Facing old age

The causes that make for dependency in old age, like those which make for poverty in general, are many and varied. The forces which underlie the brutal sweeping aside of thousands of wage-earners as decrepit and dependent, are ordinarily too complex and of too heterogeneous a nature to permit of enumeration. Some are due, doubtless, to congenital or hereditary biological influences, some to physical environment and social heredity, while others may be the result of the existing social, economic, political, and perhaps even moral conditions. No completely accurate classification can be made of the factors and influences which go to make up human life, and which result in the fortune or misfortune of the individual. What may seem the effect of one particular cause may be so only in part. The main cause may overlap and encroach upon one or more related causes. It is especially difficult to classify the causes which make for old-age dependency, as even first hand information cannot be taken at its face value in this instance; for frequently, where the mental grip of the aged upon life is loosening, many things are complained of which may have little or no actual basis for complaint. The division of individual and socio-economic causes of old-age dependency made in the following chapters must not, therefore, be taken to mean that they are mutually exclusive. The classification is made largely for convenience and on the ground that certain influences are more closely related, and are affected by the individual, while others lie largely outside of the individual and are more intimately allied with and dependent upon the current social and economic forces.

In any discussion of the causes of old-age dependency it is important to state first the part played by feebleness and inefficiency, naturally resulting from old age. The studies made by the several State Commissions, as well as by many other competent authorities reveal that old age as such is a comparatively minor cause of dependency in later life. As was pointed out before, the present problem of old age is due largely, not to the total incapacity or feebleness on the part of the aged, but rather to their inability to cope with the conditions under the highly developed modern machine industry which finds less need for expertness and experience and greater use for speed and rapid production. As a result, the younger generation, though less experienced, is continuously crowding out the older and less efficient workers.

The small part old age, as such, plays in dependency may be seen from the following: The Thirteenth U. S. Census’ pauper enumeration gives the percentage of aged and infirm in almshouses as 32.1. The Massachusetts Commission in 1910 found the percentage of physical defect, due to old age, among the aged poor 65 years and over, ranging from 17.2 in the case of those receiving State and Military aid, to 35.7 in the case of those receiving private outdoor relief. Of 133 cases studied in Hamilton, Ohio, as to the cause of their retirement, only 25 attributed it directly to old age. Among the almshouse inmates in Ohio, of 1,608 cases investigated, only 90 or 5.6 per cent, attributed it to the same cause. In Pennsylvania also only 33.9 per cent. among almshouse paupers, 47.6 per cent. among inmates of benevolent homes, and 25 per cent. among the non-dependent aged 50 years of age and over were defective because of old age. In a study of 5,000 dependent families who came under the care of the New York Charity Organization Society during the years 1907–1908, Professor Devine found only 11.98 per cent. who were dependent because the head of the family was 60 years old or more.^[56]

DEPENDENCY DUE TO WANING EARNING POWER

Closely associated with superannuation as a factor in dependency is the decreasing earning power of those who have passed their prime in life. It is commonly known that in many of the larger industries the age of employment is set below the age of 40 and in some cases not above 35. As a result many workers, who for one reason or another are compelled to leave the occupations in which they were engaged for many years, cannot be re-employed in the trades in which they have acquired expertness and experience. These are compelled to seek new employment more suited to their age, which invariably means decreased wages. As a factor in dependency this is of utmost significance, for it must be remembered that in spite of the reduction in wages the expenditures of these persons for food and rent, even under normal conditions of living costs, remain the same, while the expenditures for medicines are increasing with age.

The extent of the changes in occupation, with the resulting decrease in wages among workers who have passed their prime, may be judged from the following. The Ohio Commission found in its studies of wage-earners in Hamilton, that many men of weak physique who enter occupations like moulding, blacksmithing and boiler-making, make the discovery that they are not equal to the strain, after it is too late. These are forced to seek new and lighter employments. Its intensive analysis of the Census reports regarding ages and occupations indicates:

“That there are certain unskilled occupations which old men enter after they have been compelled to give up work in their principal occupations. There is a striking preponderance of old men in such occupations as those of janitor, city labourer, watchman for cities, and boarding and lodging house keepers. Nearly 24.8 per cent. of the boarding and lodging house keepers (male), in the United States in 1900 were between 45 and 54; 21.8 per cent. were between 55 and 64 and 15.2 per cent. were 65 and over. Of the watchmen, policemen and firemen 21.9 per cent. were between 45 and 54; 14.0 per cent. were between 55 and 65 and 5.4 per cent. were 65 and over. Of the janitors and sextons 21.8 per cent. were between 45 and 54; about 17.9 per cent. were between 55 and 64 and 9.7 per cent. were 65 and over. In 1910, 52.0 per cent. of the janitors, 63.4 per cent. of the sextons, 41.3 per cent. of the city labourers, 65.7 per cent. of the city watchmen, and 55.0 per cent. of the boarding and lodging house keepers were 45 and over.”

