STATISTICS OF WEALTH OWNERS.
In the preceding chapter, we have dealt with ready-made conclusions of
different statistical authorities, which, by the way of [SN: RESULTS OF
THE FIRST CHAPTER.] analysis, revealed to us, that 32,563,644
persons[22] of the population had on an average $99 worth of wealth,
according to Mr. G. Holmes; that 55,984,298 persons[23] had on an
average $209 worth of wealth, according to Mr. Thos. Shearman; and that
54,794,468 persons[24] out of 62,622,250 inhabitants, with
$65,037,091,197 worth of wealth, had on an average $148 worth of wealth
apiece, according to Dr. Spahr.
These differences in conclusions indicate that the national wealth is
very strongly concentrated with a few persons, and that in order [SN:
WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF FEW.] to obtain the nominal average of $148 worth
of wealth to every poor person, one has to move the line of division of
wealth so far up toward the wealthy few as to include nearly all the
people among the masses of the poor. While, without this unfair moving
of the line, more than 30-millions of the population would have no real
wealth at all. For $56,907,454,798 worth of the wealth actually belongs
to one-eighth of the population, or to 7,827,782 individuals, including
men, women and children. And among these, we are told, “1 per cent of
the population held more wealth than the remaining 99 per cent held
together.”[25] So that the day is not far off when these 99 per cent of
the people shall absolutely depend upon the 1 per cent of the rich and
far reaching.
Regarded as the Logical Premises of the life of the nation, this
extremely unequal distribution of wealth cannot be other than extremely
dangerous for the existence [SN: THE SITUATION IS DANGEROUS FOR THE
FUTURE.] of the nation as it is, for the logic is inexorable: Whatever
you have sown, that shall you also reap, is a saying that cannot be
mistaken either by the wealthy or the poor. The situation indicates that
this apparently polished nation presents only an enormous working
mechanism, made not of steel and iron, but a mechanism of wood, which
may be broken into pieces at any future time, in consequence of any
insignificant occasion, if it continues to work heedlessly on with a
wrong speed against itself. A rational regulation of its speed is
absolutely necessary, in order to save it from an otherwise unavoidable
destruction. A civilized nation cannot live long without a highly
intelligent regulation of all its working principles. For, to live a
national life is not to play a childish game.
Yes, we have examined the above conclusions, but we have not realized
the entire truth of the situation. For we were told that, [SN: THE
SITUATION IS WORSE THAN INDICATED.] “Less than half the families in
America are propertyless,”[26] which clearly means that the distribution
of wealth among the people is much worse than we have a right to suppose
upon the basis of the stated conclusions of 1890. As these conclusions
differ from each other in contents, we have the moral right to
re-examine the varying statistical tables that testify of the same
distribution of wealth. And we have a right to find the naked truth in
the mass of materials we have, and to look it straight in the face, if
we can.
But before proceeding to compare the main tables of statistics, it will
be well to show what the wealth of the nation in 1890 consisted of.
Accordingly, the table on the next page represents eight items into
which the wealth was classified. And it represents the summary of all
kinds of wealth that was found existing in the United States in the year
of the 11th census. While the next table, following it, represents the
history of the accumulation of wealth, by application of the labor
energy of the people upon various resources of land.
STATISTICS OF WEALTH.
“The census valuation of real and personal property in the United States
(Alaska excluded) in 1890[27] was prepared by J. K. Upton,” as follows:
Table of Wealth.
-------------------------------------+---+-----------------
Real estate with improvements | |
thereon | 1 | $39,544,544,333
| |
Live stock of farms, farm implements | |
and machinery | 2 | 2,703,015,040
| |
Mines and quarries, including | |
product on hand | 3 | 1,291,291,579
| |
Gold and silver coin and bullion | 4 | 1,158,774,948
| |
Machinery of mills and product | |
on hand, raw and manufactured | 5 | 3,058,593,441
| |
Railroads and equipments, including | |
street railroads | 6 | 8,685,407,323
| |
Telegraphs, telephones, shipping | |
and canals | 7 | 701,755,712
| |
Miscellaneous | 8 | 7,893,708,821
-------------------------------------+---+-----------------
Total (United States) | $65,037,091,197
-----------------------------------------+-----------------
Accumulation of Wealth.
