Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 50424-h.htm or 50424-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/50424/pg50424-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50424/50424-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/cu31924002741357
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
Additional notes are at the end of the book.
THE IMPENDING CRISIS
Conditions Resulting from the Concentration of Wealth in the United States.
by
BASIL A. BOUROFF,
Graduate Student of the University of Chicago.
Publishers,
Midway Press Committee,
Chicago.
1900.
Copyright, 1900, by
Midway Press Committee.
PREFACE.
This is not a novel, nor a work of fiction; it is based on the facts of
the Eleventh Census and other statistical reports, and on the most
reliable authorities on these subjects. This book represents the most
essential and fundamental features of the nation’s situation. It shows
the reasons why your cities rapidly become the property of a
comparatively very few persons; why the American farmers lose their
ground, and the urban population lose liberty; and why all become
absolutely dependent upon a few multi-millionaires. It exposes the
conditions in consequence of which the whole nation becomes a nation of
mere tenants of farms and homes, paying rents; and, while the wealth
increases, the greatest majority of the people come into desperate
struggle not for pleasure, but for simple existence.
In order to impart as much knowledge in regard to the situation of the
nation as possible, it was found necessary to supply the readers with a
sufficient comparison of statistical facts, pointing to the differences
of averages made by different authorities on the subject. This
comparison has also been introduced for the purpose of indicating
certain truths of special value, and for finding the true bases of
reasonably dealing with the most vital problem of the national
existence. This problem involving conditions that cause the commonly
recognized social unrest of the present time is a problem which grows in
intensity.
Recognizing the difficulty in solving the problem and the danger of the
situation, we should not wonder, if the very persons who are always
inclined to make discounts in established truths, will be profoundly
surprised to know from the final conclusions here presented, that the
time of discounts has passed away, and that it is now too late to ignore
the facts of so serious significance.
If this work should come to be regarded as a general diagnosis of the
diseased situation, we may rest assured that there are many thousands of
people who will count it their sacred duty to find the proper remedy for
curing the disease of the national organism. For it will be seen that
the situation is rapidly growing worse every year with the increase of
population, and there must be an end to the disease. Surely, if the
increase of the national wealth is becoming less than the continual net
incomes of the private monopolies, trusts and combinations, it is not
difficult to recognize that the situation is already very bad. It is
therefore desirable that every one should carefully learn the situation.
THE AUTHOR.
Chicago, April 1, 1900.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES.
Page.
Preliminary: opinions and views 1
Conclusions of Mr. G. K. Holmes, U. S. Census Expert, 5
illustrated by diagrams and Table I
Conclusions of Mr. Thos. G. Shearman 11
Diagrams, Table II, and explanation 12
Conclusions of Dr. C. B. Spahr 18
Diagrams, Table III, and explanation 20
CHAPTER II.
STATISTICS OF WEALTH OWNERS.
Statistics of aggregate wealth 27
Economic classes of families analysed 28
Holders of wealth, tenants and mortgagors 32
Reciprocal comparison of contradictory classes 39
Comparison of the poor and the rich families 42
Right table resulting from comparisons 45
Comparison of families in tables of different authorities: 47
averages of family wealth
Illustrative chart showing worth of individuals 50
CHAPTER III.
THE PROPERTIED AND PROPERTYLESS PEOPLE.
Fundamental difference in number of resources of the propertied 53
and propertyless
Sources of multiple incomes of the wealth owners 54
(Extent of mechanical forces applied to labor in favor of the 57
wealthy)
A propertyless man himself is a source of multiple expenses in 61
favor of the propertied
Primogeniture replaced by dividogenesure, the principle of 70
dividogenesure defined and explained
CHAPTER IV.
ABNORMITY OF THE SOCIAL SITUATION.
Numbers of the people subject to dividogenesure 78
(Percentage of the homeless population in cities and towns and 79
of the landless on farms)
The propertyless a great nation 83
Bread-winners and others in gainful pursuits 89
Productivity of the American people superior 93
The people labor in favor of speculators 95
(Artificial world a witness for justice and rights) 98
Yearly net gains of the natural monopolies 101
Rates of injustice of dividogenesure expressed in daily incomes 103
derived from millions of dependent individuals by the wealthy
few
CHAPTER V.
THE MORTGAGOR FAMILIES.
