^SdSeasion"} SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT
INVESTIGATION OF CONCENTRATION
OF ECONOMIC POWER
TEMPOBARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE
A STUDY BASED ON DATA OBTAINED IN A FIELD
SURVEY OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS CON-
DUCTED IN GREATER BOSTON IN 1939 AS A WORK
PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION PROJECT SPONSORED BY
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND
MADE FOR THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, THIRD SES-
SION, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 113
(SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS) AUTHORIZING AND DI-
RECTING A SELECT COMMITTEE TO MAKE A FULL AND
COMPLETE STUDY AND INVESTIGATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC
POWER IN, AND FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER,
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF
GOODS AND SERVICES
MONOGRAPH No. 2
FAMILIES AND THEIR LIFE INSURANCE
A STUDY OF 2132 MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES
AND THEIR LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
Printed for the use of the
Temporary National Economic Committee
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHJNGTON : 1940
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
(Created pursuant to Public Res. 113, 75th Cong.)
JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Senator from Wyoming, Chairman
HATTON W. SUMNERS, Representative from Texas, Vice Chairman
WILLIAM H. KING, Senator from Utah
WALLACE H. WHITE, Je., Senator from Maine
CLYDE WILLIAMS, Representative from Missouri
B. CARROLL REECE, Representative from Tennessee
THURMAN W. ARNOLD, Assistant Attorney General
•WENDELL BERGE, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Representing
the Department of Justice
JEROME N. FRANK, Chairman
•SUMNER T. PIKE, Commissioner
Representing the Securities ana Exchange Commission
GARLAND S. FERGUSON, Commissioner
•EWIN L. DAVIS, Commissioner
Representing the Federal Trade Commission
ISADOR LUBIN, Commissioner of Labor Statistics
•A . FORD HINRICHS, Chief Economist, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Representing the Department
of Labor
JOSEPH J. O'CONNELL, Jr., Special Assistant tc the General Counsel
* CHARLES L. KADES, Special Assistant to the General Counsel, Representing the Department
of the Treasury
Representing the Department of Commerce
LEON HENDERSON, Economic Coordinator
DEWEY ANDERSON, Executive Secretary
THEODORE J. KREPS, Economic Adviser.
Monograph No. 2
FAMILIES AND THEIR LIFE INSURANCE
SUBMITTED BY
THE INSURANCE SECTION OF THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
'Alternates
II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This monograph was written by
DONALD H. DAVENPORT, Ph. D.
Special Economic Consultant, Insurance Section, Securities and
Exchange Commission
AND
GERHARD A. GESELL
Special Counsel, Insurance Section, Securities and Exchange Commission
From data obtained in W. P. A. Project No. 20123 under the supervision of
ANNE PAGE, Project Director
The Temporary National Economic Committee is greatly indebted
to these authors and other members of the Commission's staff for this
contribution to the life insurance study.
The status of the materials in this volume is precisely the same as that
of other carefully prepared testimony when given by individual witnesses;
it is information submitted for committee deliberation. No matter what
the official capacity of the witness or author may be, the publication of
his testimony, report, or monograph by the committee in no way signifies
nor implies assent to, or approval of, any of the facts, opinions, or recom-
mendations, nor acceptance thereof in whole or in part by the members of
the Temporary National Economic Committee, individually or collectively.
Sole and undivided responsibility for every statement in such testimony,
reports, or monographs rests entirely upon the respective authors.
(Signed) Joseph C. O'Mahoney,
Chairman, Temporary National Economic Committee.
m
FOREWORD
This report of the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission
is based upon data obtained in a field survey of life insurance policy-
holders conducted by the Commission in the summer of 1939 with the
cooperation of the Work Projects Administration. The report was
prepared by the Commission's Insurance Section under the general
supervision of Commissioner Sumner T. Pike and Gerhard A. Gesell,
special counsel. The conduct of the survey and the analysis of the
results were undertaken by Donald H. Davenport, special economic
consultant to the Commission's Insurance Section, and Anne Page,
project director. Other members of the Commission's staff who as-
sisted in the preparation of this report include: Leonard G. Leven-
son, Michael H. Cardozo, Myer H. Naigles, and Jack Dees.
Among those outside the Commission who contributed to the success
of the project, special mention must be made of Hon. Charles F. J.
Harrington, commissioner of insurance for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and Dean James M. Landis, of the Harvard Uni-
versity Law School. Commissioner Harrington permitted many
technical questions that arose in connection with the survey to be
referred to his office. Dean Landis provided classrooms for the
training of enumerators and office space for field headquarters.
Significant Facts Revealed by the Survey
Two thousand one hundred and thirty -two families and nine thousand fifty-three
persons were enumerated. One thousand six hundred and sixty-six families
carried insurance on the lives of 6,050 individuals, had an aggregate annual income
of $2,555,000, and spent $125,000, or 4.92 percent of it, for $4,069,000 of life
insurance (p. 7; appendix table 1).
Seventy-eight out of one hundred families and 66 out of 100 people were carry-
ing life insurance (p. 9; appendix table 1).
In families with insurance, 83 out of 100 men, women, and children were
insured (p. 11).
Ninety-two out of one hundred families now hold or formerly held life insur-
ance (p. 75).
Of those families now uninsured, 64 out of 100 previously had carried life
insurance (p. 53).
Thirty-three out of every one hundred families enumerated were on relief and
25 out of 100 insured families were on relief; 60 out of 100 relief families were
carrying insurance (pp. 8-9).
The amount of insurance carried on the average insured person was $683 (p. 14).
Eighty-eight out of one hundred insured families held some industrial insurance
and 42 out of 100 held only industrial insurance (p. 16).
Industrial insurance amounted to 49.6 percent of all insurance in force and
accounted for 64 percent of all premiums paid (p. 42) .
The lower the economic status of the family the greater was its dependence
upon industrial insurance (p. 20) .
The lower the economic status Of the family the greater the proportion of
family income paid for life insurance premiums (p. 46).
Nine and eight-tenths percent of the industrial policies had been in force less
than 1 year; 49.2 percent for less than 5 years. Industrial policies in force for
10 years or more accounted for 27.2 percent of the total (pp. 31-37).
In the families with industrial insurance exclusively, relatively fewer bread-
winners were insured than other members of the families (table 29, p. 146).
Forty-two and two-tenths percent of the premiums for industrial insurance
were paid for endowment policies (table 13, p. 126).
Fifty-five and eight-tenths percent of the industrial endowment policies were
issued on the lives of children under 10 years of age (table 13, p. 126).
Twenty-four and eight-tenths percent of all industrial endowment policies were
issued on the lives of infants less than 2 years old (table 13, p. 126).
VI
CONTENTS
Chapter
T. Introduction Page
Sponsorship of the report — relation to the Securities and Ex-
change Commission and the Temporary National Economic
Committee — importance of industrial insurance — selection of
Massachusetts for survey — field survey organized as Work
Projects Administration project — conduct of the survey 1
II. Description of the areas covered in the survey and the 2,132 families
reported
Housing conditions — population — nationalities — relief status —
size of families — economic status 5
III. Life insurance in force in the 2,132 families reported
Number of policies and amounts of insurance in force — classes
and combii itions of classes of insurance— life insurance com-
panies — insured families and policyholders — economic status,
age, and sex of policyholders — plans of policies in different
classes of insurance — plans in relation to ages of policy-
holders — policies and years in force 13
IV. Annual cost of life insurance to the 1,666 insured families
Premiums paid for various classes of insurance; for various plans
of insurance — relation of premiums to family income — relation
of premium cost to size of family and economic status 41
V. Miscellaneous problems
Complex nature of a typical family's insurance program —
number of policies per family — multiple company coverage —
lapsation — advantage taken of discounts for payment of
premiums at company office — frequency of premium payment —
use of savings institutions , 51
VI. Case studies: Insurance programs of selected families
Criteria for judging a family's insurance program — classes of'
insurance — plans of insurance — family members insured —
illustrations of various family insurance programs 57
VII. Summary and conclusions 75
Appendices 79
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix
1 . Reproduction of schedule employed in survey 79
2. Illustration of letter sent families to be enumerated 82
3. Copy of credentials carried by enumerators 83
4. Instructions to enumerators 84
5. Adjustments made on schedules 94
6. Illustration of premium receipt book i 97
7. Industrial life insurance in Massachusetts 99
8. Modes of termination — Industrial insurance 101
9. List of companies with life insurance policies in force in 1,666 insured
families 104
10. Statistical tables _ - 106
VII
VIII CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES APPEARING IN APPENDIX 10
Table Pag»
1. Insurance and income characteristics of population enumerated 106
2. Insurance ownership by families and persons classified as to relief
status 108
3. Family income levels in blocks surveyed 100
4. Size of families and insurance status 110
5. Economic status of enumerated families 110
6. Classes of insurance in force . 111
7. Plans of insurance in force 113
8. Ordinary and industrial insurance in force with indicated carriers.. 115
9. Monthly insurance 117
10. Classes of insurance owned classified according to economic status
of families 118
11. Insurance in force classified by sex and present age of insured — l 119
11- A. Policyholders with group and fraternal insurance classified accord-
ing to present age 121
12. Industrial and ordinary insurance classified by plan of insurance and
present age of insured 122
12-A. Savings bank life insurance classified by plan of insurance and
present age of insured — ► 124
13. Industrial and ordinary insurance classified by plan of insurance
and age at issue of insured 125
13-A. Savings bank life insurance classified by plan of insurance and age
at issue of insured 127
14. Insured families classified according to size and number of bread-
winners in each 128
15. Income and breadwinners in insured families 129
16. Age and dependency status of persons in families with insurance.-. 130
16-A. Age and dependency status of persons in families without insurance. 131
17. Insured members of 1,666 families classified according to amounts
of insurance on their respective lives 132
17-A. Insured members of 1,666 families classified according to amounts
of insurance on their respective lives — Percentages 134
18. Insured members of 701 families holding industrial insurance exclu-
sively classified according to amounts of insurance in force on
their respective lives 135
18-A. Insured members of 701 families holding industrial insurance
exclusively classified according to amounts of insurance in force
on their respective fives — Percentages =.- 136
19. Insured families classified according to size of family and percentage
of family income paid in premiums.- 137
20. Insured families classified according to number of dependents and
percentage of family income paid in premiums 138
21. Insured families classified according to percentage of family ncome
paid in premiums and economic status 139
22. Families with industrial insurance classified according to economic
status and percentage of industrial premiums paid on endowment
policies c . 139
23. Percentage of family premiums paid on chief breadwinner 140
24. Percentage of family income contributed by each breadwinner re-
lated to percentage of family premiums paid on each breadwinn 3r's
insurance -- 1^2
CONTENTS IX
Table Page
25. Percentage of family premium paid on breadwinner's insurance
related to economic status of family 142
26. Age, sex, and insurance of family members — 701 families 143
27. Percentage of family income paid for industrial premiums — 701
families .. ^ 144
28. Industrial premiums on breadwinners and on dependent children —
701 families 144
29. Insurance on breadwinners and others — 701 families 146
30. Percentage of industrial premiums paid for endowment insurance —
701 families.. ... 147
31. Insured families classified according to number of policies and
economic status 148
32. Industrial policies Li- rorce in families of different size 149
33. Families and insurance carriers.. 150
34. Families and industrial insurance carriers 151
35. Lapse and cash surrender experience of families enumerated 152
86. Preference as to frequency of premium payments 152
37. Percentage of premiums paid on persons living away from family __ 153
38. Insurance in force on which entire premiums were not currently
paid out of family income . . 153
39. Use of visiting nurse service 154
40. Use of savings institutions (other than fife insurance) compared
with use of life insurance 154
LIST OF CHARTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Plates I-IV. Typical housing conditions in blocks surveyed. 4-5, 74-75
Chart 1. Map of greater Boston, Mass., showing location of areas covered
in survey of life insurance policyholders 6
Chart 2. Relief status of insured and uninsured families 8
Chart 3. Insurance status of relief and nonrelief families 9
Chart 4. Classes of insurance in force 16
Chart 5. Duplication in use of industrial, ordinary, and other classes of
life insurance by 1,666 insured families 17
Chart 6. Proportion of insured relief and nonrelief families in different
income groups 19
Chart 7. Relative importance of different classes of insurance in families
with different incomes per member 21
Chart 8. Industrial and ordinary policies classified according to present
age of policyholder 23
Chart 9. Industrial and ordinary policies classified according to age of
policyholder at issue of policy 25
Chart 10. Proportion of policies held in industrial and ordinary insurance
according to sex of policyholder _. 26
Chart 11. Sex, present age, and insurance status of 3,027 persons living in
701 insured families with industrial insurance only 27
Chart 12. Life insurance in force by plans and classes 29
Chart 13. Ordinary and industrial insurance in force under different plans
and industrial insurance — relative importance of different policy
plans issued at different ages 32
Chart 14. Industrial endowments . — 33
Chart 15. Industrial policies — years in force 34
CONTENTS
Page
Chart 16. All insurance held by individuals.. 38
Chart 17. Industrial insurance held by individuals 40
Chart 18. 1,666 families classified according to the percentage of their
income paid as life insurance premiums 43
Chart 19. Relative cost of insurance as related to the number of depend-
ents in relief and nonrelief families 45
Chart 20. 701 families with industrial insurance only, classified according
to economic status and average percentage of income paid
for insurance premiums 47
Chart 21. Extent of duplication in coverage by the 3 largest industrial
life insurance companies among 1,356 families 52
Chart 22. Industrial life insurance in Massachusetts — annual number of
policies issued, terminated, and in force, 1928-37 100
Chart 23. Industrial insurance — relative importance of different modes of
terminations 1928-37 102
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Sponsorship of the Report — Relation to the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Temporary National
Economic Committee — Importance of Industrial Insur-
ance — Selection of Massachusetts for Survey — Field
Survey Organized as Work Projects Administration
Project — Conduct of the Survey.
This is one of a series of reports prepared by the Insurance Section
of the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its
investigation of life insurance for presentation to the Temporary
National Economic Committee. 1 It is based upon a field survey
conducted to determine certain facts about the families holding
industrial life insurance. 2
Industrial insurance is a form of life insurance sold in small units
primarily to low-income families by agents who collect premiums
monthly or weekly at the homes of the insured.
There are approximately 90,000,000 industrial policies in force in
this country held by about 50,000,000 people, a group considerably
larger than that holding all other forms of life insurance. As of
December 31, 1937, there was $20,591,000,000 of industrial insurance
in force in the 138 companies engaged in its sale. These companies
received from their 50,000,000 industrial policyholders premium pay-
ments amounting to approximately three-fourths of a billion dollars
during that year alone. 3
The testimony before the committee disclosed that industrial in-
surance is frequently sold by high-pressure sales methods. Further-
more, though distributed primarily to low-income families it was
found to be the most expensive form of life insurance sold. As a result
of many factors, including selling pressure and high cost, it was
revealed that a large percentage of industrial insurance lapsed. It
further appeared that the high-pressure selling method frequently
resulted in u,n unwise distribution of industrial policies on the various
members of a family group.
1 See Public Res. No. 113, 75th Cong., ch. 456, 3d sess. (S. J. Res. 300), being a joint resolution to create a
temporary national economic committee; and a message from the President of the United States transmitting
recommendations relative to the strengthening and enforcement of antitrust laws. 75th Cong., 3d sess.,
S. Doc. No. 173.
1 Protracted hearings were held on this subject before the Temporary National Economic Committee
during the period from August 23, 1939, to September 7, 1939. At this time detailed testimony was taken
from company executives, managers, agent?, and other persons familiar with the operations of the Industrial
life insurance business. Among other matters considered in the course of the hearings were the general pur-
poses and characteristics of this type of insurance; its cost, the methods and circumstances under which it
was sold; lapse; activities of insurance counselors; policy provisions; laws applicable to industrial insurance,
and related matters. See Part 12, "Hearings before the Temporary National Economic Committee, Con-
gress of the United States, 76th Cong., 3d sess., pursuant to Public Res. No. 113 (75th Cong.), authoriz-
ing and directing a select committee to make a full and complete study and investigation with respect to
the concentration of economic power in, and financial control over, production and distribution of goods
and services," (hereafter referred to as Part 12 or Pt. 12).
» See Pt. 12 R. 5597, 5598, and 6955; also Ex. Nos. 945, 948, 949, and 950.
1
2 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Instances of maldistribution were presented by several witnesses.
Evidence taken indicated that frequently an excessive amount of
industrial insurance was sold to a given family, that large percentages
of the family income were used for industrial premiums, and that
endowment and other expensive policy types received undue emphasis.
Testimony indicated that due to the complexity of the agency system,
the wide variations in policy forms, and the sale of industrial policies by
several different companies to the members of the same family, the
insurance holdings of many families were not adjusted to meet their
economic circumstances. Evidence presented on these subjects is not
entirely conclusive, it being difficult to determine to what extent the
cases brought to the committee's attention represented unusual situa-
tions rather than typical situations. The witnesses who testified had
in the main obtained their information through their association with
relief agencies or insurance-counselor services. The testimony was,
however, more than sufficient to raise certain questions of great
economic and social significance. Some of these may be briefly men-
tioned. It was important, for example, to know whether families
which hold industrial insurance also hold other kinds of life insurance.
If so, what kinds? To what extent is insurance carried on the bread-
winner in the family, and to what extent on the dependents? How
much insurance is sold on the lives of children? How much on the
lives of adults? What is the cost of carrying this insurance? What
percentage of the family income is paid for it? Does the economic
status of the family have any bearing on the kinds of insurance it holds?
In seeking more comprehensive information on these problems it
was found that there were no records which would enable the inquirer
to determine the percentage of family income spent on industrial
insurance, the types of policies held within a given family group, or the
manner in which such policies were distributed among members of the
family. This was due in part to the fact that insurance company
records were maintained by policy number rather than by family name
and to a considerable extent kept on file at various district offices
where the policies were sold. Furthermore, no company had informa-
tion as to policies held by its policyholders in other companies. It was
also recognized that the sale of industrial insurance did not preclude
the sale of ordinary, group, and fraternal insurance to the same family
and even to the same policyholders. As a result, therefore, it became
apparent that no information could be obtained concerning the ulti-
mate distribution of this form of insurance without going to the policy-
holders themselves. Obviously, such an undertaking presented many
complications. Any effort to communicate with 50,000,000 policy-
holders was impossible. It was, therefore, decided to make a survey
of a selected group of policyholders and to examine minutely policies
and premium receipt books in order to find out from original sources
the exact nature of the insurance holdings in particular families.
It was felt that a survey limited to a small group of policyholders
and made on a basis which assured the greatest possible accuracy under
the circumstances was desirable. Massachusetts was chosen as the
State in which to make this survey chiefly for the reason that it is a
State in which the regulation of life insurance is relatively stringent in
comparison with most other States. Its laws, particularly those
affecting industrial insurance, have been considered among the best.
Moreover, there were only four companies selling industrial insurance
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 3
in Massachusetts. These included the three largest companies selling
industrial insurance: The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., the
Prudential Insurance Co. of America, the John Hancock Mutual Life
Insurance Co., and one small company, the Boston Mutual Life
Insurance Co. It was presumed that by limiting the survey in this
manner it would be more conservative in character and would be
simpler in presentation than one conducted, for example, in Maryland
where 27 companies, including many companies shown to have adopted
the most extreme forms of sales pressure, are authorized to sell indus-
trial insurance. As the survey was necessarily restricted in the
amount of time and money that could be devoted to it, the decision
was made to limit the families to be enumerated to those living in
industrial areas within Greater Boston; areas that could be reached
easily from the project's offices in Cambridge.
The field survey which produced the facts upon which this report
is based was organized as Project No. 20123 of the Work Projects
Administration. Actual field enumeration was conducted during
August, September, and October of 1939. The enumerators and field
supervisors chosen to conduct the survey were selected from the
Massachusetts W. P. A. rolls and were in most cases men who had
had previous experience as life-insurance agents. Thus they were
familiar with many of the technical details involved and were experi-
enced in house-to-house canvassing. Enumeration was further facili-
tated by the selection of personnel qualified to speak the languages
of the policyholders with whom they came in contact. This not only
facilitated enumeration but made for greater accuracy in the final
results. Foreign languages spoken by the enumerators included
Spanish, French, German, Russian, Polish, Lithuanian, Yiddish,
Italian, Portuguese, Arabic, and Syrian.
The enumerators were carefully instructed 4 as to the objectives of
the survey. Each was sworn to treat as confidential the information
revealed to him by the families: Each was provided with an identi-
fication card carrying his photograph and certifying him as an accred-
ited agent of the United States Government. 6 In addition to direction
in the proper filling out of the schedules, it was impressed upon all
those engaged in the survey that they were not to criticize any insur-
ance company or plan of insurance; that they were, to give no advice
regarding insurance, and that they could not force anyone to give the
information desired.
Most of the families upon which -enumerators were instructed to call
were notified by letter 6 of the fact that a properly accredited agent of
the United States Government would call upon them to obtain certain
information. The use of such letters tended to weaken the natural
reticence of individuals with respect to family affairs and reduced the
number of refusals. In general, the information sought was readily
given.
The information obtained from each farnily was entered by the
enumerator at the time of the enumeration on a prepared schedule. 7
The schedules were checked in the office of the survey for internal
consistency, and where any question of accuracy or interpretation
arose .the enumerator or the field supervisor was sent back to the
r
*Seep. 84. <
» Sec p. 83.
• An example of these letters is reproduced as appendix 2, p. 82.
' A copy of the schedule is reproduced as appendix 1, p. 79.
4 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
family to verify the data. After all schedules were completed in the
field they received careful scrutiny by members of the Commission's
staff. Official rate books, annual dividend schedules, and specimen
policy forms were employed to verify the policy information entered
on the schedules. In addition, adjustments 8 were made to show the
actual amount of insurance in force as well as the actual cost of premi-
ums on an annual basis after making allowance for dividends. It
should be emphasized that the results summarized in this report are
all based upon these adjusted figures for premiums and the adjusted
amounts of insurance in force. In this respect it is believed that this
study is unique.
It is not claimed that the conditions in the areas surveyed are
necessarily typical; indeed, there are many reasons to believe that
they may be somewhat better than those existing elsewhere. Never-
theless, it is felt that the conditions described in this study apply to a
very large proportion of the population. It is hoped that this study
will throw some light upon a complex problem of great social impor-
tance — the character of the present distribution of life insurance —
particularly among those low-income families primarily dependent
upon industrial insurance.
• See appendix 6, p. 94.
Plate 1
Typical Housing Conditions in blocks surveyed.
Plate 2
Typical Housing conditions in Blocks Surveyed.
CHAPTER II
Description of the Areas Covered in the Survey and the 2,132
Families Reported
Housing Conditions — Population — Nationalities — Relief
Status — Size of Families — Economic Status
Metropolitan Boston (chart 1, p. 6) is not unlike a great many other
American industrial communities. Its population is cosmopolitan.
Industries and occupations are widely diversified. The economic
status of metropolitan Boston families is much the same as in other
urban centers.
Since the primary purpose of the survey was to study the holders
of industrial insurance, and since industrial insurance is sold almost
entirely to families in the lower-income groups, no attempt was made
to include areas occupied by families in the higher income groups.
Nevertheless, the areas selected varied over a wide range of conditions.
At one extreme were blocks consisting of tidy well-built single or
double houses, with plenty of light and air, and with attractive
flower or vegetable gardens. At the other extreme were congested
tenement blocks where there was little air and sunshine and where
the views consisted of littered alleys and areaways. 1
Between these extremes of living conditions was the group on which
the survey was concentrated. O* the 35 separate groups of families
selected for enumeration, there were some at each end of the scale,
but the majority consisted of areas in which the housing conditions
were intermediate. Each of the groups selected, except 2, consisted
of families living in city blocks, within definite street boundaries,
where the housing conditions were fairly homogeneous. All families
in these "blocks" were considered as within the scope of the survey.
Of the 2 other groups one was composed of Negro families which
were enumerated where they were found in different sections of the
city, and 1 was composed of families residing in a low-rent housing
project of the United States Housing Authority. Since it would
have been impracticable to cover all of the families living there,
approximately one-fifth of these families were called upon.
Population. There were 3,548 families in the blocks selected. 2
Full and complete schedules were obtained from 2,132 of these fami-
lies, or almost two-thirds of the families living in the areas selected.
The remaining third of the families were away, sick, quarantined, or
unwilling or unable to give complete information. In some cases
they were unable to show their policies because they were kept for
them by persons living elsewhere; in other cases their policies were in
the custody of their insurance companies. There were some instances
where families refused to give the information requested. 3
1 Illustrations of typical housing conditions in blocks surveyed appear in pp. 4-5, 74-75.
2 The count was made from the most recent city directories, police lists, and voting lists.
3 In this connection it might be noted that there were a number of families which gave information about
their income and relief status but which, on advice from their insurance agents, refused to give information
about their policies.
6
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Chart 1
LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED IN SURVEY
OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Blocks surveyed: Principal characteristics of population
Block
desig-
nation
Race or mother tongue '
American, Irish —
Irish, American -
Irish, Italian..
Irish, American
Negro -.-
Portuguese, American, Polish, Italian
Italian, Polish
Irish, American, Italian, Syrian—
Irish, Syrian, Italian
Italian, Syrian, Greek, South European....
Syrian — ._.
Italian . —
do
Italian, American, French-Canadian. r
Irish, American
Irish, American, English, Canadian
Jewish
Irish, American, French
American, Irish
American, Italian
Irish, American, Italian
...do
Irish, American, French-Canadian
Irish, Italian, American
Irish
American^ Irish, Italian, French-Canadian
Irish, American, French -Canadian
Irish , American
Irish, American, Italian.
Irish, American, German
Italian, Irish
Irish, American, Lithuanian
American, German ..
American, French-Canadian
Irish, American
Total....
Total
number
of fami-
lies »
115
72
76
80
70
63
49
156
145
42
52
220
108
95
89
160
120
70
95
143
83
117
143
136
89
76
119
58
91
88
142
71
46
149
<120
Families reporting complete information
Number
3,548
44
34
28
30
54
50
26
106
94
30
31
148
70
46
54
97
67
44
69
103
50
93
80
75
44
49
41
42
56
52
95
36
22
57
115
2,132
Number
of family
mem-
bers »
148
109
118
129
225
231
93
366
327
108
123
773
305
169
252
330
269
196
266
446
253
367
348
336
178
172
164
190
237
228
443
147
89
236
423
»8,794
Annual
income
$70,356
45,388
53,297
58,356
56, 798
63, 874
25,984
121, 773
120,543
32,968
29,529
174, 695
86,361
68,820
58,759
95,765
106, 309
55,194
124, 741
149, 777
93,499
132, 015
132, 808
109, 503
75,203
94,077
64,474
69,723
100,900
82,448
125,040
51, 297
31,046
96,531
155, 572
3,013,423
Average
annual
income
per fam-
ily mem-
ber
$475
416
452
452
262
277
279»
333
369
305
240
226
283
407
23J
290
395
282
469
336
370
360
382
326
42?
547"
393
367
426
362
282
349
349
409
368
343
1 Families were classified as to the race or mother tongue of the head of the family.
' From city directories, police lists, and voting lists.
» In addition, there were 259 persons living away from family for whom insurance premiums were paid
out of family income.
* Represents the number of families on whom enumerators called.
The 2,132 families whpse schedules were complete had 8,794
persons living at home. In addition, these families paid insurance
premiums on 259 other persons who were living away from the family
and who for the most part were contributing nothing to the family
income. Most of these' persons were sons or daughters who recently
had married or had found jobs at a distance too great to permit
them to live with their families. A few, however, were friends for
whom the family felt responsibility in regard to burial expenses.
250783 — 40 — No. 2 2
8
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Relief status of insured and uninsured families. A preliminary
examination of family schedules led to the recognition that families
"on relief" constitute a group quite different from those not on relief.
The relief families, as might be expected, were concentrated in the
lowest income groups. Their insurance characteristics followed
generally a different pattern from that of the nonrelief .families.
There were several reasons for this. One was, of course, the difference
in incomes. Another was the common belief among the low-income
families, as reported by the enumerators, that families applying for
relief would be obliged to divest themselves of all insurance. 4 Over-
seers of the public welfare in the city of Boston, and officials of the
Chart 2
relief status of insured and uninsured families
1500
2132
fAMILIES
■REPORTED
1666
INSURED
FAMILIES
U66
UNINSURED
FAMILIES
rl85 NON-RELIEF PA. (40*)
p261 BELIEF PA. (60*)
StUrct: Tables 1 and a
DS-IU7U Frafartd by 5«c. 4 Sxcti. Com
city department in charge of welfare, confirmed the reports of the
enumerators that this belief was widespread, and undoubtedly had
had its effect on the insurance holdings of welfare clients. It could
not be ascertained that there had ever been a declared policy of the
board of overseers providing that welfare recipients should give up
all their insurance holdings. It was stated officially, however, that
it was possible that individual social workers, before the creation of
the insurance division of the board of overseers, might have recom-
mended the discontinuance of premium payments. Whatever the
reason for the origin of the belief that welfare recipients could not
hold insurance, that belief may have some bearing on the fact that
40 percent of the 696 relief families reported in the survey had no
insurance, whereas only 13 percent of the 1,436 nonrelief families
* When the- lerm "Insurance" is employed in this report it refers to life insurance. Although the sched-
ules (see Appendix 1, p. 79) contained spaces for the entry of sickness, accident, health, and hospitalization
insurance policies, few of these were found and they were not included In the analysis.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
9
carried no insurance. Furthermore, it might be noted that of the
uninsured relief families reporting previous insurance holding, some
69.4 percent reported that, although uninsured at the time of the
survey, they had carried insurance in the past. 8
. Among the relief families which were carrying insurance when the
survey was made, there were many which had a program of insurance
entirely different from those compionly found among the nonrelief
families. This may have been due to the advice of the Life Insurance
Adjustment Bureau, an organization established in 1931 by the three
major companies issuing industrial life insurance — the Metropolitan,
the Prudential, and the John Hancock. Its services have been avail-
able to families which applied to the proper authorities for welfare.
Chart 3
insurance status of relief and non-relief families
NVMBIR OF FAMILIES
1000
2132
FAMILIES
REPORTED
696
RELIEF
FAMILIES
Tables l and 3
DS-IU75 Prepare* by Sec. i gxct. Com*.
Through the Insurance Division of the Overseers of the Public Welfare,
many of the families receiving welfare from the city of Boston have
had their insurance holdings materially changed by the Life Insurance
Adjustment Bureau. In metropolitan Boston, outside of the city itself,
there are no divisions of the municipal public welfare organizations like
the insurance division in Boston. Welfare recipients outside the city
are advised by social workers, and the insurance holdings in these
families conform more closely to the holdings of nonrelief families.
One-third of the 2,132 families covered in the survey were totally or
partially supported by some form of relief . Among the 466 families in
the uninsured group 60 percent were on relief. The 1,666 insured fam-
ilies showed quite a different picture, since only one in four of these
families was receiving relief.
« This subject is dealt with more fully in chap. V, p. 51 and table 35, p. 152.
10
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Size of families. Only those persons who were living with their
families or who were only temporarily away from home were counted
as members of a family. As may be seen in the accompanying figures,
a wide range exists in the size of families. The variation extended all
the way from 120 single-member families to 41 families which con-
sisted of 10 or more persons. The largest of these families contained
16 bona fide members. The typical families were those with three
or four members. There were 453 three-member families and 448
four-member families. Together, families of three or four persons
accounted for 42 percent of the entire number of families covered in
the survey.
The bearing which size of family has on insurance status is revealed
below in the figures which show for families of each size the number
and percentage which were insured :
Insurance status as related to size
of family
Family size, members
Number of families
Insured
families as
Total
Insured
a percent
of total in
each size
class
41
36
66
133
186
294
28
29
44
108
149
226
68
9
81
8.., --
67
7
81
6
80
5
77
4 -
448
382
85
3 _.__
463
355
120
387
256
57
85
2 -
72
1
48
Total
2,132
1,666
78
Source: Table 4, p. 110.
From the foregoing figures it appears that single persons living alone
(here designated as one-member "families") exhibit the least tendency
to carry insurance as only 48 percent of 120 such "families" were
insured. Of the two-member families, 72 percent were insured and
85 percent of both the three- and four-member families were insured.
Up to families of this size the increase in the number of family members
was accompanied by an increase in the proportion of insured families.
For families larger than four members, however, the proportion
declined. It is not until families are segregated into relief and non-
relief families that the explanation is found. In the nonrelief families
of the larger sizes, the proportion of families insured is consistently
around 90 percent. There is, however, in connection with the larger
relief families, a marked tendency for the proportion of insured fami-
lies to decrease with an increase in the size of the family. For the
entire group of families 87 percent of those not on relief were insured,
compared with 60 percent for those on relief.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Size, relief, and insurance status of families
11
Size: Number of family
members
Number of nonrelief families
Number of relief families
Percent-
age of
families
on relief
Total
Insured
Percent
insured
Total
Insured
Percent
insured
43
110
304
673
306
40
101
271
608
231
93.0
91.8
89.1
90.3
75.5
34
89
176
228
169
17
51
104
161
82
50.0
57.3
59.1
70.6
48.5
44 2
7 and 8
44 7
5 and 6
36 7
3 and4_.
25 3
1 and 2
35 6
Total
1,436
1,251
87.1
696
415
59.6
32 6
Source: Table 4, p. 110.
Moreover, except for the one-member families (of which 52 percent,
were on relief) larger percentages of the families with over four mem-
bers were on relief than in the case of smaller families. The three-
and four-member families predominate and it is these families, that
show the smallest percentages (25 percent) on relief. The highest
percentages in any size group on relief occurs in the families of 10 or
more members where 22 out of 41 families (54 percent) were found on
relief. The contrast in insurance status between the large relief and
nonrelief families is striking. Whereas 92 percent of the nonrelief
families of 7 and more persons were insured, there were only 55 percent
of the relief families in this size group insured.
Individual members of insured families--— Percentage insured as
related to size of family. An inquiry was also made to determine the
nature of the relationship between size of family and the proportion of
the family members insured. In the 1,666 insured families there were
6,959 family members, of whom 5,791, or 83.22 percent, were insured.
Classifying the families separately according to size, the results
shown below were obtained.
Size of families
Number of
families
Total num-
ber of
members
Number of
insured
members
Percent
insured
28
29
44
108
149
226
382
387
256
57
308
261
352
756
894
1,130
1,528
1,161
512
57
202
215
295
636
762
961
1,256
968
439
57
65.58
9
82.38
8
83.81
7
84.13
6
85.23
5
85.04
4
82.20
3_
83.38
2 ...
85.74
1
100.00
Total
' 1,666
6,959
5,791
83.22
Note. — It will be observed that 100 percent of the 1-member families were insured. This result follows
from the fact that the above figures relate to insured families only. Consequently, every one of the 57
.persons in the 1-member families was insured.
J2 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
The figures showing the proportion of the total number of family-
members insured in families consisting of from 2 to 9 persons, inclusive,,
average approximately 84 percent and vary within narrow limits. It
appears, therefore, that except for the 1 -member families and the
families with 10 or more members the same tendency to insure
family members exists in all families regardless of size.
Economic status of families. In this study the annual income of
each family was determined. The annual income included not only
the earnings of the family members, but the value of commodities
received from charities, net profits from any real-estate or other
business operations. 6 The aggregate annual income for the 2,132
families was $3,013,423. The families showed a wide variation in their
incomes, ranging from families which had no income and were living
entirely on savings, to three families with five or more breadwinners
each of which had annual incomes of over $6,000. (See table 15,
p. 129.) The average family income, however, was $1,413. 7 A
comparison of the incomes of the families covered in this survey with
incomes as found in other Government studies indicates that they were
typical of those of the great bulk of urban working class families in the
United States. 8
There are distinct disadvantages in using the total family income as
a measure of the economic status of a family, particularly in a study
of family problems in relation to life insurance. Possible expenditures
for life-insurance premiums, or in fact any other need of the family,
would be entirely different in a family consisting of two persons
with an income of $1,400 a year and another family of five persons with
the same income. In one case there is an average annual income per
family member of $700, and in the other of only $280. It is obvious
that these two families do not belong in the same economic category.
Because of this fact the measure of family economic status in this
report has been based on the average annual income per family
member. This average annual income per family member for all
families covered in the survey was $343 . That economic status affected
insurance status is evident from the fact that the average annual
income per family member was larger in the families with insurance
than it was in the families without insurance. In the insured families
the average was $367 and in the uninsured families $250. (See table
3, p. 109.)
In the preceding pages families were considered as insured if any
insurance was carried on any member, regardless of the amount. In
the following chapter consideration will be given to the quantitative
as well as to the qualitative aspects of families and their insurance
policies.
• See appendix 5, p. 94, for description of method followed in establishing income in dollars.
' See tables 3 and 5, pp. 109 and 110, for data on family incomes and incomes per family member.
• Compare: Consumer Incomes in the United States, National Resources Committee, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 1938; Family Expenditures in New York City, 1935-36, U. S. Depart-
ment of Labor, Bull. No. 6<«3: Family Income in Chicago, 1935-36, U. S. Department of Labor, Bull. No. 642.
CHAPTER III
Life Insurance in Force in the 2,132 Families Reported
Number of Policies and Amounts of Insurance in Force —
Classes and Combinations of Classes of Insurance — Life
Insurance Companies — Insured Families and Policy-
holders — Economic Status, Age and Sex of Policy-
holders — Plans of Policies in Different Classes of In-
surance — Plans in Relation to Nationalities and Ages of
Policyholders — Policies and Years in Force.
The number of policies and amounts of insurance in force. Most of
the families interviewed either had life insurance in force at the time
of enumeration, or had been insured at some time in the past. Many
of them showed the enumerators policies which were no longer in
force, or policies on which they had ceased paying premiums but which
were in force as extended or paid-up insurance. Often the persons
interviewed had no idea whether the policies were in force or not.
Frequently they did not know how many policies they had or on how
many they were paying premiums. It was, therefore, necessary for
the enumerators to examine all policies held by the family and to
check them against the premium receipt books. 1
It was found that there were 10,150 life-insurance policies actually
in force among the 2,132 families enumerated. This is an average of
4.8 policies per family for all families surveyed whether insured or not.
The average number of policies for the 1,666 insured families alone
was 6.1 policies per family. The total amount of insurance in force 2
was $4,069,385. The average amount of insurance per policy, there-
fore, was $401. (See table 6, p. 111.)
Although the insured families carried insurance on only 83 percent
of their members, they were paying the premiums on life-insurance
policies of 259 individuals who did not live with their respective fam-
ilies. 3 In the study these 259 individuals "living away from their
families" have not been considered as members of the family. These
259 persons added to the 5,791 family members who were insured
makes a total of 6,050 insured individuals. In order to establish an
average number of policies and an average amount of insurance per
insured person living with their respective families for whom the data
are presumably complete, 4 the calculations were based upon the 5,791
such insured persons. These 5,791 insured persons had 9,782 policies
i A premium receipt book obtained from one of the families is reproduced In the appendix by permission
of the poli cyholder. An examination of it will help understand the confusion frequently found with respect
to policies, premiums, and dividends.
> The amount of insurance in force is defined as the amount that would have been paid by the issuing com-
pany to the beneficiary u nder the particular policy had death taken place on the date of enumeration. This
amount may be less or more than the amount stated in the policy, depending on the age of the insured, the
age of the policy and the mortuary or other divdend rates established by the issuing company. See ap-
pendix 5 for a description of the method used in determining the amount of death benefits.
* See also table 37, p. 153.
4 It is quite likely that the 259 other persons had insurance in addition to that represented by the policies
held and paid for by their families, but, of course, it was impossible to determine such information in this
survey.
13
14
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
tor a total amount of $3,954,319 insurance in force. Therefore, the
averages are 1.69 policies and $683 insurance per insured person.
Data in connection with insured
persons
Number of
persons
Number of
policies
Policies
per person
Amount of
insurance
Insurance
per person
5,791
259
9,782
368
1.69
1.42
$3, 954, 319
115,066
$683
444
Total.
6,050
10,150
1.68
4,069,385
673
Classes of insurance. 5 Four main classes of life insurance are
recognized in this study: (a) Industrial, (6) ordinary, (c) group, and
(d) fraternal. Wide differences exist in the methods employed in
distributing these different classes of insurance, in the plans upon
which they are written, and in their costs to the policyholders. For
example, industrial insurance (to which particular attention was
directed in this study) and group insurance are customarily sold
without medical examination, whereas ordinary policies and fraternal
policies are usually issued only after a medical examination indicates
that the applicant is a satisfactory risk.
In the case of group insurance a group of persons, usually employees
of a single employer, are insured under a master policy which pro-
vides benefits for each employee who participates in the program.
This form of insurance is written on a yearly term basis, the master
policy being renewable by the employer each year. Ordinary and
industrial insurance, on the other hand, are issued on an individual
policy basis and are usually so arranged that the policy contract does
not need to be renewed annually.
The ordinary insurance policy is" customarily written in units for a
face amount of $1,000 or more and premiums are payable annually,
semiannually, or quarterly. The industrial ^policy, which is primarily
sold to persons in the lower-income brackets, is for smaller amounts
and weekly premiums are generally collected by house-to-house agents
who call at the homes of the policyholders. There is in addition an
intermediate class of insurance sold in units greater than $500 on which
premiums are collected monthly. Sometimes the issuing company
called this ordinary and- sometimes industrial. It was classified here
in conformity with the designation given by the issuing company in
each case.
Industrial insurance customarily includes as an integral part of the
contract the double-indemnity clause, a provision doubling the benefit
in case death occurs from accidental causes. It also includes a clause
waiving the payment of premiums in the case of total and permanent
disability to the insured. These provisions are also available in
ordinary insurance but usually only upon the payment of an extra
premium.
The selection of either industrial or ordinary policies by the insured
may be said to result more from the independent negotiation of the
individual and the agent than in the case of either group or fraternal
» See appendix 4, p. 84.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 15
policies. Both industrial and ordinary policies are sold in units of
different amounts, on a wide variety of plans and at different premium
rates so that the peculiar needs of the individual family may be met.
When group insurance is found in force, its presence cannot be
attributed to the free selection by the insured of that class of insurance.
Rather it exists because the employer of the insured exercised his initia-
tive to purchase insurance at "wholesale rates" for the benefit of his
employees. Inasmuch as employers often pay a part and sometimes
all of the premiums on group insurance there are strong reasons why
as much as possible of it is taken out by most of those to whom it is
available. It should be noted that the amount of group insurance of
any individual is usually the approximate amount of his annual wages.
Group insurance is written on the "term" plan only. Moreover, inas-
much as the group contract is between the employer and the life
insurance company, it is generally available to the insured only so long
as he remains in the service of his employer.
Fraternal associations, lodges and orders, such as the Knights of
Columbus, the Woodmen of the World, and the Odd Fellows, issue life
insurance very similar to the ordinary insurance but it is issued to
members only and premium payments are frequently included as part
of the membership dues. Insurance is also issued to members only
by such associations as the Boston Firemen's Mutual Benefit Associ-
ation. Whether originating as "fraternal" or "mutual benefit," all
insurance of this general type has been classified in this study as
fraternal insurance.
Savings bank life insurance, 6 although available in units as small as
$100, is not sold on the weekly premium plan. It has been classified
as ordinary insurance in this study but in many tables is shown
separately.
Classes of insurance — Policies. One measure of the importance
of the different classes of life insurance in the families surveyed is the
number of separate policy contracts. There were 10,150 policies in
force in the 1,666 insured families. (See table 7, p. 113.) They were
divided among the different classes of insurance as follows:
Industrial policies ' 8, 214
Ordinary 7 policies 1, 265
Group certificates 395
Fraternal policies 276
Total . 10, 150
In considering the roles played by the different classes of insurance,
it is interesting to note that average amounts of insurance in force
per policy vary as- follows:
Group $1, 151
Ordinary 8 1,110
Fraternal r _, 691
Industrial . 246
• See testimony of Hon. Judd Dewey, deputy commissioner of savings bank life insurance in Massachu-
setts, in the hearings before the Temporary, National Economic Committee, Part. 10, pp. 4449 et seq.
' This includes 129 policies issued by savings banks.
• If the 129 savings bank policies are treated separately, the average ordinary policy becomes $1,161. The
average savings bank policy represented $656 of insurance. (See table 8, p. 115.)
16
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Classes of insurance — Amounts in force. The relative importance
of the different classes of insurance may be judged by the amounts of
each in force appearing below.
Industrial $2, 020, 1 58
Ordinary • 1 , 404, 024
Group 454,597
Fraternal _' 190, 606
Total 4,069,385
These amounts are shown graphically in chart 4 on this page.
There is no question but that industrial insurance was the most
significant class of insurance found among the families surveyed,
Chart 4
CLASSES OF INSURANCE IN FORCE
AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS Of DOLLARS
INDUSTRIAL
ORDINARY
(Excluding Savin
Sank Life Insur
GROUP
FRATERNAL
SAVINGS BANK
LIFE INSURANCE
500
1000
1500
2000
:m
Source; Tables 7 and 12-A
S-!«8<> Freparua by S*c. I tick. Co*
since it accounted for almost as much insurance as all the other classes
combined. Compared with ordinary insurance, the next in import-
ance, industrial policies accounted for 44 percent more insurance than
is accounted for by the ordinary policies. The amount of industrial
insurance was over 4 times the amount of group insurance and 10
times the amount of fraternal insurance.
Glasses of insurance — Combinations. One important fact devel-
oped in the survey throws some light upon the source of the com-
plexity frequently found in family insurance programs. The different
classes of life insurance, referred to in the preceding section, were found
singly and in all manner of combinations in different families. This
situation is described in the figures that follow and is portrayed graph-
ically (chart 5) on the opposite page.
It will be noted that of the 1,666 insured families, 1,463 held indus-
trial insurance, and 701 held no other kinds of life insurance. 10
The amount of savings bank life insurance included in ordinary is $84,586.
10 In many of the subsequent analyses, this group of 701 families will be treated separately. Ct U "composed
of families that rely entirely upon industrial insurance for their financial, protection.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 17
Families
Industrial life insurance only 701
Industrial and ordinary only 370
Industrial and group and/or fraternal only 198
Industrial and ordinary, group and/or fraternal only 194
Subtotal.. . _ 1,463
Ordinary, only.... 104
Ordinary and group and/or fraternal only 1 36
Group and/or fraternal only, 63
Total . 1,666
Chart 5
DUPLICATION IN USE OF INDUSTRIAL, ORDINARY AND
OTHER CLASSES OF LIFE INSURANCE BY THE
I 666 I NSURED FAM I L I ES
«492 FAMILIES WITH OTHER INSURANCE'
(GROUP AND FRATERNAL)
Source: Table 6
DS-15C6 Prepared by Sec. i Sxch. Coma..
On the chart above it will be seen that the 1,463 families with indus-
trial insurance are represented by the largest square. The middle-size
square represents the 704 families, which had ordinary insurance in
force, and the smallest square represents the 492 families with "other"
18 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
kinds of insurance (i. e., group or fraternal). The 701 families with
only industrial insurance may be contrasted with the 104 families in
which ordinary insurance was the only insurance in force, and 63
families in which the only policies were group or fraternal. There
were 370 families holding the combination of industrial and ordinary;
198 families holding industrial and group or fraternal, and 194 families
holding a combination of all three classes.
Industrial insurance — Companies. The relative importance of the
companies underwriting the life insurance in force among the families
covered in the survey may be judged from the figures from table 8
summarized below. According to the number of policies in force it
is evident thac the responsibility for the industrial insurance in this
group rests on a very few companies. 11 All but 3 of the 8,214 industrial
policies in force had been sold by four companies.
Number of
industrial Percent
Company policies of total
Metropolitan 3,476 42.32
John Hancock 3,207 39.04
Prudential 1,049 12.77
Boston Mutual 479 5.83
Others 3 .04
Total 8,214 100.00
The Metropolitan dominates the picture with the largest number of
policies. The position of the Prudential in relation to the John
Hancock is out of line with its national or State positioc In the
country as a whole, John Hancock has only 22 percent as many indus-
trial policies in force as the Prudential. Even in Massachusetts John
Hancock has only 24 percent as many industrial policies as the Pru-
dential. Nevertheless, in the 35 blocks surveyed in Greater Boston
there were 3,207 John Hancock industrial policies in force and only
1,049 industrial policies of the Prudential.
