Full text of Getting and Spending at the Professional Standard of Living : A Study of the Costs of Living an Academic Life

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

G E T T IN G A N D S P E N D IN G
AT THE

PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DALLAS
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO

MACMILLAN & CO.,

L im it e d
LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

GETTING AND SPENDING
AT THE

PKOFESSIONAL STANDAEI) OF LINING
A S tudy of the C osts of L iving
A n A cademic L ife

JE SSIC A B. PE IX O TT O , P h .D.

P rofessor of S ocial E conomics, U niversity of California

ilîito ffotfc

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1927
All rights reserved

C o p y r ig h t , 1927,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and printed.
Published August, 1927.

Printed in the United States of America by

J . J . LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK

3 1I>IH
? 3 £T

“The truth, nearly all the truth,
and very little but the truth.”
v.:

X
cr
oc
c3
1
>3

283817 59

PREFACE
Up to the present, with rare exception the precise
terms of the getting and spending of professional
people has been shut away in the romantic and
shadowy domain of home life, “ hopelessly private,”
“ sacred. ” Conventions in high repute, a code of
behavior that opposite habits of mind will style
discreet or foolish, at present shroud in silence the
details of what professional families buy. Canons
of -conduct run almost unquestioned to the effect
that it is bad form to ask details of domestic ex
penditures or to give them. Indeed, many persons
see something vulgar, ridiculous or unseemly in any
exact showing of the way family income goes.
The study herewith presented represents a break
in this conventional silence. What follows displays
in considerable detail the getting and the spending
of careful professional families. The data add, it is
believed, to a very small stock of evidence in a part
of the field of consumption wherein lie some of the
most relevant questions of economic theory and
business practice. The schedules analyzed all ex
press the complexities of modem expenditures, at
what is commonly called a “ comfort” standard.
The spending goes on at a level of income that per
mits choices in wider range than the majority of
“ budget” studies show. The data should therefore
vii

PREFACE

aid to formulate both the terms of the typical Ameri
can standard of living and of the theoretical Ameri
can “ demand,” with greater respect for the verities
than has hitherto characterized the attempt.
This examination of a reasoned professional
standard should also contribute facts to answer the
more immediate and practical question, what does
the American standard of living cost a family of
man and wife with the “ standard” family of two
growing children? The facts of this investigation
and others the author has not yet published suggest
the answer to be: It costs about $7,000 a year. The
statement that a comfort standard spells desires
which cost from $7,000 to $10,000, may at first
thought seem to have in it more than one element
of absurdity. Yet to the author, the pretension
seems a sobering truth. The research here reported
leads to this statement as a major conclusion. True,
current statistics tell us that in our prosperous
United States only one percent of the nation can
command an income of $10,000 or more; that
scarcely three percent of our people have $5,000 or
over to spend. But the question is not of income.
$7,000 is the sum needed to satisfy a set of desires
for goods and services, desires that at the present
time influence widely and profoundly the way men
earn their money and the way they spend it. The
unswerving faith of our time in the social value of
a rising standard of living; the growing belief es
pecially among wage earners in a universal “ right”
to a comfort standard; above all business influences
new, pervasive, persuasive,—these are forces pri

PREFACE

mary in shaping this American standard that
costs at least $7,000. Because emporia, admirably
equipped and stocked, lure consumers as the fairs
of other days did, not annually or quarterly as in
those other times, but daily and hourly through the
press and the shop window, every man and his wife
or perhaps more exactly and more compellingly,
every man’s son and his daughter, learn a new scale
of wants. Cheapened imitations of luxury goods
and installment selling do the rest. Business, ac
claiming the thriftiness of budgeting to meet its new
credit methods, brings into the average consumer’s
list of purchases, articles his theory of income and
spending never before included in the possibilities.
Credit methods now complete the work of develop
ing a $7,000 theory of use goods. Thus the new
single standard that presses on earning power is
developed; industrial unrest is the reflection of this
rising demand for a comfort standard.
Those who read the following pages are asked
then to consider seriously the hypothesis that the
items and costs of family expenditure the 96 families
included in this study have reported, express the
stock desires of the average American consumer in
income classes other than the very wealthy and
those who try to keep up with the rich. About this
single standard, the mass imagination circles. The
several “ lower” standards most often considered
are actually planes of living but not standards of
living. In this study, the standard in question is
designated a professional standard for reasons ex
plained later. Is it a “ high” standard? By what

PREFACE

test? Custom wants? High total costs? Ethical
values? More light is certainly needed before de
ciding.
Not only the student of standards of living but
also the searcher after an art of spending, may find
something of interest in these expenditures at a pro
fessional standard. It would be a satisfaction, if
in addition to making a rift in the darkness now
surrounding the nature and the real costs of current
spending habits at the professional American
standard, this data should in however slight degree,
serve to swing discussion of the art of spending
from the abstract and normative foundations on
which it now rests, to a more concrete and positive
basis. Without passing judgment upon the charac
ter of the expenditures hereinafter shown, it is still
possible to be somewhat enthusiastic about them as
promising means for a reasoned examination of ac
credited theories and practices in the use of purchas
ing power, to consider them in fact, examples of
what those who do pronounce upon the art of satis
fying wants call “ wise spending.” This picture of
the distribution of the “ satisfactions” gained in the
use of incomes that range from $1800 to $16,000 is
certainly some index of what spending methods are
like when they are both “ rational” and in con
formity with the accepted canons of reputable
spending. In particular, the schedules give special
opportunity to inspect and discuss those “ wants for
higher goods” generally and traditionally taken to
be the criterion of the consumer’s rationality.
Economists will then, it is hoped, find in the fol

PREFACE

lowing pages more than an inquiry into the suffi
ciency of salaries.
The study that follows is none the less in first
instance an investigation of the costs of living an
academic life,—a description of the way the several
ranks in a university faculty follow, on the one hand,
the dictates of an academic standard of living and
on the other hand try to “ pay as they go” while
making and using incomes ranging from $1800 to
$16,000. Primarily and principally, the study sets
forth the goods and service aspects of living an
academic life at Berkeley and the costs thereof in
1922.
As a cost of living study, its immediate service
ability seems to be to show decisively that the sala
ries offered the faculty of the university under
investigation, and in all probability the faculties of
most universities, are below the amount required if
an accepted standard of living for professional men
is to be paid for out of those salaries.
The incentive to make this study of the way
academic families live undoubtedly included an
emotional interest. However, in plan at least, the
investigation excluded both propaganda and special
pleading. The controlling objective has been to
gather the facts by methods calculated to give a
reflex of reality and to interpret the data without
bias. In short, the aim has been to let exact methods
tell a story. It is believed this purpose has been
consistently carried out. But the author is of the
profession under investigation. In greater or less
degree, this fact may have frustrated an honest in

PREFACE

tention to treat tlie data dispassionately. The
reader is at least assured of an earnest wish to
interpret the findings without bias. It is hoped the
study will seem as exact and free from partiality
as it is intended to he. In any case, the tables per
mit each reader to draw his own conclusions.
J. B. P.
U niversity op California ,
November, 1926.

