(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of concentration of economic power; monograph no. 1[-43]"

^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 
16 
3 


$300 
12 
180 
114 
216 
375 


$13.00 




.do... .-- 


(0 




...do 


7.80 




.do 


0) 






20.00 




Whole life 


7.80 


home). 








do 










do 










Whole life 


• 2 


334 


5.20 










.. .do . 








Daughter, Barbara 


Whole life 


1 

3 



260 
102 
25 


5.20 


. .do.. - -- 


2.35 


Daughter, Phyllis 




5.20 






Total, 13 members, 8 
members insured. 








1,918 


66.55 







« Paid up. 
1 8 months. 

Total income of family, $1,017. 
Average annual income per family member, $85. 

In addition to above policies, 10 other policies which had lapsed were in the 
family's possession. (See next schedule.) 

Nineteen and six-tenths percent of premiums on breadwinner. 

All policies, including lapsed policies, issued by same insurance company. 

Premiums as percent of income, 6.5 percent. 

The family still had in their possession 10 other policies which had 
lapsed and were worth nothing as they had not been in force long 
enough to have acquired any nonforfeiture values. These are shown 
below. Three of them were endowments, six were 20-payment-life 
policies, and one was a whole-life policy. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 69 

The Blank family and 10 lapsed industrial insurance policies held Aug. 11, 1939 



Family member 



Present 



Plan of insurance 



Year 
issued 



Amount 
of insur- 
ance at 
issue 



Annual 

premium 

at issue 



Father, John Blank 

Mother, Mary 

Mother-in-law 

Son, Richard (not living at 

home). 
Daughter, Mary 

Daughter, Betty 

Son, James 

Son, Harry 

Daughter, Helen.. 

Daughter, Agnes 

Daughter, Barbara 

Son, Bobby 

Daughter, Phyllis 



20-payment life. 



20-year endowment. 

20-payment life 

20-payment life 

20-year endowment. 
20-payment life 



1932 

1932 
1939 
1939 
1933 
1939 



$445 

230 
166 

182 
250 
188 



$13.00 

13.00 
5.20 
5.20 

13.00 
5.20 



15-year endowment. 

20-payment life 

Whole life 

20-payment life 



1930 
1939 
1932 
1939 



'175 
200 

'600 
200 



13.00 
5.20 
7.80 
5.20 



(») 



1 Benefit payable after 9 years in force. 
* 8 months. 

The story of the five policies most recently lapsed is interesting. 
According to the premium receipt books, photostats of which will be 
found in the appendix, on January 30, 193Q ; six 10-cent weekly- 
premium 20-payment-life policies were issued, exactly 1 week after 
a $6 dividend had been recorded. The weekly premium charge was 
thereby increased from $1.30 to $1.90. The latter amount appeared 
for 3 weeks only, two of which were provided for by the dividend 
while the third was paid in cash. Thereupon, the weekly total pre- 
mium dropped to $1.40, thus discontinuing payment on 5 of the 6 
policies taken out three weeks previously. Since these policies were 
permitted to lapse, this transaction had cost the family very heavily. 

An analysis of other premium receipt books revealed that while 
insurance holdings did not increase with every dividend declaration, 
dividends served as the basis for additional insurance in 1933, 1936, 
and 1937 as w T ell as 1939. Apparently, dividend date rather than 
ability to pay went a long way in determining increases in the amount 
of insurance carried. 

It is interesting to record the attitude of this family toward its insur- 
ance. They expressed their intention of making every effort to keep 
their present insurance in force. It was the only thing they had. 
They admitted that they knew nothing of the intricacies of insurance. 
However, they had the greatest confidence in their agent and felt that 
he would take care of them. 



70 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



The Jones Family 

Relief Family Paying 18.1 Percent of Its Income for 
Insurance — Multiple Issues of Four Industrial Endow- 
ment Policies for $354 Each at Greater Cost Than for 
Same Amount of Ordinary Insurance on Same Plan. 

