returned from the United States is above that of their neighbors. The roomy cottages built by them with money earned in the United States are in striking contrast with the surrounding poverty and dirt. In short, according to the Immigration Commission, the savings of the immigrants "are an important factor in promoting the general economic welfare of several European countries." It is evident that the wages of the immigrants must needs be sufficient to enable them to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the uplifting of the economic conditions of their native countries, after paying American prices for all necessities of life. Viewed solely with an eye to the economic interests of the American wage-earner, the efforts of the average immigrant from Southern and Eastern Europe "to live upon the basis of minimum cheapness, and to save as much as possible," at the sacrifice of comfort,' is a matter of no concern to his competitors in the labor market. Whether he spends his wages on rent, food, and clothing, or saves his money to buy steamship tickets for his family, whether he deposits his savings in a local bank, or sends them to his parents for improving the home farm, his wants in one case are as great and as imperative as in the other, and he must demand a wage which will enable him to satisfy them. Furthermore, contrary to learned opinion, a wageearner who is able to save four fifths of his earnings need not accept "employment on the terms offered or suffer from actual want," for he can live four months on the savings of one, and is therefore “in a position to take exception to wages or working conditions"2 a great deal more readily than the native wage-earner who lives to the limit of his income. This fact has been proved more than once in recent years by the long drawn out strikes of Southern and Eastern European mine and factory operatives.

There is a tendency to view with disapproval "the sending back to the old country of the savings of the immigrant," upon the old Mercantilist theory that every dollar invested 'Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., pp. 183-184. 2 Ibid.

by him in his home country is a loss to the United States: "America should have the productive influence of not only the labor but also of the capital made from the savings."* The same objection certainly applies with far greater force to the investment of American capital in foreign industrial enterprises. One important fact is overlooked in this objection, viz., that the money which is invested in the home farm provides for the relatives of the immigrant who stay in the old country. Were that money invested in the United States they would have to be brought over to the United States. While the capital invested in the United States would be increased, the supply of labor would likewise be increased. Money being dearer in Europe than in the United States, the savings that are ample to provide employment for the immigrants' relatives at home, would be insufficient, if invested in American industries, to keep an equal number of persons employed in the United States. Their immigration would accordingly tend to increase the supply of labor out of proportion to the demand.

The only economic interests affected in a real, not in an imaginary way, by the thrifty habits ("the low standard of living") of the recent immigrant, is the mercantile business which seeks the trade of the wage-earner as a consumer. With many manufacturing and mining concerns the commissary is an important part of the industry.

In fact, [says the Immigration Commission] according to the statements of some of the small operators, commissaries as a rule return not only a 20 per cent net profit in normal times to the company, but the system goes so far as to largely determine the race of employees. In certain cases it was stated that negroes were preferred because their improvident habits prevented them from being able to live on a cash income, paid monthly, and thus forced them to draw their wages weekly, and even daily, in the form of commissary checks or store credits. Currency payments were made monthly partly for this purpose. As a result, the negroes are always a little in debt to the commissaries. Their wants are confined to the supply of goods furnished by the commissaries, with the exception of whiskey, and they have no funds for

any other purpose than that of bare subsistence . . . . For the same reason these employers do not encourage immigrant laborers, and in some cases refuse to employ them altogether. The immigrant exhibits a strong tendency to get his wages in cash and to live on the lowest level possible to maintain subsistence. . . . He seeks the cheapest places. . . . A careful and detailed inquiry into a comparison of prices in the commissaries and in the city markets and groceries revealed a slight increase in the general run of prices in the former over the latter.'

The Croatians are good livers in comparison with the other foreign races, and they do not stint themselves in food or drink [say Professors Jenks and Lauck]. Although extravagant, they do not, however, spend as much as the negroes, who loiter about the commissaries looking for something for which to spend their money. The Croatians know what they want and buy it freely, but if there is a surplus of their wages it is saved. The Italians, living as they do, very cheaply, buy little from the commissaries. In a general way the laborers are required to patronize the commissaries2. . . .

From the point of view of the proprietor of the commissary store, an immigrant with a "low standard of living," who buys in the cheapest store, or saves his money instead of leaving it in the commissary, is, naturally enough, "undesirable."

2

Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 9, p. 190.

* Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., p. 176.

18

CHAPTER XI

Ο

HOME OWNERSHIP

WNERSHIP of homes by wage-earners has been advocated as a proposition of practical social reform, ever since the condition of labor has been recognized as a distinct social problem. The Immigration Commission has given a prominent place in its investigation to home ownership among immigrant races on the ground that "the proportion of the families in a given group of workmen who live in homes owned by themselves may fairly be regarded as an indication, at least, of the social and industrial progress of the group.'

The Commission fully realizes "that the wage-earner is living and working in a large urban or industrial center where the acquisition of real estate is beyond his resources, while in small mining towns "the industrial worker is practically not permitted to buy a home, but must live in a house owned by the operating company." The mining companies find it "a better policy to retain the houses because of large profits arising from rent payments and for the additional reason that mine workers may be evicted in the event of a strike."3 Moreover, the ownership of a home, even when within the reach of the wage-earner, often does not pay as an investment:

If an employee should invest in a home near his work and for any reason he should be thrown out of work, the property would not be valuable, because there are no other industries near in which he could

I

1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 7, p. 267. Ibid., vol. I, p. 467.

3 Ibid., vol. 6, p. 452.

find employment. The coal mines often have periods when work is irregular, or suspend operations for months at a time which facts tend to make coal-mining labor migratory.'

These conditions are not peculiar to coal mining alone, but exist generally. Nevertheless, after all that is said, the Commission regards "the number and percentage of families owning their homes," as indications of "racial inclinations toward the acquisition of property." It is noted that "the recent immigrant has no property or other restraining interests which attach him to a community, with the following comment:

...

This characteristic has both a good and a bad influence. . . . Probably, the bad effect of this characteristic is greater than the good, all things considered.s

The fact itself is officially recorded among the "salient characteristics of the recent immigrant labor supply.' This is an error. As far back as 1878, a noted New York philanthropist spoke in almost the same terms of the immigrants of his day, who were mostly Irish and Germans:

They do not own the house nor any part of it, nor have any interest in it. . . . The general effect of the system is the existence of a proletaire class, who have no interest in the permanent well-being of the community, who have no sense of home, and who live without any deep root in the soil. 7

It is obvious that the subject of home ownership is viewed in these opinions from the standpoint of a middle-class

1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 7, p. 206.

* An English writer who would encourage "the acquirement by workingmen of their homes," recognizes that "a difficulty exists in the fact that a large portion of the working classes are migrating, owing to the changes and irregularities of their means of livelihood."-T. L. Worthington: Dwellings of the People, (2d edition, 1901), p. 60.

3 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 1, p. 467. This view is expressed with all due "qualifications, "reservations," and "limitations." 4 Ibid., p. 500. Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., p. 185.

$ Jenks and Lauck, ibid.

6

• Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol.1, pp. 498, 500.

7 Report of the Industrial Commission, vol. xv., p. 459.