Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1946-09-13
Washington.
LaborReport
by Bradford v. Carter


Reserve Board in Washington
set out to find the answers.
Obviously tn ere wasn't
enough time or enough money
r enough people to ask these
uestions of every family in
he United States so the Board
euuested t h e Agriculture
Dept. to ask these questions
of scientifically selected
sample of the American peo-
pie. The sample was chosen in
a fashion to reflect the geo.
graphical, economic and other
important characteristics of
the total population in much
the same way that the Gallup
poll samples are made up -
if anything perhaps more sig
nificant results are yielded by
the Agriculture Dept. polling
techniques than by Gallup,s.
The poll was conducted on
the basis of what the econom-
lists called spending units"
A spending unit was defined
as "all persons living in the
major expenses"
The results of the survey
are extremely interesting;
at several points in fact,
much more interesting than
the official summary of the
survey was willing to admit.
For example, the official sum-
mary makes nothing of the
data in one of its statistical
tables that the annual income
in 1945 of 47qo of American
families is under $4,000. A
family income of less than
$4,000 a year is below what all
authorities would regard as
what 1t takes to provide a
minimum decent standard of
living.
IMPROVEMENT
The full employment situa.
ton generated by war require
ments has improved this sit
uation somewhat over pre-
vious periods. In 1885, 500
of the families had annual in
comes of less than $1,000 and
in 1941 $50 had incomes of
less than $1,000. But it is inn
portant to remember that
much of this improvement on
paper is cancelled out by the
increases in the cost of living
in that period. In other words,
the real income of a family
which earned $1,000 in 1885
and raised it to $4,000 in 1945
was optimistically alb out
$500.
The interesting fact which
the survey does point up is
that the bulk of the liquid
assets - that is, bonds, saw
ings and checking accounts
which can easily be converted
into cash - is still in the
hands of a relatively small pro-
portion of the American peo-
pie. To be exact, 469o of these
liquid assets are in the hands
of 15% of the American fam
lilies whose income is more
than $4,000 a year - more
over, the families with annual
incomes of $500 and over in
this group, and they constitute
80 of American families, own
% % of the total liquid assets.
ANOTHER ANGLE
There is another angle on
this liquid assets proposition
which has considerable bear
ing on just how much resour-
ces the American people have
to weather another depression.
The average American family
has about one-fifth of its an
nual income in the form of Ii.
quid assets which it could con-
ceivable convert into cash If
the income itself stopped COM
ing in. Another way of putting
1t is to say that this family
has about a ten-week reserve
fund. But hold on, that isn't
the whole story. The families
whose incomes are less than
$1,000 have enough to last
them out for about a week
and a half if their income
should cease. Those with in
comes between $1,000 and
$4,000 have something like
eight weeks of grace. What
this adds up to then is that
when a major depression hits
us and the regular incomes of
large masses of families stop
there aren't enough reserves
for most people to weather
them through the worst part
of the slump - that is if the
next slump is anything like
previous ones.
These facts uncovered by
the government agencies lend
themselves to many conelu-
sions. But two which should
stand out particularly are that
a large segment of the popu-
lation still doesn't have enough
to afford the we'll
known American standard of
living and that contrary to the
whistlerS-in.t h e-dark
the typical family in the U. S.
doesn't have enough saved to
see it thru the next depres-