The Jones family consisted of a father 33 years old, his wife, 32 
years old, and four children ranging in age from 11 to 1 year. Mr. 
Jones worked as a bookkeeper on the Work Projects Administration, 
where his annual income was $852. The family lived in one of the 
poorer sections .of Boston where the rent was cheap. It had not 
received any commodities from the Surplus Commodities Corporation 
n^r anv other form of assistance, so this family of six persons was 
supported solely by the earnings of Mr. Jones. 

The total premiums paid annually by the Jones family were $154.25. 
Since the average annual income for each family member was $142, 
the amount paid for insurance exceeded the average available to sup- 
port one family member for a year. Their insurance holdings were as 
follows: 



The Jones family 


and their industrial policies ir^ force Sept. 


16, 1939 


Family member 


Present 
age 


Plan of insurance 


Years 

in 
force 


Amount 

of 
insurance 


Annual 
premium 
paid by 
family 


Father, John Jones 


33 

32 
11 

9 

7 
1 


Endowment at age CO 

do 


8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
10 
8 
9 
8 
7 
1 


$354 
354 
354 
354 
420 
250 
250 
250 
250 
500 
200 


$10. 75 




10.75 




do 


10.75 




do 


10.75 


Mother, Phoebe 


20- year endowment. 


21.50 


Son, John 


do 


10.00 




do 


10.75 


Daughter, Phoebe. 


do... 


10.75 




do 


10.75 


Daughter, Helen 


do 


21.50 


Daughter, Mary 


.do.. 


26.00 




11 policies 




Total, 6 members, all in- 






3,536 


154.25 


sured. 









Total income of family, $852. 
Average annual income per family member, $142. 
Premiums as percent of income, 18.1 percent. 
Twenty-eight percent of premiums on breadwinner. 
All policies issued by one insurance company. 

The Jones family carried 20-year endowments on all the dependents. 
Short-term endowments are the most expensive plan of insurance, but 
the Jones family was apparently interested in the savings feature in- 
volved in this plan. On each of the four children there was insurance 
with a total ultimate face value of $500. However, in the case of the 
youngest child, because of the limitations on juvenile policies the 
actual insurance in force, as indicated by the schedule of the insurance 
company, was only $200. 

One of the notable features of this family's insurance was that the 
agent had sold, and the company had issued, to Mr. Jones on the same 
day four industrial policies, each providing for an endowment at age 



CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 71 

60 of $354. Mr. Jones was paying annually $43 on these policies, 
with a total face value of $1,416. The insurance company had im- 
posed certain limitations on the issuance of this type of policy: The 
policies were to be issued with a 25-cent premium only, and the maxi- 
mum premiums for all policies issued under this plan for the age of 
Mr. Jones at the time was $1 a week. In other words, Mr. Jones had 
to take four policies under this plan of industrial insurance to get the 
amount of insurance he desired, and he took out the maximum per- 
mitted. This same company was, however, issuing at the time 'an 
ordinary endowment policy maturing at age 60 for which Mr. Jones 
was eligible if he was an insurance risk. Under these circumstances 
if Mr. Jones had been sold this policy and had paid his premiums on 
a quarterly basis, in 1939 he would have been paying $44.84 annually 
for $2,000 of insurance, instead of paying, as he did, $43 for $1,416 
of insurance. Or, assuming that Mr. Jones was more interested in 
the amount of insurance than in the premiums to be paid, a $1,500 
ordinary policy of the same plan issued by the same company would 
have cost Mr. Jones in 1939, paying his premiums quarterly, $33.63, 
a reduction in premium payments of $9.37 annually, or 22 percent. 
Curiously enough, the two older children were insured before either 
of the parents, and it was about 2}{ years after the first policy was 
issued that Mr. Jones himself took out insurance. Each child was 
insured at about the age of 1 year, and 20-year endowments for $500 
were carried on each. Only 28 percent of the total annual premiums 
was paid by this family on the breadwinner 

The Lombardi Family 

Relief Family of 7 — Every Member Insured — All 
Policies Issued After Family Went on Relief — 8 Out of 1 1 
Policies on Relatively Expensive 20-Payment I lfe Plan. 

