The Washington times., 1928-01-25


during the years he Is able to
work, how can he take care OF
himself when no longer able to
work?
These questions are prompted
by a comment received from
working class reader. The obser-
walton was made in this column
that it would be deplorable
were price-cutting to become so
vicious in the automobile industry
that no return could be earned on
the money invested by a large
number of people in automobile
securities. The worker writes:
Poor security holders! My
heart aches for them. De-
plorable' is right. Oh, n, why
not let them go to work in the
shops?"
Just who are Americas stock
holders?
A generation ago-yes, IS years
ago-security holders in America
were not very numerous and con.
sisted, for the most part, Of rich
or well-to-do famuies and widows
and orphans who had been left
some money. It was estimated be.
fore the world war that we had only
between one and two million stock
holders and not as many as half a
million bondholders.
Public utility companies 9lone to-
day have as many stockholders as
all American companies combined
had before the war. One company
alone, American Telephone, has
425 5000 stockholders. The popular
estimate now is that we have be-
tween 10000. 900 and 10000 900
stockholders and several million
bondholders.
Stockholders
It is most unusual today for any
one individual to own even / per
cent Of a large corporation
stock. Only in a few instances
does any person own per cent.
As for any one man owning q ma
jority of a big company's shares,
it simply is no longer true.
The vast majority OF stock own
ers are families of MODEST or mod
crate means. There are only $4,000
persons paying income tax on
$50, 900 a year up. and the number
paying income tax on $4,000 up to
$5O,00O is only 100000.
The fact is that there are four
times as many owners OF secur1'
ties as there are of income tax
payers in the whole of America
this includes incomes of as low
as 81 900. The total number OF
income taxpayers for the whole
country in 1925 was 4,075,542.
Certainly it is true that the ma
| iority of stockholders Of the pres
ent day belong to the so-called
working classes"-I use the term
"so-called" because many OF the
hardest workers / know of are
executives and others not looked
upon as belonging to the work
ing classes.
And now that so many corpora
tions are making 1t easy for their
employees to become owners Of
company stock, our army of work
ing.cIass stockholders ID multi
plying very rapidly.
All this being so, isn't It en-
tirely humane to regard as de-
plorable anything which wound In
jure the reasonable income OF our
millions OF SCOcknOIuerS!
Were all stockholders million.
aires, and were there only a few
of them. perhaps ones heart
would not ache were their divi-
dends to be hurt temporarily.
But the facts. as here shown i,
are very different.
Object Of Saving
Most Of us who strive to save
do so because we do not want to
become dependent on charity when
we grow old, nor do we want our
wives and children to be left
penniless If We can, by toiling
hard and living economically,
avoid it.
Surely that is a laudable ambi.
ton.
Is not the man who doesn't
give single thought to prepar.
ing for old age, and who is utter
ly callOus as to what becomes OF
his family, an utterly selfish and
rather despicable fellow?
Granted that the wise, the right,
the laudable thing to do Is to
try conscientiously to save, how
should savings be treated?
The only way savings can pro-
duce either dividends or interest
Is to put them to work, to. invest
them.
Money earns nothing if boarded
at home. And money would earn
just as little were it left lying
idle in a bank. The gold. the sill
yer, the bank notes in a banks
vaults do not earn a penny.
Banks earn a return only on
funds which they themselves in
vest or lend to other people to be
used.
Broadly speaking, before savings
can earn anything, they must be
invested.
Foolish and Unhuman
Does it not become very clear,
therefore, that it is not only fool
ish but inhuman to rejoice and
exult when anything happens 10
destroy the income from savings?
Since stockholders and bondhold-
ers consist so largely of widows,
fatherless children, wage earners
and families of moderate means,
surely we should feel just az badly
when their well-being Is hurt as
we would feel if the wages or we'll
being of lahorers, or artisans or
other workers were hurt.
Is this now clear to the writer
IF tho rC site m n1autS