The American Empire Part 13

To-day, living on one's income is accepted in every industrial center of the United States as one of the methods of gaining a livelihood. Some men and women work for a living. Other men and women own for a living.

Workers are in most cases the humble people of the community. They do not live in the finest homes, eat the best food, wear the most elaborate clothing, or read, travel and enjoy the most of life.

The owners as a rule are the well-to-do part of the community. They derive much of all of their income from investments. The return which they make to the community in services is small when compared with the income which they receive from their property holdings.

Living on one's income is becoming as much a part of American economic life as living by factory labor, or by mining, or by manufacturing, or by any other occupation upon which the community depends for its products. The difference between these occupations and living on one's income is that they are relatively menial, and it is relatively respectable, that is, they have won the disapprobation and it has won the approbation of American public opinion.

The best general picture of the economic situation that permits a few people to live on their incomes, while the ma.s.ses of the people work for a living, is contained in the reports of the Federal Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The figures for 1917 ("Statistics of Income for 1917"

published August 1919) show that 3,472,890 persons filed returns, making one for each six families in the United States. Almost one half of the total number of returns made in 1917 were from persons whose income was between $1000 and $2000. There were 1,832,132 returns showing incomes of $2000 or more, one for each twelve families in the country.

The number of persons receiving the higher incomes is comparatively small. There were 270,666 incomes between $5,000 and $10,000; 30,391 between $10,000 and $25,000; 12,439 between $25,000 and $50,000. There were 432,662 returns (22 for each 1000 families in the United States) showing incomes of $5,000 or over; there were 161,996 returns (8 returns for each 1000 families) showing incomes of $10,000 or over; 49,494 showing incomes of $25,000 and over; 19,103 showing incomes of $50,000 and more. Thus the number of moderate and large incomes, compared with the total population of the country, was minute.

The portion of the report that is of particular interest, in so far as the present study is concerned, is that which presents a division of the total net income of those reporting $2,000 or more, into three cla.s.ses--income from personal service, income from business profits and income from the owners.h.i.+p of property.

PERSONAL INCOMES BY SOURCES--1917

_Amount of_ _Per Cent_ _Income_ _of Total_ _Source_ _Income_ 1. Income from personal service; salaries, wages; commission, bonuses, director's fees, etc $ 3,648,437,902 30.21

2. Income from business; business, trade, commerce, partners.h.i.+p, farming, and profits from sales of real estate, stocks, bonds, and other property 3,958,670,028 32.77

3. Income from property; rents and royalties 684,343,399 5.67 Interest on bonds, notes, etc. 936,715,456 7.76 Dividends 2,848,842,499 23.59 Total from Property 4,469,901,354 37.02

4. Total income 12,077,009,284 100.00

Those persons who have incomes of $2,000 or more receive 30 cents on the dollar in the form of wages and salaries; 33 cents in the form of business profits, and 37 cents in the form of incomes from the owners.h.i.+p of property. The dividend payments alone--to this group of property owners, are equal to three quarters of the total returns for personal service.

These figures refer, of course, to all those in receipt of $2,000 or more per year. Obviously, the smaller incomes are in the form of wages, salaries, and business profits, while the larger incomes take the form of rent, interest and dividends. This is made apparent by a study of the detailed tables published in connection with the "Income Statistics for 1916."

Among those of small incomes--$5,000 to $10,000--nearly half of the income was derived from personal services. The proportion of the income resulting from personal service diminished steadily as the incomes rose until, in the highest income group--those receiving $2,000,000 or more per year, less than one-half of one per cent. was the result of personal service while more than 99 per cent. of the incomes came from property owners.h.i.+p.

A small portion of the American people are in receipt of incomes that necessitate a report to the revenue officers. Among those persons, a small number are in receipt of incomes that might be termed large--incomes of $10,000 or over, for example. Among these persons with large incomes the majority of the income is secured in the form of rent, interest, dividends and profits. The higher the income group, the larger is the percentage of the income that comes from property holdings.

The economic system that exists at the present time in the United States places a premium on property owners.h.i.+p. The recipients of the large incomes are the holders of the large amounts of property.