The foregoing, concludes the Commission, shows that:

“Many workingmen are compelled between 50 and 60 to leave trades which impose a severe physical strain.”^[57]

Comparisons of wages earned in old age with those earned at lesser ages bear out the relationship of old age to decreased earnings even more clearly. According to the findings of the Massachusetts Commission in 1910, of all aged classes investigated, the earnings at the time of investigation varied considerably from their earnings in the last occupations. While 31.3 per cent. were found earning above $10 per week, at the time of investigation, 49.9 per cent. were in this wage-earning group during their last occupations. The percentage of those who received below $10 a week was 50.1 during their previous earnings; while 68.7 per cent earned below this sum at time of investigation, or just prior to their admission to the various institutions.

Valuable information regarding the wages earned by paupers in old age, just prior to their admission to an institution, and in their earlier days is also supplied by the Pennsylvania Commission. It comments:

“While 32.30 per cent. of the almshouse inmates earned less than $8 per week in their earlier years, a greater number, or 44.12 per cent. were earning the same sum prior to their admission. On the other hand, while 61.07 per cent. were earning between $8 and $20 per week in their younger days, only 52.48 per cent. were earning the same amount at the time of admission. This would prove that the earning power of these inmates was gradually declining, due either to old age or similar causes. The small wages earned by the majority of the inmates also seem to show that many of these aged folk could not earn a sufficient sum to maintain themselves in comfort. Of those who reported their last earnings 21.33 per cent. earned between $12 and $20 per week and only 6.4 per cent. were making $20 or more a week.”^[58]

LACK OF FAMILY CONNECTIONS

In the discussions of family connections (Chapter III), it was seen that aged dependency and pauperism are almost in inverse ratio to the number of children or relatives. Indeed, the presence of large numbers of childless persons in our poorhouses indicates clearly the connection between abnormally deficient family relationships and pauperism. In a total of 44,433 female paupers enumerated by the U. S. Census of 1910, only 30.9 per cent. had children still living. In Pennsylvania also, the Commission found, that while 63.5 per cent among the almshouse paupers had no children, in the case of those classified as “non-dependent aged,” only 10.6 per cent. had no children living.

SICKNESS AND INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AS CAUSES OF AGED DEPENDENCY

Very closely related to, and constantly attendant upon, aged dependency is physical disability resulting from either accident or bad health in general. It is common knowledge among social and charity workers that ill health stands out as the largest factor in all causes of dependency. It is conservatively estimated that in at least 50 per cent. of the families who apply for aid, physical disability, either directly or indirectly, constitutes the paramount cause for relief. The problem of old age is largely a problem of sickness and invalidity. This fact is generally recognized in European countries where old age insurance is frequently operated in conjunction with health and invalidity insurance systems. In these countries there are usually more persons receiving invalidity pensions than old age pensions.

The extent of sickness as a cause of dependency among the aged may be deduced from the following official studies. The U. S. Census enumeration of almshouse paupers in 1910 discloses that “Of the 84,198 paupers enumerated in almshouses on January 1, 1910, 53,619, or 63.7 per cent., were reported as having some serious physical or mental defect.” The Massachusetts Commission in 1910 found in its almshouse population only 12.5 per cent. able-bodied persons and the general percentage of physically defective ones for all classes was high (72.2).

Of the conditions in Ohio, Dr. John O’Grady concludes:

“These figures, as well as the general observation of the investigators during the course of the study, seem to indicate that sickness, disease and accident are important factors in shortening the period of man’s economic usefulness. Many of the workers interviewed stated that they began to fail after 50. Machinists and pattern makers complained of defective eyesight and the molders of rheumatism. As a rule they paid little attention to these disorders until there was a breakdown compelling them to give up work for two or three months.

