Again, the harmony of goods is affected by the special nature of the occupation. A farmer with his out-of-door life can use tobacco with far less danger than the sedentary worker. A piano player cannot be a base-ball player: the one requires soft and supple hands, the other hard and callous ones. The young man must give up the piano or the game, or play both badly. The harmony may rest on a still more complex social adjustment. The loss to the man whose life is in the main on a higher plane is greater if he descends occasionally to a lower. A ditch-digger, looking at the question short-sightedly, may deem "a good drunk" a very desirable form of enjoyment. But a brain-worker, whose joy as well as efficiency depends on the clearness of his intellectual processes, must see that in his case the perils and the costs are much greater.

[Sidenote: Unity of choice in happiness and in character]

Wise consumption depends not alone on physical pleasures, but on the spiritual unity of the uses made of goods. Happiness and character are akin in the qualities of simplicity and unity. Happiness, so far as it depends on wealth, is a harmony of gratifications. Character is a harmony of actions, a group of complementary deeds. There can be no harmony, without a central, simple, guiding principle. The wise and moral use of goods and the economic use of them are therefore for the individual essentially the same. Life is a unity. The results of the choice of goods are reflected in the health, intelligence, happiness, morality, and progress of society. It is vain for the economist to ignore the ultimate relations between economic choice and morality; it is folly for the moralist to ignore the economic bases of right and wrong in human conduct.

CHAPTER 42

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOCIAL INCOME

-- I. THE NATURE OF PERSONAL DISTRIBUTION

[Sidenote: Definition of personal distribution reviewed]

1. _Personal distribution, in economics, is the reasoned explanation of the ways in which income is divided among the members of the community._ Before noting more exactly the ways in which distribution can and does take place, it may be well to review briefly some definitions that have been given in other connections. Distribution is bound up in practice with production, but it can be thought of as a more or less distinct problem. Functional distribution is the attribution of value to agents or cla.s.ses of producers, to land, machinery, and labor considered impersonally as groups of productive agents. Personal distribution is the actual apportioning of income to living persons. This theme now to be dealt with is the more important practically, for the abstract discussion of rent and interest is of use only as it helps to an understanding of this vital human problem. It is well to recall also the distinction between wealth income, money income, and psychic income. The first is the objective aspect, the last is the subjective aspect, of income; the second, money income, may be an expression, in money form, of either of the others, but commonly of the former. The money expression of psychic income can be only approximately attained.

[Sidenote: Personal affection and distribution]

2. _The individual's income is determined by a number of forces, only part of which are primarily economic._ Many persons derive income directly neither from property nor from labor. They neither toil nor clip coupons, but they flourish in the favor of others--parent, husband, wife, friends, patrons. So long as the good-will continues these persons may be as well off as if they drew a salary or owned a bank. If a person in control of goods shares them with another, it is a matter that economists must recognize, but cannot well reduce to rules of value. It is not the task of economists to explain why the impulses of generosity arise, but only how they affect distribution. The economic problem of distribution really ends where owner or worker secures his income.

Giving a part of it to some one else is essentially a form of consumption, and only secondarily a mode of distribution; it is the way chosen to spend the wealth income.

[Sidenote: Complex source of psychic incomes]

The psychic income of individuals, therefore, is often made up of many elements. Some parts are due to services performed by the person himself. When one combs his own hair he is adding to his income.

Benjamin Franklin said it was better to teach a boy to shave himself than to give him a thousand dollars. Other goods are the uses and fruits of legally controlled wealth: chance finds, as gifts of value or lost and abandoned goods; goods a.s.signed to one by authority; wealth inherited; illegal gains by robbery; goods secured on credit; gifts either of things or of services. The uses of this university are a gift forming a part, first, of the student's income, and, finally, of the social income. Such gifts can be traced back to large-hearted, public-spirited men like Ezra Cornell, but they must be looked upon as coming from some one. This list, incomplete as it is, suggests that the real income of most individuals has manifold sources. Let us undertake to examine and a.n.a.lyze the various methods in actual use in the distribution of income to the persons making up society.

-- II. METHODS OF PERSONAL DISTRIBUTION

[Sidenote: Compulsory distribution; violence]

1. _Distribution is sometimes compulsory, by force or fraud._ This crude and primitive mode of distribution, the negation of personal liberty, never has been quite eliminated. In every country an unhappily large number of men from time to time break over into crime, from violence and highway robbery down to sneak-thieving, pocket-picking, and bunco games.

Not more than ten per cent. of this criminal element is at any one time in prison. This method of personal distribution, not hinted at in most theories of distribution, determines a large part of the income of tens of thousands of men in this country and concerns the distribution of millions of dollars. These enemies of society appropriate whatever they can, and the law stops them if it is able.

