ECONOMIC PHASES OF DOMESTIC SERVICE[185]
The attempt has been made in the foregoing chapters to indicate the
extent to which domestic employments and domestic service have been
influenced by industrial and political events arising outside of the
household, and apparently having little or no connection with it. That
domestic service is amenable to some of the general economic laws and
conditions which affect other occupations and that it is also governed
by economic laws developed within itself will perhaps be evident from an
examination of a few of these economic conditions and principles. These
may be stated for the sake of brevity in the form of propositions.
The first group of propositions to be suggested concerns the number and
distribution of persons of foreign birth engaged in domestic service.
(1) A large proportion of the domestic employees in the United States are
of foreign birth. This is evident from the following table prepared from
the schedules sent out:[186]
TABLE I
PLACE OF BIRTH OF EMPLOYEES
=================+========================+========================
| NUMBER | PER CENT
PERSON REPORTING +-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------
| Native| Foreign| Not | Native| Foreign| Not
| born | born | given | born | born | given
-----------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------
Employer | 922 | 1,212 | 411 | 36.23| 47.62 | 16.15
Employee | 324 | 395 | | 45.06| 54.94 |
=================+=======+========+=======+=======+========+========
The statement may be more fully illustrated from the Eleventh Census,
which shows that the number of foreign born in domestic service is 30.86
per cent of the entire number.[187] The geographical distribution of the
different classes of domestic employees is seen from Table II on the
following page.
Another illustration of the same point is found by an examination of the
relative number of native born and foreign born domestic employees in
the individual states and territories. In nine states and territories
the number of foreign born domestic employees exceeds the number of
native born white employees,[188] in sixteen about one half of the white
domestic employees are of foreign birth,[189] in twenty-four states and
territories the number of native born white employees largely exceeds
the foreign born,[190] while in fifteen states colored employees are
in excess.[191] It will be seen that the states in which the number of
native born white domestic employees exceeds the number of the foreign
born are those states having relatively a small number of foreign born
residents.[192] A still more specific illustration is found in the
experience of one state. In Massachusetts in 1885, the foreign born
domestic servants formed 60.24 per cent of the entire number.[193]
TABLE II
DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1890
================+=================================+======================
| NUMBER | PER CENT
GEOGRAPHICAL +---------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+-------
SECTION | Total |Native |Foreign|Colored|Native|Foreign|Colored
| | white | white | |white | white |
----------------+---------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+-------
Pacific | | | | | | |
Coast[194] | 78,700| 29,576| 28,198| 20,926|37.58 | 35.83 | 26.59
Eastern[195] | 134,016| 52,419| 74,004| 7,593|39.11 | 55.22 | 5.67
Middle[196] | 394,062|176,194|175,819| 42,049|44.71 | 44.62 | 10.67
Western[197] | 388,920|233,274|128,761| 26,885|59.98 | 33.11 | 6.91
Border[198] | 251,544| 79,611| 16,649|155,284|31.65 | 6.62 | 61.73
Southern[199] | 207,549| 34,812| 6,432|166,305|16.77 | 3.10 | 80.13
+---------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+-------
United States |1,454,791|605,886|429,863|419,042|41.65 | 29.55 | 28.80
================+=========+=======+=======+=======+======+=======+=======
These different illustrations seem to show the truth of the proposition
stated.
(2) The converse of the preceding proposition is also true—the
concentration of women of foreign birth engaged in remunerative
occupations is on domestic service.
The Eleventh Census shows that, in 1890, 59.37 per cent of all foreign
white women at work were engaged in domestic and personal service. This
leaves only 40.63 per cent to be distributed among all other gainful
occupations.[200] A specific illustration in the case of an individual
state is seen in Massachusetts. Here the percentage of the foreign born
in the entire population is 27.13, while, as stated above, the number of
foreign born women in domestic service is 60.24 per cent.[201]
(3) The foreign born population as a class seek the large cities.
In 1890 the persons of foreign birth in the United States formed 14.77
per cent of the entire population. But of the total foreign population,
44.13 per cent was found in the one hundred and twenty-four cities having
a population of twenty-five thousand or more.[202]
(4) The foreign countries having the largest absolute representation
in the largest cities are Ireland, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and
Canada and Newfoundland. The following table shows the relative number of
persons born in these countries who are found in the United States as a
whole, and in the large cities:
TABLE III
PROPORTION OF PERSONS OF FOREIGN BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
========================+=============+===========+===========
| | Number in |Per cent in
COUNTRY OF BIRTH |United States| principal | principal
| | cities | cities
------------------------+-------------+-----------+-----------
Ireland | 1,871,509 | 1,047,432 | 55.97
Germany | 2,784,894 | 1,328,675 | 47.71
Great Britain | 909,092 | 369,979 | 40.70
Canada and Newfoundland | 980,938 | 307,660 | 31.36
Sweden and Norway | 800,706 | 219,112 | 27.36
========================+=============+===========+===========
(5) The foreign countries having the largest absolute and relative
representation in domestic service are, in order, Ireland, Germany,
Sweden and Norway, Great Britain, and Canada and Newfoundland. This will
be evident from the following table, which indicates the place of birth
of all persons of foreign birth engaged in domestic service and the per
cent of each nationality so engaged:
TABLE IV
PLACE OF BIRTH OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES
=======================+==================+====================
|Number of foreign | Per cent of foreign
| born persons, 10 | born persons, 10
COUNTRY OF BIRTH | years of age and | years of age and
| over, in domestic| over, in domestic
| service | service
-----------------------+------------------+--------------------
Ireland | 168,993 | 37.64
Germany | 95,007 | 21.16
Sweden and Norway | 58,049 | 12.93
Great Britain | 34,537 | 7.69
Canada and Newfoundland| 31,213 | 6.95
Other countries | 61,195 | 13.63
=======================+==================+====================
Similar results were reached through individual schedules sent out. The
returns as made by employers and employees show that the place of birth
of foreign born employees and the relative percentages are as follows:
TABLE V
NUMBER OF FOREIGN BORN IN DOMESTIC SERVICE
==================+=======================================
| PERSON REPORTING
+-------------------+-------------------
PLACE OF BIRTH | EMPLOYER | EMPLOYEE
+--------+----------+--------+----------
| Number | Per cent | Number | Per cent
------------------+--------+----------+--------+----------
Ireland | 653 | 53.88 | 217 | 54.94
Sweden and Norway | 147 | 12.13 | 50 | 12.66
Germany | 128 | 10.56 | 37 | 9.37
Great Britain | 122 | 10.07 | 32 | 8.10
British America | 104 | 8.58 | 42 | 10.63
Other countries | 58 | 4.78 | 17 | 4.30
------------------+--------+----------+--------+-----------
Total | 1,212 | 100.00 | 395 | 100.00
==================+========+==========+========+===========
This group of five propositions in regard to the number and distribution
of the foreign born engaged in domestic service seems to indicate that
in this country, with the exception of the sections employing colored
servants, domestic service is as a rule performed by persons of foreign
birth belonging to a few well-defined classes as regards nationality, who
prefer city to country life. The facts given are an understatement of the
influence exerted on domestic service by persons of foreign extraction,
since they do not take into consideration the factor of foreign parentage.