“Illnesses were more important than any other cause in bringing about premature superannuation and frequently required the expenditure of all previous savings.

“There was every indication that for many wage-earners over 50 in Hamilton, the problem of sickness was really serious. The maladjustments, neglects and excesses of early life were then making themselves felt. One hundred and fifty-five of the men interviewed reported themselves as afflicted with definite disorders of various kinds, such as rheumatism and kidney, bladder and stomach troubles. These ailments, accentuated by age, frequently compelled them to be absent from work for two or three months at a time.^[59]

“Of the 2,260 infirmary inmates of whom a detailed study was made, it was possible to obtain information in regard to the most important cause of poverty in 1,608 cases. Disease, sickness, or accident was given as the most important cause of dependency in 482, or 29.9 per cent. of the total number of cases.”^[60]

Sickness was also found to be the leading cause of disability by the Pennsylvania Commission. This cause was given by 34.5 per cent. in the case of the almshouse group; 36.2 among Benevolent Home inmates and 47 per cent. among the “non-dependent” aged.

The part played by physical disability in old-age dependency, however, is not confined to the actual period of senility. Indeed, illness and poverty are all too closely inter-related throughout our social system. It is very often difficult to determine which comes first. The Social Insurance Commission of California found in a study of 500 families who received public aid, that there were many family heads who had been earning considerably more than the average wage, but who were, nevertheless, compelled to ask for aid because of sickness which had consumed the savings of years.

That sickness encroaches upon the small property possessions of the poor and succeeds in ultimately wiping them out, is clearly brought out by the investigations of at least two State Commissions. Of all dependent groups investigated by the Massachusetts Commission, 60.1 per cent. of those who had property in their earlier days attributed its loss to prolonged illness. In Pennsylvania 35.5 per cent. of the almshouse paupers and 88.3 per cent. of the “non-dependent” aged claimed to have disposed of their previous property possessions in order to meet emergencies, largely those of sickness.

The relationship of bad health and dependency is indeed of such importance that a summary of some of the data gathered by the most recent State Commissions on Health Insurance is exceedingly valuable in this discussion.

As early as 1900, the National Conservation Commission in its report on national vitality declared that one rarely finds a person past forty-five years of age who is in perfect health. Since that time this broad statement of ill health has been corroborated by many studies of health conditions as found among different groups of workers.

“In an intensive physical examination of garment workers in New York City, made by the United States Public Health Service in 1914–15, it was found that among 2,086 males examined, there were present 9,541 defects and diseases, or an average of 4.57 for each male. The examination of 1,000 females showed 3,916 defects and diseases, or 4.33 for each female.^[61]

“Our knowledge of morbidity among the general population has been increased during the past few years by the surveys made by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Surveys among the industrial policy-holders of this company have been made by the agents and have covered Rochester, N. Y., Boston, Mass., Kansas City, Mo., cities of West Virginia, cities of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Trenton, N. J., and the Chelsea district of New York City. A total of 579,197 white men, women and children were covered and 10,878 were found unable to work, or 18.8 per thousand. A total of 376,673 people over 15 years of age showed 8,636 cases of disabling illness or 22.9 per thousand. The average disabling sickness for each of the persons of working age was, therefore, 8.4 days or 6.9 working days per year. When the data for disabling illness are classified according to sex, they show that white males over 15 have a morbidity rate of 22.8 per thousand and white females over 15 have a rate of 23.0 per thousand. These sickness rates represent an average total loss of 8.3 days a year for men and 8.4 days per year for women. If these rates are applied to the population over 15 in Ohio (3,700,000), it gives an annual total of 31,000,000 sick days and a loss of 25,000,000 working days per year.

“The United States Commission on Industrial Relations estimated upon the basis of an examination of sickness statistics of more than a million workmen, that each industrial worker loses an average of nine days a year. This estimate is approved by Warren and Sydenstricker in their report on health insurance for the United States Public Health Service.