N ote:—Those lacking the time or

the interest to read all the
supporting details of this
study will get the main pur
poses and the findings of the
investigation by reading
Chapter I and Chapter IX.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is under many obligations. A word
of deep appreciation is eagerly offered to the fam
ilies who furnished the data that is the basis for
this study. Those 96 professional families who
generously consented to break through conventions,
in doing so, have done more than give the details of
how they used their incomes, given more than the
facts about the direction, the relative occurrence and
the emphasis in academic expenditure. They have
brushed aside prejudice; they have courageously
stepped beyond a traditional rule of conduct.
Also they took great pains to supply the facts
analyzed here. The families themselves did not have
at hand the precise knowledge the schedules called
for. To get it and to give it required time and
effort. Both were freely and competently given to
help in displaying reality.
First of all then, my sincerest thanks to the hus
bands and wives who filled out the schedules. In
particular, Mrs. G. P. Adams, Mrs. J. T. Alien, Mrs.
C. H. Bell, Mrs. H. L. Bruce, Mrs. S. B. Freeborn,
Mrs. I. M. Linforth, Mrs. Guy Montgomery, Mrs.
T. Peterson and Mrs. E. C. Tolman, the nine wives
who wrote the article on academic spending have
been my prime aids in this modest endeavor to show
things as they are.
xiii

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Indebtedness is likewise cheerfully acknowledged
for statistical and secretarial aid. In developing the
facts the schedules contained, my most direct obliga
tion is to Miss Mary Gorringe, statistician of the
Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics.
Her work in making most of the computations and
in preparing the first draft of the data though done
under my direction has been so helpfully done that
certain paragraphs dealing with the figures raise
embarrassing questions of authorship. Miss Martha
E. Burrill has ably and conscientiously supervised
the revision of the computations.
Finally, very generous pecuniary help has made
both the field investigation possible and paid'for the
laboratory computations. Every search for new
truth represents appreciable costs and in social
research fairly high costs. The considerable sum
necessary for the field and laboratory work has been
generously given by interested friends. Mr. William
Denman and Dean Lucy Ward Stebbins contributed
sums that first encouraged the undertaking. Other
wise, the considerable expense has been paid for
through an allotment from a fund for research in
social economics generously given in 1923 to the
Department of Economics by Mr. and Mrs. E. S.
Heller of San Francisco as testimony of their ap
preciation of the importance and the necessity of
social research, and made available for the author's
use by the Committee in charge of the fund. With
out the help of these sympathetic and discerning
friends this study could not have been made.

CONTENTS
PAGE

P r e f a c e ......................................................................................................
vii
I ntroductory — T h e P a y C h ec k a n d t h e P rofessor
1
I. The low pay of academic faculties a public interest
1
II. The cost of living only one among several causes
for a feeling that salaries are too low . . . . .
3
III. The influences making for the prevalent low pay .
4
IY. The influences acting to raise standards of living in
contemporary academic l i f e ............................................
10
V. The risks attendant upon a continuation of the
present low appraisement and low pay . . . .
22
VI. Whether better salaries can be found and how . . 24
C h apter I.— E conomic U tility of t h e S tud y . .
I. A cost of living s tu d y ...................................................
II. The study also shows a standard of living relatively
infrequently a n a ly z e d ....................................................
III. As a description of a standard of living, the details
show a standard 1‘ higher ’ ’ than that of most pre
vious studies, a standard of living that may profit
ably be regarded as a “ comfort” standard, but
definiteness is gained by calling it a middle-class,
professional, American standard of living . . .
IV. The academic standard of living as described by
certain academic families them selves............................
V. Whether the standard that academic faculties ascribe
to themselves is one they are entitled to and whether
they spent “ wisely” .....................................................
C h apter II.— T h e M eth od op I n v e st ig a tio n . . .
I. S c h e d u le .................................. ..........................................
II. Collecting the d a t a ...............................
III. Reliability of the d a t a .....................................................
IV. The price l e v e l .................................................................
V. The method of selecting the fa m ilies...........................
VI. Nature of faculty representation. . . . . .
XV

28
28
29

33
37
43
46
46
46
47
48
48
50

XVI

CONTENTS
A. Belative number of total married persons in
cluded ..............................................................................
B. Bepresentation of the 96 families included by pro
fessional r a n k ................................
VII. General applicability of the findings........................

PAGE

C h apter I I I .— T h e S ocial D a t a .......................................
I. The number in the study: sex and maturity . . .
II. A g e .................................................................................
III. The family t y p e .................................................................
A. Size and composition of the family . . . .
B. Size of family in relation to the age and the
income of faculty m em bers.......................................
IV. Place of b i r t h .................................................................

59
59
60
62
62

50
54
56

63
65

C h a pt e r IY .— A n a l y sis op S alaries a n d I ncom es .
70
I. Salary and in co m e......................................................
70
A. Salary r a n g e .................................................................
71
B. Income r a n g e .................................................................
72
C. Salaries and incomes c o m p a r e d ..........................
74
II. The sources and nature of supplementary income . 78
A. The general findings about supplementary income 78
B. The supplementary income of the 96 families
from w ork ........................................................................
80
C. Income from p ro p erty .....................................................101
D. Income from gifts andmiscellaneous sources . 103
E. Non-pecuniary income
......................................106
C h a pter V .— G e nera l C haracter of E x pen d itu r e s 116
I. The standard of ex p en d itu re...........................................116
A. The method u s e d ........................................................... 117
B. The standard of living andexpenditures . . . 118
II. The total expenditures........................................................119
III. The relation between the major divisions of the
household expenditures............................................................121
A. General relationships . . . . . . . .
121
B. The proportionate expenditures according to ex
penditure le v e ls ..................................................................125
C. The allotment of expenditures according to aca
demic rank .........................................................................135
D. Su m m ary...............................................................................139

CONTENTS
C h apter

VI.— F u r th er

xvii
PAGE

D etails op t h e E x p e n d i
tures for F ood, C lothing , S helter and
H ouse O p e r a t i o n .................................................. . 148
I. P o o d ...............................................................................148
A. Amounts allotted for f o o d ................................... 148
B. Food and the size of the household . . . .
152
II. Clothing ................................................................................... 156
A. Expenditures of husbands and wives compared . 156
B. Costs of clothing and g if t s ................................... 158
C. Expenditures for clothing and academic rank . 159
III. S h elter................................................................................ 162
A. Further details of costs of shelter . . . . 162
B. Owners or t e n a n t s ................................................ 163
C. Academic Bank and Tenantry . . . . . . ¡. 163
D. Relative costs of owning andrenting. . . .
164
IV. House op eration............................................................. 169
A. Light, fuel and h e a t .....................................................171
B. I c e ............................................. ......
174
C. Telephone and t e le g r a p h ...............................................175
D. Service............................................................................. 175
E. Garbage removal ............................................................179
F. Personal cleaning supplies . . 4 .
181
G. House cleaning supplies.....................................................181
H. House la u n d r y .................................................... . 182
I. F u r n is h in g s .........................................................................183
J. Stationery and p o sta g e.....................................................184

VII.— I n t e n siv e A n a l y sis of t h e I tem s
M is c e l l a n e o u s ..............................................
187
I. The direction, the relative occurrence and the
changes in the direction of miscellaneous . . . 187
II. The relation of the items of miscellaneous to total
expenditure and to the total for miscellaneous . . 188
A. Investments, insurance,s a v in g s .....................................188
B. A u to m o b iles.................................................................196
C. Recreation .........................................................................198
D. H e a lth .................................................................
203
E. Dependents outside the home. . . . . .
207
F. G i f t s ..................................................................................... 209
G. Education ....................................................
. , 211