Loss of rights precedes loss of property 110
Statistics of farm and home families in debt 111
Percentages and numbers of families in debt in the United States 116
after 1890: double table
Increase of mortgages on acre-tracts and lots 119
Amounts of indebtedness and life of mortgage 121
Per capita debt and average rate percent on the debt 122
Annual interest charges on debts combined 126
Public and other debts in force after 1890 stated 126
Significance of mortgages: different views 128
Loss of property by foreclosure of mortgages 135
CHAPTER VI.
CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH IN MONOPOLIES, ETC.
Increase of the national wealth in seven years 139
Wages: the doctrine of; artificially kept up; the fall of 141
Net incomes of the natural and mortgagee monopolies from 1891 to 145
1897 inclusive
Net incomes of monopolizers of rentable houses for the same 146
period
Net incomes of monopolies of rentable farm lands for the same 148
period
Net incomes of some trusts unascertained 151
Net incomes of the owners of offices, hotels and other rentable 152
properties in the centers of cities
Development of trusts in manufacture and mechanical industries; 154
concentration of capital
Net incomes of manufacture and mechanical trades 157
Net incomes of mining monopolies 161
Increase of the propertyless population 164
Grand total of the total-net-incomes of monopolies, trusts, and 169
combinations in seven years
Excess of the net incomes over the total increase of the 170
national wealth in seven years explained
National and local taxes for seven years paid 174
Increase of the propertyless and that of national wealth after 180
1897 up to 1900 stated
Appendix 187
Index 191
CHAPTER I.
DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED
STATES.
When a heavy mass of clouds suddenly rises in a clear sky, every one
thinks that a terrific storm is to follow, displaying a great store of
pent up forces. And many people [SN: SIGNS OF THE TIMES.] never make a
single mistake in predicting from so ominous a summer sky what is going
to take place. Some similar forecasting is now going on within the
consciousness of the people. For nearly every one more or less clearly
feels that he is heavily pressed upon by some portent in the national
life. And every one whose mental horizon is clear enough and wide enough
sees, beyond the outward appearance, that something dangerous is stored
in the nation. It may be something so unusually great in its force,
something so explosive, something so combustible, that with the new
century it may terribly shake the world.
It was quite recently when the “North American” of Philadelphia asked
the question, “What has the Nineteenth Century in store for
Philadelphia?” And by its own admission the replies received were
amazing. In summing them up, before spreading them at large before its
readers, it said:
“Substantial business men, whose names are almost household words,
solemnly affirm that with opinions of the new century will come
revolution and bloodshed. Leading lawyers [SN: OPINIONS OF BUSINESS
MEN.] say the tendency will be toward socialism. Bankers join with labor
leaders in forecasting the triumph of the single-tax theory and the
consequent overthrow of existing social conditions. That such a
tremendous undercurrent of dissatisfaction and unrest exists in this
city will undoubtedly come as a shock to thousands of conservative
citizens. The opinions given are not those of labor agitators or
anarchists. They are the careful expressions of men of wealth and of
broad education. The revolutionary suggestions were not shouted upon the
street in time of riot and excitement, but were given deliberately while
the speakers sat in their well furnished offices, surrounded by comforts
and evidences of prosperity.[1]” So then the Nineteenth Century has
stored up in the social organism of the nation enough material to
produce revolution and bloodshed in the Twentieth Century.
And Mr. Louis Post says in “The Public” of Chicago: “Our leisurely
friends of Philadelphia, who are to be envied, by the way, and not
sneered at, for being philosophical enough and sensible enough to keep
so much unwholesome hustle out of their lives—these slow and sober
people must have been ‘startled’ by the above ‘revelations’ of the
Philadelphia North American, that ancient landmark, now in its 128th
year.[2] It was undoubtedly an amazing surprise in view of its age that
the answer of its readers was, as you see, ‘revolution and bloodshed.’
If similar questions were presented to the thinking public of the
various cities of the United States, we might have thousands of like
opinions and all of them would be conditioned by sufficient reasons.
One of the most prominent thinkers of the city of Chicago[3] also quite
recently said that “the Twentieth Century will bring to us the bloodiest
revolution that human [SN: OPINIONS OF LEARNED MEN.] history ever
witnessed.” And his assertion was not less amazing than was the
affirmation of the substantial business men of Philadelphia. If it were
honest and right to expose the names of men whose confidential
conversations led to the same or similar assertions, I alone could make
a long list of these names.