+--------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Years. | Aggregates of wealth. | Per capita wealth. |
+--------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| 1850 | $ 7,135,780,228 | $ 308 |
| 1860 | 16,159,616,068 | 514 |
| 1870 | 30,068,518,507 | 780 |
| 1880 | 43,642,000,000 | 870 |
| 1890 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036[28] |
+--------+-----------------------+--------------------+
The last historic table shows that the accumulation of wealth by the
nation has been phenomenal, and equal to the expense of labor [SN:
INCREASE OF WEALTH PHENOMENAL.] energy which was embodied by the people
into that wealth. And if the amount of wealth existing in 1890 had been
equally distributed among the people, every man, woman and child, would
have had more than $1,000 of it, or exactly $1,036 as the nominal per
capita distribution of it by Mr. Carroll D. Wright indicates.
Let us, however, see the actual distribution of wealth, as it was in
1890:
The United States, 1890[29]—1st Table.
---------------------+------------+------------------+------------
ESTATES.[30] | Number | Aggregates of | Average
| (of | wealth per class | wealth per
| families). | in dollars. | family.
---------------------+------------+------------------+------------
The wealthy classes, | | |
$50,000 and over | 125,000 | 33,000,000,000 | 264,000
| | |
The well-to-do | | |
classes, $50,000 | | |
to $5,000 | 1,375,000 | 23,000,000,000 | 16,000
| | |
The middle classes, | | |
$5,000 to $500 | 5,500,000 | 8,200,000,000 | 1,500
| | |
The poorer classes, | | |
under $500 | 5,500,000 | 800,000,000 | 150
---------------------+------------+------------------+------------
Totals | 12,500,000 | 65,000,000,000 | 5,200
---------------------+------------+------------------+------------
It is difficult to understand why this important table has been
published in round numbers almost throughout. It is, however, not at all
difficult to see that it represents an extremely unequal distribution of
the wealth among the American people.
And in order to restore the figures of this table so as to bring the
whole into accord with the last census, it is necessary to regard the
[SN: EXTREMES TO BE EQUALIZED.] size of each family at 4.93 members, as
the census represents them. In doing this, it is also necessary to
restore the round numbers, supplying all omissions in the aggregate
totals and in the wealth of the groups. Before giving a further
explanation, then, the restored table will appear as follows:
1st Restored Table.
---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------
Economic classes of | Number | Aggregates of | Average
families. | of families. | wealth per class | wealth per
| | in dollars. | family.
---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------
The wealthy classes, | | |
$50,000 and over | 126,750 | 33,000,000,000 | 260,355
| | |
The well-to-do | | |
classes, $50,000 | | |
to $5,000 | 1,394,250 | 22,676,863,197 | 16,264
| | |
The middle classes, | | |
$5,000 to $500 | 5,584,576 | 8,522,541,600 | 1,526
| | |
The poorer classes, | | |
under $500 | 5,584,576 | 837,686,400 | 150
---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------
Totals | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125
---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------
Now, this restoring has been made up by borrowing $323,136,803 from the
wealth found in the 2d group; and again by adding $37,091,197 worth of
wealth which was omitted in the round numbers of the total aggregate of
wealth. These two amounts, consisting of $360,228,000 in the restored
table, have on the basis of the original averages been distributed among
the families of the 3d and the 4th groups. So that the 3d group of
families appears to be richer by $322,541,600; while the 4th group by
$37,686,400; and the 2d group appears to be poorer by $323,136,803 worth
of wealth. Hence, we have made the 1st R. table represent the
distribution of wealth by $360,228,000 more equal than the author of the
original table has actually found it to exist.[31]
On the other hand, in restoring the numbers of family-members to the
census average of 4.93, we [SN: FAMILIES MADE EQUAL TO CENSUS.] add
about 7 members to every 100 families of five members each, as Dr. Spahr
represents them. This addition of 190,152 families to the whole renders
the average-family and the total number of families in the United States
exactly as they were given by the census in 1890.
