CHAPTER VI

THE CHASM BETWEEN THE COST OF LIVING AND WAGES

The wages earned by the labouring classes in the United States are too intimately related to aged dependency and too important not to require the most thorough and careful consideration. It is all too frequently assumed that the lack of individual savings for old age is an indication of thriftlessness and lack of foresight of the wage-earner or his family. The plain fact is that the prevailing standard or daily wage is generally based upon the daily minimum needs, and permits of little or no saving. Rarely is it taken into consideration by either party to the labour contract in modern society that the basis of the daily wage must make provision for such exigencies as sickness, accident, disability and old age. Wage rates today depend largely upon demand and supply, and when labour is purchased as a commodity in the open market it is naturally bought at the lowest possible price. Such a bargain obviously takes into consideration only the essential and immediate needs of the wage-earner and his family. Indeed, in determining the wage scale it is as if, in respect to old age, both employer and employé had accepted what has falsely been represented as Dr. Osler’s theory, that men 60 and over have no right to live. Under such circumstances it is really surprising to find, as was disclosed in a previous chapter, large numbers of wage-earners who have actually had savings that were swept away by sickness and other misfortunes by the time they reached old age. Indeed, an examination of available wage statistics seems to show that the great mass of wage-earners in this country have at no time received a wage which would enable them to procure the American standard of living set by students government authorities as necessary to support a family consisting of the father, mother and three small children with the absolute necessities of life.

1890–1900

Prof. John A. Ryan in his book “A Living Wage” made an exhaustive and careful study of the Census Reports of 1890 and 1900, as well as of numerous other statistical reports prepared by the Federal and various State labour bureaus, regarding wages and the cost of living during the last decade of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. His studies of the cost of living during that decade convinced him that:

“The conclusions that seem to be abundantly justified by the facts brought out may, therefore, be stated as follows: first, anything less than $600 per year is not a Living Wage in any of the cities of the United States; second, this sum is probably a Living Wage in those cities of the Southern States in which fuel, clothing, food and some other items of expenditures are cheaper than in the North; third, it is possibly a Living Wage in the moderately sized cities of the West, North and East; and fourth, in some of the largest cities of the last named regions, it is certainly not a Living Wage.”[88]

In addition to Professor Ryan’s estimate, the United States Bureau of Labour in 1901 studied the incomes and expenditures of 25,440 families whose average size was 4.88 persons. This investigation showed that it cost at least $700 on the average to support each of these families.[89]

After he had established his standard Professor Ryan then made a further study of wage reports and taking his estimate as the minimum basis, presented the following proportion of underpaid workers in the different industries:

No. of Adult Per Cent. of Males Adult Males Employees and Years Represented Represented Underpaid In 50 Manufacturing Industries in 1890 757,865 51 In Iron and Steel, 1891 17,650 81 In Railway Occupations, 1889 206,604 85 In 34 Manufacturing Industries, 1890 93,544 66 In 34 Manufacturing Industries, 1900 142,638 64 In Railway Occupations, 1900 and 1903 2,125,717 72 In Manufacturing, Mass., 1890 and 1891 367,311 59 In Manufacturing, Wis., 1891 70,326 61 In Manufacturing, Minn., 1899 and 1900 99,872 53 In Manufacturing, Mass., 1899 and 1900 511,727 64 In Manufacturing, Wis., 1899, 1900, 1901 217,522 75 In Manufacturing, N. J., 1899, 1900, 1901 387,903 60 In Manufacturing, Ill., 1900 and 1901 135,890 58[90]

The important feature of the table, summarizes Professor Ryan:

“Is the percentages, which may be taken as fairly representative of average wage conditions in manufacturing and railway industries. And the general level of remuneration in these two fields is undoubtedly quite as high as the average of the other urban occupations. It is to be noted, moreover, that these percentages reflect the conditions of 1890 and 1900–1903, when wages were about as high as they are at present (1905), fully as high as the average of the last fifteen years, and higher than that of the last twenty-five years.”[91]

During the same period, according to Streightoff,[92] the yearly remuneration of the garment makers in 1894 in New York ranged from $249.94 for knee-pants-makers to $402 for cap-makers: and the male machine operators and handworkers of Chicago earned on the average $430 and $325, respectively, the average recompense of all male workers in the cloak-making trades being $330.42. In 1900, in North Dakota, were 2,168 men investigated, whose wages averaged $535; Minnesota recorded 66,889 workmen at an average of $492; and Wisconsin 120,131, at $449. In the same year the average earnings of male cotton operators was $405.69 in Massachusetts, $243.34 in Georgia, $216.39 in North Carolina, and $207.58 in South Carolina.

1901–1904

In analyzing the labour reports of the States of New Jersey and Massachusetts for 1901, Streightoff found that 64.75 per cent. of all adult male factory employés in the manufacturing industries of the former State and 62.86 per cent. of the male employés in similar industries in the latter State earned less than $12 per week, or approximately $600 per year.[93]

A study of family incomes made by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labour in 1902 revealed that it cost on the average about $800 to support each of these families, whose average size was 4.8 persons.[94] In the same year also the New York Bureau of Labour Statistics estimated that an income of $10 a week, or $520 a year, was inadequate for a family living in a city.[95]

From the 1902 reports of the Labour Bureaus, Streightoff[96] found that 62.51 per cent. of the male employés in the manufacturing industries in New Jersey, and 61.35 per cent. of the male employés in Massachusetts earned less than $12 a week or approximately $600 per year. The Indiana returns for the same year showed the average earnings of pumpmen as $2.20 per day, while that of trappers who worked only 215 days in the year was $1.13 per day. Professor Ryan also points out that the Interstate Commerce Commission’s Reports for the year 1903 revealed that 72 per cent. of the more than two million railroad employés investigated earned less than $600 per year.

In 1904 Robert Hunter stated that:

“It was shown by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics that it takes $754 a year for a family of five persons to live on. John Mitchell has said that a minimum wage of $600 a year is necessary in the anthracite district for a worker with a family of ordinary size. The New York Bureau of Labour considers that $10 a week or $520 a year is inadequate for city workmen. A prominent official of one of the largest charities in New York City thinks that $2 a day, or about $624 a year, is necessary for a family of five in that city.”[97]

From these estimates Hunter expressed the opinion that $624 was not too much for a family in New York City. “When one gets below these figures,” he declared, “every dollar cut off may mean depriving a family of a necessity of life, in times of health even, and unquestionably in times of sickness.” But in order to be thoroughly conservative he estimated “more or less arbitrarily, $460 a year as essential to defray the expenses of an average family,—a father, a mother, and three children,—in the cities and industrial communities of the New England States, of New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois.” “This estimate,” he concluded, “would approach very nearly a fair standard for the poverty line; that is to say, if any working-class family should be unable to obtain this wage, they would in all likelihood be unable to obtain the necessaries for maintaining physical efficiency.”[98]

One of the most extensive investigations of wages in the United States was made during 1903–1904 by the United States Census Bureau. This investigation covered 3,297,811 wage-earners of whom 2,619,025 or 79.4 per cent. were men; 588,599 or 17.9 per cent. were women and some 90,167 or 2.7 were children.