They all admit that the nation, as an organism, has long been diseased;
its nerves have long been abnormally strained. But, like the friends of
Philadelphia, they speak about revolution and bloodshed which is but the
last and most convulsive stage of any nation’s serious disease. And it
is true that, when this stage is reached, it is impossible to avoid the
most intolerable operation.
But the amazing feature of such opinions is that different men agree in
affirming that revolution and bloodshed is almost unavoidable; yet
different men, as I know, [SN: CAUSES OF UNREST.] assign different
causes for such an undesirable event.[4] Some say it must come because
the population increases and the unemployed laborers increase. Others
say that the trusts, combinations, and monopolies must ruin the nation.
Still others say that progress and poverty, being very rapid in their
diverse directions, must rapidly bring the wealthy and the poor into the
state of cut-throats against each other. And only very few men
understand that all these causes are but secondary, though working to
the same horrible end. While the real, effective cause for revolution
and bloodshed, with the nation, is the exceedingly unequal distribution
of wealth, and its rapid concentration in a very few hands.
It is this situation that our democratic people will not be able to
endure, because they are born [SN: PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE BORN FREE.]
free, whereas the storing up of wealth in a few hands makes them all
economic slaves; deprives them of the privileges they enjoyed; makes
them absolutely dependent upon the mercies of the rich, which, if shown
to them, they may live; if withheld from them, they must starve to
death.
Let us see, then, what it is that the Nineteenth Century has stored up,
which is to result in such a terrific convulsion in the Twentieth
Century.
The following diagrams present the Logical Premises from which the
“revolution and bloodshed,” as a conclusion, must inevitably follow,
provided their action is not checked.
Distribution of Wealth in the United States.[5]
Population: 62,622,250. Wealth: $65,037,091,197.
Millionaires .03 } Millionaires 20 }
Rich 8.97 } .09 Rich 51 } .71
Middle 28 } Middle 20 }
Lower 11 } .91 Lower 04 } .29
Poor 52 } Poor 05 }
“These diagrams showing by percentages the population and wealth
distribution in the United States, according to tables compiled by
George K. Holmes, U. S. Census Expert on Mortgage Statistics, are from
the Encyclopedia of Social Reform.”
The contents of the above diagrams show on the bases of statistics that
in 1890 three hundredths of one per cent of the population, [SN:
PERCENTAGES OF WEALTH AND PEOPLE.] which are the millionaires, held 20
per cent of the nation’s wealth. Eight per cent and ninety-seven
hundredths of one per cent of the population, which are the rich, held
51 per cent of the wealth. The middle class, consisting of 28 per cent
of the population, held 20 per cent of the wealth. The lower class,
consisting of 11 per cent of the population, held 4 per cent of the
wealth. And the poor class, consisting of 52 per cent of the population,
held but 5 per cent of the national wealth,[6] as this table shows:
Table I.
+-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+
| | | | | Distribution |
|Percentages| Population |Percentages| Aggregates of | of wealth |
|of People. | in Groups. |of Wealth. | Wealth in | per head |
| | | | Dollars. | in Dollars. |
+-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+
| 00.03 | 18,786 | 20 | 13,007,418,274 | 691,867 |
| 08.97 | 5,617,172 | 51 | 33,168,916,461 | 59,041 |
| 28.00 | 17,534,216 | 20 | 13,007,418,253 | 741 |
| 11.00 | 6,888,432 | 4 | 2,601,483,644 | 377 |
| 52.00 | 32,563,644 | 5 | 3,251,854,565 | 99 |
+-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+
| 100.00 | 62,622,250 | 100 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 |
+-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+
This illustrative table represents the exact value of the diagrams on p.
5. And nothing is more interesting in this table than the sad
differences in the worth of the groups, and especially when their
respective wealth is divided per every head. The right-hand column shows
that there are 18,786 persons whose aggregate wealth, if divided equally
among them, would give $691,867 to each man, woman, and child. And there
are 32,563,644 persons[7] in the last group, whose wealth, if equally
divided among them, can give but $99 to every person. These two groups
present the greatest possible extremes of group-poverty and
group-opulence.