This family consisted of a father aged 56, a mother aged 40, and 
five children ranging in age from 18 to 2 years. Mr. Lombardi was 
born in Italy, his wife in Lithuania, but all of the children were born 
in the United States. They lived near North Station in Boston, on 
the top floor of a tenement facing the elevated railway structure. 

The Lombardis had been "on relief" since 1931. With none of the 
other members of the family able to secure work, this family had been 
dependent upon relief so long that it was grooved into what might 
be termed a welfare existence. 

This family received all of its clothing and part of its food from the 
Boston Welfare Department. The family was also allowed $16 in 
cash weekly to provide for rent, heat, light, and food. Estimating the 
value of commodities received during the course of the year at $135, 
the family's total annual income amounted to $967. What this 
amount meant to the family may be judged from the fact that in the 
52 weeks' period preceding the date of enumeration, this family had 
consumed a total of only 8 pounds of butter which was received via a 
commodity card. In addition they reported that their milk con- 
sumption had to be curtailed when the price to welfare recipients was 
increased from 2 cents per quart to 5 cents per quart. In spite of the 
restricted budget upon which this family operated Mr. Lombardi 

250783 — 40— No. 2 6 



72 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



considered insurance so important that 4.8 percent of total income 
was spent for that purpose. 

The insurance carried and in force is given below. It is important 
to note that all the policies were taken out after the family went on 
welfare. Apparently the insurance was being carried without the 
knowledge of the authorities, for it is certain that one would not find 
8 20-payment life policies out of the total 11 in force if the welfare 
authorities were aware of the situation. While it seems hardly pos- 
sible to justify anything but the least expensive whole-life insurance 
for this family, it should be noted that every single infantile policy is a 
20-payment life plan. The insurance on the entire family was handled 
by one company. 

In spite of the circumstances of the family, all premiums were paid 
to date. To conserve as much as possible, Mr. Lombardi made it a 
point to pay all premiums at the company's office in order to take ad- 
vantage of the 10 percent discount on premiums. Mr. Lombardi 
considered the function of insurance sufficiently important to deprive 
the family of necessities in order that the insurance on the family might 
be kept in force and paid to date. 

The Lombardi family and their industrial policies in force Aug. 14, 1939 



Family member 



Pres- 
ent age 



Plan of insurance 



Years 

in 
force 



Amount 
of insur- 
ance 



Annual 

premium 

paid by 

family 



, Father, Antonio Lombardi 

Mother, Maria 

Son, John 

Son, Antonio, Jr 

Daughter, Mary.. 

Son, Paul 

Son, Frank 



Total, 7 members, all in- 
sured. 



Whole life. 

20-payment life. 

Whole life 

do... 

20-payment life. 

do.. 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 



11 policies, all issued after family 
went on relief. 



255 
308 
308 
105 
110 
51 
50 
62 
50 
38 



1,543 



$10. 13 
10.15 
3.96 
4.23 
2.34 
2.12 
2.11 
2.34 
2.34 
4.68 
2.34 



46.74 



Total income of family, $967. 
Average annual income per family member, $138. 
Premiums as a percent of income, 4.8 percent. 
Twenty-two percent of premiums are paid on breadwinner. 
All policies issued by one insurance company. 



The Roxby Family 

Well-planned Insurance Program in a Negro Relief Family 
of 12 ; 39 Percent of Total Premium Paid for Insurance on 
Breadwinner. Maximum Protection With Savings Bank 
Life Insurance at Least Cost. 

George Roxby was 37 years old; his wife, Mary, was 35. They had 
10 children ranging in age from 5 weeks to 14 years. George earned 
$16 a week as a chauffeur. His wages were supplemented by the wel- 
fare department of Boston with an allowance of food and milk at the 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



73 



rate of $290 per year, so that the total income of the Roxby family 
was computed at $1,122 per year. 

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