C h apter

xviii

CONTENTS

PAGE

H. Professional e x p e n s e ........................................................214
I. I n c id e n t a ls .......................................
217
J. A sso cia tio n s.........................................................................219
K. Church and ch a rity ..........................................................221
L. T o b a c c o ...............................................................................223
C h a pt e r

VIII.— T ypical

ries at a

F a m il y E x p e n se H isto
P rofessional S tan da rd ................................. 227

C h a pt e r IX.— S u m m a r y of F i n d i n g s ......................................250
I. The social d a t a ........................................................................ 251
A. R a n k ................................
251
B. N a t io n a lit y ........................................................................ 251
C. A g e ......................................................................................251
D. Size and composition of fa m ilies..................................252
II. Salary and in c o m e ..................................................................252
A. Salary r a n g e ........................................................................ 254
B. Income ra n g e........................................................................254
C. Non-pecuniary rew ard s................................
259
III. E xpenditures............................................................................. 262
A. Making both ends m e e t.....................................................264
B. Total amounts s p e n t .....................................................264
C. Allocation of expenditures.............................................. 264
A p p e n d i x .................................................................................................. 283
I. Tables. (See Index of T a b le s ) ........................................284
II. Survey Schedule, 11 Standard of Living of the faculty
of the University of California” ........................................294
I n d e x ..............................................................................................................303

INDEX OF TABLES
TABLES

I. Proportion of married and of single persons in
each academic r a n k ....................................................50
I a . Proportion of the married members of the various
departments who were included in the survey . .
II. Number of per cent of representation of the dif
ferent academic ranks in (a) the total faculty of
the Berkeley departments, (b) the total married
faculty and (c) the 96 families included in the
study .............................................................................. 55
III. Comparative number and per cent of faculty mem
bers by rank (a) in total faculty, (b) in total
married faculty and (c) included in the study .
IV. Percentage in each rank among the married faculty
members represented in the s tu d y ..........................56
V. Total number of persons in all household groups
of the 96 families by sex and maturity . . . .
VI. Age of faculty members and helpmates . . .
VII. Faculty members by academic rank and specified
a g e .............................................................................61
VIII. Number of children in the academic families
s t u d ie d ...................................................................... 63
IX. Size of immediate family according to academic
r a n k ............................................................................ 64
X. Number and per cent of natives and of foreignborn among all members of the 96 families studied
XI. Place of birth of all members of the 96 families
s t u d ie d ...................................................................... 67
X II. Further details regarding place of birth of all
members of the 96 households.........................68
X III. Relative amount of regular salary and of total
income received by the 96 families . . . . .
XIV. Percentage of 96 families who received less than
a specified amount of regular salary or of total
in c o m e ...................................................................... 77
XV. Median amount of salary and of total income for
given academic r a n k s............................................ 77
xix

PAGE

55
60
60

INDEX OF TABLES

TABLES

PAGE

XV a . Mean amount of salary and of total income for
given academic ranks .
....................................... 78
XVI. Mean and median amount of additional earnings
of faculty members of specified academic ranks . 97
XVII. Source of earnings of faculty members and the
mean and median amountsfrom each source . . 98
XVIII. All sources of income of the families studied and
the mean and median amountfrom each source . 98
XIX. Regular and alternative remunerative occupations
of helpmates .........................................................................99
XX. Median amourijfc of total ineome showing (1)
amount and per cent of income from each source
and (2) number reporting each type of income . 104
XXI. Median ineome of each academic rank according
to sources .............................................................................105
XXII. Mean income of each academic rank according to
sources ....................................................................................105
X X III. Length of service of the 96 faculty members
s t u d ie d ............................................................................ 115
XXIV. Academic rank of faculty members related to a
specified length of service................................114-115
XXV. Mean amounts of expenditure for each rank . . 121
XXVI. Median distribution among different items of ex
penditure for all 96 faculty families . . . . 122
XXVI a. Mean distribution among different items of ex
penditure for all 96 faculty families . . . .
122
XXVII. Distribution of the expenditures of the whole
g r o u p ..........................................................................123
XXVIII. Mean and median amounts and percentages of
total expenditures allotted to each item of the
budget ..........................................................
124
XXIX. Mean amounts spent for different items of
budget by families with a given amount of total
expenditures .......................................................................133
XXIX a. Mean percentage distribution of expenditure
among the different budgetary items for a given
amount of total expenditure...................................133
XXX. Mean and median percentage distribution of ex
penditure among the different budgetary items
correlated with given amounts of total expenditure 134:

INDEX OF TABLES
TABLES

XXXI. Per cent distribution of the mean expenditure
among the different items of the budget for given
academic ranks . ...........................................................
XXXlA. Comparison of faculty allocation of expenditures
with that of high school teachers in Bruere
study, 1 9 1 2 .......................................................................
XXXII. Percentage distribution of expenditure for the
main items of the budget for a family of four
with an income equivalent to $4,800 per year—the
faculty distribution compared with distribution
proposed by various organizations.............................
XXXIII. Comparison of average weekly food cost per capita
for faculty families with an estimate by Dr. Agnes
Fay Morgan and Professor Jaffa’s relief budget
by size of family . . . ........................................
XXXIIlA. Size of family correlated with the amount spent
for f o o d ..............................................................................
XXXIV. Size of family correlated with the per cent of
total expenditure for f o o d .......................................
XXXV. Percentage spent for clothing by the husbands
and by the wives of the families studied .
XXXVI. Mean and median amount of excess of w ife’s ex
penditure for clothing over that of her husband
and vice v e r s a ....................................................
Percentage of total expenditure devoted to housing
XXXVIII. Mean and median amounts and percentages spent
for shelter for a given amount of total expenditure
Eelative housing costs of owners and tenants .
XL. Number and proportion of owners and tenants for
a specified amount of total expenditure .
XLI. Number and proportion of owners and tenants
for a specified academic r a n k .................................
XLII. Mean and median number of rooms occupied by
household of a specified s iz e .......................................
XLIII. Mean and median number of rooms ocupied by
household of a specified income . . .
XLIV. Mean and median expenditure for all items of
house operation and mean and median percentage
to total ex p en d itu re....................................................
XLV. Mean and median expenditures for all items of
house operation and mean and median percentage
to total costs of house operation.................................
XL VI. Families reporting expenditure for furnishings .

xxi
PAGE

135
141

143
153
154
155
157
157
166
166
167
167
168
168
169
184
185
186

xxii

INDEX OF TABLES
TABLES

PAGE

186
XL VII. Families reporting expenditure for service .
XL VTII. Mean and median amount and percentage of total
expenditure devoted to different types of invest
ment and in s u r a n c e .................................................... 195
XLIX. Median amount and percentage of specified items
of miscellaneous to total expenditure . . . . 225
L. Median amount and percentage of total miscelleneous allotment spent for specified items of mis
cellaneous ........................................................................ 225
LI. Number and percentage of families with a given
amount of total expenditure who reported ex
penditures for certain specified items under mis
226
cellaneous . ...........................................................
LII. Expenditures of professors’ families (mean
amounts). (Average size of families: four per
sons) .................................................................................... 279
L m . Table showing number and percentage of families
with a given amount of total expenditure for
miscellaneous who reported expenditure for the
different items under the general heading of mis
cellaneous ................................................................. 284-285
LIV. Table showing number and percentage of fam
ilies with a given amount of total expenditure
who reported expenditures for the different items
under the general heading of miscellaneous . 286-287
LV. Table showing mean and median percentage of
the total expenditure spent for the different items
under the general heading of miscellaneous by
families with a given amount of total expend
iture ................................................................. ...... . 288-289
LVI. Table showing mean and median percentage of
the total expenditure for miscellaneous spent for
the different items under the general heading of
miscellaneous by families with a given amount of
total expenditure.................................................... 290-291
LVII. Table showing mean and median percentage of
the total expenditure for miscellaneous spent for
the different items under the general heading of
miscellaneous by families with a given amount of
total miscellaneous expenditures.......................... 292-293
LVIII. Table showing mean and median amount spent
for the different items under the general heading
of miscellaneous by families with a given amount
of total ex p en d itu re.................................facing p. 294