A second group of propositions may be suggested in regard to the general
distribution of domestic employees.
(1) The number of domestic servants is absolutely and relatively small in
agricultural and sparsely settled states.
This will be evident by the reference to the accompanying chart, which
shows the number of persons to each domestic servant in each of the
states. The states last in the list, where the smallest relative number
of servants is employed, are all large in area, and as a rule have
the smallest population in proportion to the area of settlement. This
condition is probably due to the two facts that all housework is as a
rule performed without remuneration by housewives, since they are more
free from social and other interruptions than are women in cities, and
also to the aversion of domestics as a class to country life.
(2) The number of domestic servants is absolutely and relatively large in
those states containing a large urban population.
[Illustration: CHART SHOWING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO EACH DOMESTIC
EMPLOYEE IN THE VARIOUS STATES AND TERRITORIES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Dist. of Col. 13
Maryland 25
New York 28
Massachusetts 29
Virginia 29
California 30
Nevada 30
Delaware 31
New Jersey 32
Connecticut 34
Montana 34
Rhode Island 35
Minnesota 36
Pennsylvania 38
Vermont 38
Colorado 38
Wyoming 38
North Dakota 40
Washington 42
Illinois 43
Louisiana 44
Kentucky 46
Wisconsin 46
Georgia 47
Michigan 49
North Carolina 50
Ohio 50
Arizona 51
Nebraska 51
Florida 52
N. Hampshire 53
Missouri 53
Oregon 54
Tennessee 55
Maine 56
Utah 57
South Dakota 60
Alabama 61
South Carolina 61
Idaho 62
Iowa 62
Indiana 63
Mississippi 66
West Virginia 69
New Mexico 75
Texas 76
Kansas 88
Arkansas 93
Oklahoma 156]
This is also made evident by the diagram. Forty-nine of the fifty
largest cities in the United States are found in the first thirty-four
states in the list; only one of the fifty is found in the last fifteen
states. The fact is apparently most clearly shown in the case of the
District of Columbia, which has an almost exclusively urban population
and ranks first with reference to the number of servants employed. The
condition here, however, is due not so much to its urban character
as to the employment of colored help and the fact that the city
contains an abnormally large number of temporary residents requiring
a disproportionate amount of service. The truth of the proposition is
better indicated by the examples of New York, Massachusetts, and New
Jersey, which stand nearly at the head of the list and contain seventeen
of the fifty largest cities.
(3) The aggregate wealth of a state has little appreciable effect on the
relative number of domestic servants employed.
This is evident from a study of the relative true and assessed valuation
of real and personal property in the different states.[203] In more than
one half the states it has no apparent connection whatever with the
relative number of servants.
(4) The per capita wealth of a state has, with the exception of the
Southern states as a class, a somewhat important bearing on the relative
number of servants employed.
This will be seen from an examination of the per capita assessed
valuations of real and personal property in the various states.[204] The
rank of each state in the class of per capita wealth and in the relative
number of domestic servants employed, with the exception named, does
not vary materially. The variation in the Southern states is due to the
presence of negro employees. The extremely low wages paid by employers
enables them to command the services of a larger number of persons for
the same expenditure of money than is possible at the North.
These facts may be considered as indicative in a general way of the
truth of the current opinion that an increase in income generally shows
itself first in the employment of additional service. They prove nothing
absolutely on this point, however, as they are too general in character.
(5) Domestic employees are found in the largest numbers, relatively
and absolutely, in the large cities. The fifty largest cities in the
United States contain 18.04 per cent of the total population of the
country. They have, however, 32.32 per cent of the total number of
domestic servants. To put the same fact in another way, domestic servants
constitute 2.32 per cent of the total population, but 4.07 per cent of
the population of the fifty largest cities. The force of gravity exerted,
therefore, by the large cities seems to act with nearly twice the power
on the class of domestic employees that it does on the population as a
whole.
The conclusion seems to follow that in general employers in large cities
have less difficulty in securing servants than have persons living
elsewhere, but that they are practically restricted in their choice
to those of foreign birth. The conclusion does not follow that these
employers have less difficulty than have others in dealing with the
question of domestic service, since the facts given concern only the
number of servants, not the quality of service.
(6) The proportion of persons engaged in domestic service varies with
geographical location and prevailing industry.