Ordinary insurance — Companies. In Massachusetts the ordinary
life insurance business is carried on by 12 companies domiciled therein,
34 companies licensed to conduct business in the State but domiciled
in other States, and 26 mutual savings banks authorized to write life
insurance. In the families surveyed there were found to.be 1,265 ordi-
nary life-msurance policies in force. Of these, 991 had been issued
by the same four companies which dominated the sale of industrial
insurance. In addition, 129 policies had been issued by Massachu-
setts savings banks and 145 by all other life-insurance companies. 12 '
(See table 8, p. 115.)
Number of ordi- Percent
Company nary policies of total
Metropolitan 555 43.88
John Hancock 270 21.34
Savings Banks 129 10.20
Prudential 128 10.12
Boston Mutual .. 38 3.00
Others 145 .11.46
Total 1,265 100.00
" The case of families covered by two or more companies is discussed in Chapter V. See p. 51.
12 A list of the companies represented in the policies examined appears in Appendix 9, p. 104.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
19
Economic and insurance status of families. There is little question
that life insurance is regarded as a necessity by the great majority
of families covered in the survey. As shown in table 5 and on
chart 6, a large percentage of the families in the lowest income
classes, including those on relief, carry life-insurance policies. But,
as might be expected, smaller percentages of the families with the
extremely low incomes were insured. Among the nonrelief families
with "per family memb " incomes of less than $200 annually, 70 to
75 percent were insured.
20
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
At the other extreme of the income scale were the families with
"per family member" incomes of $600 and over. Many of the families
included in this income group were single-person families. There
were, of course, very few relief families with the higher incomes.
The highest "per family member" incomes in these relief families
were found where a great deal of sickness existed and the families
had received an unusual amount of relief. Of the 21 relief families
shown in the chart as having "per family member" incomes of $600
and over, 11 were single-person families.
If the single-person families are omitted from the determinations,
in both relief and nonrelief families the tendency is for a greater pro-
portion of families to be insured as the income increases, as indicated
in the table below. The chief difference between the ^onrelief and
relief groups lies in the fact that the proportion of insured families in
the relief group is consistently lower than it is in the nonrelief group.
Proportion of families insured and economic status for families of 2 or more members
Nonrelief families
Relief families
Total families
Economic status, average annual
income per family member
Num
ber
In-
sured
Per-
cent
in-
sured
Num-
ber
In-
sured
Per-
cent
in-
sured
Num-
ber
In-
sured
Per-
cent
in-
sured
249
159
216
307
266
120
17
275
142
195
274
231
91
12
93.5
89.3
90.3
89.3
86.8
75.8
70.6
10
25
41
75
222
246
14
9
21
30
46
146
132
5
90.0
84.0
73.2
61.3
65.8
53.7
35.7
304
184
257
382
488
366
31
284
162
225
320
377
223
17
93.4
$500 to $599
88.0
$400 to $499
87.5
$300 to $399
83.8
$200 to $299 -.
77.3
$100 to $199
60.9
Under $100
54.8
Total
1,379
1,220
88.5
633
389
61.5
2,012
1,609
80.0
Economic status of families and classes of insurance held. Insured
families were classified according to their economic status. There
were 628 families in which the average annual per family member in-
come was under $300; 732 families in which it ranged from $300 to
$600; and 306 families in which the average annual per family member
income exceeded $600. The total amounts and percentages of each
class of insurance were determined for each group separately. The
results are shown in chart 7 on the opposite page, and in the
accompanying table.
It is apparent from the data that there is a definite relationship
between economic status and the class of insurance held which may
be expressed thus: the greater the average annual per family member
income, the greater will be the relative importance of ordinary, group
and fraternal insurance; and the greater the average annual per
family member income, the smaller will be the importance of industrial
insurance. In other words it is the families in the lowest economic
levels that rely to the greatest extent upon industrial insurance.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
21
Chart 7
relative importance of different classes of insurance
in families with different incomes per member
PERCENT OP ANOONT OP INSVRANCE IN FORCE
25 50 75
1666 FAMILIES-
TOTAL INSURED
A. 628 LOWEST INCOME
FAMILIES
B. 732 MEDIUM INCOME
FAMILIES
C. 306 HIGHEST INCOME
FAMILIES
Source: Toilt 10
A. - Vndtr $300 B. - $3oo-$S99 C - $600 and over
DS-lUll trtptm by Ik. I txcA. Conm.
Amounts and classes of insurance in force in families classified by economic status
Number
of fam-
ilies
Classes of insurance
Average annual income per family
member
Amounts
Industrial
Ordinary
Group
Fraternal
Total
Under $300 1
628
732
306
$833. 088
885, 342
301, 728
$256, 533
Cj7, 599
449, 892
$118,283
214, 930
121, 384
$31, 823
101, 750
57, 033
$1, 239, 727
$300 to $599 _-
1, 899, 621
930, 037
Total •
1,666
2,020,158
1, 404, 024
'454, 597
190,606
4, 069. 385
Percentages based on amounts
Under $300 -
67.20
46.61
32.44
20.69
36.72
48.37
9.54
11.31
13.05
2.57
5.36
6.14
100.0
$300 to $699
100.0
100.0
Total.
49.64
34.50
11.17
4.69
loo.o
Source: Table 10, p. 118.
22 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
This condition can be partially explained by the nature of the differ-
ent classes of insurance. Industrial insurance is issued in small units
and is sold on a weekly premium plan for small unit payments. On
the other hand ordinary and fraternal insurance are available only in
larger amounts and do not offer the convenience of small weekly pay-
ments. Group insurance is usually available only to individuals who
are employed by certain large business enterprises. Individuals
employed by such companies are more likely to be in the skilled or
semiskilled occupations and to belong to the higher rather than the
lower income group of the families included in this survey.
Ages of policyholders and classes of insurance held. The various
classes of insurance were found to be quite differently distributed
according to the ages of their respective -policy holders. In both
group and fraternal insurance there are inherent factors which would
tend to limit the insurance to adults. Fraternal insurance, as has
been stated, occurs largely as an incident to membership in a social
organization. Group insurance is taken out by an employer on his
workers and consequently would be concentrated in the working ages.
As far as to principal industrial companies are concerned, the other
two classes of life insurance — ordinary and industrial — are generally
available to the same age groups hence the differences found in the
ages of ordinary and industrial policyholders must be explained on
other grounds.
Industrial and ordinary life insurance differ somewhat with respect
to the motives which actuate individuals in applying for life insurance.
Ordinary insurance, purchased by individuals in the higher income
"groups, is usually placed on the breadwinners to provide insurance
against the loss of the family's main source of income. Industrial
insurance, on the other hand, is purchased by families in the lower
income groups and is not concentrated on breadwinners. There is
little question that it is taken out for the primary purpose of providing
for the expense of the last sickness and the burial as it is typically
carried on practically all members of the family. These differences
in motive, induced largely by a difference in the economic status in the
families, help to explain the difference in the distribution of ages of
the policyholders in these two classes of insurance.
Present ages. The difference in the present ages of industrial and
ordinary policy holders is presented in chart 8 and the following table. 13
There is a marked concentration in the ages between 20 and 40 years
among the ordinary policy holders, whereas among the industrial policy-
holders the chief concentration is in the ages below 20 years. While less
than 1 percent of the ordinary policies in force were on children under 10
years old, over 20 percent of the industrial policies were on children
under 10, and one-quarter of all the industrial policies were on children
under 12 years. A further contrast is indicated by the fact that
whereas only a quarter of the ordinary policies were on persons under
18 In order to simplify the comparison between ordinary and industrial insurance, two kinds of policies
were eliminated from the ordinary policies. One was the "ordinary" policies for less than $1,000 on which
premiums were paid monthly. This is a hybrid class corresponding in pattern of distribution more to the
industrial than to the ordinary policy. The other kind of policy eliminated in this comparison was the
savings-bank life-insurance policy. This kind of insurance was established as a less expensive substitute
for industrial insurance. It is sold in small-size units similar to industrial insurance but the premiums are
not payable more frequently than once a month. The ordinary policies used in this analysis may, there-
fore, be considered as more typical of ordinary insurance than they would have been otherwise.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
23
Chart 8
INDUSTRIAL AND ORDINARY POLICIES CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO PRESENT AGE OF POLICYHOLDER
PERCENTAGES
OP POLICIES IN
EACH AGE GROUP
30
I M D USTRIAL POLICIES
20 30 40
AGE GROUPS
50 60
YEARS
PERCENT AGES
OP POLICIES IN
EACH AGE GROUP
30
ORDINARY POLICIES*
20 30 40
AGE GROUPS
* Based on ioao Ordinary Policies not including Savings Bank Life Insurance or "i'onthly" Ordinary
Insurance Policies for less than $iooo-
Source: Table la DS-luSa Frepared by Sec. i txch. Co**.
250783 — 40— No. 2-
24
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
25, a full half of the industrial policies were among persons of such
ages. 14
Industrial and ordinary policies classified according to age
of policyholder
Present Age
Age at Issue
Age
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Indus-
trial
Ordi-
nary '
Indus-
trial /
Ordi-
nary
Indus-
trial
Ordi-
nary '
Indus-
trial
Ordi-
nary
191
53ft.
317
795
J, 031
1,388
1, 757
1,699
' 9
42
114
180'
287
267.
113
8
2.3
6.5
9.9
9.7
12.6
16.9
21.4
20.7
0.9
4.1
11.2
17.7
28.1
26.1
11.1
.8
60 to 69 -
139
492
908
981
1,355
1,580
2,759
1
30
132
245
400
201
11
1.7
6.0
11.1
11.9
16.5
19.2
33.6
0.1
60 to 59
2.9
40 to 49 -
13.0
30 to 39
24.0
20 to 29
39.2
10 to 19
18.7
to 9
1.1
Total
8, 214
1,020
100.0
100.0
8,214
1,020
100.0
100.0
• Not including savings-bank life insurance or "monthly ordinary" policies for less than $1,000.
Tables 12, 12-A, 13, and 13-A, pp. 122-127.
Source:
Age at issue. The difference between these two classes of insur-
ance is even more striking in an analysis of the ages at which the
policies had been issued. 15 Sixty-three percent of the ordinary-
policies as compared with a little over 28 percent of the industrial
policies had been taken out by persons between 20 and 40. Only
one-fifth of the ordinary policies had been issued to persons less than
20 years of age, whereas over half of the industrial insurance policies
had been issued to this age group. While it is interesting to note
that the median age at issue of ordinary policies was 27 and of indus-
trial policies was 18, the most noticeable difference between the two
classes was among children and infants. Very few ordinary policies —
only 1 percent — had been issued on children under 10 years of age
whereas one-third of all industrial policies had been issued to such
children. This was by far the largest proportion issued on any age
group shown. The difference between the ages at which industrial
and ordinary insurance are issued is shown by the chart 9 appearing
on p. 25.
Sex and age of individuals holding industrial and ordinary policies.
Further evidence of the basic differences between industrial and
ordinary life insurance appears when the two classes of policies are
classified separately according to the sex of the policyholder. As
shown below for 8,2-14 industrial policies, 54 percent had been issued
on the lives of females and 46 percent on the lives of males. On the
14 See tables 11, 11-A, 12-A, and 13-A for distributions of group, fraternal, and savings-bank insurance
according to age of policyholders.
'• These ages are the ages as reported on the policies, and in a number of industrial policies were greater
than the actual ages because the aires had been "rated up" to compensate the insurance company for extra
hazards arising from the health "or occupation of the policyholder. The figures are, therefore, conservative.
It should also be noted that industrial policies are always issued as of the age the policyholder will be on his
next birthday whereas ordinary policies are issued as of the age of the policyholder on his nearest birthday.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
25
Chart 9
industrial and ordinary policies classified
ACCORDING TO AGE OF POLICYHOLDER AT ISSUE OF POLICY
PERCENT OP
TOTAL NUMBER
OP POLICIES
40
INDUSTRIAL POLICIES
PERCENT OP
TOTAL NUMBER
OP POLICIES
40
1C
20 30 40 50
AGE GROUPS - YEARS
' Based on 1020 Ordinary Policies, excluding Savings Bank Lije Insurance and "hontnly Ordinary" policies
Jor less than Sicco.
Source; Table 33 DS-luSd Frtparea cj Sec. I Sj.ch. Cen,
26 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
other hand, of 1,265 ordinary policies, 66 percent had been issued on
the lives of males and only 34 percent on the lives of females.
Industrial Ordinary "
Total number of policies 8,214 1,265
Number on males 3,813 835
Number on females 4,401 430
Percentage on males 46 66
Percentage on females 54 34
When age as well as sex is considered, the divergence is even more
noteworthy. 17 As age increases the males hold a consistently larger
proportion of ordinary life insurance than the females. 18 Industrial
insurance shows the opposite tendency. The proportion of industrial
insurance held by males becomes consistently smaller as age increases.
In the early age groups males hold a larger number of industrial poli-
cies than do females. It is only beyond the age of 25 that a larger
number is carried by females.
Chart 10
PROPORTION OF POLICIES HELD IN INDUSTRIAL & ORDINARY INSURANCE
According to Sex of Policyholder
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF POLICIES
100
82K INDUSTRIAL 129 SAVINGS BANK
POLICIES POLICIES
Source: Table 11
'Excluding 12Q Savings Bank Life Insurance Policies
I 136 ORDINARY
POLICIES*
DS-IU7*; Prepared by
Sec. i Sxch. Cvh*.
Sex and age of policyholders in the 701 families with industrial
insurance only. In order to observe the sex and age pattern of dis-
tribution of industrial insurance a special tabulation was made of the
individual members of the 701 families in which only industrial insur-
ance was found. In this analysis all family members were classified
as to age, sex, and insurance status. The results which appear in
table 26 provide the basis for chart 1 1 on the opposite page.
i« The 129 savings bank life insurance policies included were distributed as follows: 83 on males and
16 on females, i. e., 64 percent on males and 36 percent on females.
» See Table 11 in appendix 10. p. 119.
18 The same is true in savings-bank life insurance.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
27
There were 1,496 males, of whom 1,204, or 80 percent, were insured
for an average amount of $403. There were 1,531 females, of whom
1,259, or 82 percent, were insured for an average amount of $363.
Plans of insurance policies. Life insurance policies differ with
respect to the conditions under which the amount of insurance becomes
payable and with respect to the length of time premiums must be paid.
The four general types of plans l9 recognized in this analysis are as
Chart 11
SEX, PRESENT AGE AND INSURANCE STATUS OF
3027 PERSONS LIVING IN 701 INSURED FAMILIES
WITH INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ONLY
PRESENT
AGE
80
1496 MALES
70
to
7.0 -
Uninsured-) c-Insured
- 70
Insured-^ ^-Uninsured
400
1531 FEMALES
PRESENT
AGE
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
300 200 100
NUMBER OP MALES
100 200 300
NUMBER OP FEMALES
400
Source: Table 26
DS-1503 Prepared by Sec. i Bxch. Coma.
follows: (1) Whole life plan, (2) limited payment life plan, (3) endow-
ment plan, and the (4) term plan. Beginning with the last of these
the basic differences in the four types of contracts will be examined.
Term plan. Under this plan the amount of insurance is payable
only in. case death occurs within the period of term (usually 5 to 10
years) named in the policy. Premiums are payable during the same
term. Industrial insurance is not issued on the term plan by any of
•• See plans of insurance in appendix 5, p. 96.
28 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
the four companies doing business in Massachusetts. However, by
reason of the nonforfeiture rights in both ordinary and industrial
policies, insurance that has been in force long enough to acquire such
rights may be converted to the term plan. Under these conditions it is
known as extended term insurance.
Endowment plan. Under the endowment plan, as under the term
plan, the amount of insurance is payable only if death occurs within ■
the period named in the policy (usually 15, 20, or 25 years). Premiums
are payable during the same period. However, unlike the term plan,
the endowment plan contains an agreement on the part of the insuring
company to pay to the insured at the end of the period a sum of money
equal to the amount of insurance named in the policy. Thus this plan
combines the objective accomplished by term insurance with another
and quite different objective, namely, to acquire a stated sum of money
by the end of the term of years stipulated in the policy. Endowment
policies are issued not only for a stated number of years, but are also
written to mature at the time the policyholder reaches a certain age.
Thus endowments are frequently written to mature at age 65. When
an endowment policy is carried to the end of the period stipulated the
policy terminates by maturity and the amount stated is paid by the
company to the insured.
Limited payment life plan. Policies that provide for insurance
payable whenever death occurs, but on which premiums are payable
for only a limited period, are known as limited payment life policies.
For example, a 20-payment life policy is one under which the insurance
is payable only at death and premiums stop at the end of 20 years.
Such policies appeal to an individual who wishes protection for his
entire life but who does not wish to be burdened by premium payments
after the peak of his earning capacity has been passed. Inasmuch as
the insurance company must collect from him in a relatively short
period of time premiums enough to cover his whole life, the rates
charged for limited payment life policies are relatively higher than
those charged for whole life or term policies.
Whole life plan. Under the whole life plan a company contracts
to pay the amount of insurance whenever the death of the insured
occurs. The insured, on his part, contracts to maintain periodic
premium payments until he dies. 20 The premiums on this plan are
higher than those charged for term insurance but lower than those
charged for either endowments or limited payment life policies.
Plans of insurance — Amounts in each. As shown on the accompa-
nying chart 12 and table, the survey found less term insurance in force
than that on any other plan. Term policies accounted for $529,750
which was 13.02 percent of the total amount of insurance in force.
Group insurance is written exclusively on the term plan and accounted
for 85.22 percent of all the term insurance in force. Of the balance,
8.89 percent was industrial and 5.29 percent ordinary.
The amount of insurance written on the endowment plan accounted
for $799,171, or 19.64 percent of the total. This was divided between
two classes of insurance — industrial and ordinary — as no group or
fraternal endowment policies were found in the survey. It should
be observed that the industrial endowment insurance in force amounted
to over three times as much as the endowment insurance of the ordi-
nary class.
* For a more complete description of policies classified as on the whole life plan see p. 95.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
29
Life insurance on the limited payment life plan amounted to $842,098,
which was 20.69 percent of the total. This plan of policy was also
restricted to the ordinary and industrial class of insurance as no
limited-payment life group or fraternal policies were found in the
Chart 12
LIFE INSURANCE IN FORCE BY PLANS AND CLASSES
ANOUNTS OF LIFE INSURANCE IN FORCE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
5C0 1000 1500 2000
WHOLE LIFE
LIMITED
PAYMENT
ENDOWMENT
TERM
t i.-.».i • v. t .'.*. 1 . l . l A l A l A ' . , . , «. » ' . ' « * . ' « " l
T^TTiTrrmTjrrrrij
a.5!::::::i
II
r-ORDINARY
(-INDUSTRIAL
GROUP
:::«::/:::::::!
i
: RATERKAL
PERCENTAGES' - BASED ON ANOUNTS OF LIFE INSURANCE IN FORCE
Q 25 50 15 100
WHOLE LIFE
LIMITED
PAYMENT
ENDOWMENT
TERM
Source: Table 7
DS-luBO frefarea by Sec. t Sxch. Co*
survey. Almost 55 percent of the insurance on the limited-payment
life plan was ordinary, the balance industrial.
The whole life plan of insurance is the plan which predominates.
The amount of insurance in force on this plan was $1,898,366. This
30
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
was 46.65 percent of the entire amount of insurance in force and more
than twice as much as on the next largest (limited payment life) plan.
This plan of insurance contract was found in three classes of insurance :
industrial, ordinary, and fraternal. Of all insurance on the whole life
plan, the industrial whole life policies accounted for over half (51.72
percent), ordinary for 38.24 percent, and fraternal for 10.04 percent.
Insurance in force by plans and classes
AMOUNTS
Plans
Classes
Ordinary
Industrial
Group
Fraternal
Total
Whole-life ---
$725, 984
461,468
188,522
28,050
$981, 776
380, 630
610, 649
47, 103
$190, 606
$1, 898, 366
842,098
799, 171
Term . --
$454, 597
529,750
Total -
1,404,024
2, 020, 158
454, 597
190,606
4, 069, 385
PERCENTAGES
Whole life
51.71
32.87
13.42
2.00
48.60
18.84
30.23
2.33
100
46.65
20.69
19.64
100
13.02
Total -
100.00
100.00
100
100
100.00
PERCENTAGES
Whole life
38.24
54.80
23.59
5.29
51.72
45.20
76.41
8.89
10.04
100
100
100
85.82
100
Total
34.50
49.64
11.17
4.69
100
Source: Table 7, p. 113.
Because of the predominance of two classes of life insurance —
industi al and ordinary — in the families surveyed, special interest
attaches to the plans on which policies in these classes are issued.
The chart which appears oq p. 29 (chart 12) permits a comparison to
be made of the relative importance of the different plans in these
classes. It will be observed that the chief point of difference lies in
the two plans represented by the middle two columns in the diagrams.
In industrial insurance endowment policies are considerably more im-
portant than the limited-payment life policies, whereas just the oppo-
site is the case in ordinary insurance. Based on the respective
amounts of insurance in force, endowments account for 30.23 percent
of the total industrial and for only 13.42 percent of the total ordinary
insurance.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 31
Industrial insurance — Plan and age of policyholder. In order to
determine the extent to which age might be related to the plan of
industrial insurance a special tabulation was made of the 8,214 indus-
trial policies. These policies were cross-classified according to plan
and the age at issue of respective policyholders. The results are
presented in chart 13 on next page (see table 13, p. 125), which shows
that the industrial insurance written on the lives of young persons
was predominantly on the endowment plan. Of the policies originally
written when the insured were infants less than 2 years old, 68.98
percent were endowments. Of the policies written on lives from 2 to
10 years, 59.13 percent were endowments. As the ages increase the
percentage of endowments written decreases. In the 50- to 60-year
group less than 5 percent of the policies were endowments.
On the other hand, there is a direct relation between age and the
proportion of whole life policies. Of policies written on lives under
2 years, less than 22 percent were whole life policies. As the ages
increase this percentage also increases until in the 60- to 70-year
group whole life policies account for 93.53 percent of all policies. 21
Limited-payment life policies constitute 16.85 percent of all indus-
trial policies. In this plan, the number of policies issued to the
youngest or oldest age groups is relatively small. Limited-payment
policies increase in importance with age, reaching a maximum in the
20- to 30-year group where they account for 38.3 percent of the
policies.
Industrial endowments — Age at issue. The analysis of industrial
endowment policies by age at issue reveals the distribution portrayed
above. From this it is evident that the great importance of endow-
ments in industrial insurance is to a large extent accounted for by
their being sold on the lives of very young persons. Almost one-fourth
of them were issued to infants under 2 years of age and over half
(55.8 percent) were issued to children under 10 years. See chart 14
on p. 33.
Plans of insurance — Years in force. From the very nature of the
different plans upon which life-insurance policies are written it is to
be expected that there would be a wide variation in the number of
years the policies written on different plans would remain in force.
Whole life policies and limited-payment life policies are presumably
taken out with the intention that they will be maintained until the
death of the policyholder. Endowment policies, on the other hand,
terminate with their maturity. However, the premiums are highest
on the endowment policies and much lower on the whole-life policies.
In hard times, therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that endow-
ments might be dropped to a larger extent than in the case of whole
life policies. Also it is true that the loan and cash-surrender values
are greater in endowments and limited-payment policies than in whole-
life policies. The financial needs of policyholders in periods of unem-
ployment might be expected to result in the surrender of a larger pro-
»> In this connection it should be noted that insurance premiums on policies issued at older ages are higher
by reason of the fact that as age increases the probable length of continued life becomes shorter. Therefore,
as age increases the differences between the premiums charged for policies on different plans become less
significant. At age 65 the probability is very great that a man will die before he has reached 85, and that
the face amount of the policy will have to be paid. At age 65 the premiums for whole life, 20-payment life,
and 20-year endowment policies— all relatively high— are nearly the same. Therefore, the reasons for
purchasers in advanced ages to distinguish between these policies become less important.
32
PERCENTAGES
OP TOTALS
60
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Chart 13
ORDINARY AND INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
IN FORCE UNDER D I F FERE NT ' P LANS
Based on Amounts
PERCENTAGES
OF TOTALS
60
WHOLE LIMITED ENDOW- TERM
LIFE PAYMENT MENT
WHOLE LIMITED ENDOW- TERM
LIFE PAYMENT MENT
(48.60) (18.84) (30.23) (2.33) (61.71) (32.87) (13.42) (2.00)
INDUSTRIAL LIFE INSURANCE
IS-mei Source: Table y
ORDINARY LIFE INSURANCE
Prepared by Sec. t txch. Con.
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT POLICY PLANS ISSUED AT DIFFERENT AGES
AGE AT ISSUE 20 40 • 60 80 100
5 0-59
H • 19
3 0-39
2 0-29
0.-19
2 - 9
UNDER 2
Source: Table ig
PERCENTAGES OP POLICIES IN FORCE IN DIFFERENT PLANS
DS-1511 Prepared by Sec. I Ixch. Con.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 33
Chart 14
INDUSTRIAL ENDOWMENTS
CHART SH0WIH6 PERCENTAGES OF INDUSTRIAL ENDOWMENT POLICIES SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS
WHOSE AGE AT ISSUE WAS LESS THAN YEARS INDICATED ON SCALE AT BASE
PERCENT
portion of endowment and limited-payment life policies than whole life
policies.
Industrial policies on different plans and the number of years in
force. The accompanying table and chart 15 present the results of a
special analysis of 8,022 industrial policies according to plan of policy
and number of years each had been in force. It will be noticed that
most of these policies are very young policies. Those sold within the
12 months preceding the date of enumeration, 1938-39, composed
9.80 percent of the total. As 11.68 percent of the industrial policies
had been in force for 1 year (but less than 2 years) we may say that
21.48 percent had been in force for less than 2 years. Cumulating
upward it is possible to determine that proportion of the policies
which had been in force for less than any specified period of time.
Thus we find that 49.18 percent of all industrial policies had been in
force for less than 5 years. 22
" In this connection it may be indicated that generally industrial life-insurance policies do not acquire
nonforfeiture values that may be taken in cash (upon surrender) until premiums have been paid for at least
6 years.
34
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Chart 15
INDUSTRIAL POLICIES - YEARS IN FORCE
PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH PLAN IN FORCE
FOR INDICATED NUMBER OF YEARS
PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
OP POL ICIES OP POLICIES
10 i — raZ 1 10
WHOLE LIFE POLICIES
mmmfa.
imumium x*
20 25 30 35 40
YEARS IN FORCE
50
6 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
DS-IS08 Prepared by Sec. t FxeA. Coaa.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
35
Industrial policies classified according to plan of policy and number of years in force 1
[Numbers and percentages of policies]
Year of
issue
Number of policies
Number of years in force
Whole
life
Limited w „ ,„_
payment M 2 ^'
life ment
Total
50-59
1879-89
1889-99
1899-1909
1909-19
1919-21
1921-23
1923-25
1925-27
1927-29
1929-30
1930-31
1931-32
1932-33
1933-34
1934-35
1935-36
1936-37
1937-38
1938-39
16
66
128
275
86
97
137
159
238
122
116
141
170
218
250
292
334
346
319
16
40-49
2
l
68
30-39. .
5
134
:o-29 -. -
16 1 12
9 | 53
15 Oi
303
18-19
148
16-17
203
14-15
20
30
60
32
44
48
61
97
122
147
172
204
302
167
210
286
176
193
157
143
180
261
297
341
387
165
324
12-13
399
10-11.
584
9
330
8
353
7
346
6
374
5
495
4. _
639
3
2
847
1
937
Less than 1 year.
786
Total
3,516
1,384
3,122
8,022
1879-89
1889-99
1899-1909
1909-19
1919-21
1921-23
1923-25
1925-27
1927-29
1929-30
1930-31
1932-32
1932-33
1933-34
1934-35
1935-36
1936-37
1937-38
1938-39
Percentages
50-59
0.46
1.88
3.64
7.82
2.45
2.76
3.89
4.52
6.77
3.47
3.30
4.01
4.84
6.20
7.28
8.30
9.50
9.84
9.07
!
0.20
40-49
0.06
.03
.38
1.70
2.91
5.35
6.73
9.16
5.64
6.18
5.03
4.58
5.77
8.36
9.51
10.92
12.40
5.29
.85
30-39
20-29
0.36
1.16
.65
1.08
1.45
2.17
4.33
2.31
3.18
3.47
4.41
7.01
8.81
10.62
12.43
14.74
21.82
1.67
3.78
18-19
1.84
16-17
2.53
14-15
4.04
12-13 ■
4.97
10-11
7.28
9
4.11
8 _
4.41
4.31
6
4.66
5
4
6.17
7.97
3
9.17
2
10.56
1 .,
11.68
9.80
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1 Adjusted to equal full years.
It will be noted that the number and percentage of industrial
endowment policies issued within a year of the date of enumeration
were smaller than in the previous year. Just the opposite condition
is shown for policies issued on the limited-payment life plan. The
increase in limited-payment life policies was particularly noticeable
36 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
among the policies issued to children under 10 years. Only 11 of
these policies had been issued to this age group during the previous
year, whereas 98 of them had been issued during the year immediately
preceding the date of enumeration. A large part of the increase in
sale of limited-payment life policies and the decrease in sale of endow-
ment policies may be attributed to the decision made by the Metro-
politan, Prudential, and John Hancock Insurance Cos. not to sell any
industrial endowments during 1939. 23 This decision was made after
the passage of a New York law forbidding the sale of industrial
endowments within that State after December 31, 1938. The 3 major
companies did not issue any policies of this plan of insurance anywhere
in the country in 1939. The 165 industrial endowments found in the
survey and issued within a year prior to the date of enumeration may
be explained partly by the fact that this period included 5 months of
1938 before the New York law went into effect and partly by the fact
that the Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co. was not affected by the
New York law and continued to sell industrial endowments.
Breadwinners and their relation to the family's insurance. A
"breadwinner" is defined as a family member whose annual earnings
amounted to at least 50 percent as much as the average per family
member income in his family. Thus in a family of five, in which the
total income is $2,000, a son or a daughter who earns as much as $200
is classified as a breadwinner. The chief breadwinner is defined as
that individual in the family who earns the largest part of the total
family income. Thus in a lamily where both father and son are
gainfully employed, if the son's earnings exceeded that of the father,
the son would be classified as the chief breadwinner.
It was believed that breadwinners, and particularly chief bread-
winners, were of special interest in this survey because upon them
rests such a heavy responsibility for the maintenance of the family.
The death of the chief breadwinner threatens greater havoc to the
family than the death of any other member. Families which place
most of their insurance on members other than the breadwinner place
themselves in a vulnerable position. The death of the breadwinner
not only imposes heavy expenses but also removes the source of
family income from which all premium payments have to be met.
Lapses of all policies are likely to follow the death of a breadwinner
unless he is insured for a sufficient amount to cover all expenses includ-
ing premium payments for insurance on the others until the family
can become readjusted. Wisdom in planning an insurance program
should dictate that the bulk of a family's life insurance should be on
the individual or individuals who contribute the most toward the
family's support and whose death would cause the greatest financial
loss.
The analysis of the industrial policies by number of years in force,
summarized below, shows that 49.18 percent had been in force for less
than 5 years; 23.66 percent for periods between 5 and 10 years; and
27.16 percent for 10 years or longer. It should be noted that 192
extended-term industrial policies were not included in this analysis.
« Pt. 12. R. 5781.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Summary of 8,022 industrial policies — Plans and years in force
37
Number of policies
Years in force
Whole
life
Limited
payment
Endow-
ment
Total
1,547
767
1.202
947
282
155
1,451
849
822
3,945
1,898
2,179
5 to 10 -
Over 10
Total
3,516
1,384
3,122
8 022
Percentages
Under 5
44.00
21.81
34.19
68.42
20.38
11.20
46.48
27.19
26.33
49 18
6 to 10
23 66
Over 10
27 16
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100 00
Families vary with respect to the number of breadwinners. Among
the, 1,251 nonrelief insured families there were 3 families with none
and 12 with 5 or more breadwinners- each. The typical family, how-
ever, is a 1 -breadwinner family. Families with only 1 breadwinner
account for 69 percent of the nonrelief families and 64 percent of the
relief families. As might be expected, there were many more no-
breadwinner families on relief than in the nonrelief group. As many
as 66 of the nonrelief insured families had no breadwinners. (See
tables 14 and 15, pp. 128-129.)
An analysis of family income in relief and nonrelief families accord-
ing to the number of breadwinners in the family shows that the non-
relief families have incomes that reach as high as $6,000, while in
relief families the range is only to $4,000. There are definite positive
relationships between number of breadwinners per family and both
total family income and the average income per family member.
Insurance status of breadwinners and others* 24 In order to ascer-
tain the facts with respect to the proportion of breadwinners and others
that were insured and uninsured, the members of the 1,666 insured
families were classified as shown in table 16. This table shows that
11.58 percent of the chief breadwinners and 20.21 percent of the
"other breadwinners" were not insured. On the other hand there
were 17.93 percent of the dependents that were not insured. One
significant. difference between the relief and nonrelief families appears
in the percentages of chief breadwinners without insurance. In the
nonrelief group only 1 out of 11 chief breadwinners was uninsured,
while in the relief group 2 out of 10 chief breadwinners were not
insured. Breadwinners other than the chief breadwinners were
insured to approximately the same proportion in both groups but
a smaller percentage of dependents were insured in the relief group
than in the nonrelief group.
Total amount of all insurance held by each individual surveyed.
There were 8,794 men, women, and children reported as members of
the 2,132 families enumerated in the survey. Life insurance of all
kinds to the amount of $3,954,319 was found in force on the lives of
5,791 individual family members. There were 3,003 uninsured family
,( Other aspects oi Insurance on breadwinners are presented on pp. 39 and 48.
38
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
members. Thus 66 percent of all men, women, and children in these
families carried some insurance and the over-all average amount of
insurance was $683 per insured person.
Although this average is highly interesting it must be pointed out
that it has the disadvantage of all summary measures in that it fails
to reveal the wide variations that exist in the amounts of insurance
carried by 5,791 insured individuals. In order to examine the pat-
terns that exist in the distribution of amounts of insurance carried on
various classes of individuals, separate tabulations were made to
Chart 16
ALL INSURANCE HELD BY INDIVIDUALS
5791 INSURED MEMBERS OF ALL INSURED FAMILIES CLASSIFIED
ACCORDING TO AMOUNTS OF ALL INSURANCE IN FORCE
(Percentages of the total number of insured family metnbers)
PERCENT OP TOTAL NUMBER OP
INSURED PERSONS IN EACH CLASS
io —
PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OP
INSURED PERSONS IN EAC H CLASS
AMOUNTS ($) OP ALL KINDS OP INSURANCE IN FORCE ON INDIVIDUAL PERSONS
Source: Table lj-A DS-1519 Prepared by Sec. 1 Ixch. Com*.
show the total amounts of insurance in force on males and females,
on breadwinners and others, according to the economic status of the
family to which each belongs. The details of this analysis are con-
tained in tables 17 and 17-A. There is room here only for a chart
which shows a frequency distribution of the 5,791 insured individuals
classified according to the amounts of insurance on their respective
lives.
Chart 16 should be studied in connection with the table upon which
it is based. Both show concentrations of individual amounts of
insurance at points which are associated with the custom of insurance
companies in issuing policies in units of $250, $500, and $1,000 each.
The chart is not large enough to show the few individuals with the
largest amounts of insurance. The table shows that there was one
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 39
person who carried as much as $15,619 of insurance, and eight others
who carried amounts of insurance in excess of $8,000 each; neverthe-
less it is clear that the great bulk of the individuals were insured for
relatively small amounts. In fact, the amounts of insurance carried
on half of these persons were less than $476 ; and the amounts carried
on one-fourth of them were less than $256. On the other hand, it
may be said that half of them were insured for amounts greater than
$476 each, and that one-fourth of them (the most heavily insured)
carried amounts in excess of $915 each.
Total amount of industrial insurance held by individual members
of the 701 families in which industrial insurance only was found.
As indicated above, this analysis included the total of all kinds of life
insurance in force. It was thought desirable to examine separately
the industrial insurance in force. Therefore the same type of analysis
was made for the insurance held by the 2,349 insured members of the
701 families in which only industrial policies were found. There were
2,913 members of the 701 families in which only industrial insurance
was found. Of that number there were 2,349, or 81 percent, on
whose lives 3,745 policies were carried. The total amount of insurance
represented by these policies was $899,368. Thus the average insured
person in these 701 families held 1.6 industrial policies and had $383
industrial insurance in force on his life.
Reference to tables 18 and 18-A will enable the reader to see the
range of variation in the amounts of industrial insurance held by
these family members when they were separately classified according
to sex and economic status. The accompanying chart 17 on p. 40 is
based on table 18-A and shows the amounts of insurance on all of the
2,349 insured family members. Amounts between $250 and $300,
and between $500 and $600 occur with sufficient frequency to stand out
on the chart. This is accounted for by reason of the practice of life-
insurance companies in issuing certain industrial policies in units of
$250 and $500. There were 50 percent of these individuals who carried
ess than $324 and 50 percent who carried more than that amount.
It is obvious that the members in this group are much more homo-
geneous with respect to the amounts of insurance carried on their
lives than was the case with all insured individuals. Only 80 indi-
viduals carried industrial insurance for amounts of $1,000 or more.
Industrial insurance on breadwinners and others. The 701 families
with only industrial insurance had 655 insured breadwinners and
1,694 other insured members. These insured individuals are classified
separately in table 18-A according to the amounts of insurance in
force on each. The results show the extent to which the status of
breadwinner affects the amount carried by individuals. Breadwinners
are found distributed throughout the range from under $50 to over
$2,000 but typically breadwinners carry more insurance than others.
This is evident from several points of view. For example, in each of
the insurance classes up to $400, breadwinners are proportionally less
important than nonbreadwinners, while in each of the insurance
classes beyond $400 the breadwinners are proportionally more impor-
tant than the others. Also it may be observed that whereas the
median 26 breadwinner carried $494 insurance, the median for the
nonbreadwinners was only $282. Almost half (49.16 percent) of the
24 The median is a type of average. It is determined in such fashion that half of the items are Jess than,
and the other half of the items greater than, the median. When the items are arranged in order of size the
median is that value which divides the items in the distribution into two equal parts.
250783—40 — No. 2 4
40
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Chart 17
INDUSTRIAL. INSURANCE HELD BY INDIVIDUALS
2349 INSURED MEMBERS OF 701 FAMILIES WITH ONLY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO AMOUNTS OF INSURANCE IN FORCE
(Percentages of the total number of insured family members)
ER OP
PERCENTAGE OP TOTAL NUMBER OP
scj:
INSURED PERSONS TNR/tCH CLASS
o
AVERAGE AMOUNT OP INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
PER INSURED PERSON - $383
SmJSHSSSSSSJS
ooooooo o o o
IOOIOOIOO o o o
rtHOCOO T lO <0
AMOUNTS ($) OP INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE IN FORCE ON INDIVIDUAL PERSONS
Source; Table 18-A DS-1520 Prepared J>> Sec. t txclt. Con*.
breadwinners were insured for amounts greater than $500, while
only 19.43 percent of the others carried that much insurance.
Industrial insurance on males and females. Among the 2,349
insured individuals in the 701 families with industrial insurance only
there were more females than males. The division was 1,137 insured
males and 1,212 insured females. The distribution according to the
amounts of insurance on each person tends to follow somewhat the
proportional pattern noted above with respect to breadwinners and
others in that, in general, males carried more insurance than females.
In view of the fact that the males account for 479 of the 655 bread-
winners, this similarity in result is not illogical. The median amount
of insurance on males was $336 and the median amount of insurance on
females was $311.
CHAPTER IV
The Annual Cost of Life Insurance to the 1,666 Insured Families
Premiums Paid for Various Classes of Insurance; for
Various Plans of Insurance — Relation of Premiums to
Family Income — Relation of Premium Cost to Size of
Family and Economic Status.
The cost of life insurance to the 1,666 insured families covered in
the survey may be measured by the aggregate of the annual premiums
charged for all the individual policies found in force at the time of
the enumeration. 1 The total of these annual premium charges was
$125,794.26. It should be emphasized that this amount represents
the net cost of insurance as deductions were made in each case (o
allow for dividends declared to policyholders. 2 The total amount of
insurance in force on the day of enumeration was $4,069,385. (See
table 1, p. 106.) This, too, represents not the total of the"face values"
of policies but the aggregate amount of the actual insurance benefits
that would have been paid on all policies had the full benefits become
payable on the day of enumeration.
Of course, no premiums were being paid on paid-up, extended term,
or noncontributory group insurance and in the case of contributory
group insurance only part of the premiums were being paid by the
families. 3 Nevertheless, for the entire amount of insurance in force
the ratio of total premiums to total insurance is 3.09 percent. Remov-
ing the influence of the noncontributory and partially contributory
insurance, this ratio becomes 3.44 percent. For the industrial and
ordinary insurance, including savings-bank life insurance upon which
premium payments are being made, this ratio is 3.55 percent.
Total cost of different classes of insurance. The relative impor-
tance of the component parts of this total cost of insurance is noted
in the table below. This includes all insurance covered by the survey.
1 This aggregate is an understatement rather than an overstatement. It does not include premiums that
may have been paid on policies that had terminated during the year by lapse or otherwise. It is also likely
that there were policies in force which were not produced for inspection by enumerators. In addition it is
certain that no policies were recorded that were not actually in force.
1 This adjustment reduced the total premiums on industrial policies by about 9.2 percent and the total
premiums on ordinary policies by approximately 14.9 percent. It is estimated that if these adjustments
had not been made the total cost of all insurance in force would have been 10 percent greater tban the figures
actually shown in this survey.
» Table 24 indicates that there was $207,068 of life insurance in force on which no premiums are being paid,
and $294,150 of life insurance in force on which partial premiums of $2,816 are being paid.
41
42
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Class of insurance
Insurance in force
Amount Percent
Annual premium
Amount Percent
Industrial -'.-.
Ordinary (excluding savings bank)
Savings bank
Group .'
Fraternal
Total
$2, 020,158
1, 319, 438
84,586
, 454, 597
190, 606
49.6
32.4
2.1
11.2
4.7
$80, 549
36, 189
1,705
3,579
3,772
i, 069, 385
100.0
125, 794
64.0
28.8
1.4
2.8
3.0
100.0
Industrial insurance, which accounted for 49.6 percent of the total
insurance in force, accounted for 64 percent of the aggregate premiums
paid. Thus it can be seen that in the area surveyed the population
relied on industrial insurance for half of its insurance needs, for which
it paid almost two-thirds of its total life-insurance bill.
Total cost of insurance written on different plans. Reference is
made on page — in the preceding chapter to the amounts of insurance
in force written on the different plans. The table below presents for
industrial, ordinary, and all classes of insurance combined the pre-
mium costs of the total insurance according to the different plans.
Plan of insurance
Industrial
Ordinary '
All classes a
Premiums
Percent
Premiums
Percent
Premiums
Percent
Whole life
$32, 002
14, 527
34, 020
39.8
18.0
42.2
$16, 463
12, 573
8,366
492
43.4
33.2
22.1
1.3
$52, 237
27, 101
42, 385
4,071
41.5
21.5
33.7
Term
3.3
Total..
80,549
100.0
37, 894
100.0
125, 794
100.0
1 Including savings bank life insurance.
1 Including savings bank, group, and fraternal insurance premiums.
It is apparent from these figures that the largest part of the indus-
trial policyholders' premiums were spent for endowment policies
which it was shown earlier were written to a large extent upon children.
The total premiums on industrial endowments account for 42.2 percent
of the total premiums these families paid for industrial insurance.
Also, marked differences appear in the relative magnitudes of the
premiums, paid on limited-payment policies. Whereas in ordinary
insurance policies on this plan account for 33.2 percent, such policies
account for only 18 percent of industrial-insurance premiums.
Premiums in relation to family income. Any appraisal of the role
of insurance in the families covered in the survey must take into
account the relative cost of insurance premiums to the individual
family. One way of measuring the burden of premium payments is to
relate the annual premiums to the annual incomes of individual fami-
lies. The accompanying table and chart 18 present the results of such
analysis for nonrelief and relief families separately.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
43
CHAiiT 18
1666 FAMILIES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE PERCENTAGE
OF THEIR INCOME PAID AS LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
PERCENTAGES
OP FAMILIES
20
1251 HON RELIEF FAMILIES
PERCENTAGES
OP FAMILIES
20
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
PREMIUM'S AS A PERCENTAGE OF, FAMILY INCOME
MIS RELIEF FAMILIES
20
15
10
Median 3.97%
Q' 2. 36%
Q 3 6. 15%
TZZZZZZZZZOma-
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
PREMIUMS AS A PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY INCOME
/ Son-contributory Insurance
Source: Table 19
D3-IU8S rrtpared by Sec. i tick. Com*.
44
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
1 ,666 insured families classified according to the percentage of their income paid as
life-insurance premiums
Insured families
Percentage of family income paid for
insurance premiums
Number
Percentage
Nonrelief
Relief
Nonrelief
Relief
3
3
3
3
6
17
16
69
47
76
94
96
148
163
167
164
108
45
23
1
1
0.24
.24
.24
.24
.48
1.36
1.28
5.51
3.76
6.08
7.51
7.67
11.83
13.03
13.35
13.11
8.63
3.60
1.84
24
22 to 23.9
.24
20 to 21.9
18 to 19.9
2
2
3
10
17
9
20
20
22
46
52
74
50
41
24
21
.48
16 to 17.9
.48
14 to 15.9 .-
.72
12 to 13.9
2.41
10 to 11.9
4.10
9 to 9.9
2.17
8 to 8.9
4.82
7 to 7. 9
4.82
6 to 6.9
5.30
5 to 5.9
11.08
4 to 4.9
12.53
3 to 3.9
17.83
2 to 2.9
12.05
1 to 1.9:..
9.88
0.1 to 0.9
5.78
None i
5.07
Total. +.
1,251
415
100.00
100.00
i Noncontributory insurance.
Source: Table 19, p. 137.
The burden in both classes of families varies from zero (in cases where
all the insurance in force was either paid-up, extended term, or non-
contributory group insurance) to 24 percent and over. However, as
evident from the distributions, the great bulk of the families fall
within a narrower range. The middle half of the nonrelief families
paid between 2.83 percent and 7.26 percent of their annual incomes
for liO-insurance premiums. The median family in this group paid
4.72 percent. Among the relief families the picture is only slightly
different. The median relief family paid 3.97 percent and the middle
half of the relief families paid between 2.36 percent and 6.15 percent of
their incomes for insurance.
However, it should be indicated that relatively large percentages
were paid by many families in both groups. Among the 1,251 non-
relief families there were 120 which paid premiums in excess of 10
percent of their incomes. There were 36 families of the 415 on relief
which paid 10 percent or more of their respective incomes for pre-
miums.
Attention is directed to the families which are insured but which pay
no premiums. It will be observed that there are proportionally
almost three times as many relief families as nonrelief families paying
nothing for cheir insurance. This and other differences in the general
patterns of the two distributions are traceable in part to the greater
economic pressure upon the relief group and in part to the insurance
advice given it by the social agencies adminis fcering relief.
Number of dependents and percent of family income paid as pre-
miums. The relation between the size of t v e family and its insurance
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
45
status was discussed on pages 10 and 11 in chapter II. The table and
chart 19 below summarize the results of classifying relief and nonrelief
families according to the number of dependents and the percentage
of family income spent for insurance premiums. It may be concluded
from this analysis that, except in the families with no dependents, the
average relief family spends a smaller percentage of its income on life
insurance than the average nonrelief family. Both classes of families,
however, exhibit the same tendency to spend proportionally more as
the number of dependents increases until the family has seven or more
dependents. At this point smaller proportional amounts are expended
for insurance.
Chart 19
RELATIVE COST OF INSURANCE AS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF
DEPENDENTS IN RELIEF AND NON-RELIEF FAMILIES
PEr^ENf OP INCOUB
PAID FOB IMSUBAHCM
nm&ass
NO. OF DEPENDENTS I
fNON-REUW 70 270
3 \RSL1E1 62
6 7 8 MORE FAMILIES
' 46 1261
1S-15I4 rrtfarad by Uc. i *<c»
Median 'percentages of income -paid for life insurance -premiums by families with
indicated numbers of dependents
Nonrelief families
Relief families
Number of dependents in respective
families
Number of
families
Median percent
of income paid
for insurance
Number of
families
Median percent
of income paid
for insurance
7 and nvpf
45
47
78
157
270
314
270
70
5.58
5.94
5.92
5.58
5.11
4.30
4.24
2.82
17
33
41
56
79
75
62
52
3.25
6
5.10
6
4.50
4.