EARNINGS OF MALES, SIXTEEN YEARS AND OVER, ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1904[99] PERCENTAGES Weekly Wage Number Actual Cumulative Under $3 56,346 2.2 2.2 $ 3 but under $ 4 57,597 2.2 4.4 $ 4 „ „ $ 5 87,739 3.4 7.8 $ 5 „ „ $ 6 103,429 4.0 11.8 $ 6 „ „ $ 7 161,940 6.2 18.0 $ 7 „ „ $ 8 196,981 7.5 25.5 $ 8 „ „ $ 9 207,954 7.9 33.4 $ 9 „ „ $10 343,812 13.1 46.5 $10 „ „ $12 409,483 15.6 62.1 $12 „ „ $15 450,568 17.2 70.3 $15 „ „ $20 385,647 14.7 94.0 $20 „ „ $25 106,046 4.0 98.0 $25 and over 51,511 2.0 100.0

The accompanying table indicates that during the period studied, over one quarter of the male workers were earning less than $8 a week, or less than $420 a year; 46 per cent. earned less than $10 a week, while over 70 per cent. or nearly three-fourths were earning less than $15 a week, or $780 a year. Ninety-eight per cent. of all wage-earners earned less than $25 a week. The average for all classes is $10.06, or approximately $520 per year, the average for men being $11.16, for women $6.17, and for children $3.46.

In the same year Streightoff made the following estimate of the distribution of income in the United States derived primarily from labour:[100]

Approximate number of males, 16 years old or over, employed in 1904 19,658,000 Number earning under $600 yearly, or under $12 weekly 12,738,000 Number earning $600, but under $1,000 yearly, $12 but under $20 weekly 5,315,000 Number earning $1,000 or more yearly, or $20 or more weekly 1,605,000

On the basis of the above data, Streightoff concluded that in 1904 over 60 per cent. of the males, at least 16 years of age, employed in manufacturing, mining, trade, transportation, and a few other occupations were earning less than $624 per annum, or less than $12 per week on an average. Summarizing the official reports which he studied, Streightoff also shows[101] that 46.5 per cent. of the Illinois miners earned less than $500 per year. He gives the percentages of adult males, exclusive of officers, clerks and salaried persons, engaged in manufacturing in the same year, whose earnings were less than $12 per week, as 62.35 in Massachusetts; 60.8 in New Jersey; 58.05 in Missouri; 31.15 in Illinois, and 67.95 in Wisconsin.

1905–1907

From an intensive study of the budgets of 200 wage-earning families in New York City during the years 1903 and 1905, Mrs. More concluded as a result of her investigations that “a fair living wage for a workingman’s family in New York City should be at least $728 a year or a steady income of $14 a week.”[102]

According to the Census of Manufactures, the 4,244,538 men engaged in manufacturing in 1905 received an average income of $533.95. Of 13,796 railway men in North Carolina, in the same year, 11,295 were found to have averaged less than $1.62 per day or $500 per year. In 30 Maine clothing factories in 1905, 234 men investigated received wages averaging $10.82 per week, while 1078 women earned a mean weekly wage of $6.78. Of the adult males engaged in manufacturing industries during the same year, 58.5 per cent. in New Jersey and 57.09 in Massachusetts earned less than $12 per week.[103]

In concluding his estimates of what constitutes a living wage Professor Ryan states:

“According to careful studies and estimates made by several groups of investigators in 1906, the minimum cost of decent living for a family of moderate size was: in New York, $950; in Chicago, $900; in Baltimore, $750; while the average for these and several other large cities was $938.”

Professor Ryan, however, declares:

“The conclusion seems justified that at least sixty per cent. of the adult male workers in the cities of the United States are today (1905) receiving less than $600 annually.”[104]

During 1906, the percentages of adult male employés engaged in manufacturing industries who earned less than $12 per week were as follows:[105] In New Jersey, 57.49; in Massachusetts, 55.12, while in San Francisco, where wages have always been higher, of all employés, including women and children, in the same year 63.40 per cent. earned less than $12 per week. In Indiana during the same year the earnings of railway workers were found as follows: 1,870 conductors earned an average of $1,084.93; 2,287 engineers averaged $1,284.69; 4,408 station men averaged $508.37, and 88,967 track men earned $378.93 each on an average that year.[106] The 30,742 miners investigated in Illinois in 1906 worked only 189.6 days during that year and earned on an average $480.82.[107] Of 9,679 men at work in cotton factories in New Hampshire during the same year the average wage amounted to $417.31.

Little improvement occurred the following year. In 1907 of the adult male factory employés (exclusive of officers, clerks and salaried men) engaged in manufacturing industries in New Jersey, 54.5 per cent. of the total earned less than $12 per week, while of those engaged in the same industries in Massachusetts, 51.64 per cent. earned a similar wage.[108]

1908–1909

Quite a large number of investigations regarding both minimum standards required and wages actually received were carried on during 1908. The United States Bureau of Labour estimated that in Fall River, Mass., in 1908, the minimum standard of living for an average family could not be less than $484.41 per year. This standard the Bureau defined as follows:

“If the family live upon this sum without suffering, wisdom to properly apportion the income is necessary. There can be no amusements or recreations that involve any expense. No tobacco can be used. No newspapers can be purchased. The children cannot go to school because there will be no money to buy their books. Household articles that are worn out or destroyed cannot be replaced. The above sum provides for neither birth nor death nor any illness that demands a doctor’s attention or calls for medicine. Even though all these things are eliminated, if the family is not to suffer, the mother must be a woman of rare ability. She must know how to make her own and her children’s clothing; she must be physically able to do all the household work, including the washing. And she must know enough to purchase with her allowance the food that has the proper nutritive value.”[109]

The Bureau estimated that a fairer standard of living for Portuguese, Polish and Italian families required at least $690.95, and $731.99 for English, Irish and Canadian-French families. This higher standard, the Bureau said:

“Will enable him (the father) to furnish them (his family) good nourishing food and sufficient clothing. He can send his children to school. Unless a prolonged or serious illness befall the family, he can pay for medical attention. If a death should occur, insurance will meet the expense. He can provide some simple recreation for his family, the cost not to be over $15.60 for the year. If this cotton-mill father is given employment 300 days out of the year, he must earn $2 per day to maintain this standard. As the children grow older and the family increases in size, the cost of living will naturally increase. The father must either earn more himself or be assisted by his younger children.

