We can now see that the members of our modern industrial society may be grouped according to the shares of income - wages, rent, interest, and profit; also according to total income irrespective of its source. In either case there is a cause for class antagonism, particularly on the part of those whose incomes are relatively low. Any self-respecting head of a family with an income of less than eight hundred dollars - there are millions of them - is likely to regard such inequalities of income and wealth as appear in the preceding table as a rank social injustice; while those having still lower incomes are tempted to hate an industrial system that permits such differences. They naturally take the position that no one family deserves or needs an income equal to the total income of a fairly large city composed of laborers. The most stolid of them know perfectly well that the interests of industrial society are not furthered by permitting one man or one set of men to appropriate for their own use hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of wealth. By a simple calculation they see single Americans controlling more property than the entire total taxable property in a city like Des Moines or Indianapolis. They see the income of a small group of capitalists equal the total income of all the laborers of a city like Cleveland or Denver. What wonder, then, that there is social unrest and class antagonism!

Entirely different is the usual attitude taken by the members of the higher income groups toward their less fortunate brethren. They, on their part, are satisfied with existing conditions; and in this self-satisfaction lie the dangers that always mark class antagonism. Too often they explain misery and poverty by saying that it is the result of indolence, intemperance, or vice; failing to see, however, that intemperance, for example, is a result as well as a cause of poverty. Fortunately, serious-minded men and women are attacking the problem of inequality in a business-like manner. Instead of scattering alms among the poorly paid, as did the sultans of Arabian Nights fame, they are teaching men and women how to help themselves, not only by increasing their incomes, but also by spending them to better advantage. Few expect or even desire to see property holdings or incomes made equal. Few object to the comforts and luxuries of the rich. Few dream of an industrial millennium in which no distinguishing marks shall separate one group from another. Many, however, are determined that the dirty tenement must go, that the submerged tenth must be made self-supporting, that free and universal education must become a reality, and that every one must have a fair chance to develop himself industrially. If this spirit of service and helpfulness ever pervades the upper income groups, which it must if American society and democracy are not to be endangered, we may expect, not necessarily a leveling of incomes, but certainly a more equitable distribution. Industrial inefficiency. - Either extreme in the matter of income tends to make its possessors industrially inefficient. It is trite to say that a man whose income is insufficient to nourish his body properly is an inefficient worker. Since millions of men and even whole families have such an income, it follows that great numbers of workers in this country are inefficient. Employers contend that they cannot pay more wages until efficiency is increased; but efficiency cannot be increased without an increase in wages. Here clearly is the place for society to do what no employer feels justified in doing and what few inefficient workers can do for themselves. Already, as we have seen, individuals and private associations are working in this direction. But this is not the work of one or two or of a hundred. Society alone can reap the reward of a widespread elevation of industrial efficiency. Society, therefore, ought to bear the expense of elevating it. Again, too high an income also tends to industrial inefficiency. Nothing has yet been found that can take the place of the desire for comfort and moderate luxury as a stimulus to economic activities^ A high salary, for example, is a fair indication of efficiency, but not, by any means, a cause of efficiency.

Proportion of all Homes Owned Free, Owned Encumbered, and Rented, by States: 1910.

No account of the causes of industrial inefficiency would be complete without some notice of the effects of indolence, intemperance, and vice. It seems to be a law of human nature that all work is more or less irksome. Fortunately, a majority of people possess enough will power to overcome indolence. There are those, however, who prefer privation and even hunger to manual or mental labor. Their greatest need is ambition. The drinking of alcoholic liquors also destroys efficiency. Scientists are agreed that no one can be at his best with the least trace of alcohol in his system. Managers of large industrial plants are unanimous in their testimony that the drinking habit among employees is the chief source of their inability to get a maximum production. Fortunately, this source of inefficiency, owing largely to the stand taken by employers, is rapidly disappearing. Vice, which likes to associate itself with alcohol, also destroys industrial efficiency. Gambling, loafing in billiard rooms, and sexual abuses unfit one for economic activity.

Midway between these sources of inefficiency and the inefficiency itself, is illness. First comes indolence, intemperance, or vice; next, bodily or mental illness, and then, industrial inefficiency. The indolent man is usually ill or easily made so when there is a prospect of work. Intemperance leads to all sorts of ills. So also does vice. There are those unfortunates, however, that must not be blamed for their physical or mental shortcomings. Some are born incapacitated for work, some are the victims of greed or accident, some are undernourished in spite of their best efforts and intentions. These deserve first consideration at the hands of society.