Part 6

The plan also takes note of the plan for co-partnership ownership adopted by the United States Housing Corporation. The main features of this arrangement are:

1. Ownership vested in a local board of trustees bound to operate the property in the interest of the tenants and until the property is fully amortized in the interest of the government.

2. Formation of a tenants' association to which all residents of three months are eligible on payment of small yearly dues. This association to elect a tenants' council to act as directors of the association, to confer with the board of trustees, and to carry out such duties as trustees direct.

3. Any tenant may become a co-partner by applying for bonds to the amount of 25 per cent of the value of his dwelling, and accompanying his application with a cash subscription of one half per cent of this.

4. Tenant co-partners are given a voice in the management by the right to elect trustees, the number increasing with the amount of subscriptions to bonds.

5. Tenant co-partners granted remission of one month's rent a year.

6. Tenant co-partners leaving or desiring to discontinue as co-partners have the right to sell their bonds to trustees at par.

Mr. A. C. Comey, the author of the plan, says of it:[19]

Such a co-partnership scheme as this will present to workmen a unique opportunity for saving, for not only will they get as high a rate of interest as a safe investment justifies, but they will be to a large degree custodians of their own security and will thus be able to protect their investments in much the same way as actual home owners. On the other hand they will avoid most of the pitfalls of home owning, such as loss through deterioration of a neighborhood, forced sales in case of departure, and inability to realize on assets locked up in private homes. Moreover, they will tend to develop a high degree of community spirit, usually so lacking among apartment dwellers, and thus take more interest in public affairs and become better citizens generally.

These are advantages which it would be especially desirable for the foreign-born groups, as many of them have experienced the pitfalls of home ownership. It is a complicated system and would have to be explained in detail to the various groups. The medium for such explanations is at hand in the foreign-language press and in the immigrant societies, and the effort that it would involve is surely worth making. It should also be noted that it is not so complicated a system as the land tenure in many of the countries from which the immigrants come.

INSTRUCTION IN SANITATION

The subject of housing reform as a means of easing the housewife's task was considered first, as it is useless to talk of helping her in her work until she is given some of the conveniences with which to work. It is evident, however, that that is not all that is necessary for the foreign-born housewife. She is not accustomed to the use of a house of the size contemplated by the proposed plans--the Italians, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians, Hungarians, and doubtless others have known only the one and two-room house--and there is always the possibility that, given more rooms, they may be used to take in more lodgers. Such was the case, for example, in the relatively adequate houses provided by the United States Steel Corporation at Gary.

It is not necessary, however, to use the method of that corporation, and turn out of the houses persons who need instruction in the use of the house. Persuasion and instruction in the uses of the special features of the house could have been tried. It might have been possible for the rent collector or a sanitary inspector with a social point of view to establish friendly relations on their regular visits to the families. With confidence gained and tact displayed, much in the way of education could be accomplished. To construct houses so that each room can serve one and only one purpose would in part meet the difficulties. Above all, patience and a realization of the difficulties that the foreign-born housewife meets, are essential.

A point on which some architects lay special stress in the structure of low-cost houses is the devotion of the entire first floor to cooking and living uses--not sleeping. That is, the living room, dining room, and kitchen are either combined or so open into each other that no temptation is offered to close off part for sleeping purposes. The bedrooms are then on the second floor, each room having only one door, and the bathroom and the storage space are slightly elevated above the second and offer no temptation to be used for purposes other than those for which they are designed. If, then, families inexperienced in the use of modern accommodations come into the community, they may perhaps be helped to an understanding of modern devices by the experience of living in houses arranged in this way.

Both the rent collector, if it be a case of tenancy, and the building official, if it be a case of ownership, should not only understand the principles of sanitation and hygiene, but should understand the people they serve. To render the best service to immigrant groups, such officials must speak the language of the group and understand something of its peculiarities. They should, in fact, be public assistant housekeepers, through whose assistance the gradual and voluntary initiation of our foreign-born neighbors into community life can take place. New standards of efficiency and new amenities can be developed. Our community life might, then, be freed from the old physical dangers connected with human adjustment to physical surroundings, and take on new dignities suitable to a democratic and adequate life for the whole people.