This fact is indicated by the chart, which shows that in Southern cities,
where the colored population is large, and in New York and Boston,
which are ports of entry and therefore able to secure a large number of
foreign born servants, the proportion of servants to the total population
is large. In cities where the leading occupation is manufacturing, as
Lowell, Paterson, and Fall River, the proportion of servants is small. In
cities where the industrial conditions are similar the proportions are
similar.
[Illustration: CHART SHOWING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO EACH DOMESTIC
EMPLOYEE IN THE FIFTY LARGEST CITIES
Washington, D.C. 13
Richmond, Va. 13
Atlanta, Ga. 14
Memphis, Tenn. 15
Nashville, Tenn. 16
New York, N.Y. 18
Boston, Mass. 18
St. Paul, Minn. 19
Minneapolis, Minn. 19
Omaha, Neb. 19
San Francisco, Cal. 20
Baltimore, Md. 21
Louisville, Ky. 21
Worcester, Mass. 21
Reading, Pa. 22
New Orleans, La. 23
Denver, Col. 23
Philadelphia, Pa. 24
Cambridge, Mass. 24
St. Louis, Mo. 25
Cincinnati, Ohio 26
Albany, N.Y. 26
Indianapolis, Ind. 26
Chicago, Ill. 27
New Haven, Conn. 27
Providence, R.I. 27
Syracuse, N.Y. 27
Wilmington, Del. 27
Columbus, Ohio 28
Pittsburg, Pa. 28
Brooklyn, N.Y. 29
Detroit, Mich. 29
Grand Rapids, Mich. 29
Kansas City, Mo. 29
Toledo, Ohio 29
Allegheny, Pa. 30
Buffalo, N.Y. 31
Troy, N.Y. 31
Cleveland, Ohio 33
Milwaukee, Wis. 33
Rochester, N.Y. 33
Dayton, Ohio 35
Jersey City, N.J. 35
Scranton, Pa. 36
Newark, N.J. 38
Camden, N.J. 39
Trenton, N.J. 40
Lowell, Mass. 43
Paterson, N.J. 68
Fall River, Mass. 73]
The same fact may be illustrated in two other ways. In Washington,
Richmond, Atlanta, Memphis, and Nashville,—the five cities having the
largest number of domestic employees in proportion to the population,—the
domestic employees constitute in each city more than fourteen per cent
of the entire number of persons engaged in all gainful occupations.
In these five cities more than one third of all women engaged in
remunerative occupations are in domestic service. On the other hand,
in Camden, Trenton, Lowell, Paterson, and Fall River,—the five cities
having the smallest number of domestic employees in proportion to the
population,—the per cent of domestic employees with reference to the
total number of persons engaged in all gainful occupations is less than
seven, while in Lowell and Paterson only ten per cent and in Fall River
only seven per cent of all women engaged in remunerative occupations are
in domestic service. The following table will show these contrasts:
TABLE VI
DOMESTIC SERVANTS AND WOMEN COMPARED WITH THOSE IN GAINFUL OCCUPATIONS
=============+=======================+========================
| Per cent of domestic | Per cent of women in
| servants as compared | domestic service as
CITIES | with the total number | compared with the
| of persons in all | total number of women
| gainful occupations | in all gainful
| | occupations
-------------+-----------------------+------------------------
Washington | 17.10 | 40.46
Richmond | 16.66 | 40.36
Atlanta | 5.43 | 36.72
Memphis | 5.21 | 39.07
Nashville | 4.61 | 38.69
Camden | 5.89 | 26.13
Trenton | 6.13 | 26.07
Lowell | 4.48 | 10.29
Paterson | 3.34 | 10.84
Fall River | 2.82 | 6.98
=============+=======================+========================
(7) Neither per capita wealth nor aggregate wealth has an appreciable
influence in determining the number of servants in cities.
Three illustrations of this are seen: (1) Washington, Richmond, Atlanta,
Memphis, and Nashville rank respectively as regards per capita wealth,
13, 27, 19, 24, and 41, although they are the five cities that head the
list in the proportion of servants to the total population; (2) Lowell
and Fall River are at the foot of the list as regards the proportion
of servants, but rank 10 and 12 in per capita wealth; (3) Nashville
ranks fifth in the number of servants and Paterson forty-ninth, while
both rank nearly the same in point of wealth.[205] There are indeed
many instances where there is apparent connection between these two
conditions, but they seem rather to be illustrations of the following
point:
(8) The prevailing industry of a city, rather than its population or
wealth, determines the number of domestic employees.
This conclusion seems to follow naturally as a result of the two previous
propositions, but a few other facts in support of it may be mentioned. In
eleven of the fifty principal cities the proportion of domestic servants
to the total population is smaller than is the proportion in the states
in which they are severally located.[206] The leading occupation in each
of these cities is some form of manufacturing, and in each of them the
proportion of persons engaged in manufacturing processes is larger than,
with few exceptions, in the other cities. This fact explains the apparent
contradiction between this statement and the one that domestic servants
are found in the largest proportions in the largest cities.
That manufacturing industries tend to decrease the number of domestic
employees in a city is both a cause and a result. The competition in
industry draws women from domestic service, and at the same time a large
part of the population in a manufacturing city is unable or does not care
to employ large numbers of servants. It has been seen, however, that
several of the manufacturing cities rank comparatively high in per capita
wealth.
It seems possible in view of the facts stated in this second group of
propositions to draw these conclusions. In states containing a relatively
high urban population it is possible for wealth to command the services
of a large proportion of persons for work in domestic service. But in
cities where wealth comes into competition with manufacturing industries
the proportion of domestic servants is small. Where such competition does
not exist the proportion is large. In other words, persons are willing
to enter domestic service for a consideration in cities where no other
avenues of work are open to them with the qualifications they possess.
