80. Data Supplied by Dept. of Labour and Industry.

81. Labour Review, August 1818, p 216.

82. Ibid June 1820, p 165.

83. Ibid Jan. 1821, p 158.

84. Ibid November 1818, p 254.

85. Ibid April 1818, p 188.

86. Ibid March 1820, p 160.

87. Report of California Commission p 60.

88. John A. Ryan, A Living Wage, p 150.

89. Maurice Parmelee, Poverty and Social Progress, p 87.

90. “A Living Wage” p 160.

91. Ibid, p 161.

92. “The Standard of Living,” by F. H. Streightoff, pp 60–63.

93. The Standard of Living, Appendices A and B.

94. Parmelee, Poverty and Social Progress, p 87.

95. Ibid, p 88.

96. The Standard of Living, Appendices A and B, p 61.

97. Robert Hunter, Poverty, pp 51–53.

98. Ibid pp 51–53.

99. Report of Manufactures, Census Bureau Part IV. pp 645–8, 1805.

100. Poverty and Social Progress p 68.

101. The Standard of Living, pp 60–64.

102. L. B. More—Wage Earner’s Budgets, pp 268–70.

103. The Standard of Living, pp 58–60–62, and Appendices A and B.

104. A Living Wage pp 150 and 162.

105. The Standard of Living p 64.

106. The Standard of Living p 60.

107. Ibid p 61.

108. Ibid Appendices A and B.

109. Report on Condition of Woman and Child wage-earners in the U. S., 61st Cong., 2nd sess., Sen. doc. No 645, Vol. XVI, p 142.

110. Ibid, p 152–3.

111. Statistics of Manufacture, Massachusetts, 1808, Boston, 1808, pp. 12–32.

112. Streightoff, F. H. Standard of Living, p 61.

113. Ibid Appendices A and B.

114. Ibid p 61.

115. Scott Nearing, Wages in the United States, pp 57–58.

116. R. C. Chapin, The Standard of Living Among Workingmen’s Families, in New York City, p 281.

117. Scott Nearing, Wages in The United States, p 72.

118. Ibid, pp 85–87.

119. United States Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Statistics, Bulletin 88, 1812.

120. W. I. King, Wealth & Income of The People of the United States pp 214–230.

121. Scott Nearing, Income p 80.

122. Carleton H. Parker, The Casual Labourer, p 117.

123. The Standard of Living, p 162.

124. Income, p 85.

125. Report of the Tariff Board on Cotton Manufactures. 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, House of Document 643, Government Printing Office, 1812, Vol. II, 637–651.

126. Income pp 81–82.

127. Report on The Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Charles P. Neill, Senate Document 870, 62nd Session, 1812, p 74

128. Income, p 83.

129. Annual Report of the Dept. of Labour, Oklahoma, 1811–12 p 232.

130. The Casual Labourer, p 116.

131. Income, p 100.

132. J. H. Hollander, The Abolition of Poverty p 8.

133. David Friday, Profits, Wages and Prices, p 102, 1820.

134. Ibid p 105.

135. Senate Document No 415, 64th Cong. August 23, 1815, p 22.

136. Wages in Various Industries, 1818, p 60, Bureau of Applied Economics, Wash.

137. Quarterly Publication of the American Statistical Assn. June 1818, p 51 (v. 16, p 388).

138. Pennsylvania Health Insurance Commission Report, p 81.

139. Ibid p 84.

140. Labour Review, August 1818, p 118.

141. Health Insurance Report pp 81–82.

142. Wages and The War, p 6.

143. Thirty-Third Annual Report, Statistics of Manufactures, p 11, 1820.

144. War Time Changes in Wages, Sept, 1814, March 1818, National Industrial Conference Board 1818.

145. The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners, Lawrence, Massachusetts, 1818; National Industrial Conference Board, Boston.

146. Labour Review, April 1820, p 100–104; March 1820, p 33–36; Feb. 1820, p 106–113; May 1820, p 82–107; and June 1820, p 82–84.

147. Industrial Survey in Selected Industries in the United States in 1818, Bulletin No 265, p 37–38, May 1820. United States Bureau of Labour Statistics.