The other three groups, as their averages clearly show, are intermediary
between the two extremes. [SN: PER CAPITA WEALTH.] And if all the wealth
of the nation were equally divided among its population, we could have
$1,036 to every man, woman, and child. This per capita wealth indicates
that the nation is very rich on the whole, but its riches, as you see,
belong to a very few persons.
What then is the difference between a rich man and a poor man, between a
rich woman and a poor woman?
If the 32,563,644 men, women and children had $100 per capita wealth,
then one rich man of the first group of the above table, would be worth
more [SN: WORTH OF MEN.] than 6,918 men of the last group of the same
table. A rich man’s horse often worth more than 10, 20, 30, or even
more, poor men taken together. A rich woman’s finger alone worth more
than 10 or 20 poor women taken together, because that finger is often
embellished with the diamond rings that cost thousands of dollars. A
complete ladies’ dress or a costume often amounts to more than $5,000,
and hence it is worth more than 40 or 50 women taken together with their
dresses. Such are the differences between the rich and the poor people
when they are valued by the dollar.
But the dollar differences cause a great many other differences between
the rich and the poor. The poor man is not only poor in wealth, but he
is poorer still in social [SN: POOR IN SOCIAL RIGHTS.] rights and
privileges. And there is no possibility for the poor to rise up out of
his poverty. For he has no resources of wealth which the rich people
have; and he has no property of his own; for if he is worth but $99,
which is really his house-scarb,[8] he has no productive property at
all; he is then absolutely dependent upon the mercy of the wealthy,
without which he cannot exist even for six months. He cannot acquire
higher education and training, because he is encompassed with poverty
which furnishes no means for the education that helps men to acquire
wealth. Hence, the lack of education keeps the poor in poverty; and this
poverty prevents him from getting the helpful education. So that,
poverty and ignorance become the bitter enemies of the above millions of
individuals in the modern world of progress. Yet the modern poor have a
far more potent enemy than poverty and ignorance combined, which we
shall see later on.
Meanwhile, we will say here, that the rich are the masters over the poor
in the sphere of law, in the sphere of politics, in the club, in the
theater, in the church, at home [SN: DOMINANCY OF THE RICH.] and
abroad—everywhere; as if all power were given unto them under the
heavens over the poor. And how many church-ministers would not give them
the same power and the best places in the hereafter? For the very
character of sermons in our days depends upon the pleasures of the rich
in many churches, because the ministers depend upon the wealthy few more
than they depend on the millions of the poor. While all these poor are
the rich men’s economic slaves, spending half of their labor energy in
favor of the wealthy. That is what the Nineteenth Century has provided
for the nation.
But the above statistical conclusions were by many regarded as “roseate”
and “extremely moderate conclusions.” And it was in consequence of this
that Dr. Spahr [SN: CONCLUSIONS ARE MODERATE.] was obliged to reiterate
the expression: “Since the completion of this study, a volume has
appeared that must set at rest all question as to the extreme moderation
of the estimates reached.”[9] For it was clear that every new
investigation of the distribution of wealth confirmed the fact of a more
and more rapid concentration of the national wealth in fewer hands than
before. And it is the question of poverty, that spreads like contagion,
that the American people have now to deal with, in view of a phenomenal
increase of the national wealth which concentrates in the few hands. And
it is this question that cannot be set at rest while millions grow
poorer and poorer and the propertyless increase in numbers, as we shall
soon see.
The people cannot set this question at rest until they know the truth of
the different statistical tables, indicating the nation’s situation and
destiny. And we cannot rest until we make a series of propositions for
the purpose of producing more equal distribution of wealth in this
country. And even then we cannot rest, until our propositions be applied
to the irrational life of the nation, with the purpose of working out
justice for the people. When we see all this in their actual life, then
we shall rest, as the people shall be regaining their freedom, their
property, their resources of income, their rights to work and to enjoy
the fruits of their toil. The intelligent people cannot and must not
rest before they reach a resting place. They cannot always be deceived
by the shallow and selfish arguments which prove that the national
wealth increases enormously,—for it so increases only with the few and
rapidly decreases with the entire people. But the time will come when
the tens of millions will no longer vote for men who deprive them of all
rights, self-respect and liberty.