There remain the difficulties described at the beginning of the chapter, which come from the fact that the processes of the work of caring for the house are different in this country from those in the country from which the foreign-born housewives came. These difficulties are not so easy to solve as those of housing. They are undoubtedly surmounted as time goes on, but it is a gradual process. Many forces are at work. Necessity is probably the primary one. The foreign-born woman early learns to use American cooking utensils and fuel because they are all she can get. She has to feed her family with the only food the store at the corner furnishes. American furniture and furnishings soon attract her attention, and she is curious as to their purposes and uses.

In part, the foreign-born housewives have learned from one another; that is, from the members of the group who have been here longer; and in part they have learned by going into the more comfortable American homes as domestic servants. Those who have done the latter are, usually, the girls who come alone or the elder daughters of the family. In some communities, such as a Bohemian community near Dallas, Texas, it is said to be well understood that the girl will learn domestic science by a kind of apprenticeship in the home of her employer. When she has learned what she thinks sufficient, she leaves to practice in her own home and to show her family how things should be done. The limitations and difficulties of domestic service for the inexperienced immigrant have been well set forth in the reports of various protective societies.[20] But the foreign-born women with whom we have conferred in this study have repeatedly emphasized the advantages that come from being shown how to do housework under the conditions in this country. Yet women of the "new" immigrant groups enter domestic service much less than those from the "old" ones.

In the end, no doubt, many foreign-born housewives have learned to care for their homes and raise their families as systematically as their American neighbors, who have had fewer difficulties to contend with. It is, however, a wasteful system which leaves the instruction of the immigrant housewife to the chance instruction she can gain from fellow countrywomen who have themselves learned only imperfectly. If the community only realized what the difficulties were for the housewife from a different civilization, it would undoubtedly stretch out a friendly and helping hand to assist her over the first rough path. Whatever form this help takes, it must be offered in the spirit of friendly co-operation, and not of didactic superiority, if the desired result is to be gained.

FOOTNOTES:

[13] Details may be secured from the National Housing Association, 105 East Twenty-second Street, New York City.

[14] Chicago Housing Studies, _American Journal of Sociology_, vol. xx, p. 154.

[15] Children's Bureau Publication No. 9, "Infant Mortality, Johnstown, Pennsylvania," p. 29.

[16] See Edith Elmer Wood, _The Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner_; _Report of Massachusetts Homestead Commission_; _Reports of United States Housing Corporation_.

[17] Edith Elmer Wood, _Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner_, chap. viii.

[18] Edith Elmer Wood, _Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner_, p. 233.

[19] _Survey_, June 28, 1919.

[20] See _Annual Report of the Immigrants' Protective League, 1910-1911_, and Abbott, _The Immigrant and the Community_, chap. v, "The Special Problems of the Immigrant Girl."

IV

PROBLEMS OF SAVING

There has been in the past much harsh and thoughtless criticism of the foreign-born groups, because of the extent to which they have seemed able and willing to subordinate present necessities and enjoyments to provide for certain future contingencies.

PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS

Many of those who come to this country are in debt for their passage. Others have left near relatives at home who must be helped to come over. Some have come, intending to establish themselves and to be married here. Some expect to take back a part of their earnings to better the condition of those left behind. Their coming, whether to stay permanently or to return, often does not relieve them of their obligations to the group in the old country.

One of the strongest impressions that the reader gets from the letters in _The Polish Peasant_ is that of the frequency with which relatives in the old country ask for money from the one who has gone ahead. It is not only his wife and children, or aged parents, that ask for money, but all the members of the wider familial group, and sometimes even friends with no claim on the score of kinship.

The purposes for which they ask money are various; in the Borek series, for example, a son of the family is asked to send money because the family is in debt and has taxes to pay; to send money for the dowry of his sister; for a forge; for a sewing machine, and for a phonograph. He is also told that if he sends money home it will not be wasted, but will be put out at interest. Other claims for money are put forward in other series, possibly the most common one being a request for a steamship ticket. The letters show clearly that it is customary to send money for fête days, "name days," or birthdays, Christmas, Easter, and other occasions. A failure to do so brings reproach coupled with a reminder that others who had gone from the village had sent money. In the Wrobelski series the family ask money from the member in this country for a new church at home. Every Sunday the priest reads aloud the names of those who have contributed. It therefore seems to the immigrant imperative that from his present earnings certain amounts shall be set aside.

When the first hard times are past and the members of the immediate family are reunited, there comes the reaction to the experience of depending on the money wage. There arises the fear of disaster growing out of interruption of the income, or misfortune involving especially heavy expenditure.