“The experience of nine benefit funds, in Ohio, covering 663,163 workers and 131,921 cases of disability which lasted eight days and over and which were due to sickness and non-industrial accident was examined. The analysis showed that for every 100 members, there were 19.7 cases of disability lasting eight days and over. The average number of days’ disability per member per year—based on these cases, exclusive of days of disability beyond 189 days—was 6.0 days. In the Workmen’s Sick and Death Benefit Fund which was analyzed separately, it is estimated upon the basis of compensated cases of disability lasting more than one day—exclusive of days of disability beyond one year—that each member was compensated on the average of 6.9 days of disability a year. Since these figures are for compensated cases only and do not include days of disability beyond the specified ranges, they are, therefore, somewhat less than the total sickness among the groups studied. From the mass of data all pointing to the same conclusion, the Commission estimates that for the whole group of employed workers in Ohio the average days of sickness will be about nine days annually.^[62]

“Among the 663,163 workers under observation, there were 131,921 cases of disability lasting eight days or over, or 19.7 cases for every 100 members. Of the cases lasting eight days or more, 34.7 per cent. lasted from eight to 14 days; 19.5 per cent. lasted from 15 to 21 days; 11.3 per cent. lasted from 22 to 27 days; 7.9 per cent. over one month but less than two months; 6.4 per cent. over two months but less than three months; 7.1 per cent. over three months but less than six months and 3.1 per cent. over six months.”^[63]

In Dr. Emmet’s study of the Workmen’s Sick and Benefit Society,^[64] already referred to in a previous chapter, the average age of the members of this organization, composed largely of wage-earners, was 42.9 years. The total membership and the total cases of disability due to sickness and injuries of these were found as follows:

Thus the total membership during a period of five years was subjected to a disability extent measured by 43,885 sick persons, disabled an aggregate of 1,223,324 days or an average of 6.6 days per member and 28.1 days per disabled person.

The Pennsylvania Health Insurance Commission in its report of 1919 concludes:

“More than 385,000 persons in the State are constantly suffering from illness; approximately 140,000 from severe, and 245,000 from slighter illnesses.

“The average loss of working time among employés in the State is at least six days each year because of sickness. In 1916, 3,025,071 working days were lost because of industrial accidents in the State; sickness causes approximately five to seven times as much loss as industrial accidents.

“At the nominal rate of $2.00 a day the wage loss to employés of this State every year because of illness is at least $33,000,000.^[65]

“A study of twelve well organized establishment funds, was made during the summer and fall of 1918 by the Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania Health Insurance Commissions with the help of Mr. Boris Emmet of the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. The results of this study were tabulated by the Ohio Commission in ten groupings. The benefit associations selected for study include employés in the following occupations: railroad transportation, manufacture of iron and steel products, textiles, steel mill, general foundry work and letter carriers. The most important facts to be gathered from this study relate to the duration of the illnesses for which benefit had been paid. As most of the funds had a seven day ‘waiting period’ only cases of more than eight days’ duration were used in the combined experience tables. Because of differences in administration of benefits and hazards of the several occupations represented, the proportions of cases of long and short duration vary widely in the different funds. For instance, 55.73 per cent. of the sickness in Fund No. 1 lasted less than two weeks, while in Fund No. 10 only 16.1 per cent. was of this duration. In the ‘over six months’ group, Fund No. 1 had 1.39 per cent. of its cases, while Fund No. 10 had 5.24 per cent.

“Taking the combined experience of these funds, however, it was found that 34.56 per cent. of the cases lasted less than two weeks; 34.68 lasted more than a month, and 3.26 per cent. more than six months.”^[66]

The Connecticut Report of the Public Welfare Commission in an examination of the disability experiences of 22 factory Mutual Benefit Associations in that State also finds that:

“The average number of disability days per member per year for the 22 associations taken as a whole is 4.9 days. Making allowance for the fact that in these associations disabilities of shorter duration than the waiting period and disability running beyond the maximum benefit period are not reported, it is found that on the average a workman is disabled approximately six days per year because of non-industrial accidents and sickness. This figure is the same as was disclosed by the investigation of the Social Insurance Commission of the State of California.

“The individual experience for one year of a concern which employs approximately 1,200 females showed for this group that the average number of disability days due to non-industrial accidents and sickness per female employé per year was 17.2.”^[67]

According to the American Labour Legislation Review for December 1920 (p 232), the United States Department of Labour estimates that 450,000,000 days’ time is lost every year by 50,000,000 workers in this country on account of sickness.

The degree of physical disability in the United States as a whole is told vividly by the military draft rejections for physical defects. Of all the young men examined in the United States by the draft boards 29.11 per cent. were rejected on account of physical defects.

