distributed. They say, therefore, that it is best for the community to treat all its members, as far as possible, as men and women, growing and improving members of a developing community, not as paupers,-dependent people who have reached the limit of their powers, and whose labor must be supplemented by large grants of state relief."1

PROBLEM OF POVERTY AND PENSIONS IN OLD AGE 2

As Professor W. G. Sumner has well said, it is not sympathy with suffering that is needed, but sympathy with hard struggling, but, unhappily, most of the kindly thought of the world is wasted upon those who least deserve it. When we consider that any scheme, or plan, of universal old-age pensions, or even of pensions limited to the deserving poor, must of necessity be paid out of the general revenue raised by taxation, the financial question itself assumes very serious proportions, even in a country as wealthy as ours. If, because of ill-arranged social conditions, burdens fall upon those least able to bear them, the remedy would seem to lie in a different direction from that of old-age pensions granted by the state. If, because of sickness resulting from industrial employment, large numbers of wage-earners are wholly, or in part, a public burden, the more effective remedy will be found in a modified employers' liability law, and not in the direction of a state pension scheme. Those who fondly believe that the latter would remedy the ills which now surround the poor in their old age, would find in their disappointment that they had neither eliminated the poorhouse, on the one hand, nor the pauper's grave, on the other. Before any such action is taken there is imperative need in a free democracy that the subject shall be carefully considered in all its phases, impartially, with as painstaking a consideration of those who work and save and live useful lives, as of those who live an existence opposed to the best interests of society.

The state should only as a last resort attempt to do that

1 Old Age Pensions: a collection of short papers. Macmillan & Co. London. 1903. p. 18.

2 From article by Frederick L. Hoffman, Statistician of Prudential Insurance Company. American Journal of Sociology. 14:182-96. September, 1908.

which can possibly be done by private agencies, or by individual forethought and forbearance and nothing should be done which is likely to discourage voluntary thrift in whatever direction that thrift may be exercised. It was brought out in the evidence before the Royal Commission on Old-Age Pensions of the Commonwealth of Australia that "The amounts voted for charities by the governments of New South Wales and Victoria, where old-age pension acts are in existence, have not been appreciably reduced in consequence of the passing of those acts. It is stated by witnesses that the acts have provided almost entirely for a different class of persons." The same report points out that "It has been shown that in numerous cases the granting of pensions, with the consequent removal of inmates from asylums (or almshouses), has been exceedingly harmful in that many of them have drifted into most undesirable quarters and suffered neglect and privation." The commission, therefore, suggests that, where there are no relatives or friends, pensioners should be boarded out in public institutions, where they would receive the attention necessary in the helplessness of advanced age. In such cases, they recommend that the pension should be paid to the institutions in behalf of the pensioners. This, in other words, is a straightforward admission that the system of state pensions would not do away with the necessity for indoor support in old age, which, under such circumstances, would merely be considered a right instead of a charity, while furthermore, a state pension system would probably not very materially diminish outdoor relief, in that the pensions would chiefly benefit a class which is not now within the scope of poor law administration or private charitable aid.

It is this class, however, which is of the utmost importance from a social and an economic point of view. It is this class which at present, in some way or another, by self-help, manages to avoid the more or less humiliating reliance upon public support. It is this class which has, by voluntary effort, established throughout this country, and elsewhere, voluntary thrift agencies in the form of savings banks, fraternal relief societies, insurance, or other means of providing self-support in old age. To a large extent this class relies upon the help of those who have been helped by them in past years, or, in other words, the old expect to be helped by the young, just as the young have been helped by the old. This is not charity, but mutual aid of the

right kind, based upon mutual obligations for service rendered, for which a state system of pensions can never be a substitute. It is this class which forms the backbone of the nation, earning weekly wages not much more than sufficient for the support of the family for the time being, but from which small deductions are made by self-sacrifice and self-denial, which by gradual accumulation, and invested at compound interest, provide a sum more or less sufficient for a modest support in old age. The amount which is thus saved is of almost incredible proportions, but much greater is the amount of self-sacrifice and self-denial necessary to produce it. There is nothing more creditable to the wage-earners as a class than the annual amounts placed in savings banks, or with insurance institutions of various kinds. In addition vast sums are saved and invested, but often with less security and to less advantage than when placed with savings or insurance institutions, specifically designed to meet the needs of those who live on weekly wages.