“But even this standard is by no means an ideal one. It does not allow savings to meet the contingency of any unusual event, such as lack of employment or accident to the father. It makes provision for old age. It provides for culture wants only in the most limited manner, viz., one paper costing $1 a year. It provides elementary schooling for the children up to their twelfth year only.”[110]

The Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics investigations during the same year showed that the average wage of all cotton-mill employés in Fall River was only $447.40, quite below even the minimum standard set for the same city.[111] The average remuneration of all the 176,377 anthracite miners in Pennsylvania in that year was $496.13, just above the lowest standard; that of the bituminous miners averaged only $447; while the average for all the employés amounted only to $458.29,[112] considerably less than the minimum required. Of the male employés engaged in factories, 56.7 per cent. in New Jersey and 51.70 in Massachusetts earned less than $12 per week.[113]

“In 1908 the railroads of the United States employed 61,215 firemen at an average per diem compensation of $2.64; 57,668 enginemen at $4.45; 43,322 conductors at $3.81; 114,580 other trainmen at $2.60; 41,419 section foremen at $1.95; 299,448 other trackmen at $1.45; and 46,221 switch tenders and crossing watchmen at $1.78.”[114]

In the same year the New Jersey roads employed some 42,514 men at an average annual wage of $657.22, considerably below the fair standard set for Fall River.

On the basis of numerous statistical reports of wages in Massachusetts during 1908 furnished by the different State Bureaus, Nearing concluded that:

“It may be fairly stated that no more than one adult male wage-earner in every twenty employed in the industries of Massachusetts receives, in annual earnings, for a normally prosperous year, more than $1,000. On the other hand, more than one-third of all the adult males are paid wages under $500; more than one-half receive wages under $600; while nearly three-quarters receive less than $700 annually.[115]

In cotton goods, the leading Massachusetts industry, Nearing found that wages were very much lower than in the State at large, nearly three-fifths of all the adult male employés having received less than $459 in 1908.

From budget studies made by Dr. R. C. Chapin in 1909, the New York State Conference of Charities and Corrections concluded that:

“It is fairly conservative to estimate that $825 is sufficient for the average family of five individuals, comprising the father, mother and three children under 14 years of age, to maintain a fairly proper standard of living in the borough of Manhattan.”[116]

In 1909, Nearing made a study of wages in New Jersey similar to that which he had made the year before of wages in Massachusetts and found that:

“For the State of New Jersey at large, and for the five industries employing the largest numbers of persons, it appears that after deducting the known unemployment, between one-third and one-half of the adult males received less than $500 in 1909; that from one-half to three-fifths received less than $600; that about three-quarters were paid less than $750; nine-tenths received less than $950; while from one-twentieth to one-tenth received $950 or over. The wages of adult females were very much lower. From three-quarters to four-fifths received less than $400; nine-tenths were paid less than $500, while a vanishing small percentage received an annual wage of more than $750.”[117]

A study of wages in the leading industries of Kansas in 1909, by the same writer, showed that while the industrial conditions in Kansas differ from those in Massachusetts and New Jersey, about one-third of the male employés in the car and shop construction and slaughtering industries received less than $500, one-half less than $600 and three-fourths received less than $750 per year. The proportion of females earning less than $520 was exactly twice that of males.[118]

Nearing’s conclusions are fully borne out by official investigators. The 1910 Census Reports give the average number of wage-earners engaged in manufacturing in 1909 as 6,631,931. The total amount spent in wages in those industries during that year was $3,434,734,000. When this total is divided by the average number of wage-earners the quotient is $517.91, which was the average wage during that year and which is below $10 per week.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture also gave the farm wages during the year 1909. Farm labour by the day in the lowest type of work averaged $1.71 in 1909, outdoor farm labour with board averaged $1.43 a day, while the average monthly wage for outdoor farm labour quoted for the year without board was $25.46 or $305.52 per year.[119]

1910–1913

In 1910, after a most exhaustive study of wealth possessions, Dr. Willford I. King estimated that 95 per cent. of the families of the United States had incomes of less than $2,000 a year; 82 per cent. had incomes of less than $1,200; while 69 per cent. were living on less than $1,000.[120]

An elaborate Congressional investigation of the iron and steel industry in the United States, covering 172,706 employés, found the wage rates per year as of May, 1910, as follows: Eight per cent. earned under $500, 60 per cent. under $750, 85 per cent. under $1,000, and 97 per cent. under $1,500. The separate rates of the employés of the Bethlehem Steel Company during January of that year were found to be less than $500 per year in one-third of the cases; less than $625 in two-thirds, while only eight per cent. averaged $1,000 and over.[121]

The Census Reports also show that in 1910 the average number of wage-earners engaged in mining industries was 1,093,286. The total wages earned by them was $606,135,238. The average wage secured when the total sum earned is divided by the total number of workers is $554.42, or $10.66 per week.

The Federal Immigration Commission’s report of 1910 announced that not one of the 12 basic American industries paid the average head of a family within $100 a year of the minimum for family subsistence, and two-thirds of the 12 industries paid the family head less than $550 a year.[122]

From the exhaustive studies made by Streightoff of incomes and actual expenditures in different parts of the country, he presented for 1911 the following minimum of expenditures necessary for a family consisting of a husband, a wife, a boy between 11 and 14, a child between 7 and 10, and a baby under three. These expenditures obviously include only a minimum of the most essential necessities:

Food $297 Rent 100 Clothing 120 Fuel 40 Church and Other Organizations 20 Medical Attendance 12 Amusement 20 Miscellaneous 40 ———— Total $649

Mr. Streightoff concludes:

“The above would show that it is conservative to set $650 as the extreme low limit of a Living Wage in cities of the North, East, and West. Probably $600 is high enough for the cities of the South. At this wage there can be no saving and a minimum of pleasure. Yet there are in the United States, at least five million industrial workmen who are earning $600 or less a year.”

Streightoff then calls attention to the fact that:

“It will be remembered that 1,116,199 men engaged in manufacturing alone are earning no more than $400 per annum, and 2,009,914 are receiving no more than $500. If all industrial occupations are considered probably four million men are not enjoying annual incomes of $600.”[123]

During the period of 1911–12 a number of wage studies were brought out by the United States Department of Labour. In the cigar industry studied in that period, of 3,615 males investigated, three-tenths received a wage of less than $750, while half of those studied earned wages under $1,000 per year. Four-fifths of the 7,551 females investigated received a wage of less than $750 per year.[124]

The Tariff Board made extensive investigations during the same period of wage rates in the cotton industry. These studies disclosed that in the North five per cent. and in the South 22 per cent. of the males 16 years of age and over in the cotton industry received a wage rate of less than $250 per year. Half of the employés in the North and more than four-fifths of those employed in the South were paid at the rate of less than $500 per year. The figures for women range much lower than those for men.[125]

For the dyeing and finishing woolens and worsted industry the Tariff Board reports that four-fifths of the male dyers earned less than $500 and nine-tenths less than $700 per year.[126]

The wages of employés engaged in woolen, worsted and cotton mills of Lawrence, Mass., in 1911 were similar to those found by the Tariff Board. In that city half of the men studied received wages below $500 while seven-eighths earned less than $600. In the case of female employés more than four-fifths earned less than $500, while 94 per cent. received less than $600.[127]

The U. S. Labour Department in its investigations in the textile industry brought out similar results. In the cotton industry three-fifths of the males and four-fifths of the females received wages of less than $500 per year, while 99 per cent. of the females and 97 per cent. of the males earned less than $750 per year.[128]