4.13
3
4.00
2
3.97
1
3.69
None
3.60
Total
1,251
4.72
415
3.97
Source: Table 20. p. 138.
46 CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER
Economic status and relative burden of insurance cost. A primary
purpose of the survey was to discover the relative cost which families
bear to carry their insurance. As may be seen in table 21 the non-
relief families were divided into three income groups — low, middle,
and high. The relief families were divided into two groups, since
there were so few high-income relief families. The extent of expendi-
ture for insurance premiums was measured by the percentage of ^he
family income paid for insurance premiums by the families in each of
these income groups. It was found that, on the average, with both
nonrelief and relief families, a smaller percentage of the family income
was paid for life insurance as the family income increased. 4
The low-income families, where there was the greatest economic
insecurity, were the ones which paid the highest proportions of their
income for life insurance. This was true of both the nonrelief and the
relief families. One-tenth of the total family income might be con-
sidered a large proportion to spend on insurance, 5 yet 1 in every 5
low-income nonrelief families was spending this proportion or more
of its income for life-insurance premiums. And 1 out of every 10
low-income relief families was spending a similar proportion of its
income for insurance. A relatively smaller number of the nonrelief
and relief families in the middle and higher income groups was spend-
ing this proportion of their incomes for life-insurance premiums.
Nevertheless, among all nonrelief families, regardless of income, 9.59
percent of the total number, and among relief families 8.67 percent
of the total number were spending one-tenth or more of their incomes
for insurance. (See table p. 44.)
From these figures it is evident that it is the families least able
financially that pay the greatest relative premiums to carry life
insurance. This is particularly significant since it is shown elsewhere 6
that it is these families in the lowest income groups which buy the
largest proportion of the relatively costly industrial insurance.
Costs of industrial insurance in the 701 families with no other kind
of insurance. In view of the particular interest inindustrial insurance,
a special analysis was made of premiums paid by the 701 families which
relied entirely upon this class of life insurance. These families were
classified, as shown in the accompanying table and chart 20, accord-
ing to economic status as measured by the average annual income per
family member. (See also tables 27, 28, 29, and 30, pp. 144-147.)
For the families in each economic class, figures were obtained to show
the total premiums paid, the total family incomes, and the percentage
ratio of premiums to income. The table contains separate figures
for relief and nonrelief families in each economic class, but this detail
is not shown on the chart. There appears to be a consistent indirect
relation between economic status and relative burden of insurance
cost in both relief and nonrelief families. The lower the average per
family member income the larger is the relative cost for the life
insurance held.
' The families shown as paying nothing for their insurance premiums were those which held paid-up,
extended term, or noncontributory group insurance.
» The median nonrelief family spent 4.72 percent and the median relief family 3.97 percent of income for
Insurance.
• See table 22, p. 139.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
47
Chart 20
701 FAMILIES WITH INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ONLY CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO
ECONOMIC STATUS AND AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME PAID FOR INSURANCE PREMIUMS
PERCENTAGE OP INCOME
FAID POR PREMIUMS
PERCENTAGE OP INCOME
PAID FOR PREMIUMS
AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME PER FAMILY MEMBER
Prepared t>y Sec. i Sxclt. Con,
48
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
701 families with industrial insurance only, classified according to economic status —
premiums paid, annual income, and average percentage of income paid as pre-
miums
Economic status: Average annual income per family
member
Number
of
families
Nonrelief
families
Relief
families
All
families
Total annual premiums paid
$700 and over
$600 to $699. .
$500 to $599...
$400 to $499..
$300 to $399..
$200 to $299..
Under $200...
Total..
$700 and over
$600 to $699...
$500 to $599..
$400 to $499...
$300 to $399..
$200 to $299..
Under $200...
Total..
45
30
50
70
128
206
172
701
$2, 340. 90
$159. 93
1,735.06
98.80
2, 351. 95
672. 41
2, 924. 96
753. 51
5,511.22
1, 039. 46
6, 346. 95
4, 383. 95
3, 358. 59
5, 342. 67
23, 569. 63
12, 450. 73
$2, 500. 83
1, 833. 86
3, 024. 36
3, 678. 47
6, 550. 68
9, 730. 90
8, 701. 26
36, 020. 36
Total annual income reported
45
30
50
70
128
206
172
$76, 790. 00
51, 145. 00
68, 607. 00
74, 220. 00
130, 420. 00
113, 082. 00
46, 724. 00
701
560, 988. 00
$7, 907. 00
3, 222 00
21, 403. 00
24' 294. 00
28 625. 00
104, 391. 00
103,895.00
$84, 697. 00
64, 367 00
90, 010. 00
8, 514. 00
159, 045. 00
217, 473. 00
150,619.00
293, 737. 00
854, 725. 00
Percentage of income paid for insur-
ance premiums
$700 and over
$600 to $699..
$500 to $599..
$400 to $499..
$300 to $399...
$200 to $299..
Under $200...
Total. .
45
30
50
70
128
206
172
701
3.05
2.02
3.39
3.07
3.43
3.14
3.94
3.10
4.23
3.63
4.73
4.20
7.19
5.14
4.20
4.24
2.95
3.3V
3.36
3.73
4.12
4.47
5.78
4.21
Proportion of total family premiums paid for insurance on the chief
breadwinner. In view of the special interest in the chief breadwinner
and his insurance, to which attention was first directed in chapter III,
it was thought advisable to determine the relative amounts of pre-
miums paid out of family income for his insurance.
There were 1,071 families which held either industrial, or industrial
in combination with ordinary insurance. Of these families there were
63 relief families and 3 nonrelief families in which there were no
breadwinners. The remaining 1,005 families were classified accord-
ing to the number of dependents in each. There were 64 with no de-
pendents, 414 with 1 or 2 dependents, 361 with 3 or 4 dependents,
and 166 with 5 or more dependents. Each of these classes of families
was then broken down to show what percentage of the total premiums
paid by the respective families was paid for insurance on the chief
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
49
breadwinner. The details of this analysis will be found in table 23,
p. 140, an examination of which will show that while in 56 families
100 percent of the family premium was paid on the chief breadwinner,
there were 182 of these insured families in which no premiums were
paid to maintain insurance on the chief breadwinner. In 275 cases
50 percent or more of the respective family premiums were paid on the
chief breadwinner while in 730 cases the percentages were less than 50
percent.
In general it will be observed that the increase in the number of de-
pendents in the family is associated with a decrease in the percentage
of the total premium paid for the breadwinner's insurance. How-
ever, the absolute amounts of premiums paid on chief breadwinners
remain about the same regardless of the number of dependents. 7 This
indicates that families owning industrial policies tend to regard the
insurance on the breadwinner as something that has little or no con-
nection with the number of persons who are dependent upon the
earnings of the chief breadwinner. It tends to support the conclusion
that industrial insurance on the chief breadwinner is regarded pri-
marily as burial insurance. 8
' Average amounts of insurance and premiums on chief breadwinners in different groups are as follows (see
table 29, p. 146):
Dependents
Insurance
on chief
breadwinner
Premiums
paid on chief
breadwinner
5 and more
$594
567
529
594
576
505
$24. 87
4 '.
22.47
3
21.34
2
23.09
1
22.71
None...
21.54
Other aspects of the insurance on breadwinners are presented in tables 24 and 25, pp. 141-142.
CHAPTER V
Miscellaneous Problems
Complex Nature of a Typical Family's Insurance Pro-
gram — Number of Policies per Family — Multiple
Company Coverage — Lapsation — Advantage Taken of
Discounts for Payment of Premiums at Company
Office — Frequency of Premium Payment — Use of Sav-
ings Institutions.
The study included a number of subjects of considerable interest
in themselves but which were not sufficiently related to the content
of preceding chapters to be included therein. These items are pre-
sented in this chapter. The first deals with the multiplicity of insur-
ance contracts held by the various families and throws some light
upon the confusion that was frequently evident in the policyholder's
mind concerning the exact nature of the insurance protection he had.
Number of policies held by individual families. The 1,666 insured
families owned a total of 10,150 life-insurance policies. Thus there
were 6.1 policies held by the average family with insurance. How-
ever, families exhibited wide variations in the number of policies which
they owned. One family was found with 43 separate life-insurance
contracts in force (see The Baker Family, p. 64). The accompany-
ing data (based on tables 31 and 32, pp. 148-149) summarize an analy-
sis of families classified according to the number of industrial and
ordinary policies found in each family.
Of 1,666 families with insurance:
84 families (5 percent) had 15 or more policies
305 families (18 percent) had 10 or more policies
620 families (37 percent) had 7 or more policies
Individual policies vary considerably with respect to the benefits
and the conditions under which benefits become available. It is
apparent that the larger the number of policies involved in the life-
insurance protection of a family the greater will be the difficulty in
understanding the exact nature of the family's insurance program.
Multiple-company coverage — industrial insurance. As indicated in
the introduction to this report prior to this survey little or no informa-
tion existed regarding the extent to which individual families hold
policies in more than one life-insurance company. 1 It was recognized
that cases of multiple-company coverage arise when individuals in-
sured in different companies become members of the same family
group. It was also recognized that multiple-company coverage in
industrial insurance involving as it would two or more agents making
weekly calls at the home of the insured for the dual purpose of collect-
ing premiums and selling new policies might be responsible for some
i Multiple company coverage with respect to all kinds of insurance is summarized in table 33, p. 150.
51
52
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
of the confusion existing in family insurance programs. This situa-
tion was explored with the following results:
There were 1,427 families paying premiums on industrial insur-
ance 2 to 1 or more companies. The Metropolitan was collecting
premiums from 750, or over half of the families, and the John Hancock
from 629 families. The Prudential collected premiums from 256
families, and the Boston Mutual from 126 families. A large propor-
Chart 21
extent of duplication in coverage by the three largest
industrial life insurance companies among 1356 families
METROPOLITAN POLICIES
IN 700 FAMILIES
/ 54 1
J METROPOLITAN ^flflffl!
\ yfl IU0
^n^^Ki^HEJH;
41 9
JOHN HANCOCK /
/ ^m 52 ^lli
i ,36 viiiiii
\ PRUDENTIAL ^1111?
JOHN HANCOCK POLICIES
PRUDENTIAL POLICIES
IN 620 FAMILIES
IN 256 FAMILIES
Source: Table
DS-JU99 Frefaret by Sec. t Ixch
tion of these familie was covered by more than 1 company. The
Prudential showed the highest proportion of families which were
paying premiums also to one or more of the other companies — 48
percent or almost half of its total number. The Boston Mutual was
second with 44 percent; the John Hancock next with 36 percent; and
the Metropolitan, with 31 percent, had the lowest proportion of its
' There were 36 families which had industrial policies in .force on which they were not paying premiums,
as their policies were paid-up or extended term insurance.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
53
families with policies in other companies. Of the total 1,427 families
1 out of 5 held industrial insurance in 2 or more companies. A sum-
mary of the multiple company coverage follows (details are given in
table 34, p. 151):
Extent of multiple company coverage in 1 ,427 families paying premiums on industrial
insurance
Number of families with industrial policies
Companies
1-company
'amilies
2-company
families
3-company
families
Total
Metropolitan -
520
401
132
71
200
200
102
42
30
28
22
13
750
629
256
126
Total families
1,124
272
31
1,427
Percent of families with industrial insurance
69.3
63.7
SI. 6
56.4
26.7
31.8
39.8
33.3
4.0
4.5
8.6
10.3
100
100
100
Boston Mutual
100
Total percent
78.7
19.1
2.2
100
The complexity resulting may be described by the situation in
regard to the Metropolitan. Of the 200 two-company families in
which the Metropolitan was represented, 131 had John Hancock poli-
cies, 48 had Prudential policies, and 21 had Boston Mutual policies.
Among the 30 three-company families in which the Metropolitan was
represented, 18 had both John Hancock and Prudential policies, 9 had
both John Hancock and Boston Mutual policies, and 3 had both
Prudential and Boston Mutual policies.
Chart 21 on page 52 illustrates the extent of multiple company
coverage as it relates to the industrial insurance of three companies
only: the Metropolitan, John Hancock, and Prudential. In 261 or
19.2 percent of the 1,356 families involved, at least 2 different com-
panies (and in 18 families all 3 companies) had industrial policies in
force.
Lapse and surrender experience of families enumerated. In table
35, page 152, there are summarized the facts which reflect the lapse
and surrender experience of families enumerated. This information
is based not only upon the lapsed policies actually examined by the
enumerators but also upon the answers recorded to the question as to
whether the families had ever cash-surrendered or lapsed policies other
than those shown the enumerator. In all, there were 1,879 families
for which this information Was obtained; 728 or 38.74 percent indi-
cated that they had previously held policies which' had lapsed or had
been surrendered prior to the day of enumeration. It will be ob-
served that the lapse and surrender experience of the families which
were insured was quite different from that of the families which had
54 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
no insurance when the enumerator called upon them. Of the insured
families 34.27 percent and of the uninsured families 64.29 percent
reported lapse or surrender experience. In both insured and unin-
sured families the reported lapse or surrender experience was consider-
ably greater among the families on relief than it was among the families
not on relief .
Discount for making payments at office of company. Holders of
industrial policies in the Metropolitan or of industrial policies in the
Prudential or John Hancock issued after January 1, 1937, and Jan-
uary 1, 1939, respectively, may reduce their premium payments if
they will make them directly at the offices of their respective com-
panies. 3 Of the 1,273 families which answered the question intended
to determine the extent to which advantage was taken of the discount
for paying at the office, only 363 indicated that they had ever followed
this practice. This result is necessarily qualified by the fact that
certain of the 363 families may have taken the advantage in the past
but were not at the time of enumeration making payment at the
company office. On the other hand, enumerators discovered that
many families were not aware of this opportunity to reduce their
premiums. Also the • answers enumerated do not disclose how
successful families were in maintaining the regularity of office pay-
ments throughout the year.
Families' preference as to frequency of premium payments. The
1,427 families which were paying premiums on industrial insurance
were interrogated to discover whether the families could conveniently
pay insurance premiums on a monthly basis as well as to determine
on which basis they preferred to pay. All but 81 of these families
were reported on this question. Four hundred ninety-eight indicated
that they could pay on a monthly basis, while 848 indicated that they
could, not. Of the 498 families which indicated that they could pay
on a monthly basis, 214 preferred uhe convenience of weekly payments.
Of the 848 families which could not pay monthly, 744 indicated that
they preferred payments on a weekly basis. (See table 36, p. 152.)
These results indicated the current preference, based upon con-
venience. Enumerators were not allowed to indicate the premiums
would be lower on a monthly basis. The great predominance of
families which find it convenient to pay on a weekly basis is evidence
of one of the great appeals of industrial insurance.
Premiums paid for 259 persons living away from their respective
families. As indicated elsewhere in this report, the families enumer-
ated paid the premiums on life-insurance policies written on the lives
of 259 persons who were not living with their respective families.
Such arrangements were found in a total of 171 families, 46 of which
families were receiving some form of relief. In table 37 these families
are shown classified according to the percentage of their respective
total insurance premiums paid on insurance covering personsv living
away from their families. A wide variation in the relative importance
of these payments is evident. Two families paid as much as 100
percent of their entire expenditure for insurance on policies of absent
' "If, while there is no default in the payment beyond the grace period, notice of the desire to pay pre-
miums directly to the company and through an agent is given to the company at any office which maintains
an account for receiving direct payment of premiums, then, after premiums have thereafter been paid
directly to such an office continuously for a period of 1 year without default beyond the grace period, the
company will, at the expiration of such year, return as an allowance for such direct payment, a sum equal
to 10 percent M the total of the year's premiums so paid." Quotation from the Metropolitan Industrial
Department Rate Book. Part 12, R. 5906, 6121.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 55
persons. However, there is concentration of families between 20
percent and 30 percent and over half of these families pay less than
20 percent upon absent persons.
Noncontributory and partially contributory insurance. Of the
10,150 insurance policies found in force in the families enumerated
there were 670 policies representing $501,218 of insurance upon which
the full premiums were not being currently paid out of the incomes of
the families respectively involved. The bulk of this (over 82 percent)
is represented by insurance, generally group insurance, arranged for by
employers in behalf of their employees. There were 134 certificates
or policies representing $123,345 of insurance on which the families
of the insured paid nothing. In addition, there were 251 certificates
or policies for an amount of $294,150 upon which employees con-
tributed part of the premium.
The balance of the insurance — that represented by 285 policies for
an amount of $83,732 — was entirely paid-up. This insurance was of
two classes, industrial and ordinal . Of the industrial there were
55 policies upon which the entire premium had already been paid; 9
policies in force as paid-up whole life for reduced amount; and 192
policies classified as "extended term," upon which no premiums were
being paid. In the case of industrial insurance, paid up or extended
insurance usually arises merely as a result of nonforfeiture benefits —
not by exercise of options. The latter two groups of policies had
arisen as a result of the exercise of options under nonforfeiture pro-
visions of the policy contracts. There were 24 ordinary policies for a
total amount of $21,182, classified as paid-up, and 5 ordinary policies
for an amount of $5,000, classified as extended term. (See table 38,
p. 153.)
Use of visiting nurse service. Roth the Metropolitan and the
John Hancock offer visiting nurse services free to their industrial
policyholders. In an attempt to discover the extent to which policy-
holders had availed themselves of this service a question concerning
its use was included in the schedule. 4
The answers to this question (table 39) were tabulated separately
for nonrelief and relief families, and, in each group, families were
further subdivided on the basis of economic status. Of the 1,216
eligible families which replied to this question, 515, or 42 percent, had
at some time made use of the nursing services. Relief families ap-
peared to have availed themselves of this service to a slightly greater
degree than the nonrelief families. When the families are examined
with respect to their economic status it appears that the poorer
families made more use of the nursing services than those r whose
incomes were higher. For example, of the nonrelief families 28.34
percent in the high-income group and 53.23 percent in the low-income
group had made use of the visiting nurse service
Use of life insurance and other savings institutions by families
enumerated. It is recognized that life-insurance companies differ in
many respects from such institutions as mutual savings banks, and
that insurance premiums paid by policyholders are not the same as
savings deposited in the bank. Nevertheless, the savings feature is
frequently stressed in the sale of life insurance and certain kinds of
' When the schedule was drafted it was thought that this service was offered solely by the Metropolitan.
Before enumeration started it was discovered that the John Hancock also offered this service. Verbal
instructions to the enumerators directed them to ask the question of families insured in both of
these companies.
2.-507S3 — 10 — No. 2 5
56 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
policies, particularly endowment policies 6 (and to a considerable
extent limited payment life policies) are purchased primarily as means
of accumulating savings.
In order to determine the relative extent to which the families
included in the survey depended upon life insurance in comparison
with other forms of savings institutions, a question directed toward
this point was included in the schedule. Families were asked which,
if any, of such institutions as savings banks, savings departments of
commercial banks, cooperative banks, postal savings, or credit unions,
were used by any members of the family. All but 100 of the 2,132
families answered this question. The results of this inquiry are
summarized in table 40, in which families are shown classified accord-
ing to economic status. It is at once apparent from the figures that
economic status has a direct bearing upon the prevalence with which
families reported using savings institutions. In the group as a whole
only 13.5 percent of the families in the lowest-income group and 64.1
percent of those in the highest-income group used financial institu-
tions other than life insurance. On the other hand, 69 percent of
the families in the lowest-income group and 89 percent of the families
in the highest-income group were insured. It is thus apparent that
the lower the family income the greater is the extent of dependence
upon life insurance. 6
In the group as a whole, 78 percent of the families were using life
insurance, while only 30 percent of the families were using any insti-
tutions other than life insurance for the accumulation of savings.
There were only 466 families which were not insured at all, but 1,431
families reported that none of their members made use of the other
types of formal savings institutions. Whereas 1,056 families held
insurance and no other form of savings, there were only 60 uninsured
families which made use of these savings institutions. These facts
stress the predominant importance of life insurance in the families
included in the survey. These families rely upon life insurance to a
far greater extent than they do on all other forms of savings institu-
tions combined.
s It was shown (p. 42) that 42.2 percent of all industrial premiums are paid on endowment policies. Refer-
ence to table 10 will show that 55.78 percent of all industrial endowments were written on the lives of children
under 10 years of age. where presumably the savings aspect has its greatest appeal.
• It was shown earlier (p. 20) in this report that the lower the economic status of the family the greater is
the relative importance of industrial insurance.
CHAPTER VI
Case Studies: Insurance Programs of Selected Families
Criteria for Judging a Family's Insurance Program —
Classes of Insurance — Plans of Insurance — Family
Members Insured — Illustrations of Various Family In-
surance Programs.
In order to appraise critically the kinds and amounts of insurance
found in force in a particular family it is necessary to know a great
many facts about the family and its members. Life insurance is so
intimately tied in with the existence and ultimate objectives of a family
that one must know not only the number of family members, their
sex and age, but also their capacities, their desires and their expecta-
tions with respect to the future. It is necessary to know what re-
sources the family possesses, the nature of its income and the prospect
of its stability. In addition, consideration must be given to the occu-
pation and health of the family members, as these may indicate whether
or not they are insurable.
It is obvious that the wide variation existing among families makes
it impossible to set forth categorically the specifications for an insur-
ance program that would have universal application. However, for
a family on relief or one with income barely sufficient to provide food,
clothing and shelter, two general principles can be stated which should
enable one to judge whether or not such a family's insurance is well-
planned. These principles are based on the relative cost of insurance
and the distribution of the insurance on the various members of the
family.
The first principle is that the individual should not commit himself
to pay more premiums than he may expect to be able to continue.
Lapsation which results from attempting to carry too heavy a premium
burden is very costly. From this it follows that in the families about
which we are chiefly concerned the individual should avail himself of
the least expensive class of insurance for which he is eligible and which
his financial circumstances warrant.
Evidence was presented in the hearings 1 that showed the wide
difference in the cost of ordinary and industrial insurance and the
differences in the costs of insurance policies written on different plans.
As among classes, little will be said of fraternal insurance. It is
relatively insignificant in amount and is available only to a limited
number of individuals. Group insurance is also relatively unimportant
in amount. It, too, is generally available only to individuals who
happen to be employed by those business concerns that have deemed
it a wise labor policy to purchase wholesale insurance for their em-
ployees. In most instances it is probable that individuals would be
ill-advised not to avail themselves of the protection of a group policy
1 Part 12, Exhibit Nos. 1004, 1034-1037.
57
58 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
if such an opportunity were open to them. It is also probable, inas-
much as the continuation of protection at the low cost of a group policy
depends upon the continuity of employment with a particular em-
ployer, that it would be unwise for a family to depend entirely on
group insurance for its life-insurance protection.
The most significant question, then, concerns the choice between
the industrial and ordinary insurance. As between these two, the
cost of industrial insurance is much greater than the cost of ordinary
insurance but that cannot be made the sole criterion. Industrial
insurance includes services which are not available under ordinary
insurance. Most industrial insurance premiums are collected on a
weekly basis at the policyholder's home, while ordinary insurance
premiums generally must be paid annually (and less often, quarterly
or monthly) at the office of the company. Industrial insurance is
issued usually without a medical examination, whereas ordinary in-
surance is issued only after the applicant has demonstrated that he
is in satisfactory health by passing a medical examination. The
greater frequency of premium payments, the method of premium
collection, and the less stringent physical requirements of industrial
insurance account to a great extent for its cost being higher than that
of ordinary insurance. Therefore, the financial ability and the physical
condition of the individual must be considered in selecting the class of
insurance to be carried.
From the first principle there flows another consideration which
relates to the plan of insurance desirable. As among the various plans
upon which insurance policies are written it is more difficult to decide
which should be included in the insurance program of a particular
family. Term insurance, the plan upon which all group insurance is
written, is the cheapest form of protection. However, industrial
insurance is not sold on the term plan and little ordinary insurance is
originally issued in this form. All other plans of insurance contain an
element of savings in their premiums. There is less of the savings
element in whole life insurance than in limited payment life or endow-
ment policies. For that reason the premium on a whole life policy is
less than that on a limited payment life policy, and the premium on a
limited payment policy is less than that on an endowment policy.
The great variation that exists in the hopes and ambitions of families
finds expression in the variety of plans of life insurance written.
However, among those families which are either on relief or which
have such low incomes that they have insufficient means for current
living there should be no question but that their insurance programs
should be made up of policies written on the lowest premium plan.
In other words, relief families and other low-income families would be
well advised to carry only whole life policies whether these were
written as industrial policies or ordinary policies. A life insurance
program should be concerned with protection rather than with the
accumulation 'of wealth. In low-income families where voluntary
savings are difficult it is a costly and hazardous process to combine
protection with involuntary savings.
A second general principle in appraising a family's insurance pro-
gram relates to the manner in which the insurance is distributed upon
the various members of the family. It is a sound principle that the
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 59
amount of insurance should vary directly with the economic im-
portance of the individual to the stability of the family. Thus, the
amount of insurance carried on the head of the family where no other
member of the family is employed, should, if possible, be large enough
to provide the family in the case of his death with cash enough to
maintain them over the period of readjustment. Where there is more
than one breadwinner in the family the concentration need not be so
great upon the chief breadwinner. Insurance carried on dependent
members of the family can be restricted safely to the amounts neces-
sary to care for final illness and burial.
From the foregoing it may be apparent that the criticism of an exist-
ing program of insurance in a particular family involves a knowledge
of many facts not easily obtained or capable of brief summarization.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the variety of circumstances
found in a family at a particular time may be quite different from the
circumstances that prevailed when insurance now in force was first
taken out. Therefore, one must be cautious in formulating a criticism
of either families, agents, or companies on the basis of particular
insurance programs. Nevertheless, it was felt desirable to present the
details of a series of individual case studies showing the types of
insurance programs found in a variety of families. These, it is hoped,
will illustrate the kinds of situations and problems revealed by the
survey. The facts described were obtained by the enumerators at the
time the family schedules were filled out. These were later verified
by field supervisors when calls were made to check the original work
of the enumerators. In every case names have been changed so as
not to disclose the identity of persons involved. In every other
respect the facts are exactly as reported on the respective family
schedules. It is hoped that these cases will enable the reader to
visualize the range of conditions found in the survey and to understand
better the meaning of the figures in the statistical tables.
The White Family
Nonrelief Family — Well-Planned Program of Industrial
Insurance — 50 Percent of Premium on Breadwinner — All
Policies on Whole Life Plan.
An example of industrial insurance well-planned to fit their economic
status was that of the White family. The family consisted of five —
father, mother, and three dependent children. Mr. White had
seasonal employment and earned $504 for the year, an average of
$101 for each member of the family. He had placed the largest
amount of insurance on himself. The next largest amount was
placed on the mother of the family, ?nd the children were covered
by the amount of insurance purchasable for a nickel a week. In each
case the insurance was on the whole-life plan. Premium payments
cost the White family 5.7 percent of their income.
£0 CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER
The insurance holdings of the/ White family were as follows:
The White family and their industrial insurance in force Aug. 31, 1939
Family member
Present
age
Plan of insurance
Years
in force
Amount
of in-
surance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
Father, Jacob White
43
41
18
17
16
Whole life
.5
6
7
8
8
$378
204
152
167
173
$14.40
do
7.20
do -..
2.40
do
2.40
Son, William
do.
2.40
1,074
28.80
all insured.
Total family income, $504.
Average annual income per family member, $101
Premiums as a percent of income, 5.7 percent.
Fifty percent of total premium paid on breadwinner.
All policies issued by the same insurance company.
The Simmons Family
Nonrelief Family of Five, all Insured — Premiums
Amount to 12.5 Percent of Family Income — Practice
of Surrendering Policies for Cash in Emergencies.
Mr. and Mrs. Simmons with their three children occupied half
of an old duplex frame house located in one of the industrial areas of
Cambridge. Mr. Simmons was employed as a specialty cook in a
packing plant. During the past 52 weeks his salary had averaged
slightly better than $25 per week. On an annual basis, this amounted
to $1,320. The family had no savings other than their insurance
and were entirely dependent upon the weekly income. No "relief"
in any form had ever been received.
The Simmonses looked upon their insurance as a form of savings.
On occasions when they had needed cash in excess of current income
they had "cash surrendered" some of their policies and had replaced
them later when they were able. Such a transaction had actually
occurred in the interim between the date of original enumeration and
the date on which the supervisor called. Mr. Simmons had been
hard pressed for cash. Accordingly, one of Mrs. Simmons' policies,
a cumulative endowment policy, was turned over to the insurance
agent for cash surrender. There was every expectation that this
insurance would be replaced. This same performance had gone on
before, and eventually a new policy had been taken out to replace
the policy that had been cashed in.
It was evident that the Simmons family held their insurance agent
in high esteem. Both Mr. and Mrs. Simmons regarded him as an
individual who had helped them in time of need. If it were not for
him, they said, they would not have had the policies which gave them
their feeling of security and this ability to secure cash in an emergency.
The policies held by the Simmons family are shown in the following
table:
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER Q\
The Simmons family and their insurance policies in force Aug. 10, 1939
Family member
Fresent
age
Plan of insurance
Years
in force
Amount
of in-
surance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
-Father, John Simmons
Mother, Elsa
Son, William
Daughter, Suzanne
Son, John
Total, 5 family members,
all insured.
Industrial cumulative endowment.
do
Industrial whole life
Whole lifo (intermediate monthly) .
Term (group)
Industrial cumulative endowment
Industrial 20- payment life
Industrial whole life
Industrial 20-payment life
Industrial whole life
do
Industrial 15-year endowment
iDdustrial 20-year endowment
$174
174
477
1,167
2,000
175
250
328
295
435
225
82
100
$11.50
11.50
11.50
30.12
15.60
11.25
10.40
10.40
13.00
7.80
7.80
11.75
13.00
13 policies.
5,882
165. 62
Total family income, $1,320.
Average annual income per family member, $264.
Premiums as a percent of income, 12.5 percent.
Forty-eight percent of premiums on breadwinner.
All policies except term policy in the same insurance company.
The Varna Family
Nonrelief Family of 10 Members Paying 5.4 Percent
of Their Income on 23 Policies — Policies on the Parents
Sacrificed to Maintain Policies on the Children.
The Varna family is illustrative of a fairly common occurrence
where insurance on the parents has been sacrificed in order that
policies could be carried on the children. Mr. and Mrs. Varna had
carried insurance on themselves and on their children before the
depression. The children were not old enough to work at that time,
and Mr. Varna was the sole support of the family. As financial
conditions grew worse for the Varna family, Mr. and Mrs. Varna
gave up all of their own life insurance but kept what they could of the
insurance on the children. Even when the older children went to
work and contributed to the family income, Mr. and Mrs. Varna
took out more insurance on them and on the younger children, but
not on themselves.
At the time of enumeration, there were 4 employed members of
the family. Mr. Varna earned $20 a week; the eldest son, $15 a
week; another son, $13 a week, and the daughter earned $12 a week.
The total family income for the year was $3,120. The only whole-
life policy was carried by the eldest son. Eighteen of the remaining
22 policies were short-term industrial endowments, the other 4 being
industrial 20-payment life policies. Mr. and Mrs. Varna stated that
they wanted to secure for their children a nest egg with which to
start them out in life, and their means of doing so is indicated by the
similarity of plans of the policies taken out on the children.
(J2 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
The Varna family insurance holdings were as follows :
The Varna family and their life insurance policies in force Aug. 24, 1989
Family member
Pres-
ent
age
Class and plan of insurance
Years
in
force
Amount
of in-
surance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
Father, Daniel Varna
Mother, Maria
Son, Nicholas
Son, Samuel
Daughter, Vivien
Son, William
Son, Robert
8on, Joseph
Son, Albert
Son, Richard..-
Niece, Helen (not living with
family).
Total, 10 family mem-
bers, plus 1 not living
with family; 8 family
members insured.
23
Insurance lapsed or surrendered.
.—do
Ordinary endowment at 85
Industrial 20-year endowment-
Industrial 16-year endowment...
...do... „•
Industrial 20-payment life
Industrial 15-year endowment-
Industrial 20-payment life
Industrial 20-year endowment...
do
— do —
do
Industrial 20-payment life..
Industrial 20-year endowment...
do
do
—do
Industrial 20-payment life
Industrial 20-year endowment...
do-
..—do
do -
do— —
do.
$2,000
515
167
167
256
167
256
53
52
52
104
256
53
52
52
104
256
53
52
104
52
256
160
$32.54
25.32
10.75
10.75
0.90
10.75
6.44
2.10
2.15
2.20
4.40
5.98
2.10
2. If
2.20
4.40
5.52
2.10
2.15
4.40
2.20
11.25
11.00
23 policies (1 ordinary and 22
industrial).
5,239
Total family income, $3,120.
Average annual income per family member, $312.
Premiums as percent of income, 5.4 percent.
Chief breadwinner uninsured; other breadwinners, 31 percent of premiums.
All policies issued by the same company.
The Kelly Family
Nonrelief Family Paying Premiums on 6 Persons at
Home and 1 Away From Home — 35 Lapsed Policies —
13 Industrial Policies in Force.
An example of the confusion and carelessness frequently found in
industrial life insurance holdings is illustrated in the insurance of the
Kelly family. There were six members of the family living at home —
a father, mother, and four children. The father and one son had jobs
in private employment, and together had earned $2,548 during the
year previous to the date of enumeration.
The Kelly family had in their possessioD records of 35 industrial
policies which had been permitted to 4apse after premiums had been
paid for 2 to 3 years. They reported that they had also had other
policies which had lapsed previously, but there were no records to
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
63
show the nature of these policies. The lapsed policies in their posses-
sion showed that previous to lapse there had been liens on policies of
each member of the family — some 19 liens in all. The policies had
lapsed before they had acquired any nonforfeiture values. Two of the
lapsed policies were on Mrs. Kelly's brother whose present address was
unknown.
The insurance in force on the Kelly family at the time of enumera-
tion consisted of 13 industrial policies, all taken out on the same day
with the same company, the same company which had issued the
lapsed policies. They were all 20-payment life policies, except one
which was a 20-year endowment. The family had paid the premiums
on these policies for a year and a half, as was indicated in the premi-
um receipt book, but they claimed that they had never received the
13 policies from the agent of the insurance company. That the family
was having difficulty in meeting the premium payments was indicated
by the fact that the last payments had been made almost 4 weeks
previous to the date of enumeration. These policies were, therefore,
very near the point of lapsation as the grace period allowed had almost
expired.
The insurance policies in force in the Kelly family were as follows:
The Kelly family and their industrial policies in force Sept. 18, 1939
Family member
Present
age
Plan of insurance
Years
in force
Amount
of in-
surance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
44
45
25
21
19
17
8
$250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
$15.60
do
15.60
Mother, Mary
do. . t
....do
15.60
15.60
Son, Robert (not living with
do.
9.88
family).
do
9.88
Son, John __ __
do
9.36
do....
9.36
Daughter, Agnes
do
8.84
do
8.84
Son, Albert
. .do
7.80
...do
7.80
Daughter, Rose
13.00
3,250
147. 16
plus 1 not living at
home, all insured.
Total income of family, $2,548.
Average annual income per family member, $425.
Premiums as percent of income, 5.8 percent.
All policies including lapsed policies issued by same insurance company.
Percent of premiums paid on chief breadwinner, 21 percent; on other bread-
winner, 13 percent.
There seems little reason to doubt the claim of the family that they
never received the policies on which they were paying premiums,
especially as this report was made in a number of instances. The
situation indicates carelessness on the part of the agent as well as
the family.
64 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
The family is now paying premiums on 12 20-payment life policies
amounting to $134.16 annually for $3,000 of insurance. Considering
the previous insurance history of the family, a question might be raised
as to the wisdom of the concentration on the relatively expensive 20-
payment life policies. The Kelly family had obviously had difficulty
over a period of years in meeting premium payments. Therefore it
might have been better if they had been sold on the least expensive
plan — whole life. However, if their agent had sold them the same
amount of insurance ($500 on each person) on the same plan but with
monthly premiums (on the monthly debit ordinary basis) he could have
reduced their premiums by 12 percent.
On the other hand, if their agent had sold them whole life policies on
the monthly debit ordinary basis he could have staggered the premium
payments on these policies so that each person could have had the
same insurance protection and the family would have to pay $2.47 on
each of only 8 weeks each month. They now pay $2.82 every week of
the year for no greater protection.
The Baker Family
Forty-three Policies in Force in Four Different Com-
panies — High Income Family Paying 10.9 Percent of
Its Income for Industrial, Ordinary, and Group
Policies.
In general the survey found two relationships between families and
their insurance: (1) The larger the income, the greater the amount of
insurance carried; (2) the larger the number of dependents, the greater
the proportion of income spent for insurance.
The Baker family is an example of these relationships. It consisted
of a father, mother, and 8 children ranging in age from 26 to 7 years.
The father held a good job in private employment, the eldest daughter
had a clerical position, and the eldest son had a part-time job. Among
them they accounted for an annual income of $4,224. Like other
families in similar circumstances the Bakers held life insurance in a
number of different companies. This was only partially due to
policies taken out before marriage, as almost all of the policies held by
this family were taken out after the marriage. In addition to a group
certificate held by the daughter, there were 42 policies, of which 7 were
ordinary policies held in three different companies, and 35 were indus-
trial policies held in three different companies. The distribution of
these 35 policies among the three companies was 14, 11, and 10; 24
were short-term endowments and 23 were on the children. Of the
ordinary policies, premiums were paid monthly on 3, quarterly on 2,
semiannually on 1, and annually on 1. Premiums on the 35 industrial
policies were paid weekly to the 3 different agents representing their
insurance companies. The large number of policies distributed among
so many companies and the system of premium payments made a
difficult bookkeeping problem for the Baker family, especially as it
was not well informed on either the face value of its policies or the
premiums to be paid on all the policies. They were unusual, however,
among large families with many policies in that they had never had
any life-insurance policies other than the ones in force on the date of
enumeration. Only once had the Baker family borrowed on an
insurance policy, and that was during the depression. They owned
their own home, and had a savings account. The savings features of
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
65
short-term endowments impressed them strongly and they carried
such policies on every member of the family in varying amounts.
But in order to carry these endowments and the other policies they
held, the Baker family had to allocate 10.9 percent of their annual
income to the payment of life-insurance premiums.
The insurance holdings of the Baker family were as follows:
The Baker family and their insurance in force Sept. 15, 1989
Family member
Pres-
ent
age
Class of insurance and
company
Group
Ordi-
nary
Indus-
trial
Plan of insurance
Years
in
force
Amount
ofinsur
ance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
Father, Richard Baker.
Mother, Joseprnne.
50
Daughter, Helen.
20
Son, Richard, Jr.
Son, Albert.
Son, William.
Son, Henry.
Daughter, Katherine..
Daughter, Gwendolyn.
Son, Edward
Whole life
20-payment life
do
20-year endowment.
Whole life
do
.— .do-—
do
do
do
do
do .
Term.
30-payment life
20-year endowment. .
do
30-payment life
20-year endowment..
do
do
— do.—
do
do
do
20-payment life
Endowment at 85...
20-year endowment- .
do
do
do
30-payment life
15-year endowment- .
20-year endowment. .
Endowment at 60 ...
20-year endowment. .
15-year endowment- -
20-year endowment..
Combination en-
dowment and
whole life.
15-year endowment. .
20-ycar endowment.
do
do.
do
$5,000
1,000
•600
374
250
178
125
112
198
199
380
55
1,000
1,000
271
100
1,000
98
90
90
100
106
200
100
249
1,000
108
50
50
92
1,000
186
50
652
255
167
100
100
130
100
250
100
150
$116.90
32.18
Paid up
22.56
7.36
3.70
3.68
4.00
3.10
1.30
26.00
2.10
20.44
10.80
5.28
19.44
4.20
4.30
4.30
4.80
4.20
8.00
3.70
7.80
10.43
4.10
2.00
2.40
4.80
19.68
10.25
2.00
13.00
10.00
10.75
5.20
4.32
13.00
4.80
12.00
5.20
7.80
Total, 10 family mem-
bers, all insured.
43 policies (including 1 group certificate, 7 ordinary, and 35
industrial).
17, 415
461. 87
i This policy was for $1,000 face value, but $400 was borrowed on it. Family pays interest annually.
• Nonoontributory; premiums paid by employer.
66
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Total family income, $4,224.
Average annual income per family member, $422.
Premiums as percent of income, 10.9 percent.
Percent of premiums on chief breadwinner, 32 percent; on other breadwinners,
16 percent.
Four insurance companies issued these policies; one issued 5 ordinary, 11
industrial, 1 group; the second issued 1 ordinary, 10 industrial; the third issued
1 ordinary; and the fourth issued 14 industrial.
The Asta Family
Relief family of 11 Persons, All Insured — Mixture of
Industrial and Ordinary Policies in Force in 2 Different
Companies — 16.4 Percent of Family Income Paid as
Premiums.
Juan, the father, and Maria, the mother, were born in Portugal, but
the 9 children, ranging in age from 4 to 23, were all born in the United
States. Mr. Asta was 54 and unable to work, and his wife was the
housekeeper for the large family. The oldest son, the "chief bread-
winner," was working for the Work Projects Administration, the sec-
ond son was receiving aid from the National Youth Administration,
and the third son worked as a laborer to receive city welfare assistance.
The whole family was living "on relief." In addition to what was
paid the sons in cash, the family received food, milk, and clothing to
a value of approximately $280. The total family income was $1,248
for the year, and averaged for the 11 family members, $113. This
family paid $204.89 in life-insurance premiums. These premium pay-
ments represented 16.4 percent of their total annual income.
The family carried insurance with two companies and held both
ordinary and industrial policies. They had held other policies which
had been lapsed or cash-surrendered, but their holdings at the time of
enumeration were as follows:
The Asta family and their insurance in force Sept. 19, 19S9
Family member
Father, Juan Asta.
Mother, Maria
Son, Juan, Jr
Son. Manuel
Son, Ricardo -
Daughter, Beatrice
Son, Robert
Son, Albert
Daughter, Mary...
Son, Michael
Son, Joseph..
Total, 11 family mem-
bers, all insured.
Present
Class and plan of insurance
Ordinary whole life
Industrial 20-year endowment-
Ordinary whole life
do
Industrial 20-payment life
do_...
do....
do.. -
do
Ordinary, endowment at 85. ..
do
Industrial 20-year endowment-
Industrial whole life
Industrial 20-year endow ment.
Industrial whole life
Industrial 15-year endowment.
Industrial 20-year endowment.
Industrial whole life.
Industrial 15-year endowment.
19 policies (5 ordinary and 14 in-
dustrial).
Years
in
force
Amount
of insur-
ance
$1,000
124
1,000
1,000
500
266
266
267
267
981
1,000
105
369
250
287
118
100
102
65
8,067
Annual
premiums
paid by
family
$29. 16
10.40
22.21
12.71
17.68
8.84
8.84
8.32
8.32
11.03
14.68
4.30
4.60
10.75
4.60
11.50
5.20
2.35
9.40
204.89
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 67
Total family income, $1,248.
Average annual income per family member, $113.
Premiums as percent of income, 16.4 percent.
Two insurance companies issued these policies; one issued three ordinary and
six industrial; the other, two ordinary and eight industrial.
Percent of premiums paid on chief breadwinner, 15 percent; on other bread-
winner, 8 percent.
Just what the plan of insurance in this family might be is difficult
to determine. It has no apparent relationship to age, sex, or depend-
ency status. No more light is shed by an examination of the policies
issued by the two insurance companies. One company had issued
three whole-life ordinary policies, four 20-payment life industrial poli-
cies, and two 20-year endowment industrial policies. The other com-
pany had issued two ordinary whole-life policies, one 20-payment life
industrial policy, two 20-year endowment industrial policies, two 15-
year endowment industrial policies, and three whole-life industrial
policies. The periods during which these policies were taken out were
the same for both companies.
The Asta family had paid all premiums to date at the time of enu-
meration. In 1936, however, they had borrowed $19.22 on one ordi-
nary whole-life policy 2 weeks before taking out another whole-life
ordinary policy for $1,000. This loan had not been repaid. And yet
the family subsequent to the loan took out — in addition to the whole-
life ordinary policy just mentioned — six more industrial policies, two
of which were with the company which had made the loan.
The Blank Family
Relief Family — Paying 6.5 Percent of its Income for
Insurance— In Spite of Lapsation History New Policies
Issued at Time of Dividend Payments with Resulting
Lapse as Soon as Dividend Credits Exhausted.
The Blank family lived in a dilapidated house in the industrial
section of Cambridge. The family consisted of the father, mother,
mother-in-law, and 10 children ranging from 8 months to 21 years of
age. The father had been on the Work Projects Administration for
several years. Before getting on the Work Projects Administration
he had been on the welfare rolls for a period of 2 years. Prior to that
he had worked for 10 years as a laborer in a paper-stock plant where
his wages had never exceeded $18 a week. During the past 12 months
Mr. Blank had received $13.75 weekly from the Work Projects
Administration — a total of $715 for the year. However, a few days
before the supervisor called on the Blanks, Mr. Blank had been laid
off the Work Projects Administration as a result of the 30-day fur*
loughs compulsory for those who had been on tne Work Projects
Administration for 18 months or more. i'oq
During the last 12 months, contributions toward the rent plus income
in the form of food and clothes issued on a surplus commcdity card
were estimated at $280. None of the children except one of the girls
had been successful in obtaining work. Mary, aged 16, had worked
for 2 weeks in a shoe factory and had earned a total of $22. (The
whereabouts of the eldest, Richard, aged 21, was unknown.) Thus
the total annual family income for the period under consideration
68
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
amounted to $1,017, and the average annual income per family mem-
ber living at home was about $85.
The present insurance in force in the Blank family is shown on the
following schedule. There were eight policies on which premiums
totalling $66.55 annually were being paid. In addition Mrs. Blank's
mother, aged 77, held a policy for $114 which was "paid up" and
Mr. Blank had a policy for $12 which had arisen as the result of the
nonforfeiture provision of a policy on which he had ceased paying
premiums.
The Blank family and their industrial insurance policies in force
Aug. 11
, 19 39
Family member
Present
age
Plan of insurance
Years
in force
Amount
of insur-
ance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
41
40
77
21
16
14
13
11
9
7
6
4
( 2 )
Whole life
3
5
2
13
1ar.
Insurance policies were carried on every member of the family except
the two youngest children. These policies were all savings bank life
insurance policies and were all written on the least expensive whole life
plan. They were all taken out on the same day in 1937. The dis-
tribution in amounts shows evidence of intelligence in the program for
the family. The father's life was insured for $1,000, the mother's life
for $500, and $300 was carried on the life of each of the insured chil-
dren, and totaled $3,900. The premiums, all paid on a monthly basis,
cost the family $51 .74 a year. Thus the Roxby family paid 4.6 percent
of its income for insurance premiums. It should be noted that 39
percent of the total premium was paid for insurance on the life of the
only breadwinner.
The Roxby family and savings-bank life insurance policies in force Sept. 8, 19S9
Family member
Pres-
ent age
Plan of insurance
Years
in force
Amount
of insur-
ance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
Father, George Roxby
Mother, Mary
Daughter
Son
Do
Daughter.,
Son
Do
Daughter...
Do
Do
Son
Total, 12 members, 10
members insured.
(')
Whole life... .
do
do...
do
.....do
do
do
do
do
do
No insurance.
do
$1,000
500
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
$20.06
9.35
3.13
3.03
2.02
2.02
2.81
2.81
2.81
1.01
10 policies .
3,900
51.74
1 5 weeks.
Total income of family, $1,122.
Average income per family member, $94.
Premiums as percent of family income, 4.6 percent.
Thirty-nine percent of total premium paid on breadwinner.
All policies issued by the same bank.
The Jameson Family
Nonrelief Family of Four Members — All Members In-
sured — Insurance Program Includes: Industrial, Group,
and Savings Bank Policies — 8.4% of Income Paid for
Insurance Premiums
There were four members of the Jameson family: the father, 47
years of age; the mother, 39; and two daughters, 10 and 2 years,
respectively. They lived in Watertown where the father was em-
ployed by the Hood Rubber Co. at $28 per week. Life insurance
policies were carried on all four members of the family. The amount
of insurance in force was distributed as follows:
On the only breadwinner $2, 567
On the mother 1.-618
On the 1st child 500
On the 2nd child 150
Total 4,835
74 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
The various policies held by the family are shown on the accom-
panying table. Examination of the individual policies revealed an
interesting history with respect to the dates on which the various
kinds of policies were issued. The first policy issued was a 20-\ear
endowment savings-bank life insurance policy for $1,000 taken out
on the life of Mrs. Jameson in 1925. Exactly 8 days later four in-
dustrial policies were issued: two 20-payment life policies, each for
$250 on Mr. Jameson ; and two 20-payment li f e policies for the similar
amounts on the life of Mrs. Jameson. Three weeks later in the same
year, another $1,000 savings-bank life insurance 20-year endowment
Eolicy was issued on the life of Mr. Jameson, Some 2 years later
oth Mr. and Mrs. Jameson took out additional insurance, but this
was in the form of industrial policies with premiums of 5 cents each
week. Shortly after each of their children was born, industrial
policies were taken out on their lives in the same company.