The United States Treasury Department in its "Thrift" campaign lays down the doctrine _save first_ and _spend afterward_.[21] This is what the members of the foreign-born groups have long been doing, and probably this policy is the only possible basis for a rational use of one's resources. Yet doing this gives rise to comment on the "low standard of life." And thrift often seems to border on miserliness.

Indeed, the problem is by no means so simple as the use of the categorical imperative would indicate. The whole question of deciding between the claims of the present and of the future is a very difficult one. The economist gives us little definite help. He lays down the so-called "rule of uses" and tells the housewife so to apply her resources that the utility extracted from any unit may be at least as great as if that unit were applied elsewhere. Now the foreign-born housewife, like other housewives, has certain resources of money and time and strength, and these she wishes to distribute wisely. But she labors under many disadvantages, of which it is only fair to take notice.

UNFAMILIARITY WITH MONEY

In the first place, her income is in an unfamiliar form. There is first the fact that the money units are strange to her. A woman who recently came over, being called on to make an unexpected payment, handed her purse to a fellow traveler, asking that the required amount be taken out. In the second place, for many there is the difficulty growing out of the exclusive dependence upon money payments, when before there were both money and the products of the land.

The fact should always be kept in mind that, to the extent to which the foreign born are from rural districts, they have the difficulty experienced by all who are forced to adjust themselves to an economy built on money, as distinguished from an economy built on kind. In the country where things are grown, there is little opportunity for acquiring a sense of money values.

It is then peculiarly difficult to value in terms of the new measure those articles with which one has been especially familiar under the old economy. For example, when vegetables and fruits have been enjoyed without estimating their value, it is difficult to judge their value in money. While meat was before thought out of reach, it may be purchased at exorbitant rates under the new circumstances, because one has no idea of how much it should cost. Evidence as to this kind of difficulty is found among all groups. It takes the form, sometimes, of apparent parsimony, sometimes of reckless and wasteful buying.

The Lithuanians seem, for example, to experience difficulties of this kind everywhere. The small farmer in Lithuania was accustomed to an irregular cash income at harvest time. Sometimes it carried over from one year to another, while young stock was growing. He had little need of money except for extraordinary expenses, such as those for farm machinery, or building. The local store, which was usually co-operative, carried only such imported articles as salt, sugar, spices, tea, and coffee. All other foods were produced at home or secured through neighborly exchange. All the clothing for the family was of home manufacture, even to the cloth. If a boy were sent to school in the nearest large town, his board was paid with poultry and dairy products.

The tenant laborer had house rent free, a garden, a cow, a few pigs, and all the poultry he cared to raise, in addition to the yearly wage of from 125 to 150 rubles a year.

Other farm laborers had board and clothing in addition to their wage of 25 rubles a year. Women received 3 rubles a year for farm labor, in addition to board and all ordinary clothing. The food provided by the farmers was coarse and monotonous, but it was plentiful and nourishing. Laborers were housed in two-room log or board houses, with thatched roofs; farm workers without families slept in the farmer's granaries and ate at a common table.

To the inexperienced peasant the daily wage of $1.50 and $2 in the United States seemed ample, but it was not long after the family arrived before it was found inadequate. The situation becomes still more confusing if employment is seasonal and irregular. In Lithuania, contracts were made by the year and unemployment was unknown. Through apprehension they begin to adopt a low standard of living in order to economize, a practice now common in many Lithuanian communities in this country. They have never paid rent in their native country, so one of their first instincts is to economize at that point in the new country by taking lodgers.

Among other national groups there are evidences of the same difficulties. Bohemian women, it is said, buy recklessly at first, spending money for jewelry and all sorts of things they see for sale in the neighborhood stores. Ukrainian women control the expenditure of the family income here, but in the village life in Galicia they never had much money to spend; the table was supplied from the farm, clothing was of home manufacture, furniture was seldom bought. They are, therefore, when they first come, little fitted by previous experience for wise expenditure of the family income.

IRREGULARITY OF INCOME

To these difficulties are added those connected with the uncertainty and irregularity of wage payments and with the length of intervals recurring between these payments. The ways in which periods of unemployment and consequent cessation of income are met are illustrated by the following experiences described by those with whom we have conferred.

The story of how the mother or children have gone out to work, of how boarders have been taken into the home, savings have been spent, money has been borrowed from friends, or charity has been accepted, occurs over and over in the experience of all the national groups. A Ukrainian mother tells how she and the older children at various times have worked during the father's unemployment. A few years ago, when it lasted for two years, she was no longer strong enough to work, and they sold their home in order to keep the children in school.