[Sidenote: Chattel slavery]

Slavery is distribution by legalized force, but the force is not legalized by the consent of the victims. The evolution of the harsher slavery may be traced through various forms of milder serfdom. There is found an element of this in the freest existing societies; men unwilling are forced to do things. A patent example is the convict on a chain-gang, a slave to society as a penalty for his violation of its commands. But some radical reformers to-day claim that present society is wholly based on legalized force, and that the workingman is essentially a slave. Their ideal cannot be realized without dissolving social bonds and destroying civilization; yet the presence, even in our society, of this forced, unwilling submission on the part of some of its members cannot be ignored.

[Sidenote: War indemnities]

A similar example of forcible taking is seen in case of war. Savage tribes plunder and take captive their weaker neighbors. Conquering modern nations usually exact tribute from defeated enemies. Germany got a billion dollars from France, j.a.pan a quarter of a billion from China.

The terms of peace at the close of our great Civil War were the most liberal ever granted by conqueror to vanquished; and yet the federal pensions granted to Northern soldiers are a form of tribute, being paid by taxes falling alike upon the North and the South. In all these cases the distribution by force is unwillingly suffered. In none of them is it reducible to economic rules or capable of a strict economic explanation.

[Sidenote: Charitable distribution within the family]

2. _Distribution may be charitable, that is, determined by considerations of benevolence and affection._ Charitable is here used in its original sense, as synonymous with love or affection. First to be mentioned is the love of parents, the root and type of all the forms of charity. The lack of economic equivalence in the relation of parent and child is complete in early years. The helpless infant gives nothing economic to the parent, the parent gives all to the child. Gradually, however, the balance is regained; as the years go on, not only does the child repay in affection but in many cases he repays in material ways.

In the factory districts and on the farm the child in early years begins to reestablish the balance, becomes a worker, and contributes as much as the cost of his support, and finally more. A student of modern English town life has traced the curve of poverty traversed by the average child of the poor, as the family moves, now below, again above, the level of minimum income required for physical efficiency. In the middle or propertied cla.s.ses the children do not for many years take the burden from the parents, and it is doubtful whether in most cases the economic balance is ever reestablished. It is not to the parents, but to the succeeding generation, that the debt is vicariously paid.

[Sidenote: And in larger circles]

Friendship widens the range of generosity and multiplies the ma.s.s of gifts. Broad sentiments of humanity lead to gifts outside the range of personal affection and personal interest, to the beggar on the street, to inst.i.tutions devoted to charity. In New York state about twenty million dollars a year is given to charity, and in the country at large many times as much. In the year 1901 over one hundred million dollars was given to education in the United States by private donors; and that high mark will no doubt soon be pa.s.sed. Gifts in cases of great disasters, as the Irish and Indian famines, the Chicago fire, the Galveston flood, the eruption of Mount Pelee, bespeak a widening generosity. Religion impels to the building of churches, to the support of priests, missions, and manifold religious undertakings. Charity in this connection is the expression of a sentiment that varies from the broadest and most general humanitarian sentiment to the most intense and ardent personal affection.

[Sidenote: Authoritative distribution in the despotic state]

3. _Distribution may be by an authority willingly acknowledged._ The two preceding forms of distribution, force and love, shade off into this form. In them the ones from whom goods are taken or to whom they are given have no power to change the conditions; here is to be considered the case where the person bows willingly to the superior power and takes what that power accords him. There are few despotisms in which the government is not based on the wishes and average capacities of the governed. If the citizens as a body really desired and were deserving of better government, in most cases they could get it. Much is heard, for example, of despotism in Russia, and of the abject condition of the people; but travelers testify that while many in the educated student cla.s.ses are filled with the greatest discontent, and the intelligent subject peoples, such as the Finns, detest their rulers, such sentiments are far from general throughout the empire. The power of the Czar could not exist for a single moment if the ma.s.s of the people did not look to him as the great father whom they venerate and love. If this is true, the despotism in Russia, though abhorrent to our ideals of freedom, is fitted to the aspirations of the ma.s.s of the people. So far as government determines income, the authority distributing income there, as elsewhere, is one willingly acknowledged.

[Sidenote: In communities and families]

In patriarchal tribes, in communal societies, in monastic and other religious orders distribution is by an accepted authority. Each person works at what he is commanded to do, and some one in authority (the patriarch, head of the community, the father of the monastic order) portions out the work and the reward. In the family this rule largely prevails, and even after the children have come to years of discretion they not infrequently accept, from habit or affection, the will of the parents, and give up their entire wages to receive back a portion. The method of charitable distribution while the child is young gradually changes to authoritative distribution after the child becomes a worker.

The untrained and indocile youth, however, is made the subject of compulsory distribution.

[Sidenote: In much governmental action]

The collection and distribution of taxes is by public authority. No attempt is made to give back an exact equivalent to the tax-payer. The money is taken and spent by authority for the public good. This method is exemplified in the work of certain commissions appointed by law to fix rates or settle disputes, as boards of conciliation and arbitration and railway commissions. The courts sometimes find themselves obliged to enter this field, although they do so most unwillingly. They try to confine their efforts to interpreting the contracts men have voluntarily entered into, and they avoid, so far as possible, the making of contracts or the fixing of rates.

