Chapter 12

GENERAL CONDITION OF WAGE-EARNERS[43]

I. SEX AND AGE OF NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS

In the 2,500 families composed of 9,788 individuals, the sex distribution and age grouping[44] throw some light upon the life conditions of the wage-earning class. That city life does not look with favor upon a large juvenile element in the population is generally believed. That the city draws mainly those of the working period of life is also generally conceded. The number of children in this Negro group under 15 years of age is 19 per cent, below normal for great cities, and the upper age limit is also quite low, being only 6.6 per cent between forty-five and fifty-four years, and 3.2 per cent over fifty-five years. Thus the bulk of the population, 70.8 per cent, both male and female, excluding 0.4 per cent doubtful and unknown, falls between fifteen and fifty-four years, or within the vigorous working period of life. This is fully set forth in Table XI, which gives the sex distribution and age grouping in assembly districts of the 9,788 individuals in these 2,500 families of the Census of 1905:

TABLE XI. SEX DISTRIBUTION AND AGE GROUPING OF 9,788 NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS IN MANHATTAN, STATE CENSUS, 1905.

+--------------+--------------+---------------- | Male. | Female. | Total. Age group. +------+-------+------+-------+------+--------- | | Per | | Per | | Per | No. | cent | No. | cent | No. | cent ---------------------+------+-------+------+-------+------+--------- Less than 15 years | 949 | 19.6 | 910 | 18.4 | 1859 | 19.0 15-24 | 988 | 20.4 | 1155 | 23.4 | 2143 | 21.9 25-34 | 1543 | 31.8 | 1546 | 31.2 | 3089 | 31.6 35-44 | 889 | 18.4 | 809 | 16.4 | 1698 | 17.3 45-54 | 333 | 6.9 | 311 | 6.3 | 644 | 6.6 55 and over | 128 | 2.6 | 188 | 3.8 | 316 | 3.2 Doubtful and unknown | 14 | 0.3 | 25 | 0.5 | 39 | 0.4 ---------------------+------+-------+------+-------+------+--------- Totals | 4844 | 100. | 4944 | 100. | 9788 | 100. ---------------------+------+-------+------+-------+------+---------

Figures obtained from the personal canvass made in 1909 bear comparison with those of the State Census of 1905. Substantial agreement is to be noted between the two enumerations, except for the larger percentage of those under 15 years of age in 1905 (19.6 per cent male, 18.4 per cent female), and the smaller percentages in the grouping thirty-five to forty-four years (18.4 per cent male, 16.4 per cent female). Doubtless this effect is produced because so many of the cases in 1909 were individuals attending evening school, who were required to be above 14 years of age, and because few over forty-five years of age are attracted to such a place. The other small difference in percentages is due probably to the small number of individuals, 365, in the figures for 1909. The sex distribution and age grouping in 1909 is shown in Table XII, which follows:

TABLE XII. SEX DISTRIBUTION AND AGE GROUPING OF 365 NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS IN MANHATTAN, 1909.

+--------------+--------------+---------------- | Male. | Female. | Total. Age group. +------+-------+------+-------+------+--------- | | Per | | Per | | Per | No. | cent | No. | cent | No. | cent ---------------------+------+-------+------+-------+------+--------- Less than 15 years | 18 | 10.2 | 21 | 11.2 | 39 | 10.7 15-24 | 35 | 19.8 | 37 | 19.7 | 72 | 19.7 25-34 | 54 | 30.5 | 50 | 26.6 | 104 | 28.5 35-44 | 40 | 22.6 | 41 | 21.8 | 81 | 22.2 45-54 | 11 | 6.2 | 21 | 11.2 | 32 | 8.8 55 and over | 10 | 5.6 | 4 | 2.1 | 14 | 3.8 Doubtful and unknown | 9 | 5.1 | 14 | 7.4 | 23 | 6.3 ---------------------+------+-------+------+-------+------+--------- Totals | 177 | 100. | 188 | 100. | 365 | 100. ---------------------+------+-------+------+-------+------+---------