It is a little hard to understand this mixture of industrial and
savings-bank life insurance — particularly how Mr. Jameson was per-
suaded to pay $23.92 a year for $500 of industrial insurance almost
on the same day that he found out he could get twice as much savings-
bank life insurance (and that on the endowment plan) for only $22.48.
In answer to the enumerator's questions it was indicated that the
family preferred to pay their premiums by the week. This may
account for the fact that in spite of their knowledge of the lower cost
of savings-bank life insurance only 2 of their 12 policies were of this
type.
The Jameson family and their insurance policies in force, Sept. 19, 1939
Family member
Present
age
Plan of insurance
Years
in force
Amount of
insurance
Annual
premium
paid by
family
Father, William Jameson.
Mother, Hannah
Daughter, Mary
Daughter, Jane
Total, 4 family members,
all insured.
39
20-payment life
do - -
20-year endowment {savings-
bank life insurance).
Whole life
Term (group)
20-year endowment (savings-
bank life insurance).
20-payment life
do.... —
Whole life
20-year endowment
do --- '
do
$250
250
1,000
67
1,000
1,000
264
264
90
250
250
150
$9.20
9.20
17.36
2.00
18.20
15.09
7.60
7.60
2.00
10.00
10.75
13.00
12 policies .
4,835
122.00
Total family income, $1,456.
Average annual income per family member, $364.
Premiums as a percent of income, 8.4 percent.
Nine industrial policies issued by one company.
Two savings bank life insurance policies issued by one bank.
Group certificate issued by a different company.
45.9 percent of premiums paid on breadwinner.
Plate 3
typical housing Conditions in Blocks Surveyed
PLATE 4
TYPICAL HOUSING CONDITIONS IN Bl_OCK=> SURVEYED
CHAPTER VII
Summary and Conclusions
Life insurance should be sold and purchased in terms of the needs
and income -of the particular family. The insurance requirements of
the individual must be viewed in the light of his place in the family.
The extent to which he contributes to the support of the family, the
degree to which the family is able to set aside a portion of its income
for insurance premiums, the age of its members, and many other sim-
ilar factors must be taken into account in determining a family's in-
surance program. These considerations apply regardless of the type
of policy or class of insurance involved and are particularly applicable
to the low-income families where margins between income and . the
amount required to purchase necessities are slim and in many cases
nonexistent. It was for this reason that this report has presented its
findings in terms of the family group rather than the individual.
In appraising the findings, therefore, one must keep in mind the
characteristics of the typical family group whose insurance holdings
are reported. The families are low-income families. Of the 1,666
insured families, 1,360 received less than $600 a year per family mem-
ber and as many as 38 percent received less than $300 a year per
family member. Furthermore, a quarter of the families were receiving
some form of public assistance. The size of the family groups and
the occupations and nationalities of their members are varied. It
may be said that these families are typical of the mass of people living
in the congested industrial communities of this country. Persons in
this class have few luxuries and indeed their standard of living is so
low that they are often actually in need.
It is evident that among families in the densely populated indus-
trial areas like those covered in the survey life insurance is purchased
more generally than had previously been supposed. The amount of
insurance in force in these families demonstrates their great desire for
security. This is borne out by the facts that 92 percent of all families
interviewed were either carrying insurance at the time or had done so
in the past; there were over 10,000 policies in force in the 1,666 in-
sured families which represented 78 percent of all families interviewed ;
and in insured families as many as 83 out of every 100 persons were
insured for an average of $683 of insurance each. The average in-
sured family spent 4.9 percent of its income for insurance premiums,
with amounts spent ranging as high as 24 percent of income in the
case of some families. Policyholders were found to be of both sexes,
every age, every occupation, and to bear every conceivable relation to
the family group. The extent to which children were insured and
insurance carried on persons not living in the immediate family gave
indication of the widespread use of life insurance among these low-
income families.
Further evidence with respect to the social and economic importance
of life insurance was produced in the statistics which showed that life
75
7g CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
insurance is the principal and in many instances the only means of
savings for these low-income families. Of all the families interviewed
as many as 66.1 percent used life insurance as the sole means of accu-
mulating their savings.
It was found that industrial insurance is by far the most important
form of insurance sold to the type of family covered by this survey.
Measured in terms of the number of insured persons there were 79.41
percent who carried industrial insurance. In terms of the number of
families insured over 85 percent carried industrial insurance. Seven
hundred and one families carried no other form of insurance except
industrial insurance. Of all the life insurance in force four out of
every five policies were industrial policies and such policies accounted
for 49.6 percent of the total amount of insurance in force. Sixty-four
percent of the amount paid in premiums was paid as premiums on
industrial policies.
Life-insurance companies have a great social responsibility to
provide their services as efficiently and equitably as possible. In
addition there is a responsibility which rests particularly upon com-
panies writing industrial insurance. In view of the great reliance of
the low income families upon this type of insurance, companies selling
industrial msurance have an obligation to see that these families are
sold the Iliads and amounts of protection best suited to their needs.
In this type of family the amount which can be set aside for premiums
is small aud the great need of this group for better housing conditions,
more food, better clothing and greater opportunities for education
must be recognized. In this type of family, income is unusually
subject to fluctuations and if too large a percentage of the family
income has been allocated to insurance premiums, the result is likely
to be lapse and loss of protection. This survey suggests that the in-
dustrial companies have fallen far short of achieving the ideal. In
brief, a situation is disclosed which demonstrates as far as these 2,132
families are concerned that there is an overloading of policies in many
families, that frequently a higher percentage of the family income is
being spent for insurance, that insurance coverage among the family
members is unevenly distributed, that expensive forms of endowment
and limited payment policies have been placed in families when the
needs of the policyholders could often be served better with a less
expensive type of policy and that as a result of this unsound distribu-
tion and the changing economic circumstances of the policyholders
there is much lapsing of policies. The situation is made particularly
acute by the fact that these tendencies appear more prevalent the
lower the economic status of the family.
The high percentage which premiums bear to the total incomes
of these families reveals other abuses prevalent in the distribution
system. That low-income families, where the average per family
member income is in the neighborhood of $300, should be spending as
much as 24 percent of that income for insurance premiums, is inex-
cusable and it is startling to realize that £.59 percent of the nonrelief
families and 8.67 percent of the relief families spent 10 percent or more
of their income upon insurance premiums.
An examination of the insurance programs of the 1,666 insured
families disclosed but very few cases which from the point of view of
plan of policies, relative cost and distribution of coverage among
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
77
various members of the family group were entirely satisfactory. 1 This
is not to say that other cases do not exist within this group which are
free of unfavorable criticism from the point of view 01 a planned pro-
gram. Occasionally the lack of insurability of certain members,
religious considerations, or an unwillingness on the part of the policy-
holder proper to follow recommendations which possibly were re-
ceived from his agent may have had some bearing and these facts
cannot be weighed on the basis of the statistical information. The
lack of adequate planning may be partially accounted for by the fact
that 21.3 percent of the families are serviced by industrial agents
representing two or more companies; that 84 families carried more
than 15 policies each at the same time, with numbers ranging as high
as 43 policies in the case of one family ; and that insurance is sold in a
great variety of different combinations both as to classes and plans.
The failure of the distributing system to give proper service to the
insured is clearly demonstrated in the many families where the bread-
winner was inadequately insured. The breadwinner who earns the
principal income of the family is the person whose loss will be most
keenly felt by the family. It is against the loss of this individual's
income that the family's insurance program should be chiefly directed.
In view of these considerations it was startling to find that in the
insured families 11.58 percent of the chief breadwinners and 20.21
percent of the "other breadwinners" were not insured at all, and that
from among 1,071 families which carried industrial insurance there
were 730 cases where the percentage of premiums paid by the family
for insurance on the life of the chief breadwinner was less than 50
percent of the total. Such a tremendous preponderance of mal-
adjusted cases was found that there can be no doubt that the dis-
tributing mechanism for industrial insurance is defective. The over-
emphasis upon endowment and limited-payment policies, particularly
on the lives of children, the failure adequately to insure breadwinners,
the great number of lapsed policies found in many insured families
numbering as high as 35 policies in the case of one family interviewed,
and the sale of insurance to families on relief bear witness to the
weaknesses in the system as it now exists. The matter is made far
more serious by the ever-changing economic circumstances of low-
income families and the apparent absence of any techniques for satis-
factorily readjusting insurance programs in the light of these changing
circumstances.
1 It will serve no useful purpose to reexamine here startling case histories presented in the body of the
report. The following summary will serve to recall these cases to mind:
Case No-.—
Average an-
nual income
per family
member
Number of
policies
Percent of
income paid
for premiums
Percent of
premium on,
chief bread-
winner
1
$101
264
312
425
422
113
85
142
138
94
364
5
13
23
13
43
19
10
11
11
10
12
5.7
12.5
5.4
5.8
10.9
16.4
6.5
18.1
4.8
4.6
8.4
50.0
2
48.0
3.
4...
21.0
5.
6
33.0
15.0
7...
19.6
8..
28.0
9
22.0
10
39.0
11
45.9
78 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
The above observations are based solely upon a review of the statis-
tical information obtained through the field survey. No final con-
clusions will be offered until the publication of an over-all report on
the entire life insurance study. The report, which is to be released
later, will relate the material made available by the survey with other
facts developed in the course of the hearings before the committee,
including the testimony concerning lapse and agency practices.
APPENDIX I
Reproduction of Schedule Employed in Survey
s s
; S e
s e p
s _.
: i
i 3
J
ON !**
IB ujauE
TVI30S
£
i • ; • i ; i j ; ; i ; :
s
i i ; ! i i ! i i i i i
~
y
-
1
s
a
2
i | s 1 1 1 i 1 1 1| 1 1
-
|
s
; i j | 1 j ; ! I I j ! 1
->
E
m«0*-«GM
iKjwicndwj
-dKJ 'JV]i
JiO
■«••«■«
auoldus
-
l!
i
d
-
„
5^3
i: i'l M i M i 1 1 M
r
S 3 1
-
i
-
|
-
>
-
'
-
||
»
;"-
-
«
-
.
«
1
-
-
-
'
o
o.im3*a sihi
MI SSIM1 ION
-
1
D
NOStiad
-
1
«; f . ; c-.t -r| o* «* e-i ot •! 6\ -i «; «, *
79
80
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
-
3
|
S i
i "j j i i 1 • I ■''; ] • ! i j [ i i ; | i
1-1
is
SdltViS jo -on
J
-
5„ S
is gS
6|gS
ge 5 »
■3
B
:
3
a
i
5
ivnama
M M M M M M M M M i
S
-
i
H
s
9
Si"
»
E
:
3
s
i
?
:
3
!' ;
-
i
|
«
g5_
j
: i » i • ': i i ' i .: : ■ 1 1 : ! ' i
j
-
S|=
i i 1 : i i ! 1 : i : i i i i ! ! : i
s
i i ■! j ! 3 ! : ! i I ; ! -! • i i 1 i
1
s
*
m*iwn»
; " * , ' ' < ! ■ ! ' ! I ■ ! «
NKT-IU36
JtlMlSYflft
:
HHIAOH
^
naaan
i
i
(I)
utsnuGNt
i i : i : : • i 1 ? i I i. : •:
j
?
*
dfl-OlVd
«
lias
-
-
|.j;
; j j ; | | j | j ; | j i j { i i j j
s
E
s
J
jj
■
SON3aiAIG
.
."'■
-
m
e i
j
-
I
s
2
«
■ 4.1
-* j
s
«jn -rtj oc
3 | 3
s
•in «w oi
:
■ in -'oj o»
2
•003 -."5
•
SO J. 00,
.
00 1» -003
g
r
90 11 '003
Q
•
•OU3 ■ Jl 92
5
a
'0O3 "Jl OJ
3
.
003 JI 91
• x -
»
•"ilVl"™
i : ; i i : : ! i : ; ! i ! '• ' '■
a
a
.
lU'D'o)"! ■■
%
-
lH'n-il'l «
A
Ou
snssi iv 30v
M
S2 2
-
%
y
.
8 j
-
5
°
si
Si
5
o
K
t no vo
iiKuinu
ltfTHIOHO
iTiuoflMl
.
|
jj
=
;
«
-
-
■
-
-
-
M
S
!Y-I
ill
Kit
M
:h3
HIT
AH
mi
IN
€ 1 g
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
81
sB .□□
* «?i
» m
'ti^ri
o
5
O
id p<"« a 'o "ai
axooKi irn«K» i»joj.
-
g 1
is
i
■
SEUO
i
|
„
It)
*>13 'BUIO
*
2
(t)
83HiO
(t)
31US3 IflM
.
!<)
0H13 N!
-
It)
sum U3 Mil
.
IVfltWV
a put 3 'a <k> ivjoj
«
g:<
-
It)
nil w iin
■
iTd 0MIAU33*
SX33rt 30 ON
-
It)
*33n ecu airj
• •'■■! > ; i ;
°
0=1
-
1 1) aturxjn
innoHt irniwt
■
ITd ON 1 41 3031!
S333A JO -01
-
(t)
V33fl KU SITU
' ! • i ! ' ! !' ■ ! ■ '• !
.
;
•
(t) (NIMH 31
iim auatzt
!jj
g
s
a
«
utm jjaaitu XT
soNiHitn irrowt
•
vni mi »f
NO OKiKOH JO 'ON
■
It)
UNOH tV 3iTH
-
am Ml oof
HO S133N 3D 0«
-
CM
33U aa un
iv-i m st liitmi
otihv4 ^o stoaxiM
3 3
pi
1
3;
ll
-
I
■ivao iv
11?U»d J.K00UT
IH1ULV4 ITdMHT
! ! ■ ! 1 ! : l ; !.'!•! ! ,| ; !
I
usiifinriusoK
.»„.
mil 33 v
! • j j . | j J f j- j j !- j
g
BB3M13IG
a
1
V-
1 <
[HI
3
JO SH3HXW
|»1
|
APPENDIX 2
Illustration of Letter Sent Families to be Enumerated
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
Field Survey Office
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Mass.
Dear
The block in which you live has been selected as one
which has families representative of the people of
Massachusetts .
Within a few days an employee of the United States
Government will call at your home. He will present
his credentials and will explain to you the nature
of the study we are making and why we need your help
in obtaining the information for which he will ask
you.
We hope it will be convenient for you to see our
representative and we shall appreciate your coopera-
tion in answering his questions.
Very truly yours,
Anne Page, Director
Field Survey
82
APPENDIX 3
Copy of Credentials Carried by Enumerators
COPY OF CREDENTIALS CARRIED BY ENUMERATORS
§§§§§§§§.§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
coo
coo
coo
cOo
■■Oo
■-Cr>
coo
coo
■-Cr>
coo
cOo
coo
■-00
coo
•-O0
cOo
cOo
cOo
cOo
cCn
•■Oo
-Oo
cOo
cOo
cOo
cOo
cOo
coo
cOo
coo
coo
cOo
cOo
coo
coo
coo
coo
cOo
cOo
cOo
coo
coo
coo
coo
cOo
~Oo
cOo
cOo
coo
cOo
cOo
■-Oo
cOo
cOo
cOo
coo
coo
cOo
coo
CjQO
cOo
coo
cOo
cOo
coo
cOo
coo
cOo
■OO
cOo
cOo
coo
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D. C.
3rVU>. -vo 'to -id-en-tvf'y
and 'to oeVta/£/y -t/fwt &-e <%& ckt^y oAitnovi/j-ed 'to ooW -ujson.
-fonvvtvea. •vn tAAeh, to of>to/i/n. an<nue > v& -to a-ueVtiorva. -con-
; t>vvned -in -t/n-e oj/f^uclo/t -vrKyuVmoe a/ue<vt^omvaVv€ of- -kn«
&>&c*V\AAAs&& and Saconano-e Comrn^v-um.
BY
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission
DATE
OATH GOVERNING CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT OF INFORMATION
tl
/n-e've^y <yweo/t -and a-f/jU/vm •t/rvat <5i vnM
■not A/ei>ea/C a/rvy oA/ o/f/C of- -tfi-e <vrt£o'u-
-ma-t-wm o-M/o/t/n-ed ^ <^ue<yt>i,OTvrioVue -to
arvy 'urvoutnoVi^ed fceV&on o^ *p&M»tyM>
This Identification card Is Mo. . It
expires September 15,1939 and aust be
returned to the office on or before that
date.
Paste
Photograph of
I nt er v I ever
here
coo
coo
coo
coo
cOo
1--O0
cOo
coo
coo
coo
'■Oo
coo
cOo
cOo
coo
cOo
coo
coo
'-Oo
coo
cOo
coo
coo
coo
-Oo
coo
coo
coo
coo
coo
cOo
coo
cOo
cOo
coo
coo
coo
■-O0
cOo
cOo
cOo
cO»
cOo
cOo
cOo
coo
cOo
cOo
coo
coo
COo
cOo
coo
cOo
cOo
cOo
cOo
cOo
coo
'-Oo
coo
COo
coo
cOo
coo
coo
coo
coo
coo
•■Oo
coo
coo
cOo
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
83
APPENDIX 4
Instructions for Enumerators Engaged in the Survey of
Life Insurance Policyholders
Nature and pur-pose of the survey. — This survey is being conducted by the
Securities and Exchange Commission with the assistance of the Work Projects
Administration of the United States Government. It is part of the Government's
investigation of the life-insurance business, the results of which will be presented
to a committee of the Congress of the United States. The purpose of this survey
is to obtain specific facts relating to the holders of life-insurance policies. It is
desired to ascertain in selected areas the number of persons who are insured and
the proportion of their income which is used to pay premiums on their policies.
Method. — The facts desired are to be obtained by enumerators who will call
upon each of the families living within the areas selected. Enumerators will be
furnished with sets of schedules upon which they will enter the answers to specific
questions.
Enumerators and clerks will be sworn to handle the information obtained in a
confidential manner and not to reveal to any unauthorized person facts relating
to the survey. Enumerators must not give advice to persons interviewed on the
wisdom or adequacy of their insurance holdings. If advice is sought the ques-
tioner should be referred to the State Insurance Commissioner, Hon. C. F. J.
Harrington, Boston, Mass.
It must be made clear that this survey is solely for the purpose of determining
the facts relating to the holders of life insurance. It is not an attack upon the
life-insurance business nor is there any criticism intended of the policies or prac-
tices of any insurance company. The enumerators must not convey the impres-
sion that either they, or those conducting the survey, look with disapproval on any
company or on any kind of insurance or on any amount of insurance held by
individuals.
The schedules. — The name of the enumerator and the date of the first call should
be written in the spaces on the upper right-hand corner of the first page of the
schedule. Leave the other lines blank. On the upper-left corner, insert the
schedule number in accordance with the directions giyen by your supervisor.
Enter the name of the city in which the survey is being made on the lines below.
The apartment or room number should be entered with the street and number
address.
I. FAMILY COMPOSITION AND OCCUPATIONS
A. Members of family. — All following persons are to be listed as members of
one family:
1. Persons occupying dwelling: The principal criterion of membership in the
family group is the manner of allocation of the earnings of the persons living
within a dwelling unit. A dwelling unit may be a whole house, part of a house, an
apartment, or any single room or group of rooms occupied by a person or a family
as a place of abode. It will usually be closed off from any other family's place of
abode.
All related persons who occupy a dwelling unit and whose earnings are pooled
to form the "family income", are to be included, together with their children, as
members of the family. A man and wife and their dependent children, or either
parent with one or more such children, and under some circumstances, married
children and other relatives are to be considered members of a family group.
Wage-Learning persons other than lodgers who might otherwise be included in
this group but contribute only a part of their earnings to the family pool, should
nevertheless be considered members of the group, and their total earnings included
in the famil}' income. Persons who are not related to other occupants of the
dwelling unit but who pool their earnings with the income of the others are to be
considered members of the family.
2. Persons not occupying dwelling: There are some cases where persons who
do not occupy the dwelling unit should be included as members of the family.
84
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 85
This will be the case, for instance, where some re'ative or friend contributes
regular periodic sums of money to the family income pool, and where premiums
on insurance on such person's life are paid out of the family income. An example
of such person would be a divorced husband who sends alimony in regularly, and
where the ex-wife pays the premiums on his insurance. Persons not occupying
the dwelling unit and not contributing to family income are also to be included as
members of the family if they are being supported out of the family income or if
premiums on their insurance are being paid therefrom. 1 Thus a divorced wife who
received alimony is a member of a husband's family for the purpose of this survey
if he pays for her insurance. Also, any other person should be included if pre-
miums on his or her insurance are paid by the family.
3. Lone persons, lodgers, servants, etc.: Lone perons who are either the sole
occupants of separate dwelling units or who occupy dwelling units with person? not
related and with whom earnings are not pooled, constitute separate families.
Servants who live in the dwelling unit? are to be considered lone persons. Lodgers
living within a family unit, whether related to the family or not, are to be considered
separate familie? if they pay for their board and lodging at regular rates.
Entries under A. — "Members of family" should be made by listing the names of
the members of the family. A separate schedule is to be used for each family, even
if there is only one person in the "family." The first name entered should be
that of the person who appears to be the head of the family group occupying a
dwelling unit. This should be the husband whenever there is one. Thereafter
the names of his wife and the unmarried children should be listed in order of their
ages. If there are married children living with the family and as "members of the
family" as herein defined, their names, followed by the names of their spouses and
children, should be listed immediately after the name of youngest unmarried child
of Head Number 1.
B. The persons interviewed are to be indicated by inserting a circle opposite
the name.
C. Relationship. — The entries here are to show the relationship of each member
to the "head" ot the family. However, a married son or other male relative is to
be designated as "Head (2)." The husband of a married daughter or other
female relative would also be denominated "Head (3)." An example of the man-
ner of entering the names and relationships follows:
Members of family Relationship
(1) (2)
1. John Jones Head (1).
2. Mary Jones Wife of No. 1.
3. Wm. Jones Son of No. .1.
4. James Jones Head (2), brother of No. 1.
5. Sarah Jones Wife of No. 4.
6. Mrs. Smith Mother-in-law of No. 4.
This means that John Jones (head (1) ) is one "head" of the family occupying
the dwelling unit. His wife and son are also in the family. In addition, his
brother James and James' mother-in-law are members of the family, as herein
defined.
D. Not living in this dwelling. — Place a circle opposite the names of persons listed
in column A, as members of the family who do not live in the dwelling unit. For
instance, if the family "head's" mother-in-law lives elsewhere, but the family pays
the premiums on her insurance, there should be a circle in column D after her
name.
E. Sex. — Sex is to be designated by inserting a circle in the appropriate column
opposite the name of each member of the family.
F. Marital status. — The column headed "S" indicates single. "M" indicates
married and living with husband or wife. "Wid. or Sept." indicates widowed,
divorced, or separated from husband or wife. A circle should be inserted in the
appropriate column to indicate the status of each member of the family.
G. Ethnological classification. — "W" stands for white or Caucasian. "N" for
Negro; "Oth" for any color or race other than white or Negro. If the person is a
child of one white and one Negro parent, write in the word "mixed" in column
"G." Before entering "Oth" be sure that it represents a separate racial group
rather than merely a distinction of national origin. Chinese, American Indians,
1 Note, however, that only persons contributing to the family income will be listed in the section dealinr
with family income.
86 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Filipinos, East Indians, etc., are to be considered members of separate racial
groups, but not Russians, Italians, Scandinavians, etc.
H. Age last h: rthday. — Enter the age attained at the last birthday as reported
by the person interviewed, in column 1 for every member of the family. Leave
column 2 blank.
I. Country of birth. — If the person was born in the United States, enter a circle
in the column headed "U. S. A." If the person was born in a foreign country,
enter the name of the country of birth as reported by the person interviewed.
J. Employment status. — The code used for recording the employment status of
each member of the family is as follows:
"Gainful. Emp.": This means "gainfully employed." It includes any person
regardless of age or sex in regular and continuing employment, even though
working only part time. A person who regularly does some work on Saturdays,
for instance, would be gainfully employed. A person who has been laid off from a
regular job because of factory repairs or slackness, or is not working because of a
strike, should be deemed gainfully employed if his idleness has continued for less
than 30 days.
"WPA etc." - This heading includes persons receiving WPA wages at the time
of the interview, or who are engaged in some other similar governmental relief
work. For instance, persons who are working in CCC camps or under the auspices
of the National Youth Administration (NYA) are included under this heading.
Do not include persons who are employed in these organizations in nonrelief
administrative capacities.
"Non. Pd. Emp.": This includes "nonpaid family workers," such as those who
are voluntarily doing work for which people are usually paid. For instance, a
person who works in his or her father's store and does not receive any regular
wages comes under this heading.
"Temp. Emp.": Under this heading include persons who are temporarily em-
ployed, but do not expect the job to continue for more than 1 month.
"Seeking Emp.": This heading represents those who are "seeking employment."
Any person who is now out of a job and is seeking one comes in this category
whether he or she has ever been employed before or not. Also, include persons
who have been out of work because of a strike or seasonal lay-off for 30 days or
more.
"Non- Worker" : This heading covers persons who are not working and are not
seeking remunerative work. For instance, it would include retired persons, house-
wives, and minor children.
Enter a circle in the applicable column for each member of the family.
K. Occupation. — Under column 1 — "Kind of Work" — enter the particular job
on which the member of the family works. For instance, do not enter simply
"Factory Worker," but note whether or not the person is a mechanic, an engineer,
etc.
Under column 2 — "Name of Employer" — enter the name of the company or
person for whom the member of the family works. If he is in business for himself,
enter "Self."
L. Social security cr railroad retirement number. — If the member of the family
has a social security number, or comes under the coverage of the Railroad Pension
Act, enter a circle in the column headed "Yes." Answer "Yes" for people who
are no longer making contributions to social security as well as those who are still
doing so. If the person is not now in an employment covered by Social Security
and has never been in one, and is not a railroad employee, enter a circle in the
column headed "No."
II. INSURANCE POLICY DATA
A. Members of the family. — Insert in this column the numbers identifying each
person in the "family" on whom there is an insurance policy. There may be
several policies on the life of each person, and every policy is to be listed on a separate
line. Be sure to enter data on "lapsed" and "paid-up" policies as well as on those
in force on which premiums are still being paid. However, do not make any entries
with respect to policies on which premiums are in arrears, if the actual policies
are not available for examination. The existence of such policies will be noted
in the answer to Supplementary Question No. 1 on the last page of the schedule.
B. Name of company. — In entering the name of the company, abbreviations
may be used, but be certain that they can be understood. For instance, if the
first name of the company is "Home," be sure to add enough of the rest of the
name so that we can tell whether it is the Home Life Insurance Co. of New York,
the Home Life Insurance Co. of America, or the Home Beneficial Insurance Co..
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 87
etc. There are also at least three "Equitable" companies. Frequently the state
in which the company is organized should be included. The only ones which can
safely be abbreviated are the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Met), The Pru-
dential Insurance Co. of America (Pru), and the John Hancock Mutual Life
Insurance Co. (J. H.). If the policy is a Savings Bank Life Insurance .policy,
be sure to write the name of the savings bank.
The only types of insurance which are to be considered in this study are life,
personal accident, health, sickness, and hospitalization insurance. Do not in-
clude data on fire, burglary, automobile liability, or other types of casualty
insurance.
In order to record the information required in this part of the schedule, it will
be essential for the interviewer to examine the actual policies and the premium
receipt books. In most cases, the people interviewed will not have a clear idea
of the types of policies upon which they are paying premiums. In addition, they
are not likely to know the exact names of the companies which issued the policies
or the date of issue, age at issue, etc. In some cases the premium receipt books
may contain sufficient information for the schedule to be partially filled out from
them. The value of any schedule which is filled out without a direct examination
of the policies will be questionable.
If the policies seem to be hidden in some family cache, offer to step outside
until they are obtained. Do not watch while they are being brought out; you
do not want to know their hiding place.
Separate all the family policies so that data on all the policies of one person
can be entered. Then leave a line blank and continue with the policies of the
next person. Start with the person designated as "Head (1)," and make the
entries for the rest of the family as far as possible in the same order in which they
are listed on the first page.
C. Class of Insurance. — Enter a circle in the column headed by the word
that describes the class of insurance into which the policy falls. The "Life"
policies are those in which the principal feature is a promise to pay at death, or
on maturity, if an endowment. Ask if there is any insurance of each class, so
that data on f^ gotten policies may be obtained. The following descriptions
should assist in determining which classification is the proper one in each case:
1. Industrial Insurance: This is life insurance written on a "legal reserve"
basis, in which the policies are less than $1,000 in face amount and the premiums
are collected weekly or monthly by agents who call at the homes of the persons
insured. There may be some slight variations from this definition, but it is
correct for substantially all of the business. Industrial policies are usually
marked "Industrial" somewhere on the policies.
2. Ordinary Life Insurance: This type of life insurance is paid for by sending
a fixed premium to the company either annually, semiannually, quarterly, or
monthly. Be careful to distinguish it from industrial, group, or fraternal,
described elsewhere.
3. Fraternal Life Insurance: This is insurance issued by fraternities, lodges,
orders, etc. The policies are similar to the ordinary policies, and are distinguished
principally by the name pf the issuing institution. Examples are the Lutheran
Brotherhood, the Ladies' Catholic Benefit Association, the Locomotive Engineers
Mutual Life and Accident Insurance Association, etc.
Labor unions often carry insurance for their members on a mutual benefit
plan, and the premiums are paid as part of the union dues. It should be noted
that this is mutual benefit insurance. Ascertain what part of the dues is used as
premium payments.
4. Group Life Insurance: This is the type of insurance which covers every-
body within the group named in the policy. For instance, employers frequently
take it out for the benefit of all the employees working in the company. Premium
are sometimes paid entirely by the employer. More frequently a deduction is
made from each employee's wages every month or week to cover the premium.
The enumerator will probably not be able to examine any policy or certificate
showing the nature of this insurance, the amount collected out of the wages of
the member of the family covered, or the amount of insurance coverage. How-
ever, if such a certificate is available, it will, of course, be more satisfactory than
any other source of the information. The person interviewed may be able to
provide accurate data. If you feel that the answers to your questions are in
all probability correct, enter the figures in the line assigned to this policy. If
you feel that there is some question of the accuracy of the answers, put a ques-
tion mark next to the entries.
2.-0783— 40— No. 2 7
gg CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
D. Policy number. — The number of the policy usually appears on the first
page. On industrial policies it is most likely to be found in the schedule which
contains the name of the insured, the name of the beneficiary, etc. Sometimes
this schedule is written on the last page, as is the case in most of the policies issued
by the Metropolitan. Sometimes the policy number is on the very top of the
first page or on the "fold back" of the policy. Be careful that the number which
you record as the "policy number" is the number assigned to the specific policy
issued to the policyholder, and not the code number of the policy form, the num-
ber of a "lost policy certificate," or other misleading number.
E. Date of issue on policy. — The date of issue of an industrial policy almost in-
variably appears in the schedule on the first or last page. On some other policies
it will be found at the very top of the first page, and on others it is placed near
the bottom of the page in the place where the signatures of the officers appear.
Sometimes it appears on the "fold back." There is no "date of issue" for group
insurance, so leave these columns blank for this class of insurance.
It is very important to have the correct date of issue. In case it cannot be
found on the policy, ask the person interviewed or examine the premium-receipt
book, as it may be recorded there.
Enter the month (by number), day, and year in columns 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
F . Age at issue. — The age at issue usually is entered on industrial policies in the
schedule already mentioned. Some of the companies refer to it as the "insuring
age," but the information desired here is the age of the policyholder as recorded
on the policy at the date of issue. (On industrial policies it is the age of the policy-
holder on his next birthday after the date of issue; on ordinary policies it is "age
nearest birthday.") Leave this column blank for group insurance.
G. Plan of insurance refers to whether the insurance is written as a whole life, a
20-year endowment, a 20-payment life policy, etc. The information should be
recorded by entering a circle in the column headed according to the following
code:
Plan of insurance Code
1. Insurance payable at death; premiums payable until W. L. (P. U. 75).
anniversary of policy after age 74 or until prior death.
2. Insurance payable at death; premiums payable for 70 W. L. (P. U. 70).
years less years of insuring age.
3. Insurance payable at death; premiums paid until death. W. L. (Premium
until death).
4. Insurance payable as an endowment in 15 years or upon 15-Yr. End.
prior death.
5. Insurance payable as an endowment in 20 years or upon 20- Yr. End.
prior death.
6. Insurance payable as an endowment in 25 years or upon 25- Yr. End.
prior death.
7. Insurance payable as an endowment at age 65 or upon End. at 65.
prior death.
8. Insurance payable as an endowment at age 79 or 80 or End. at 80.
upon prior death.
9. Insurance payable as an endowment at age 85 or upon End. at 85.
prior death.
10. "Cumulative Endowment," insurance payable as en- Cum. End.
dowment between ages 60 and 65, and death benefits
increasing during life of policy.
11. Insurance payable at death; premiums payable for 10 10-Pay. Life.
years.
12. Insurance payable at death; premiums payable for 20 20- Pay. Life.
years.
13. Insurance payable at death; premiums paya"ble for 30 30-Pay. Life.
years.
14. Insurance payable only if death occurs before the expira- Term.
tion of a certain term.
The plan of insurance is usually noted in small print at the top or bottom of
the first page of the policy and on the "fold back." Various expressions are used
to designate the different types of policies. For instance, number 1 above is
sometimes designated "Whole Life." The enumerator should note carefully
any deviations from the true whole life policy which is described in number 3
above. The policies in which the premiums are payable for limited periods such
as 10, 15, 20, or 30 years are usually designated "10-Payment Life," "20- Payment
Life," etc. The policies which are actually endowments at 80 are occasionally
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
89
designated "Whole Life," but the entry should be made in the column headed
"End. at 80."
(Attention is called to the fact that some companies use £he expression "limited
benefit" when they refer to policies issued to colored people. Care should be taken
not to confuse this expression with the limited payment feature of some policies.)
Write the titles of unusual types or plans of insurance right across the columns
under "Plan of Insurance." All group insurance is term; enter a circle in the
column so headed for this class of insurance.
H. Dividends. — This column applies to industrial and ordinary life insurance
only. A "participating policy" shares in the surplus and savings of the business,
while a nonparticipating policy does not do so. The policyholder receives divi-
dends on the former and none on the latter. The small print at the bottom of the
first page of the policy, where the plan of insurance is described, usually designates
the policy as "participating" or "nonparticipating." Sometimes this information
appears only in the body of the policy. A participating policy is also referred to
as "participating in annual distribution of surplus," or as "receiving annual
dividends."
A participating policy, or one in which there are annual dividends, calls for a
circle in column I. For nonparticipating policies, enter a circle in column 2. All
policies issued by the Metropolitan, Prudential, and John Hancock are now
participating, even though they are labeled nonparticipating, as some old ones are.
Leave these columns blank for group insurance.
/. Face amount of the policy payable at death. — On industrial policies this usually
appears in the schedule already referred to. If the insured was an adult at the
date of issue, the amount of insurance can probably be determined by a glance
at this schedule. If the insured was an infant (either under 15 or 10) or if the
policy is a cumulative endowment policy, the amount of insurance will probably
appear in a table connected with the schedule. The amount to be entered in
column 1 in the case of an infantile policy is the amount payable in case of death
on the date of the interview. The following is an example of the type of schedule
which appears in infantile policies:
Amount payable if death occurs during
policy year as stated below
Age next birthday when policy is issued
1st year:
1st 3 months
Last 9 months
2d year
3d year
4th year
5th year..
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
11th year and thereafter
$10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
212
$40
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
208
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
203
80
100
120
140
160
180
199
$100
100
120
140
160
180
194
$120
120
140
160
180
189
$140
140
160
180
184
$160
160
180
$175
$171
According to this schedule the "face amount of the policy" in the second year
would be $40 for age 1 at issue, $60 for age 2 at issue, $175 for age 9 at issue, and
so forth, for each 5 cents of premium. Enter two times these figures for a pre-
mium of 10 cents, and so forth.
In the case of a cumulative endowment industrial policy, enter the amount
payable in case of death during the present year as the face amount.
The face amount of ordinary or fraternal insurance usually appears on the face
of the policy. It is also frequently written on the "fold back." Sometimes pro-
ceeds of the policy are to be paid in installments, but a "commuted" value is
generally given as a lump sum payable at death. This is the amount to be entered
in column 1.
In the case of other classes of insurance, enter the lump sum payable in the
event of normal death (not accidental).
90 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
In some cases the policies call for a payment of double the face amount of the
policy, in the event of accidental death. This double amount should not be re-
corded as the face amount under any circumstances.
Leave column 2 blank.
J. (a) CURRENT PREMI UM PA YMENTS.—U the premium paying period,
as stated in the policy, has expired, the policy is in force on a "paid-up" basis,
and a circle should be placed in the column headed "Paid-up." For instance,
"Twenty payment life" policies become paid-up after premiums have been paid
for 20 years. Similarly, policies on which premiums are to be paid until the anni-
versary of the policy after age 74 become paid-up some time during the year after
the insured reaches age 74. Do not enter a circle in this column for policies which
are paid-up for a reduced amount under a "nonforfeiture" clause; premium infor-
mation on such policies is to be entered in the columns under "K" and "L."
// the policy is "paid-up 1 ' and a circle appears in the column headed "paid-up,"
make no additional entries under J or K.
(6) With respect to all policies other than those marked "paid-up" in column
A, enter, in the column headed "Each installment," the amount of premium called
for on each premium-paying date. This will include the premiums on policies on
which premiums are currently being paid and on which premiums are in arrears.
For example, if the policy calls for a weekly premium of 5 cents, enter .05 in this
column. The weekly or monthly premium on industrial policies will be found in
the schedule already described, on the first or last page of the policy. On ordinary
or fraternal insurance policies the amount of each installment generally appears
on the face and on the "fold back" of the policy. In the case of group life insur-
ance, the premiums are paid by weekly or monthly deductions from the pay check.
Ask the person interviewed for this figure in case no certificate is available.
(c) How. Paid. — Enter a circle in the column headed by the proper word denot-
ing the frequency of premium payments called for by the policy. For example, a
policy bearing a premium of 25 cents a week is a "weekly" policy, even if payments
are actually made monthly.
(d) Annual. — The annual amount of premium called for in the policy is to be
recorded here. This will be done in the office.
(e) Dale to which premiums have been paid. — If the premiums on industrial
weekly premium policies were paid at any time during the 4 weeks preceding the
interview (or on the day ol the interview), and are not paid for any period in
advance, enter a circle in the column headed "To date." Similarly, h the pre-
miums on any policies other than industrial have been paid only to the last. due dale,
enter a circle in the "To date" column. If the premiums were paid for some
period in advance of their last due date, enter the date to which they were paid.
(The best way to find the date to which industrial policies have been paid is to
examine the premium receipt book.)
K. Policies on which premiums are in arrears 4 weeks or more. — Leave the
column headed "Residual value" blank.
Ii premiums are not currently being paid on a policy (and it is not marked
"paid-up" in column J (A), and more than 4 weeks have elapsed since the last
due date, enter the date on which the last payment was made. If the last pay-
ment was made several years ago, and the premium receipt book does not show
the date it will be sufficient to enter the year oi last payment.
L. Lien or loan. — In the case of industrial insurance, policies are sometimes
"revived" after they have lapsed because premiums have fallen into arrears more
than 4 weeks. If all past-due premiums are not then paid in cash, the company
may stamp a "lien" notice on the policy for the amount of unpaid premiums.
If there are any such lien stamps, enter the number of them in the column headed
"Number of stamps." In the case of ordinary or fraternal insurance, there may
be a loan on the policy. This will be endorsed on the policy in most cases. Enter
the amount of the loan in the column headed "Amount of loan." If the amount
of the loan is not recorded on the policy, determine how much it is. If there is
no loan endorsement on the policy, ask if there is any loan outstanding, and if
there is one, how much it is. In the column headed "Date made," enter the year
in which the loan was made.
If there is no lien or loa'i on the policy, draw a line through the spaces in these
columns.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 91
III. SICKNESS, ACCIDENT, HEALTH, HOSPITALIZATION INSURANCE, AND PENSION
PLAN
Members of family. — Enter in this column the number assigned to each rr ember
of the family for whom premiums are being paid on sickness, accident, health, or
hospitalization insurance, or who is contributing to a pension plan.
Sickness. — This is a type ot insurance whose primary purpose is to pay a certain
amount per day or week during illness. Some of the life policies may contain
"disability" benefits, and some of the sickness policies may conuain death benefits,
but he classification should reflect the primary purpose of the insurance.
Enter in this column the annual amount paid as premium on sickness policies.
Accident. — This class of insurance pays benefits in case of accidental injuries.
The policies are usually marked "accident policy." Frequently there is a death
benefit payable in case of accidental death, but this does not class it with "fife"
insurance.
Enter in this column the annual amount paid as premium on such a policy.
Health. — This type ot insurance provides benefits in the form of periodic health
services, such as physical examinations, clinical ministrations, and other forms of
medical assistance. It is usually issued on a group basis within a factory or other
institution.
Enter in this column the annual amount paid as premium on such a policy.
Hospitalization. — This type of insurance provides part or all of the costs of
hospitalization in the case of illness or accidental injuries. An example is the plan
of Associated Hospital Service Corporation. It is written to cover entire families
as well as single individuals. If the policy covers the entire family, enter the
amount of the annual premium paid on this type of insurance on the bottom line
opposite "Family as a whole."
Pension plan. — Where an individual participates in a pension or retirement
plan (other than the old-age provisions of the Social Security Act) and deductions
are made from salary or wages by his or her employer, enter the amount of the
annual payment made toward the pension. Usually no policy will be available
for examination, and reliance will have to be placed on the information supplied
by the person interviewed.
Frequently pension plans include benefits payable in case of death of the con-
tributor. The amount is usually dependent upon the total amount of annual
contributions which have been made. In the column headed "Amount payable
at death," enter the amount payable in case of death on the date of the interview.
IV. FAMILY INCOME
A. Members of family. — In this column enter the numbers opposite the names
of each member of the family listed under I-A, who contribute to family income.
B. Salary and wages nonrelief employment. — The entries under this heading are
intended to be the amounts received for a regular and continuing job, other than
relief, held at the time of the interview. Only persons having a circle in part I,
column J, denoting employment status, will have any (Gainful Emp.), entries here.
If the wages are paid at a certain rate per week, make the proper entries in
column 1. If payment is made by the month, insert the amounts in column 3.
If, payment is made by the day, obtain an estimate of the weekly income, as
accurate as possible. The full amount of salary is to be entered without deduc-
tion for social security or pension contributions, despite the fact that the salary
actually received probably represents the net amount after this deduction has
been made.
In column 6, enter the approximate amount that the person expects to receive
during the next 12 months. This may be the same amount as he received during
the last 12 months. However, if he has received a raise very recently, his income
for the next 12 months will probably be higher than for the last 12 months.
Column 6 is to be used as a check on the accuracy of column 5.
C. WPA wages. — Enter here the income, if any, received from WPA during the
last 12 months.
D. Cash relief (other than WPA). — Enter here the cash income received from
State and Federal relief agencies, other than WPA, and all other forms of charita-
ble or relief assistance. If the family has received home relief or other assistance
which is paid to the family as a whole make the entry on the bottom line which
is marked "Family as whole."
E. Do not make entries in column E.
92 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
F. Other income during last twelve months. — (1) Investments: Enter here the
amount of cash income received from stock, bonds, mortgages, and other similar
securities.
(2) In kind: Enter here the cash value of food, clothing, and other things which
are regularly received by the family from any source. For instance, if a charitable
or relief agency gives relief in the form of food, enter its value here. If the family
lives "rent free" in exchange for janitorial services, for instance, include the rental
value of the premises occupied by the family as income "in kind." Similarly, if
the family uses food from the shelves of a store run by its members, the value of
such food should be included. If i t is impossible to obtain an estimate of the
value of the material received, make a note of its description, and the estimate
will be made in the office.
(3 and 4) Business — Real estate: Some families may be found which receive
income from real estate owned by them or rented by them from others, (a) En-
tire property rented: If the actual net income, which is the amount left after
all taxes and maintenance expenses have been paid, is known, enter this amount.
If, however, net income so determined is not known, enter 40 percent of the
total (gross) rents received as an approximation of the net income. (6) Part of
the property occupied by the owner: Should the owner occupy a part of the
building rented to others, include 40 percent of the rental value of the owner-
occupied dwelling unit in the net income, (c) Income from a tenant or sub-
tenant: The same formula should be applied in the case of a family which lives
in a portion of a dwelling (which it owns or which it rents), the remaining por-
tion of which it lets or sublets to others. In calculating the family income, 40
percent of the rental value of the portion occupied by the family should be in-
cluded in the family income, (d) Income from lodgers or boarders: If the fam-
ily rents rooms to lodgers, or takes in boarders, ascertain the gross income from
this source and deduct the estimated cost of utilities and other expenses paid for
by the family and incurred because of the lodgers or boarders. This amount
constitutes a part of the family income and should be entered under "Business,
other," column 4 under F. (Note: Where boarders or lodgers are taken in, the
homemaker should be classified as gainfully employed by herself.) (e) Imputed
income from ownership of home: If the family owns the home, and does not
rent any portion of the building, ascertain the family's equity in the dwelling
(deducting from the total market value the value of any mortgages held on the
home). Enter 3 percent of the family's equity in the dwelling as the additional
net income from the ownership of real estate.
In column 4 enter the net income from other business carried on by a member
of the family. This includes net income from a store, taxicab, newsstand, etc.
5. Gifts, etc. : Enter in the column the cash value of all regular gifts, whether
of money or in kind, received by any member or members of the family. Do
not enter the amount of occasional gifts which are not considered a steady source
of income. Do not enter the amount of gifts received by one member of the
family from another member of the family, if both members are living at home.
However, if any member of the insurance family not living with the family con-
tributes regular gifts to the family income, enter the amount of the annual
contribution in column 5 under B designating the member of insurance family
making such regular gifts.
6. Other income: Enter here all kinds of steady income not already men-
tioned. For instance, include amounts being received under a pension or on
account of workmen's compensation insurance.
G. Total annual income.— Yov office use.
Supplementary questions. — These questions should be asked after the other
information called for in the schedule has been recorded:
1. "Have any policies other than those examined ever been in force on any
persons listed as members of the family?" This question refers to policies on
persons listed as members of the family but which policies have not been shown
you and which are not recorded in the schedule. A circle in the column headed
"yes" if there were lapsed, surrendered, or matured policies on any of these people.
2. (To be asked of industrial policyholders in the Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.)
"Has use ever been made of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.'s visiting nurse
service? If the answer is 'No,' is it because the family did not know of the
service?" Ask these questions only if there is at least one Metropolitan Industrial
policy listed'in the schedule.
3. "Has advantage ever been taken of the 10 percent discount given industrial
policyholders for paying premiums at the local office of the insurance company?
If the answer is 'No,' is it because the family did not know about this?" Ask
these questions only if there is at least one industrial policy listed which was
CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 93
issued by the Prudential, the Metropolitan, or the John Hancock. (Remember
not to criticize any company or its practices in obtaining answers to this question.)
4. "Could the family conveniently pay industrial insurance premiums on a
monthly basis? Does policyholder prefer to pay by the week?" These questions
refer to industrial insurance only. If premiums are usually paid monthly or
oftener, do not specifically ask the first part of this question, but enter a circle in
the column headed ."Yes." If they are usually paid weekly or every 2 weeks,
ask the question. Ask the second question in every case.
5. Determine which, ifi'any of the following types of saving institutions are
now used by members of the family:
Savings Bank
Savings Department of Bank.
Co-operative Bank
Postal Savings.-.
Credit Union
Other (Describe).
If any member of the family has savings on deposit or invested in one or more
of the named institutions, enter a circle in the proper space or spaces. Do not
ask how much the savings amount to.
6. Write in additional question as follows: "Have you ever consulted an
insurance counselor?" An insurance counselor is an individual not connected
with an insurance company whose principal business is that of giving advice in
the planning of insurance.