G E T T IN G A N D SP E N D IN G
AT THE

PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING

GETTING AND SPENDING AT THE
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
OF LIVING
INTRODUCTORY
THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR
I
The purchasing power of the academic man is
low. To say this is to underscore the obvious, to
state the already known. "What is new in the pres
ent situation is the sound of objection.
Hitherto, to all appearances, academic faculties
have not resented a salary scale notably dispropor
tionate at the top to that of the successful in other
professions. Today definite protest is plainly and
generally audible.
Evidently this question of the rate of pay of all
classes of instructors on academic faculties has
interest for every citizen, an interest more than
personal, occupational or industrial. Long ago, this
nation committed itself to the program of university
education. As time has gone on, particularly in
the West, the idea has gained immense headway.
It is a commonplace in the thinking of all but a few
conservatives that high-grade universities should
l

GETTING AND SPENDING

be found everywhere offering the best education
free for as many as could use it to advantage and
maintaining the highest standards attainable. Deeprooted among our national traditions of democracy
and its implications lies the belief in an educa
tional system captained by members of the academic
profession, persons dedicated to a scholar’s love
of learning, even to a scholar’s aloofness, but also
quickened by the desire and the power to stimulate
the thought and the imagination of youth. Also
hitherto as today it has never been questioned that,
given current methods of instruction, the grade of
instruction depended upon the character of the facul
ties in the universities. The type and the standards
of university faculty members determine the quality
of the teaching.
Appraisement of this kind notwithstanding, and
in an age whose social theory nms to the effect
that the rate of earnings registers the social evalua
tion, university authorities pay small salaries.
Those who may be called our captains of education
get compensation that at best falls below what men
with the same recognized competence can readily
earn in other professions or in business. The sala
ries of the most accredited university teachers barely
pay the costs of their way of living. Supplementary
earning or vested income is a necessity.
Why are academic salaries always thus compara
tively low? Why relatively speaking has the pro
fessor been patient under low pay? Why does he
begin now to resent that which for so long he
accepted as appropriate or inevitable?

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

II
Any individual will find his salary lessened if it
remains unchanged (1) when prices rise, (2) when
standards of living alter,* (3) when new opportuni
ties at higher pay present themselves.
The price fluctuations since 1913 brought to aca
demic men the same exasperating sense of economic
insufficiency that all the rest of the world felt.
The rapid rise in the cost of living which made
the dollar of 1913 sixty cents in 1926 worked the
same change for academic faculties that it made for
all other classes of breadwinners. Bising prices
have taught many hitherto ignorant of the distinction
to appreciate the difference between money income
and goods and service income, a -concept until re
cently a commonplace for the economist only. But
with regard to rising prices, the academic world has
simply suffered along with all others living through
the Great War. Always and by ritual the members
of this class have saved. As prices rose, they tried
to save a little more. Eelatively speaking, most
members of academic faculties accepted the fall in
income through rise in prices with more patience
than either organized workers or other salaried
classes. Their expression of unrest comes later
than other displays of impatience. But it has come.
Why?
The chief causes of the present discontent lie less
in the high cost of living than in a changed stand
ard of living and in the appearance of opportunities

GETTING AND SPENDING

to do, at better pay, the type of work faculty people
like best.
The traditionally low salary rate in academic cir
cles connects easily with certain elements in an,
habitual standard of living. So far as the faculties
themselves are concerned, low salaries in universi
ties derive, in part at least, from the typical aca
demic man’s theory of spending and from his will
and power to make a bargain, that is, his capacity
for estimating and asserting the social value of his
work,—his occupational self-respect, so to speak.
m
Let us examine first a little more fully the effect
upon the salary level of the accepted academic
theory of spending, obviously that theory implied
by the old canon of “ plain living and high think
ing.”
It is well known that in university circles the elu
sive term, the “ simple life,” describes customarily
the accredited way of living. The concept associates
closely morality and low income. Further, it in
cludes a standard of spending that estimates highly
any successful struggle to make both ends meet,
irrespective of whether or no the ends are a fair dis
tance apart. This spending standard is really obso
lescent. However, verbally at least, it still has wide
vogue among faculty people. All traditions in aca
demic circles are colored by the fact that the profes
sion began in the cloister where the rule of an iso
lated life consecrated to an appointed task modified

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

*11 other aspects of conduct. Thus, the precepts
handed down to the men and women who go into
academic life today imply in general a renunciation
of “ worldly” spending. In particular, this origin
accounts largely for the well-defined doctrine of 'ex
penditure still “ standard’’ in academic circles.
This theory needs no elaborated statement.
Everyone knows the “ rational” doctrine of spend
ing that colors the average academic man’s discus
sion of the use of goods, a theory that deprecates
personal display, that scorns quantity consumption,
above all competitive consumption. By conscien
tious scruple as well as because of income limits,
most academic traditions about spending remain
loyal in whole or in part to that reasoned code for
the use of income most extensively and elaborately
set forth by Alberti and most simply by Franklin.
Theoretically at least, the professor is by and
large a buyer with a reasoned scale of wants. If
tradition in academic circles makes it “ undigni
fied” openly to demand more income, this is in part
at least because it is not usually good ethics to admit
either the need for a large income or the obligation
to spend freely. On the contrary, as has been said,
spending proceeds upon the assumption that the
supreme obligation is to try to “ make both ends
meet” however near together fate draws the
“ ends.” If professors are not in the van with that
effective minority who today' aim to force income
continuously upwards to meet a scale of wants that
by formula grows legitimately in volume and inten
sity, this is because their formal allegiance goes

GETTING AND SPENDING

to Poor Richard. Loyalty to a creed that ties suc
cess in the search for truth with simple living,
breeds patience with a scale of living that the suc
cessful in the business and professional world about
them dub poverty.
First of all then, the professor bargains badly
because he advocates simple living. In the next
place, he is handicapped in bidding for better pay
because native aptitudes draw him to the academic
life. By and large, men and women offer themselves
to universities because they see in university life a
much desired chance for pioneering into the un
known. The vast majority of those who go into it
feel a genuine “ call” to the work. The rewards lie
within the processes and the products of a chosen
task. This occupational group evidences the good
psychological foundations of Fourier’s belief that
talent will be content with the wage equivalent of
merely basic needs if only the way is opened for
self-expression in work. More than pay, members
of academic faculties covet time to work and a place
to work.
Finally, a divided estimate of the teacher in gen
eral and the faculty man in particular plays no mean
part in keeping salaries low. The astonishing fact
is that faculty men themselves assess uncertainly
the human qualities, the services and the social
utility of the profession. The employing class, the
public, including the boards of trustees of universi
ties, evidence the same divided state of mind.
The attitude in question can readily be noted
within the profession. Indeed, ironical appraisal of

