Leritance-finds no nurture, the organism may, of course, survive, if otherwise normal; but the rudiment of the disease may simply lie latent, and may be expressed in the next generation." 1 On many of these diseases to which certain individuals are heir, by reason of their inherited predisposition, we have no information as to the family histories of the persons attacked by them. It is quite possible that tuberculosis attacks people who do not have any special predisposition to the discase, but who live under conditions so bad that the tubercle bacillus finds no resistance in their organism. On the other hand, with epilepsy it is probable that a larger percentage of those who are attacked by this disease, have an innate tendency thereto. The same is true of chorea and insanity, and perhaps also of the various neuroses. Under favorable conditions many of these innate tendencies will not manifest themselves in an outbreak of the disease. Incapacity under those conditions will not appear. The proportion of these diseases that are due to inheritance has not been definitely measured. Some of them, like tuberculosis, oftentimes result from poor nutrition, over-fatigue, and other conditions which devitalize the body. It is probable that the War-neuroses manifested themselves only because of the excessive strain that war threw upon the men's organisms. It is possible that the diseases like epilepsy and chorea seldom, if ever, manifest themselves because of external circumstances apart from a defective germ plasm. 3. A third class of hereditary incapacity is due to the inheritance of a definite defect so pronounced in character that the individual cannot support himself in the competitive struggle of modern life. Such inheritable defect is the mental defect known as feeble-mindedness. Varying as it does from idiocy to a slight mental defect shown in the high-grade moron, with an intellect of not more than 12 years of age, it is inherited in about two-thirds of the cases. The other onethird of the cases is due to diseases affecting the unborn infant, accidents at birth, or post-natal diseases preventing the normal development of the brain.2 Extent of Pauperism Due to Inherited Defect. In recent years. studies have been made to ascertain the portion of pauperism which is due to mental defect. Mr. Amos W. Butler, Secretary of the Board 1 Thomson, Heredity, London, pp. 252, 258. Guyer, Being Well-Born, Indianapolis, 1916, pp. 245, 246; Rogers and Merrill. Dwellers in the Vale of Siddem, Boston, 1916, pp. 11 and 12. of State Charities in Indiana, says that 26.9 per cent of the paupers in the poor asylums of Indiana are feeble-minded, while 43 per cent of them are either feeble-minded, insane, or epileptic.1 Professor Elwood, of the University of Missouri, found that nearly half the almshouse population in that State was mentally defective. In a study made of the almshouse population of Iowa in 1911, the author found that 57.7 per cent of the inmates were defective in some way, while 21.1 per cent were distinctly feeble-minded. Therefore we can probably say that 25 per cent of the almshouse paupers are defective in one way or another.2 The recipients of outdoor relief show a smaller percentage of defect. In 5,000 cases from the Charity Organization Society of New York City studied by Dr. Devine, 5 per cent were found affected with mental disease, defect, or deficiency." In a study of the outdoor relief in Newburg, New York, 4 per cent of the recipients were found to be feeble-minded. Summarizing this point, I venture to quote what I have said in another connection: "We shall not be far wrong, therefore, if we estimate that 25 per cent of the cost of supporting the poor in almshouses is due to feeble-mindedness and that 10 per cent of the cost of public outdoor relief is due to the same factor. Perhaps 5 per cent of the pauperism met by private organizations is due to feeblemindedness." 4 While these figures are only indicative, perhaps they suggest that inherited incapacity is a factor in the production of poverty and pauperism to an extent which the public has not yet appreciated. When we begin to get abroad among the people a knowledge of the laws of inheritance, public sentiment will demand that greater care be given to prevent the perpetuation of defective stock. Normal people who carry the defective strain themselves, it is hoped, will be led to consider the effect of their having children who will probably develop such incapacity that they cannot properly care for themselves. Certainly we cannot believe in the fundamental soundness of our democracy without having an abiding faith that the people of this country, once they know the menace of inheritable defect, will 2 'Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1915, pp. 358, 359. Proceedings, Iowa State Conference of Charities and Correction, 1911, pp. 42, 43. 16. 