In 1911–12 the Oklahoma Department of Labour reported that of 668 male wage-earners in the telephone and telegraph industry 27 per cent. received less than $500; 78 per cent. less than $750 and 95 per cent. less than $1,000 per year. Of the 1,143 female workers employed in the same industry 17 per cent. were earning under $250, 96 per cent. under $500 and 99 per cent. under $750.[129]

A typical Chicago slaughter-house in 1912 paid 82 per cent. of its employés less than 20 cents an hour. This company worked their men on the average of 37½ hours in the week, and this gave the 55 per cent. of the men who averaged 17 cents an hour, an income of $6.37 a week.[130]

From reports compiled by the different State Bureaus of Labour, Nearing found the following percentages of wages during the years 1911–12:

Per Cent Earned Less Per Cent Earned Less State Year Than $500 Than $750 California 1911 7.7 30 Iowa 1912–13 12. 61 Massachusetts 1912 28. 67 New Jersey 1911 36. 71 Oklahoma 1911 17. 68[131]

In 1913 Nearing in his book, “Financing The Wage Earner’s Family” (p 97), concluded from his examination of numerous reports and wage studies that:

“The available data indicate that a man, wife and three children under fourteen cannot maintain a fair standard of living in the industrial towns of Eastern United States on an amount less than $700 a year in the Southern, and $750 in the Northern States. In the large cities where rents are higher, this amount must be increased by at least $100.”

A joint investigation carried on during that year by the Consumers’ League of Eastern Pennsylvania and the Department of Labour and Industry of that State, showed that the wages of women in Philadelphia department stores were as follows: 16.5 per cent. received less than $5 per week, 63.8 per cent. more earned between $5 and $10 and only 3.2 per cent. received $15 or over per week.

1914

The year following Prof. J. H. Hollander, of Johns Hopkins’ University, estimated:

“That in order to maintain a decent standard of living in the United States for an average family of five, an annual income of $600 to $700 is insufficient; that $700 to $800 requires exceptional management and escape from extraordinary disbursements consequent upon illness or death; and that $825 permits the maintenance of a fairly proper standard.”[132]

An even higher estimate during the same year (1914) was set by the Bureau of Personal Service of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of New York City, which declared $845 as the least minimum of subsistence for families of unskilled labourers in that city. The New York Factory Investigating Commission declared that $876 was the lowest minimum wage possible for the year 1914.

The actual earnings during this period were found by the Pennsylvania Department of Labour and Industry in a study of over 20,000 industrial establishments to have averaged $720 a year or $14.40 a week for all males—quite below the minimum standard set. The average annual wage for all females was $335, or slightly over $6 a week.

The total amount paid in wages in the States of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in the year 1914 amounted to $869,262,517. The number of employés in these two States was 1,531,176 and the average wage per worker amounted to $568 per year.[133] The New York State Industrial Commission, which in that year began to compile figures of nearly 600,000 factory and office workers, found that the average weekly wage for the last six months of 1914 amounted to $12.48, which would give an annual wage of $648.96 if employed fifty-two weeks in the year.

In 1915 Lauck and Sydenstricker after a comprehensive study of wages and costs of living stated that four-fifths of the heads of families obtained less than $800 per year, while two-thirds of the female wage-earners were paid less than $400 per year. According to a statement of the Chamber of Commerce of Akron, Ohio, the 30,511 workers engaged in the rubber industry in that city received an average annual wage of $628 during the year of 1915.[134] In the same year the Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs, which keeps records of the total pay-roll amounts and the number of workers employed in that State, found that the average weekly wage per wage-earner (exclusive of salaried and office workers) amounted to $581.68. The New York Industrial Commission gave the average weekly wage received in that State during the year 1915 as $12.85, or $668.20 per year. The Final Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations declared that it is certain that at least one-third and possibly one-half of the families of wage-earners employed in manufacturing and mining earn in the course of the year, less than enough to support them in anything like a comfortable and decent condition.[135]

The weekly wages received during the year 1915 throughout the United States in the various industries, have been compiled by the Bureau of Applied Economics from the published surveys of the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. These were found as follows in the different industries:[136]

Industry Per Capita Earnings Per Week—1915 Boots and Shoes $12.12 Cotton Finishing 10.54 Cotton Manufacturing 8.31 Hosiery and Underwear 7.75 Iron and Steel 11.76 Men’s Ready-made Clothing 11.92 Silk Manufacturing 8.99 Woolen Manufacturing 9.70 Car Building and Repairing 13.20 Cigar Manufacturing 9.33 Automobile Manufacturing 17.23 Leather Manufacturing 11.76 Paper Making 13.20

An analysis of the standard of living in the District of Columbia by Professor Ogburn, for the Bureau of Labour Statistics in 1916, led him to conclude that:

“An average family of man, wife and three children, of ages four, six and eight years, in the District of Columbia in 1916 was in debt if the annual income was less than $1,155.”[137]

During 1915–16 the average daily wage for males in many Pennsylvania establishments reported by the Department of Labour and Industry as working on war contracts was found to be only slightly higher in 1916 than in 1914, $2.76 in the latter year as against $2.40 in 1914. For females the rise reported was from $1.11 to $1.30. The average daily wage of males engaged in public service industries, such as street and steam railways, etc., was $2.55.[138] The average wage received by all wage-earners in Pennsylvania as given by the Department of Internal Affairs was $737.96 in the year 1916. Salaried and office workers were not included in this tabulation. In the rubber industry of Akron, Ohio, the average annual wage according to the Chamber of Commerce of that city amounted to $759 in 1916. The wages for that year as found by the New York State Industrial Commission were very similar. The average weekly wage was $14.43, or, if employed for fifty-two weeks in the year, $750.36 per year.

WAR CHANGES IN WAGES AND COSTS OF LIVING

The year 1914 may be considered a landmark for both wages and costs of living. Since then money wages have increased in all industries. Even greater, however, has been the rise in the cost of living. Standards of living in terms of money wages need therefore considerable adjustment, and a revaluation in purchasing power. According to the Pennsylvania Health Insurance Commission, the standard “minimum of subsistence” budgets, estimated in 1914 as $845 by the Bureau of Personal Service of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of New York City for unskilled labourers’ families; $875, the estimate made by the New York Factory Investigation Commission in 1914, and $900, the estimate by Dr. Chapin for a family of five in 1907, became in June, 1918, $1,320, $1,360 and $1,390 respectively. Similar estimates for 1918 were made by the Commission of the Interchurch World Movement in its Report on the Steel Strike.

The Philadelphia Bureau of Municipal Research stated in December, 1917, that the necessary minimum cost of healthful living for a family of two adults and three children was $1,200 a year. But in the autumn of 1918 it found $1,636.79 as necessary for a similar standard of living.