Large incomes are property incomes. The rich are rich because they are property owners. Furthermore, the organization of present-day business makes the owner of property more secure--far more secure in his income, than is the worker who produces the wealth out of which the property income is paid.

5. _Plutocracy_

The owning cla.s.s in the United States is established on an economic basis,--the private owners.h.i.+p of the earth. No more solid foundation for cla.s.s integrity and cla.s.s power has ever been discovered.

The owners of the United States are powerfully entrenched. Operating through the corporation, its members have secured possession of the bulk of the more useful resources, the important franchises and the productive capital. Where they do not own outright, they control. The earth, in America, is the landlords and the fullness thereof. They own the productive machinery, and because they own they are able to secure a vast annual income in return for their bare owners.h.i.+p.

Families which enjoy property income have one great common interest--that of perpetuating and continuing the property income; hence the "cohesion of wealth." "The cohesion of wealth" is a force that welds individuals and families who receive property income into a unified group or cla.s.s.

The cohesion of wealth is a force of peculiar social significance. It might perhaps be referred to as the cla.s.s consciousness of the wealthy except that it manifests itself among people who have recently acquired wealth, more violently, in some cases, than it appears among those whose families have possessed wealth for generations. Then, the cohesion of wealth is not always an intelligent force. In the case of some persons it is largely instinctive.

Originally, the cohesion of wealth expresses itself instinctively among a group of wealth owners. They may be competing fiercely as in the case of a group of local banks, department stores, or landlords, but let a common enemy appear, with a proposition for currency reform, labor legislation or land taxation and in a twinkling the conflicting interests are thrown to the winds and the property owners are welded into a coherent, unified group. This is the beginning of a wealth cohesion which develops rapidly into a wealth consciousness.

American business, a generation ago, was highly compet.i.tive. Each business man's hand was raised against his neighbor and the downfall of one was a matter of rejoicing for all. The bitter experience of the nineties drove home some lessons; the struggles with labor brought some more; the efforts at government regulations had their effect; but most of all, the experience of meeting with men in various lines of business and discussing the common problems through the city, state and national and business organizations led to a realization of the fact that those who owned and managed business had more in common than they had in antagonism. By knifing one another they made themselves an easy prey for the unions and the government. By pooling ideas and interests they presented a solid front to the demands of organized labor and the efforts of the public to enforce regulation.

"Plutocracy" means control by those who own wealth. The "plutocratic cla.s.s" consists of that group of persons who control community affairs because they own property. This cla.s.s, because of its property owners.h.i.+p, is compelled to devote time and infinite pains to the task of safeguarding the sacred rights of property. It is to that task that the leaders of the American plutocracy have committed themselves, and it is from the results of that accomplished work that they are turning to new labors.

FOOTNOTES:

[41] Speech in the Senate, June 20, 1832. Works Colvin Colton, ed. New York, Putnam's, 1904, vol. 7, p. 503.

[42] Ibid., p. 503.

[43] "Speeches," E. P. Whipple, ed. Little, Brown & Co., 1910, pp.

59-60.

[44] "The Const.i.tutional Position of Property in America," Arthur T.

Hadley, _Independent_, April 16, 1908.

X. INDUSTRIAL EMPIRES

1. _They Cannot Pause!_

The foundations of Empire have been laid in the United States. Territory has been conquered; peoples have been subjugated or annihilated; an imperial cla.s.s has established itself. Here are all of the essential characteristics of empire.

The American people have been busy laying the political foundations of Empire for three centuries. A great domain, taken by force of arms from the people who were in possession of it has been either incorporated into the Union, or else held as dependent territory. The aborigines have disappeared as a race. The Negroes, kidnaped from their native land, enslaved and later liberated, are still treated as an inferior people who should be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. A vast territory was taken from Mexico as a result of one war. A quarter million square miles were secured from Spain in another; on the Continent three and a half millions of square miles; in territorial possessions nearly a quarter of a million more--this is the result of little more than two hundred years of struggle; this is the geographic basis for the American Empire.

The structure of owning cla.s.s power is practically complete in the United States. Through long years the business interests have evolved a form of organization that concentrates the essential power over the industrial and financial processes in a very few hands,--the hands of the investment bankers. During this contest for power the plutocracy learned the value of the control of public opinion, and brought the whole machinery for the direction of public affairs under its domination. Thus political and social inst.i.tutions as well as the processes of economic life were made subject to plutocratic authority.