3 Devine, Misery and Its Causes, p. 207. Gillin, Some Aspects of Feeblemindedness in Wisconsin, Madison, 1918, p. take steps to prevent the perpetuation of such defects as exist in their own blood, and to restrain those who are incapable of appreciating the importance of the matter for themselves. When that is done, pauper families from inherited defect will be very much less numerous. Incapacity there will still be from other causes, but the increasing strain of pauper degenerates and poverty-stricken incapables will be cut off at its source. TOPICS FOR REPORTS 1. The Relation of Physical Conditions to Poverty. Buckle, quoted in Carver, Sociology and Social Progress, pp. 174-243. 2. Disease and Pauperism. Folks, Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1903, pp. 334 ff; Devine, Misery and Its Causes, Chap. II. 3. Losses Due to Pests and Animal Diseases. Report, National Conservation Commission, Senate Document, No. 676, 60th Congress, 2nd session, Washington, 1909, Vol. I, pp. 81, 82; Vol. III, pp. 301-316, 341. 4. Drought and the Corn-Crop. Ibid., Vol. III, p. 227. 5. Damage from Forest Fires. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 394. 6. Heredity and Pauperism. Warner, American Charities, 3rd ed., Chap. V. CHAPTER VII CONDITIONS OF POVERTY AND DEPENDENCY: MORE WORE important by far than the physical environment or hereditary influences are the socio-economic factors, some of which affect the income, others the expenditure, while still others are connected with the distribution of wealth and the relations between population and natural resources. FACTORS AFFECTING THE INCOME Unless there is a proper income so that a decent standard of living can be maintained, poverty is sure to ensue. Anything which affects the income of a family inevitably has a bearing upon the welfare of the family. The influences which affect the income may be classified as those connected with the individual himself, such as incapacity or disability, and those which are due to economic conditions resulting in too small an income for a normal life. I. Death or Disability of the Bread-earner not Directly Due to Industrial Conditions. The factors which make for death or disability are in part to be found in the home and neighborhood, and in part in the working establishment in which the bread-earner makes his living. In 1916 there were 386,000 deaths from all causes in the working ages, i. e., between 15 and 59 inclusive. Deaths by violence in the same year numbered 65,121 or 90.9 per 100,000 population.1 Says the Massachusetts Report on the Cost of Living, "At the lowest estimate, 600,000 die in the United States every year of diseases that could be prevented by public action. Upwards of 4,000,000 people in the United States are suffering from sickness, one half of which is unnecessary. The resulting waste, not including the misery and death cost, is moderately estimated at $3,000,000,000 each year. . . . Mortality Statistics, 1916, Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1918, pp. 55, 177. It is estimated that there are about 4 per cent of the population of Massachusetts on the sick list all the time, which is equivalent to 13 days per capita a year.” ́ Mr. Yale Smiley, on the basis of Irving Fisher's figures in his Report on National Vitality for the United States Conservation Commission, said that the loss to the state of Massachusetts from the preventable deaths which occurred in 1909 in that state amounted to $37,240,200.2 Mr. Smiley also estimated that in 1908 about 25,893 working people in that state were needlessly sick throughout the year. Estimating their average earnings at $525 each, the loss from serious illness during the year from earnings alone amounted to $13,593,825. On the basis of the estimate of the United States Commissioner of Labor in 1903 that the annual cost to the workingman for illness and death in the family is $27, Smiley estimates that since there were 600,000 such families in Massachusetts in 1908, the minimum loss from this source amounted to $16,200,000. These last two sums amount to $29,793,825. Since 50 per cent of it is preventable, the loss to the state which is needless amounts to nearly $15,000,000.3 Total loss from postponable deaths and preventable sickness in 1908 for Massachusetts he estimates at $52,137,112.50.* Professor Irving Fisher of Yale made an estimate of the loss to the people of the United States from death and disease. He says that there are a million and a half deaths in the United States each year, 42 per cent of which are preventable or postponable. He calculated that the average economic value of each person in the United States is $2,900 or, considering the age distribution and the per cent of preventability of these deaths, the average economic value of each preventable death is $1,700. On this basis he arrived at the conclusion that there is a preventable loss from death and sickness in the United States each year of one and a half billion dollars.5 In the State of Wisconsin alone, according to the statement of the State Board of Health to the author, the loss from postponable death and preventable disease is $30,068,100 annually. This is one-third of the value of all the animals in Wisconsin in 1910. What if some "Fisher, "Report on National Vitality." Report of National Conservation Commission, Senate Document 676, 60th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. III, p. 742. |