The results above correspond also with those of the United States Census of 1900 for the entire City of New York. Making allowance for some families of professional and business classes, probably not excluded from the Census figures for 1900, and for changes which five years interval may have caused, the agreement with the two preceding tables above confirms the representative character of the data for 1905 and 1909. For the total per cent under fifteen years in 1900 was 19.8; in 1905, 19.0; from fifteen to twenty-four years, 24 per cent in 1900, 21.9 per cent in 1905; from twenty-five to thirty-four years, 25.9 per cent in 1900, 31.6 per cent in 1905; from thirty-five to forty-four years, 16.2 per cent in 1900, 17.3 per cent in 1905; from forty-five to fifty-four years, 8.3 per cent in 1900, 6.6 per cent in 1905, and fifty-five years and over, 5.6 per cent in 1900, 3.2 per cent in 1905.[45]

Here, then, is a wage-earning group made up of persons in the younger and more vigorous working period. The small number of children under 15 years of age calls attention to the fact that the growth of this population takes place largely through recruits from other sections of the Country. They must find industrial and social adjustment to a new environment largely made up of the white population. They are either killed off by the conditions under which they work and live, or drift away from the city at a premature old age.

2. NATIVITY OF NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS

If New York has a Negro population largely composed of immigrants from other regions, the question naturally arises, From what sections or regions do they come? The State Census of 1905 gives nativity by countries only. Consequently, those born within the United States are not specified by State or territory of birth. That large numbers of the Negro population of New York City come from other sections of the United States, mainly from the South, is beyond doubt.

We get the first impression of this fact from the Federal Census of 1900. For the whole State of New York in 1900, out of a population of 100,000,[46] 44.6 per cent were natives, 24.1 per cent were from Virginia, 19 per cent were from other Southern States, with a remaining 12.3 per cent to be drawn from other parts of the United States and from other countries.

These proportions are different from those for New York City, because immigrants make up a larger part of the City's Negro population. The figures of the State Census of 1905, as well as those from a personal canvass, point in the same direction, and the evidence indicates clearly the probable condition.

The West Indian element in the Negro population of the City was noticed first. The British West Indies furnish 5.8 per cent of these foreign Negro immigrants, while the Danish West Indies, Cuba, and those islands not specified, together make up 3.6 per cent, a total of 9.4 per cent West Indian.[47] Table XIII (p. 59) gives a survey of this part of the population and shows its relation to the native born.

We are unable to get from the figures of Table XIII the sections or States of the United States from which the 89.5 per cent of American-born Negroes came. The few straws of evidence afforded by the personal canvass point to the main sources of the stream. The percentages have significance although the figures are few. The Southern States, from which there are easy means of transportation to New York, naturally furnish the larger part. Virginia supplied 29.6 per cent of the 365 Manhattan residents; South Carolina, 11 per cent; Georgia, 6 per cent, and Maryland, 4.4 per cent. Taking the Southern States by themselves, 67.5 per cent of the 365 wage-earners were born in that section. Besides 5.7 per cent of the 365 came from the British West Indies. The West Indies and the Southern States probably furnished 73.4 per cent or about three-fourths of these wage-earners in the Negro population of New York City. Table XIV (p. 60) shows in full the State and country of birth of the 365 wage-earners.

TABLE XIII. NATIVITY BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF 9,788 WAGE-EARNERS, MANHATTAN, 1905.