A hundred years has sufficed to promulgate ideas of the sacredness of private property that place its preservation and protection among the chief duties of man. Economic organization; the control of all important branches of public affairs, and the elevation of property rights to a place among the beat.i.tudes--by these three means was the authority of the plutocracy established and safeguarded.

Since economic political and social power cover the field of authority that one human being may exercise over another, it might be supposed that the members of the plutocratic cla.s.s would pause at this point and cease their efforts to increase power. But the owners cannot pause! A force greater than their wills compels them to go on at an ever growing speed. Within the vitals of the economic system upon which it subsists the plutocracy has found a source of never-ending torment in the form of a constantly increasing surplus.

2. _The Knotty Problem of Surplus_

The present system of industry is so organized that the worker is always paid less in wages than he creates in product. A part of this difference between product and wages goes to the upkeep and expansion of the industry in which the worker is employed. Another part in the form of interest, dividends, rents, royalties and profits, goes to the owners of the land and productive machinery.

The values produced in industry and handed to the industrial worker or property owner in the form of income, may be used or "spent" either for "consumption goods"--things that are to be used in satisfying human wants, such as street car transportation, clothing, school books, and smoking tobacco; or for production goods--things that are to be used in the making of wealth, such as factory buildings, lathes, harvesting machinery, railroad equipment. Those who have small incomes necessarily spend the greater part for the consumption of goods upon which their existence depends. On the other hand, those who are in receipt of large incomes cannot use more than a limited amount of consumption goods.

Therefore, they are in a position to turn part of their surplus into production goods. As a reward for this "saving" the system gives them t.i.tle to an amount of wealth equal to the amount saved, and in addition, it grants an amount of "interest" so that the next year the recipient of surplus gets the regular share of surplus, and beside that an additional reward in the form of interest. His share of the surplus is thus increased. That is, surplus breeds surplus.

The workers are, for the most part, spenders. The great bulk of their income is turned at once into consumption goods. The owners in many instances are capitalists who hold property for the purpose of turning the income derived from it into additional investments.

Could the worker buy back dollar for dollar the values which he produces there would be no surplus in the form of rent, interest, dividends and profits. The present economic system is, however, built upon the principle that those who own the lands and the productive machinery should be recompensed for their mere owners.h.i.+p. It follows, of course, that the more land and machinery there is to own the greater will be the amount of surplus which will go to the owners. Since surplus breeds surplus the owners find that it pays them not to use all of their income in the form of consumption, but rather to invest all that they can, thereby increasing the share of surplus that is due them. The worker, on the other hand, finds that he must produce a constantly larger amount of wealth which he never gets, but which is destined for the payment of rent, interest, dividends and profits. Increased incomes yield increased investments. Increased investments necessitate the creation and payment of increased surplus. The payment of increased surplus means increased incomes. Thus the circle is continued--with the returns heaping up in the coffers of the plutocracy.

Originally the surplus was utilized to free the members of the owning cla.s.s from the grinding drudgery of daily toil, by permitting them to enjoy the fruits of the labor of others. Then it was employed in the exercise of power over the economic and social machinery. But that was not the end--instead it proved only the beginning. As property t.i.tles were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and the amount of property owned by single individuals or groups of individuals becomes greater, their incomes (chiefly in the form of rent, interest, dividends and profits) rose until by 1917 there were 19,103 persons in the United States who declared incomes of $50,000 or more per year, which is the equivalent of $1,000 per week. Among these persons 141 declared annual incomes of over $1,000,000. Besides these personal incomes, each industry which paid these dividends and profits, through its depreciation, amortization, replacement, new construction, and surplus funds was reinvesting in the industries billions of wealth that would be used in the creation of more wealth. The normal processes of the growth of the modern economic system has forced upon the masters of life the problem of disposing of an ever increasing amount of surplus.

During prosperous periods, the investment funds of a community like England and the United States grow very rapidly. The more prosperous the nation, the greater is the demand from those who cannot spend their huge incomes for safe, paying investment opportunities.