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

their own occupation is a favorite form of intellec
tual sport among professors. “ Freedom” and the
“ self-sufficiency of the individual” are cherished
watchwords. Certainly the best academic man is
not lacking in “ proper pride” but, to all but a
minority, group action looks like a repellant duty
to be avoided as far as possible. In face of innu
endo or bald statement about the professor’s lack
of prestige or fair income, most academic men
prefer a proud humility to a retort. A sense of
their social value clashes with an embittered feeling
that they are overlooked, rated second to athletic
coaches within the university and to other profes
sions in general. The solac'e of work takes prece
dence of any struggle for a more assured status or
for a better money equivalent of the services they
render.
In this habit of an uncertain, paradoxical or quiz
zical rating, the public meets' the professor more
than halfway. Particularly of late, publications,
occasional, periodical and daily, give the academic
faculty member a kind of prominence that indicates
a curiously complex and contradictory attitude to
ward the professor, his personality, his powers,, his
duties, his ultimate usefulness and his money value.
Undoubtedly, all professions are looked at from
different angles. The greater number of persons see
in the lawyer a supreme, steadying social influence.
Many thinkers not to be despised have however de
clared his real social role to be that of the mean
panderer to controlling interests. By opposite dicta,
the doctor is pictured both as the patient preserver

GETTING AND SPENDING

of the lives of thousands, and the commereial quack
preying upon weaknesses he deliberately fosters or
for which at best appraisal he can do little.
But this dual slant of opinion affects faculty mem
bers most often. Two widely divergent evaluations
of this profession are always in evidence. All esti
mates of the academic profession, its social status
and its measure of pay, are tinctured with one of
two assumptions, or more intriguing still, with a
blend of both.
One habit of speech places academic teachers
where the Chinese have in all times ranked their
scholars,—the world’s leaders in thought. There is
no lack of paragraphs wherein academic faculties
are respectfully saluted as pioneers of knowledge,
brave spiritual souls who for the sake of research
separate themselves from the world, to dwell apart
in companies of scholars, drawing about them a
younger generation to walk presently in their foot
steps.
The other way of thinking patronizingly regards
the academic teacher as a respectable type of public
drudge, a creature removed from realities whose
single undoubted merit is a special stock of infor
mation, more or less usefiil. The long-standing
scorn the man of action and the dilettante have for
the aloofness and eccentricity of a life removed
from the main business disciplines and devoted to
specialized and painstaking research, is still cur
rent and just now quite popular. The novelist, the
dramatist, the cartoonist and a wide following in
the press more often than not picture the professor

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

to a tittering public as an “ absent-minded beggar,”
stored, with special knowledge perhaps but ludi
crously ignorant of reality. Habits of speech fre
quently make it seem that what the professor offers
in the classroom is the penalty collegians pay for
the “ real” advantages of college life, social activi
ties and athletics. “ Literary” circles delight in de
picting academic faculties as assemblages of unin
spiring pedants, men and women of the passive type
isolated by native propensities, useful in a world of
action for little beyond perpetuating that which is
in good repute; dubiously serviceable even in their
own rut. At worst, there is the Shavian formula
that the professor does not act, he teaches and
teaches outworn truths at that. At best, the profes
sor figures in this version as the means whereby
society gets its active “ college bred” men and
women. *
Thus, the public and the profession itself oscillate
between extremes of characterization. The market
value of the scholar is the result. The community
treats this professional who higgles rarely or not at
all as it always treats the meek, especially those
meek whose additional peculiarities lead them to be
primarily interested in arranging and explaining
known phenomena or absorbed in the search after
new contributions to knowledge.
Accepting old canons out of the Greek world that
ally pioneering for facts with My Lady Poverty and
laud the alliance as the gospel in regard to goods
and services, the professor and the community en
dorse the creed that poverty is opportunity; the

GETTING AND SPENDING

public comfortably assumes that academic life is
inherently inexpensive.
Mild disdain on the one hand or high estimate of
spiritual sufficiency on the other both lead easily to
thinking that as a matter of course low salaries
suffice for this cloistered life. The two lines of rea
soning bring the same conclusion. To dwell apart
in pleasant places and in “ academic calm” need not
cost very much.
Incarcerated by the terms of his occupation in
classrooms and laboratories, the professor ’s require
ments in commodities and services are evidently
few. Even if valuable, the type need not be too
highly paid.
IV
But things have really changed. Effective minori
ties of the profession and of the public have out
grown this habit of mind. In reality the situation is
not actually what this ideology of the literati or of
the conservatives of the profession conceives it to be.
Institutional influences have made both the assump
tions of simple living and of academic isolation be
lated and untrue to the main facts.
The professor’s ways of living tend now toward
the standards and the ways of the world at large.
For better, for worse, he moves out into the gen
eral life or the public comes to him. In the world,
“ academics” hitherto relatively isolated, meet the
so-called “ upward” trend in the standard of living
that has touched all of us. Whether advisedly or
not, whether to his and to his contemporaries ’ ulti

THE PAT CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR 11

mate advantage or disadvantage is not the question.
The fact is that the average faculty man is caught
by the same influences which, to a greater or less
degree, draw all effective members of modern demo
cratic life into “ standardized” ways of living.
In the first place the professor is no longer a
celibate. As often as the rest of the world, he is a
married man. His salary must pay not only his
own living but also the rising costs of family life,
and these are rising costs for more reasons than the
rise in prices. Family life in universities takes on
continuously more of the pattern of the common life.
The facts now belie the thesis that professors live
more secluded than the majority whom the business
discipline chains inside an assigned task eight or
ten hours daily. But even were the thesis true, even
though the professor might be “ shut in,” his family
is not. The academic man’s wife and children have
become participating members of the community.
Going or gone are the days of gown separatism.
As often as not “ Town and Gown” meet now both
in civic affairs and in social life. The public school,
not education at home, fixes the aspirations of the
professor’s children. As consumers, these children
learn the “ new” plane of living that all who instruct
about American economic life present so enthusiasti
cally for the national delectation. The professor
himself may still pay homage to Franklin; but his
family takes over contemporary world habits of
spending. As consumers, professors’ families now
come near to sharing the common lot. Their desires
for goods and services are scarcely less tangled than

GETTING AND SPENDING

the demand of all those others who exercise con
sumers’ choices today. With the world at large,
the professor and his family have capitulated in
greater or less degree to the standardizing influ
ences that play unremittingly upon the purchasing
public to extend their wants. The lure of industrial
enterprise has caught even this small class of ra
tional spenders.
Here is indeed the type of consumer universally
classed as “ highest,” the consumer who exercises
individual and group choices, who is aware of alter
natives and reasons about them. But it requires
little reflection to recognize that even consumers
who, like those of the academic world, choose to
think, find themselves in their endeavors to be ra
tional torn by the two conflicting canons of spending
that are just now the vogue all over the world,
canons of spending that complicate and confuse
thought and action. When any of us think about a
rationale of expenditure, which is not often, a theory
about “ thrifty” spending competes for place with
a code of “ reputable” spending. At one and the
same time, a dual respect engages the imagination.
On the one hand, current rules arrest the attention,
rules about the way men should satisfy their wants,
whether the wants of the wage-earning class or any
other class. All these admonitions are so many neat
phrases exhorting to thrift and saving as the means
to wealth. In the main, all precepts about expendi
tures now appearing in black and white urge stout
resistance to new needs and praise a careful absti
nence in the interests of saving against hazards and