They are unwilling to do so where such openings do exist.
A third group of propositions remains to be considered concerning the
subject of wages. They may be thus stated:
(1) Wages in domestic service vary in different sections according to the
economic conditions of the several localities.
TABLE VII
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES BY GEOGRAPHICAL SECTION
======================+========================
| AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES
GEOGRAPHICAL SECTION +-----------+------------
| Men | Women
----------------------+-----------+------------
Pacific coast | $7.57 | $4.57
Eastern section | 8.68 | 3.60
Middle section | 7.62 | 3.21
Western section | 6.69 | 3.00
Border section | 4.86 | 2.55
Southern section | 3.95 | 2.22
----------------------+-----------+------------
United States | $7.18 | $3.23
======================+===========+============
This principle is illustrated by Table VII on the preceding page based
on a classification of the returns received through individual schedules
relating to 2,545 employees.
The difference indicated apparently conforms to the general variation in
wages in different sections indicated by the Fourth Annual Report of the
Commissioner of Labor,[207] and by examination of a considerable number
of reports of various state bureaus of labor. The slight exception in the
case of the wages of men on the Pacific coast is accidental, owing to the
small number of returns.
(2) Skilled labor commands higher wages than unskilled labor.
This will be evident from Table VIII on the following page based on the
schedules received from employers and employees and the returns from a
Boston employment bureau.
In every instance it is seen that it is the skilled laborer—the cook—who
commands the highest wages. The general servant who is expected to unite
in herself all the functions of all the other employees named in the list
becomes, on account of this fact, an unskilled worker, and, therefore,
receives the lowest wages. The same principle holds true in the case of
the seamstress and the laundress, the gardener and the choreman. It is
difficult to make a deduction in the case of men employed in household
service, since no universal custom prevails, as with women employees, in
regard to adding to the wages paid in money, board, lodging, and other
personal expenses.
TABLE VIII
AVERAGE WEEKLY AND DAILY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS
===============================+=================================
| WEEKLY WAGES
+---------------------+-----------
OCCUPATION | General schedule of | Boston
+----------+----------+ employment
| Employer | Employee | bureau
-------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------
WOMEN | | |
Cooks | $3.80 | $3.64 | $4.45
Parlor maids | | | 3.94
Cooks and laundresses | 3.50 | 3.27 |
Chambermaids | 3.31 | 3.47 | 3.86
Waitresses | 3.23 | 3.15 | 3.76
Second girls | 3.04 | 3.27 | 3.34
Chambermaids and waitresses | 2.99 | 3.21 |
General servants | 2.94 | 2.88 | 3.16
MEN | | |
Coachmen | 7.84 | |
Coachmen and gardeners | 6.54 | |
Butlers | 6.11 | |
Cooks | 6.08 | |
-------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------
| DAILY WAGES
-------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------
WOMEN | | |
Seamstresses | $1.01 | |
Laundresses | .82 | |
MEN | | |
Gardeners | 1.33 | |
Choremen | .87 | |
===============================+==========+==========+===========
A corollary to the proposition may be added. The skilled laborer is
a better workman than the unskilled laborer. The question was asked
of employers, “What is the nature of the service rendered? Is it
‘excellent,’ ‘good,’ ‘fair,’ or ‘poor’?” The replies show that in
proportion to the number of answers the largest percentage of service
characterized as “excellent” is rendered by cooks, while the largest
percentage characterized as “poor” is given by the general servants.
These are, it is true, matters of opinion; and without a fixed standard,
which it is impossible to secure, such judgments can have no absolute
value. But the fact is of interest as showing the opinion of a large
number of housekeepers. The following table will show the results in
regard to these two classes of employees:
TABLE IX
NATURE OF SERVICE RENDERED
==========+=======+=====+================================================
| | | KIND OF SERVICE RENDERED
|Total | +-----------+-----------+-----------+------------
OCCUPATION|number |Not | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor
| of |answ-+------+----+------+----+------+----+------+-----
|replies|ered |Number| Per|Number| Per|Number| Per|Number| Per
| | | |cent| |cent| |cent| |cent
----------+-------+-----+------+----+------+----+------+----+------+-----
Cooks | 262 | 30 | 83 | 32 | 113 | 43 | 58 | 22 | 8 | 3
General | | | | | | | | | |
servants| 585 | 53 | 151 | 26 | 221 | 38 | 177 | 30 | 36 | 6
==========+=======+=====+======+====+======+====+======+====+======+=====
(3) The foreign born in domestic service receive higher wages than the
native born.
This was found to be true in every class of occupations, in every
section, in the case of both men and women, and in the returns made by
both employers and employees. But two trifling exceptions were found,
both accidental. The principle cannot of course be stated absolutely
as the facts at command are far from exhaustive, but so striking a
uniformity cannot be considered purely accidental. An explanation is
found in three facts: (1) the preference of the foreign born for the
large cities, where wages in domestic service are higher than in the
country; (2) the large proportion of negroes among the native born; (3)
the relatively better class of foreign born than of native born women who
enter domestic service. This statement must be made somewhat dogmatically
here, since its proof demands a discussion of the entire subject of the
unwillingness of native born women to enter domestic service.
(4) The wages of men engaged in domestic service are higher than the
wages of women.
This will be evident by reference to Table VII and to Table VIII. Two
things, however, must be borne in mind: first, that nearly all the men
classified as cooks are employed on the Pacific coast, where wages are
relatively high; second, that forty per cent of the men in domestic
service do not receive board and lodging in addition to wages in money,
while only two per cent of women so employed, principally laundresses,
do not receive board and lodging. But although these facts modify the
discrepancy between the wages of men and women, they do not wholly remove
it. Whether the difference is as great as in other occupations cannot be
stated.
