Problems of Poverty | Page 2

of legal relief. The
common speech of the comfortable classes, on the other hand, not
infrequently includes the whole of the wage-earning class under the
title of "the poor." As it is our purpose to deal with the pressure of
poverty as a painful social disease, it is evident that the latter meaning
is unduly wide. The "poor," whose condition is forcing "the social
problem" upon the reluctant minds of the "educated" classes, include
only the lower strata of the vast wage-earning class.
But since dependence upon wages for the support of life will be found
closely related to the question of poverty, it is convenient to throw
some preliminary light on the measure of poverty, by figures bearing

on the general industrial condition of the wage-earning class. To
measure poverty we must first measure wealth. What is the national
income, and how is it divided? will naturally arise as the first questions.
Now although the data for accurate measurement of the national
income are somewhat slender, there is no very wide discrepancy in the
results reached by the most skilful statisticians. For practical purposes
we may regard the sum of £1,800,000,000 as fairly representing the
national income. But when we put the further question, "How is this
income divided among the various classes of the community?" we have
to face wider discrepancies of judgment. The difficulties which beset a
fair calculation of interest and profits, have introduced unconsciously a
partisan element into the discussion. Certain authorities, evidently
swayed by a desire to make the best of the present condition of the
working-classes, have reached a low estimate of interest and profits,
and a high estimate of wages; while others, actuated by a desire to
emphasize the power of the capitalist classes, have minimized the share
which goes as wages. At the outset of our inquiry, it might seem well to
avoid such debatable ground. But the importance of the subject will not
permit it to be thus shirked. The following calculation presents what is,
in fact, a compromise of various views, and can only claim to be a
rough approximation to the truth.
Taking the four ordinary divisions: Rent, as payment for the use of land,
for agriculture, housing, mines, etc.; Interest for the use of business
capital; Profit as wages of management and superintendence; and
Wages, the weekly earnings of the working-classes, we find that the
national income can be thus fairly apportioned--
Rent £200,000,000. Interest £450,000,000. Profits £450,000,000.
Wages £650,000,000.[1] Total £1750,000,000.
Professor Leone Levi reckoned the number of working-class families as
5,600,000, and their total income £470,000,000 in the year 1884.[2] If
we now divide the larger money, minus £650,000,000, among a
number of families proportionate to the increase of the population, viz.
6,900,000, we shall find that the average yearly income of a working-
class family comes to about £94, or a weekly earnings of about 36s.

This figure is of necessity a speculative one, and is probably in excess
of the actual average income of a working family.
This, then, we may regard as the first halting-place in our inquiry. But
in looking at the average money income of a wage-earning family,
there are several further considerations which vitally affect the
measurement of the pressure of poverty.
First, there is the fact, that out of an estimated population of some
42,000,000, only 12,000,000, or about three out of every ten persons in
the richest country of Europe, belong to a class which is able to live in
decent comfort, free from the pressing cares of a close economy. The
other seven are of necessity confined to a standard of life little, if at all,
above the line of bare necessaries.
Secondly, the careful figures collected by these statisticians show that
the national income equally divided throughout the community would
yield an average income, per family, of about £182 per annum. A
comparison of this sum with the average working-class income of £94,
brings home the extent of inequality in the distribution of the national
income. While it indicates that any approximation towards equality of
incomes would not bring affluence, at anyrate on the present scale of
national productivity, it serves also to refute the frequent assertions that
poverty is unavoidable because Great Britain is not rich enough to
furnish a comfortable livelihood for everyone.
§ 2. Gradations of Working-class Incomes.--But though it is true that
an income of 36s. a week for an ordinary family leaves but a small
margin for "superfluities," it will be evident that if every family
possessed this sum, we should have little of the worst evils of poverty.
If we would understand the extent of the disease, we must seek it in the
inequality of incomes among the labouring classes themselves. No
family need be reduced to suffering on 36s. a