148. Women’s Wages Today, Feb. 1820. Consumer’s League of N. Y. State & N. Y. City.

149. Current Facts, Jan. 1821, National Consumers’ League, New York.

150. Labour Review, Dec. 1820, pp 72–73.

151. Labour Review, Dec. 1818, pp 207–228.

152. Ibid, Dec. 1818, pp 207–228.

153. Ibid, March 1821, pp 64.

154. Wages in Various Industries, p 13, 1818, Bureau of Applied Economics.

155. Ibid, p 30.

156. Ibid, pp 47–48.

157. The Steel Strike of 1818, Commission of Inquiry Interchurch World Movement, pp 12–13, 14.

158. Changes in The Cost of Living, National Industrial Conference Board Report No. 30 Sept. 1820, p 26.

159. Labour Review, September 1820, pp 75–80.

160. Report of Special Commission on The Necessaries of Life, July 31, 1820, p 6.

161. Massachusetts Industrial Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, p 4, July 1820.

162. Monthly Labour Review, Oct. 1820, pp 78–82.

163. Labour Review, Dec. 1818, pp 207–228.

164. Labour Review, March 1821, p 85.

165. Average daily and monthly Wage Rates of Railroad Employés on Class I Carriers, Wage Series Report I, Aug.

166. The Survey, March 27, 1820, pp 801–802.

167. The most recent figures as to what constitutes a minimum “health and decency budget” for a family of five have just been made public by the Labour Bureau, Inc., New York City. As a result of cost of living surveys conducted in 1821 in New York City and Philadelphia, the above bureau estimates the annual minimum standard necessary for a family of five as $2,233.88 in New York City, and $2,338.20 in Philadelphia.

The bureau’s estimate is based on the “quantity budget” used by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. They estimate that $688 a year is needed for food, $388 for clothing, $443 for rent, $83 for light and heat, $58 for household equipment and $650 for miscellaneous expenses.

“The family is allowed no expenditures for books and magazines,” says the bureau’s statement, “only one daily paper is included. The doctor’s bill cannot exceed $80 a year for the whole family, and the boy of 12 can get but eight hair-cuts a year. The husband is allowed one-half and the wife one-third of an overcoat each year. The only amusements permitted are an occasional cheap movie show. No allowance is made for a trip or vacation outside the city.”

168. Labour Review, Nov. 1820, p 48.

169. Even in December, 1820, according to the bureau, the total cost of living was six-tenths of one per cent. higher than in December, 1818, and only 7.4 per cent. less than in June, 1820—the peak of high prices. (Labour Review, Feb. 1821, p 61).

170. L. W. Squier, Old Age Dependency in the United States, pp 28–30 and 36.

171. E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, p 117.

172. 18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labour, p 42.

173. Francis A. Kellor, Out of Work, pp 20–23.

174. Abstract of Statistics of Manufactures of the U. S. 1810, p 22.

175. Wm. M. Leiserson, Unemployment in the State of New York 1811, Appendix No. 1.

176. Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 445.

177. Fluctuations in Unemployment in Cities of the United States, 1802 to 1817, Helen S. Trounstine Foundation Vol. I No. 2, May, 1818, Cincinnati.

178. Idem pp 48–48.

179. Industrial Employment Survey Bulletin, No. 1, Jan. 1821, U. S. Employment Service, Washington, D. C.

180. Labour Review, February, 1821, p 124.

181. Information supplied by the Bureau.

182. Monthly Labour Review, June 1818, pp. 307–14.

183. Ibid, September 1820, p 180.

184. Combined from Bulletin of the Department of Labour and Industry Vol. 7, No. 1, Series of 1820, and Vol. 8, No. 3, Series of 1821, Harrisburg.

185. Labour Review, January 1821, p 222.

186. Massachusetts Report, p 58.

187. Ohio Report, p 241.

188. Penna. Report, pp 31 and 108.

189. Pp. 8–11–12–13–14

190. G. R. Miller, Social Insurance in U. S. p 111.

191. According to the New York Times of April 22, 1821, W. Jett Lauck, economist for the railway labour organizations, declared before the Railroad Labour Board that “authoritative government reports state that five million workers are idle, at least three million of them having been without work throughout the winter. It costs these five million workers nearly one billion dollars a month to supply their families with the barest necessities of existence. This situation means acute distress to approximately 25,000,000 persons. The cost of maintaining these five million families would absorb each month approximately one-fifth of the total savings deposits of the country. The entire savings bank deposits of the country could support them only five months, as they amount to only $5,186,845,000.”

192. Report of the Comptroller of the Currency, vol. 2, p 807, 1820.

193. Abstract of Reports of Condition of National Banks No. 125, p 11, Aug. 30, 1820, Treasury Department, Washington.

194. House Document No. 460, Sixty-sixth Congress 2nd Session.

195. Mabel Louise Nassau, Old Age Poverty in Greenwich Village, pp 16–17.

196. Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 313.

197. Mass. Report, p 58.

198. Ohio Report, p 288.

199. A recent inquiry addressed to corporations who have established pension systems is of interest. Of 58 answers to the question “Have your workers shown appreciation of benefits of pension system?” fifty-one answered in the affirmative. To the question whether the pension system has had a material effect in promoting efficiency, “particularly in that it has eliminated their worries concerning their future,” 36 out of 58 returns replied in the affirmative. Thirty-three out of 57 replies also answered yes to the question, “Has your pension system increased the average permanency of employment of your employés, i. e. has it reduced labour turnover materially?” In regard to the questions whether industrial pensions have decreased industrial unrest on the part of employés, or prevented strikes, 20 of 44 replies stated that it did to a certain extent, while 23 others declared that it did not.