As we shall see later on, the 32,563,644 persons [SN: UTENSILS AS
WEALTH.] of the last group of the table I possessed no real wealth at
all even at the census in 1890. For though the diagrams represent them
as having had $99 worth of wealth to every head, yet this wealth was
personal and not productive.
STATISTICAL CONCLUSIONS OF MR. SHEARMAN.
“An estimate of the distribution of wealth in the United States was made
by Mr. Thomas G. Shearman [SN: RESEARCHES OF MR. SHEARMAN.] in the
‘Forum’ for 1889, and for January, 1891. It was based on careful
estimates of the wealth of the very wealthy, a list of which he gave,
and estimates of the division of the remaining wealth of the country
between the middle class and the poor based on assessors’ returns.”[10]
“Mr. Shearman came to the conclusion that 1.4 per cent of the population
own 70 per cent of the wealth; 9.2 per cent of the population own 12 per
cent of the wealth; and 89.4 per cent of the population own only 18 per
cent of the wealth.”[11]
In these conclusions, we have a still greater twist of facts by wrong
handling. Now, to illustrate these conclusions as they stand by another
set of diagrams, they will be as follows:
Population: 62,622,250. Wealth: $65,037,091,197.
The wealthy 1.4 The wealth
of the
wealthy .70
Independent 9.2 Independent .12
The poor and Dependent
dependent 89.4 and the poor .18
Conclusions of Unrestrained Averages of 1890.
These diagrams indicate by percentages the exact conclusions of Mr.
Shearman in respect to the population and the wealth distribution in
this country. The author [SN: LOOSE AVERAGES.] of these conclusions
obviously put too much salt of his own into his averages; for, by
parceling out the wealth of a number of the well-to-do and rich people,
he succeeded in persuading his readers, that, in America, the body of
tens of millions of propertyless people, the paupers and the tramps, do
not possess, on an average, less than $200 worth of wealth for each
person, including women and children of all ages. Whereas, in reality,
the wealth from which he made the fictitious averages, belongs to a very
few persons of the nation. While an astonishing majority of the people,
as we shall see, have no rights whatever to this wealth.
Let us again illustrate the conclusions in a tabular way for the sake of
definiteness:
Table II.[12]
+------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+
| Percent. | Population | Percent. | Aggregates of | Wealth per |
| of | in economic | of | wealth per group | head |
| population.| groups. | wealth. | in dollars. | in dollars.|
+------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+
| 1.4 | 876,710 | 70 | 45,525,973,867 | 51,928 |
| 9.2 | 5,761,242 | 12 | 7,804,450,932 | 1,354 |
| 89.4 | 55,984,298 | 18 | 11,706,676,398 | 209 |
+------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+
| 100.00 | 62,622,250 | 100 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 |
+------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+
The first glance at this table and a glance at the table on page 6 show
the reader that Mr. Shearman divided the population into three groups;
and Mr. Holmes divided it [SN: LINES OF DIVISION OF THE PEOPLE.] into
five groups. The bases of division are economic in both tables; but the
lines of division are very different with the one statistical authority
and the other. If we examine these lines, we shall find that Mr. Holmes’
fifth group consists of over 32½ million persons who, taken together,
had been worth a little over 3 billion dollars; so that, each person of
the group could have about $99 worth of wealth, as the average of table
I shows. The next higher group of the same author, which comprises
nearly 7 million persons, had, on an average, more wealth to each
person, than each person could have in the fifth group, hence the per
capita wealth of the fourth group of people was $377. While the group
still higher up in wealth, which consists of little over 17½ million
persons, and which had over 13 billion dollars’ worth of wealth, could
have $741 to every head, that is, if this wealth were equally divided
among them. The second group of Mr. Holmes’ division consists of over 5½
million persons, among whom the poorest ones had, probably not less than
$5,000 worth of wealth, as their average worth of over $59,000 shows.
Such a division of the population into five economic groups, if every
family is rightly and honestly valued, presents an immense amount of
truth to the public judgment.[13]
But what Mr. Shearman really did with his estimates and conclusions is
this: Seeing that the extent of poverty is appalling, he made the
division line in the group of [SN: SWEEPING AVERAGE.] well-to-do people;
he thus made the group of the very poor extend so far as to comprise
nearly 56 million persons; and then, by dividing the wealth of the
well-to-do persons among all these millions, he obtained an average of
$209 worth of wealth to every pauper, to every tramp, to every man,
woman and child,—who have had no wealth, and have had no rights whatever
to the wealth they are nominally represented as entitled to.