The responsibility of industrial accidents for a great deal of poverty and dependency is known to all. The exact number of industrial accidents occurring in the United States annually, however, is still impossible to determine. Even the best State compensation laws include neither all classes of workers nor all hazards, and no complete statistics of accidents are therefore available. For the year 1913 the U. S. Bureau of Labour Statistics^[68] estimated the probable approximate number of fatal industrial accidents in the United States at 25,000 for both sexes, and the number of injuries involving a disability of more than four weeks at approximately 700,000. This estimate of comparatively prolonged disability was obviously no indication of the total number of minor accidents which occurred during that year. In a study of 10,000 accidents in the iron and steel industry involving disability of one day and over, made by the same Bureau,^[69] it was found that in 41.2 per cent. of the cases the disability terminated in the first week; 59.8 per cent. of the total cases terminated in two weeks, while 77.7 per cent. recovered in four weeks. If the accidents in the iron and steel industry are taken as representative of industry in general, in the United States, in respect to the period of termination, it would mean that the total number of industrial accidents in the United States approximate 4,000,000 a year.

Miss Margaret Gadsby in a recent study of industrial accident statistics in the United States^[70] points out succinctly the deplorable inadequacy of complete data on this subject:

“How many industrial accidents occur yearly in the United States? We do not know. To what extent have workmen’s compensation laws and the safety movement mitigated the accident evil in American industries? We are unable to determine with any degree of certainty. What are the causes of industrial accidents? What is the accident frequency rate in the leading industries; the accident severity rate? We do not know. Where can preventative measures be most effectively applied? It has never been adequately determined; there are no adequate comparable data. How many industrially disabled are there in the country who will be affected by the recent legislation extending the provisions of the rehabilitation act to the industrial cripple? No authoritative statistics are available. What is the annual loss in productive efficiency through industrial accidents? What is the annual cost in time and money lost through accidents in industry? We do not know; there are no figures available by which it can be determined.... Even the part of this information which is the most elementary—the mere number of accidents occurring within a given year—is unavailable for the country as a whole. Not only is there no uniform method of tabulating statistics of accidents for the entire country, but also few States can be said to have accurate knowledge of the total number of accidents occurring in the industries within their borders. As for an analysis of such accidents as to cause and severity within each industry, only half a dozen States can be said to have approximated a significant analysis.”

From a study of all the available sources of information which, Miss Gadsby states, “can in no case be said to represent the total number of accidents occurring within the State,” she presents the following industrial accident figures for the years 1917–1918–1919.

The above totals, as was pointed out, are incomplete. From several states no figures whatever were available for the period covered. In four instances, the figures refer to accidents in mines only. In some cases only accidents resulting in more than two weeks’ disability are included, and in one case the data refer only to such accidents occurring in establishments where women and children are employed. In addition, the investigator contends: “A State that has a seven day waiting period has no record of approximately 40 per cent. of its tabulatable accidents. Those States having a waiting period of two weeks have no record of from 65 to 70 per cent. of their industrial casualties.”

After a thorough analysis of European and American industrial accident rates, Rubinow concludes:

“That there occur in the United States annually some 30,000 fatal industrial accidents, about 200,000 accidents leading to permanent disability, of which nearly 60,000 are cases of actual loss of part of body, and about 100,000 resulting in disability of under 25 per cent. and another 50,000 in disability of 25 to 50 per cent., and the remainder cause disability of over 50 per cent. In addition, some 170,000 accidents are serious in that disability lasts over three months, but eventually they result in complete recovery, especially, if economic conditions favour it.”^[71]

A recent pamphlet issued by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company declares that the United States leads all other countries “equally advanced industrially and socially” in industrial deaths. It is stated that there are “not less than 85,000 deaths from accidental causes each year in this country. If our accident rate were reduced to that of England and Wales, we should have only 44,000 deaths from accidents.”

