only 40.3 per cent.

The proportion suffering from chronic ailments among the aged inmates studied in Wisconsin was also found to be very high. Only one-third were found to be reasonably sound in mind and body, and only 14 per cent. were able to work regularly, while 12 per cent. required attendance.

A study made by the Ohio Commission from the reports to the State Board of Charities, reveals, the Commission states:

“Nearly half, or 47.6 per cent. of the regular inmates of county and city infirmaries are old and infirm and 24.5 per cent. are sick and diseased or persons who have become disabled through loss of members. More than 75 per cent. of the inmates of county infirmaries in Ohio are, therefore, old and infirm, or persons disabled by sickness, disease or accident. The remaining 27.7 per cent. is made up of miscellaneous groups of persons with various defects.”[34]

A study of 2,260 persons representing the total population of 22 typical infirmaries in Ohio made by Dr. John O’Grady showed results somewhat different from the foregoing. Of the 2,260 cases, 830 or 36.46 per cent. were old and infirm; 305 or 13.4 per cent were defective mentally; and 1,106 or 49.77 per cent. suffered from disease or physical defects.

The Pennsylvania Commission reports in regard to the almshouse inmates:

“Of the 3,405 cases investigated, only 12.80 per cent. are reported as being in good or fair health. Of those reported in bad or poor physical condition 28.92 per cent. were in a general state of poor health; 13.21 were crippled, maimed or deformed; 9.04 per cent. were feeble-minded; 9.3 per cent. were defective in sight or hearing; 7.25 per cent. were rheumatic; quite a number were epileptics and a number were suffering from various diseases. Of the total number investigated only five per cent. were reported as able-bodied; 40 per cent. were partially disabled, while 55 per cent. were totally incapacitated. For the same group in the house-to-house studies, 64.3 per cent. are reported in good or fair health, and only 35 per cent. are in poor health. In the total pauper population of the United States in 1910, the percentage of able-bodied was 20.64 per cent.”[35]

The Commission concludes:

“Regarding the aged paupers and the non-dependent aged classes, the outstanding differences lie, it would appear, in the respective family connections and physical conditions.”[36]

CLASSES FROM WHICH RECRUITED

Of the 57,888 male paupers admitted to the different county almshouses in the United States in 1910, 37.5 per cent. gave their occupations as common and agricultural labourers. The other occupations gave very small percentages each. The Massachusetts investigation in the same year disclosed that 33.7 per cent. of the almshouse paupers were previously engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits, followed by 22.6 per cent. engaged in housekeeping and domestic service, and 14.5 per cent. who were recorded as common labourers. In Pennsylvania, of 1,939 paupers stating their last occupation, 47.6 per cent. were classified as common and unskilled workers; 29 per cent. as engaged previously in housekeeping and domestic service, and less than 18 per cent. were engaged in occupations of skilled or semi-skilled character.

[Illustration: PERCENTAGE OF INCAPACITATED AGED PERSONS IN GENERAL AND PAUPER POPULATIONS.]

HOME OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY, AND INCOMES

Complete and exact information regarding the economic conditions of the aged in the United States and the extent of incomes outside of their earnings is not available. However, even an examination of the meagre data available, discloses a distinct insufficiency of incomes, outside immediate earnings, in old age for the majority of wage-earners. According to the Twelfth U. S. Census, only 847,069, or 27.4 per cent., of the 3,083,995 persons 65 years and over in the United States owned their homes free, while 196,407, or 6.4 per cent., owned them mortgaged. The 1910 Census does not give the home ownership by ages. The latter enumeration does classify the owners of farm homes, however, by age groups. Thus, in 1900 the percentage of those 65 and over in the United States who owned their own farm homes, to the total population of that age, was about 16.3. But only about 15.1 per cent. of the same age group owned their farm homes in 1910, and these included both free and encumbered. At the same time, the percentage of the rural population of the same advanced age constituted 57.2 per cent. in 1910.

[Illustration:

HOME OWNERSHIP OF PERSONS 65 YEARS AND OVER—1900 ]

The precarious economic status of the aged wage-earners and the extent of their ability to support themselves in old age becomes further manifested from the following disclosures:

The Massachusetts Commission’s investigations revealed the economic conditions of the non-dependent aged poor in 1910 as follows:

WEEKLY INCOMES AND EXPENSES OF NON-DEPENDENT AGED POOR Av. Av. Income Expenditure from All for All PERCENTAGE OF THOSE RECEIVING Sources Purposes INCOME FROM SPECIAL SOURCES „ From From From „ „ Savings Relatives Pensions Individual males $7.32 $6.26 36.1 36.1 15.5 Individual females 4.50 4.28 44.0 57.0 9.4 Couples 11.70 9.32 55.3 29.0 19.5 Families 12.24 12.00 58.7 12.4 32.3

Commenting on these figures, Mr. Squier points out:

“From the above table, it will be seen that the many thousands of comparatively well-to-do aged people may, by the slightest slip of luck or fortune, become absolutely dependent on charity. With the average weekly income of $7.32 for males and $4.50 for females, an average expenditure respectively of $6.26 and $4.28 and with such a large proportion of the incomes from sources other than that of weekly wages, one can readily appreciate that it is but a step from poverty to pauperism after the sixty-fifth birthday is passed.”[37]

In Wisconsin the economic possessions of the aged, as found by the Industrial Commission of that State, were found to be as follows:

“Of the married couples 65 per cent. and of others 56 per cent. owned homes mortgage free; of all home owners 65 per cent. have property (including homestead) of more than $2,000; of non-home owners 12 per cent. have property to the value of more than $500; of married couples 60 per cent. have incomes from labour or property over $300, and of others 40 per cent. have incomes over $200 per annum.”[38]

Even more complete data is given by the Ohio Commission:

“Of the 1,432 persons studied in Hamilton, 525 or 36.6 per cent. owned their homes free from encumbrance and 138 or 9.6 per cent. owned them mortgaged. Of the 416 persons studied in Cincinnati, 98, or 23.6 per cent., owned their homes.[39]

“Of the 663 homes owned by the persons studied in Hamilton, 435 were owned by wage-earners or widows of former wage-earners and 228 by business or professional men or their widows. One hundred and ninety-six of the wage-earners owning their homes were relatively skilled or semi-skilled wage-earners and 31.6 per cent. of the total unskilled wage-earners owned their homes.”[40]

The commission further reveals that:

“Home owning was noticeably more common among immigrants than among the native-born. Approximately two-thirds of the Germans owned their own homes and among other foreign born the proportion was almost as high. Among the natives of Ohio every other person visited was a home owner, but among the natives of other states home owning was rare. The small number of persons from other states owning their home is due to the predominance of certain groups, already referred to, from the backward districts of the south, whose members have not yet acquired the art of saving.”[41]

The Ohio Commission’s investigations disclosed that one home in every four of those studied at random was heavily encumbered; 65.2 per cent. of the latter were mortgaged for one-third of their value, and 20 per cent. for at least two-thirds of their value. Of the 663 home owners in Hamilton, 198 had in addition property or some other means of income; out of the 769 non-home owners in the same city, 119 had property or other means. Nearly 42 per cent. of the former and 67.2 per cent. of the latter class had property or other source of income valued at less than $500.

The Pennsylvania Commission in its studies of the aged in the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Reading, found 38 per cent. having property possessions of one kind or another. It also found 43.6 per cent. of the population 50 years of age and over, who claimed to have had no other source of income outside that of their own earnings. Of those that did have outside means, 35 per cent. had incomes amounting to less than $10 per week. The incomes in 24.2 per cent. of these cases had come from their own children, over seventy per cent. of whom were wage-earners themselves. Of the people investigated the Commission states: “The earnings of these aged workers in the high wage period of 1918 were as follows: 14 per cent. earned less than $12 per week; 29 per cent. more, from $12 to $20; and 37 per cent. did not earn anything.”

The property possessions and earnings of the definitely dependent classes are even less. The Massachusetts Commission found the percentage of those having property above debt at any time to be 37.8 for all classes of dependents.[42] The Wisconsin Report gives the home ownership of aged persons who received outdoor relief during the fiscal year 1913–1914 as follows: Of 107 married couples only five had a home clear; one had it mortgaged and 101 had neither; of 460 individuals of both sexes 47 had their homes clear; 26 had them mortgaged, while 387 had none at all. Only two of the married couples and 10 of the 460 other individuals had property exclusive of homestead valued at $500 to $4,000.

The Ohio Commission in discussing the same subject concludes:

“Among the inmates of county infirmaries are to be found some who were once prosperous; of the 1,608 persons studied 113 had had property valued at more than $2,000, while 39 had had property valued at more than $10,000.”[43]

The Pennsylvania Commission found similar conditions:

“Of more than 2,000 inmates questioned, as to their property holdings, 191 or 9.5 per cent. claimed to have had property above debts. More than 90 per cent. never possessed any property of their own. At the time of investigation less than one per cent. were receiving incomes from property holdings or savings.”[44]

The significance of these disclosures in terms of old-age destitution, stand out so clearly that they need hardly be commented upon further. The preceding data leave no doubt as to the consequences of our present policy of aloofness. In the face of actual destitution in old age, which now confronts almost half of our industrial population, it seems hardly consistent to continue to advocate and pride ourselves upon the blessings of laissez-faire and individual thrift. The foregoing would seem to indicate emphatically that the problems facing the old are as real and difficult of solution by individual effort in the United States as they have been found to be in other countries. It is obvious that old-age dependency, whether of one form or another, is with us, and that the introduction of a constructive social policy cannot be delayed much longer. The investigations of the aged seem to show clearly that for the wage-earner who has passed beyond the half century mark the all-important decision whether he is to escape the poorhouse in old age and a pauper’s grave at the end, does not altogether depend upon his own desires and ambitions. This decision will be made largely by the social forces which lie outside his own control, namely, the extent and economic standing of his family and his own physical vigour.