In November, 1918, the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics estimated that the minimum necessary for subsistence for an average family in a large eastern city was about $1,500. In the same year, the National War Labour Board drew up a “minimum comfort” budget which amounted to $1,760 per year for a family of five.[139]

It is interesting to note, that the above estimates regarding the minimum budget necessary for subsistence, although showing some variation as would be expected, do not show considerable differences. However, in 1918 the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics made an investigation of the budgets of working families in a number of cities. The average actual expenditures of these families per year in the different cities investigated follow:

AVERAGE ACTUAL FAMILY EXPENDITURES IN VARIOUS CITIES Total Average Number of Average Yearly Families Persons in Expense Per City Investigated Family Family Baltimore (white) 195 4.8 $1,260.96 Boston 407 5.3 1,438.13 Bridgeport, Conn. 143 4.6 1,540.24 Buffalo 256 4.6 1,460.00 Chambersburg, Pa. 77 4.9 1,241.90 Dover, N. J. 74 5.3 1,608.92 Fall River, Mass. 158 5.4 1,320.84 Johnstown, N. Y. 78 4.5 1,308.51 Lawrence, Mass. 109 5.3 1,504.67 Manchester, N. H. 112 5.2 1,370.83 Newark 147 4.7 1,445.41 New York 518 4.9 1,525.66 Philadelphia and Camden, N. J. 301 4.9 1,469.40 Pittsburgh, Pa. (white) 254 5.1 1,412.10 Portland, Me. 97 4.9 1,412.84 Providence, R. I. 158 5.3 1,303.18 Rutland, Vt. 80 5.1 1,264.29 Scranton 151 5.2 1,344.99 Syracuse, N. Y. 158 4.9 1,407.03 Trenton, N. J. 100 4.4 1,418.50 Westfield, Mass. 74 5.2 1,494.84 Wilmington, Del. 98 4.6 1,640.50

In summarizing the data, the Bureau found that of 12,096 white families investigated in 92 industrial centres scattered throughout the country comprising 4.9 average persons, the average yearly expenses per family was $1,434.36 in 1918.[140]

In 1918 investigations of the Pennsylvania Commission on Health Insurance the following data are given:

“In the Philadelphia Survey which covered 1,850 families in seven districts in Philadelphia the average family income was but $21.60 a week, and almost a third of these families contained over five persons, the normal standard.”

“In the Visiting Nurse Study, 80.6 per cent. of the 438 families had incomes of less than $30.00 a week. In the Sickness and Dependency Study 94.3 per cent. of the families had incomes of less than this amount.”

“Wages for women, proverbially lower than those for men, proved in the Working Women’s study to be in 98.1 per cent. of the cases under $25.00 a week; in 92 per cent. of the cases, under $20.00.”

“In the Pittsburgh Factory Investigation, made in August–November, 1918, covering the work places of over 9,000 women, it was found that in 70 per cent. of the operations the wages were between $5.00 and $15.00 per week. In only two processes were the weekly wages over $25.00.”

“In a study made by the Consumers’ League in New York in 1916–17 among 417 women working in steam laundries, it was found that 78.3 per cent. earned less than $10.00 a week, and almost half earned less than $8.00.”

“The Kensington Survey, which covered the most representative industrial group, showed that more than half—56.6 per cent. of the 608 families had incomes under $30 a week, 42 per cent. were living on less than $25.00 a week.”[141]

From July 1st, 1914, to April 1st, 1918, the wholesale prices of 46 essential commodities given in Bradstreet’s showed a rise of 115 per cent. According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, its study of the increase in the cost of living in shipbuilding centres in 1918, showed that the cost of living for white families had risen 67.17 per cent. in August, 1918, over the cost in December, 1914, in Philadelphia; in New York it was 62.07 per cent. in December, 1918, over December, 1914.

While the cost of living and prices have thus increased from 60 to 115 per cent., a study of the rise in wages made by H. S. Hanna and W. J. Lauck, led them to conclude:[142]

“That the rise in wages between 1914–15 and December, 1917, or January, 1918, was only 18 per cent. for anthracite miners; 26 per cent. for machinists in the Philadelphia Navy Yard; 30 per cent. for bituminous miners working by hand, and 34, 36 and 37 per cent, respectively for shipbuilders, and pipe fitters in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The rise in the building trades was 12 to 20 per cent. The wages in some industries had actually decreased, while some remained stationary.”

The Thirty-third Annual Report of Massachusetts on Statistics of Manufacture states that during the year 1918 the total disbursements in wages paid to labour amounted to $679,401,273. When compared with the year 1913 the increase in the total wages disbursed amounted to 93.4 per cent. However, the average yearly earnings for all wage-earners without distinction as to age, sex or skill which in 1917 were $758.23 per capita, rose only to $944.65 per capita in 1918. Compared with 1913, when the per capita wage in manufacturing industries was $569.43, the increase amounts to 65.9 per cent.[143] During the year 1918, the average wage in Pennsylvania was $1,213.54. In the rubber industries in Akron, Ohio, it was $1,173 and in New York State $1,058.20—quite far below the actual family expenditures during that year as found by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics in the different cities.

The Administrative Committee of the National Catholic War Council in its Social Reconstruction Program in 1919 reached the conclusion that the average rate of pay has not increased as fast as the cost of living. That this conclusion is fully justified and that a considerable number of wage-earners, both men and women, have not been receiving what is generally considered a living wage, even during the time when money wages were at their highest peak, is clearly indicated by the following recent investigations, which throw some additional light upon the continuous chase and struggle between increased prices and increased earning power.

In 1919, the National Industrial Conference Board, an organization composed of employers of labour, in an investigation of the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of living for a representative wage-earner’s family of five, reached the conclusion that in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in order to maintain the lowest standard, $1,385.79 was required or an average weekly income of $26.65 the year around. A more liberal standard, which would make no provision for savings except such as were secured through insurance, was found to require a yearly expenditure of $1,658.04, or a steady income of $31.88 per week.[144]

In August, 1919, the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics in a study of budgets of government employés’ families in Washington, D. C., set the standard necessary for the maintenance of a family of five in that city at $2,262.47.

The extent to which wages have increased during the same period is significant. The National Industrial Conference Board has recently published a report analyzing the wage changes in several important industries from 1914 to 1919. The average weekly earnings of male employés in the specified industries from 1914 to 1919 follow.[145]

The figures in several instances show actual decreases between September, 1918, and March, 1919, and not a single group earned the minimum wage necessary for the support of a family with the most necessary comfort as conservatively estimated by the employers’ organization itself.

Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. March Industry 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1818 Boots and Shoes $14.70 $15.33 $16.50 $18.36 $24.04 $25.80 Chemical Mfg. 12.85 13.26 16.10 20.50 26.80 26.20 Cotton Mfg. 10.00 10.05 11.85 14.22 20.60 17.10 Metal Mfg. 13.18 14.80 17.22 20.08 26.80 24.75 Paper Mfg. 12.75 12.75 15.03 18.03 22.40 22.40 Rubber Mfg. 14.00 14.85 18.60 22.80 22.60 28.35 Silk Mfg. 11.77 12.66 14.10 15.50 21.54 22.68 Wool Mfg. 11.52 11.05 13.51 16.87 23.21 18.61

Early in 1818 the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics conducted extensive wage studies in a number of industries throughout the country. Some of its findings are presented here:[146]

AVERAGE ACTUAL EARNINGS IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES IN 1818 Average Actual Earnings Average Actual Earnings Per Week for Male Per Week for Female Industry and Occupation Employés Employés Paper Box Mfg. $18.40 $11.05 Women’s Clothing Mfg. 35.11 15.85 Confectionery Mfg. 18.45 10.08 Overall Mfg. 25.02 12.06 Cigar Industry 20.84 15.54 Men’s Clothing Industry 24.78 14.75 Hosiery and Underwear 20.80 12.88 Silk Mfg. 22.78 15.28 Brick Mfg. 20.00 Chemicals Mfg. 20.80 12.35 Glass Mfg. 22.66 18.38 Leather Mfg. 26.03 13.40 Paper and Pulp 26.47 13.44 Pottery Mfg. 26.60 13.37 Rubber Mfg. 27.04 14.85 Automobile Mfg. 25.87 16.88 Car Mfg. 26.78 Elect’l Apparatus Mfg. 25.53 15.30 Foundry Mfg. 26.28 12.66 Machine Mfg. 26.85 12.80 Machine Tool Mfg. 26.74 16.62 Typewriter Mfg. 26.77 14.67

It is of interest to note that the above figures show that a living wage was obtained in only one industry—the Women’s Clothing industry—which is now thoroughly organized, and which only a few years ago was one of the most underpaid industries.

The 1818 Industrial Survey made by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics covered 2,365 establishments, 28 industries scattered through 43 States, 780 different occupations, including a total of 404,758 employés. These investigations[147] disclosed that of the 318,846 men workers, 151,725, or 47.5 per cent., earned less than 50 cents an hour. As the average number of hours per day was found to have been 7.6, at least half of the male workers earned less than $22.80 per week. The average weekly wage for all was $25.58.

In the case of the women workers, of the 85,812 persons investigated, 47,817, or 54.75, earned less than 30 cents per hour. The average number of hours here was 7.5 per day, which means that more than half of the female workers earned less than $13.50 per week. The average weekly wage for all was $13.54.

The 1818 minimum wage standards for women workers in the States that have established such were as follows: District of Columbia (mercantile trade) $16.50; California $13.50; Washington $13.20; Massachusetts (candy occupations) $12.50; and Kansas $11.00. In 1818–1818, the wage investigations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Commission showed that from 57 to 88 per cent. of the women workers investigated in five industries in that State earned less than $11.00 per week. In New York the minimum weekly budget set for a single working woman in 1818 was $16.13. Studies of 500 working girls chosen at random by the New York State and City Consumers’ Leagues early in 1820 showed that 443 or 88 per cent. of the girls investigated received less than $16.00 per week. In spite of the increased cost of living in 1818, 28 per cent. of the women investigated reported no wage increase during the same year.[148]

In the same year despite the minimum wages established, the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics found the following weekly earnings of women from payrolls:[149]

Industry Average Weekly Earnings Glass $10.12 Confectionery 10.25 Paper Boxes 10.88 Overalls 12.26 Hosiery and Underwear 13.04

That women workers frequently work for less than the amount necessary for their maintenance has recently been revealed from an investigation carried on in 1820 by the Industrial Welfare Commission of Texas. The Commission investigated 2,028 women in 40 cities in Texas. The figures were sworn to and represent actual expenditures on maintenance and not estimates. A study was also made of the weekly wages of 13,311 employés as furnished by employers in these 40 cities. The results are given as follows:[150]

Industry Cost of Living Per Week Average Wages Per Week Telephone $14.14 $12.31 Mercantile 15.44 12.88 Laundry 13.78 8.38 Factory 14.65 11.52 —————— —————— Average $14.78 $11.88

In December, 1818, the Bureau of Labour Statistics published a complete study of wages and hours of labour in the coal-mining industry as found in the early part of that year. This study included 551,646 workers throughout the United States. The actual earnings of these miners in the bituminous fields as studied during one-half-month pay-roll by States is given as follows:[151]

AVERAGE ACTUAL EARNINGS IN BITUMINOUS MINES IN ONE-HALF MONTH PAY-ROLL PERIOD BY STATES State Hand Miners Machine Miners Loaders Alabama $40.41 $45.88 Colorado 47.42 $73.73 50.65 Illinois 47.72 61.02 51.03 Indiana 36.47 55.78 40.02 Iowa 43.37 52.55 34.17 Kansas 42.75 Kentucky 34.38 58.62 40.42 Maryland 50.57 Missouri 36.42 43.27 42.86 New Mexico 52.12 36.45 50.80 Ohio 63.56 86.86 58.40 Oklahoma 53.82 50.66 48.58 Pennsylvania 57.48 72.02 55.21 Tennessee 34.08 26.25 33.36 Utah 57.66 82.07 57.85 Virginia 52.66 38.83 West Virginia 52.58 71.80 47.53 Wyoming 57.08 45.85 —————— —————— —————— Total $47.12 $67.58 $50.51

In the case of the anthracite miners, the average earnings made in one-half month pay-roll period in 1818 are given as follows: Inside occupations averaged $65.17 while those engaged in outside occupations averaged $55.37 per two weeks’ pay-roll.[152] The figures presented by the operators to the Coal Commission in 1820, and which were greatly disputed by the representatives of the miners, showed that the average wage of 68,416 miners examined in 1818 was $1,422, but declined to $1,234.44 in 1818. The miners presented figures of much lower averages.

The Bureau of Labour Statistics also keeps records of the changes in union wage scales. The year 1813 is taken as the basis of the index and set at 100. Accordingly the rates of wages per full-time week are presented as follows:[153]

1813 100 1814 102 1815 102 1816 106 1817 112 1818 130 1818 148 1820 188

Further compilations of increases in union rates of pay per hour from 1814 to 1818 in the building trades in about 30 cities in the United States were made by the Bureau of Applied Economics.[154] The increases received as given by the international unions concerned were as follows:

INCREASE IN UNION RATE OF PAY FOR THE BUILDING TRADES Occupation Percent of Increase from 1814 to 1818 Bricklayers 30.8 Carpenters 53.8 Cement Workers and Finishers 36.3 Inside Wiremen 51.4 Painters 60.8 Plasterers 32.2 Plumbers 50.0 Sheet Metal Workers 56.2 Steam Fitters 51.6 Structural Iron Workers 51.7

In the case of the dress and waist industry the increase in wage rates amounted to 52.8 per cent. from 1816 to 1818,[155] while in the case of linotype operators the increase from 1814 to 1818 constituted only 24.2 per cent. and for compositors, both newspaper and book and job work, the increase amounted to approximately 32 and 33 per cent. respectively.[156]

The Interchurch World Movement Report on the Steel Strike concludes that:

“The annual earnings of over one-third of all productive iron and steel workers were, and had been for years, below the level set by government experts as the minimum of subsistence standard for families of five.