(5) A tendency is found towards an increase in wages paid by employers,
as is seen in Table X on the following page.
An interesting historical illustration of the same fact is given in a
summary of wages and prices in Massachusetts from 1752 to 1860. In 1815,
the first time the work of women is mentioned specifically, domestic
servants received with board $.50 per week, while at the same time women
were able to earn as papermakers $6.50 a week.[208]
TABLE X
COMPARISON OF WAGES PAID
====================+======================+========================
| NUMBER | PER CENT
WAGES PAID +------+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------
| Men | Women | Total | Men | Women | Total
--------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------
Same as last year | 414 | 1638 | 2052 | 87.72 | 79.02 | 80.63
More than last year | 54 | 368 | 422 | 11.44 | 17.75 | 16.58
Less than last year | 4 | 67 | 71 | .84 | 3.23 | 2.79
====================+======+=======+=======+=======+========+=======
(6) The wages received in domestic service are relatively and sometimes
absolutely higher than the average wages received in other wage-earning
occupations open to women.
A comparison may be made between the wages received by domestic employees
and by two other classes—teachers in representative city schools and
the wage-earning women included in the investigations made by the
Commissioner of Labor. As illustrating the wages received in domestic
service, the following tables are given, showing (1) the classified
weekly and daily wages received and (2) the average weekly and daily
wages with the percentages receiving more or less than the average. These
facts are taken from the general schedules. Similar tables are given
showing a somewhat higher rate of wages in all domestic occupations in
the special city of Boston.
TABLE XI
CLASSIFIED DAILY AND WEEKLY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS
=============+===========================================================
|Under $1
| |$1, but under $2
| | |$2, but under $3
| | | |$3, but under $4
| | | | |$4, but under $5
| | | | | |$5, but under $6
| | | | | | |$6, but under $7
| | | | | | | |$7, but under $8
| | | | | | | | |$8, but under $9
| | | | | | | | | |$9, but under $10
| | | | | | | | | | |$10, but under $11
| | | | | | | | | | | |$11, but
| | | | | | | | | | | | under $12
| | | | | | | | | | | | |$12, but
| | | | | | | | | | | | | under $13
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |$13, but
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | under $14
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Over $14
OCCUPATION | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Total
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
SCHEDULE OF | EARNING WEEKLY
EMPLOYERS |
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
WOMEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
General | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
servants | 1| 33|251|276| 39| 5| | 1| | | | | | | | 606
Second girls| | 17| 50| 76| 18| 4| 1| 4| | | | | | | | 170
Cooks and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
laundresses| | 4| 21| 70| 41| 5| | | | | | | | | | 141
Cooks | 4| 6| 38|104| 86| 31| 7| | | 3| 1| | | | | 280
Chambermaids| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
waitresses | 2| 9| 44| 69| 7| 2| | | | | | | | | | 133
Chambermaids| 1| 6| 18| 45| 18| 4| | | | | | | | | | 92
Waitresses | | 3| 43| 32| 23| 2| | | | | | | | | | 103
Nurses | 1| 11| 30| 46| 18| 9| | 6| | | 4| | | | | 125
Housekeepers| | | | 1| 2| | | | 1| | | | | | | 4
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
Total | 9| 89|495|619|252| 62| 8| 11| 1| 3| 5| | | | |1,654
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
MEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Butlers | | 3| 2| 5| 3| 8| 6| 4| 3| 6| 2| 1| | 1| | 44
Coachmen and| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
gardeners | | 2| 7| 11| 18| 22| 21| 3| 12|10|11| 4| 1| 1| | 123
Coachmen | | 1| 5| 8| 10| 14| 17| 3| 9|12| 7|11| 3| 6| 3| 109
Cooks | | 1| | 1| 3| 2| 3| 3| 1| 3| | | | | | 17
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
Total | | 7| 14| 25| 34| 46| 47| 13| 25|31|20|16| 4| 8| 3| 293
=============+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+==+==+==+==+==+=====
SCHEDULE OF | EARNING DAILY
EMPLOYERS |
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
WOMEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Laundresses |123|121| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 244
Seamstresses| 48| 51| 6| | | | | | | | | | | | | 105
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
Total |171|172| 6| | | | | | | | | | | | | 349
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
MEN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gardeners | 26| 87| 8| 1| | | | | | | | | | | |
Choremen | 24| 14| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | |
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
Total | 50|101| 9| 1| | | | | | | | | | | | 161
=============+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+==+==+==+==+==+=====
SCHEDULE OF | EARNING WEEKLY
EMPLOYEES |
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
General | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
servants | 1| 16|152|187| 24| 3| | | | | | | | | | 383
Second girls| | | 11| 18| 10| | | | | | | | | | | 39
Cooks and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
laundresses| | 4| 6| 22| 13| | | | | | | | | | | 45
Cooks | 1| 3| 20| 39| 23| 11| 3| 1| | | | | | | | 101
Chambermaids| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
waitresses | | | 6| 15| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | 23
Chambermaids| | 1| 7| 9| 6| 1| | | 1| | | | | | | 25
Waitresses | | 2| 14| 16| 1| 2| 1| | | | | | | | | 36
Nurses | | 1| 5| 10| 1| 1| | | | | | | | | | 18
Housekeepers| | | | 2| 1| | | | | 1| | | | | | 4
-------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-----
Total | 2| 27|221|318| 80| 19| 4| 1| 1| 1| | | | | | 674
=============+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+==+==+==+==+==+=====
TABLE XII[209]
AVERAGE WEEKLY AND DAILY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS
=================+=======================================================
| PERSON REPLYING
+---------------------------+---------------------------
| EMPLOYER | EMPLOYEE
+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
OCCUPATION | | | Per cent| | |Per cent
| |Per cent |receiving| |Per cent |receiving