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

for new accumulations of capital. The professor’s
spending code thus accords with that of the public
moralists,—and just now, not only teachers but the
government, bankers, insurance men, and, store
keepers are among these public teachers of thrift.
But there is another convention about spending
wholly contradictory, possibly stronger. Blended
curiously with this announced respect for abstinence
and saving, runs a fine faith in the grand gesture
of easy spending. The conviction that spending
freely is a practical means to win material pros
perity is a belief dear to youth and to business.
It seems true to the facts to assert that belief in the
positive value of material prosperity, and a continu
ous show of it in ways of living is gaining upon the
opposite position.
It seems permissible to maintain that the essential
characteristic of the American standard of living
is not belief in abstinence, but rather this exuberant
creed that the scale of wants of individuals and
families must and should increase in volume, in
variety and in intensity; that expanding and varying
wants spell increase of personal happiness and gen
eral well-being. Undoubtedly, it can be said that,
explicitly or implicitly, this idea appears in every
land touched by the dreams the industrial revolution
has stirred. All economists sponsor the doctrine.
With less emphasis and explicitness perhaps than
Bastiat but by implication at least, in all schools of
economic theory we find this belief in the beneficent
effects of an expanding scale of wants usually called
a rising standard of living.

GETTING AND SPENDING

In the United States, however, the creed of the
personal and social utility of a “ rising standard of
living” applies more “ democratically” ; that is to
say, it reaches wider circles. Impelled by its
maxims, low income groups strain for “ higher”
standards. Almost without knowing it, the ‘‘reason
able” spender is also touched by it. His rationale
of spending implies more goods and services and
thus a desire for increased income wherewith to
purchase them.
Those who above all others believe they spend by
rational standards, that academic world which is
possibly the last stand of the “ rational” spender,
have also succumbed to the spender’s theory, more
slowly but quite as certainly.
So true is this that, perhaps more than any other
class in the community today, professors’ families
express the meeting of these two trends of influ
ence. To the writer at least it seems but slight
exaggeration to hold that the academic way of
spending is the American method of expenditure
per se. The story of spending shown in later chap
ters evidences plainly a theory of using income
that neither frankly accepts the standard of free
and easy spending, nor yet whole-heartedly en
dorses the old cautious standard of an exact and
continuous calculus of thrift. Eather it is a curi
ous combination of the two. Poor Eichard’s atti
tude toward goods and services still gets high en
comium from the academic world as it does from all
of us, though more especially from the well-to-do
whose marginal spending is least affected by the

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

rule. But in reality, even in academic circles, praise
of Poor Richard is now much of it lip service. As
it concerns use of goods and as far as income will
permit, the- economic behavior of professors- and
their families responds, even though with a percep
tible lag, to the precepts of the economist and the
practices of business. However they may talk about
the matter, like the effective minority in all income
classes of our contemporary world, many profes
sors as well as other folk see merit'and even service
to society in striving to be well-to-do and in spending
somewhat as the dominant income classes spend.
This shift in the theory and practice of spending,
first perhaps on the part of the professor’s family
and from them to him, accounts in great part for
the growing sense of an acute disproportion between
income and needs.
A word to avoid misconception.
Those who believe that men find knowledge and
wisdom best through dwelling apart from the world,
will look with regret or disfavor at this suggestion
of a change in the academic situation. Believers
in the high merit of the medieval disciplines of seclu
sion in poverty and humility may think low salary
the best means of attracting the class of men who
find knowledge and keep wisdom. Their position is
tenable.
But a discussion of what ought to be the main
springs for the consumption of goods is not to the
point here. Neither the theory that celebrates the
uses of adversity nor the opposite doctrine of the
close relation between material prosperity and

GETTING AND SPENDING

sound thinking is intentionally advocated. A trend
of things is explained. The situation described may
or may not he what ought to be. What appears
above is only the writer’s explanation of the “ hard
irreducible fact” that a new standard of living has
come into academic circles.
Certain other factors besides this change in the
theory of expenditure affect the erstwhile modest
needs of the professor. Certain alterations in aca
demic duties that conduce to widened human rela
tions also tend to extend the scale of wants and
thus add to the costs of living.
The busy world now comes to the professor in
various guises, forcing him out of his study. The
student body grows larger and more diversified,
more insistent in its calls for “ contact.” An out
side public enters university “ enclosures” with in
creasing frequency. Adults as well as adolescents
make their way to these “ halls of learning” asking
for “ adult education,” adding a complementary and
alluring task to the regular instruction of youth.
To these same “ academic shades,” all classes come
for “ expert” counsel on every conceivable subject.
In reality most successful universities are no longer
cloisters; rather they are market places. And into
these market places there enter also the world’s
prevailing spending ways, a more complex standard
that calls for more income.
Another influence that has changed the faculty
member’s way of living and increased its costs is
the fact that the field wherein research goes on

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR 17

has widened. Every one knows that university curri
cula now include new departments of inquiry and in
struction. The social sciences set up laboratories;
the applied sciences jostle the abstract sciènces.
Even the arts and crafts knock boldly at the sanctu
aries of “ culture for culture’s sake.” Often they
have already entered in. In face of à conservative
opposition, new groups of specialists appear in uni
versities. i The technician and the social scientist
are now alongside the classicist, the mathematician
and the physicist, dealing eagerly with “ things in
their complex entanglément. ’’ Eesponding to a welldefined utilitarian bias of mind, both with respect
to modern inquiry and modem education, one-half
at least of the work of the majority of faculty mem
bers now consists in training the younger generation
to meet the practical, the immediate in modern life.
Before he can explain current issues accurately,
the instructor must understand them himself. Un
less he touches the life that he interprets as cap
tain of education, he risks failure. The erstwhile
closet philosopher must go out into the world; he
does go out, to learn that he may instruct.
And it is not only as teacher and inquirer that he
hears the call to leave his study. Democratic in
stitutions today ask citizen service from all men
and women. The times exempt no one worth while
from a score of new civic duties and pleasures. For
some time past democratic notions about self-gov
ernment within the university have f orced even the
would-be recluse into faculty committees and other
administrative work. Now comes public service, a

GETTING AND SPENDING

fourth aspect of the academic “ job” often conceived
as research and instruction at most. Custom now
summons all loyal citizens to add social relation
ships, occupational or political, to the once para
mount duties and pleasures of hearth and home.
In many cases the academic faculty member admits
the pressure of these duties reluctantly. Sooner or
later, however, in one form or another, any faculty
member who has made good, finds himself drawn
into the general run of things, giving time to some
thing called “ public s e r v i c e . T h i s certainty of
more frequent meetings with men and affairs is note
worthy here particularly because it brings an almost
unavoidable alteration in spending habits and adds
new items to the cost of living.
To sum up. World notions about the “ neces
sary” items and quantities of food, clothing and
shelter alter; custom adds new items to the list
now sometimes called “ social needs” ; the general
tendency to the upward standardization of consump
tion passes even the barrier of university life and
men and women on faculties become for the most
part subject to the rising standard of living, that
delight of the economist and the nation.
And they do it whole-heartedly. The world trend
that refuses to tolerate the eccentric or caste ways
of living is rapidly changing the appearance of uni
versity life. Traditions notwithstanding, the pecu
liar way of living regarded as “ normal” for the
intellectual of other days now falls slowly perhaps
hut certainly into disrepute. Unless he is a genius,