Note. — On page 3 of schedule, above the words "Supplementary Questions",
write: "Lives in rented home (or apartment) ," if such is the case. If the premises
are occupied by the owner, state whether such occupancy applies to all or only
a part of the premises.
APPENDIX 5
Adjustments Made on Schedules
The realities in an insurance contract are not always what appear on the surface.
This is particularly true of industrial insurance where the actual amount of benefit
that will be paid upon the death of the insured is usually either greater or less than
the so-called "face amount." It is seldom that the policyholder himself knows the
exact facts, and it requires no little skill in the use of rate books and dividend sheets
for an experienced agent to figure it out.
The survey was directed toward finding out the amounts, classes, and plans of
insurance and the cost of maintaining this insurance in force. It was, therefore,
necessary to study carefully the data reported for each policy in each schedule,
and check it against dividend and company releases so as to be able to adjust the
"face value" of the policy to the amount of insurance actually in force and the
amount of premium being paid. The amount of benefit that would have been
paid if the death of the insured had occurred on the date of enumeration was
used as the "face value," and the annual premium, as affected by current divi-
dends, was used as the present cost of that amount of insurance.
Insurance in force — Infantile and cumulative endowment policies. — In the case of
certain policies such as infantile and cumulative endowment policies the amount
of insurance in force at a particular time is dependent upon the age at issue and
the number of years the policy has been in force. It is therefore necessary to
consult a table, usually printed on the policy itself, from which it is possible to
determine the amount in force for every 5 cents of weekly premium. Multiplying
this by the number of nickels contained in the weekly premium gives the total
amount of insurance in force.
Insurance in force reduced by policy loans. — In cases where a loan had been made
to a policyholder against the reserve value of a policy, the mount of the loan was
deducted from the amount of insurance that would otherwise have been paid on
the death of the insured. Few loans are made on industrial policies as they
ordinarily do not have any loan values. However, when a policyholder reinstates
a lapsed policy and does not pay the premium arrears in cash a "lien" is placed
against the policy for the amount of unpaid back premiums. Liens, usually for
relatively small amounts, were ignored. In a few rare cases where liens on indus-
trial policies were large they were deducted from the amount of insurance other-
wise represented by the policies. No account of interest was taken in these
adjustments.
Adjustments for dividends. — It was necessary to make extensive computations
to determine the annual premiums required to maintain the amount of insurance
in force, since the payment of dividends by mutual companies frequently alters
the facts as shown on the policies. This required the use of premium-rate books as
well as the statements of dividends declared by the different mutual companies.
Three industrial companies paid their annual dividends in the form of credits
against premium charges and one by additions to the face of the policy. All
premiums after adjustments for dividend credits were put on an annual basis.
The premiums on all participating ordinary policies were reduced by the amount?
of dividends declared in 1939 on those respective policies, on the assumption that
the great majority of policyholders elect that mode of dividend payment.
Annual premiums reduced when paid at company's office. — If a policyholder was
taking advantage of the 10-percent discount on premiums for payment at the
local office of the insurance company, proper adjustments were made on the
schedule.
Policies surrendered for cash. — Policies which were cash-surrendered during the
year previous to the date of enumeration were not considered as having been in
force during the year, nor were any premiums on these policies included in the
family's annual premium payments.
Policies in force as paid-up insurance for a reduced amount. — Policies on which
premium payments had ceased, and on which the policyholder had selected the
option of paid-up insurance at a reduced face value, were considered as being in
94
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 95
force at the reduced face value. No premiums on these policies were included in
the family's annual premium payments, but proper adjustment for dividend
additions to the face amount were made.
Policies in force as extended term insurance. — Policies on which the premium pay-
ments were in arrears beyond the grace period were considered as in force for the
full face value on extended term insurance, if the number of premium payments
already made warranted such treatment, and unless the liens against the policy were
of such amount as to exhaust the policyholder's equity. The contractual obligations
of the companies were carefully analyzed in making these entries. No premiums
on these extended limited term policies were included in the family's annual
premium payments.
Policies issued during the year preceding enumeration. — On policies issued during
the 12 months preceding the date of enumeration premiums were computed for the
entire year and included in the family's annual premium payments.
Assumptions with respect to ordinary policies. — In making adjustments in the
premiums on ordinary policies on account of dividends declared in 1939 it was
decided to proceed on the assumption that the ordinary policies found in the survey
contained neither the disability nor the double-indemnity benefit. This results in a
slight tendency to overstate dividends, as companies have paid slightly higher
dividends on policies without these benefits than they have on policies with them.
On the other hand, additional premiums are charged for the disability and double-
indemnity benefits. Hence this factor tends to compensate for the other tendency.
Relatively few of the policies were complicated with double indemnity or disability
features and it is felt that no bias results from this assumption.
Plans of insurance. — A wide variety of terms is employed to describe different
plans of life insurance and many provisions are found which vary somewhat in
different policies. To the layman these present a confused picture. Close study,
however, reveals that basically life insurance policies may be classed into four
groups: (1) Whole life, (2) limited payment life, (3) endowment, and (4) term.
These are the classes employed generally in the industry. The criteria employed
in classifying policies follow those used by the companies and the State insurance
commissioners and relate mainly to length of the period over which it is contem-
plated that premiums will be paid. Thus when the premium paying period was
30 years or longer, a policy whether of the limited payment type or of the endow-
ment type was classified as on the "whole life" plan. Policies in which the pre-
mium-paying period was less than 30 years were divided into "endowments" or
"limited payment life" plans, respectively. Endowment policies were those
policies that terminate 1 with the payment of the face amount upon the expiration
of periods less than 30 years in length. "Limited payment life" policies provide
insurance throughout the life of the insured, but were those in which the premium-
paying period stipulated was less than 30 years. "Term" insurance policies are
in force for a limited term of years. In this respect they are like "endowments"
but, unlike endowment policies, there is no payment to the policyholder upon
the expiration of the period indicated as the "term."
A detailed classification of policies is shown in table 7. From this the relative
importance of each of twenty-odd policy plans may be judged. Among the in-
dustrial policies classified as "whole life" it is clear that policies written on the
plan "paid up at 75" dominate the group. Policies of this type account for 84
percent of all such whole-life policies. These together with the policies "paid
up at 70" account for all but 5.4 percent of the total in this group.
Among the ordinary policies grouped as "whole life," 2 types stand out:
""Endowment at 85" and "until death." Together these 2 plans account for 485
out of a total of 622 policies.
In both industrial and ordinary insurance the policies classified as "limited-
payment life" were predominantly of the "20 payment" variety. This plan
accounted for all but 18 of the 1,384 industrial policies, and all but 16 of the 444
ordinary policies in this classification.
Endowments in both industrial and ordinary policies are primarily of the short-
term variety. Thus among the industrial policies 2,677 of 3,122 were for 20
years and 338 for 15 years. Among the ordinary endowments, 20-year policies
afe dominant and account for 146 out of 189 policies.
Of the 192 industrial term policies all arose from the operation of the nonfor-
feiture provision — hence they were what is known as extended term policies. Only
10 term policies were found in the ordinary insurance. Half of these were extended
term policies, the other half had been sold originally as term policies.
• Such policies could, of course, terminate by death, lapse, or surrender before the expiration of 30 years.
96 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
It may be noted that this table shows 395 certificates of group insurance. All
of these represent term insurance. In 109 cases these certificates carried such
benefits as accident and health insurance in addition to life insurance.
There were 276 fraternal-insurance policies. All of these were written on the
whole-life plan in which premiums are payable until death.
Family' income. — One of the objectives of the survey was to relate the cost of
life insurance to the premium-paying ability of various classes of families. This
necessitated an inquiry to determine the total annual income of each family
enumerated. For this purpose it was decided to include both the money and
nonmoney income received by the family during the 12 months preceding the
day of enumeration.
Money income was defined as the total net cash received by each member of
the economic family. This included salaries, wages, Work Projects Administra-
tion wages, local relief, whether worked for or not; mother's aid, old-age assistance,
soldiers' relief or other forms of relief; net earnings from boarders or lodgers; net
profits from business enterprises owned or operated by members of the family;
net rents from property owned by members of the family; interest on investments;
gifts received regularly and used for living purposes; pensions; workmen's com-
pensation; and alimony.
Nonmoney income included the estimated cash value of commodities taken
by owners from their shops for family use; commodities received by families from
the Surplus Commodities Division of the Massachusetts Department of Public
Welfare or other sources; free rent for janitorial or other services; value of the
use of owned home.
In estimating the net rents from the operation of real property it was decided
after some study to use an arbitrary 40 percent of the gross rents as the most
equitable average net income. When the owner occupied part of the premises,
40 percent of the rental value of that portion was added to his income. Similarly,
a formula was established for estimating the imputed income of families owning
and living in their homes. The family's equity in the property was established
by ascertaining as nearly as possible the market value of the property and de-
ducting the amount of the mortgage, if any. On the assumption that the resulting
equity should yield an average return of 3 percent if converted into some other
form of investment, 3 percent of the equity was added to the family income.
Family members. — For analytical purposes family members were classified with
reference to their relation to the familv income as follows: A breadwinner was one
whose contribution to the total income of his family was at least 50 percent as
large as the average annual income per member in his family. In other words,
it was one who was carrying at least 50 percent of his share of the family burden.
The chief breadwinner was that individual in each family in whose continued
earning capacity the family had the greatest insurable interest. Except as
noted below, a member who contributed nothing or whose contribution amounted
to less" than 50 percent of the average annual income in his family was classed
as a dependent. Individuals who received old-age assistance, mother's aid or
some form of government relief for which they did no work were considered neither
as dependents nor breadwinners.
Average annual income per family member was derived by dividing the total
family income by the number of persons living at home. The income of members
of the family not living at home was not included in the total family income, but
any contributions made to the family by these members were included as part
of the total family income.
APPENDIX 6
Illustrations of Premium Receipt Books
"ZSJS
m
ZZ*:
*2
£3*
i § c-
-i a § 1 1
iff!?!
~ .sea i
Coo.
ilfli
U_ 5 O..C
51 he
;°f!
£.B$S
vSSS
i| a ?
slflC
'i' ■
^|f$
: ; ^
"5 12 ?"? 5
1 -*
s^18
ft aJ
I-seli
5 !R
5 EaiB
i ?
■|S_g-53
* 2l
;
1 :
v.
55 *| £
s v, , r
5
i -.
1
fill!
1 g ;
S a- a
111
a 5 a
ill
1 ^ -
I * 1
Q <; £
a J
P
3-3
a*
a 8
i!
ii,
if!
'1
I
H
> < - -■ -^
4
j S ^"V
7^ i«v
1 1 g r g
• si^J \' K
■*r*sr
is, '
i
i
2
l
97
98
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
- cv <• .,
Uiil,M ! I NiH Li
1
1
S^V] jN
^
il^^lPllpgH^l
-v>
8 S RJS S 5'«
s|] |.j I M
*t\
^\\NN
r^
Miss "j*i15 l V>
APPENDIX 7
Industrial Life Insurance in Massachusetts
The figures contained in the table (p. 100), and which are presented on the
accompanying chart (p. 100), will serve to show the relative stability of industrial
Jife insurance in force in Massachusetts as a whole from 1928 through 1938. *
It is evident that industrial insurance in Massachusetts has resisted the forces
of depression to an extraordinary degree. The largest number of industrial-
insurance policies in force was 5,287,469 as of January 1, 1930. The smallest
number was 4,670,209 recorded at the end of 1935, a difference of only 11.7
percent. The net change in the 10 years from December 31, 1928, to December
31, 1937, was a decrease of only 337,695 policies or 6.7 percent. This stability
appears to be due primarily to persistent, aggressive sales efforts rather than to
a diminishing number of terminations. During" the years 1928 to 1934 the
number of policies issued fluctuated between 967,692 in 1933 and 898,558 in 1930,
while terminations ranged from 1,280,709 in 1932 to 700,245 in 1930. It is
interesting to note that since 1933 both the sale of policies and terminations
have shown slightly declining trends and that the number of policies in force has
increased but little since 1936.
' No later data available.
99
100
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Chart 22
INDUSTRIAL LIFE INSURANCE IN MASSACHUSETTS
ANNUAL NUMBER OF POLICIES ISSUED, TERMI NATED, AND IN FORCE
192 8 - 193 7
1929 1930 1931 1932
1934 1935
1937 1938
Source: Annual Reports of the Commissioner
of Insurance of Massachusetts
DS-1509 Prepared by Sec. t Sxch. Conn.
Total number of industrial policies issued, terminated, and in force in Massachusetts
each year, 1928-37
Year
In force
Jan. 1
Issued
during year
Terminated
during year
In force end
of year
1928
4, 878, 354
5, 068, 727
5, 287, 469
5, 283, 232
5, 274, 371
4, 943, 962
4, 768, 283
4, 694, 710
4, 670, 209
4, 721, 159
4, 731, 032
916, 038
918, 987
898, 558
905, 165
950, 300
967, 692
900,480
802, 708
758,808
691, 597
725, 665
700, 245
902, 795
914, 026
1, 280, 709
1, 143, 371
974, 053
827, 209
707, 858
681,724
5, 068, 727
1929
5, 287, 469
1930
5, 283, 232
1931
5, 274, 371
1932
4, 943, 962
1933
4, 768, 283
4, 694, 710
1934
1935
4, 670, 209
1936
4, 721, 159
1937.
4, 731, 032
1938.
Source: Annual Report of the Commissioner of Insurance of Massachusetts.
APPENDIX 8
Modes of Termination
Modes of termination — Industrial insurance. — A judgment of the social value
of industrial life insurance should be based not only upon the need which it is
supposed to satisfy but also upon the actual history of its performance. One
aspect of performance is revealed by the record of the industrial insurance policies
that have been terminated. The table below, upon which the accompanying
chart is based, reveals the facts with respect to the modes of termination of Ihe
industrial policies written by the four life insurance companies selling industrial
insurance in Massachusetts. This table is based upon the entire business of
these companies; such data are not available for individual states. It shows the
relative importance of each mode of termination in percentages based on numbers
of policies for all policy contracts which ceased each year from 1928 through 1937.
Policies may terminate in any one of five different ways. In order of their
importance in this period these are: (a) Lapse, (b) surrender, (c) death, (d) expiry,
and (e) maturity. 1 The largest proportion of industrial policies (53.96 percent)
terminated by lapse. This type of termination occurs when the policyholder fails
to continue the payment of premiums and when this failure takes place before the
policy has been in force long enough to have acquired nonforfeiture values.
When policies lapse, no cash is returned to the policyholder and it may be said that
all the policyholder received for the premiums he paid was the insurance protection
he enjoyed while the policy was in force.
Terminations of industrial insurance — Relative importance of different mode of
termination, 1928-87, based on all industrial policies of the Metropolitan, Pru-
dential, John Hancock, and Boston Mutual terminated each year, 1928-87
Percentages of the total number terminating by-
Year
Lapse
Surren-
der
Expiry
Maturity
Death
Total
1928...
68.06
65.17
63.59
59.28
57.36
56.15
54.72
39.96
35.65
31.11
20.72
23.02
27.56
32.78
36.56
36.48
35.01
37.66
35.95
38.72
1.79
1.94
1.52
1.46
1.23
1.68
3.04
13.75
18.24
18.89
1.43
1.49
1.07
.90
.73
.87
1.58
2.30
2.62
3.02
8.00
8.38
6.26
5.58
4.12
4.82
5.65
6.33
7.54
8.26
100
1929
100
1930
100
1931
100
1932
100
1933
100
1934
100
1935_
100
1936
100
1937 „
100
Total
53.96
32.93
5.46
1.47
6.18
100
Source: Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Insurance of Massachusetts.
Surre; der accounted for 32.93 percent of industrial policy terminations. After
policies aave been in force for over 5 years they acquire a nonforfeiture value
which upon surrender may be demanded in cash. 2 Therefore the policies sur-
rendered represent the termination of policy contracts, the cessation of premium
payments, and the realization in cash of nonforfeiture values which had accrued
to the insured.
1 It is possible also for policies to terminate by disability. In industrial insurance the policies which
terminate from this cause are few and have not been considered in this study.
2 Another form in which the nonforfeiture value may be taken is known as "paid-up insurance for a
reduced amount." This runs for the life of the insured.
101
102
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 103
Death accounted for 6.18 percent of the terminations in this period. It will
be observed that this mode of termination reached its lowest point (4.12 percent)
in 1932 from which it has since risen to 8.26 percent in 1937. The fluctuation in
the relative importance of terminations from death is due principally to the differ-
ences in the absolute numbers of terminations from other causes. There has
been little change in the actual number of terminations by death in this decade.
Under recent liberalizations in the provisions of industrial insurance, before
cash-surrender values are allowed policies may acquire nonforfeiture values which
may be taken in the form of "extended term" insurance. Under this arrange-
ment, with some variations among companies, a policy instead of lapsing upon
the discontinuance of premium payments is converted into paid-up term insur-
ance for the old face amount. The term for which it remains in force depends
upon the size of the reserve built up while premiums were paid. 3
When the terms of such policies expire the policies terminate by expiry. In-
asmuch as it was only in 1935 that extended- term insurance was made available
on industrial policies upon which premiums had been paid for such short periods,
it is understandable why expiry as a mode of termination was relatively unim-
portant before then. Expiry accounted for 1.79 percent of terminations in 1928,
bu* in 1937 accounted for 18.89 percent.
Maturity pertains to the policies written on the endowment plan which mature
in a specified number of years. Endowment policies which continue in force
until the expiration of the specified period terminate by maturity. 4 Maturity
accounted for 1.47 percent of all terminations.
The noteworthy trends in the modes of terminations during the 10 years
1928-37 are the steadiness in the importance of surrender, especially from 1932
on; the decrease in the relative importance of lapse, and the increase in the
importance of expiry. Obviously the decrease in the percentage of lapse and the
increase in percentage of expiry are related and are due to the liberalization of
nonforfeiture provisions mentioned above as a result of which a great many
policies, which under former conditions would have lapsed, now expire. The
total terminations from lapse, surrender, and expiry have fluctuated but little in
this period, ranging from a high of 95.15 percent in 1932 to a low of 88.72 percent
in 1937.
3 The Prudential, for example, in one of its industrial policies written in 1937 provided that the face
insurance "shall be automatically extended, commencing at the end of the period of grace, for a period of
1 week for each 3 weeks' premiums theretofore paid in cash."
4 Whole life policies are considered as endowment policies payable at age 96 when according to the mor-
tality tables all policyholders are supposed to be dead. Therefore those few whole-life policies which
persist until age 96 is reached terminate by maturity.
APPENDIX 9
List of Companies With Life Insurance Policies in Force in 1,666
Insured Families
Industrial policies:
Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co.
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Prudential Insurance Co. of America, The.
Ordinary policies:
I. Massachusetts companies:
Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Columbian National Life Insurance Co., The.
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.
New England Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Savings Banks.
State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Worcester
II. Companies of other States:
Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Aetna Life Insurance Co.
Bankers National Life Insurance Co.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, The.
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, The.
Home Life Insurance Co.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., The.
Mutual Trust Life Insurance Co.
National Life Insurance Co.
New York Life Insurance Co.
Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., The.
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Philadelphia.
Prudential Insurance Co. of America, The.
Security Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Shenandoah Life Insurance Co.
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada.
Travelers Insurance Co., The.
Union Central Life Insurance Co., The.
Union Labor Life Insurance Co., The.
Union Mutual Life Insurance Co.
United Life and Accident Insurance Co.
United States Government Life Insurance.
III. Fraternal associations:
Ancient Order of United Workmen.
Brith Abraham.
Eagles.
Elizabeth Daughters of America.
German's Benefit Association.
Herman Sons of America.
Independent Order Sons of Italy.
Knights of Columbus.
Ladies Catholic Benevolent Association.
Lithuanian Alliance of America.
Lithuanian Sons and Daughters Benevolent Association.
Masonic Lodge.
Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters.
104
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 105
Ordinary policies — Continued.
III. Fraternal associations — Continued.
National Aid Society.
New England Order of Protection.
Odd Fellows.
Polish Roman Catholic Society.
Portuguese Continental Union.
Royal Arcanum.
St. Jean Baptiste of America.
San Pellegrino.
Scottish Clan.
Societa Di Salemitani.
Woodmen of the World.
IV. Mutual Benefit Associations:
Aid Association for Lutherans.
Boston Firemen's Mutual Benefit Association.
Boston Police Relief Association.
Economy Grocery Mutual Benefit Association.
Firemen's Permanent Protective Association.
Gamenell Fire Alarm Co. Mutual Benefit Association.
Ginn & Co. Mutual Benefit Association.
H. P. Hood & Sons Mutual Benefit Association.
Massachusetts Firemen's Mutual Benefit Association.
Schrafft's Mutual Benefit Association.
Waltham Watch Mutual Benefit Association.
Western Electric Mutual Benefit Association.
Workmen's Sick and Death Benefit Association.
260783 — 40— No.
s a
o a
s§
<3
J2 2
s
3
£
oo
CD cc)
C
©
•° a
e
nij
3
a.
So
o
£o
S «->
09 S
2X5
s a
CD 2
GO
so
©
1>
1— 1
X!
00
O.J3
o .
1- CD
SHU
Q
_
8.2
£
5-5
w
o o
a<
09
S
e
te §
ft*
•**
tta»
or)
I.H
09 >_
•w
5°
m
sa
3d
So
g2
•Ofl
co 43
09 T3
c
c
.09
|
3
'I?
CO
3
Total an-
nual
pre-
miums'
» C t~ —• N
— 1 cm
tO N Ol CO 5
55 r~ ec •* ■*
N ? S
CM
CO C~" CO CO
O r- ■* r~
$3,090
1,610
2,893
3,043
2,330
3,034
751
4,442
4,345
CO
N CO CO
n co to
■* 5*
CO
1,570
2,662
2,847
2,681
Total in-
surance
in force '
H « N N
W N 18 Q •♦
CO O O 00 CO
CO CO CO CM
3s 1— cm 1-1
CO CO 00 ^H
CI
O IH -H
IO N ^
•-< CO
CN
CI
OS 8 00
tO O CM ■*
co ^h o» co ©
1*- i» t>-
C» CO CM CO
O H H CO
CO
-''TO
CO CM O
>o
OS
tr." rt s" -h
"5 CO CO 00
Number
of poli-
cies in
force '
to >— CN -H CO
cj —1 t- t- co
n h h m n
CO N CO N
CO CO CO U0
CM CO CO
C"
S2S
•«< CM
10
CO
CN
Cf» CO -H Q
Q tO CO O
CM CM r* CM
en
a
o
°3
«- CO
£.9
S
3
"3
H * K) 10 H
-« r- oa rt 00
IO If) N W
1» -t< -H -H
-H CM CM
CM -J< CM
^ 8 2
-r
CM t~ CO CO
— ■ CO OS to
Living
away
from
family
N 10 n n to
2~8'°
10
-< •«•
CO —1 O CO
SI
CO CD
-is
a
3
•0
3 k.
•"< 3
CO
* en « n to
CO « t-
u) ■* n r*
to ^ O O
3!
^ ■* 00
-j, r- r-
CM i-H
to to 00 00
O t~ OS O
3t3
•-" CO
5 3
£ w
<o w w 00 10
(M _i ■-, ,-1 CM
C O CN iO
W W N ^<
CO
VN IO
CN O CO
CO
CO f CO co
rt •* OS — 1
3
O r~ r~ — < ©
CO 00 O CM O
10 ^ cs jn
© N CO iO
^ CN N
CN
■0
m to co
CO 1- -h
CO CM
CO
10
-*♦ O CO CO
N « O S
— 1 CM -1 —1
Ǥa
c
^ s.a
—1 OS -* ■* -H
« 9 OO 01
t~~ CO U0 ^CP ^H
•O Oi
t* rt* CO CO
CO CO CO 00
CO
CO CM O
CO tO H
to to to
OS
'£■
CI
-1 to ■*
CM CD —< OS
OCOO H
CN CO t* CO Q
tc « ^ to io
N h W iO
»C CN OS OS
8
CO s to
H Ol CO
3
t^ CO ~* ^H
CO CO 00
I*
CD <C IO « O
CO <N CN CM Tj>
N Q H OS
^ CN N tD
co
tO CM OC>
V
h o>
CO CO ■* ■*
a)
S
a
09
H
3
.a
3
o
'%
CO
.2
1
09
Number
of fam-
ily mem-
bers
2 8 a* 8
CO OS h*- 10
CO *-H OS t>
CO
to
CO N CN
W0 OS OS
CO
CO
00 O CO CO
CM •« t^ CM
a g
* O tO S N
H CO O) O H
(O N S 00 CO
OJ> iO CO CO
OS CO OS 00
•^ CO CO CO
00
CO
CO CO — C
CO CO >o
CO O b»
■c
r~ co
t^" 00 »o ^ to
• " s" s
CN
ONCt
tf
— [^ ^r -t<
CM CM CM
is
05 01 m cn to
CO CD 10 'O
CO CM
—.
CO to H
-h t»» CN
10
* toco *
CM CO -1
Total num-
ber of
persons
without
insurance
•^ Q CO CO O
V * CN N O
to a o> v
to tr co cN to
M » N
CO OS CM
8
CO •* ~H OB
t>< r~ co
Total num-
ber of
persons
enumer-
ated'
iO -* — • —• —
O ~H CM •*»« CO
_l H —. — < C4
-H Tf CO CO
■^ OS 00 CO
CN CO CO
CO
CN CO O
tH I> CO
EP
55 v to S
CM CO CM CM
c
5
h oi n * <s
b MO »
cj
-H CM CO
J
lO CO N 00
106
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
im
CO
■a
■n
o
<*
CO
CO
m
OS
00
3
ssss
CO
o
CO
en
So
g
CO
CM
M
B
-1
ta
o
n>
>o
iq
r~
CO
g
■4i
■*
CN
$
5
•a
s
OS
rr
o>
CO
CO
t~
■*»■
t~
'C
>o
CO
IQ
CO
CO
<n
CO
-Ji
CO
■Q 1
OS
■W
t~
to
co
on
01
on
cm
>n
rj
O)
^
on
-
CM
t-
0s
-r
CO
to
OS
CO
■<<
O
■*
l>
o>
CO
a
s
Si
in
CO
CO
CM
m
r^
i
OS
tT
06
CO
CO
CS
CO
O
"d?
OS
r^
i^
OS
CO
rr,
r .
CO
_,
«*
w
¥
a
o>
S
-r
<*
CO
CM
ON
CO
_.
CO
CO
o
lO
N
M
f^
f~
2
•*•
8
s
-n
t-
o
m
t-
CO
CM
OS
CO
o
CO
■«<
N
CO
CI
CO.
1C
CO
X
CO
CI
""*
oo
CO
CN
CO
-r
OS
_l
-l
CO
a
CI
Of)
OS
OS
o)
_
^
o
os
-r
iq
CM
CO
CI
CO
CI
CO
r~
an
0)
-r
«
«
_
,^
-r
in
-rr
T
-r
IQ
N
CM
01
CM
■a
iq
CO
Ol © O CO CO CO
CO © -H ©
C^h.»-HOOl(NTf»
h N N CO O h "
S« W iO N N
eo co co co r*-
tOi-HCSi-»COCOCNLO
NN©^ONNCD©H
HTfOOHMONCOOO
f N »o co * «
r- os ^r cn © io
n©ONNHH>OiC'tN(0
o> w »o io
MW^^CNHIQH
COtOiOCO(DOaNHNTrCOP5N^O>
©eMiooco^'ioNO^ft^-'^-H
CO CN CN © © ©
© »0 t- CN W Tp
lON^iOaOtDHCD
^t^©b»-^«©©r»CN
WNCHNNQONNNiO
-* CO
C N tJ< H M
CN i-# i-H
CO"*©aO©cO©h»©CN
io — - i- r- © rr
O N W h CB 00
COONOOMCftNN
v^otO'j'oortrt
© r^- © oo -h -^
®5- 4 ^M^»CCOr*COC»O^CMMTf<.C
^NWCSNWNNNWNWMn«WM
IQg CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 2. — Insurance ownership by families and persons classified as to relief status
[Complete information was enumerated for 2,132 of the 3,548 families in the blocks surveyed. The enumer-
ated families in each block are shown classified on the basis of whether or not they (a) were receiving some
form of public relief and (6) possessed some form of life insurance. For each group thus classified there is
shown tne number of persons enumerated. This includes 259 living away from the family on whom in-
surance w as carried by the family]
Insured nonrelief
families
Insured relief fam-
ilies
Uninsured
nonrelief
families
Uninsured
relief fam-
ilies
Total number of—
Block
co
£; ©
o 3
5 -a
a
3
z
Number of
persons
3
h
o 3
.0""
z
Number of
persons
CO
■£
1
•2
o
CD
z
a
o
a
o
CD
£>
z
58
CD
3
"o
u
M
z
a
O
CO
&
hi
Z
Families
Persons
■a
CD
i
S
h- 1
■a
£
3
CO
a
a
P
T3
CD
3
a
"3
CD
U
3
a
a
P
CD
3
1
h-l
3
§
a
P
CD
h,
3
a
•o
£
1
a
"8
P
1
30
19
24
20
34
33
13
42
47
9
14
37
35
33
15
29
44
24
53
65
35
47
56
43
36
40
32
30
42
34
49
21
10
45
111
96
61
94
80
133
130
27
129
165
31
40
144
131
119
53
89
87
97
167
265
155
162
218
171
165
124
120
130
153
142
196
96
44
176
376
16
11
12
9
16
20
17
46
28
4
22
35
26
12
6
21
94
9
44
21
32
26
35
18
11
12
14
14
21
13
32
7
5
13
50
6
6
1
8
12
9
7
29
22
7
2
35
14
8
15
32
5
16
10
31
11
25
11
18
5
5
o
4
5
12
16
8
3
10
4
15
13
1
35
48
45
18
88
48
18
2
140
51
28
59
98
11
66
38
128
47
109
34
86
9
13
7
1G
27
51
61
21
10
38
11
10
7
3
9
9
10
13
26
17
4
2
67
9
4
12
23
4
6
3
27
10
18
18
6
14
5
3
12
24
3
1
6
5
6
3
2
1
1
2
11
11
5
7
21
9
4
5
9
9
2
4
1
3
8
10
6
3
4
2
6
4
5
13
2
1
8
12
11
8
2
4
4
20
25
19
26
94
32
11
16
23
38
10
15
4
11
23
32
27
9
17
7
17
13
15
60
7
6
3
3
7
7
4
24
14
9
8
55
12
1
19
27
9
2
2
6
1
13
3
8
4
2
5
1
17
7
1
10
10
23
32
15
77
50
37
32
303
60
2
112
87
35
13
3
22
4
50
14
33
14
10
31
3
73
27
34
3
36
25
25
28
46
42
20
71
69
16
16
72
49
41
30
61
49
40
63
96
46
72
67
61
41
45
35
34
47
46
65
29
13
55
115
8
9
3
2
8
8
6
35
25
14
15
76
21
5
24
36
18
4
6
7
4
21
13
14
3
4
6
8
9
6
30
7
9
2
111
74
95
115
181
175
45
217
213
49
42
284
182
147
112
187
98
163
205
393
202
271
252
257
174
137
127
140
180
193
257
117
54
214
387
44
2
40
3
26
4
26
5
50
6
66
7
49
8
169
9
120
10
64
11
82
12
499
13
127
14
29
15
146
16.
154
17
171
18
38
19
65
20
74
21
57
22
117
23
99
24
84
25
20
26
43
27.
40
28
52
29
68
30
43
31
189
32
37
33
37
34
28
35
50
Total-
1,251
4,566
772
415
1,484
396
185
626
281
1,209
1,666
466
6,050
3,003
CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER
Table 3. — Family income levels in blocks surveyed
109
(This table presents for insured and uninsured families, separately, the average annual incomes of the fami-
lies and the average number of members per family in each block. From these data are derived the
figures showing average annual income per family member]
Block
1
2
3
4
5......
6
7
8...
9
10
11
12
13
14...
15
16
17
18
19
20...
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28.
29
30
31.... -
32....
33
34
35
Averages '
Average annual in-
comes in fami-
lies—
With in-
surance
$1, 743
1,464
1,900
2,018
1,091
1,366
1,067
1,315
1,389
1,288
1,166
1,356
1,359
1,568
1,234
1,126
1,672
1,280
1,859
1,482
1,952
1,595
1,791
1,510
1,763
1,932
1,621
1,814
1,876
1,630
1,417
1,574
1,718
1,714
1,353
1,534
Without
insur-
ance
977
1,932
931
827
812
773
811
987
883
724
1,014
941
910
906
753
1,356
1,000
1,272
1,075
932
819
984
1,243
969
1,789
1,288
1,008
1,417
1,247
1,097
1,132
Average number
of members in
families —
With in-
surance
3.6
3.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.6
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.3
4.1
5.2
4.3
3.8
4.1
3.6
4.0
4.3
3.9
4.4
5.2
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.1
3.4
4.1
4.8
4.1
4.6
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.1
3.7
4.2
Without
insur-
ance
2.3
2.4
3.7
4.0
3.1
4.5
3.2
2.8
3.0
4.0
3.9
5.2
4.4
2.6
5.3
3.1
4.1
5.8
3.0
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.5
4.3
3.0
4.3
3.5
3.4
4.9
3.0
4.4
3.9
3.4
4.5
3.9
Average annual in-
come per family
member in fami-
lies—
With in-
surance
$483
421
444
467
251
294
289
347
380
396
287
260
313
412
299
312
418
296
472
339
377
391
397
334
428
561
397
378
457
357
297
380
385
415
368
367
Without
insur-
ance
$423
400
527
233
265
181
244
293
329
221
187
194
215
350
170
246
334
174
424
290
249
236
278
290
323
421
368
299
290
416
247
210
281
252
250
i Based on aggregates.
110
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 4. — Size of families and insurance status
[The 2,132 enumerated families are herein distributed according to the number of members in each.
Separate distributions are shown for nonrelief, relief, insured, and uninsured families]
Number of persons
Number of nonrelief
families
Number of relief
families
Total number of families
in individual
families
Insured
Not
insured
Per-
centage
insured
Insured
Not
insured
Per-
centage
insured
Insured
Not
insured
Total
Per-
centage
insured
11 and over
9
9
22
33
68
107
164
300
308
200
31
1
2
3
6
14
19
34
31
49
26
100.00
90.00
91.67
91.67
91.89
88.43
89.62
89.82
90.86
80.32
54.39
6
4
7
11
40
42
62
82
79
56
26
6
6
5
19
19
23
49
32
35
50
37
50.00
40.00
58.33
36.67
67.80
64.62
55.86
71.93
69.30
52.83
41.27
15
13
29
44
108
149
226
382
387
256
57
6
7
7
22
25
37
68
66
66
99
63
21
20
36
66
133
186
294
448
453
355
120
71.43
10
65 00
9
80 56
8
66 67
7 _
81 20
6
80.11
5
76 87
4
85 27
3
85 43
2
72 11
1
47 50
Total number
of families
1,251
185
87.12
415
281
59.63
1,666
466
2,132
78.14
Table 5. — Economic status of enumerated families
[All enumerated families classified according to average annual income per family member. Separate
distributions are shown for insured, uninsured, relief and nonrelief families]
Economic status: Average an-
nual income per family mem-
ber
Insured
Uninsured
Total
Grand
Nonrelief
Relief
Nonrelief
Relief
Nonreliel
Relief
total
$2,000 and over
2
8
43
23
29
75
113
143
91
109
125
151
142
90
61
30
16
2
9
50
26
32
86
121
162
105
119
140
173
160
107
76
45
23
2
$1,500 to $1,999
1
7
3
3
11
8
19
14
10
15
22
18
17
15
15
7
9
$1,000 to $1,499
1
1
51
$900 to $999..
2
7
4
21
14
24
30
24
70
82
84
48
5
26
$800 to $899
1
4
2
6
9
8
19
22
33
53
64
50
9
3
11
6
27
23
32
49
46
103
135
148
98
14
35
$700 to $799-...
97
$600 to $699
127
$500 to $599. .
189
$450 to $499
128
$400 to $449
151
$350 to $399
189
$300 to $349
219
$250 to $299
263
$200 to $249...
242
$150 to $199
224
$100 to $149
143
Under $100...
37
Total
1,251
415
185
281
1,436
696
2,132
8UMMARY
$600 and over
293
619
339
13
113
289
33
80
72
8
64
209
326
699
411
21
177
498
347
$300 to $599
876
Under $300
909
Total
1,251
415
186
281
1,436
696
2,132
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
111
£
CI
a
k
S
be
CO
a
e
*->
^ F.
O 5
£8
Ss
e -
Pig
ss
"f ^J 1 O ^ Oct ^fi i-*
■* CM —I
8SS
CO
SS8
§
o
CM
CN1
to
cs
i
CO
g
g
CO
co
Co
00
CO
r~
CO
■>
CD
r~
CD
CO
00
00
co
Sw » ? S 9 H
o ^- co co ~ch co o»
« eg ^f © ^T cp* «5
CO ^< CN i-H
<ot~O"-«'*'>'00"-i
N ci 6 «5 » » 1H
N « 00 CO N CO
SCO rH rt O CO
00 CO » CO CO
tO»00*N»HHH10»NHt9
oo 6 f^ii Hto ' ci oh
CS CO <-"
OHOWNWOlJOtCOOOiOOOCJO
nNHiOtONN^»NtOtOtOrt«
O^OO*-i-^«»-*^Ot0^HtNt^'C0O
S«rtHNinM10«MlDNNN
OiOOOWMCt©**NNNHO
to" 00 CS ffl "f N CNST-H
CO CO »-*
(»
NHNOltOlOStOOt-OOONN
COOQCOCO^COi-itN'Oi-' 'i-i
CN CN —I
8 o
O CO
CO »— * i-* — H Co CO r*" ^* CO
(Otcancor-HOift
H^totONtooion
niOMOOIOCtCJOOOHftHMSflJ
■*^NIOCOI10MHHI«N«M CN
CO — CO — «3 CM H fl
(1.8
CJ O
o 3
•* OS ^r o *o
28
HCNOoiOiocoNNCs^niocso
ejjNc>'co«oc<s i-5 CO rl ' ri "e>4
^CO*0^ , "3C6C0O'<CHO*-IICU3'^^
O N n CO H O NOW H CM CO
r~ CO — i -h i-i
•"" - !
bo c a a,
3 S
11
s „-
j-o a a ■o "3 o-a >,,
a a a a
o as as OS
•a -a
« a
8 I
a *>>
a "O
is §
2 a
w "° 2
§ S B s« (
t» >> >> 5 9 a
is a
T3 'O *o *o
35
a a S
«1
— U< IM M M H ><* |d
jOOOOOOh
■O -O "O p p as
112
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
3
a
a
o
O
H
CO
a
a
CO
-3
•* to o
•o a
!D CO * -
©
fe 9
to >ri oo co <I ©
eo rl i-i co cn a
8
a
3 8
CD
t-i
ft
a
1
o
1
«£ -* N o> ■>»• ©
OO * N O CO *
Q Q «o 00 ca> C
oo o co co eo 2
CM
©
oi * « « g »
» N w oo * n
co a> p t- o» c
•o cn cn r» r- r-
s?
a
H H M 9 CO (>•
N rt H N rt (£
eo
<!
r-T ^-f ,-H
r-T
•»
8
WHOUINH
o» «o © o •-■ <
©
ep
■a
■3
a
8
tea
S8
*»geo»N
B H N O H<
8
O
a
03
a
a
CO CO CM 00 O O
i-* IO 0> W N N
co p p to Q tr
n S S n 5 n
— i 00 CN Ci CN C
CO
3
1
o
1 1
00" 00 to" co" co" IO
O O CO IO « *
«c>
« of » Cf P-" ff
cn .i co S
3
a "3
t- « « >o » o
co n e co « c<
o
CD +J
O O
S2SS WN
« n h « p- e
8
S
iw
)S
(L, O
"3
,
ei N id n n n
n o h a o '
CN —l >-l CN ^H ■«
Ph
lO » V S « «3
t^
m a>
©
1-°
o
o to
© © -h to r-
©
1
Ph8
s
•ri oo
CO 1^ CO i-i rt
8
(-H
a
a
3
g
S 8
CO CO OS CO OS
S8
1
ei
n: to
do n ti h
w e » c« «
^4
o
a
CO
Sk
OS
a
o>
■-C ^ ,-t >0 CO
CO
a
00
lO CO
,-T to" i-T
r-T
«J
<
«»
eo
S
^
^H <N
W CO CO ^ o
«?
c
£8
o>
to o>
ri lO M H «
8
>>
,o
•*
*"'
■"*
8
a
■5
a
S
•*<
o eo
3" O i-l Tfl o
o r~ oo t^ t~
T«
i
3< CO
o «o
CN
O
CO
3
46,3
218,6
46,7
19,2
28,1
©
!
a-3
CO
O 00
^ i—t o> CO Ob
©
CD4J
s
t^ 00
co id pi h
8
.s
a> —
Ph«
o
r»
O «N
CO «ONiH
>r>
Ph
1*
s
CN rH
R
a
•a
§
,o
<s
«
§
M
a
CO
a
*o fj
"8
58 c
cp±
a
"3
8
I*
■ai
oup.
atern
rnal.
and
"5
c
&a s o.
2
g3
a
o
o
T3
><
•a c
fraternal,
inary, and
inary, and
up, and fri
inary, groi
C
E
c
1
1
CO
1
■5
c
5
§
c
"o
I
trial and
trial and
trial and
trial, ord
trial, ord
trial, gro
trial, ord
ary only
ary and |
ary and!
ary, grot
> onlv
8 t>
•a °
S 3
3
o
ggggsS35.a.9.S3ss
c
5
£
£
£
£
a
a
c
C
o
o
C
a
£
11
51
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
113
a
&
o
■o
a„
4> m
.20
3 3
-1
§S
S ^
08 3
&a
■15
as
~.°
"3.9
^ a
.2 3
1 ^
8 a Js
"" £$
<s 9
§ 1 §
?? a-°
i a «
« "0.9
J a .2
5 I.S
.9 3
tn 03
a >
Org
2o
•59
.2 >
■3 8
3.2
S OS
a
n 4
H241
Oo
fc-og,
o*s
S3
3 3
I c.2
u..§
3 3
OS
lis
a-2§
Oc
■« a
§1
^5 1-
a-2
fc-8;
00 5» CM Q ■* ^"
Tf to eo 55 to ob
oi o o> o> uj a>
r~ ^ © « rt *
•* eh w 65
pi 00 to o
2 S I s
o to »o f-*
Si 8
cc «5 w $
t- p* © >o
r» nioo
ej to co *
tO N (O N
-h co" r»? cm
§ 3 3
s s
a s
8 "?
ex to o
n o> 00
t^ H M
® lO 00
MO*
PI 00 O © O ©
© CO O © Ci
*C 00 «C N IO
•*f r* ^h
r-l (1 S Ol
IO M N H
CO ■* O t-l
t*- s « s
d 05 « oi o
©■°s a
pi © in ©
one ©
ira cm o>
CM » CO
10 ■* ci
"O <-H o c»
a 3
CM -H
o S
© Tf
T* t-h
§8 8
«& ■* CO
8 S
»-i d «o
«6 Q -H
■* r-l o
cm" r-T rt
2 a
a *
3 T3
0> 00
9 5
3 2 2
<S oS 08
Ph Pi
a "
a § >
111
■a 3 a
a> "3
S 3
w
,0s
S -3
2 U
.2 V-
a >> -a
a g g » a 5
aa
."a "O a &
■o -a
rJ
•a s
o S
114
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
* oo u) a s
© >o
CO
Ci
Tf
N -H « lO CO
tC
©
CN
CN
^*«
CN
>o
CO
CN
« 9
3 3
„j
« 6 CO N CO
* n a o> oi
© »o oo cn
CO t^
■* ©
CO CN
00
CO
© -<
C-
00
©
a "3
n 1
CM
CO
CO
©
©
r-
■3
CD
T}<" Tf<"
,J-
sir
<T
a
S
S
00
<»
CN
IO
o
©
O CN © lO —
O M * CO O)
r~ co
T(l
CO t*
s
CN
00
D *"■
co
CO —•
t-
CO
o •&
o
CO
§38
i-sg
O H Tf CO 00
CN 00
rf CO
t^
<u
s
-T cn" o -*" t-T
ur5" ©
©"
©
CN 1^
8"
CO
©"'
CO
1
«» t— CO CN
CO
©
uo r-
©
CO
r^
tfi ■>*<
■Q
' "3
<i o
1
1
^i"
<
1
1
^^
1
o
A"s "o
H 00 M f N
flt « 4
•* ■*
00
1^ o
r--
s
W5
S°'3
o
CN CO
CD
© ©
©
00 00
CO
rl ■*
IO
00
CN
UO
©
^
CM
CO
CO
!
i ' ■
1 °o
?!
i .
1 f-
3 3
g|
; ;
a
i
• •
oo"
«0
a 3
3S*
!
i
I
§.s§
C_. 05
©
©
P=t
•<«
i
1 i i
•»
■ <— o
;
1 ! I
CO
S°o
1 : :
ON
3 >-3
i i
•*
*3 S
i s
00
o
©
00
3 3
00
p
'. 00
ori
o
r*
■ r-
1 Ui
r~
©
•o
<J£
I 1 1 1 1 1
! co"
oo"
^
&
a
3
o
o>
... i I
1 «9
i
a t-
i
! r~
t^
©
§11
e-sg
i ©
I to
©
°
>o
:
' m
IC2
o
©
-<o
:
1 ■<*"
. Vi
Tf<
^^ '
•
*o
i
■ ©
■ CO
1C3
©
00
s
o
o
©
CO
00
•«* ■*£ r- -*t* r-
N ffl *OcS
■*
©
00
t~
1^
o
CO
"3 H
3 3
CO
t~
©
CO
CO
CO
■*
eg
« CO OO rt lO
* t * ^1 oo
lO rf ^ Ol
© -h
irf
CN
O CN
■*
a B
CO
CN
CO
£J
©
©
©
w
©
CO
Tf
-J"
00
<J£
CO"
oo"
r-T
CO
Q.
a
+* *
O CO — Q ©
o
CN
© ©
s
©
©
a
■5
o
i§8
00
CN
o o oo 5 t~
O — t CN 5 CO
CN
CO
5 ©
©
CN
o
s-sg
CO
i-f ©" co" -i" r-T
CO ~*
CN
§
*o CO
6» CN
s
Tf"
9
-< e
-
3 S"
o
^H O CO CO CO
O CO
©
io >a
©
©
K5
rt ^
CN
00
©
r»
CO
uo
""'
■^
CD
CN
01
00
"a S
o
. t 00 « P
1 CO CO »o o
© CO
O 00
s
CO
CN
00
3 3
00
co f>
©
CN
o o
©
©
©
ga
1 S « S H
Tt« !>>•
T><
>J>
CO CO
o
«
3
-4 8
!<££
CO
s
CO
! oi o> m td
t^ r~
©
CO
CO ©
CO
CO
25
Mi
00
1 H CO CO ^
co »o
"ST
CN
©
o
CO
CO
| O — 1 CO CN
CN CO
CO
3
■d
a
00
' CO" ■* ©
co" r-T
©"
o
r--T
r*T
CN
8"
^^
. CO CN I- 1
1 Hi io
CO
*-"
■*
©
<!o
CN
■ *■ a>
if
ItONH H
t»" ^-i
CN
CN ©
CN
■<*<
r»<
121
i CO c- rf
CN Tf
CN
o
©
©
CO
, CO CO
CN
CO
00
CN
~
1 N "
CO
CO
ocT
s
1
II l
! 1 1 i J |
: : j ;• -s
ii
i s
i u
a
I
o
a
CO
£
a
s
S a
15
<d ;
ojD t*» '
s S3
S 2 o
<o — *»
P4
d i ; ; 1 i
•■ » ' ' ' S is
^ cc co co cn g a
S 2 «3 53 S3 g s
f 1 ££&| |
a
« n b
og»
B i
*- i
"3 ',
"3 !
1 g
.. « S
SHE*
3
t-> CD
« CM
** 03
"* "S
^ a
"3
c
o
"5
e
3
«
E-
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
115
a
03
a
S
nia
■Ot3
c
Si
a
3
-
o
a
s
c
.25
^ -_ .
a. S
J3X!