|Average|receiving| the |Average|receiving| the
| weekly| more | same or | weekly| more | same or
| wages|than the | less | wages| than |the less
| | average |than the | | average |than the
| | | average | | | average
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
WOMEN | | | | | |
General servants| $2.94 | 52.97 | 47.03 | $2.88 | 55.87 | 43.13
Second girls | 3.04 | 40.00 | 60.00 | 3.27 | 53.85 | 46.15
Cooks and | | | | | |
laundresses | 3.50 | 43.97 | 56.03 | 3.27 | 53.33 | 46.67
Cooks | 3.80 | 45.71 | 54.29 | 3.64 | 43.56 | 56.44
Chambermaids and| | | | | |
waitresses | 2.99 | 58.65 | 41.35 | 3.21 | 52.17 | 47.83
Chambermaids | 3.31 | 47.83 | 52.17 | 3.47 | 32.00 | 68.00
Waitresses | 3.23 | 43.69 | 56.31 | 3.15 | 44.44 | 55.56
Nurses | 3.53 | 36.00 | 64.00 | 3.03 | 33.33 | 66.67
Housekeepers | 5.15 | 25.00 | 75.00 | 5.15 | 25.00 | 75.00
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
Total | $3.23 | 47.88 | 52.12 | $3.11 | 50.95 | 49.05
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
MEN | | | | | |
Butlers | $6.11 | 50.00 | 50.00 | | |
Coachmen and | | | | | |
gardeners | 6.54 | 44.72 | 55.28 | | |
Coachmen | 7.84 | 46.79 | 53.21 | | |
Cooks | 6.09 | 47.06 | 52.94 | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
Total | $6.93 | 46.42 | 53.58 | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
|Average| | | | |
| daily | | | | |
| wages | | | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
WOMEN | | | | | |
Laundresses | $0.82 | 53.28 | 46.72 | | |
Seamstresses | 1.01 | 39.05 | 60.95 | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
Total | $0.90 | 49.00 | 51.00 | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
MEN | | | | | |
Gardeners | $1.33 | 56.56 | 43.44 | | |
Choremen | .87 | 43.59 | 56.41 | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+-------+---------+---------
Total | $1.29 | 53.42 | 46.58 | | |
=================+=======+=========+=========+=======+=========+=========
The following tables show the classified and average wages paid in the
principal occupations as reported by a Boston employment bureau:
TABLE XIII
CLASSIFIED WEEKLY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS
=================+===================================================
| EARNING WEEKLY
+---------------------------------------------------
|$1, but under $2
| |$2, but under $3
| | |$3, but under $4
| | | |$4, but under $5
| | | | |$5, but under $6
| | | | | |$6, but under $7
| | | | | | |$7, but under $8
| | | | | | | |$8, but under $9
| | | | | | | | |$9, but
| | | | | | | | | under $10
| | | | | | | | | |$10, but
| | | | | | | | | | under $11
OCCUPATION | | | | | | | | | | |Total
-----------------+---+----+------+----+----+---+---+---+--+--+-------
General servants | 8| 183| 577| 143| 3| | | | | | 914
Second girls | 2| 41| 363| 69| | | | | | | 475
Cooks | 1| 3| 39| 347| 145| 28| 4| 3| | 4| 574
Chambermaids | | 3| 40| 37| 2| | | | | | 82
Waitresses | | 4| 29| 16| 1| | | | | | 50
Parlor maids | | | 11| 45| 1| | | | | | 57
Nursery maids | 7| 45| 119| 57| 3| 1| 1| | | | 233
Laundresses | | 1| 9| 27| 15| 1| | | | | 53
-----------------+---+----+------+----+----+---+---+---+--+--+-------
Total | 18| 280| 1,187| 741| 170| 30| 5| 3| | 4| 2,438
=================+===+====+======+====+====+===+===+===+==+==+=======
TABLE XIV
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES BY OCCUPATIONS
=================+=======+=========+=========+========+========+=======
| |Per cent |Per cent | | |
|Average|receiving|receiving| | |
OCCUPATION | weekly|more than|the same |Highest |Lowest |Total
| wages| the |or less | wages | wages |number
| |average |than the |received|received|
| | |average | | |
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------+--------+-------
General servants | $3.16 | 40.5 | 59.5 | $5.00 | $1.50 | 914
Second girls | 3.34 | 62.2 | 37.8 | 4.50 | 1.50 | 475
Cooks | 4.45 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 10.50 | 1.00 | 574
Chambermaids | 3.86 | 57.4 | 42.6 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 82
Waitresses | 3.76 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 50
Parlor maids | 3.94 | 80.4 | 19.6 | 5.00 | 3.50 | 57
Nursery maids | 3.26 | 51.3 | 48.7 | 7.00 | 1.00 | 233
Laundresses | 4.44 | 44.4 | 55.6 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 53
-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------+--------+-------
Total | | | | | | 2,438
=================+=======+=========+=========+========+========+=======
It is seen from Table XII that the average weekly wages in domestic
service are $3.23—a fair average in this case, since forty-eight per
cent receive more than the average and fifty-two per cent the same or
less than the average. The average domestic employee, therefore, is
able to earn in money during the year $167.96—a fair estimate, since
in seventy-five cases out of every hundred the vacation granted women
employees during the year is given without loss of wages.[210] This
forms, however, but a part of the annual earnings. To this sum must be
added board and lodging, fuel and light. For the equivalent in quality
and quantity to that furnished by the employer the employee would in
general be obliged to pay for board, lodging, and other incidental
expenses at a reasonable estimate five dollars per week, or $250
annually, deducting board for two weeks’ vacation. The total annual
earnings of a domestic employee, therefore, amount to nearly $420. To
this the negative facts must be added that there is no expense for
laundry work, and that the work involves few personal expenses in the
way of clothing, and that these necessary expenses are often partially
met through gifts from the employer. Again, the position entails no
expenditures for car fares in going to and from work, or other demands
such as are made in a business way by other occupations, and it involves
no outlay for appliances for work, as a sewing-machine, type-writer,
text-books, etc. Moreover, no investment of capital is necessary in
learning the principles of the work, since employers have thus far been
willing to make of their own homes training-schools for employees. The
domestic employee is therefore never obliged to pay back either the
capital invested in preparing for her work or the interest on that
amount. It thus seems possible for the average household employee to save
annually nearly $150 in an occupation involving no outlay or investment
of capital in any way, and few personal expenses.