But in restoring this table to the census status, we do not for a moment
disregard its original value, as the most reliable work, nor do we think
of making an argument, or anything of the kind, in favor of anybody,
upon the ground of the surface restoration. No, there is a deeper sense
and a deeper ground in the restored and the next table, and we have an
abundance of other material for our purpose of showing the truth.
Meanwhile, this restoring of the 1st table that had omissions, has been
necessary for many reasons, and because it seemed to many thinkers as
probably an extreme representation, though it was true to the facts. For
these thinkers desired that the distribution of wealth should be more
equal than it has really been.
And, further, holding a conservative position, it was necessary too to
avoid a serious disturbance in the original averages of the family
wealth found by Dr. Spahr, thus making the table comparable with another
table, which is the most important one, because it indicates the tenants
of farms and homes and the owners of mortgaged farms and homes.
Furthermore, the restored table may serve as a means of comparison of
its classes of different worth with the corresponding classes in the
following table, based upon the eleventh census facts. Accordingly, the
next table represents the families of different worth which were
classified upon the same economic bases as in the table of Dr. Spahr.
U.S. 2d Table, 1890.[32]
------------------------+----------+------------------
Holders of Wealth. | Number. | Value in Dollars.
------------------------+----------+------------------
Tenants of farms and | |
homes | 7,871,099| 2,837,049,500
Owners of mortgaged | |
farms and homes worth | |
less than $5,000 | 1,483,356| 2,614,955,764
Owners of free farms and| |
Homes worth less than | |
$5,000 | 3,078,077| 10,946,616,952
Owners of farms and | |
homes worth $5,000 | |
and over | 1,257,620| 48,600,000,000
------------------------+----------+------------------
Totals[33] |13,690,152| 64,998,622,216
------------------------+----------+------------------
We have read on pp. 11 and 12 that, when Mr. Shearman made his list of
statistics of wealth distribution, “that his table was based on careful
estimates of the wealth of [SN: METHODS OF RESEARCH.] the very wealthy;
while the wealth of the poorer classes was estimated on the bases of
assessors’ returns;” just as the table of Dr. Spahr, p. 28, which
represents the very wealthy families in the 1st group, the well-to-do in
the 2d, and the poor families in the 3d and 4th groups. This arrangement
and representation of the families evidently agrees with that of Mr.
Shearman, and proves the fact that both distinguished authorities used
the same or similar methods in studying the actual distribution of
wealth, and in representing their conclusions to those that were anxious
to know of the distribution.
But the 2d statistical table, on the preceding page, was based upon the
carefully averaged conclusions of Mr. G. K. Holmes, the U. S. Census
Expert on Mortgage Statistics in 1890.
“Mr. Holmes,” as the author of the 2d table says, “follows a method
contrary to that of Mr. Shearman, and by estimating the wealth of the
poor, arrives at the wealth of the rich. He finds that .03 per cent of
the people own 20 per cent of the wealth; 8.97 per cent of the people
own 51 per cent of the wealth, and 91 per cent of the people own only 29
per cent of the wealth.[32]
“The fact that Mr. Holmes is not a partisan either of conservatism or
radicalism, gives to his estimates an unwonted value. As published in
the Political Science Quarterly,” says the Editor of the Encyclopedia of
Social Reform, “and in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
these estimates have resulted in these four groups of families seen in
the 2d table, p. 32.”
We agree with Rev. W. Bliss and others in regarding the estimates of Mr.
Holmes as exceedingly valuable, because without them we could neither
have known the [SN: IMPORTANCE OF HOLMES’ WORK.] number of _the tenant
families_, nor the number of _the mortgagor families_, in the United
States. And hence, we could not have known the seriousness of the
situation in the economic conditions of the nation. While having the
table based upon his estimates, the reader may, at the very slight
examination of the first two groups of it, reflect and know the great
danger implied in them for the nation. And it is this table that can
tell the number of the propertyless families in the United States, even
without regarding any further material on the subject.