- -
is
I*
4
GO O TJ*
CM
00
I-
CO
CO
t«-
S3
t- o o
a,
TT 00 O
CC
iO
o
S
CO
QC
o
00 t^ CC
Cft
Q.CO
OS « <-«
tjJ
8
>o
ed
ce
(N
o
od * m
N IO o
CO
h cs 00
CM
IO
ei
r-
^
Oi
cc *o o
■^ ^H lO
-**
t^
pa
•o
CO CM
CN CO
CO
id
tt»
r " 1
rt
3
««!
o g
o c^ o
,.
Cft
CO
1Q
Cft
o
w
CC
t^ eft r~
,_,
f X N
•_-
o
y
x
S
OS
IC
CO O CO
o
a
"ts 3
OS U3 t-
o
CO
no
j-)
o
*o
■>»<
r^ co o
Cft
a>
T3
2
9 *
3 i_
ig
r-T N rH
©
no
CO
c-i
—
■*
OS
o"
•^ CO* CO
■o"
to
*T
Cl
CO
t^ r-t i-H
«*-»
IN
'"*
Cl
1—1
Tj"
-< —
■So a
Sa,S
O CO CO
O
Cft
o
2
CO
CO
CO
o
CM CM CO
t-
CD © iO
CO
IO
Cl
IN
O 00 CO
r*
tJ» r-. rp
o
iO
^ ■>»>
^
rH -
3 — °
£<=
iO N «
o
IN
IO
•r
»o
CO
1^
t^ Cft IO
CO
H N W
Cft
Cft
J5
CO
00
■O
o
rt CO 00
"#
t^ O t^
s
U3
■*
CO
id cft -3*
m
cfl 3
rH -^ -tf
CO
1^
CM
Cft
o
■-I O CM
o
3-2
O "5* Tt<
Cft
IN
CC
CO
^J-
CC
CO o ■*
ga
CO CO
r>T
c^
©
f-T o"
CM
CO
C)
i-h CM
IO
a
a)
<
6^
o «o «
-r
CO
t^
o
o
CO
CO to f
u g
OS ^ O
3b
CI
Cft
n
o
X
t^ CO -*
CO
O
§1
O TJ* ■*
-r
no
CO
l".
*
o
—
Cft ■«}* »o
o>
o
os of "O
CO
o
_-
Cl"
Cft
ce"
t-^"
p
^?* id cd
t-T
GO »0 OS
10
CO
I-
ci
IO
ri
t^ r~ co
o
<u
g^ CM
00
CO
C-l
CO
t^
CO CO
to
s
~
t-.
all
* »o
■^
CO
CO
eo
o
CO
IO
a
^ o o
,_,
-H t-H O0
co
r^
o
o
IO
s
CM CO 1^
CO
■** IO -<c*
•■**
N
no
—
r~ io
o
i-T -H
CO
_•
,_-
TP
3_ °
£°
ft"
N (O N
o
IO
~
ce
T»<
CM
eft co !
■^
« n a
t^
IC
■~
~ '
CO
cr.
^i ^H 1
IO
73 s
3.2
n pi io
CO
d
T)<
CC
CO CO '
CO
CO © iO
■^
c
CM
Cft
CO
cm cm io
o
CO
CO
o
id
CO i-l i
o
22
(i N d
o"
CO
ed
rH
od
id
O CM ' '
00 .
c
CO
CO
M
■<
«»
o
o
O CV
Cft .-1 ©
C-J.
CM
t>
CO
-r
CO
ce
Cft ■«; CM
N IO IO
CO
a
as
" 3
IO 0O PI
IQ
CM
93
re
*o
s.
CO
a °
CO CO CO
o
Ttl
Cft
Cft
CM
a
CO CO o
CO
w
9 °"
3 i-
il
00 CO rf
-r*
8*
Cft
CM
M
CO
cc"
Cft ^J* ^*
CO
00 00 ©
CM
CO
M
CO
Cl
Cft CM CM
t^
a
S3
CO .-1 »-t
r~
*"
CM
■.e
CM CM
©
o
<~
>->
CO CO ©
CI
t^
^
CO
w
o
-T
Cft CM CM
^
O CO t-
©
o
CM
CC
CM
-J- i-i Cft
1^
•<C* l^- ©
IN
1-1
CM
ue
00 o
■*
1-1
CO
rt
rt
CO
2°
a=2
t*- o r~
■*
*o
f.
re
IO
CI
t^ O i
Cft
Cl X lO
IO
CM
--D
re
CM
ia
■* C50 i
CO
■3 s
§3
© © CO
00
CO
ac
t>^
IO CO '
Cft
«J OM
>o
e
CC
t~
CC
CM i-H i
CM
00 CO OS
CM
(^
CC
t^ -H 1
Cft
1
»»
•^
IN
ON 1
■*
<j
o ©
-H H JO
o
o
O
so
o
CO
,_,
Cft CO o
CO
, o
H N «)
Cft
CO
o
IC
cr
1^ IO Cft
a O
P4 CI O)
■*
U0
o
O
O Cft M"
t^
a
o
3 =3
S 3
CM 00 -h"
CO
Cft
Cl
-T
>o
co"
SO CO
o
CM
•*
CM CO
CM
co
as
o
«
aog
GO O O
co
Cft
CO
cc
r-
CO-
,_,
CO CM CO
1^
CO CO O
IN CM
'-'
CO
IO
CI
CM
IO
a as
2°
o
S
a
> «£ ■
^
«2 ' '
OS
i —* !
^3
>>
--* ' I
3
c*
a
• a ■
■ © i
a • <
a, i
'C.
1 a '
3
o
a i '
o
; P. «
K
00
! 03 3
as
a
03
09 fl |
3
« « <g E*
3
.. 00
(3,
■a
CD
E
is
3
Q, CD ,
£a :
£ Ef •
Sod
a "2 S
"3
03 -J! .ti O
1| a ■§
a
g
09
o
b* 3
03 ^
.2 ^
1
o
a
3
c
(D
o
f-l
"3
c
o
aMSh
J
W E"
3
•J W E-i
T3
T3
«
n
O
P
116
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
£
£2
CO
r-
OO
II 8g
p
CO
CC
CO t>.
•m co
s
O, CO
■a a
3-a
cn t^ oi
OS
co co *ri
3
10 0" 10 CN
to oo 0:
"5
O N h
000
3
(D t* to a
■*
■* IO M *
oc
^ h m ■*
■*
N « *"
CO CN 00"
r~
ocT t^" cnT
06"
8" «
00
■H ^
CO
tJi CS *<*<
<
°s
CD © Oi CO
t- CO "-CM ©
t--. CD CO ^H
00
10
W CO N Q
00 CO CN >S
CN
O CO i-t O"
CD C6 h- iC
CN
00
"3
II
il
* wo
c
r- ^h »-
o
Eh
-H O O t-
00 00 r-t tji
c
CN
"J H 00 oc
cn eo 56 e>
c
s n oT »c
O 5; OS h
N 00 N
s*
O) rt CD
CN
t~ ■>»< >-l
^t
CO
< a
CO ■»»< CN CN
H 00 N O
f
8?§S
CC
00 00 h ^
CO ON i-H C
h 00 co f5
06
flSS
O CO l-H i-H
e<
CD •* r-(
CN
Tf
H P<-«
CO i-H CO
«
■^ i-T co
OS
3 «*- w
z°
CD
O
O
§
t* O O cc
a-
N C3 tO «C
00 © t— r-
CO
Q.2
O
CD
00 ID H r-
t>
m .
■al
CO
CO
CO © CO -<t
OS CO CN Tf
CN
d d oi ^
O to N H
§
Vi
CO to CO
a
t- «C CO
a g
CN r-T i-T
>c
N f-i" i-H
ITS
a H
•0
°§
CD
00
CO
00 Q CO C
t- O ■* C
cs
1 t* ^ c
"-> C
00
>o
M
S
.g
3 k>
<»
cc
r~T O r-T r-
O 5 *
c
1-1 os co c
00 Q i-H ^
to ^
CO
o
3
ci
i-t
CN
u
.
CN
CO
»C »0 ^ r-
CO iC tO r
00
®.i
CO ■* CO
n
to -^ CO
^p
■C^ CO
aai
z°
2
M N IO
tr
m n 10
"5
°s
00 OS IO
eo
00 CT- 10
CO
oi CO 06
CN © CO
vz
ci to CO
"3 9
s -a
c
CN O tO
O
CI »H
t^
CN CO 1-1
t^
§a
<»
^
J
.0
<i
■gg
is
a 1-
CO O CO
r~ •-!
CD
OC
CO Q CO
CO
CO
CO t- CN
m
CD N CM
CO
.9
00' 0* >o
CD r-H
3
05 *o
00
2 5
<*
as
t-<
N CO O*
CT
1 N CC Ol
01
© .i
O rt
O.
O —<
CN
^^ w
aa.§
3_ «
2°
CD
5
a
s
1
a
a
8
Ph
1 ®
■ «£
• •'«£'
■ fl
1 a
§ ! S !
1 CD
s a
1 CD
.2 ' « •
>> tf
! as a
; 03 a
^ ! ca a
T3 £ a S
SS-A-g
™ * « fc
•C S a "O t
« g .9 b S
g £ nj w e-
,2 o. 2
s-i a
— i ® fc
"3
■ • CD ® tS
"3
"a
1 1 •§ « i
g p k3 w e-
c
E-
S S ■- H »
C
E-
O
EH
■o
•c
■a
a
O
a
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
117
2>
tu a;
co p 5?
§5 I
tD ft £
is a
£>> t>
5"* M
a os W
o <-< *™*
as o
'O CO kj
"3 a O
°>Es CM
S-a "
1§ B
S« Q
ag g
3 a
► jj
§^
a
9 W
<° §
SO-
co ,2
a os
— _o
fe.s
a
§9
Sap
a— os
Z2
S °-- m
3'as
s » s
C t- 5
gg
<= a
333
CN tj Q
CO CD 00
o »h a>
|8 2
SS3
S 8 S3
2 g
t"~ CN O
-h Ol O
^a 3
§ 3 CD
sr!3
3 t-"3~
2e
§11
a e = ot
a i« o.22
H © CO
t-H i-l O
O N CO
OS O --*
<ro tjT -^jT
■2
a
a
c
£1
i
is
o
•a
□
£
s
5 8
5f rf -
80S.
O CN
H O) «5
SI
s s
^ a -1
« p, ©
CD <g t"
HI
s
§
3
8
0-
CN
$21, 719
20,735
19, 755
u
998
CN
$236. 76
201.96
260.64
CO
CO
s
CO
$5, 025
5,637
5,033
CO
O -H O
CO
$697. 74
539. 16
799.20
CO
CO
cn
$16, 694
15, 098
14, 722
CO*
•>c"
cm a> o»
CO M N
os
a
1
a
~
a
>
«
c
T
|
i
• p
- 1
s
■a
p
K
c
E-
cN
M5
s
«9
— r
>i
— r
CN
CO
CO
•£
a>
a
>>
03
O.
T3
CC
1
118
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table. 10. — Classes of insurance owned, classified according to economic status of
families
[This table shows for insured families of the indicated income groups, the relative importance of industrial
ordinary, group, and fraternal insurance]
Families with average annual income
Amount of insurance in force
Total
per family member of —
Industrial
Ordinary
Group
Fraternal
amount of
insurance
$600 and over
$301, 728
885, 342
833, 088
$449, 892
697, 599
256, 533
$121, 384
214, 930
118,283
$57, 033
101, 750
31,823
$930, 037
1, 899, 621
1, 239, 727
$300 to $599
Under $300 .. .
Total
2, 020, 158
1, 404, 024
454, 597
190,606
4, 069, 385
Families with average annual income
per family member of—
Percent of total amount of insurance in each
income group
Total
Industrial
Ordinary
Group
Fraternal
$fion nnrj over
32.44
46.61
67.20
48.37
36.72
20.69
13.05
11.31
9.54
6.14
5.36
2.57
100 00
$300 to $599......
100. 00
Under $300..
100 00
Total . .
49.64
34.50
11.17
4.69
100 00
Families wiru average annual income
Number of families > with —
Total num-
ber of
families
per family member of —
Industrial
Ordinary
Group
Fraternal
$600 and over.
228
653
582
179
363
162
85
154
84
47
111
47
306
$300 to $599
732
Under $300 '.
628
Total
1,463
704
323
205
1,666
1 The number of families represents those carrying some of the class of insurance indicated, whether alone
or in combination with other classes of insurance. Thus the same family may appear in more than 1 class.
CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER
119
OONHO>0<C$OiOHOOOiOOb^(0
00 (D CS «
t*» ^* ^ *T
IO i-l CN O *N
WOSONOONOOHiOCOO „
^OC0i-H»O©00c0r*-i-Hl~i--tOCNi-HC0
i-Hf-HtNCNCOCNCNcNCOCOeO
is
iO OS © OS "0 OS •— ( O ■- 1 N OS iO i- t © OS
»o r* r^
O) W h- b« O) Q
t— iO tP 00 O SO
OS OS OS CO
N <D M « Tft O
r^ w co cn
^■«-ieNCO*0<OCOcOr»
^tO^00O)iO»C00C0iON(D
OCOCOCOWrJtf^rtMN
^ "
(CtCMi0M00NO(D^NCCn(D0)0)W^*H«
03 §
a 3
o a
<i<3
MOOCOO't'ONCO^OCO'CiO
-H .-H CM CN
N N 00 00 N 00 0>
<o^osior^'<*cor-oi s -oopooo5'^eoocot^F-ios
O^WNiO^ONH^MOiJCOO^COOJOOCJO)
O N h X
i-h CO OS © 00 J^
rP OS iO »0 OS 00 CO
00 (N O >0 N W iO
i-iCNCOOOOSi-tCOOCN
© O «) « N t}< «
i-H © CO ©
N CO 00 M
- iO N N
NhWNNWNNM
WHiCNOrtOlOiNrtN
_. CO h N M
i-H CN CO CN CO
CO © CO CO *o
O CO »o »C '"
(OiOW^mtOOOOiO'f
-~ *o to ^ o os r^-
CO 00 CO CO O "5
. CO CO CN
iO N CO iO
f o >o >o
» h h CO CO
^OCOHTfNiC^CO'OCOO^NOtDOO
O >0 N 00 00 OJ
CO ^J 1 ^ ^* CO f CO CN
||a-s
OiOOOHlNiOOOOHOHlNOSMtOCCOOOHO^
CN tP »0 CO
CJNNiOOOoOCOiCNIsO
*ocoi-~coio©*ocotoi>-Looocot-^aoco
CN CO OS CN CO
f
CI
©
iH
i-i
$
CM
o
C3
o
O
CO'
a
iH
i>
CI
CO
CJ
00
*l
CO
*v
(N
S3
cc
o
CI
CO
CO
ce
CI
CO
CO
c
CO
■J
=
go
5N
CO
IC
g
IQ
O
a
CI
CO
O
-3-
CM
r-
CC
CO
IQ
a
go
S
HCINCOCOCOCO^fiO
00tJiSC!«0'OC0C0i0NOtDPJtD-HO0)00NC0NN
OcOCOCOiOOt^-^Or-CNCNTPOOSOSCOOr^OCOCO
H Ol CO CO t^ O "3
W O) O! H © N
h CO N O N 05 O
00t^lO»0eN00r^t^05»O^'r'-'«*'OOCNCC~H0SC0
»Hw^^ooooi«ioooiO"CioiOT)iiQnrt
H rt (M ~-
1.8 &°
OTj*COt-OSOO^H<Ni-H<NO , *i-HOt^OOOcO'»^cOco
^OJNOJtOOOtDNHOOOO
HnNNNNCOWJ"
t^ososaoaoosr-aoos©
s^
N O H IN 00
s.3
18:
fc.o
O.i m
-§,3
is
1-°
cNOs»oosicr*->oooor--oosos^
OS CO O t^ OS CN CO
rH
»
ss
CI
—i
CO
OS
o
-»•
OS
00
io
!l<
t~
OS
OS
CO
kO
'X'
rH
b
11
as
5
o
g
o
00
CO
in
o
35
CO
o
1-
Q
CI
to
25
CO
as
-V
"O
CI
00
<*
CD
00
IO
-r
CO
1-
co
CN
IO
CM
CO
CI
O
S
CI
00
o
i-i CN CO CO
©cOtO©tOr-*-00t 1 - , ** < ©*O'-< , 'S*©C0©cO»O*t*
OCCOOIOJhNOp- !!-*•
O CO O OS o
hMiOC^WtCOhO
©CO 1 **.— IrHOOCOOCN^CO^HCOOSi-li-l
o-^ot-osior^u^cNOi-i
-hCNCDOSi- i©»0©
09- h N N N
CO O 00 N iO (O
CO CO i-i
OS CO OS CO t^ o
^ « TJ1 CO IN H
h 00 N N O) O W
lOUCOOMNOOONNtD
NhhhcDcOtPOihNiOMOi
r^oososcocNooosco
i-H^TOCOCN^^^^CNi-HCNi-lf-ii-ICN^Hi-ii-i
OOCOHNCNNOMiON
r-ICOlOf»OCOCOCO»-H»0
,_, w _| ,-, CN CN
coi-Hcocoo»~«i-ir^ioo»o
iOCNOfOTfCOCNiOeO^i-t
iO ") t? ^ CO CO CN
cji r- io co h
Qoooooooooooooooo
C> h <o « *
o o o o
»o © »o © »o ©
©iO©*O©G0cO'*t«CN©
N(OCOiOi01<^COCOWN
CM E>
120
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
3.3
i!
S-a
So*
2 °
¥5 8
8 2 8 5
n to a h
CD t* 00 00
in © O Tt*
c* 55 25 io
Tf N V Tf
CD CO CO CO
NHifltDNOHN.CiM
OJHHSdMtOOQCC
»ooos©cooo©r*-»OTp
HHH«NnSO)MM
NNNr|tNiO00H^^
N S ifl « O 00
•^ iO o o o> o
n oi o> O h o6
i-l CO cm eo co io
i-H 00 i-l OS o o
N W >C OS CO ■*'
« w h m n
SOQ004QOOO
©©©lOCocDw^
iQiocoaoaoio-vor-
HHconoN^ion
NOOhtDOi^CNOOtOOOW
CS © » C h
as co *a r-
CO ■<** CO CO O CM
a to cl h h m
NMHCOhNOOtOHtOMN
-* '5 M (N CD W
■>* CM —i
P5 (5 CJ5 00 h O) h
« M 00 N H n h-
COXCC^CpHON
COOJiOCDOMiOCO
MCOWNhcONS
-H O © © O
CM © © © ©
H O W >0 w)
II
»-ti-tCMCM^'u3t--^i-i^^
ass
OM>OMHCO^C5Q0500H03N^
"3 9
3.3
§2
cm i-H r^ r*~
O h N N O0
■* cn oo r- o
S g
.-Hr-lF-itMeNtNCOCOCOr-l
Tf N iC CD iO N
Sr- w h* o> *h
w m a s s
© rp © co
• lO f-i co
1< ifl >o
3
« <> « e
II
« n * N
(OHNOIHBH^OIHHH
S2
iO Tf ■* Ol N OJ CO
CO N CO O
2§S8§S2 nWMH
a
JS3S
a Tti o> n « « h
C^ <N ~+ i-H i-H l-H i-H
oooooooooooooooo
t^ r» to
S»0 Q *0 Q
>o IO ^ V
O0 o ^ « o
o> t- >o » <u
O O O O 3
00 O ■* C» &
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
121
122
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
•5 a
8 fc
©
«
O
>>
53
J2
<J
■o
rt
o
D
rn
i
B
a
J
s
9
s
|
p
&
«
Q
-c
2
'£ a
s a
8
M
(9
a
S
a
O
An-
nual
premi-
ums
ia
ODHQQOnOOH ©-"tj-
00 CN
t- ©
00
tc o
OS ^«
OS
CO
CM 00 O tO 'IO
CO OS 00 IO to
g
d « to o a n e c to n so
l< CO
c^
CM M
CO
CO CO CO TJ< CM
s
lis
° n p
cococjtocoi-iioiotoooco
■cnnconooiooHioio
o»-HNro'*«o*o*ot-*ooos
CN CO
© ©
© CO
CO
CM —
cm -r
os
H US CO N ^
H C4 IO IS N
T1< -f CO 'CM
g
o
M h O-j-
weMOOOCOIiOINeJSr-i-l
NC0lOK)^O0)M000O
© 3<
00 ©
o
? 5
to
to — I to ~H *o
h oo n n ic
o
o
o-inn^iiovifioiDgo
00 **
Tj<
T" TI<
"f
TF ttl TH t« cm
g
3
o
&H
3& 3
»-iaoi>.o&a5i s -ior^C'acor^
»«5'*i-ii-ioO"-i-h500
© iO
© io
to
-H OS
-H CO
t^
C-)
© iO t« .h O
M IO M ■* IO
O0
Vi
©*Oi-<-c}<co©©co©r*-
t^ ©
© CO
CN Tf
o
CO
tO OS
00 CO
co r-
co
t^
00 O O CM O
r~ o o r* co
to CM O to i-H
OS
3
hNtC^iOiOVW©*
© CN
CM
CM CM
C)
CM CO CO CO Cm
o
00
lis
2 a a
W^fWrtHHIOwNNiO
toosco©n<co.-iCMtoCMio
8 5
3 3
CM i-l
i
Tf N H « H
H rt M M O
.-1 OS CO O OS
00
IO
C* OS
00 t~
b-
»o OS
00 00
s
CO IO CM Tt* Tjl
00 00 N IO H
8
o
cm"
OOWOIC^rtNDON^OD
OrtNHlJiOOOOtOIDiO
Hfirtw*vpsfo«
o cm
CO CO
t~- CO
1
to to
CO CO
tc
s
cc
N IO N S M
* OS IO CO H
CO CO CO CO CM
CM
oo"
a
3
' T3*P 08
5 3 id p
^ rt u. 3
s g
gap
. i«OQ«ONiOWN>0
i i©coeo»Oi-4»Oi-i00
.-i co CN CN r*. »-i
oo r-
IO tO
IO CM
lO
o
CM
to >o
CO Tf
CO CM
CM
i
CO
O O H N O
CO O 00 Tl< ij<
tji os r^ os i-h
-H CM —
CO
o
Til
I !co.-.©©cn©oo-o
82
CO
■* -H
tc
os to OS to CO
OS
P
ID
&
o ^
•o
a
W
lis
It 1
OS
CO
CO
tO^CMCDCOOl'H*
C)HTjliricr)HioioNo6
r-lCNf-COi-HCOlO©-^
to t~
ei to
t^ OO
00 CO w
O 00 00
OS S CM
IO * o
CO
3
00
tc
s
■tj* -»j5 00 © CO
^-i -rp © © iO
o o * 00 CO
CO
r~
OS
C3
H 1— ^H W CN CN
CO i-l
1-4
^1 ^H
1-N
CN CN M tN »-<
CO
Sis
® a p
0~ 3
o
i
u5cowq0nwn00q0n
cn©©5o^cpcoio«<cmi>.
CO to OS
o is «
r^ ct> cs
CO Q
CM O
■* to
a
o
iC CO CO « Q
»-< © CO © CD
CM "5 CO © »C
OS
3
h N h N S rt t
to o»
n
8 8
5
h N iO » 00
"**« iO -*jh co
o
to
0°-iS
«Hjoooo<ji«»(jia»j
<-HTj*OOr~00©COO
■* o
•^1 id
CO i-H
s
CO OS
00 OS
s n o * t o
8 S §S n h
CO
•2
a
IV
>>
as
ft
|
1
p g a
<; a
©■OCN*«!hiOiD©©CNCN
^s
IM
CO
g 2
Tit
io © © © e*
CO *** 00 © CO
00
COOlrtHHHiOWQOOO
*» coe*i>-©CN©aoco
CJ i-H
2 S
to
CD CO
8 8
CO
» CS h N CO
i> CN >0 O) CO
,_ ^h ,-t ^h to
CM
IO
,-T ^? ,M ^H CN
Cfl
T|f
p i
33$
°PP
S-2S
os «-h o."-h nh-«coec-t«:ai
MCO00H^O0^«OJ«D«00
e
00 OS
l>- CM
o
© © tO »-• w
-H ^ © •* ©
© © Tj< f*. ©
o
to
HcoioeOHtflHOioo
i-H M « ^ ^ CD
3S
OS
i O
d
© CO -* CN CO
g
CO
CO Tj*
CM
C)
IO i-l
CO CO
CO
»0 00 CN © ©
N H CN CO «0
CO
■2
£
"3
"3.i
30a
p£3
II-
u
a
s
NOOHNOMNCOOH
r-NHOt>flOCO*HM
T»l o>
to
o
oo »o
CO -t"
CO
CO N O CO CO
CD © -^ © ©
CM
CNCN^OOiO^CNaO-^CN
o> CO
OS lO
Tjf ti S
to to »o
IS ■* O CO 00
OO CO t co w
*t »t ■* «0 CN
CM
g
»-h cf CO » CC N N N N h
CM
CO
p k.
° p a
g— CO
«<<o .
a
II
o
CO IO
•* oo
00
to
*K CM
CO tc
to f-
E
"** © © 00 ©
io •**■ r- co co
to
;>CNco©©aor*-«ot--r*-r--
S 8
X
rs
o r~
n- co
to
CO © © © CN
CO C, CN H
00
Os
8^8
fc.fi — "
OffliOCONOIiONpirtli:
iOCMOOOOSOtjicJSOCM.--
i-H?5etlCMCOeM-HCM(N<N
»o ©
c
CO Tf
CO CO
CM
tD -< N N N
© © © © CO
to
IO
CO
O
1
1
c
T
t
3N©OiO«Cl'5nMC>
Joooooooooc
S2
o c
0>
c
io c;
o c
c
! CN
i i ' ' fc
© r* »o co £L
o o O O p
00 © ** CN &
"3
o
;'
3©»0©»0,©»0©»0©u:
»N!DO>0iO^^nC0O
8 2
to
TT CN
c
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
123
H
IS
N C) fl U)
IC lO O (O
c>
m
Hi
S
3
1^
CN
m
IQ
8
tc
e
O
o>
t^
TC
J-
CO
CO
C4
ce
V « iO 00
o
CO
CO
TC
CN
8
it-
CO
,_,
13
tN
in
?l
8
CM
CO
OS 05 CO in
to
to
o
o
•c
a
CO
O0
CN
m
TC
CI
CO
o
C4 C4 ^ (O
CB
on
CO
m
r~
on
CN
01
^
^4
8
cs
,_,
IQ
t _ <
8
TC
■*•
m r~ »-
to
a
CO
t -
TT
a
CO
IQ
O
o
TC
CO
CC
to
« .-h tc to
on
t-
CI
tc
CO
N
CN
8
_
t .
o>
IC
,_,
CC-
r^
s
in
^_
to
^
IQ
M
00
CO
t-
CN CO ""
CN
-c
m
a
Ol
CO
TC
i~
IQ
CO
C2
o
■«•
td
C)
tc
CI
in
a
CN
CO
-c
r-
CN
r»
Si
s
.c
co
«/»
cn
co
CO
CO
TC
■o
id
CM
CO
n
?i
,_,
,_,
^
,_,
s
IQ
f.
Q
s
A
iq
to
s
r~
•*■
•to
to "■
X
CC
CO'
X
rt
O
CN
o
cn
8
CO
g
CN
IQ
r-
r^
to
CN
Cl
^
tc tc
on
s
Tf
CO
**
m
to
N N CO t
co cn m ob
o
8 8
cc
oG
DO
<->
CO
o
TC
CO
£
CO
CO
CO
on
CX
~~i
m
CO
to
■o
„
CO
CO
CO
C4
?S
CM
■*
£
s
3
J2
s
S3
o
iq
CO
o
to
«*
m
*■«
TC
s
<»
CO
,_,
H
CN
CO
e
CO
^
s
s
■e
« cs
CO
CO
m
o
o
tc
a
CO
CO
UO
id
r
lo
rN
h-
60
td
a'
in
CO
R
in
co
N
»-
►
rt"
on
on
,_,
,_,
in
f.
-H
rai
n
IQ
m
tN
u
co cr<
CO
a
£
Ci
■
TC
a>
0)
^
cn
CN
a
CO
TC
IQ
00
M
►
* H
-?
CO —
£"
IQ
CN
3
O
55
?!
a
CO
TC
m
rt
CN
CO
*"'
in
00
t .
S
og
K.
re
>o
S
CO
lO
a
"•
K
o
o
CO
ca
on
CO
•c
CO
ES
r~
CO
R
t-
R
CO
CO
</»
cc
00
r~
CO
t-
o
TC
-
CO
CI
CN
m
IQ
■o
n
„
9.
r
r~
r~
s
id
a
<N
u~,
8
S CO
to
o
e
-r
Q
o
o
IQ
IQ
<<
id
fN
s
C4
CO
tc
hi
TC
to
T»>
_
i£
f
IQ
o>
,,
tO
„
o
c-
on
m
CN
r-(
3
s
B
CO
UO
IQ
t*
d>
r^
$
on
00
s
—
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
Ol
a
lO
C5
o
2-
s
id
K
an
CN
■r>
m
to
s
s
Cft
5
co
a
a 1
CI
CO
4
a
CN
s
a
t~
r^
CO
CO
r^
to
TC
-
-"
rt
H
C-l
C-4
to
CO
a
■e
3
ej
to
co
CO
•c
f~
CO
a
on
00
CX:
RS
CI
s
o
o
O
s
9
a
00
CO
CO
CO
IC
CTJ
5
£
co
S
X
s
co
s
a
O0
g
CC'
r-
CO
s
C)
IQ
CO
■^
c<
*^
CN
m
CCI
m
W
cn
_<
CI
r-
IQ
a
C
—
00
m
^
t .
CN
00
a
a
CO
Tt)
>
o
•a
-c
-
3
e
s
-c
-r
a
«
CO
a s
cr.
jJ
■a
CO
J
O
a
n
c
c
c
c
O
W
ie
e
ie
s
m
in
«
?l
CN
»
CO
CO
C-J
124
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
|3 o
■a 03
ii
S3
I 8
oo s „
N GO O) N
c> co <o c>
o go h io
oo c« « h «e ri
^ t^ O H B »
H NM H
S©i--eooocoo<o
* lO * CO H
rteNNioefeo-HeN'r-roo'
OcoeONMiO^^OO
-H W CN rH
co => o
co «: "i
■-4 CM cN
OO ^f O CO
N 00 OJ CO
Oi CO N N
to 00 to CN
-** iO ■**
H 0* ■-< ■*
M CO N CO
r- oo ■*
CN ■» .-
M h- CO N O
rH CN CO m O
■* rt o !>: iri
N U0 N OJ CO
CO O <33
S N t«
■-i oo >o
CO O O CN CO
Tjl CN CN lO 00
0> Tf OS ^ Ol
W O f 4 «
oooooooo
»OQ»0©iOOiO©
COOIOIOTfC'^COCO
S8S2!,?3
oi B N * ri V
-H -H -1 CN >C4>> -I
88
O CN O O O O
no in uo io h io
n o co co *
hhhNCOhNMH
NconcooOfr-oOM
00 1-H
i" CO CI N CO ^ IC> N O!
OOOOCNOOO©
OOOOOtO»Oi-it^
iocooooC'^eo-5'iooo
i-I i-T CO i-T CN .-i iH
CONiOcN^t. ISN
OS ■*
©
r-
IO
CO
«H
o o
c
o
g
O
e3 8
00
CO
-r
CN
a
a> r- »o co <u
o o c o "§
CO O Tf w ^
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
125
§- a
a S
8 a
*~ *»
00 ®
S en
e
"5
w
o
a.
5a
~3
3
S a
3 3
"5 o*
2
P
m
s
c —
g
CO •
J
"3
is
SI
u
e
a a
CD
P
k.
cS
y
3
q
£
3
"a
e
CO "3
m °
< ®
H -9
« S3
3 3 R
s-c*
zs
" a.y
03 ■-
g6!
Hi
£.0 — -
«<< -> S - 1
2 a a
3 » a'S
03 .i.
gs;
<; a
° s
3gg
i-SS
g.8 as
03 —
lis
2 c a
Bf <«
3 ^ ° •
1.2 °-
3 a J
•< a
2 a a
i
os a
0V~
oqjocoi-icocot^cNr- no aipNrtHeoOH
dcq*iocdodi£J»oo6«'cipif5«Npi«'"#ri
HO)OSiOft*^N!DOOfli©HQO(ON«HN
© 'riri'di^e^ddBiririvi'Bririod
«— ^cocor>»cor~i-icooocNo&»oco©i-i*»'iOGOco
0»HNN^(diO(Do6N«W»^'»0^^^«tdM
FH^-ii-ii-Hooor>-csr^iocot^c<i»-icsco^ooio
S'2°'ge«'»ieo6Qt'*Q*« ll 'gg'«i«'
«, ?S t SSS 00rt ''H* rt » ,s 9O»oo»
«HM©N(ootDnoo«OH»o$HHn2io
cn to ■» io to" io" 10" r-T co" ei cn" « cf «" n" n ci n" d
SMO©hQN$OC(CO>HH(C#CD*IOtDO
C^IO»-<5000^0i«O^HC4IM»-<COCOCCC5cO»Or^.
f 3 £ 5* H " 2 d ^" d io w V oo n g" » n s to s
^csco^o5«co»o-i©r-cor~ooasf^"C~co©©
ss
CO CN t- © r-
CN CO o>
i-l i-l CN CO UO ^<
co >o oo m co cn .- < co cn
*aiOrtn(ON{5«
NN«»nnniOH
0«h«o«hm»
OO CO. CO CO 00 CO r-H
* (O M H «
N « (<) « N ■♦
HW**HN(CP)0!^NIflHO)01rtlO
H OS » CO IO «
OON^-HNlOtOD'H
© © co •»« ~
Nioe»rt«c«Ni»»Meeo
OHfflrfOOfflOrtlOCiHJJHS
0)NOIOIOOHHOI*HMNt«(et-
« * » io io (D'to eoiNiooviSocoo
t-1 iH — CN CN -H i—
H iH H H N «
iOi-cNt-»ot»t-co>Oi-Heo-HOt-«oo»r-'-i
StOMttHrtNOfionno^HtptOrt
©cNooooooacO'vb-ooaocooGO^roo
d N d d d ^- oo d d g N d d n" d d ^"
H cn © >o H -H t>-
cn * e» o o <o
cn io r-
ii cm co r-
8S3S5$gS8e$8S3SSS38S8
N » CO M »
&S * 8 S
NMMWfflNCSO)
«*H^i^i(paSQ0
COO, lONt-SMN
« OJ * «
^< ^1 -1
S 00 N O
.i —i — ■ ex CM
o>OQOo5ootcoi*S-"
Se«i!5*Si-i2oiNco
n ■* o>
nnt-r-WCNft-
OO « S H H 1
11i)O4N*M»M0C0IONNHCIC0
O CO OS CO »o OS
r-H OS CO CM CN 00
*CH«"1i10}00©CO©tJ«t«i»OC~»-i
00 N » »* O O) lO.CO f O t- «
icaoioiociHctNeoo
OOCNCNC-.t^COOOiJiCO'^'O--
h" n »" co* d ef cf cf h
t(ih^«COOS<0^
OOCOHiOlD^ilDtDn
— ^" * CO w «
CO CO CO o
8 85
SffS 55 5S 5? ?f 2 S 2 H *
CD 04 CO CO CO
■*tOONN«-*CO(0«OHai«OrtOH^MCOeO
H S2S8coclSS2 0OCC 22S-'2St;S
oi«ol««*i»*»««NioeOH ! H
■0(0<oow*«co«ficiiiii«H,.ii g
aoOOOOQOOOOOOOOO°;___icl
rt^.^*- — *-*-*j +- w *-- w *j *-i *-, *- o O O O £ji
O»CO»0Oi0O»0O»0O00c0^«CNO* 3+J '* J * J »— ,
MoSoiO*<i«CONC<rt11H1»lC;TNW
126
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
■3
"3
a
s
CJ
M
CD
An-
nual
pre-
miums
0.39
.54
4.37
0:
oc
CT
-
tO IO M H
00 CN 00 00
h n s 10
3.36
3.18
2.00
CO
1.96
.37
.28
iC
rt CN
-1 CN
8
8
gaa
i 388
' O CN
5
oco o a «
CO "J< CN r- IO CO
•0 00 **■ 00
n n
00 10
* « CN
8
CN
0> CN C~
CN IO CN
CO
CI
CI
<3> !>•
i-H •*
8
8
a°~8
£.0 ■*■--'
! t»i CN Oi
• N M H
, O — •
K
CN
00 00 ©> O CO ©
OS IO Tt" CO CO 00
« r> 01 « cooo
e5 00 8
CO
CM
CN i-H -H
t~ rt r»
CO i-H
10
CO -H
CD CN
CN
8
8
3
"3..1.
a£3
i •* n
• r-i 00
1 O M >-
1 iS
1 h S e
IN
O
|
r— 00 t- !>• cm 00
O "S iH ■«! CO O
r- © 10 OS CN ©
O OJ Ctt H « ft
N 00 * O N Ol
CO CO **■ 10 CO 10
f to t
■* CO •*
-< II) 00
t- OS 55
CN rt r~
O
■JO
o> IO
00 ■«■
CN OC 00
* CO O
o3
§8
CO CN
■^1 CO
CO
i
CO
CO
ill
1 rt IC Ifl
1 10 o> t—
'UNO
1 rt N CO
1 C*» CO
cp •** w
co t*- c\
w a a
cn t^ -
W S f N
IO O CN if
O CN CO CO
<< N CO N
iH Q 00 10
i-H CN CN CN
co "5 gj
CO *
CO *f 10
IO IO CO
IO
CO
-H 10 IO
M N t-
Ci CO N
to t- CO
CI
CO
52
CO CO
CN CO
CN
9
5ga.:§
1 M * lO
c?
00 CO © CN CO ©
O Ol N N rt rt
■* C3J 00
IO ■* CO
CO
CO
N iji Ol
-* i-H
r~
°°S
IO
CO
CN
a
. — . s
! ! CO O
1 1 1— CN
1 1 <*' 00
1 1 Tt" 00
1 1 «» CO
■a cp 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! 1 '
CO CO (Ill
co co 1 1 1 1 1 !!!!!! 1
CO CN 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO
CN
lis
2 a a
! !
; ; 8 8
! 1 i-Tio"
• 1 «» — 1
c
c
O O O Q
IO © © ©
25
IO CN i-H CN
O
IO
O
s
! 1-1 CN
a
9
a
H
"3 J.
Has
i i is
7
g
IC
a
c
CO 00 CO i-H
f* CO O CO
CO 00 H «
— 1 CO -H Q
-H O IS CO
•# l> 10
CD CN IO
N CO -Hi
tO ID H
CN CN —1
CO
CO OS CN
CN 00 O
goct
* * t-
8
t~
10'
CO
CO
00"
|is
2 a a
<jO
i i is
r 1 • »
CO
8
CN
CN CO CO ^1
W ^i O) f
i-H 00 © IT
t-i 00 O
o> «) p
too S
IO IO CO
CO
O IO IO
» t»
'
' CO
1
1 CN
CN
CN
IO
8"
a • co
Z^3 "
! ! '. *"'
CN
D
et
CD O W O
N W « M
CO N CO
CO
H CO CO
' r~
OS
00
>2
a
3
03
a
I
3
"3.i
Pa
a£a
! ! ! co
1 1 » t--
1 1 1 t^
1 1 1 CO
1 ««•
1
s
c
oc
CN
M
C
CO OS GO -^*
iO b- « CO
TJ>< ^-1 10
90 00 ^ m
cc ec 00 co
H H CN N
CO CO O)
■a r~ 00
CO N 1-
O CO lO
to (O'tJ
r-
(2
00
CN CO 00
as 00 a-.
—> r~
s * ~
10
00
O) 00
CO ■*!
O co
l-H IO
CO
CO
»"■
10
CN
h
ill
a--" 3
! ! 1 of
1 1 1 «o
-'-
CM
1-0
5
en
00 05 « >o
r^ co ■«*"
00 00 CO CO
O" ^-T 00* 00*
*# *o
is cn -h
CN CO h
CD H CN
CN CN -I
CD
10
O
CN CN
5
O O
C iO
IO IO
CD
'< CO
0*
C
CO
co o> (M
CO ^ ^H
S?S2
CN T)l l-H
^
ih r-
5
J3
1
S ® I
d h 9
«4»
, ,3, 34 _
1 -H CO ■"»<
1 a>
1 10 io c»
! «»
3
M
en
5
IG
a
•f
1-
O "^ 00 CO
OO (O © H
IC >c ic to
10 ^ OS CO
OS CO CO t—
^h CN CN ^H
« «o t-
CN CO © CN
ID "Cf CN O
O) t> O CN
co cN S3 <N
CN CN IO
tO N O
8 5 2
CO
C-l
O) 00
CO CO
CN Hji
CO — 1
8
CD
a S cd
1 rt >o «5
! O NO
1H H W
CN
CT>
Jg
IC
K
a
<c
CN
CO
u) 10 00 ro
t^ CN CN iC
OS »o CO *o
i-H OS O CO
t^- CN IO O
oco
» » «
CN .1 -H
C75
11
~H IO O
scooo
CN CO i-H
CO
CM
CN
—>
CN ■*
a"
ao^s
; CO CO o>
as
CT
5
N (N H CO rf P O
iO O O 00 CN CN rH
8 3 t "°
CO
r» hji
CN
CN
CD
3-0
51
CO S
CD'""
be
«5
bi 1 1 J
► !!!
•O to S u)
g
© 10 co 10
r< c Q
CT
c
-H-
5
O
3
CO CO CN (N
O O O O
Oi I s - IS
000
■^ +J -1-1
CO CO -*
CO
CN
<* •*
•WOO
2 00 CO
10
O
! CN
! u.
m £
CN P
"3
E-
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
127
a a
lg
K- —
A as
3=2
<3 CO
w 1
98
to
te
e
CM
CO
a> —
■*
m m
UO
CM
_<
00
m
©aO©00<OCO^HCO©CM©CO»^OtOi-»'OIQ
CO
03 §
doriwcHoitdd^n cd'CO ui c 6 n d
iOHt^00NV©t-N ^ co ^ w W f »H
§
3 »
n '3
</* CM rt N « ^ rH
t>-
<;£
a
"Sg
©•*.OQr^eO©COCO©COQ©©©©CM©©
Qt^C4Tj«eo©CN<c>o»nooooia.-i-'*'«p
OrHCN»-4CQ»rtf-<Tt>OlOU3COOOCOOi-"COO
■< «> « n" »" n r. pi ci i-i eo co esf in cm co
t& H N M
00
03
O
3 t.
O 3
Eg
■<-
«oort^CTr*ifl«rt«(OMooo«oon
s
Eo
3 Q.
*-o
1
co
1- 3 o
eo
o> r~
3
m
"a §
3 3
O CO o
a>
Tjl O
•o
ci r^ ui
CO
t^ r^
CO
CO
§B
IO *^ ^H
CO
CM
CO
«/>
.3 «
a
1
a
s
1
o a>
§§
3 i-
22
"22
o
o o
C
eo
S
S o s
s
in m
CM CM
oc
CM
o
■a
«» 1 ~ l '"'
- r
«o
a
as
Ui o
CO — *H
_
r4 -<
e»
■Sis
5 o
3 a
^^
m
00
n oaoo i
n e a « ■
00
CM
oo
r~
«1
§9
o
00
CO
CO
a
ejj
oo o co a> i
CM CO OS CO i
t^
©'
to
m
•o
jB
e»
1-1 ;
CO
^g
^a
a
a
s
1
"o «
g
o o o o !
O O O O i
o
o
g
g
8
o 3
t^ o © m i
m
r~
03
a
tt»
M IO H !
o
•6
as
1
3
53.2
rt — i in cm
CO
■°ls
rt
a-o
1
1
09
3 3
CO
CO
6nNOJ«6NONwoJoodo6«N't>-
pHNoocooinnN «-« r-i ec h w w oc
<8
^
S
a
©8
CO
©
§3
5C
« W CO C* © *C O W ^- ^ Cf h N W* N
CC
J3
^ l-t ~- lH
CO
*
91
g S
00W^ , NN00P:iNHN'*NtOU5tDr*N
r^.
o
•°.2
a-3
s a
£•5
•a
g
3
a
o
<x>
3
03
*
p
CC
M
<!
a
a
-t
a
^
O) •<*
CJ> r-
IC
CO »-i
•M
I
0«3^VCCCONWHHHHH
. a n «o rt *
ooooooocoooo©"*'' 6 ^^
<
«■
S
c
■*»
ie
c
S
?
00 g
-?
CM C
or
<c
«•
e«
P
128
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 14. — Insured families classified according to size and number of breadviinners
in each
NONRELIEF FAMILIES
Number of
breadwinners
Size of family: Number of members
Total
1
2
3 '
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 and
over.
fam-
ilies
6
1
2
5
5
9
1
1
1
7
5
3
2
5
1
9
13
27
57
4
3
14
10
37
4
3
5
14
10
4
1
14
68
216
1
6
14
30
113
1
25
3
4
83
220
1
78
2 ,..
34
166
267
1
31
866
None
3
31
Total
200
308
300
164
107
68
33
22
18
1,251
RELIEF FAMILIES
6
6...
1
1
6
2
27
5
1
4
1
1
13
42
5
1
3
5
29
2
4
3
4
2
1
1
3
1
4
5
6
3
2
11
56
10
1
14
56
11
18
2
5
36
15
58
1
8
18
266
None
66
Total
26
56
79
82
62
42
40
11
7
10
415
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 15. — Income and breadwinners in insured families
129
[Insured families classified according tp the incomes and number of breadwinners in each. Family income
is treated in 2 ways— first, as totals and second, in terms of the average annual income per family member]
Nonrelief families
Total
fami-
lies
Relief families
Number of breadwinners
Number of breadwinners
Total
fami-
lies
1
2
3
4
5 and
more
I
1
2
3
4
5 and
more
Total family income :
$6,000 and over..
2
1
1
2
11
15
1
3
1
4
8
3
1
1
3
2
1
I
5
2
3
7
10
28
46
67
162
106
93
170
206
156
85
66
22
7
10
$5,500 to $5,999 .
$5,000 to $5,499 ..
1
1
1
1
4
10
16
33.
64
27
29
22
27
15
10
4
2
1
1
$4,500 to $4,999...
$4,000 to $4,499 .
$3,500 to $3,999 ..
1
7
12
76
75
59
146
178
141
75
61
19
6
8
1
1
3
2
5
3
1
1
1
$3,000 to $3,499
1
$2,500 to $2,999...
17 4
2
5
1
7
15
8
14
5
1
3
3
1
9
$2,000 to $2,499...
19
3
5
2
2
1
2
12
$1,800 to $1,999
$1,600 to $1,799
$1,400 to $1,599...
6
2
2
7
9
13
19
13
1
2
15
26
53
86
64
11
.7
12
33
$1,200 to $1,399...
1
37
$1,000 to $1,199. .
74
$800 to $999
100
$600 to $799
1
78
$400 to $599
1
1
31
$200 to $399 . .
20
Under $200
1
1
Total
3
866
267
78
25
12
1,251
66
266
58
18
6
1
415
Economic status:
Average annual
income per family
member:
$2,000 and over
$1,500 to $1,999
$1 000 to $1,499
2
7
18
6
14
39
71
83
58
72
103
119
115
72
50
26
11
2
8
43
23
29
75
113
143
91
109
125
151
142
90
61
30
16
21
12
10
25
32
39
24
23
15
19
18
14
8
4
3
1
2
3
3
6
6
13
8
9
7
8
7
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
$900 to $999
$800 to $899
2
5
6
5
18
15
12
2
1
1
6
2
9
7
8
20
12
41
52
62
42
4
1
1
2
9
3
5
4
4
7
9
9
4
2
$700 to $799
7
$600 to $699
4
$500 to $599
3
1
3
21
$450 to $499
3
1
14
$400 to $449
24
$350 to $399
30
$300 to $349
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
1
2
24
$250 to $299
$200 to $249
1
70
1
82
$150 to $199
1
84
$100 to $149
48
Under $100
1
1
5
Total
1 3
1
866
267
78
25
12
1,251
66
266
58
18
6
1
415
130
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
"3
O
fBioj pireJO
co
"5
a
?