TABLE XV
CLASSIFIED ANNUAL SALARIES OF WOMEN TEACHERS
=================+=======================================================
CITY | EARNING ANNUALLY
+-------------------------------------------------------
|Under $300
| |$300, but under $400
| | |$400, but under $500
| | | |$500, but under $600
| | | | |$600, but under $700
| | | | | |$700, but under $800
| | | | | | |$800, but under $900
| | | | | | | |$900, but
| | | | | | | |under $1,000
| | | | | | | | |$1,000, but
| | | | | | | | |under $1,200
| | | | | | | | | |$1,200, but
| | | | | | | | | |under $1,500
| | | | | | | | | | |More than
| | | | | | | | | | |$1,500
| | | | | | | | | | | |Total
-----------------+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----
Albany, N.Y. | 1| 26| 34| 153| 22| 11| 6| | | 1| | 254
Atlanta, Ga. | 7| 1| 32| 31| 3| 4| 1| | | 2| | 81
Baltimore, Md. | | | 628| 246| 101| 1| 1| 40| 3| | |1,020
Cambridge, Mass. | | 1| 22| 19| 146| 10| 3| 11| 2| | | 214
Cincinnati, Ohio | | | 26| 50| 59|359| 98| 1| 5| 19| 2| 619
Cleveland, Ohio | | | 119| 124| 269| 89| 16| 8| 14| 10| 4| 653
Detroit, Mich. | | 54| 63| 111| 20|121| 35| 5| 3| 14| 1| 427
Lawrence, Mass. | | 43| 49| 6| | 2| 1| 1| 1| | | 103
Lowell, Mass. | | | 8| 5| 155| 9| 1| | | 1| 1| 180
Milwaukee, Wis. | | 2| 76| 72| 197| 19| 7| 15| 9| 2| | 399
New Haven, Conn. | | 54| 73| 38| 107| 14| 11| | 1| 2| 1| 301
New Orleans, La. | 2|172| 174| 3| 18| 7| | 5| 1| | | 382
Paterson, N. J. | | 55| 97| 26| 8| 9| 2| | | | | 197
Rochester, N. Y. | 45| 57| 287| 3| 7| 14| 6| | 1| 2| | 422
St. Louis, Mo. | 61| 36| 182| 362| 122|133| 42| 20| 12| 13| 13| 996
Syracuse, N. Y. | | 35| 52| 139| 21| 3| 13| 1| | | | 264
-----------------+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----
Total |116|493|1,916|1,431|1,261|803|244|107| 52| 67| 22|6,512
=================+===+===+=====+=====+=====+===+===+===+===+===+===+=====
A comparison may be made between these wages and the annual salaries
received in sixteen representative cities by the women teachers in the
public schools. Tables XV and XVI show the annual classified and average
salaries received.[211]
TABLE XVI
AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARIES OF WOMEN TEACHERS
=================+=============+====================+====================
| Average | Per cent receiving | Per cent receiving
City | salary | more than the | the same or less
| | average | than the average
-----------------+-------------+--------------------+--------------------
Albany, N.Y. | $505.73 | 27.70 | 72.30
Atlanta, Ga. | 459.05 | 48.12 | 51.88
Baltimore, Md. | 500.92 | 37.12 | 62.88
Cambridge, Mass. | 628.35 | 22.32 | 77.68
Cincinnati, Ohio | 702.87 | 20.60 | 79.40
Cleveland, Ohio | 625.60 | 43.20 | 56.80
Detroit, Mich. | 607.96 | 96.02 | 3.98
Lawrence, Mass. | 511.16 | 26.22 | 73.78
Lowell, Mass. | 608.66 | 6.71 | 93.29
Milwaukee, Wis. | 588.00 | 63.59 | 34.41
New Haven, Conn. | 536.41 | 52.96 | 47.04
New Orleans, La. | 429.78 | 28.08 | 71.92
Paterson, N.J. | 455.20 | 22.84 | 77.16
Rochester, N.Y. | 431.63 | 57.34 | 42.66
St. Louis, Mo. | 574.68 | 34.89 | 65.11
Syracuse, N.Y. | 494.98 | 67.04 | 32.96
=================+=============+====================+====================
The concentration of salaries is seen to be on those between $400 and
$500, the average salary being $545. This sum represents the full amount
of wages received. To ascertain the amount it is possible to save
annually there must be deducted at least $260 for board and lodging,
and $25 for laundry expenses, leaving a cash balance of $260. Out of
this sum, however, must come other necessary expenses, as the outfit for
work,—books, stationery, etc.,—travelling expenses, car fares, society
fees, etc., and a large item for clothing. There should also be deducted
the interest on the capital invested in securing the education demanded
in preparation for the work. If all of these items are considered, and
the greater social demands entailed by the position, it seems possible
for the average domestic employee to save at least as much money as
the average teacher in the city schools. This comparison is probably
relatively higher in favor of the teacher than it should be, since in the
average wages for domestic employees are included the wages received in
agricultural districts, where wages are lower than in cities. It is also
a comparison between skilled workers on the one hand, and on the other
hand an occupation in some of the subdivisions of which the laborers are
unskilled.