But the first trouble about this table[34] is, that the author of it has
omitted $38,468,981[35] worth of wealth from the aggregate wealth of the
group 4, for the sake of roundness [SN: FIRST DIFFICULTY.] in the great
numbers, I suppose. Otherwise it is impossible to admit that the omitted
wealth did not belong to anyone in the United States at the time of his
making up the table. So that, restoring the $38,468,981 worth of wealth
to the 4th group, we find its aggregate amounting to $48,638,468,981
worth of wealth. And it thus begins to correspond with the great masses
of wealth owned by the first two groups in the 1st table, p. 28 or 29.
This omission cannot be regarded as a serious one; but, to reach a
definite conclusion, we must restore it.
The second trouble in the same table, p. 32, is, that the total of
families in it contains exactly 1,000,000 families more than the nation
consisted of in the year 1890. For there were 12,690,152 families in the
United [SN: SECOND DIFFICULTY.] States, whereas the second table
represents 13,690,152 of them, an absolutely round number having been
added to some group of the families. As this table has been published
since 1896, it may be that the author of it had a reason to add one
million families to the 1st group, because, as the population has
increased, so the families without property have also greatly increased
during the seven years since 1890. And he is undoubtedly right in his
calculations as to the growth of the propertyless. The statistics of
1890, also, represented an ample ground for similar calculations on the
part of anyone who has studied them.
The estimates of Mr. G. Holmes, however, do not warrant the conclusion
that there were 7,871,099 family-tenants of farms and homes in the
United States in 1890. For, whatever degree of moderation [SN: NOT SO
MANY TENANTS.] might be in his estimates, this number of the
propertyless families could not have existed at that time in the United
States. For, if so many propertyless families had been in existence ten
years ago, a thousand presidents at this time might lose their heads in
view of the national troubles that could result from that abnormal
situation of so vast an extent. The individuals that now howl about an
unusual prosperity might be the indirect butchers of human flesh before
they themselves are butchered. No, we drop out the surplus million
families from the 1st group of the 2d table, and the table will be more
correct as follows:
======================================================
2d Table Restored.
--------------------+-+-------------+-----------------
Holders of Wealth. | |No. of Farms.|Value in Dollars.
--------------------+-+-------------+-----------------
Tenants of farms and| | |
homes |1| 6,871,099| 2,837,049,500
Owners of mortgaged | | |
farms and homes | | |
worth less than | | |
$5,000 |2| 1,483,356| 2,614,955,764
Owners of free farms| | |
and homes worth | | |
less than $5,000 |3| 3,078,077| 10,946,616,952
Owners of farms and | | |
homes worth $5,000| | |
and over |4| 1,257,620| 48,638,468,981
--------------------+-+-------------+-----------------
Totals | 12,690,152| 65,037,091,197
======================================================
The conclusions in the first two groups of families of this table now
appear as trustworthy as the entire conclusions of Dr. Spahr in the 1st
table, p. 28 or 29; and, that [SN: TRUSTWORTHY CONCLUSIONS.] the first
two groups, made up on the basis of Mr. Holmes’ estimates, actually
surpass everything in statistical importance for this country, no one
will doubt, when he has read this work. For the first group represents
the tenant-families that hire their farms and homes from others, being
themselves propertyless. And the second group represents families that
are in debt, and that are also rapidly becoming propertyless, as we
shall see in Chapter V.
The differences between the 1st and the 2d tables, however, appear very
great. The 1st table shows that the national wealth is quite abnormally
concentrated in a [SN: DIFFERENCES IN THE TABLES.] comparatively few
hands, represented by the first two groups. The 2d table shows that the
same wealth is more equally distributed among the families of the last
two groups, than is true in the 1st table. And it is the 2d table which
was compiled from the estimates that by some men were regarded as
extremely moderate, and, therefore, inconsistent with the real situation
of the people.
It is certainly not difficult to misrepresent the whole situation even
without intending to do any wrong to the nation. For the right or the
wrong representation of realities [SN: COULD BE MADE UNINTENTIONALLY.]
depends very greatly upon the handling of the averages in the
distribution of wealth among the people. The census facts or the
assessors’ returns may be right, as well as the classifications of these
facts or returns. And yet the final representations of them may be
twisted, either according to the desire of the statisticians or
according to the abstract rules of arithmetic. So that these rules and
desires may be satisfied, but the realities may easily be obscured, and
even the greatest national dangers may be concealed under an improper
use of the averages.