Consequently, his distribution of wealth among the third group of people
is merely on paper, is nominal, is showy, and it does not correspond to
reality with reference [SN: ONLY NOMINAL DISTRIBUTION.] to more than 35
million persons as represented in Mr. Holmes’ distribution of this
wealth. Mr. Shearman might as well follow the example of Mr. Carroll D.
Wright[14] and, by a single effort in calculation, divide among all
individuals the 70 per cent of wealth that belongs to his 1.4 per cent
of the people. In doing that, he might apportion more than $1,000 worth
of it to [SN: JESUITS AND GALILEO.] every penniless individual, and then
might say, Why, we are all rich, we are the most civilized and righteous
people in the world! But such an effort, and such an assertion, however,
would not at all alter the real situation; no more than Galileo, when in
view of the danger of death, signing the Jesuit verdict in favor of the
non-revolution of our planet round the sun, could thereby stop the
actual revolution of the earth; for the earth’s progressive motion went
on, in spite of the ardent desire and policy of the Jesuits to make it
stand still by a verdict. Nothing but an indescribable shock of the
earth against another heavenly body can change its principles of motion.
The same is true of the nation. Once the principle of concentration of
wealth is left unimpeded in its action, it must work out its end; [SN:
DANGER.] it must of living necessity produce revolution and bloodshed.
And neither the extremely moderate statisticians, nor the false
averages, of even of the meanest falsehood, can prevent its action
toward such a horrible result. “You remember the French revolution?”
[SN: FRENCH REVOLUTION, ROME.] asked Hon. Jno. S. Crosby of his audience
in Binghamton,[15] N. Y., and then he said: “In France all the lands had
come into the hands of a few people, the king and nobles, and a majority
of the people were depending on them for a living. The time came when
these down-trodden people rose up and Paris streets ran with blood. Your
country will have the same experience if you keep on fooling with the
laws of God.
“Rome was once the mistress of the whole world. She lorded it over the
other countries. But she fell, and Pliny, her historian, lays the cause
of her downfall to land monopoly.”[16] And so it was with ancient Egypt;
so it was with ancient Assyria, and so it was with the Byzantine Empire,
those great and powerful nations that perished for similar misconduct in
relation to themselves.
Exactly so, this young nation also irrationally strides in the way of
Rome. The concentration of her wealth in a few hands is now more rapid
than it was before the last [SN: RUSH OF THE NATION.] census. That
census brought about astonishing conclusions, yet the nation rushes as
fast as she can to her ruin. And who can locate the weight of
responsibility for her end? Every one seems to think about his selfish
interests. Consequently, nothing has been done in the past to evade the
ruin; nothing but the greatest national harm is being done in the
present; and no fundamental [SN: LOGICAL PREMISES FOR THE YEAR OF....]
measure, no rational remedy, no serious means appear for delaying it in
the future. While the Logical Premises[17] for revolution and bloodshed
have been established in the nation’s life, and their forces have been
working to that inexorable end.
Now we are ready to present another conclusion that the statisticians of
1890 reached. It deals with the numbers of families, leaving out the
individual inhabitants.
We have been assured that the U. S. nation in 1890 consisted of
12,690,152 families, and that each family, on an average, consisted of
little less than 5 members, namely: 4.93 members.[18] The distribution
of the national wealth among families, therefore, was expressed as
follows:
“_Less than half the families in America are propertyless; nevertheless,
seven-eighths of the families [SN: HALF THE NATION.] hold but one-eighth
of the national wealth_,” and vice versa. “_While one per cent of the
families hold more_ (wealth) _than the remaining ninety-nine_,” says Dr.
C. B. Spahr.[19]
At last we have struck in these conclusions a piece of more serious
reality. “Less than half the families in the United States are
propertyless.” Here you are! “Less than half.” [SN: CONCLUSIONS OF
REALITY.] Yet even here, we are far from the fulness of truth. It seems
as if the statisticians themselves were afraid to reveal the full truth
to the people. And there are many intelligent persons who believe that
the pure and complete truth should be known only to God Omniscient,
while His creatures must be content to know but particles of truth mixed
with falsehood.