CO
CO —
© ^
to r~-
CN
■ o
o
to S
tOtOOOCO^OOOOtO*-
tOOOCfiO'-iCftcOC
o
00
CN
t-
J9H9H
O
to
c
—
■* i--
c-i
CN
r^ o
rtrtNStOlOCONO
(OOooiaiaJsoON
©
1
jeqe-inoN
CO
OS
c
c
CO CN
to CT
U3
00
cni r-
i/5 ■*
iOCOi— 1 ID rt N O ^ H f
aOHOJONMiOM
CONNHNMOMM
00
CO
to-
a
o
u
©
a
73
o
D
s
a
suosjad
p9Jtisutnn i^aoj,
cm
e
1C
© c
CO Ci-
to
CO to
o o
•or-ii>-c»e»<«i— ©e«e>
co
5
3
P50J,
2
cr
lO oc
IM ■*
tr-
CO ■*
?S CO
U0CO— i «) 00 IO <)« CO
o
CO
■»eqiO
00
i>
T IC
-f
! ,
s
sjnepuacteci
to
t»
to CN
CN
CO
CI
r~ en
ffiMHiOOOCOiONOO
tNNCNi-li-ii-li-l»H<N
to
CN
SJ9IIUIA1
-pB9jq JeqJo
' H
c
r-1 CN
i
IN O
•O
S
-ptsgjq jeiqo
rt
CO
•t" CT
e'-
o> <a
**
CO
to
.2
"3
a
o
IBJOJ,
1^
co
-* IN
to OC
en
00 IN
©00©T}*'<*^CN00'^ , O
COINCNCNININININtO
CM
S}n9pu9d9<i
00
a
CO -0-
CM
to
•* CO
«O0QtO"S<'»-HtN00'»"C>
«NMNf)flMNlO
to
•*
tO
sjgnntM
-pB9Jq J9q?o
rj«
CO
est r^
X
CO ©
IN CO
•*
2
J9uniAi
-p«9jq J9tqQ
to
CTJ
2 85
©
CO
■* »T5
M
to
a
o
u
a
-a
|
a
peat
snosjgd
isnt IBJoj,
3
03
CM
2 5
>o to
CO
tO ~H
to tO CO »o lO 00 tO 05 ©
^i««NN«CMNC)
©
to
o
to-
"3
IBWi
tO
<X
cn CO
3
2 g
to©tocNi©coco©eN
MODNtOGDCOION^
co
sjgqjo
SS3
© •*
so
rt ,'
©
SnjAii JON
CO
to r-
OS
IN tO
CM
t- CO CO -H
*-■ rt
to
sjngpuedea
s
CO
to to
to
to
§ »
POQiOONWeDCiH
OJWShNOOIOtO^
CO
1
-pB9iq J9qiO
*" 1
t^
CO tc
o
CS IN
^-1 CM!
00
s
J9UUI4V
-peejq jgiqo
•*
r~
-h ce
en
r-
00 ©
■f CO
CO
©
00
CN
3
a
o
l«M>X
s
c-
© c
© H
co to
tp
o
Tf lO
5 g
lOIOiONOi^OOION
CONOONt^OCiNID
to
s
3aiA;i ion
to
cr
S3 2
CO
•^ to
CO CO
IN CO CO rt
-H CN -H —1
oo
sjnopngdeQ
CO
—
cr
cm ce
to c
O 00
lONNHCfiOICIOip
•iMOSNOScie
re
00
cnT
sjornii.vi
-pwuq J9qio
to
V,
to cc
IN CO
00 3
to
to
CO
JonuLtt
-pt?3jq jgjqo
3
© IN
» CO
CO
CO
CO
8?
*>
g
1
Oh
>
o
■o
a
©
a-
£
c
Q
e
c
i
C
e
CO
o
o
CO
25 to 29
20 to 24
16 to 19
14 to 15
CO
c
CN
c
c
cr
c
0C
c
to
c
CM
C-l
c
p
e
a
>
'5
c
c
c
01
<-
3
"a
o
) e
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 131
Table 16A. — Age and dependency status of persons in families without insurance
Nonrelief
Relief
Total
Ages
Chief
bread-
winner
Other
bread-
winners
De-
pend-
ents
Chief
bread-
winner
Other
bread-
winners
De-
pend-
ents'
Others
Non-
relief
Relief
Grand
total
13
24
33
46
34
21
10
1
5
3
3
5
9
22
12
9
24
14
38
34
20
25
50
30
26
27
21
18
12
13
21
2
2
15
48
49
42
20
27
6
3
6
1
2
4
19
9
9
28
38
70
56
22
40
123.
76
69
85
68
57
40
47
36
27
19
11
17
14
2
2
22
53
50
87
73
50
57
52
30
26
27
21
18
12
13
21
3
38
65
103
137
114
48
88
138
76
69
85
68
57
40
47
36
60
60 to 69
118
50 to 59
153
40 to 49
224
30 to 39
187
25 to 29
98
20 to 24.
145
16 to 19
201
14 to 15
106
12 to 13 ..
95
10 to 11
112
8 to 9 ..
89
6 to 7
75
4 to 5 .
52
2 to 3
60
Under 2
57
Age not given
1
3
Total
183
59
384
209
44
864
92
626
1,209
1,836-
132
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
5
S
s
a
>>
a
3
O
5
Woj,
h- P»
K
ie
to OS i-
—• rf u"
s
N c
s
at
} N S
N 11
8S
sieqio
rt
rt 1
lOSHiONONOOMOaO
H««ONI>lSffiiONlOrt
CO ^H ,H IO CO *i* ^ CO
sj9nnx*ipe9jg:
l^ «
HHHIOIOIOtONO^OOOW^Odih
— T-i •* W ■-! 1-1
3
a
s
[•siox
rt 'Ntoooosrtr^tDi-iQOooeONoo
i c5wrotof-i-i5r~o>-HO*-<
CO H H « N « (O N
SJaq^O
MNSfflHNffleOOrtrfON
Mmioioooooo^aONa)
CM » N S M H
sjeuniMpeajg
i-i ! b « ■< n ai e » on h s ig n e
i o«osi-<-HNi-i^'j<ei5mc<
"3
Woi
P5"Oiflfl6fl»HiOC)H(0(sUJ(D*^fOn
HHHTflQTj*rt^iO*01»«0!ptO^
-Hi-i'* co N « CN .i
saemo
■"■
Vh !
no*»H«xohH!o»ii5N
^H^HOOi^^HCOCOCOOOSOOC^
sjennLiipB9Ja
i» e>»
NB^OlOlOlOflNioaaOlCOKIONIp
H H M rt
s
a
3
a
>>
a
s
a
o
a
s
.3
"3
9
' a
a
a
<D
CUD
2
>
3
to
o
a
o
a
8
w
3
>
o
•a
a
a
o
o
to
«^
3
a
<D
6h
IB?0X
** !e^CO©OS-*iON-H««**0»tOCON
HrtSHHSHeOMNH
sjamo
III lOr-l — 1 -H Tf 6» N -H
si9nnTMpB9Jg
-h !ciHionMii<ion©o«!9[o
1 i-l CO i-l i~l i-l
"3
S3
IttlOJ,
tO rH
HOO>0 , *h001NHNiOTfO<CNOOtD!0
i-i <-i ■» no ■-< i-i ■* N «h -h
sjeqjo
j J
iNNfHONNi-ift^eooO'*'!"
sietraiAipTOJta
O -H
Hoo>o^hQONHHioneo(0ao>OMP)
<-< * M » IH C^rtrti-I
2?
CT>
in
V»
o
i
CO
5
3
a
s
Em
Pfloj,
iHCOt^CO^lO'^COTjiC^OOO
sjomo
^Hi-taO-HtQt^OiOtON^fOOO
sjeonuipBaia
<Ncoto-noOcoeocor~gooo>
r-li-llO r-I^Hl-ICOCOC^i-l
3
IB^OJ,
i rt
NfflNrt«nNfflicoffloi»5!go'iiH
H«MNN«NS»!i)'*liOOM»
sjoqio
j |
i-i ! ! ! !ocor~^ , a>t~o»©>oooe'io
lliii -H <* i-l 00 •* tO >0 t5
SJ9oniMpB9Ja;
1 "
s
&
u.
S
■a
a
'P
"3
a
c
l^tox
sioiHo
rHCOt^^flMlOCOiOr^COO^
sjgnniMpegjg
rtMH^NWHDONOM*
3
IBIOX
H !
i-*C0^10000^fi-1'0^1«OM-HTJioOOQeO
sjgqjo
rt i
co rte<)toiowcoo
sjgnaiAipmig;
-■ i
HN^oowgoo^aojj^o^ojgw
g
a
1
V.
c
E
<1
m
3
3
2
o
a
o
8
hi
5
$10,000 and over
$9,000 to $9,999
$8,000 to $8.999
en
o
g
s
c
s
g
s
o
I
o
te
»9
g
3
£
S S
85 o
CO
en
en
a
<N
69
g
e
W3
s
en
w
c
J?
§
c
g
s
cn
5
o
8
o
en
en
to
o
S
•y;
c
s
8
en
en
3
o
e
■en
en
g
o
o
g
C6 ■*
O O
S3 8
OJ IN
69 «e
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEP.
133
iO &> 00
CO CO H
<r> o oo c<i
C4 CN 00 00
CO CO »-•
o O I*- CO
CO ^ O* r-
00 CO 0& "5
(D iO CO "5
M °2 99 2!
CO' oo os co
»o -h ^ CO
«"5N H
« W N H
338S
S S
S 2
3 5! S3
M « H «
" *- S 2
tc o © w
to 00 — i o>
H NO H
: - — e . —
S So 8
§ 8 g H
134
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
- S %
C 3
CD
to
O 00 ' to O ■*< CO CO to CO
O 00 i 00 3 <i N 91 OO
o
CD
g
oo to o
to w o
OO
00
o
— c oo
■<Jt CO
CO
OO
s
oo to
1<
3
OCto i O) 9) 9 Q> 00 QO N
O OS ' Oo Oo a a a Co a
-r
s?
CO
«*■ CM OO
to
CO
CO CO
cS
t^
o ■*
90
t~
t~ t~ to
eo
uo
tr co
o
Eh
BQ
I 1 ! O 1 t- ! I ■* rl
i i i O ' a ' I Ol CQ
r~
o
CO
»o O CO
,_,
CO'
oo to
to
to
oo 00
eo
CO
CO
CO
« CO H
o
■^
-H CO
OO
co
rt OO
s
i i i O ' a ' ' Co a
I I I o ■ a ' ' Co a
Co
00
OO
op to CO
00 00 CO
o
IO
to CO
CO
IO CO
CO
a>
oo
CO
00
OO
to
to ■<*
CO
CO
too
as
o
a
1 w
O ■*" ! ■* tj< t^. O CN 00 -*
o to i io * © o> » « o
00
o
s
O eo O
o
to
00 t~
CO
CO
o •->
■o
5
"2*
io
IO
00 CO o
CO
IO
O CO
CO
rt
O to
'-'
a
ea g
O a i Ol O) 0O h- © ^ H
O OS I Cb CO a CO CO CO CO
CO
IO
s
t~- »0 T-l
t*
to
00 CO
t^
n-
CN
CD
t- Q
CO
l~
-1- *r Tfn
CO
CO
.-1 rH
>
w|
CO
3
"3
a
s
! ! ! ! ! © ! t- o a
I I I I 1 O 1 O0 CO (O
CO
t^
-r
—• to o
CO
to
t~ r~
iO
CO
a oo
oo
fr-
CO
CO ^ CO
CO
o o
>o
■Co
to a
».
I I I I i O I CO CO CO
OO
tc
>o
CN O to
CN
to
CO to
*r
CO
O *)>
o
I I i I ■ O 1 CO CO CO
'CO
So
00
00 M N
b-
■o
•* CO
CM
fe
ooo ! eo O 00 N N * CO
„,
CO
oo
O OO ■*
CO
a
o to
OO
co
a co
co
V
or- i to uo o io oi M ^
to
r-
CO
t> o «
00
r--
00 t^
CM
a to
■a
OOO I O) ft CO oo s o ^
Oo
-r
CO
to to i-l
OO
f-
O —I
CO
r^
O ■*
S
OOO i CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
en
CO
co
CO to to
to
-r
ij« CO
c<
co co ! to co oo eo 00 a a
r-<o i o ci n n a o> o
Ol
IQ
CO
CM to — 1
-H iS CM
rt
r-
CN CO
to
CO
3 00
O CN
I-
g
"3
c
-r
00
I-
co
o to
t*
co
O ; co
CO
CO
IN
CM CO CO
CO
00
O OO
CO
CO
to CO
^
g
H
E
! \ I o • o '• > " 5
r~
■*
rt
IO N CO.
to
r~
•* o
s
t .
-H tO
eo
o
o
-*
oc
OO .-H — ■
IO
CO
CO oo
CO t~
o
9
i , O ;
**
00
rt
H CO CO
■*
a
CN «
00
00
00 'S'
CN
g
CJ)
O
• CO
eo o i o t^ t-- oo eo co eo
pa
to
-r
NCOC
•o
r^
■* 00
to Tt*
rt
co
tO CO
to
g
d
o
3
a
3
3
CO ^H IfHt^t^OOOOCOO
o i ci ci od
o
00
lO
rr
CO
co
« ■# «
o
CO
-r
CO
o
CM
to CO
£
1 I \ 1 i CO I f- rH t-
115
CO
CO
tO CO 00
r^
CO
O CN
oo
t»
•H O
■00
o
"3
a
i i i i i o i o ti »
o
IQ
CO
to CO ^
CO
CO
O to
tO
CO
CO CN
c~
o
O i
CM
o«
CO CO CO
CO
d
— O
t~
so
tO CO
1
3
fe
^ t>. , o ^ — H IO 00 to r~
to
<*
CO
^H to to
o
Co
to CO
CO
t-
t~ to
CO
o
to
CO O 1 ,f-H to tO.O CO N CO
fr-
'CO
to CO CO
a
O to
oo
■* CO
o
•3
O t-l -H ^1
-r
CO
i-H CO CO)
CO
OO 00
to
O
to CO
d
S
o
t~ CO i CO IO to CO H N CO
00
CM
CO
CO CO CO
T
CO
O CO
_
to
O O
to
^
l ~-l ~H i-t IO tO C-
co
o
CO
CO O 00
Oo
o
00 to
Oo
co
to a
oo
a
03
O
o
to to
CO
CO ^H
t^
tO*
&
! t ! ^ ! h \ ! to n
_J
IO
CI
IO CN O
O
t .
IO 00
oo
to
O CO
CO
a
M
CN
CO
t^ CO. CN
CC'
IO
t~ to
CO
CI 00
GO
■^Jt
CO
25
CO
Tf TJ<
CO
CO
CO -H
00
7*
42
o
CO
8
III 1 1 I 1
OJ
, CO
t- CO I N IO UO CO H N CO
t^
1-
co * e
■* CO CC
■*
to
to t*
CO
o
O t~
eo
CN
a
si
1 i-H rt i-l tO lO >0
IO
t^
••-
co
o oo
t-
«*
CO
1 '"'
rt
<*
CO
'-'
a
"S
^
2
CO
i 1 ! 1 ! rt 1 CN to CO
oo
„
t~-
to — < c
o
00
CO CO
00
CO
-H CO
!_,
CO
1 1 1 1 1 i C>
M
CO
r~ —i c
I-
OO
— o
CC
co a
to
1—
Z
a
a
3
CO
■>*<
CN
CO CO
CO
oo
CN
t*- CO i CO to IO a a •-< to
cr.
,_,
ea
N UO C
^!
-!-
s g
rt
CO
a'oo
**
a
I H H H ^ IO ^
cc
iO
•^ oo cc
CO
o
t^
oc
oo a
CO
3
^J"
CO
CO
CN IN
a
CN
2
_g
i
o
o
fcj 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
>. CO CO CO Oo CO CO CO CO CO
■C* Oo a OO Oo a Co oo a CO
OOOCOCOOCOCOO)^ 1
Oo
a
Co
Co
5
T
T3 ai oo' n to uo * « ei ci
«»
•»
Co'
■CO
c-
CO N cc
Co
Co
to
oo
Oo
oo oo
OO OO
CO CM
Co'
CO
a
Co
a I
■** 1
f-i a
o
3
o
t
08000000000
o
o
•■/>
o
o o c
eft
o
o
o o
o
o
«=> a
o *»
Ss
OOOOOQQOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
^oo^oooooB5S"5
1
s
gss
o
1
O O to
o
o
p
So
Co
■o
a
— « co x r^" o" uo ^* co m" n
»<AtACQ«OWWWWU
■Co
OO N CC
■»ft
CO CO
CO
f-H tO
t)
</=>
^»
•«
•fi Sf* tf
«>
<f>
CA «>
■be
■»
(» «t>
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
135
<u T)
■a
a
o
g
,_,
»©• W3
^
r~
•o
CN O
CO
Ol
OS 00
*
o
a
CO
<N
PJOX
CO CN CO CO
siaqio
IO ^ IO H IO (O
.-1 CN ■«! ■*
CO *tfl *Cf OS
O) N IO ^i
h h n «
l^ co O »h r-
t^ O) f> O ^i
1
CO
i-H Ol -H O O 00 -H
(O « « CO *
N 00 CO N
CN CO 00 CO CO
IO
ID
SJ9nniApBaig
nose
§
■°82SgS
n oo co h h
CO H CO » CO
CN
B
IBJox
N V (O r-
CN
a
s
•H
>>
c«
a
N O 00 M
2 o S 8 ?
CO
a
sjamo
■^ h h w n
M H CO IO
s
&,
rt
"3
o
SJ9nniAipB9Jg
i 0> IO 00 N C
CO CN CN 5
« O IO H
s
e
IGWX
H Ol IO O N ■* h-
io — * cn ^ **
^1 N Ol CO
•* -H o •«•
N H IO co a
00 © O >0 r-
CO
CO CO CO N
OS IO CN r-i CC
IO CO » IO f"
s
CO
03
SJ91U0
00 » CO CC
00 CO IO •«■
CO CO CO Ol CO
CN ^ i-H
?
SJ9nnLiipe9Ja
io « « n «
•*
a
IB10X
H t^ O) H O 0C
CO N 9 K
IO CO CN
I--.
00
sjgqio
^ CO CO i ^* "^
N Ot- S
V r-l -<
CO
IO
a>
>
fn
o
•a
a
sj9anjA\pB9jg
1 ^ I H N M
■* t- CN CC
CO
S
o
IB10X
h n n N N * t
N « 0)8
CO 1" — 1 rt
oo
J3
s
6">
03
sigqjo
■ l-l i-H • C
CN CO CO CO i CN ii-
a
>>
SJ9UUlMpB9Jg
H rt M H H f C
C H O c!
CO CN ii
IO
CO
CS»Oi-HCOO^«»00»OiOiOO^CO^
CN
00
CO
a
IE50X
,H "* ""' *■
«2
a
•o
a
SJ94JO
—1
IO CO V "J
t)< rt rt i-r
CN
a
o
9
a
o>
&H
o
o
SJ9nuiMpB9jg
i N W (Of «f
h r- co ir
CN t* ^H
^ lO « '
00
^oCNcooaoc^05r-eoocsoo»*£
~H
3
a
s
Wox
CO
a
03
_2
M
d
>
cs
§
sjgqio
i N i CO CO C^
O ^J" O CC
~i — • CO f
CI O CO CB C
CN i-l — 1
1 2
1 s
SJ9anI.VipB9Ja
m< ■* w co t)- «:
CO O M-
CO CN CN r-
00 CN IO i CN
CN
00
M IO N 00 CC
CO
[B^OX
«j
*~
o
o
03
a
co cn io r* cc
00
a
saaqio
o
a
o
o
W
o
o
CO
«e
s->
•a
a
^
SJ9nniMpB9Jg
! CO (M ^ i-t —
Q IO CO C
O) CO « H
to
IO
<N CO C* o> Q jr
O Tf CO —
V IO CO CO *
io co a ^ -
o
P
_®
I810X
i. n o h CO
o
a
sjaqjo
SJ9UUlMpB9Ja
CM iO CN CO CO CN
CN --< i*H H
»o co o cc
■fli rt M CS
t~ cn r~ cn i
CN
CO
CN
O 03
C 3
sS-O
3 g
a%
o o> o>
o a; cr>
esT ^-T J O 1 ca o ?
-~ *~ t£> c- cr> ci <y
w w H o oo i- e
O O O «& €& $^ **3
3
o
c-i
^S o
CO O CT> CT
LO •* CO CN
</r <& 6$ €/3
CN -h w OS S
« « (6 J» «
O O O ** b
c <U
o o o c
1*
S S g o o o c
O O Q O
O O Q ^3
o io o o a
«!
—
3
</-
-_
60
6% «
<*
«
C^ CVI
Si
p
136
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
•0
e
Si oo
■S e
H
» OS
*- «d
o
a
<s>
■c
a
a>
a
a>
T3
•2.
<
oo
1-9
U
sa
3a
IB
8
OS ON OS OS
o as co cd
O iC O 00 CO CD CO
N © N CO >0 »0 h
80s os co id cnjos loeNococoeo^cocN
OS OS OS OS OS OOQONtD'tfMWH
Owt^TOTf<OOCDt>-Oi-i^HCOt^-COr^
Ot>-^iOcocDOsiococoOi— i f- r» r-
S'oipco'N'tHddiodbocooc'i
0)050SOlO)OaNiOTf«H
ss
CO —I CO CO
^ 00 00 »C ^f N
OC CO CN O CD CO
_ d |p •*' ^ n w
©OJOOOOOOt>.»OWNn
CD i-i lO OS
: g
s
<N
lO
CN
r^
CD
■a
no
TO
OC
t^
00
•O
CO
to
t»
lO
: 8
cr
3
CO
to
e»
OO
en
db
an
<o
CO
8 -h CM 00
o h e5
t^ © CO OS
^ 00 C ^ « W N
O CD i— t Tf IT) CO CD
gss
^WOCONOOJ^N'f
OS OS OS 00 00 CD
<* CO ON 1-H
iO O W OS
SMOHOOWONNOncC
T-fiOt^^lOO^COCOO^i-H
N«W«CO«HifW00100 VCN
OS ■* CO C4 OS
CO N O h- CO
OS © »o os
wCNCN^HO^'^Oi-'OiOCN
©NHlOCOO«QC5«0«HNiO«0
OHCft*«'*>o<dod'*'-5c>cc5«c^
HipNCCCNOHCOCO
© -H i-H .-H CO CO
It O C» « ^ N
N00^nO0HCDN00<OCOCOCN«C
© ' ^ H N w * w d ^ N N CO oJ ^ H
H©w«ooooOHS«H S f-ooo
MNMCCNWnrt
*o^*ococo^^fOst^eoOi-ir^
hO»^^©N^SNC3>NO^
^h OS i-H O O 00 i-i
CD CN CO CO "^
00 tO N N « 00
os r- co ^t* cn i-H
8 2
CbOHUjHMNCOMHH
W Tl< N •* CO N «
2 S
i-H OS «0 CD
2 Jn
•^r-ocot-.—jwooa*
*H»*oOOO«3H
8§8
IC o^ ■**■
c» t-H i-T
o o o
» €» W €^ «»
ooooooooooo
888.88888888,.
NHHWOpNCOiO'JjeQCNNHH
"J O «3 O
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
137
**
CNCNCOOt^OTOOCNCOCM^'OrtTl"'.-
1 >-l
"3
So
53
•<«"
c
Eh
* c
; ,_,
^ ^ rt i-i «
i-i e
I o
o o
1-1
CO
! FH •H
! -H
1 r-l
r~
>>
OJ
1
ca
1-4
OO
-C rH
""•
CM
■ cm cm
CN
3
S
<b
ft
■-iCNi-i-H.-<COCOcor-'*CO*»'COr-
s
jS
o
»»
1
.2
E
SI
ft
cv
"o
CO
,H
^cocNowoOTiiior^FH
c
9
t-
"3
a
3
NIONIOnHClNOtDtOnC
CM
•O
1-1
CO
fe
>,
,H
_
HMHcivuxiflto^oMn^
CM
-*
•H tH i-« iH
00
1
.2
"o
CO
1-1
.-IT»'COeD»raOaO©r>.C
e»
o>
^N
33
cm
l-H 1-1 -H IO
CNrtio.OKO-J'O'OCNtr
CO
■9
H M « H
rtNN^iO««P
CO
**
CN
"3
O
hH(D*SOJOJ^1C©00^^
It
•o
-« -H
„
M
cm co ^h « w
00
§ ®
o o
-| -H
e*CMt-<«OeMCOCNCN
CN
►>
O
N
i
S3
nM»«ononH
C-.
e?
b
00
CO
B
&
ft
1
a
o
r~
e«MOis«)»ooH«--
s
.2
6
&
"3
,_,
■"HCOeNf-OOOOCMOCNOS'— Ot^
r»
o
to
_l _l OJ -H
o
§
9
,2
1
a
a
>o
f«.MMOffl«»»H»««(l
s
i
1
a
o
i
~~ ~
n<oooi«*«)sooi | fiioo;H
1
a>
53
CN
- 1
— 1 H m fid S N N
a
,_,
rt
*H«H*HU3C400iOf-i*O
„
CO
.SB
6 ®
3 ~
S a.
eg
a. "**
5
"3.
^"3
■'OlCTttOiPifflO
OS
o
a a.
8 g
5 S
& 9
T3Sf3^!-<!2 2« o ? o i c . o i 0> - c i**^ c '
£h
a
m
O
5
8
o
CO
2
5
o
e
ea
o
o
00
o
p
CO
o
p
CO
s
CO
5
cs
3
s
e
o
250783 — 40 — No. 2 10
138
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 20. — Insured families classified according to number of dependents and
percentage of family income paid in premiums
[The data are presented separately for nonrelief and relief families]
NONRELIEF FAMILIES
Number of dependents per family
Total
fam-
ilies
Percentage of family in-
come paid for premiums
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
and
over
0)
1
(')
(»)
3
22 to 23.9
1
1
2
2
5
19
7
24
20
21
37
35
31
42
16
7
1
1
3
20 to 21.0
1
1
1
3
18 to 19.9
1
1
4
2
13
9
9
20
17
24
45
42
25
34
15
8
3
16 to 17.9
3
5
14
9
8
16
12
25
13
24
14
7
3
3
2
3
1
6
6
9
3
7
13
.5
10
8
3
1
6
14 to 15.9
1
2
3
10
9
15
24
30
28
47
43
61
29
17
3
1
1
17
12 to 13.9.
16
10 to 11.9
1
1
1
2
2
6
8
9
17
13
2
6
2
6
6
4
5
9
3
5
5
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
2
3
1
69
9 to 9.9
47
8 to 8.9
3
1
76
7 to 7.9
94
6 to 6.9
96
5 to 5.9
3
2
2
— -
1
2
148
4 to 4.9
163
3 to 3.9
167
2 to 2.9
2
1
164
1 to 1.9 -.
1
1
2
108
0.1 to 0.9
45
0*
1
2
23
Total
70
270
314
270
157
78
47
21
15
3
6
1,251
RELIEF FAMILIES
(»)
1
22 to 23.9 .
1
1
20 to 21.9 .
18 to 19.9
1
1
1
2
16 to 17.9
1
2
14 to 15.9
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
6
4
10
9
13
8
10
3
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
7
2
3
2
2
3
12 to 13.9
2
4
2
3
4
5
6
13
10
5
5
2
1
1
2
3
3
4
9
13
16
5
10
4
3
2
5
1
5
7
8
10
7
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
5
3
5
1
6
6
3
2
3
1
10
10 to 11.9
17
9 to 9.9
9
8 to 8.9
20
7 to 7.9
20
6 to 6.9
2
3
7
12
7
7
3
3
1
1
1
1
22
5 to 5.9.
2
1
46
4 to 4.9 -
52
3 to 3.9
1
1
74
2 to 2.9 -
1
1
50
1 to 1.9
41
0.1 to 0.9 -
1
1
I
24
1
21
Total
62
62
75
79
56
41
33
5
5
2
5
415
1 In the case of nonrelief families, 1 family with no dependents paid 69.5%, 1 family with 2 dependents
paid 27.0% and 1 family with 5 dependents paid 57.2% of income for premiums.
1 Families shown as paying zero percent of income for premiums held: paid-up, extended term, or non-
contributory group insurance.
* In the case of relief families, 1 family with 2 dependents paid 67.5% of its income for premiums.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
139
Table 21. — Insured families classified according to percentage of family income
paid in premiums and economic status
[This table shows the relation between the income level of the family and the proportion of income spent for
life insurance]
Nonrelief families
Relief families
Percent of family income paid
as premiums
Economic status: Average
annual income per family
member
Total
families
Economic status:
Averp.ge annual
income per fam-
ily member
Tota.
families
Under
$300
$300 to
$599
$600 and
over
Under
$300
$300 and
over
12
10
8
33
19
28
39
23
45
25
30
31
14
8
14
4
4
7
30
21
40
41
58
73
95
88
90
40
23
5
2
3
1
6
7
8
14
15
30
43
49
43
54
14
4
18
17
16
69
47
76
94
96
148
163
167
164
108
45
23
5
3
7
13
7
12
15
20
35
33
48
34
28
12
17
1
3
4
2
8
5
2
11
19
26
16
13
12
4
6
14.0 to 15.9
3
12.0 to 13.9...
10
10.0 to 11.9
17
9.0 to 9.9
9
8.0 to 8.9
20
7.0 to 7.9
20
6.0 to 6.9
22
5.0 to 5.9
46
4.0to4.9
52
3.0 to 3.9
74
2.0 to 2.9
50
1.0 to 1.9...
41
0.1 to 0.9
24
1
21
Total
339
619
293
1,251
289
126
415
' Families shown as paying percent of income for premiums held: paid-up. extended term, or non-
contributory group insurance.
Table 22. — Families with industrial insurance classified according to economic status
and percentage of industrial premiums paid on endowment policies
Nonrelief families
Relief families
Total families
Industrial en-
dowment pre-
miums as a per-
cent of total
industrial
Economic status:
Average annual
income per family
member
Total
fami-
lies
Economic status:
Average annual
income per family
member
Total
fami-
lies
Economic status:
Average annual
income per family
member
Total
premiums
Oto
$299
$300 to
$599
$600
and
over
Oto
$299
$300 to
$599
$600
and
over
Oto
$299
$300 to
$599
$600
and
over
100 percent
59
118
45
222
26
7
1
34
85
125
46
256
50 to 99 percent.
78
151
40
269
36
12
1
49
114
163
41
318
1 to 49 percent..
84
135
58
277
67
15
1
83
151
150
59
360
None 1
93
148
74
L 315
139
67
8
214
232
215
82
529
Total....
314
552
217
1,083
268
101
11
380
582
653
228
1,463
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
^Per-
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
100 percent
18.79
21.37
20.74
20.50
9.70
6.93
9.09
8.95
14.60
19.14
20.18
17.50
50 to 99 percent.
24.84
27.36
18:43
24.84
13.43
11.88
9.09
12.89
19.59
24.96
17.98
21.74
1 to 49 percent..
26.75
24.46
26.73
25.57
25.00
14.85
9.09
21.84
25.95
22.97
25. 88
24.60
None ]
29.62
26.81
34.10
29.09
51.87
66.34
72.73
56.32
39.86
32.93
35. 96 .
36.16
Total....
100.00
100.00
100 00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100. 00
100.00
100.00
1 Families holding some industrial insurance, none of which is on the endowment plan, are represented
by sero percentage.
J40 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 23. — Percentage of family premiums paid on chief breadwinner
[Families classified according to the number of dependents and the proportion of the family's insurance
expenditure allocated to the chief breadwinner. The analysis is based on families carrying industrial
insurance or industrial in combination with ordinary insurance only]
NONRELIEF FAMILIES
Percent of premiums paid on chief bread-
winner to total premiums
100 percent ...
90 to 99 percent
80 to 89 percent
70 to 79 percent ..
60 to 69 percent...
50 to 59 percent..
40 to 49 percent
30 to 39 percent
20 to 29 percent
10 to 19 percent
1 to 9 percent
None (with breadwinners)
None (without breadwinners) .
Total.... -- 41 144 186 169 90 42 29
Number of dependents in family
22
31
10
and
over
Total
39
5
18
27
50
77
110
129
93
56
6
113
3
726
RELIEF FAMILIES
100 percent
90 coau percent
80 to 89 percent
70 to 79 percent..
60 to 69 percent
50 to 59 percent
40 to 49 percent..
30 to 39 percent
20 to 29 percent
10 to 19 percent
1 to 9 percent
None (with breadwinners)
None (without breadwinners).
Total..
47
4S
4
5
12
21
29
48
42
23
12
69
63
345
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
141
Table 24. — Percentage of family income contributed by each breadwinner related
to the percentage of family premiums paid on each breadwinner's insurance
[1268 breadwinners are cross-classified according to the proportion which each breadwinner contributes to
the family income and according to the proportion of the family's premiums paid for the breadwinner's
insurance. Data are presented for two classes of families: those in which there are one or two other mem-
bers, and those in which there are three or more other members]
BREADWINNERS IN FAMILIES WITH ONE AND TWO OTHERS
Premium on each
breadwinner as a
percent of total
premiums
Percent of total family income contributed by each
breadwinner
Total
Per-
cent
Cum-
ula-
Un-
der
10
10
to
19
20
to
29
30
to
39
40
to
49
60
to
59
60
to
69
70
to
79
80
to
89
•90
to
99
100
tive
per-
cent
1
1
2
1
2
1
6
2
4
2
5
1
9
2
7
14
24
36
37
35
15
10
15
3
10
19
41
59
80
96
76
57
27
11
87
2.58
.52
1.72
3.27
7.06
10.15
13.77
16.52
13.08
9.81
4.65
1.89
14.98
2.58
3.10
1
1
3
1
5
8
5
4
2
4.82
1
2
2
3
7
16
14
3
14
1
4
5
10
2
2
1
3
4
6
2
1
4
8.09
1
2
6
7
10
12
10
6
2
3
6
10
8
5
5
8
4
2
6
10
10
6
1
4
15.15
25.30
1
4
4
5
7
1
4
39.07
55.59
20 to 29 percent
68.67
78.48
83.13
None with insurance 1 .
None without insur-
3
3
1
6
2
6
4
32
85.02
100.00
Total
27
54
62
48
44
35
31
24
31
225
581
100.00
BREADWINNERS IN FAMILIES WITH THREE OR MORE OTHERS
100 percent-
90 to 99 percent
80 to 89 percent.
70 to 79 percent
60 to 69 percent
50 to 59 percent
40"to 49 percent .
30 to 39 percent
20 to 29 percent
10 to 19 percent
1 to 9 percent
None with insurance 1 .
None without insur-
ance
Total.
40
62
■1'j
38
29
30 307
11
1
11
10
21
37
74
122
li2
93
57
12
687
1.60
.15
1.60
1.46
3.06
5.39
10.77
17.76
16.30
13.54
8.30
1.75
18.32
1.60
1.75
3.35
4.81
7.87
13.26
24.03
41.79
58.09
71.63
79.93
81.68
1C0. 00
1 Zero premiums on breadwinners with insurance occurs when the industrial or ordicary policies held
are paid-up or extended term policies.
142
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 25. — Percentage of family -premium paid on breadwinners' insurance related
to the economic status of the family
[The 1,071 families which carried industrial insurance or industrial in combination with ordinary insurance,
are classified according to economic status and the percentage of total premiums paid for insurance on the
breadwinners of these families]
Percent of premiums paid on
all breadwinners to total
premiums
Nonrelief families
Economic status: Average
annual income per family
member
Under
$300
$300 to
$600 and
over
Total
families
Belief families
Economic status: Average
annual income per family
member
Under
$300
$300 to
$599
$600 and
over
Total
families
100 percent (without others ')
100 percent (with others 2 )---
90 to 99 percent
80 to 89 percent
70 to'79 percent
60 to 69 percent..
50 to 59 percent
40 to 49 percent-
30 to 39 percent.
20 to 29 percent
10 to 19 percent
1 to 9 percent
None (with breadwinners 3 ) .
None (without breadwin-
ners')
Total.
Ill
123
66
34
4
224
366
136
726
25
12
9
1
8
8
16
25
35
49
36
14
7
61
64
345
i These data refer to families composed entirely of breadwinners.
> These data refer to families in which there were members other than breadwinners.
3 These data refer to families in which there were breadwinners.
< These data refer to families in which there were no breadwinners.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC i'OYVER 143
Table 26. — Age, sex, and insurance of family members — 701 families
The members of the 701 families with industrial insurance only aie shown here classified according to present
age, sex, and insurance status. In addition for each group of insured persons, the table shows the insur-
ance in force, number of policies, annual premiums and per capita averages based thereon]
Present age
Number of insured
persons
Number of unin-
sured persons
Percent of persons
insured
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
15
56
90
117
145
190
300
254
37
36
75
110
122
167
193
271
244
41
12
14
28
41
46
49
50
38
14
10
10
18
30
44
53
45
37
25
55.56
80.00
76.27
74.05
75.92
79.50
85.71
86.99
72.55
78 26
60 to 69 -
88 24
50 to 59
85 94
40 to 49 1
80 26
30 to 39 ..-
79 15
20 to 29
78 46
10 to 19
85 76
2 to 9
86 83
Under 2
62 12
Total
1,204
1, 259
292
272
80.48
82 23
Number of policies
Amount of insur-
ance
Annual premiums
70 and over
37
102
172
205
260
344
415
335
41
76
177
240
187
257
304
402
306
47
$7, 840
27, 743
47,280
66,414
85, 614
91,719
99,697
57,167
2,196
$15, 223
30, 747
53, 136
52, 198
78, 035
77,940
90,355
57,202
2,544
$345
1,651
2,339
2,741
2,952
2,935
2,682
2,187
315
$794
60 to 69
1,723
50 to 59
2,544
40 to 49
2,191
2,811
2,706
2,475
30 to 39-.
20 to 29
10 to 19 ...■
2 to 9
2,232
397
Under 2
Total
1,911
1,996
485, 670
457, 380
18, 147
17,873
Average per insured person
Number of policies
Amount of insur-
ance
Annual premiums
70 and over
2.5
2.1
2.4
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1
$523
495
525
568
590
483
332
225
59
$423
410
483
428
467
404
333
234
62
$23.00
29.48
25.99
23.43
20.36
15.45
8.94
8.61
8.51
$22.06
60 to 69
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
9
8
8
8
4
3
1
22.97
50 to 59 -
23.13
40 to 49
17.96
30 to 39 _
16.83
20 to 29
14.02
10 to 19
9.13
2to9
9.15
Under 2
9.68
Total..
1 fi
1.6
403
363
15.07
14.20
144
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 27 .—Percentage of family income paid for industrial premiums — 701 families
[The 701 families carrying industrial insurance only are classified according to percent of income paid for
insurance premiums. Separate distributions are shown for these families classified according to eco-
nomic and relief status]
Economic status: Average annual income per family member
Percent of income paid for
industrial premiums
Nonrelief families
Relief families
Grand
total
fami-
lies
Under
$300
$300 to
$599
$600
and
over
Total
fami-
lies
Under
$200
$200 to
$299
$300
and
over
Total
fami-
lies
30 and over
1
1
1
1
2
28 to 29.9
26 to 27.9
24 to 25.9
22 to 23.9
1
1
1
1
2
20 to 21.9.
18tol9.9._..
1
1
1
16 to 17.9
1
3
1
12
4
11
14
7
18
16
17
22
8
6
8
1
3
1
17
10
25
24
17
38
60
59
69
47
15
11
1
14 to 15.9
2
4
7
2
5
9
6
15
13
15
18
5
3
10
1
2
3
3
4
2
8
13
15
22
12
16
6
4
2
4
1
4
12
17
13
9
8
4
3
6
12
5
9
15
15
32
40
54
43
30
17
18
6
12 to 13.9
7
10 to 11.9.
4
5
9
9
9
15
35
30
39
20
6
2
1
1
5
1
1
5
9
12
8
19
3
1
29
9to9.9
15
8to8.9..._
34
7to7.9
39
6to6.9 :
32
5to5.9
70
4 to 4.9.
100
3 to 3.9
113
2to2.9
112
1 to 1.9...
77
0.1 to 0.9
32
29
Total
150
183
66
399
117
111
74
302
701
Table 28.
-Industrial premiums on breadwinners and on dependent children-
families
-701
[The 701 families with industrial insurance only are classified according to the percent of their total
premiums paid for insurance: (a) On all breadwinners and (6) on dependents under 16 years of age.
Nonrelief and relief families are shown separately and in each class families are grouped according to
economic status]
NONRELIEF FAMILIES
Economic status: Average annua
income per family member
Un-
der
$100
$100
to
$199
$200
to
$299
$300
to
$399
$400
to
$499
$500
to
$599
$600
to
$699
$700
to
$799
$800
to
$899
$900
to
$999
$1,000
and
over
Total
Percent of premiums
paid on all bread-
winners:
100....
3
6
5
6
5
1
2
3
2
9
4
2
3
6
2
4
9
46
90 to 99
1
80 to 89
1
1
1
5
7
13
6
3
2
10
2
5
7
7
10
18
9
6
3
4
4
11
15
17
9
6
1
4
8
11
2
2
2
2
4
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
11
70 to 79
23
60 to 69
2
29
50 to 59
39
40 to 49
53
30 to 39
1
1
1
60
20 to 29..
2
34
10 to 19 .
21
1 to 9
1
3
1
25
21
8
6
5
1
2
79
Total
8
47
95
95
51
37
27
15
7
3
14
399
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC TOWER 145
Table 28. — Industrial premiums on breadwinners and on dependent children — 701
families — Continued
NONRELIEF FAMILIES-Continued
Economic status: Average annua!
income per family member
Un-
der
$100
$100
to
$199
$200
to
$299
$300
to
$399
$400
to
$499
$500
to
$599
$600
to
$699
$700
to
$799
$800
to
$899
$900
to
$999
$1,000
and
over
Total
Percent of premiums
paid on dependents
under 16 years:
100...
1
9
7
3
3
2
1
26
90 to 99
80 to 89
1
3
4
5
7
6
5
2
2
1
4
7
5
12
9
12
3
31
1
1
2
5
8
11
10
14
4
32
4
70 to 79
1
6
60 to 69
1
3
3
2
4
8
2
25
11
50 to 59
1
2
1
5
1
3
1
21
23
40 to 49
24
30 to 39
2
1
1
1
20
38
20 to 29
1
31
10 to 19
40
1 to9
11
5
13
14
7
3
14
185
Total
8
47
95
95
51
37
27
15
7
3
14
399
RELIEF FAMILIES
Percent of premiums
paid on all bread-
winners:
100
1
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
4
20
90 to 99
1
80 to 89
2
2
1*
7
13
16
19
7
3
36
2
1
7
8
10
13
9
1
1
57
1
1
3
2
6
2
1
3
12
2
2
1
1
2
1
7
70 to 79
6
60 to 69
1
11
50 to 59. . . .
1
21
40 to 49
29
30 to 39
40
20 to 29... .
30
10 to 19
2
11
1 to 9
7
2
9
2
1
119
Total.
5
112
111
33
19
213
3
5
1
302
Percent of premiums
paid on dependents
under 16 years:
100
9
13
1
22
90 to 99
1
2
80 to 89
2
4
2
12
16
18
10
8
4
27
2
70 to 79
1
4
9
10
9
12
13
3
36
5
60 to 69
1
7
50 to 59 .
21
40 to 49
1
3
27
30 to 39
30
20 to 29
1
23
10 to 19
2
2
25
1 to 9
7
4
26
17
12
3
5
1
131
Total
5
112
111
33
19
13
3
5
1
332
J46 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 29. — Insurance on breadwinners and others — 701 families
[The 701 families with industrial insurance only are shown here grouped according to the number of depend-
ent family members. In each group there is presented the data which show the relative importance of
the insurance on various types of breadwinners and other persons in the family]
Number of—
Insurance
in force
Families according to number of dependents
Fami-
lies
Unin-
sured
persons
Insured
persons
Policies
Annual
premiums
Families with no dependents:
Chief breadwinner earning 50 percent and
44
11
3
2
41
9
1
20
23
78
24
3
41
39
$10, 749
5,520
660
10, 151
8,389
$925. 52
Chief breadwinner earning less than 60 per-
151.24
Other breadwinners earning 50 percent and
46.25
Other breadwinners earning less than 50 per-
4
4
360.41
244.24
Total
55
13
94
185
44,469
1, 727. 66
Families with 1 dependent:
Chief breadwinner earning 50 percent and
114
7
18
1
96
6
1
33
153
212
12
1
67
303
55, 108
3,645
265
15, 832
68, 627
2,201.93
Chief breadwinner earning less than 50 per-
114.60
Other breadwinners earning 50 percent and
11.00
Other breadwinners earning less than 50 per-
6
18
550.98
2, 905. 04
Total
121
43
289
595
143. 477
5, 783. 55
Families with 2 dependents:
Chief breadwinner earning 50 percent and over.
Chief breadwinner earning less than 50 percent.
Other breadwinners earning 50 percent and
117
7
34
4
83
3
157
5
49, 709
1,417
1, 939. 80
45.90
Other breadwinners earning less than 50 per-
9
42
40
226
88
362
19, 836
85, 555
755. 41
3, 613. 38
Total ..- -
124
89
352
612
156, 517
6, 354. 49
Families with 3 dependents:
Chief breadwinner earning 50 percent and over.
Chief breadwinner earning less than 50 percent.
Other breadwinners earning 50 percent and
126
12
34
2
2
10
92
92
10
4
32
335
166
15
4
52
495
50, 294
3,623
1,557
13, 476
111,588
2, 016. 45
160. -d
90.30
Other breadwinners earning less than 50 per-
434. 81
4, 469. 33
Total --.
138
140
473
732
180, 538
7, 171. 04
Families with 4 dependents:
Chief breadwinner earning 50 percent and over.
Chief breadwinner earning less than 50 per-
78
3
19
59
3
101
8
33, 013
2,141
1, 267. 96
125. 45
Other breadwinners earning 50 percent and
Other breadwinners earning less than 50 per-
2
38
59
11
<*04
377
22
414
6,390
92, 082
236.41
3,401.82
Total - —
81
545
133, 626
5, 031. 64
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 147
Table 29. — Insurance on breadwinners and others— 701 families — Continued
Number of—
Insurance
in force
Families according to number of dependents
Fami-
lies
Unin-
sured
persons
Insured
persons
Policies
Annual
premiums
Families with 5 or more dependents:
Chief breadwinner earning 50 percent and over.! 112
Chief breadwinner earning less than 50 per-
cent. -.. i 9
Other breadwinners earning 50 percent and J
27
3
1
13
150
85
6
150
8
51, 917
2,175
2, 214. 21
48.65
Other breadwinners earning less than 50 per-
20
603
39
821
7,337
170, 739
305. 60
5, 796. 13
Total
121
194
714
1,018
232,168
8, 364. 49
61
26
164
220
52, 255
1, 587. 42
Grand total
701
564
2,463
3,907
943, 050
36, 020. 29
Table 30. — Percentage of industrial ■premiums paid for endowment insurance —
701 families
[The 701 families with industrial insurance only are shown classified according to the percentage of the
family's total premiums paid for endowments. Nonrelief and relief families are shown separately and
in each class, families are grouped according to economic status]
NONRELIEF FAMILIES
Percent of industrial
premiums paid for
endowment insurance
Economic status: Average annual income per family member
Un-
der
$100
$100
to
$199
$200
to
$299
$300
to
$399
$400
to
$499
$500
to
$599
$600
to
$699
$700
to
$799
$800
to
$899
$900
to
$999
$1,000
and
over
Total
100
1
7
23
2
6
3
5
5
6
7
6
3
20
15
11
8
2
6
2
31
4
3
2
6
2
2
6
5
2
19
6
1
3
1
1
3
2
3
17
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
64
90 to 99
5
80 to 89
1
3
3
4
6
3
2
2
16
i
13
70 to 79
16
60 to 69
21
50 to 59
1
1
27
40 to 49.
I
1
2
1
2
11
1
1
1
1
2
23
30 to 39
27
20 to 29
1
2
25
10 to 19
1
1
21
1 to9
1
6
9
None
5
8
5
1
148
Total
8
47
95
95
51
37
27
15
7
3
14
399
RELIEF FAMILIES
100
5
1
2
4
2
5
8
7
5
5
2
66
13
1
2
2
4
2
5
4
3
10
2
63
1
23
90 to 99
3
80 to 89
1
5
70 to 79
6
60 to 69
2
1
9
50 to 59
1
10
40 to 49
1
1
15
30 to 39
2
1
15
20 to 29
8
10 to 19
16
1 to9
4
None
4
24
14
11
2
4
188
^otal
5
112
111
33
19
13
3
5
1
302
148
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 31. — Insured families classified according to number of policies and economic
status
[This table shows the relation between average annual income per family member and the number of policies
on members of the family. The information is shown for relief and non-relief families and for ordinary
as well as industrial insurance]
NON-RELIEF FAMILIES
Number of
policies per
family
Economic status: Average annual income per family member
Un-
der
$100
$100,
to
$149
$150
to
$199
$200 $250
to to
$249 $299
$300
to
$349
$350 $400
to to
$399 $449
$450
to
$499
$500
to
$599
$600
to
$699
$700
to
$799
$800
to
$899
$900
to
$999
$1,000
to
$1,499
$1,500
to
$1,999
$2,000
and
over
Total
All insurance:
1
2
2
1
5
17
21
31
30
3
3
11
19
29
26
1
1
2
6
12
20
45
56
1
5
25 to 29 ...