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR 19

and as a matter of fact not then as a rule, the pro
fessor, American or any other, no longer allows him
self to be characteristically a “ queer” man, his head
in the clouds, his clothing peculiar and neglected,
his family restricted or differentiated in its way of
living. Indeed, it may safely be asserted that the
successful professor of our time is most often typi
cally ah alert man of affairs. Even though the aca
demic man studies the stars or the electron, for the
most part he steps readily and adaptably from his
laboratory into everyday life; he can face reality
without blinking. Though they strive to contem
plate the eternal verities, the humanist and the
natural scientist both will today commonly be found
seeking these verities where Socrates, Erasmus and
the great of all times have looked for them,—in fre
quent meetings with all sorts of men the world
over. In terminology here to the point, the “ aca
demic” now purposes meeting the current conven
tions of consumption squarely.
To the question, “ To be a professor, should a
man live the cloistered and ‘simple * life?”, the pro
fession itself and the world at large now answer
with increasing frequency and conviction, “ No.”
Long ago, Longfellow said the scholar should live
“ in the dark grey town.” In growing numbers the
scholars of today repeat this belief in the value and
the stimulus of a life that is “ liberal” in human
relations as well as in its educational aspirations.
Wherefore, while it may still be said that the uni
versities draw seekers after truth, by the terms of
that which many of them study and because of the

GETTING AND SPENDING

current trend in codes of behavior, “ seers” will not
live their lives too much apart; they mix with the
world and the world with them.
The new factors in academic life now briefly re
viewed all have place in a discussion of the ade
quacy of salary levels because each new influence
indicates some added expenditure. This nearer ap
proach of the common life to the professor and of
the professor to the common life; this widening of
the theory about the appropriate field for factual
inquiry and where a man must go to do his re
search, have done much to emphasize the narrow
limits of the professor’s salary. As the world is
now constituted, “ associationism” unavoidably
costs, in organization dues, in meals away from
home at public functions and the like. Not only be
cause costs of living have risen but also and more
because the intercourse with the general world al
ters and “ raises” the standard of living, does the
professor now feel underpaid. Social life, even
when the term in no sense implies what is com
monly known as society life, is dearer than the do
mestic life, much more costly than the cloistered life.
Pecuniarily speaking, wider contacts involve in
creased expenses. If, in addition to research and
teaching, professors are to do extension work; so
cial research; public service; citizen service;—in
creased income becomes a necessity.
It seems fair to believe that in principle at least
the world agrees to this change. Even when paying

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROEESSOR 21

lip homage to one or another of the traditional con
ventions about the profession, the public in general
and the American public in particular really want
college professors and want to think of them as de
sirably men of the world even though also “ ahead of
it” or “ above it.” Not only does the public want
the class; it wants the members of the profession to
look like other people; to behave like other people;
to take their place on even terms with other profes
sionals. Indeed, the professor who in the universi
ties of today elects to lead a strictly domestic and
sequestered life can scarcely expect his public to
consider him a success. Consciousness of this fact
gives one more prod to the desire of the younger
generation of faculty members, and to their wives
perhaps more than to them, to have the pecuniary
chances of those in other professional occupations.
The new restlessness under traditionally lagging
salaries is then only an aspect of that tendency to
standardization of consumption and to a rising
standard, of living which our age views on the whole
with -the greatest complacency. Like the rest of
the world, faculties are now touched by the fact that
the scale of wants of all income groups has shifted,
intensified, and increased in volume and that adver
tisers see to it that new temptations to “ wise spend
ing” replace older canons of thrift through going
without. When academic faculties begin to expect
to live as most men live, when they become imbued
with the average American’s ideas of self-support,
of family responsibility, of ways of living and of

GETTING AND SPENDING

the duty of social relationships, the desire for the
income necessary to lead such a life becomes acute
and is justified by prevailing concepts. The pro
fessor and the professor’s wife have not responded
to market influences as quickly as other consumers;
their change in standard has moved more slowly;
their choices are still relatively speaking more care
fully considered. But the change has taken place.
The consequence of this new urge to live as other
professionals live is the sharp irritation about the
salary scale now evident all over the country.
V
The risk that, suitable income failing, young men
will turn from academic life is no fanciful one.
Standing at the cross-roads and comparing the op
portunities in university life with other openings,
young men are heard to say with alarming fre
quency, “ I want to stay but I can’t afford to” ; “ I
can’t ask a woman to make the sacrifice necessary if
I adopt this career where even success promises so
little pecuniary return as compared with the possi
bilities elsewhere.”
If the upper levels of salary at least are not
shortly made comparable in some degree with the
best pay in other professions; if the services of the
first few years are not soon paid for with a sum
that will buy the minimum of a professional stand
ard, it seems easily demonstrable that universities
stand to lose their most able and aggressive
teachers.

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR 23

For the means to search for new truth are now
obtainable outside academic life. Opportunities to
satisfy the research impulse that is primary in de
ciding men and women to lead a university life pre
sent themselves with increasing frequency. Com
petition for good research workers is active.. Pub
lic and private foundations for research increase in
number, annually bidding generously for those who
love to probe into the unknown. These foundations
for special research in medical and social problems
also set enviable standards of opportunity, work and
pay. Business enterprise is entering just now upon
investigations of many sorts requiring full-time
work on problems of true research and, as is the
way of business when seeking talent, is offering
more attractive pay. Public service, too, presents
similar openings. Excepting in the government
bureaus and lately even in some of these, the salaries
outside universities are uniformly higher than those
paid within the universities. Association with re
search foundations has the additional advantages
that, in the first place, apparatus, secretarial service,
books, all the modern facilities for investigation still
largely lacking in the vast majority of the colleges
of the country are made available without stint,
and that, in the second place, neither teaching nor
administrative work interrupts the search for new
facts.
Admitting the correctness of the position sketched
above as to the shift in the standard of living and
adding these considerations about the new oppor
tunity at better pay, it is evident that the universi

GETTING AND SPENDING

ties must meet this new competition or research
agencies will draw men of imagination and initiative
away from the colleges, leaving the conduct of uni
versity education to classroom plodders.
VI
If the picture now roughly sketched is true, if the
standard of living has risen and salaries paid now
are insufficient to meet a “ fair” professional stand
ard of living, what is to be done about it?
Can ways and means to assure reasonable income
through earnings be devised, or is the provision for
salaries to those who adopt this profession so inalterably fixed by custom and by available funds that
the average professor must unquestioningly accept
the low amounts now offered him or leave the pro
fession? Are the communities that support univer
sities going to keep their complex attitude toward
the profession and select through a low payroll only
those willing to continue to try to drive upstream
to medieval simplicity? or are they going to accept
the results of enforced conformity to the ways of
the world and pay the costs of that conformity?
Ordinarily, in medieval times, scholars had no
income, no fixed earnings. The church, some pri
vate foundation or a wealthy patron provided for
the personal and professional needs of the members
of the profession, usually celibates. From one or
all these sources the seeker after knowledge unhesi
tatingly accepted gifts of any size obtainable. Far
into the nineteenth century scholars and teachers