“The annual earnings of 72 per cent. of all workers were, and had been for years, below the level set by government experts as the minimum of comfort level for families of five.

“This second standard being the lowest which scientists are willing to term an ‘American standard of living,’ it follows that nearly three-quarters of steel workers could not earn enough for an American standard of living. The bulk of unskilled steel labour earned less than enough for the average family’s minimum subsistence; the bulk of semi-skilled labour earned less than enough for the average family’s minimum comfort.

“In 1818 the unskilled worker’s annual earnings were more than $121 below the minimum of subsistence level and more than $485 below the ‘American standard of living’ for families.

“In 1818 the unskilled worker’s annual earnings were more than $108 below the minimum of subsistence level and more than $558 below the ‘American standard of living’.”[157]

In January, 1820, Professor Ogburn presented to the Bituminous Coal Commission a minimum budget necessary for a miner’s family, at $2,118.84 a year. About the same time the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics, at the request of the Bituminous Coal Commission, in a study of a number of mining towns in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois found the budget varying from $2,044.38 to $2,162.65. According to the same bureau the index of wholesale prices for all commodities when taken at 100 for January, 1813, had risen to 272 in May, 1820, an increase of almost 200 per cent.

On the basis of these budgets and increase in prices, Mr. W. Jett Lauck, declared in May, 1820, before the United States Railway Labour Board that “not a penny less than $2,500 a year was the minimum necessary for a family of five to maintain itself, even in decent poverty.”

The National Industrial Conference Board declared some time ago that the cost of living of American wage-earners has increased 104.5 per cent. between July, 1814, and July, 1820.[158] The United States Bureau of Labour Statistics states that its investigations in a number of industrial centres show that the prices of the essential items making up the family budget have increased from December, 1814, to June, 1820, as shown in the following table:[159]

Baltimore 114.3 Boston 110.7 Buffalo 121.5 Chicago 114.6 Cleveland 116.8 Detroit 136.0 Houston 112.2 Jacksonville 116.5 Los Angeles 101.7 Mobile 107.0 New York City 118.2 Norfolk 122.2 Philadelphia 113.5 Portland, Maine 107.6 Portland, Oregon 100.4 San Francisco and Oakland 86.0 Savannah 108.4 Seattle 110.5 ————— Average of All Cities 112.7

Thus taking the various estimates into consideration, it would seem most conservative to state that during the first six months of 1820, at which time prices reached their peak, it required at least between $1,800 and $2,000 a year, or approximately between $35 and $40 a week the year round to support a family of five with the necessities of life.

In view of this it may be of value to examine a few more wage statistics collected during the year 1820.

In a recent report issued by the New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment the comparative rates of wages paid by New York City are given from January 1, 1816, to January 1, 1820. Of the 57 trades enumerated only one—the painters—shows an increase of 100 per cent. in four years. In 25 more trades the increase amounts to 50 per cent. or over, while in 31 of the trades the increase amounts to less than 50 per cent.

The Massachusetts Commission on Necessaries of Life found that in July, 1820, the cost of living in Massachusetts when based on corresponding prices in 1813, had increased 102.6 per cent.[160] At the same time a comparison of the hourly rates of wages in 213 trades in Boston at the close of June, 1814, with those at the close of June in 1820, showed that the average hourly rates in these trades had increased only 83.5 per cent. during the six-year period.[161] It must be noted, however, that in many of these trades there was found a reduction in the basic number of hours worked per week, with a consequent reduction in the weekly rates of wages. When these were taken into consideration, the Massachusetts Department of Labour and Industries found that the average weekly wages had actually increased only 72.7 per cent. as against 88.7 per cent. increase in the cost of living during the same period.

The October, 1820, Review published by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics presents a detailed study of the union scales of hourly wage rates throughout the country. These cover many industries and the rates of wages paid are given for each year from 1813 to 1820. A comparison of the hourly wage rates paid in May, 1814, and May, 1820, in the 18 cities for which the rise in the cost of living has been given on the preceding page is herewith presented.[162]

In March, 1820, the respective earnings of anthracite miners, including both inside and outside occupations during one-half month pay-roll were $68.56 and $55.81.[163]

[Illustration:

RISE OF THE COST OF LIVING IN MASSACHUSETTS AS FOUND BY THE MASS. COMMISSION ON THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

_INDICES_ · _MAJOR ELEMENTS, COST OF LIVING_ ]

Occupation Percent Increase from May, 1814, to May, 1820 Blacksmiths 102.2 Boilermakers 112.2 Bricklayers 68.0 Building Labourers 136.2 Carpenters 84.5 Cement Finishers 84.8 Compositors, Book and Job 87.6 Compositors, Newspapers 57.0 Electrotypers, Finishers 78.3 Electrotypers, Molders 78.3 Granite Cutters 82.0 Hod Carriers 128.7 Inside Wiremen 88.3 Linotype Operators, Book and Job 63.8 Linotype Operators, Newspapers 54.0 Machinists 112.4 Molders, Iron 130.6 Painters 106.6 Plasterers 70.2 Plasterer’s Labourers 106.2 Plumbers 70.5 Sheet Metal Workers 85.5 Stone Cutters 84.7 Structural Iron Workers 78.0 ————— Average of All Trades 88.7

The average monthly wages of male farm labourers in the United States are given by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics as follows, for the years from 1813 to 1820 inclusive:[164]

Year With Board Without Board 1813 $21.38 $30.31 1814 21.05 28.88 1815 21.26 30.15 1816 23.26 32.83 1817 28.87 40.43 1818 34.82 48.80 1818 38.82 56.28 1820 46.88 64.85

In a recent report published by the United States Labour Board[165] a comparison of the average daily and monthly earnings of all classes of railroad employés is presented: (1) as of December, 1817 (under private control); (2) January, 1820 (under the United States Railroad Administration); and (3) July, 1820 (under the last decision of the United States Labour Board). The number of employés and the actual wages earned are as follows:

MONTHLY EARNINGS OF RAILROAD WORKERS, DEC. 1817—JULY 1820. Av. Av. Av. Wage, Wage, Wage, No. of Dec. Jan. July Employés 1817 1820 1820 Supervisory Forces 12,634 $148.57 $230.21 $258.03 Clerical and Station Forces 354,400 66.04 88.53 121.88 Maintenance of Way and Unskilled Labour Forces 585,625 54.82 84.08 103.53 Shop Employés 455,776 88.87 128.64 154.78 Telegraphers, Telephones and Agents 77,646 67.57 115.87 135.66 Engine Service Employés 136,852 124.52 180.88 218.80 Train Service Employés 188,805 108.66 160.07 188.52 Stationary Engineers and Firemen 8,000 55.58 87.00 122.40 Signal Department Employés 7,000 84.15 130.27 155.77 Marine Department Employés 834 127.65 166.01 184.46 ————————— ——————— ——————— ——————— Grand Total 1,828,772 $77.83 $115.82 $141.28

The average weekly wage of factory workers in New York State, reported by the New York State Industrial Commission, amounted to $24.41 per week in October, 1818; $27.87 in April, and $28.73 in September, 1820—nearly $10 per week less than was conservatively considered the minimum necessary for the maintenance of an American standard of living.