Already much is being done by wage-earners to provide for support in old age, as is made evident by the aggregation of savings banks deposits and insurance funds. Another evidence is to be found in the ever-increasing amount of industrial and fraternal insurance, both of which aid materially in the struggle for economic independence and by degrees educate the masses in the principle of systematic savings and insurance on other plans. Much remains to be done toward the better education of the masses in sound principles of savings, investment, and insurance. Immense sums are now wasted in foolish expenditures which ought to be saved to provide for the future, while other and perhaps equally great sums are saved, but foolishly invested and lost. At the prevailing rate of wages it is possible for the masses of our wage-earners to provide the support necessary in their old age, at their own cost and in their own way, granted that they use judgment in their family expenditures, save with intelligence, and place the money where it has a reasonable security of not being lost or stolen.

I hold that the agitation for state pensions in the United States is ill advised, in that the problem of poverty in old age, as generally met with, is primarily the result of ill-spent years, or ill-spent earnings, or ill-spent savings. What is needed most is rational education in household economics. Poverty is a relative term and its actual extent is much less than generally

assumed. Of real pauperism there is, as yet, very little in this country and the economic condition precludes the growth of a permanent pauper class. The agitation for old-age pensions in truth and in fact has not come from those who would be the beneficiaries under the proposed measures or plans, but rather from those who feel strongly, but reason badly, upon the facts in the case. The vast majority of wage-earners are fully able to provide for their own old age out of savings deducted from present earnings, amply sufficient to meet a reasonable standard of living. It requires no very extended knowledge of the life of the poor to know that among them exists, in spite of poverty, the highest possible ideals of a true family life. As it has been said, "Parents who have done well by their children seldom come to grief in their old age, except by very special misfortune, or unless someone intervenes to weaken the bond." The chief safeguard against poverty and dependence in old age is a thoroughly sound and well-conducted family life, such as prevails in the preponderating majority of American homes. In this truly lies the strength of the people, and not in the money in banks, nor for that matter, in policies of insurance, or in contracts of annuities. All these are means to an end, but at the root of the problem of poverty and old age lies the proper conception of individual responsibility, and this, no doubt, would be weakened and partly destroyed by reliance upon state support in old age. It is one of the most unfortunate tendencies of modern times to misuse the English language and to adopt forms of expression to cloak the insidious character of certain acts and certain traits. In a problem of this kind, it is of the utmost importance that there should be no misunderstanding and it is an imperative duty to use words in their right meaning. Any system of state pensions is charity in another form, in that the funds have been derived from others than those who will benefit by its distribution. The specious argument is sometimes made that the poor have spent their lives in the service of the nation and that in return they are entitled, by right, to adequate support. Wage-earners do not spend their lives for the benefit of the state, but they seek their own ends in their own way and sell their services at a given price. They may be entitled to remedial legislation in the way of more stringent employers' liability acts for industrial diseases and accidents which may incapacitate them for work, or materially shorten their lives, but besides this

there is no duty under which the state, and under which the people, as a whole, are toward the individual, and it is absurd to speak of a right to pension out of funds which have been derived by the forced contributions of those who are most likely not to be the beneficiaries. It is well to keep in mind the fundamental fact, as pointed out years ago by Professor W. G. Sumner, that the man who has not done his duty can never be the equal of the man who has, and the man who has wilfully, or in ignorance, squandered his earnings, should not be treated with superior consideration to the one who has lived his life rightly, saved his money, and provided for the needs of his own old age. It would be far better if the duty in such cases were more emphatically emphasized, and if the consequences of wrong living were permitted to fall upon those who have been a hindrance, rather than a help, to the social progress of the times.