It has, unfortunately, not been possible to compare the wages received in
the same city by teachers and domestic employees. A comparison, however,
can be made between the wages received in Boston for domestic service
and by the teachers in the public schools in the neighboring city of
Cambridge.
The average wages received by a cook in a private family in Boston are,
as has been seen by Table XIV, $4.45. This judgment is based on five
hundred and seventy-four returns, and is an exact average, since fifty
per cent receive more than that amount, and fifty per cent the same or
less than that. She therefore earns annually $231.40 plus $275 for
board, lodging, fuel, light, and laundry expenses, or $506.40.
Fifty-six per cent of the teachers in the city schools in Cambridge earn
annually $620, or, deducting $285 for board, etc., for fifty-two weeks,
$335 in money. This is $103 more than is received by the Boston cook, but
out of this must come numerous expenses entailed by the position, from
which the domestic employee is exempt. The cash annual savings in the two
cases cannot vary materially.
It will also be seen by reference to Tables XV and XVI that the Boston
cook earns absolutely more than does the average city teacher in Albany,
Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Paterson, Rochester, and Syracuse.
A second comparison is suggested by the investigations conducted by
the Department of Labor. Through these it was found that the annual
cash earnings of the working-women in twenty-two typical cities are
$272.45.[212] This average takes into consideration time lost—a factor
which does not enter into domestic employments except in a casual way.
The annual earnings, therefore, of the class of women represented by
the Report are much less than those of the domestic employee. The same
point is also illustrated by a comparison of the amounts saved in the two
occupations. In eleven cities investigated by the Department of Labor the
average amount saved was less than $50; in nine cities it was $50, but
under $100, while in only two cities was it more than $100, the highest
average amount being $111.[213] As has been suggested, the highest of
these averages is small in comparison with the amount it is possible to
save in domestic service.
No question in regard to earnings saved was asked on the schedule sent
to employees, but many statements on this point were voluntarily made
by employees.[214] The question as to comparative amounts saved has
also been asked the cashiers of banks in small cities and towns where
factories are found and the personnel of depositors is known by the
officials of the banks. No records are of course kept, but the opinion
has been several times expressed that the factory employees do not save
as much, as a class, as do domestic employees. In one place, where about
two thousand factory employees are found, it was stated that no woman
employee had a sum to her credit as large as had been deposited by a
domestic.
A corollary follows from this proposition. High wages alone are not
sufficient to counterbalance the inducements offered in other occupations
where wages are relatively or absolutely lower but whose special
advantages are deemed more desirable.
(7) The wages paid in domestic service are on the average high, but the
occupation offers few opportunities for advancement in this direction.
An examination of Table XI shows but one instance, with the exception
of nurses, where the weekly cash wages reach $10.00 per week, and only
nine others where they rise above $7.00. In the two occupations the wages
in which have been compared with those in domestic service, while the
general average wages are low, it is possible to reach through promotion
a comparatively high point. The fact that the wage plane is a high one
is one inducement for women of average ability to enter the occupation.
On the other hand, the fact that the wage limit, high as it is, is soon
reached must act as a barrier in the case of others.
(8) The amount of time unemployed is less in domestic service than in
nearly every other occupation.
The element of time unemployed is an important factor in determining
annual earnings. While in nearly every occupation there is a limit to
the demand, in domestic service there is no limit and hence few persons
are necessarily without employment. The most important illustration of
this point is derived from the report of the Massachusetts Bureau of
Statistics of Labor on the unemployed in that state in 1885.[215] Of the
total number of women in the state engaged in remunerative occupations
at the time, thirty per cent were unemployed. These were distributed as
regards occupations as follows:
Manufacturing industries 78.22
Government and professional services 9.08
Domestic service 6.33
Personal service 3.99
Trade 1.98
Minor occupations .40
But if the number of unemployed is compared with the total number
employed in each industry, a still lower percentage of unemployed is
found in domestic service. A comparison with other wage earners will
make clear this point. The percentage of the unemployed in the leading
industries in which women are engaged was as follows:
Straw-workers 93.74
Boot and shoe makers 71.08
Teachers 49.58
Woollen mill operatives 45.02
Cotton mill operatives 43.59
Hosiery mill operatives 40.56
Tailoresses 32.98
Milliners 27.46
Seamstresses 27.08
Dressmakers 23.99
Paper mill operatives 21.26
Saleswomen 11.73
Book-keepers and clerks 9.19
Servants in families 6.78
Housekeepers 3.65
The demand for domestic servants varies in the different states, but
the condition of the unemployed in this occupation in Massachusetts may
perhaps be considered fairly typical of that in other localities.
(9) High wages are maintained without the aid of strikes or combinations
on the part of the employees.
In but five states are strikes reported among domestic employees;[216]
they number but twenty-two and involve less than seven hundred persons,
all of them being connected with hotels or restaurants, and nine tenths
of them men. Only two instances of permanent organization among this
class have come to notice, and neither of these has had as its object
the increase of wages. The strike in domestic service assumes the form
of a “notice,” is individual in character, and is able to accomplish
its object without the organized effort considered necessary in other
occupations where the supply of laborers is greater than the demand.
This group of nine propositions concerning wages it is believed will
suggest three conclusions: the conformity of wages in domestic service to
certain general economic laws, the fact that the wage factor alone does
not determine the number of persons in the occupation, and the existence
of a few conditions which affect, perhaps unconsciously, the willingness
of the women to engage in this work.
The three groups of propositions stated it is believed will suggest
the conclusions that the general economic condition of the country has
an appreciable influence on the condition of domestic service, both as
regards the character and number of persons engaged and the compensation
given for service required. It must follow therefore that many questions
must arise connected with the employment, which the individual employer
cannot settle from an exclusively personal point of view.