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 Croatian, 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 commissaries".

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."

1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 9, p. 190. 2Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., p. 176.

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

Ibid., vol. 6, p. 452.

find employment. The coal mines often haye periods when work is irregular, or suspend operations for months at a time, which facts tend to make coal-mining labor migratory.1

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," and the fact 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.5

It is obvious that the subject of home ownership is viewed in these opinions from the standpoint of a middle-class resident of a rural community, not from that of a wageearner. A farmer, a shopkeeper, or a professional man, is

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

2An 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, (ad edition, 1901), p. 60.

3Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. I, p. 467. This view is expressed with all due "qualifications," "reservations," and "limitations." Ibid., pp. 498, 500—"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." Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit, p. 185. Report of the Industrial Commission, vol. xv., p. 459.

"The idea that the working man must buy his dwelling rests upon the reactionary conception that the condition created by modern large scale industry is a pathological degeneration, and that society must be forcibly steered against the stream which has been running for over

by the nature of his occupation attached to a certain community. With him the ownership of a home is a profitable investment. Considered, however, from the point of view of the wage-earner who lives "in a town dominated by a single industry, home ownership would seriously hinder his defense of his rights in a disagreement with his employers." 1 In a small town, where many of the workmen own their homes trade-unionism means but little [to them]. If, however, trade-unionism becomes a factor and organization follows, with accompanying demands for shorter hours and more pay, these men would think long and well of their little homes . . . before engaging upon a strike, the outcome of which may possibly mean the loss of many things they greatly prize. It seems that the employers have the upper hand.2

A wage-earner, on the contrary, who has no property interests attaching him to a certain community, is "free to follow the best industrial inducements." 3

Inasmuch, however, as the ownership of a home is regarded "as a mark of thrift" it is instructive to compare the extent of home ownership at present and in the past, before "the Slav invasion," and still earlier, before immigration became a social factor in the United States.

As early as 1790, when Boston had a population of 18,330, the average number of families to each house in the town was 1.46, which means that at least one third of all Boston families lived in rented houses, even on the assumption that all one-family houses were occupied by their owners and that in the two-family houses one dwelling was occupied by the owner. Half a century later, at the city census of 1845, the proportion of home owners in Boston was found to be only 17.5 per cent. The population of Boston was then only 114,000, and the percentage of foreign-born and a century, into a condition . . . which is generally nothing but an idealized restoration of the moribund small handicraft."-Friedrich Engels: Zur Wohnungsfrage.

1 Streightoff, loc. cit., p. 84.

Pratt, loc. cit., p. 99.

• Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 1, p. 500. ♦ Ibid., vol. 6, p. 451.

"Census of Boston, 1845, p. 55.

their children born in Boston was 32.61. In other words, there were 67.39 per cent of native Americans of native parentage, of whom at most only one fourth owned their homes, even if there was not a single home owner among the foreign-born. The percentage of home owners has since slightly increased, as shown in the following table:

TABLE 82.

PER CENT OF HOME OWNERS IN THE POPULATION OF BOSTON, 1845-1900.*

The most thorough-going statistical study of home ownership in the United States was made at the census of 1890. The data for that year reflect the standard of living of native Americans at a time when it could not have been affected by immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. It will be seen from Table 83 on page 278 that of all American householders of native stock who were living in cities with a population of from 50,000 to 250,000 in 1890, only a little over one fourth owned their homes; in larger cities the percentage was still smaller. And it must be borne in mind that these percentages relate to people in all walks of life, not to wage-earners alone. The prevailing "American standard" in cities is accordingly the standard of a tenant, not that of a home owner.

1 Census of Boston, pp. 26 and 37. The percentage of persons born of foreign parents in the United States outside of Boston could not have affected the situation, as appears from the fact that of the native children of foreign parents there were 10,105 under the age of 20 and only 80 over the age of 20. Evidently, immigration was new and the native children of foreign parents were still very young.

2 Report on Farms and Homes in the United States at the XI. Census, p. 32. XII. Census, Population, Part II., Table CVI., p. ccv.

The population of Suffolk County representing the economic, though not the municipal, Boston, included 19.36 per cent home-owners.