Thus, we have seen the average of Mr. Shearman, which, including some of
the well-to-do families among millions of the poor, makes these poor
appear as if every [SN: OR WITH A BIAS OF WILL.] one of them possessed
$209, because Mr. Shearman’s average covered nearly 56-millions of
individuals.[36] While Mr. Carroll D. Wright,[37] describing the
problem: “Are the rich growing richer and the poor poorer?” makes a
single average on the basis of the entire population. His sweeping
average actually and correctly makes, not only the 56-millions of the
poor of Mr. Shearman, but every pauper, every tramp, and everyone in
hundreds of the lunatic and other asylums, worth $1,036 of wealth.
Whereas, in reality, 1 per cent of the population held more wealth than
the remaining 99, as Dr. Chas. Spahr has proved.[38]
Now, something similar has taken place in the 3d group of the 2d table,
where more than 3-million families are represented as the “owners of
free farms and [SN: A DEGREE OF MODERATION.] homes worth less than
$5,000.” And, consequently, the difference between the 1st table and the
2d table in the wealthy groups appeared. The 2d table contradicts nearly
all statistical authorities and has been spoken of as based upon
extremely moderate conclusions. It is, therefore, necessary to show the
degree of moderation implied in its distribution of wealth.
The fact that all families in the United States [SN: FIRM BASIS OF
CLASSIFICATION.] were classified according to their economic worth, as
families worth $5,000 and over and $5,000 and under, gives us the best
basis for a comparison of the two contradictory tables of the great
authorities.
Let us first see the inconsistency in the groups of families which
represent the middle classes in the two tables.
Reciprocal Comparison.
---------------------+---------+--------------+---------
Families worth $5,000| | |
and under. | Number|The wealth of |Averages.
---------------------+---------+--------------+---------
Difference from the | | |
number below | |$2,424,075,352|
---------------------+---------+--------------+---------
Middle classes of the| | |
1st R. table[39] |5,584,576| 8,522,541,600| 1,526
---------------------+---------+--------------+---------
Free owners of the | | |
2d orig. table[40].|3,078,077|10,946,616,952| 3,556
---------------------+---------+--------------+---------
Difference from the | | |
number above |2,506,499| |
---------------------+---------+--------------+---------
Now, the restored group of the middle classes of the first R. table
should be absolutely in favor of diminishing the differences in the
worth of the identical families and in [SN: INCONSISTENCY POINTS TO
TRUTH.] their number. Yet the two groups reciprocally exclude each other
by their opposite terms. So that, the comparison shows that the greater
number of families has much smaller amount of the aggregate wealth; and
the lesser number of families has much larger amount of the aggregate
wealth; and that the difference in family-numbers is greater than
2½-millions in favor of the group of the 1st table; and the difference
in the wealth, nearly 2½-billion dollars worth is in favor of the group
of the 2d table. Hence, the opposite terms of the two economically
similar groups can in no way coincide with one another.
This being so, it is not difficult to find out the true situation as to
the actual distribution of wealth which ought to have been represented
by the 2d table. The alleged moderation of this table has [SN: AVERAGES
ARE THE CAUSES.] been brought about by the same influence of averages
which we have seen in the conclusions of Mr. Shearman.[41] One average
of this gentleman has covered 89.4 per cent of the population, and thus
made the wealth of the richest of them to be distributed among the
millions of the very poor. The 89.4 per cent includes nearly 56-millions
of individuals, whose aggregate wealth amounts to 18 per cent of the
national wealth, and apportions $209 worth of it to every individual.
But if you exclude only 20 per cent out of the 89.4 per cent of this
great mass of people, selecting the wealthiest of all for the exclusion,
you will thus have 69.4 per cent of the people left with less than 9 per
cent of the national wealth. Your average then will be altogether
different; it will cover masses of the poorest people, and every one of
them will have less than $99 worth of wealth.