+-----+------+------- Country of birth. | No. | No. |Per cent ----------------------------+-----+------+------- | | | The Bermudas | -- | 28 | 0.3 British West Indies | -- | 566 | 5.8 Antiqua | 1 | -- | -- Bahama Islands | 7 | -- | -- Barbadoes | 36 | -- | -- Jamaica | 19 | -- | -- St. Croix | 46 | -- | -- St. Christopher | 20 | -- | -- St. Thomas | 8 | -- | -- Trinidad | 1 | -- | -- Not specified | 428 | -- | -- Danish West Indies | -- | 62 | 0.6 Cuba | -- | 14 | 0.1 West Indies (not specified) | -- | 285 | 2.9 Canada | -- | 16 | 0.2 United States | -- | 8,757| 89.5 Miscellaneous[A] | -- | 36 | 0.4 Unknown | -- | 24 | 0.2 ----------------------------+-----+------+------- Total | -- | 9,788| 100. ----------------------------+-----+------+------- [A] The miscellaneous includes the following: Australia 3, England 7, East Indies 1, France 1, Germany 1, Hayti 1, India 2, Ireland 1, Mexico 2, Monrovia, Africa 1, Porto Rico 9, Sandwich Islands 1, Santo Domingo 2, South America 4.

Foreign and native immigrants predominate in the Negro population of the City. With such a stream of immigrants the question arises about their marriage and family relationships. Are they largely single people, or are there large numbers of married, widowed, or divorced persons among them? The discussion next centers upon this point.

TABLE XIV. NATIVITY BY STATE OR COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF 365 WAGE EARNERS, MANHATTAN, 1909.

+-----+------+-----+------ Country. | No. | Per | No. | Per | | cent | | cent ------------------------+-----+------+-----+------ Bermuda | -- | -- | 4 | 1.1 | | | | British West Indies | -- | -- | 21 | 5.7 Antigua | 3 | -- | -- | -- Barbadoes | 8 | -- | -- | -- Grenada | 1 | -- | -- | -- Jamaica | 1 | -- | -- | -- Nassau | 1 | -- | -- | -- St. Croix | 3 | -- | -- | -- St. Kitts | 1 | -- | -- | -- Trinidad | 1 | -- | -- | -- Island Unknown | 2 | -- | -- | -- ------------------------+-----+------+-----+------ ------------------------+-----+------+-----+------ Country. | No. | Per | No. | Per | | cent | | cent ------------------------+-----+------+-----+------ United States | -- | -- | 307 | 84.2 Georgia | 22 | 6.0 | -- | -- Maryland | 16 | 4.4 | -- | -- New York | 40 | 11.0 | -- | -- North Carolina | 35 | 9.6 | -- | -- South Carolina | 40 | 11.0 | -- | -- Virginia | 108 | 29.6 | -- | -- Other States[A] | 46 | 12.6 | -- | -- Miscellaneous[B] | -- | -- | 4 | 1.1 Unknown | -- | -- | 29 | 7.9 ------------------------+-----+------+-----+------ Total | -- | -- | 365 |100 ------------------------+-----+------+-----+------ [A] The other states of the Union are: Alabama 2, Arkansas 2, Delaware 2, District of Columbia 7, Florida 7, Illinois 1, Kentucky 4, Massachusetts 4, Missouri 3, Ohio 2, Pennsylvania 3, Tennessee 2, Texas 2, Michigan 1, New Jersey 1, Rhode Island 1, Porto Rico 2.

[B] Miscellaneous: St. Martin 1, Ontario 1, British Guiana 2.

3. MARITAL CONDITION OF WAGE-EARNERS

The State Census of 1905 did not ask about the marital condition, but only stated relationships to the head of the family, so that the conjugal condition of women reported as heads of families, of lodgers, and of adult sons and daughters or other relatives in the family could not be ascertained. Therefore, no attempt was made to give statements about conjugal condition based on these returns. However, in the personal canvass of 326 individuals, fifteen years of age and over, the marital condition was obtained. The small number of cases included in Table XV makes the figures and percentages presented valuable for pointing only to what a larger body of data would probably make certain. It is important, therefore, to note that 113 out of 159 males, or 71.1 per cent, and 106 out of 167 females, or 63.5 per cent, were single, excluding those unknown. This suggests what the age grouping would lead us to expect, viz., that the Negro group in New York City has a large proportion of unmarried persons. Table XV, which follows, indicates this conclusion:

TABLE XV. MARITAL CONDITION OF 326 NEGRO WAGE-EARNERS, FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, MANHATTAN, 1909.