Another Ukrainian family has of late depended upon the earnings of the children and savings, but there have been times when they had nothing in the house but water, and could not buy food. A Polish mother borrowed money of the Jewish grocer when her savings were gone and her earnings insufficient. One Bohemian family had to draw on their savings in the building and loan association during a year of unemployment.

RESERVES FOR MISFORTUNES

It is easy, then, to understand how out of the most meager present income some provision for possible disasters will be attempted. The urgency of this claim of the future explains the fact that the possession of a balance at the end of the year constitutes no evidence that the income for the year has either been adequate or been regarded as adequate. The social investigator has found savings taken from the most inadequate incomes; and judgment has been sometimes passed on the "low standard of life" of the immigrant, when a moment's sympathetic consideration of the problem would have discovered the explanation in the ever-present fear of being caught unprepared.

The occasions for which this provision is made are, to be sure, not all of the nature of an unexpected disaster; they are, often, the ordinary events of life. There is, first, the constant possibility of sickness and of death. After the establishment of the family group, these perhaps make the first claim on the family's savings. The fear of these events may be so great that even the well-being of the children in the present may be sacrificed. For example, a Polish widow with two children, who was being supported by the United Charities in Chicago, was found to have a bank account of $192.57 which she had saved from her allowance of $3 a week in addition to her rent. When the visitor talked with her about it, she explained that she was afraid of dying and leaving her children unprovided for, and that her husband had always told her to put away part of her income.

While the need for providing for dependents is thus felt, most wage earners realize that they cannot during their own lifetime lay aside enough money to provide for their children. The most that they can do is to provide some life insurance. Even this, in most cases, must be entirely inadequate, since the premiums mean a great drain on the family's resources.

In a study of 3,048 families in Chicago, the Illinois Health Insurance Commission found that 81.9 per cent of all the families carried some kind of life insurance. The average amount of the policy, however, was only $419.24. The following table shows for the various nationalities in the group the per cent carrying insurance and the average amount of the policy.[22]

TABLE I

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF FAMILIES CARRYING LIFE INSURANCE, AND AVERAGE AMOUNT OF POLICY ACCORDING TO NATIVITY OF HEAD OF FAMILY

================================================================= | TOTAL | PER CENT | AVERAGE NATIVITY OR RACE OF HEAD OF | NUMBER OF | WITH LIFE | AMOUNT FAMILY | FAMILIES | INSURANCE | OF POLICY -----------------------------|-----------|-----------|----------- All families | 3,048 | 81.9 | $419.24 | | | United States, colored | 274 | 93.8 | 201.48 Bohemian | 243 | 88.9 | 577.58 Polish | 522 | 88.5 | 353.48 Irish | 129 | 88.4 | 510.72 United States, white | 644 | 85.2 | 535.56 German | 240 | 85.0 | 416.49 Lithuanian | 117 | 79.5 | 170.38 Scandinavian | 232 | 75.4 | 401.58 Other | 225 | 75.1 | 410.96 Jewish | 218 | 63.8 | 465.09 Italian | 204 | 57.8 | 403.94 =================================================================

It is interesting to note that the Bohemians are among the national groups showing the largest per cent (88.9) of families having life-insurance policies. They also show the largest average policy ($577.58) of any national groups, including the native-born white.

The method by which this particular provision is made is often through the fraternal order, the benefit society, and the form of commercial insurance known as industrial insurance. The fraternal orders that are used by foreign-born groups are usually societies of their own national group, such as the Polish National Alliance, the Croatian League of Illinois, the Lithuanian National Alliance. They differ from the benefit societies, such as the Czecho-Slav Workingman, the Znanie Russian Club, and the Congrega di Maria Virgine del Monte Carmelo, in that the fraternal orders are organized under the state laws governing fraternal insurance societies, are incorporated, and usually have a more than local membership. Most of the benefit societies are small local societies without national affiliation, often not observing good insurance principles and without the needed succession of young lives.

These types of insurance were made the subject of special study by the Illinois Health Insurance Commission of 1919. The judgment of the Health Commission as to the value of these organizations is, that the fraternal societies, although they are democratic, co-operative, and nonprofit-seeking organizations, thus being particularly attractive to wage earners, are often not on an actuarially sound basis.[23] The benefit societies of the foreign born present an even more precarious means of providing for future needs.[24] Sooner or later they find that the dues must be increased, their membership declines, and the period of decay sets in.