The investigators proceed to examine the proportions of the working-class, not the total, population living below the poverty line. They show that in Northampton I person in II, in Warrington I in 7, in Stanley 1 in 16, and in Reading more than 1 in 4 of the working classes was living in "primary" poverty. Significant statements are made as to the number of children living in conditions of poverty-demonstrating the comparatively large families of the poorer classes; thus in Northampton about a sixth, in Warrington about a quarter, and in Reading nearly a half of the children were living in households of primary poverty.* Bowley and Burnett-Hurst concludef by deprecating the tendency to minimise the extent of poverty, which, apart from "secondary" poverty," exists in certain places on a scale which is really appalling." The four towns taken together contain about 2,150 working-class households and 9,720 persons; "of those households 293, or 13 per cent.— of those persons, 1,567 or 16 per cent.—are living in a condition of primary poverty." The frequent statement that men are personally responsible for their poverty is shown to be grossly exaggerated, inadequate wages being the * Bowley and Burnett-Hurst, op. cit. pp. 43-5. ↑ Ibid., p. 46-48. dominating cause. About a quarter of the children in these towns are shown to live in families which have insufficient income to secure a healthy existence. Causes of The causes of poverty may be roughly classified as personal and external The personal causes include ill-health, old age, large families, intemperance, ignorance, desertion, etc. The external causes include insufficient natural resources, defective economic organisation, industrial rearrangements, war, change in the value of money, etc. Of the two sets of reasons, the external is by far the more important,* even more significant than at first appears, since many of the so-called personal causes are really the indirect effect of the external. Ill-health and intemperance, for instance, are often the outcome of industrial conditions and therefore cannot be entirely regarded as prime causes of poverty. Bad social conditions, unfavourable environment, inadequate education-these and many other factors serve to intensify the existence of poverty. But they are not fundamental causes; though better housing and townplanning, superior educational facilities, and similar improvements would do much to relieve the situation, they would not go to the root of the problem, which lies mainly in the system of distribution.† Rowntree showed that over a half of the "primary poverty in York was a result simply of low wages, quite *Dow (Society and its Problems, Ch. XX.) puts the respective proportions as 60-75 per cent. " objective" (external) and 25-40 per cent. " subjective" (personal). reasons. † Lists and arrangements of the causes of poverty are legion, some writers submitting upwards of twenty more or less different Booth, for example, enumerates 23; Dow gives 24. No useful purpose, however, appears to be served by manifold refinement of causes. for poverty is so cumulative in its nature that it is frequently impossible to separate cause and effect. apart from irregularity of work. Nearly a quarter was due to large families, a seventh to the death of the chief wage-earner, a sixteenth to illness or old-age, and a very small proportion to irregularity of work and unemployment (2.8 and 2'3 per cent. respectively). These proportions are not of course equally applicable to all parts of the country. Conditions too have materially altered since Rowntree made his investigation, rendering revision imperative. The chief causes of "secondary" poverty submitted by Rowntree were, firstly, drink, betting and gambling; secondly, ignorant or careless housekeeping. PRINCIPAL IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF POVERTY. Bowley and Burnett-Hurst give in the above table the principal causes of poverty in the towns they surveyed. They stress the fact that they are only immediate causes, the ultimate causes resting deep in the economic system. To facilitate comparison with Rowntree's conclusions the latter writer's standard is taken. Again the preponderating cause of primary poverty is seen to be insufficient wages. "Actually one-half of the households below the poverty line at Warrington and Reading, nearly one-half at York, and one-third at Northampton, were living in poverty because the wages of the head of the family were so low that he could not support a family of three children or less."* the Central The unequal distribution of the social product is responsible for most of the poverty in this country. Ill-distribution Sir Leo Chiozza Money, writing before the of Income war, calculated that a half of the total income of the country was enjoyed by about 12 per cent. of the population. Even more significant was his estimate that more than a third of the national income went into the pockets of less than a thirtieth of the people.† Fact. In a more recent investigation‡ Prof. Bowley, though a less biased investigator, has also demonstrated that the national income is very unequally distributed among wageearners and the rest of the community. He shows that, in 1913, 15,200,000 wage-earners shared 35 per cent. of the total income, whereas 1,190,000 non-wage-earners paying income tax received 47 per cent., there being an intermediate class of 4,310,000 non-wage-earners not paying income tax who received 17 per cent. In other words, * Bowley and Burnett-Hurst, op. cit., p. 41. † Riches and Poverty (10th Edition, 1910), pp. 47-8. |