R. W. Little of the Safety Institute of America, referring to the 2,000,000 industrial accidents in the United States every year, points out that each of more than 700,000 industrial workers loses more than four weeks every year as a result of industrial accidents; that there are at least 22,500 industrial deaths annually in this country, and that our industries turn out each year 15,000 workmen suffering from permanent disability—“battle casualties of peace.”^[72]

The above estimates are hardly exaggerated. In the State of Massachusetts alone, whose population was less than three and one-half millions in 1910, there were reported to the Industrial Accident Board of that State, the following number of injuries:

The New York Industrial Commission found that from July 1, 1914, to Jan. 1, 1916, there were 683 industrial accidents in that State every working day. In other words, there were in that State alone 315,000 industrial accidents in eighteen months. According to the September, 1920, Bulletin of the New York Industrial Commission there were during the year ending June, 1920, 345,672 industrial accidents reported to the above Commission. During the three-year period of 1915 to 1917 the total cases compensated in Wisconsin, including both fatal and non-fatal accidents, was 40,980.^[74] During the year ending June 30, 1919, 18,448 cases of injury were reported under the Wisconsin law, while during the year ending June 1920, 18,441 additional cases of injury were reported.^[75] In California, the Industrial Accident Commission gives the total number of accidents for the calendar year of 1918 in that State as 104,767.^[76] In 1919 the total increased to 108,947.^[77]

In Pennsylvania the Department of Labour and Industry Reports state that in 1916 there were 255,616 accidents of all kinds. In 1917 the number decreased to 227,880. In 1918 there were in Pennsylvania a total of 184,844 industrial accidents, 3,403 of which were fatal. In 53,783 or 29.1 per cent. of the cases, the injuries resulted in a loss of more than 14 days, while in 127,658 or 69.1 per cent., the disability lasted from two to 14 days. The total number of days lost that year amounted to 2,767,471 and the wages lost amounted to $10,286,872. In 1919 there were a total number of 152,544 industrial accidents of which 2,569 were fatal.^[78] There were lost through accidents during the same year 2,053,277 work days in Pennsylvania, an average of 13.46 days lost for each accident. The total wage loss through accident during that year amounted to $8,756,697, or an average wage loss of $57.47 for each accident.^[79]

In 1920 the total number of accidents amounted to 174,979 of which 2,514 were fatal. The number of days lost was 2,442,219 and the wage loss amounted to $12,154,829.^[80]

How staggering is the accident toll exacted by industries may be seen from the following Pennsylvania figures. During the five years—1916–1920—since the inauguration of the Compensation Bureau of Pennsylvania, there occurred a total of 995,863 industrial accidents, of which 14,108 were fatal. The total number of days lost amounted to 14,590,701. The total wage loss amounted to $50,146,055.

The accident toll exacted by modern industries from the wage-earners engaged in them, is also evident from the following. The accidents in the metal mines in the United States in 1916 amounted to 48,237; 46,286 in 1917,^[81] and 42,915 in 1918.^[82] The number of coal mine fatal accidents were as follows:^[83]

In the iron and steel industry from 1910 to 1918 the industrial casualties were as follows:

The number of casualties on the steam roads in the United States were as follows in 1917: Killed 10,087; injured 194,805.^[85] In 1918 the total casualties on the steam roads amounted to 9,286 killed and 174,575 injured.^[86]

That it is the poorest workers who are largely affected by accidents is evident from the Fifth Annual Report of the Industrial Accident Board of Massachusetts. This report analyzes the accident cases for the year 1916–17 and finds that 65 per cent. of the non-fatal injuries were in the $8.01 to $15.00 a week wage group. What effect this has upon the family is further revealed from an analysis of the dependents left by 460 fatal cases in California in 1918, made by the Industrial Accident Commission of that State. The 460 individuals killed left a total of 817 persons who were completely dependent upon them. Of this total 329 were wives whose average age was 37.6 years; 455 were children whose average age was 8.5 years, while 33 others consisted of dependent parents and relatives whose average age was about 65 years.^[87] In Pennsylvania also of the 995,863 total industrial accidents which occurred during the period of 1916–1920, 582,609, or almost two-thirds of the cases, were married persons. The total number of dependents of the injured ones amounted to 802,236 during the five-year period.

It is out of place to dwell here upon the tremendous price which is being paid annually in human and economic values in this country, largely as a sacrifice to greed and greater efficiency. That the accident rates are declining in practically all occupations is, of course, encouraging. The relation of the above figures to dependency, however, is obvious. What this annual hecatomb means in terms of destitution and mental and physical suffering to the victims and their dependents permits no estimation.

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:

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.

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]

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.