As long, however, as the U. S. nation remains a democratic nation, and
as long as responsibility for its prosperity or distress and disaster
[SN: RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE.] rests upon a majority of its people,
this people ought to know not particles, but the whole truth of the
conditions of their existence. Otherwise the least possible minority of
the sharks in human form or the wolves in sheep’s skin, may devour or
ruin the greatest bulk of the people.
Let us then illustrate here one of the above conclusions, while leaving
the two others for later discussion.
“Seven-eighths of the families hold but one-eighth of the national
wealth,” and vice versa, as the diagrams on the following page indicate,
where the 12,690,152 families represent 62,622,250 individuals as in the
preceding diagrams.
Population: 12,690,152.[20] Wealth: $65,037,091,197.
Poor Poor
families } 7/8 families } 1/8
Rich Rich
families } 1/8 families } 7/8
These diagrams represent exactly the truth of the conclusion:
“Seven-eighths of the families of this nation held but one-eighth of the
national wealth;[20] or seven-eighths of the nation’s wealth was held by
but one-eighth of the families.
The table on the next page illustrates some of the details of the above
conclusion.
The upper division of that table presents the distribution of wealth
among the families, where the two “per family” averages indicate [SN:
FAMILIES.] a difference in the worth of more than 11-million families
that held $732 each, and the worth of little over 1½-million families
that held $35,875 each. So that, each family of the latter group was
worth as much as 49 families of the former. While the general average of
$5,125 shows that, if the national wealth had been equally distributed
among all families, every one of them would have had this average amount
as its own.
Table III.
+-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+
|Proportions| Numbers of ||Proportions| Aggregate wealth| Average |
| of | families in || of | per group, | wealth per |
| | groups. || | in dollars. | family. |
+-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+
| 7/8 | 11,103,883 || 1/8 | 8,129,636,399 | $ 732 |
| 1/8 | 1,586,269 || 7/8 | 56,907,454,798 | 35,875 |
+-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+
| 8/8 | 12,690,152 || 8/8 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125 |
+===========+=============++===========+=================+============+
| | Number of || | Wealth—the same | Wealth |
| | individuals.|| | in dollars. | per head. |
+-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+
| 7/8 | 54,794,468 || 1/8 | 8,129,636,399 | $ 148 |
| 1/8 | 7,827,782 || 7/8 | 56,907,454,798 | 7,269 |
+-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+
| 8/8 | 62,622,250 || 8/8 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 |
+-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+
The lower division of the table represents the same amounts of national
wealth, the same population, only individually considered; and both the
wealth and the population [SN: INDIVIDUALS.] were divided into eight
parts each, in order to carry out the proportions between numbers of the
individuals and the wealth they possessed. The result in this division
is that 7,827,782 individuals have had an average wealth of $7,269 each
man, woman and child, and 54,794,468 individuals had but $148 worth of
wealth to every head.[21] The difference between the worth of one person
of the one group, and one person of the other group, is $7,121 in favor
of the rich person. And that, again, one person of the wealthy class, on
an average, is worth more than 49 persons of the poor class.
But the most astounding fact is that we have over 54½-million
inhabitants of this poverty-stricken class, and we have only a [SN:
NUMBERS NEAREST TO THE TRUE ONES.] little more than 7½-million
inhabitants of the wealth-swollen class. So that, these 54½-million
individuals appear to be totally dependent upon the mercies and motions
of 7½-million persons who are steadily growing richer and decreasing in
numbers, while the poor are growing poorer and rapidly increasing in
numbers. For such has been the growth of economic slavery that the above
millions have to combat with.
Besides all this, we have seen the statistical conclusion that, “Less
than half the families in America are propertyless,” which certainly
[SN: THE PROPERTYLESS FAMILIES APPEAR LITTLE BETTER OFF.] means, that
these propertyless families must be found included among the 54-millions
of the poor. So that the present average wealth of these millions, which
is $148 per every head, was made of the wealth of the upper classes,
which average was not at all possessed by the poor. The economic
conditions of the poor must be still worse than Table III represents
them. But we shall find this out in the next chapter; while the
conclusion that, “1 per cent of the families hold more wealth than the
remaining 99 per cent of them,” nearly corresponds with the conclusion
of Mr. Shearman, as represented on pp. 12 and 13.