200. Report on Industrial Pensions, The Merchants’ Association of New York, New York, 1820.

201. Bulletin No. 212 U. S. Bureau of Labour Statistics, 1817, p 736.

202. Ibid, p 758.

203. Industrial Pensions, Report of Special Committee, p 13, New York Merchants’ Association, 1820.

204. Ibid, p 24.

205. Illinois Pension Laws Commission Report, 1816, p 282.

206. American Economic Review, Vol. 3, 1813, pp 287–280–281.

207. New York Merchants’ Association, pp 6–7–8.

208. L. W. Squier, Ibid, pp 107–108.

209. The American Express Company is said to have established some provisions for its aged employés as early as 1875.

210. John B. Andrews, The Survey, May 22, 1820.

211. Report of Massachusetts Commission. Old Age Pensions, Annuities and Insurance, pp 270–271.

212. Report of U. S. Senate Com. Hearings on Civil Service and Retrenchment 1817, pp 70–72.

213. Ibid pp 70–71.

214. Ibid p 72.

215. Published in Report of Hearing of Senate Com. on Civil Service and Retrenchment.

216. I. M. Rubinow, Social Insurance, pp 404–405.

217. Social Insurance p 406

218. Social Insurance p 408

219. On January 12, 1821 a Massachusetts joint legislative Committee in a report on pensions submitted to the Legislature declared: “The contributory system has proved to be a success in the case of those State employés and teachers who have been brought into it. It places a reduced financial burden on the State and provides through the employé’s contributions a savings account which is payable to the employé or his estate in case of his resignation or death; it fixes an age at which all must retire, thus safeguarding the public service against inefficiency resulting from superannuation; it establishes a co-operative partnership between the employés and the public;—each shares in the management, each shares in the expense and each derives benefit from the system.”

220. Paul Studensky, Teachers’ Pension Systems in the U.S. 1820.

221. Ibid, p 26.

222. Ibid, p 28.

223. Ibid, pp XV-XV

224. Massachusetts Report, pp 168–68.

225. Report of Penna. Commission, pp 216–17.

226. Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 334.

227. Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 386.

228. Social Insurance, pp 386–387.

229. Magnus W. Alexander, Bulletin of Bureau of Labour Statistics, No. 212, p 774.

230. Charles Booth, Pauperism and the Endowment of Old Age, p 187.

231. Massachusetts Report, 1810, p 337.

232. A. M. Huddell, Mass. Report p 338.

233. Ibid p 332.

234. Ibid p 230.

235. Metcalfe, The Case For Universal Pensions, p 53.

236. Ibid p 86.

237. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, 1815 p 152.

238. Massachusetts Report, 1810, p 332.

239. Social Insurance p 281.

240. William H. Lackey, Old Age Pensions p 103.

241. F. L. Hoffman, quoted by Mass. Com. p 233.

242. Ibid p 240.

243. Quoted by Harold Spender, Contemporary Review Vol. 83 p 84.

244. Ibid p 104.

245. Bulletin of U. S. Bureau of Labour Statistics No. 212 p 778.

246. The Survey, New York, Feb. 28, 1814.

247. Report of Mass. Com. p 301.

248. Ibid pp 334–335.

249. Old Age Dependency, pp 312–13.

250. Social Insurance, pp 314–15.

251. The Survey N. Y. Jan. 17, 1814.

252. The Forum Vol. 28 p 688.

253. Report of Mass. Com. p 310.

254. Booth, Pauperism, p 235.

255. Quoted by Mass. Com. p 241.

256. Booth, Pauperism, p 237.

257. Report of Mass. Com. p 243.

258. Mass. Report pp 310–11.

259. Ibid p 334.

260. In 1821 bills providing for old age pensions were introduced following states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

261. “Social Insurance,” p 842.

262. Economic Review, March 31, 1820, London.

263. According to the latest information available, Belgium has apparently abandoned its voluntary system and has adopted instead a straight pension plan. The December, 1820, American Labour Legislation Review (page 230) states that on Aug. 20, 1820, a new old age pension law was enacted in Belgium. “Persons born before 1858 upon reaching the age of 65 are to receive an annual pension of from 600 to 720 francs. This amount will be reduced if the claimant has an independent income, but certain sources of income are exempt. The cost of the pensions is to be shared five-eighths by the state, one-eighth by the province and two-eighths by the commune.”