It is by a similar inclusion of a number of the well-to-do families
among the group of “owners of free farms and homes” that the more equal
distribution of wealth [SN: SOME OF THE RICH AVERAGED WITH THE POOR.]
has been obtained in the 2d table. Otherwise, this table could represent
a more melancholy array of facts than the presentation of these facts
which appeared in the first table. But, however bitter the truth may be,
it is always better to taste it than to be ignorant of its existence,
because one falsehood must create thousands of other falsehoods, and,
accumulated and multiplied into a tremendous mass, these falsehoods may
lead the nation to self-destruction even as many other nations were led
to it.
Dividing again all families of the nation into the families worth less
than $5,000, and families worth [SN: THE SAME ECONOMIC BASES OF THE
AUTHORS.] over $5,000, we shall now compare these two classes of
families in both tables upon their common basis. And, as this basis
presents the very bottom of statistics, the comparison therefore cannot
fail to show us the very naked truth as to the actual distribution of
wealth which has partly been obscured by the 2d table.
Comparison of the Poor.
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
Families worth under $5,000. |Number of |Aggregates of wealth
|families. | in dollars.
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
First three groups of the | |
2d table[42] |11,432,532| 16,398,622,216
Last two groups of the | |
1st R. table[43] |11,169,152| 9,360,228,000
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
Differences from the 2d | |
table | 263,380| 7,038,394,216
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
Comparison of the Rich.
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
Families worth $5,000 and over.|Number of | Aggregates of wealth
|families. | in dollars.
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
Two first groups of the | |
1st R. table[43] | 1,521,000| 55,676,863,197
The fourth group of the | |
2d restored table[43] | 1,257,620| 48,638,468,981
Differences from the 1st | |
R. table | 263,380| 7,038,394,216
-------------------------------+----------+---------------------
As you see, the comparison of the families of the same worth in the
different tables shows that the poor classes of the 2d table are larger
by 263,380 families, and richer by $7,038,394,216 worth of wealth, [SN:
DIFFERENCES REVEALED.] than they are in the first table. On the
contrary, the comparison of the wealthy classes that consist of families
worth $5,000 and over, shows that the 1st table is larger by 263,380
families, and richer by $7,038,394,216 worth of wealth, than the same
families in the 2d table. Hence, the concentration of wealth in the
first table is by $7,038,394,216 worth greater than it is in the 2d
table. And it is clear that this amount of wealth is closely connected
with the 263,380 families of the well-to-do classes. The question,
therefore, is, Where could Dr. Spahr find so many more families worth
$5,000 and over, than Mr. Holmes has found?
We know that both these great authorities dealt with the same primary
facts of statistics, though Dr. Spahr dealt with them as they appeared
in the Surrogate Courts, thus raising the value of the [SN: BASAL FACTS
UNALTERABLE.] facts. And we know that these facts or returns represent
the worth of every family, just at it actually was at the time of the
11th census. Supposing then that the above families were represented as
worth $26,723 each, could Dr. Spahr make each one of them worth $4,000
of wealth, with the purpose of including them among the millions of
families worth $5,000 and under in each case? And could he thus rob the
263,380 families of their ownership of wealth, in order to make the
distribution of wealth so abnormal as his table shows it? No, sir; this
is an utter impossibility on anyone’s part. And Dr. Spahr represented
the above families among those that were worth $5,000 and over in each
case, and that is what anyone ought to have done in his place.
While in the case of the second table, the little more equal
distribution of wealth appeared not because it was actually so, but
because the above 263,380 families, with their $26,723 worth of wealth
[SN: UNREAL BASIS OF MORE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH] on the average,
unintentionally or accidentally, were included among the families worth
less than $5,000. Consequently, their aggregate wealth, amounting to
$7,038,394,216 worth, has been nominally distributed among the group of
“owners of free farms and homes worth less than $5,000” to every family.
This inclusion was as easily performed as was the inclusion of the
well-to-do among the poor by Mr. Shearman. We therefore subtract the
above families and their wealth from the 3d group and add them to the
4th group of families worth $5,000 and over, in order to show that these
families and wealth belonged to another class of the people, as follows:
2d Right Table.
------------------------+----------+-----------------
Holders of Wealth. | Number. |Value in dollars.