+-------------+-------------+------------- | Male. | Female. | Total. +-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+------- Marital condition. | | Per | | Per | | Per | No. | cent | No. | cent | No. | cent --------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+------- Married | 26 | 16.3 | 30 | 17.9 | 56 | 17.2 Single | 113 | 71.1 | 106 | 63.5 | 219 | 67.2 Widowed | 9 | 5.7 | 27 | 16.2 | 36 | 11.0 Divorced | 3 | 1.9 | -- | -- | 3 | 0.9 Unknown | 8 | 5.0 | 4 | 2.4 | 12 | 3.7 --------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+------- Total | 159 | 100. | 167 | 100. | 326 | 100. --------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------

Now that the marital condition of the individuals has been indicated, we may profitably inquire into the composition of the families.

4. FAMILIES AND LODGERS

An illuminating sidelight is thrown upon the general condition of wage-earners by a study of the sizes of families and the relation of lodgers to those families. The figures used are those of the State Census of 1905 only, as the number of complete families secured in the personal canvass was too small. The points of importance are the size of the economic family, which includes lodgers and all others living under one head, and size of the natural family when lodgers are excluded. The census returns of 1905 showed relationship of each dweller in the household to the head of the family. It was thus easy to separate lodgers, except in some cases when relatives may have been lodgers but were not so designated. Taking the 2,500 families as a whole, with 9,788 individuals, the average size of the family was three and nine-tenths persons. Of these, 2,631 individuals, 26.9 per cent were lodgers, and 7,157, or 73.1 per cent, were natural members. But these aggregates do not portray actual conditions. A true picture may be obtained from a more detailed study of the figures which show that 119, or 4.8 per cent, of the economic families (which includes all persons living under one head) consisted of an individual living alone; 576, 23 per cent, of two persons; 531, 21.2 per cent, of the families had three members, while 478, 19.1 per cent, were composed of four members. Above four, the percentages of families rapidly declined; 13.4 per cent of economic families had five members; 8.3 per cent, six members; 5 per cent, seven members, down to 2.2 per cent, eight members; 1.4 per cent, nine members, and 1.6 per cent, ten or more members. But the composition of these economic families is even more striking. To illustrate, of a total of 576 economic families with two members, 488 had no lodgers, and this was 36.1 per cent of all the families without lodgers; out of 531 families of three members each, 173 had one lodger, or 37.7 per cent of all families having one lodger, and 67 families had two lodgers each, or 20.6 per cent of all the families having two lodgers. Further, 478 families of four members each contained 133 families with two lodgers, 40.9 per cent of all families having two lodgers, and 48 families had three lodgers, 27 per cent of all families having three lodgers, while only 84 families had one lodger, and 213 families, less than one-half, 44.6 per cent of all families of four members each, had no lodgers. Taking the entire 2,500 families, only 1,353 families, or 54.1 per cent, had no lodgers; 459, or 18.4 per cent of the total families, had one lodger only; 325 families, or 13 per cent of the total, had two lodgers only, while 320 families, or 12.8 per cent of the total, had from 3 to 5 lodgers. This left 45, or 1.7 per cent, with 6 to 9 lodgers. In a phrase, the increase in the size of the family means, as a rule, an increase in the number of lodgers, and the relative proportion of natural members probably decreases as the size of the family increases, the proportion of lodgers increasing with the size of the economic family.

Now this showing is not the effect of lodging-houses run as business enterprises, except probably in the families ten members or more, which constitute only 1.6 per cent of the total 2,500 families. This condition is most probably due in part to the fact--which both Census returns and personal observation indicated but could not fully determine--that many of the lodgers consisted of married couples, sometimes with one or two children, and of parts of broken families. Furthermore, the high rents[48] which Negroes have to pay, the limited area in which the opposition of whites allows them to live, together with the small income power due to the occupational field being largely restricted to domestic and personal service, play a large part in forcing families and parts of families to live thus crowded together. This last point about income will be referred to again in