1
2
6
23
32
40
38
1
5
20 to 24
2
3
17
18
31
19
3
6
21
26
48
46
1
3
18
30
44
29
14
15 to 19
1
5
6
14
4
21
19
7
14
6
12
24
26
45
3
Cl
16
19
28
1
3
2
9
13
3
3
4
12
1
3
7
13
19
44
10tol4
7to9
4 to 6 .
3
3
3
7
1
2
1
179
249
363
lto3
5
1
392
Total...
16
39
61
90
142
151
125
109
91
143
113
75
29
23
43
8
2
1,251
Industrial:
2
1
1
4
14
13
20
43
11
—
1
1
3
25 to 29
1
1
5
14
25
41
44
11
1
3
4
14
21
43
48
17
2
14
20
43
37
9
1
1
6
20 to 24
1
3
7
14
4
1
15
19
11
12
4
1
3
11
19
27
24
5
6
15 to 19
5
4
12
33
26
11
6
9
11
31
65
19
4
8
21
14
41
25
1
5
13
16
25
15
35
10 to 14 . .
1
4
3
4
4
16
1
2
2
4
12
8
2
2
2
5
11
3
4
8
15
13
119
7to9
4to6
lto3
None
1
1
4
2
2
194
311
409
168
Total...
30
61
90
142
151
125
109
91
143
113
75
29
23
43
8
2
1,251
Ordinary:
10
9
8
7
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
26
26
82
142
1
1
1
6
6
1
1
3
5
2
7
21
46
75
151
1
4
4
20
34
62
125
2
4
6
18
23
55
109
4
3
6
16
30
32
91
2
6
9
29
36
61
143
3
1
5
22
42
40
113
3
5
4
7
24
32
75
2
5
8
14
29
1
1
3
9
8
23
2
3
2
2
14
20
43
19
4...
2
1
3
22
60
90
34
3
1
8
9
43
61
1
1
1
3
8
1
50
2....
2
8
20
so
183
1
7
8
16
340
None
615
Total...
2
1,251
RELIEF
FAMILIES
All insurance:
20 to 24
1
4
10
16
29
24
2
6
16
27
31
1
5
6
21
37
1
1
1
5
5
11
3
15 to 19
2
8
12
18
8
1
1
4
24
2
5
4
13
3
1
4
6
1
1
4
7
8
13
10 to 14
2
1
2
42
7 to 9
1
1
G6
4 to 6
1
3
2
5
119
1 to 3
172
Total
5
48
84
82
70
24
30
24
14
21
4
7
2
415
_..
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
149
Table 31. — Insured families classified according to number of policies and economic
status — Continued
RELIEF FAMILIES
Number of
policies per
family
Economic status: Average annual income per family member
Un-
der
$100
$100
to
$149
$150
to
$199
$200
to
$249
$250
to
$299
$300
to
$349
$350
to
$399
$400
to
$449
$450
to
$499
$500
to
$599
$600
to
$699
$700
to
$799
$800
to
$899
$900
to
$999
$1,000
to
$1,499
$1,500
to
$1,999
$2,000
and
over
Total
Industrial:
30 and over. .
.20to24
]
2
11
16
27
22
5
84
2
5
13
29
25
8
82
1
4
6
19
35
5
70
1
1
1
4
4
12
1
3
10
40
15 to 19.
< 1
*9
12
18
5
3
48
1
1
3
19
6
2
4
1
3
12
2
2
.1
4
5
2
1
1
4
5
9
1
10tol4
2
1
7to9
61
4to6
1
2
1
1
5
1
2
113
lto3
2
153
None
35
5
Total...
24
30
24
14
21
4
7
2
415
Ordinary:
10
9
8
7...
6.
5
1
4
1
1
1
2
5
10
1
1
2
1
9
3.
1
1
4
64
2
3
19
2
1
5
22
4
2...
3
7
73
4
11
66
1
16
1
2
45
3
18
4
2
5
43
None
5
1
347
Total...
5
48
84
82
70
24
30
24
14
21
4
7
2
415
Table 32. — Industrial policies in force in familes of different size
[This table shows the relation between the size of family and the total number of industrial policies on family
members for the 1,463 families holding industrial insurance]
NONRELIEF FAMILIES
Number of industrial
policies per family
g
ize of family: Number of members per family
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 and
over
fami-
lies
35 to 39
1
2
3
30 to 34
25 to 29
1
1
2
5
19
26
10
1
1
6
8
14
3
1
1
4
5
5
4
2
2
3
5
3
6
20 to 24...
6
15 to 19
1
3
38
99
2
14
70
176
5
27
99
143
6
19
76
50
6
21
47
22
35
10 to 14
119
5 to 9
1
23
24
52
2.17
381
1 to 4
Total families
Total policies
Average industrial policies
per family
141
532
3.77
262
1,060
4.05
274
1,407
5.14
152
983
6.47
96
729
7.59
64
626
9.78
33
346
10.48
20
220
11.00
17
253
14.88
1,083
6,208
5 73
150 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 32. — Industrial policies in force in families of different size — Continued
RELIEF FAMILIES
Number of industrial
policies per family
Size of family: Number of members per family
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 and
over
fami-
lies
20 to 24
2
1
11
15
9
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
4
2
2
3
15 to 19.
2
1
30
41
2
7
29
22
1
6
28
6
10
10 to 14
1
7
40
5
12
52
40
5to9
1
25
127
J to 4
200
Total families
Total policies
Average industrial policies
26
43
1.65
48
145
3.02
69
265
3.84
74
354
4.78
60
361
6.02
41
294
7.17
38
310
8.16
9
66
7.33
88
14.67
9
hO
8.89
380
2,006
5.28
TOTAL FAMILIES
35 to 39
1
2
3
30 to 34
36 to 29
1
1
4
6
30
41
19
1
1
7
10
17
6
1
2
6
8
5
4
2
o
1
7
7
5
6
20 to 24
9
15 to 19
1
4
46
139
2
19
82
228
7
28
129
184
8
26
105
72
7
27
75
28
45
10 to 14
169
5to9 -
2
48
508
1 to 4
733
Total families
Total policies
Average industrial policies
60
95
1.90
189
677
3.58
331
1,325
4.00
k
348
1,761
5.06'
212
1,344
6.34
137
1,023
7.47
102
936
9.18
42
412
9.81
26
308
11.85
26
333
12.81
1,463
8,214
6.61
Table 33. — Families and insurance carriers
[AH insured families classified according to the number of organizations in which they have insurance]
Nvmber of life-insurance car-
riers •' in which policies are
carried
Number of families
Percent of totals
Nonrelief
Relief
All families
Nonrelief
Relief
All families
1
609
440
148
49
5
308
90
15
2
917
630
163
61
5
48.68
35.17
11.83
3.92
.40
74.22
21.69
3.61
.48
.00
56.04
2
31.82
3
4
9.78
3.06
5
.30
Total
1,251
415
1,666
100.00
100.00
100.00
' The term "carrier" includes organizations issuing industrial, ordinary, group, and fraternal life insurance.
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 34. — Families and industrial insurance carriers
151
[Families paying industrial insurance premiums classified according to the companies in which they have
insurance]
Company or combination of companies in which indus-
trial policies are carried
Number of families in—
Total
families
1 company
only
2 compa-
nies only
3 compa-
nies only
520
Metropolitan and Prudential
48
131
21
Metropolitan and John Hancock
Metropolitan and Boston Mutual
Metropolitan and Prudential and John Hancock
18
3
9
Metropolitan and Prudential and Boston Mutual
Metropolitan and John Hancock and Boston Mutual. .
Prudential
132
Prudential and John Hancock
51
3
Prudential and Boston Mutual
Prudential and John Hancock and Boston Mutual
1
John Hancock -
401
John Hancock and Boston Mutual..
18
Boston Mutual .
71
Total..
1,124
272
31
Company or combination of companies in which indus-
Number of families with industrial
policies in—
Total
trial policies are carried
1 company
only
2 compa-
nies only
3 compa-
nies only
Metropolitan and Metropolitan in combination
Prudential and Prudential in combination
520
132
401
71
200
102
200
42
30
22
28
13
750
253
John Hancock and John Hancock in combination
Boston Mutual and Boston Mutual in combination
629
126
Total number of separate families
1,124
272
31
'1,427
Company or combination of companies in which indus-
Percent of families with industrial
policies in—
Total
trial policies are carried
1 company
only
2 compa-
nies only
3 compa-
nies only
Metropolitan and Metropolitan in combination
Prudential and Prudential in combination
69.3
51.6
63.7
56.4
"26.7
39.8
31.8
33.3
4.0
8.6
4.5
10.3
100
100
John Hancock and John Hancock in combination
Boston Mutual and Boston Mutual in combination
100
100
Total nnmhpr of spparnfA fami]ip,s
78.7
19.1
2.2
100
1 Of the 1,666 families with life insurance, these 1,427 families are making payments on industrial policies.
It does not include extended industrial insurance or any industrial insurance on which no premiums are
being paid.
|52 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 35. — Lapse and cash surrender experience of families enumerated
[The table summarizes available information regarding the lapsation or cash surrender of poMeies formerly
held on membes of the family. Separate totals are shown for relief and non-relief families, for families
insured at the time of enumeration as well as those which were then uninsured]
Number of families reporting—
Percent of
reporting
families
with lapsed
or cash sur-
rendered
policies
Number
of fam-
ilies not
reporting
Relief status of families
Lapsed or
cash sur-
rendered
policies
Number
lapsed or
cash sur-
rendered
policies
Total
Total
number
of
families
■Families with Insurance:
371
177
828
223
1,199
400
30.94
44.25
52
15
1,251
Relief ..
415
Total
548
1,051
1,599
34.27
67
1,666
Families without insurance:
60
120
47
53
107
173
56.07
69.36
78
108
185
Relief
281
Total
180
100
280
64.29
186
466
728
1,151
1,879
38.74
253
2,132
Table 36. — Preference as to frequency of premium payments
[The 1,427 families which were paying premiums on industrial insurance are shown here classified according
to whether they could or could not pay their premiums on a monthly basis, and whether they did or did
not prefer to pay by the week. The families are segregated into non-relief and relief categories]
Number of families
Families
Nonrelief
Relief
Total
Could pay monthly:
203
260
11
24
214
284
Total -
463
35
498
Could not pay monthly:
488
66
256
38
744
104
Total
554
294
848
1,017
50
329
31
1,346
81
1,067
360
1,427
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
153
Table 37. — Percentage of premiums paid on persons living away from family
[171 families classified according to relative amounts of total family premium paid for insurance on persons
living away from the family]
Percent of total premiums paid on persons living away from family
Number of families
Nonrelief Relief Total
100 percent
90 to 99 percent.
80 to 89 percent -
70 to 79 percent.
60 to 69 percent .
50 to 59 percent.
40 to 49 percent.
30 to 39 percent.
20 to 29 percent.
15 to 19 percent .
10 to 14 percent.
5 to 9 percent...
1 to 4 percent..
1
2
£
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
7
14
6
20
35
7
42
20
12
32
18
6
24
22
4
26
6
5
11
Total.
125
46
171
Table 38. — Insurance in force on which entire premiums were not currently paid out
of family income
Classes of insurance
Number of
policies
Amount of
insurance
in force
Annual
premiums
Industrial:
Paid-up -.
Paid-up at reduced amount
Extended term
Ordinary:
Paid-up
Extended term
Group:
Noncontributory i
Contributory J
Total
55
9
192
134
251
$9, 913
525
47, 103
21, 182
5,000
123, 345
294, 150
$2,815.41
670
501, 218
2.815.41
' Included in the 134 noncontributory policies are 3 mutual-benefit policies and 8 industrial or ordinary
policies.
' Included in the 251 contributory policies are 20 mutual-benefit policies.
250783 — 40— No. 2-
-11
154
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER
Table 39. — Use of visiting nurse service
I The'Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. offer a free nursing
service to their industrial policyholders. The facts relating to the use of this service are arranged according
to the economic and relief status of the reporting families]
Economic status: Average annual income per
family member
Families
having
made use of
nursing
service
Families
having
made no use
of nursing
service
Total fam-
ilies report-
ing
Families
having
made use of
nursing
service
Nonrelief families:
$600 and over.
$300 to $599....
Under $300....
Total
Relief families:
$600 and over.
$300 to $599....
Under $300....
Total
Total families:
$600 and over.
$300 to $599....
Under $300....
Total
Number
53
191
140
Number
134
283
123
Number
187
474
263
Percent
28.34
40.30
53.23
384
540
924
41.56
4
27
100
2
56
103
83
203
66.67
32.53
49.26
131
161
292
44.86
57
218
240
136
339
226
193
557
466
29.53
39.14
51.50
701
1,216
42.35
Table 40. — Use of savings institutions (other than life insurance) compared with
use of life insurance
(Families are here classified according to economic and insurance status and the answers to questions as to
whether or not use was made of such savings- institutions as: Savings banks, savings departments of
banks, cooperative banks, postal savings, credit unions, or others]
FAMILIES WITH INSURANCE
Economic status: Average annual
income per family member
With
savings
Without
savings
Total le-
porting
Percent
with
savings
Number
not
reporting
Total
188
256
97
104
443
509
292
699
606
64.4
36.6
16.0
14
33
22
306
$300-$599
732
$0-$299_—
628
Total.
541
1,056
1,597
33.9
69
1,666
FAMILIES WITHOUT INSURANCE
21
17
22
13
108
254
34
125
276
61.8
13.6
8.0
7
19
5
41
$300-$599
$0-$299
144
281
Total..
60
375
435
13.8
31
466
ALL FAMILIES
$600 and over
209
273
119
117
551
763
326
824
882
64.1
33.1
13.5
21
52
27
347
$300-$599
876
$0-$299
909
Total
601
1,431
2,032
29.6
100
2,132
INDEX
ABSENTEE PATTERN:
Age classification: Page
Insured and uninsured persons; nonrelief and relief families; table
16 130
Families enumerated; comment 54
Insured persons (259) :
Number of, by block numbers surveyed; table 1 .. 106-107
Number of persons and policies, number of policies per person,
amount of insurance, insurance per person; table 14
Percent of total premiums paid on persons living away from home;
table 37 153
AGE PATTERN:
Class of insurance distribution ; comment 22
Policies in force in different plans by age, percent; comment and
chart 1-32
AGE PATTERN: AGE AT ISSUE:
Industrial policies:
Number and percent ; comment and tables 24
Ordinary policies:
Number and percent; comment, chart, and table - 24
Plans of insurance:
Industrial and ordinary; number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums; table 13 125-126
Savings-bank life insurance:
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, by
plans of insurance: table 13A 127
AGE PATTERN: PRESENT AGE:
Classes of insurance:
Industrial, ordinary, and all insurance, number of policies, amount
of insurance, annual premiums, by sex; table 11 119-120
Family members insured (2,459) :
Number and percent insured, number of policies, amount of insur-
ance, annual premiums, average premium per insured person,
by sex; table 26 143
Fraternal insurance:
Number of policyholders; table 11A 121
Group insurance:
Number of policy holders; table 11A 121
Industrial insurance:
Families insured, number of persons insured at present age; com-
ment and chart 26-27
Number and percent of policies in each age group; comment, chart
and table 22-23
Insured families (1,666):
Insured and uninsured persons; nonrelief and relief families; chief
and other breadwinners, dependents, and absentees; table 16- 130
Ordinary policies:
Number and percent at each age group; comment, chart, and
table 22-23
Plans of insurance:
Industrial and ordinary ; number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums; table 12 122-123
Savings-bank life insurance:
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
table 12A T 124
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, by
sex; table 11 119-120
155
156 INDEX
AGE PATTERN: PRESENT AGE— Continued.
Uninsured families (466) : Page
Presfifnt ages of chief and other breadwinners and of dependents;
table 16A 131
BOSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.:
Industrial policies:
Extent of multiple coverage; comment, chart, and table 51-53
Number and percent 18
Insurance in force; enumerated families (2132):
Ordinary and industrial, by plans; dollar amount; table 8 115-116
Ordinary policies:
Number and percent 18
BREADWINNER PATTERN:
Breadwinners defined 36
Industrial Insurance:
Families with dependent family members; earnings of bread-
winners, number of families, number persons insured and un-
insured, amount insurance in force, annual premiums; table
29_ T , 146-147
Percent of premiums paid on breadwinners and dependents
under 16; by economic status per family member; table 28. _ 144-145
Policies; comment 39
Insurance status ._ 37
Insured families (1,666) :
Nonrelief and relief families; number of breadwinners, by family
income and average annual income per family member; table
15 129
Nonrelief and relief families, number of breadwinners by size of
family; table 14 128
Percent of family income contributed; table 24 141
Premium payments:
Amount of insurance and premiums paid on chief breadwinner, by
number of dependents in family; comment and table 48-49
Percent family premium paid on all breadwinners to total
premiums; table 25 142
Percent family premiums paid on chief breadwinner, by number
of dependents in family ; table 23 140
Relation of, to family's insurance 36
Uninsured families (466) :
Nonrelief and relief; number of chief and other breadwinners;
number of dependents; at present ages; table 16A 131
CARRIERS OF LIFE INSURANCE:
Companies. (See Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co.)
Multiple company coverage. (See Multiple Company Coverage.)
CASE STUDIES 57-74
CLASSES OF INSURANCE:
Cost of—
Amount and percent insurance in force; amount and percent
annual premium, each class; comment and table 41-42
Amount in force, totaland per class; table and chart 16
Insurance in force per policy, each class; table 15
Fraternal. (See Fraternal Insurance.)
Group. (See Group Insurance.)
Industrial. (See Industrial Insurance.)
Ordinary. (See Ordinary Insurance.)
Policies in force, total and number per class ; table 15
Relative importance of classes:
Amount of insurance in force, percent, number of families holding
each class, by average annual income per family member; table
10 118
CREDENTIALS FOR ENUMERATOR:
Copy in blank 83
DEPENDENCY PATTERN:
Breadwinner insurance:
Amount of insurance and premiums paid on chief breadwinner, by
number of dependents; comment and table 48-49
Percent of family premiums paid on chief breadwinner, by number
of dependents in family; table 23 140
INDEX 157
DEPENDENCY PATTERN— Continued.
Industrial insurance: Page
Families with dependent family members; earnings of bread-
winners, number of families, number persons insured and
uninsured, amount insurance in force, annual premiums;
table 29 146-147
Percent of premiums paid on breadwinners and dependents
under 16; by economic status per family member; table 28. - 144-145
Insured families (1,666):
Insured and uninsured dependents; nonrelief and relief families;
by present ages; table 16 130
Number of dependents and percent of family income paid for
premiums; table 20 138
Number of families, median percentages paid for premiums by
number of dependents in family; comment, table and chart 44-45
Uninsured families:
Dependents, number of, at present ages; table 16A 131
ECONOMIC STATUS ANALYSES. (See Family Income Pattern.)
ENDOWMENT PLAN:
Age pattern: age of issue:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, each class;
tables 13-13A 125-127
Age pattern; by present age:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums"; tables 12-12A. 122-124
Cost of —
Industrial and ordinary and all classes; number and percent of
premiums written ; comment and table 42
Defined . 28
Industrial insurance:
Percent endowment of all industrial; table 30 147
Percent of industrial premiums paid on endowment policies,
nonrelief and relief families ; table 22 139
Policies in force, percent, by age; comment and chart 31-32
Years in force, number in percentages of total policies; comment,
table, and chart 33-37
Insurance in force:
Amount and percent by classes; comment, chart, and table 28-30
Classes of insurance and variants of plan; number of policies,
amount of insurance, annual premium ; dollar amount; table 7.1 13-1 14
Carriers of industrial and ordinary, by company, number of policies,
amount of insurance, annual premiums each carrier ; table 8 115-116
ENUMERATORS:
Credentials, copy in blank 83
Instructions, text of 84-93
FAMILIES ENUMERATED (2,132):
Absentee policies:
Number of ; comment ^ 54
Census of —
Insurance and income characteristics; table 1 — 106-107
Economic status:
Average annual income per family member, insured and unin-
sured, relief and nonrelief, table 5 110
Enumerators' credentials, copy in blank 83
Enumerators instructions, text of 84-93
Insurance ownership:
Number families: number persons insured; and uninsured, non-
relief, and relief, by block numbers surveyed; table 2 . — 108
Lapse and surrender reports (1,879) :
Comment 53
Insured and uninsured, nonrelief and relief families, number and
percent reporting; table 35 152
Letter sent to families ; copy 82
Life insurance and other savings institutions used by; comment 55-56
Life insurance in force 13
158 INDBX
FAMILIES ENUMERATED (2,132)— Continued.
Monthly premium payments: Page
Company (Metropolitan, Prudential, John Hancock, and others)
and savings-bank carriers; policies under and over $1,000;
number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
table 9 :_ 117
Noncontributory and partially contributory policies; comment 55
Nonrelief and relief families:
Number insured and not insured, percentage insured, by number
of 'persons in individual families; table 4 110
Number and percent; chart 8
Schedule used for survey:
Adjustments made on ^ 94-96
Reduced facsimile of 79-81
Size of families:
Insurance status and size ; comment and table 10
Nonrelief and relief; number insured and not insured; table 4_- 110
Relief and insurance status, comment and table 11
FAMILIES INSURED (1,666):
Absentee insurance pattern:
Percent of premiums paid on persons living away from family;
nutnber of nonrelief and relief families; table 37 153
Age and dependency status:
Persons insured and uninsured, nonrelief and relief; number of
chief and other breadwinners; number of dependents; number
of absentees; at present ages; table 130
Breadwinner pattern:
Nonrelief and relief families, by size and number of bread-
winners; table 14 128
Nonrelief and relief families, number of breadwinners by family
income; table 15 129
Percent of family income contributed by each breadwinner;
table 24 _ 141
Proportion of total family premiums paid for insurance on the
chief breadwinner, by number of dependents; comment 48-49
Carrier pattern:
Number of organizations in which families carry insurance;
table33 150
Census of families:
Number, total annual income, number of family members
(insured and not insured) , number of persons insured (absentee
and total), number of policies in force, total insurance in force,
total annual premiums; table 1 106-107
Class of insurance held:
Amount and percent, by average annual income per family
member; chart and table 21
Combination policies (1,071):
Breadwinner, amount of insurance and premium paid on; com-
ment and table 48-49
Class and combinations of class; number and percent of policies,
amount and percent of insurance, amount and percent annual
premium ; table 6 111-112
Combinations of policies carried; table and chart 17
Companies with industrial and ordinary policies in force, list of 104-105
Cost of all insurance per annum 41
Dependency pattern (See also above Age and dependency status) :
Family income percent paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief
families, by number of dependents per family ; table 20 138
Nonrelief and relief families; number and median percentages
paid for premiums; comment, table, and chart 44-45
Economic status; comment 12, 20
Industrial multiple company policies (1,427) :
Coverage by companies ; comment, table, and chart 51-53
Industrial policies (701) :
Economic status and average percent of income paid for pre-
miums; comment, chart, and table 46-48
Premium frequency payment preference; number of nonrelief
and relief families; table 36 152
Sex and present age distribution; comment and chart 26-27
INDEX 159
FAMILIES INSURED (1,666)— Continued.
Insured members: Page
Insurance in force on individuals, dollar amount; by economic
status and sex of members; number and percentages; tables
17-17A 132-134
Nonrelief and relief families:
Economic status and relative burden of insurance cost; comment 46
Income groups ; table and chart 19-20
Number and median percentages of income paid for premiums by
number of dependents in family; comment, table, and chart. _ 44-45
Number and percent, by percent of family income paid for
. premiums; comment, table, and chart 42-44
Nonrelief and relief, number and percent; chart 8
Nonrelief families, case studies 59-65, 73
Policies in force:
Number, by blocks surveyed; table 1 _ '. 106-107
Number held by individual families 51
Premium payment pattern:
Family income percent paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief
families, by average annual income per family member; table
21._ 139
Insurance in force on which premiums were not currently paid out
of family income; table 38 153
Programs:
Criteria upon which program application to family is based;
comment 58-59
Planning weaknesses; comment , 75-78
Relief (colored) families, case studies 72
Relief (white) families case studies 66-72
Size pattern:
Family income percent paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief
families by size; table 19 137
FAMILIES UNINSURED- (466):
Age and dependency status:
Nonrelief and relief families; number of chief and other bread-
winners; number of dependents; at present ages; table 16A 131
Nonrelief and relief, number and percent ; chart 8
Number, total annual income, number of family members, by block
numbers; table 1 106-107
FAMILY INCOME PATTERN: FAMILIES ENUMERATED (2,132):
Average annual family incomes, average number members in families,
average annual income per family member in families with and
without insurance; by blocks surveyed; table 3 109
FAMILY INCOME PATTERN: FAMILIES INSURED (1,666):
Breadwinner contributions, percent; table 24 141
Classes of insurance held:
Amount and percent of insurance in force, number of families
holding, average annual income per family member, by in-
dustrial, ordinary, group, and fraternal classes; table 10 118
Number of policies per family and average annual income per
family member; table 31 148-149
Endowment policies:
Number and percent of families with industrial endowment
policies bv economic status, nonrelief and relief families; table
22 - 139
Percent of all industrial policies, by average annual income per
family member; table 30 147
Industrial policies (701):
Percent family income paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief
families, by average annual income per family member ; table 27. 144
Percent of income paid for premium per average annual income
per family member; comment, chart, and table 46-48
Nonrelief and relief families:
Number insured and uninsured, by average annual income per
family member; table 5 HO
Percent of family income paid for premiums; comment, table,
and chart 42-44
Percent paid for premiums by size of family; table 19 137
150 INDEX
FAMILY INCOME PATTERN: FAMILIES INSURED (1,666)— Con.
Premium payments: Page
Percent paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief families, by average
annual income per family member; table 21 139
Premiums not currently paid out of; table 38 153
Visiting nurse service used; table 39 154
FAMILY MEMBERS ENUMERATED (8,794):
Insured and uninsured, number of 37
Number of members in uninsured families, number of insured and
uninsured members in insured families, by block numbers surveyed;
table 1 106-107
FAMILY MEMBERS INSURED (5,791):
Insurance in force:
All kinds, dollar amount, in percentages of total number of in-
sured family members ; comment, and chart 37-39
Amount, by economic status, number and percent, sex, and bread-
winners; tables 17-17A 132-134
Number of persons, and policies, number of policies per person,
amount of insurance, insurance per person; table 14
Industrial policies (701):
Family members insured, number, amount, total, and per mem-
ber; comment and chart 39, 40
Family members insured, economic status, amount of insurance,
number and percent, by sex and breadwinners; tables 18-18A. 135-136
Persons insured, number and percent, number o fpolicies, amount
of insurance, annual premiums; annual average per insured
person, by present age and sex; table 26 143
Insured families (1,666) :
Members insured; number and percent, by size of family; com-
ment and table 11
FRATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS:
List of with life insurance policies in force in Massachusetts among
1,666 insured families 104
FRATERNAL INSURANCE:
Age pattern:
Number of policyholders, by present age of insured, table 11A_. 121
Combinations of fraternal and other policies in force 17
Cost of:
Amount and percent insurance in force; amount and percent
annual premium; comment and table 41-42
Insurance in force:
Amount and percent in force, by average annual income per
family member ; comment, chart, and , table 20-2 1
Amount in force; table and chart 16
Policies, number and percent, insurance in force, amount and
percent, annual premium, amount and percent; table 6 111-112
Policies in force, number and amount per policy 15
Relative importance:
Amount and percent of insurance in force, number of families
holding, average annual income per family member; industrial,
ordinary, and group; table 10 118
Whole life plan in force:
Amount and percent, comment, charts, and table 28-30, 32
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premium; by
company (Boston Mutual, John Hancock, Metropolitan,
Prudential) and savings-bank; dollar amount; table 7 113-114
GLOSSARY:
Breadwinners ^ _ - 36
Endowment plan 28
Group insurance 14
Industrial insurance 9, 14
Limited-payment life plan 28
Term plan 27
Whole life plan 28
GROUP INSURANCE:
Age pattern:
Number of policyholders, by present age of insured; table 11A._ 121
INDEX
161
GROUP INSURANCE— Continued.
Cost of: Page
Amount and percent insurance in force; amount and percent
annual premium; comment and table 41-42
Insurance in force:
Amount and percent in force, by average annual income per
family member ; comment, chart, and table 20-21
Amount in force; table and chart 16
Certificates in force, number and amount per certificate 15
Combinations of group and other classes of policies in force 17
One class and combinations of class; number and percent of
policies, amount and percent of insurance in force, number and
percent annual premium; table 6 111-112
Relative importance:
Amount and percent of insurance in force, number of families
holding, average annual income per family member; industrial,
ordinary, and fraternal; table 10 118
Term plan in force:
Amount and percent ; comment, charts, and table 28-30, 32
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
table 7 113-114
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE:
Age pattern ; age at issue :
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
table 13 125
Policies, number and percent, comment and table 24
Age pattern; present age:
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, each
plan; table 12 122-123
Policies in each age group, number and percent; comment, chart,
and table 22-23
Breadwinner policies ; comment 39
Combinations of industrial and other policies in force 17
Companies underwriting-:
Policies, number and percent, by each of 4 named companies 18
Cost of:
Amount and percent insurance in force; amount and percent
annual premium ; comment and table 4 1-42
Defined 1
Endowment plan:
Age at issue; comment and chart 31, 33
Years in force, number in percentages of total policies; com-
ment, table, and chart 33-37
Families enumerated. (See Families Enumerated.)
Families insured (701) :
Companies carrying policies, list of 104
Economic status and average percent of income paid for premiums;
comment, chart, and table 46-48
Economic status and percent of industrial premiums paid on
endorsement policies, nonrelief and relief families; table 22 139
Endowment plan, percent of industrial premiums paid for; table
30 147
Number families, number persons insured and uninsured, number
policies, amount insurance in force, annual premiums, by
number of dependents and percent breadwinner earnings;
table 29 - 146-147
Percent family income paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief
families, by average annual income per family member; table
27 144
Number of policies per family, by average annual income per
family member, nonrelief and relief families; table-31 148-149
Percent of premiums paid on breadwinners and dependents under
16; by economic status per family member; table 28 144-145
Policies per family, number nonrelief and relief families, by size
of family; table 32 149-150
Sex and present age distribution; comment and chart 26-27
Jg2 INDEX
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE— Continued.
Insurance in force: Pago
Amount and percent in force, by average annual income per
family member; comment, chart, and table 20-21
Amount in force; table and chart 16
Carriers of insurance, number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums each carrier, by plans of insurance; dollar
amount; table 8 115-116
One class and combinations of class, number and percent of
policies, amount and percent insurance in force, amount and
percent annual premium; table 6 , 111-112
Policies in force, total number in United States 1
Policies in force, number and amount per policy 15
Family members insured (2,459) :
Economic status, amount of insurance, sex and breadwinners,
number and percent; tables 18-18A 135-136
Number and percent insured, number of policies, amount of
insurance, annual premiums, — average per insured person,
by present age and sex; table 26 143
Policyholders and policies, amount of policies, total and per
member; comment and chart 39, 40
Limited-payment life policies:
Years in force, number in percentages of total policies; comment,
table, and chart _ 33-37
Massachusetts:
Policies issued, terminated, and in force, each year, 1928-37;
comment, table, and chart 99-100
Policies terminated; percent lapse, surrender, expire, maturity,
and death, each year, 1928-37; comment, table, and chart- -101-103
Monthly premium payments:
Company and savings bank carriers (Metropolitan, Prudential,
John Hancock, and others); policies under and over $1,000;
number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums,
by plan of insurance, table 9 117
Multiple-company coverage:
Comment, chart, and table 51-53
Number of families carrying policies in 1 to 3 companies listed
by name of company; table 34 151
Multiple-company policies (1427):
Metropolitan, John Hancock, Prudential, and Boston Mutual;
number family policies each company; number and percent each
company in other companies; comment, chart, and table 51-53
Plans in force:
Amount and percent; comment, charts, and table 28-30,32
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
by company (Boston Mutual, John Hancock, Metropolitan,
Prudential) and savings-bank; dollar amount; table 7 113-114
Plan and age of policyholder; comment and chart ■ 31, 32
Policies each plan, number and percent, by years in force; com-
ment, table, and chart . 33-37
Premium-payment plan:
Discounts for making premium payments at office of company;
comment 54
Frequency of payment preference, by number of nonrelief and
relief families ; table 36 152
Frequency of premium payments, family preference; comment. _ 54
Relative importance:
Amount of insurance in force, percent, number of families holding,
average annual income per family member; ordinary, group, and
fraternal; table 10 118
Relief families. (See Relief Families.)
Sex pattern:
Comment 40
Policies, number and percent by sex; comment, table, and chart. 25-26
Sex and age pattern :
Number of persons, number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums, each sex, by present age groups; table 11- 119-120
Visiting-nurse service; companies offering service; comment 55
INDEX 1(J3
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE— Continued.
Whole life policies: Page
Years in force, number in percentages of total policies; comment,
table, and chart : _ _ 33-37
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENUMERATORS:
Text 84-93
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.:
Industrial policies:
Extent of multiple company coverage; comment, chart, and
table 51-53
Number and percent 18
Insurance in force; enumerated families:
Ordinary and industrial, by plans; dollar amount; table 8 115-116
Ordinary policies, number and percent 18
LAPSE EXPERIENCE: FAMILIES ENUMERATED (2,132):
Family experience ; 1 ,879 reports ; comment 53
Number and percent of lapsed and surrendered policies, nonrelief and
relief families; table 35 152
LAPSE EXPERIENCE: MASSACHUSETTS:
Industrial policies:
Percent each vear, 1928-37; comment, table, and chart 101-103
LIFE INSURANCE; ALL:
Absentee member premiums paid by families; comment 54
Classes of insurance: Industrial, ordinary, group, and fraternal 14
Companies with life insurance policies in force in 1,666 insured families,
list of 104-105
Cost:
Annual cost to 1,666 insured families surveyed 41
Insured families, nonrelief and relief; percentage of family income
paid for premiums ; comment, table, and chart 42-44
Fraternal. (See Fraternal Insurance.)
Group. (See Group Insurance.)
Industrial. (See Industrial Insurance.)
Insurance in force:
Amount in force by class and plans; dollar amount and percent-
ages ; comment, chart, and table 28-30
Number of policies per family, by average annual income per
family member and class of insurance; table 31 148-149
One class and combinations" of classes; policies, number and per-
cent; insurance in force; amount and percent; annual premium,
amount and percent ; table 6 111-112
Noncontributory and partially contributory insurance; comment 54
Ordinary. (See Ordinary Insurance.)
Plans of insurance:
Defined 27-28
Savings bank. (See Savings-bank Insurance.)
Savings factor of, compared with other forms of savings institutions;
comment 55
Savings institutions use compared with use of life insurance, by
families insured and uninsured and average annual income per
family member; table 40 154
Sex and age pattern:
Number of persons, number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums, each sex, by age groups; table 11 119-120
LIMITED-PAYMENT LIFE PLAN:
Age pattern; age of issue:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings-bank life insurance, number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, each class;
tables 13-13A 125-127
Age pattern; present age:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings-bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums; tables
12-12A 122-124
Cost of:
Industrial and ordinary and all classes; number and percent of
premiums written ; comment and table 42
164 INDEX
LIMITED-PAYMENT LIFE PLAN— Continued. Page
Defined 28
Industrial insurance:
Policies in force, percent, by age; comment and chart 31-32
Years in for^e, number in percentages of total policies; comment,
table, and chart 33-37
Insurance in force:
Amount and percent by classes; comment, chart, and table 28-30
Classes of insurance and variants of plan; number of policies,
amount of insurance, annual premium; dollar amount; table
7 113-114
Company carriers of industrial and ordinary, by company;
number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums
each carrier; table 8 115-116
MASSACHUSETTS:
Industrial insurance:
Policies issued, terminated, and in force, each year, '928-37;
comment, table, and chart 99-100
Termination of policies, by modes, each year, 1928-37; com-
ment, table, and chart 101-103
MEDICAL EXAMINATION:
Classes of insurance in which not required 14
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.:
Industrial policies:
Extent of multiple company coverage; comment chart, and table. 51-53
Industrial policies, number and percent 18
Life insurance in force; enumerated families:
Ordinary and industrial, by plans, dollar amount; table 8 115-116
Ordinary policies, number and percent 18
MULTIPLE COMPANY COVERAGE:
Families carrying; table and chart 17
Industrial insurance:
Comment and table 51-53
Families carrying policies in one to three companies, by name of
company; table 34 151
Organizations in which families carry insurance, number; table 33 150
MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATIONS:
List of with life-insurance policies in force in Massachusetts among
1,666 insured families 105
ORDINARY INSURANCE:
Age pattern ; at age at issue :
Policies, number, amount of insurance, annual premiums; table
13 126
Policies, number and percent; comment, chart, and table 24-25
Age pattern; present age:
Policies, number, amount of insurance, annual premiums, each
plan; table 12 122-123
Policies in each age group, number and percent; comment, chart,
and table 22-23
Companies underwriting:
Policies, number and percent; table 18
Cost of:
Amount and percent insurance in force; amount and percent
annual premium; comment and table 41-42
Families insured:
Companies carrying policies, list of 104
Number of policies per family, by average annual income per
family member, nonrelief and relief families; table 31 148-149
Insurance in force:
Amount and percenc in force, by average annual income per
family member; comment, chart, and table 20-21
Amount in force; table and chart 16
Carriers of insurance; number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums each carrier; by plan of insurance; table 8- 115-116
Combinations of ordinary and other classes of policies in force 17
One class and combinations of class, number and percent of
policies, amount and percent of insurance in force, amount
and percent annual premium; table 6 111-112
Policies in force, number and amount per policy 15
INDEX 165
ORDINARY INSURANCE— Continued.
Monthly premium payments: Page.
Company (Metropolitan, Prudential, John Hancock, and others)
and savings-bank carriers; policies under and over $1,000;
number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums,
by plan of insurance; table 117
Plans in force:
Amount and percent; comment, charts, and table 28-30, 32
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
by company (Boston Mutual, John Hancock, Metropolitan,
Prudential) and savings-bank; dollar amount; table 7 113-114
Relative importance:
Amount and percent of insurance in force, number of families
holding, average annual income per family member, industrial,
group, and fraternal; table 10 118
Sex pattern:
Policies, number and percent, by sex; comment, table, and chart. 25-26
Sex and age pattern :
Number of persons, number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums, each sex, by age groups; table 11 1_ 119-120
PATTERN ANALYSES:
Absentee premiums. (See Absentee Pattern.)
Age. (See Age Pattern.)
Breadwinners. (See Breadwinner Pattern.)
Carriers of insurance. (See Carriers of Life Insurance.)
Dependency. (See Dependency Pattern.)
Family incomes. (See Family Income Pattern.)
Premium payment. (See Premium Payment Pattern.)
Sex. (See Sex Pattern.)
Size of family. (See Size of Family Pattern.)
PERSONS INSURED:
Living away from family. (See Absentees Insured.)
Living with family. (See Family Members Insured.)
Policies and persons, number; policies per person, number; insurance,
amount and per person; table 14
PLANS OF INSURANCE:
Cost of:
Amount and percent each plan; comment and table 42
Defined , 27-28
Endowment plan. (See Endowment Plan.)
Limited-payment life plan. (See Limited-payment Life Plan.)
Plans in force, by class of insurance, enumerated families; table 7.. 113-114
Term plan. (See Term Plan.)
Whole life plan. (See Whole Life Plan.)
Years in force 31
PREMIUM PAYMENT PATTERN:
Absentee premiums. (See Absentee premium pattern.)
Annual premiums, by blocks surveyed, dollar amount; table 1.. 106-107
Breadwinner premiums:
Percent family premium paid on all breadwinners to total premi-
ums; table 25 142
Percent family premium paid on chief breadwinner, by number
of dependents in family; table 23 140
Families insured (1,666):
Family income percent paid for premiums, nonrelief and relief
families, by average annual income per family member; table 21. 139
Percent of family income paid, by size of family; table 19 137
Illustrations of premium receipt books 97-98
Industrial policies:
Annual premiums paid, amount; annual income, percent of in-
come paid for premiums; comment, chart, and table 46-48
Discounts for making payments at office of company; comment. 54
Frequency of payment, family preference; comment 54
Frequency of payment preference by number of nonrelief and
relief families; table 36 152
166 INDEX
PREMIUM PAYMENT PATTERN— Continued.
Monthly payment plan : Page
Policies under and over $1,000; by company (Metropolitan,
Prudential, John Hancock, and others) and savings-bank
carriers; number of policies, amount of insurance, annual
premiums; table 9 117
Nonrelief and relief families:
Percent of family income paid for premiums; comment, table, and
chart 42-44
Not paid currently out of family income; table 38 153
PROGRAMMING:
Criteria upon which program application to family is based; comment. 58-59
Planning weaknesses; comment 75-78
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA:
Industrial policies:
Extent of multiple company coverage; comment, chart, and
table.., 51-53
Number and percent 18
Insurance in force:
Ordinary and industrial; by plans; dollar amount, table 8 115-116
Ordinary policies, number and percent 18
RELIEF FAMILIES: ENUMERATED (696):
Family member income:
Number insured and uninsured, by average annual income per
family member; table 5 110
Industrial insurance carried by ; comment 8
Insurance ownership:
Number families insured and uninsured, by block numbers
surveyed; table 2 108
Insurance status:
Comment and charts 8-9
Number insured and not insured, percentage insured, by size of
family; table 4 110
Insured, number and percent; chart 8
Size of families, number and percent each size group insured; table — 11
Uninsured, number and percent; chart 8
RELIEF FAMILIES INSURED (415):
Absentee premiums:
Number paid, by age; table 16 130
Percent of total premiums paid; table 37 153
Age classification:
Insured and uninsured persons; chief and other breadwinners;
dependents and absentees; table 16 130
Breadwinner pattern:
Number of breadwinners by family income and per family
member; table 15 129
Number of breadwinners by size of family; table 14 128
Case studies, white and colored families 57-74
Class of insurance carried, by economic status per family member;
table 31 - 148-149
Dependency classification:
Insured and uninsured persons, at present age ; table 16. . — 130
Number of dependents per family, percent of family income
paid for premiums; table 20." 138
Number of families, median percentages paid for premiums by
number of dependents in family; comment, table, and chart — 44-45
Economic status and relative burden of insurance cost; comment 46
Endowment policies:
Industrial, percent paid by; table 22 139
Percent of all industrial policies; table 30 147
Industrial policies (701):
Annual premiums paid, amount, annual income; percent of
income paid for premiums; by .average annual income per
family member; table 48
Policies per family, by size of family; table 32 149-150
Lapse and surrender experience; table 35 ' 152
INDEX 1(37
RELIEF FAMILIES INSURED (415)— Continued.
Premium payments: Page
Percent of family income paid for premiums; comment, table, and
chart 42-44
Percent family income paid for premiums, by average annual
income per family member; table 21 139
Percent of family income paid, by size of family; table 19 137
Visiting nurse service used by; table 39 _ 154
RELIEF FAMILIES UNINSURED:
Breadwinner pattern:
Chief and other breadwinners number of; dependents, number of;
at present ages; table 16A 131
SAVINGS-BANK LIFE INSURANCE; FAMILIES ENUMERATED:
Monthly premium payments:
Ordinary policies; number, amount of insurance, annual premiums,
by plan of insurance; table 117
Ordinary policies, number and percent 18
SAVINGS-BANK LIFE INSURANCE; FAMILIES INSURED:
Age pattern; age of issue:
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
table 13A ,___ 127
Age pattern; present age:
Number of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums;
table 12A 124
Cost of:
Amount and percent insurance in force; amount and percent
annual premium; comment and table 41-42
Sex and age pattern:
Number of persons, number of policies, amount of insurance,
annual premiums, each sex, by age groups; table 11 119-120
SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS:
Life insurance use compared with use of savings institutions, by fam-
ilies insured and uninsured and average annual income per family
member; table 40 . 154
Life insurance against other forms of savings institutions, family
reliance ; comment - 55
SCHEDULE USED FOR SURVEY:
Adjustments made on schedules 94-96
Credentials for enumerator 83
Instructions to enumerators; text 84-93
Reduced facsimile 79-81
SEX PATTERN:
Classes of insurance:
Industrial, ordinary and all; number of policies, amount of in-
surance, annual premiums, bv present age of insured; table 11 _ 119-120
SEX PATTERN: FAMILIES INSURED
Family members insured (57,91): Insurance in force, dollar amount;
economic status of members; number and percentages: tables
17-17A 132-134
Industrial policies:
Family members insured, economic status, number and percent
members insured; tables 18-18A_ 135-136
Number and percent by sex; comment, table, and chart 25-26
Persons insured, number and percent, number of policies, amount
of insurance, annual premiums, average per insured person,
by present age; table 26 ' 143
Persons insured, number by sex; comment and chart 26-27
Ordinary policies:
Number and percent; comment, tables and chart 25-26
SIZE OF FAMILY PATTERN: FAMILIES ENUMERATED (2,132):
Nonrelief and relief; number Insured and not insured; table 4 110
SIZE OF FAMILY PATTERN: FAMILIES INSURED (1,666>: ■
Number and percent each size class 10
Industrial insurance:
Policies per family, number, nonrelief and relief families; table
32_____ .-- 149-150
168 INDEX
SIZE OF FAMILY PATTERN: FAMILIES INSURED (1,666)— Con. Pago
Premium payments:
Percent of family income paid for premiums bv size of family;
table 19 137
Relief families:
Number of breadwinners by size of family; table 14 _ 128
SURRENDER EXPERIENCE: FAMILIES ENUMERATED (2,132):
Family experience, 1,879 reports; comment 53
Number and percent of surrendered and lapsed policies, nonrelief and
relief families; table 35 . . 152
SURRENDER EXPERIENCE: MASSACHUSETTS:
Industrial policies:
Percent each year, 1928-37, comment, table, and chart 101-103
TERM PLAN:
Age pattern; age of issue:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings-bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, each class, table
13 125-126
Age pattern: present age:
Industrial, ordinary and savings-bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, tables
12-12A 122-124
Cost of:
Industrial and ordinary and all classes; number and percent of
premiums written; comment and table 42
Defined 27
Insurance in force; Families insured:
Amount and percent by class ; comment, chart, and table 28-30
Insurance in force; Families enumerated:
Classes of insurance and variant of plan; number of policies,
amount of insurance, annual premium; dollar amount; table
7 r 113-114
Company carriers of industrial and ordinary, by company; num-
ber of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums each
carrier; dollar amount: table 8 115-116
TERMINATION OF POLICIES:
Lapse and surrender experience; table 35 152
VISITING NURSE SERVICE:
Industrial insurance; companies offering service; comment 55
Use of; number and percent of families, by average annual income of
nonrelief and relief families, respectively; table 39 154
WHOLE LIFE PLAN:
Age pattern; present age:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings-bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums; tables
12-12A . 122-124
Age pattern; age of issue:
Industrial, ordinary, and savings-bank life insurance; number of
policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums, each class;
tables 13-13A . 125-127
Cost of:
Industrial and ordinary, and all classes; number and percent of
premiums written; comment and table 42
Defined 28
Industrial insurance:
Policies in force, percent, by age; comment and chart 31-32
Years in force, number in percentages of total policies; comment,
table, and cl art 33-37
Insurance in force; families enumerated:
Classes of insurance and variants of plan; number of policies,
amount of insurance, annual premium; dollar amount; table
7 113-114
Company carriers of industrial and ordinary, by company; num-
ber of policies, amount of insurance, annual premiums each
carrier; table 8 115-116
Insurance in force; families insured:
Amount and percent by classes; comment, chart, and table 28-30
-**■
— -J g ,ji 6
TVNews
OpenLibrary