------------------------+----------+-----------------
Tenants of farms and | |
homes | 6,871,099| 2,837,049,500
Owners of mortgaged | |
farms and homes worth | |
less than $5,000 | 1,483,356| 2,614,955,764
Owners of free farms and| |
homes worth less than | |
$5,000 | 2,814,697| 3,908,222,736
Owners of farms and | |
homes worth $5,000 and| |
over | 1,521,000|55,676,863,197
------------------------+----------+-----------------
Totals |12,690,152|65,037,091,197
------------------------+----------+-----------------
Now this table represents the very essence of statistics on the
distribution of wealth which was [SN: TABLE MOST VALUABLE.] worked out
by the two contradictory authorities. The 4th group of it contains the
263,380 families with their aggregate wealth, and equals the first two
groups in the 1st R. table, these two and that being made of the
families—each worth $5,000 and over.
It should be noticed here, that neither the 263,380 families that we
have now included in the proper group of the table, nor their aggregate
wealth, had anything to [SN: GROUPS SIGNIFICANT.] do with the groups of
mortgagors and tenants in the 2d table. These two groups of families
have been separated from the influence of the free owners of wealth, by
being debtors and tenants, who have a definite significance of their own
in the statistics. And this is the reason why the subtracted families
worth $5,000 and over could only be lodged in the 3d group of families
worth below $5,000 under its wholesale average.
It should also be remembered that, though the 4th group of the last
table represents an enormous amount of wealth, yet there are hundreds of
thousands of families in it which are worth but few dollars [SN: THE
WEALTHY ONLY FEW.] over $5,000 worth of wealth. So that, the real
concentration of that enormous amount of wealth remains in the
possession of less than half a million families, as these facts have
been represented by Mr. Shearman and the others in the first chapter.
And nothing can be said against the accuracy of the careful estimates of
the wealth of the very wealthy by Mr. Shearman and the other
authorities.
In order to have a more definite idea of the distribution of wealth, let
us compare both tables on one page, and remember that if the group
wealth were equally divided among the group-families, each family could
have such amount of it as the averages indicate. And mind that the next
two tables, being based upon the same census facts, represent the
results of careful comparison of the original ones.
The 1st Table as Restored.
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
Owners of Wealth. | Number. | The wealth of | Average.
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
The poorer classes | | |
under $500 | 5,584,576 |$ 837,686,400 |$ 150
| | |
The middle classes | | |
$500 to $5,000 | 5,584,576 | 8,522,541,600 | 1,526
| | |
The well-to-do | | |
classes $5,000 | | |
to $50,000 | 1,394,250 | 22,676,863,197 | 16,264
| | |
The wealthy classes | | |
$50,000 and over | 126,750 | 33,000,000,000 | 260,355
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
The totals. | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
The 2d Table as Restored.
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
Owners of Wealth. | Number. | The wealth of | Average.
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
Tenants of farms | | |
and homes | 6,871,099 |$ 2,837,049,500 |$ 413
| | |
Owners of mortgaged | | |
farms and | | |
homes worth less | | |
than $5,000 | 1,483,356 | 2,614,955,764 | 1,762
| | |
Owners of free | | |
farms and homes | | |
worth less than | | |
$5,000 | 2,814,697 | 3,908,222,736 | 1,388
| | |
Owners of farms | | |
and homes worth | | |
$5,000 and over | 1,521,000 | 55,676,863,197 | 37,117
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
The totals. | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125
--------------------+------------+----------------+----------
It should be noticed again, that the differences in the family averages
of the corresponding groups of the two tables, depend on the differences
in the [SN: AVERAGES OF FAMILIES’ WORTH DIFFER.] numbers and in the
aggregate wealth of the same groups of the tables. And these differences
could not be avoided, since the two authorities have made a different
classification of the families of different worth.