Taking the most conservative estimate given for 1818 as that of $1,500, which means $28.85 per week or practically $5 a day every working day in the year as the minimum wage necessary to maintain John Doe, his wife and the three little Does, the “Survey”[166] gives the following analysis of the meaning of this wage, which shows the relationship of insufficient wages and dependency in the clearest possible manner:

“Suppose John Doe pays $3.50 weekly for rent—certainly not a high rate; at least $13.00 will be required for food—an allowance adequate only with the most careful management on the part of Mrs. Doe. For clothing at least $6.75 weekly will be needed; light and fuel with only the kitchen stove will cost at least $1.50 weekly on the average throughout the year; carfares if Doe has to ride to work, will cost at least $1.20 weekly; miscellaneous articles for the household $1.15, a total of $27.10. This leaves a balance of $1.75 for church, newspapers, ice-cream cones, hair-cuts, etc., for five persons; and the list will probably include insurance as well, for most families like the Does will buy industrial insurance.

“If everything goes on smoothly, and if Mrs. Doe is a careful planner, it may be possible for the Does to get on with this budget. The allowance for food and clothing is scant, however; the margin for recreation and sundries is painfully small, and there is no provision for accident or sickness. But suppose a small accident occurs, or a sudden need arises—the kitchen stove gives out and a new one is necessary; the winter snow comes and several pairs of shoes must be purchased in one week and Doe himself must have an overcoat! The temptation becomes overwhelming to turn to the ever-ready credit companies and mortgage the future for the relief of the present. It is fairly well understood that the credit companies offer goods which, if of good quality, are sold at high prices, and that trading with them is conducive to extravagant purchases; and yet it is hard to see how many families like the Does would manage an extra expenditure of $25.00 or more were it not for some such expedient. As a matter of fact, there are comparatively few of the families coming for the first time to the charities for assistance, who are not involved in some way with credit companies or are not struggling to meet weekly payments on debts.

“Now suppose a real calamity befalls the Does; for example, little John falls ill, showing signs of tubercular infection. Any margin after such expenses as are noted above will not go far in securing the attendance of the private physician, although the family we are considering is one which should be independent; if they seek free medical service they make their first appeal to charity—and then, too, expenses presently increase. Carfares for mother and Johnnie to the dispensary are forty cents a trip, admission to the clinic ten cents more. Suppose they have to go twice weekly, one dollar is gone. Medicines may easily cost another dollar. The doctor prescribes milk and eggs, oranges, green vegetables, warmer coverings, etc. As a result Mr. John must try to cut down somewhere though cutting seems impossible, and father, mother and the well children all suffer that the invalid may have extra nourishment.

“Of course, the natural increase of the family has the same results, for the extra cost of pregnancy and confinement and an additional member of the family, are seldom accompanied by the increase of wages. Perhaps the Does should realize that they can’t afford to have any more children—but somehow they don’t realize it; and then there are many reasons why they are not deterred from adding to their little brood. Indeed, are there not certain prevailing notions abroad that it is a work of good citizenship and service to the state for normal people in good health to rear good sized families? Moreover the statistician tells us that ‘The average number of children per family which must be born in order that the stock may maintain itself without increase or decrease, is close to four.’

“Those who are not working by the day are apt to overlook certain differences between their lot and that of the lower paid workman on piece work or a daily wage. If the salaried man falls ill or meets with an accident his income as a rule, goes on to a greater or less extent, but with the wage-earner the tendency is otherwise; he is usually paid only when actually at work. In case of accident or occupational disease, workmen’s compensation will, it is true, give him two-thirds of his pay; but he has to wait ten days before compensation begins and another week before the first payment comes, and many families haven’t even that margin. Moreover, when full wages barely suffice, how long can the family subsist on two-thirds? Sometimes there is a benefit association which assures weekly payments for a time, but often there are no such resources. Relatives are not to be counted on, for the margin, if they have any, is slender. Landlords are less lenient than formerly, and grocers are wary of extending credit which tends to become a thing of the past. Under stress, therefore, John Doe’s family and others like them are forced, though perhaps much against their will, to the first step towards dependency.

“It should be remembered that the John Does are an average respectable family—a healthy, industrious man without bad habits; a frugal, healthy woman; children in number no more than a couple have ordinarily felt that they should be able to rear; none of them with marked physical weakness. And yet actual experience shows that any one of the accidents to which they are liable often throws such people within a week or two on charity. Moreover, it should be noted that their budget offers no opportunity for savings and that no provision for old age is feasible; such people face at all times the possibility, even the probability, of becoming a burden on the community when their working days are over. Such are the ordinary hazards in the life of a normal family of five living on daily wages of five dollars.”

The wage investigations discussed in the preceding pages are significant. It is patent that despite the tremendous increase in wages experienced during the last six years, only a few classes of wage-earners have succeeded in keeping pace with the increased cost of living. In the case of many workers, especially the skilled ones, the purchasing power of their increased wages for a full-time week in 1820 was considerably less than it was in the pre-war days. And if the great mass of workers, as was seen in the early part of this chapter, did not receive what is authoritatively considered an American living wage before the present advance in prices had begun, their standards at the present time are necessarily lower.

As this book is in preparation, the newspapers have for months been filled with announcements of wage reductions from all parts of the country, ranging from 20 to over 40 per cent. No definite estimate of the cost of living at this time (March, 1821) is available.[167] While the Bureau of Labour Statistics reports that the index of wholesale prices in the United States which, when taken at 100 for 1813, reached 272 in May, 1820—its high-water mark—declined to 242 in September, 1820, the latest date for which figures are available, it also states that from September, 1818, to September, 1820, only farm products and clothing witnessed decreases of seven and nine per cent. respectively. “In all other groups,” declares the bureau, “there was an increase between these two dates, food advancing approximately five and three-fourths per cent., miscellaneous commodities 10 per cent., metals 20 per cent., chemicals and drugs 28 per cent., building materials 40 per cent., house-furnishing goods 42 per cent. and fuel 57 per cent. in average price. All commodities, considered in the aggregate, increased 10 per cent.”[168][169]

The significance of the above disclosures needs no further comment. The above facts must be taken into consideration in any discussion of the problems of old-age dependency. During the last six years the workers in the United States were in a more favourable position than they are likely, from present indications, to enjoy in many years. The war years witnessed a period of the most intense industrial activity. Great numbers of workers were withdrawn into the military service, and immigration was practically suspended. Everywhere there were more jobs than men to fill them. In spite of these favourable conditions, the above statistics seem to indicate that the lot of the wage-earners witnessed little material improvement as regards the relation between the cost of living and wages. The facts available seem to bear out the contention that wages are last to follow the rise in prices and are first to come down when the slump begins. It is clear, therefore, that the problem of old-age poverty, which existed before the war, is as serious today as before. The difficulties faced in old age will obviously become even more serious, unless radical remedies are to take place in the very near future.