[Sidenote: In various contests]

In many cases, little thought of as economic distribution, the authoritative method is followed. Literary and oratorical contests are pa.s.sed upon by a set of judges whose opinion of merit determines the award. It is a poor method, often resulting in injustice (as every defeated candidate will admit); but it is the only way practicable for deciding such contests. Yet there are literary and oratorical contests decided very differently. If a man advertises himself as an orator and charges fifty cents admission to his lecture, everyone who goes to hear the man votes that he is an orator; everyone having money but staying away votes that he is not of such value. The one is judgment by the authoritative, the other by the compet.i.tive, method. The essence of the method of distributing by authority is that one individual (or group of individuals) judges of the deserts or duties of others, decides what others must get or must pay, not what he himself is willing to pay.

Authoritative distribution is necessary in many cases, but it is fraught with dangers. It is the essence of socialism that it would make this plan universal.

4. _Distribution of psychic income may be in part by the collective use of social wealth._ By collective use in the full sense is meant the continuing enjoyment at the same time by all caring to partake and without limit as to amount.

[Sidenote: Distribution by collective enjoyment]

Now it is evident that, because of difficulties that arise, not all things are capable of this kind of enjoyment. Free water for private use from public waterworks is wasted; free meals and clothing to school-children are open to still greater abuses. Men cannot thus collectively enjoy rare wines or good confectionery; they cannot partake without limit of a limited supply. But libraries and schools may practically be managed in this way. They require both certain qualifications and certain sacrifices on the part of the user.

Collective enjoyment is most completely possible where the use of a permanent form of wealth, such as a park, can be made free to the public. All individuals may enjoy equal privileges, though general rules may limit the kind of use; for example: no one may be permitted to pull flowers or to walk on the gra.s.s, but all who make use of the park enjoy equal privileges. Henry van d.y.k.e in one of his essays puts into the mouth of his boy the question, "Father, who owns the mountains?" and the answer is, He who can enjoy them. Every man without covetousness, as he stands on this hilltop, owns the mountains, the lake, and this beautiful valley.

In some ways the amount of public enjoyment is decreasing, as by the growing density of population, by the loss of open s.p.a.ces and commons for playgrounds, by the destruction or fencing in of natural scenery; but in other ways it is growing and must grow rapidly. The spirit of civic improvement spreads. The streets are better paved than formerly; there are more public buildings, art galleries, and n.o.ble monuments.

Every cross-road in the land will some day have its fountain and its statue. The cooperation of the whole community gives to collective use many of the advantages of large production, and the maximum of enjoyment.

[Sidenote: Distribution by custom and status]

5. _Distribution may be by status or set rules and customs._ Distribution by status fixes the shares of men independently of their effort and without their control. It is guided neither by their personal merit nor by the economic value of their services, but by the merits and acts of men not living. This method has prevailed and still prevails to a great extent, though in our society this is hardly realized. Feudal society was built on status. Men were born to certain privileges and positions; they inherited property which could neither be bought nor sold; they followed trades which could rarely be entered by any outside of favored families. Caste in India and in other Oriental countries regulates by status a large part of the life. In western countries to-day inheritance of property is the main legal form of status and it shades off into other forms of distribution. While in some cases inheritance may be looked upon as a gift to the heir, in other cases, elsewhere noted, it is partly earned by the heir who has helped to produce it. By public opinion and by prejudices, status is still maintained even where the law has formally abolished it, as is seen in modern race problems.

[Sidenote: Compet.i.tive distribution the dominant form]

6. _Distribution is usually compet.i.tive in accordance with the value of the product._ This is the dominant form of distribution in modern society. It is the essentially economic form, as contrasted with the legal and personal forms just described, because it is impersonal and reducible to a rule of value. Distribution under compet.i.tion is made not with reference to abstract ethical principles or to personal affection, but to the value of the product so far as it is honestly controlled. Monopoly, it may be noted, never has ceased to rest under the ban of Anglo-Saxon law, hence to exemplify compulsory, as opposed to compet.i.tive, distribution. A striking feature of the compet.i.tive method is its decentralization. Each helps to value the economic services of each. If one pays more for the services of the singer than for those of the cook, it is not because he would rather listen to the singing than to eat, but because by apportioning his income he can get the singing and the eating too. In the existing circ.u.mstances, the singer's services seem to him worth paying for, and he backs his opinion with his money.

So each is measuring the services of all others, and all are valuing each. It is the democracy of valuation, while the method of authority is an oligarchy or monarchy.

[Sidenote: Various ideals of distribution]

7. _The best distribution in practice must be sought in union and harmony of these various methods._ Various social reforms propose simply the extreme application of one kind to the exclusion of the others.

There are two opposing views of compet.i.tion: one, that it is the ideal to be sought; the other, that it is inherently bad, and therefore should be abolished. Extreme individualists, believing that everything would be settled for the best by free compet.i.tion, wish to make it universal.

They ignore the many cases where it does not, should not, and cannot exist.