But the comparative importance of the two tables consists in the fact,
that the last group of the 1st table shows the extremely abnormal
concentration of wealth in [SN: THE RICH AND THE POOR GROUPS.] the hands
of 126,750 families, which possess more wealth than the remaining
12,563,402 families do, on the one hand. While, on the other hand, the
first group of the 2d table shows that there have been 6,871,099
families without real property; and the second group shows, that there
were 1,483,356 families in debt and in danger of losing their
properties, and that both these groups of families have been in the
state of economic slavery to the wealthy few. But we shall examine their
conditions of existence later on.
GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND GERMANY.
“The distribution of private property in Great Britain and Ireland in
1891,” was such that it was said “that less than 2 per cent of the
families of the United Kingdom [SN: THE PROPERTYLESS IN BRITAIN.] hold
about three times as much private property as all the remainder, and
that 93 per cent of the people hold less than 8 per cent of the
accumulated wealth. There remains, therefore, nearly 6,000,000
families”—i. e., 30,000,000 individuals—“or more than three-fourths of
the people of Great Britain and Ireland, without any registered property
whatever. They have indeed their household goods, but the total value of
these can hardly exceed £100,000,000,”[44] which is little over $16 to
every individual.
“The ownership of land is an important factor in the social condition of
a people,” says Mayo Smith.[45] And “if we contrast the [SN:
DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.] peasant proprietorship
system of France, with more than 4,500,000 owners of land, with the
landlord system of England, with its 325,000 owners, the social as well
as the economic influence must be very different”[45] in the two
nations. Certainly the French people feel and enjoy economic freedom,
while the British people are pressed down by an economic slavery.
In fact, the statisticians seem to agree that the distribution of
wealth, even in Paris, the capital of France, and in Berlin, the capital
of Germany, is proportionally much more equal than it is in the nation
of Great Britain or in that of the United States, although it is natural
that the largest cities, as a rule, have the distribution of wealth much
worse than the nations behind them.
[Illustration:
ILLUSTRATIVE CHART.
Every block here represents a comparative average wealth of one man,
woman, or child of the respective groups in the 2d Corrected Table,
p. 51; while the figures above show the numbers of individuals
owning one block each, as indicated.]
While the thirty millions of British people have on the average $16
worth of wealth, the American people of the same class have somewhat
more of this kind of wealth than the British, as the last table,
individually regarded, shows the average property of every person of the
families. It is as follows.
The 2d Corrected Table, 1890.
--------------------+--------------+----------------+----------
Holders of Wealth. | Individuals. | The wealth of | Average.
--------------------+--------------+----------------+----------
Tenants of farms | | |
and homes | 33,908,277 |$ 2,837,049,500 |$ 83
| | |
Owners of mortgaged | | |
farms and | | |
homes worth less | | |
than $5,000 | 7,319,697 | 2,614,955,764 | 357
| | |
Owners of free | | |
farms and homes | | |
worth less than | | |
$5,000 | 13,888,979 | 3,908,222,736 | 287
| | |
Owners of farms | | |
and homes worth | | |
$5,000 to $50,000 | 6,879,935 | 22,676,863,197 | 3,296
| | |
Owners of farms | | |
and homes worth | | |
$50,000 and over | 625,362 | 33,000,000,000 | 52,769
--------------------+--------------+----------------+----------
The totals. | 62,622,250 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036
--------------------+--------------+----------------+----------
The average of $83 worth of personal property in the 1st group of
individuals here is a little too large, because, subtracting the surplus
million families from this group,[46] we have left the wealth [SN: THE
POOREST CLASSES, 1890.] of it untouched. In any way, this group contains
27,117,000 individuals having on the average $30 worth of property each,
according to the last group of families in the table of Dr. Spahr.[47]
It does not, however, make a great difference on the whole, because the
group of tenants, since 1890, has undoubtedly increased up to 38,837,849
without having been able to add anything more to its aggregate wealth.
The increase of the propertyless accrues from the natural increase of
the population, and from the loss of the mortgaged properties [SN:
CAUSES OF THE INCREASE OF THE PROPERTYLESS] by foreclosure of the
mortgages in the 2d group, and from the immigration of the propertyless
foreigners[48] without special means; while the people of the 3d group
have sunk by thousands into debt from having mortgaged their properties;
and only about a million families of the last two groups have been
exceedingly prosperous, as we shall understand the situation later on.