RICH AND POOR

Evening Star, Issue 23123, 24 November 1938, Page 17

RICH AND POOR

INTERESTING COMPARISONS i ■ Although inequality of income is one of the great forces behind political movements, we know surprisingly little in precise detail about it, says the ‘ Manchester Guardian ’ editorially. The statistics are very general, involving a good many inspired guesses. We know, as at has been said, that the number of persons with more than £2,000 a year was (in 1933-34) roughly the same as the population of one moderate-sized country borough (81,500) and the number with over £IO,OOO n year about that of the population of one small market town (6,000). Wo have (to mention only two of many) estimates like Professor Bowley’s for 1910 that 1.1 per cent, of all income receivers took 30 per cent, of the whole national income, and the remaining ' 98.9 per cent, shared the rest between 1 them; or Mr Colin Clark’s for 1929 that 10 per cent, of the national income was taken by the very rich, anti middle classes, and 55 per cent, by the great mass of the population (under £250 a year). But we have nothing on the scale . of the investigation into family iu- | comes that has just been completed for ' the United States Government. It is based on a sample of 300,000 in the vear which began on .1 illv 1, 1935. Whi! e one docs not quite see the present British Government having the courage to undertake such an inquiry , in this country, it would be extraordin- | arily interesting if comparison could bo made with the American results. I Tims the American study estimates that 42 per cent, of the families in the United States received loss than £2OO (taking the dollar at live to the pound) and 87 per cent, less than £SOO. Two per cent, received between £I,OOO and £2,000, and 1 per cent. £2,000 and over. Yet the 42 per cent, with tinder £2OO took less than 16 per cent, of the total, and the 3 per cent, with £I,OOO or more took 21 per cent. This, however. does not bring out the full extent of the disparity'. UNITED STATES. The population of tho United States is estimated as consisting of 116,000,000 members of 29,000,000 families and 10,000,000 independent consumers—men and women living independent lives as lodgers in apartment houses and hotels or as domestic servants. These 39,000,000 “ consuming units ” received a i total income of £11,800,000,000. Divid- : iug them into three equal groups, it is found that the poorest third (up to £156) received 10 per cent, of the total —about tho same as was received by I the richest half per cent, at the top. The middle third (between £156 and £290 received 24 per cent. Between I them, these two-thirds of the nation

took a third of the national income—somewhat less than did the highest 10 per cent. With the report, the American papers have published diagrams, which translate the figures into the most telling kind of propaganda for economic change and social reform. Thus we read that 8,000,000 families are “ continually facing starvation,” 11,000,000 families are “fighting poverty,” 8,000,000 families are the “ comfortable middle class,” 1,585,000 families are “ habitually able to afford luxuries,” 800,000 are “ not only living luxuriously but are piling up fortunes.” These are only crude totals useful for illustration. They have their value, however, in a country which is just seri•ously awakening to the political implications of its economic inequalities. SHEER POVERTY. What has really caught the imagination is the point about the immense number of families who are living in what, in a country with a high cost of living, is sheer poverty. Gone is tho idea of an “ America the golden,” when a third of the nation’s consuming units are shown to have an average income of no more than £95 a yearless than £2 a week. Much of this poverty is due directly to unemployment. Of the 13,000,000 units in this ‘ lower third ” 4,000,000 were on relief at some time during the year. But still 9,000,000 had no help at all, and of tlie.se 5,900,000 were families, half of them families of wage-earners, half those of farmers. Those generalisations cannot, however, be pressed far in an enormous country like the United States, and the inquiry needs to be supplemented by much more work on the differences in typo of community, costs of living, size of family, and so on. The report admits this hilly, mid goes a little way towards bringing out the regional differences and the disparity between different groups (between, for example the average income in southern rural communities of £220 for the white family and £96 for the negro family). But whateyer the shortcomings, at least a beginning has been tirade in a study -that is bound to have much political and social influence. It will certainly reinforce the crusades of the New Deal, although it will not enhance its popularity with the rich. Mr. Roosevelt has already spoken of the “ ill-nourished, ill-clothed and ill-housed ” third of the nation. Hero is some of the evidence. Whether we in this country would cut a much better figure is matter for argument, but at least the New-dealers are not afraid of stirring the national conscience, and their example is worth imitating.