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR

connected a celibate life, even a cloistered life of
dependence, -with the “ search for truth.” Must
the source of adequate support for the “ poor
scholar” and his research be the bounty of the
wealthy, a source that is often kindly and generous
but usually insecure? or will the general public de
cide to pay the present real costs of a professor’s
living as determined by the usual influences con
trolling costs of living?
In the old world and on the Atlantic coast, in an
swer to this query we are often told that adequate
pay is impossible and that those who select this pro
fession must be “ independent” members of society.
Either, it is argued, aspirants to academic life
should belong to the propertied classes and thus
bring some vested income to their work, or they
must marry wealth. The proponents of this position
maintain that salaries can be considered only as
payment for part-time service, a sort of retainer in
return for loyalty to a given institution.
But this solution fits no modern theory of due re
turn for effort. Our times call for pay that at least
meets “ the overhead” costs of the worker and holds
that salary shall not be advisedly called a subsidy.
Universities are no more entitled to the benefits
derived from the independent resources of faculty
members than any other class of employer is so en
titled. If the facts of this study are as typical as
there seems warrant for believing, evidently no large
percentage of the faculty members in our universi
ties really brings personal incomes or the incomes of
rich wives to subsidize their living costs. As a rule,

GETTING AND SPENDING

the profession comes to its work from all income
groups and should be assumed so to come. Only the
small proportion common to the general population
can count on vested income. Like the world at
large, most faculty members must earn their own
way. The outworn notion that universities are jus
tified in obtaining services paid for only in part
must therefore be discarded.
There seems room for some optimism. In other
directions when it has become plainly evident that
money is needed, slowly but certainly, with suf
ficient pressure, public and private appropriations
have been increased to meet the need. For example,
the call for funds to support research has been so
clear and resounding in recent years that more en
dowments and in larger sums than ever before are
now available to carry on such work.
The call to consider the question of the salary
scale of academic faculties has possibly not yet been
made explicitly enough. Thus far, the question of
the professor’s pay check has been discussed
either with sympathy or with “ loveless pity” by
certain empty-handed persons in the community, or
with intermittent petulance or characteristic irony
by members of the profession who have either be
come embittered in it, are about to leave it or have
left it.
Evidences of another period are in sight. Al
ready the alumni of a few universities have raised
specific funds to meet the situation. The advantages
resulting for both professor and institution are de-

THE PAY CHECK AND THE PROFESSOR 27

monstrable. The business man and the taxpayer
must see the question clearly as a public issue; then
they will act. When every citizen will ask himself
some pertinent challenging questions concerning the
reality of his respect for faculties in universities,
this soul-searching must bring an answer. If a nega
tive opinion of the social value of the class results,
not more money should be spent, rather less; or
none. Given such a decision, the millions now be
ing set aside for the purpose are wasted. But if
the time-honored status of the profiession can be re,affirmed, if public opinion emphasizes once again
older doctrines about the social serviceability of
academic faculties, then increased allotments for
salary should and will become available.
With clearer sense of the professor’s utility and
the new truism that cheap labor is dear labor as fur
ther guide and stimulus, the informed citizen will
look to his public finances. In war-time, ingenuity
raised vast sums. In peace-time as well, with con
viction crystallized, the necessary sum whatever its
size can also be raised. If opinion can be shaped
and fortified by fact, the academic world will be paid
enough to meet the requirements of modern life,
and the return for academic services will no longer
be the two-thirds subsidy which this study suggests
most salaries now represent.

CHAPTER I
ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY
I

What follows is an inquiry into the costs of that
type of professional living which academic life
typifies at present. Along with the costs, the study
shows in detail the main classes of goods and serv
ices that 96 faculty families bought under the influ
ence of customs, conventions, fashions and opinions
that shaped their “ academic” standard of living in
the year 1922 and in the city of Berkeley where the
University of California is situated.
The central problem to be answered was this:
What is the cost of the way of living that, following
current American conventions, college faculties as
cribe to themselves? Does the prevailing salary
scale meet these costs?
This inquiry is thus first of all a cost of living
study. The data herein given should be, and are
believed to be, a fair index of a standard of con
sumption, the costs of that standard and the rela
tive sufficiency of certain salaries in relation to it.
It is fully recognized that a cost of living study
is only one among several means to measure the
adequacy of a wage or salary scale. Given prevail
ing conventions, a display of the cost of living in
28

ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY

relation to needs is neither the only criterion nor
perhaps, all the facts considered, the fairest crite
rion of the appropriateness of a given rate of pay.
The criteria of services rendered, of “ productivity, ”
of bargaining power, and even a simple com
parison of pay in similar occupations still compete
for place with that principle of payment according
to needs which is the real point of departure of cost
of living studies. Indeed, the other tests have on
the whole wider acceptance than the test of needs.
The utility of each of these tests is fully admitted.
But cost of living studies are none the less respect
able aids for both sides making a bargain. If not
final determinants of the wage scale, they certainly
make valuable talking points.
Whatever the logic of the situation, prevailing
usage certainly justifies using the cost of living to
clarify debates about the appropriateness of given
wage and salary levels. Since the opening of the
twentieth century, especially since 1917, as fluctu
ating prices have stimulated a new interest in de
fining the elements of various levels of living, budget
studies have become an integral part of every dis
pute about the rate and range of pay. Some “ total
cost” is reached by old or new methods,—by the
simple cost estimate, by the use of the account book
and the interview, or by the quantity and cost esti
mate.
II
It is probable that each and all these methods of
examining the costs of family life have their un

GETTING AND SPENDING

doubted limitations, just as it is true that, except in
times of rapidly rising prices such as the years just
past, tests .of adequacy other than the cost of living
have right of way: These considerations notwith
standing, this study by the account book and inter
view method should be of some use for more reasons
than merely because these budgets show a real dis
crepancy between costs of living and salary income.
An analysis of getting and spending such as this,
an analysis that shows how 96 families of consumers
actually used their purchasing power,—exchanged
money for goods,—gives other information besides
the cost of living. In addition, the study shows in
the first place, and with considerable detail, a sample
of the earnings and the supplementary incomes of a
professional class. Data regarding the sources, the
amounts and the variations of family incomes are
still sufficiently scarce to permit the hope that the
facts collected here contribute something.
Secondly, since the major household wants of pro
fessional families are enumerated and segregated,
the tables sample in broad relief professional habits
of selecting economic goods and services and show
the direction, the relative occurrence and the em
phasis of expenditures at this level of income and
standard of consumption.
Finally, since these are the expenditures of “ ra
tional” professional consumers, the tables have also
a certain scarcity value.
A moment’s reflection will remind the informed
reader that the facts now available about habits of
spending show for the most part the spending ways

ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY

of two classes of consumers only. The first of these,
the largest group in all human societies, are the
‘‘m asses/’ the poor, those who live more or less
below their own standard of living. The second is
a small class of persons set apart by the fact that
they are exceptionally desirous of freeing their
spending from brainless wastefulness.
Another small but outstanding class, the so-called
“ spenders,” a class that includes a varied lot of
persons, is an important group about which nothing
is known accurately. These are the consumers who
get what they want when they want it; who force
their income or their credit ever upward to meet
needs that are largely dictated by the traditions of
competitive display, the love of ease, of comfort,
and of rapid change. It is these purchasers who
have no standard but a rising standard, an expen
sive standard. The ways of such spenders are a fa
vorite theme of the dramatist and the novelist; the
scenario writer today fixes the envious regard of
the masses upon them. Though the “ thrifty,”
whether rich or poor, point at them the finger of
scorn; though as a group such consumers pass gen
erally as highly “ immoral” or at least unmoral,
none the less, like other criminals and semi-crimi
nals, these spenders are much in the public fancy.
Consciously or unconsciously, the imagination of
most of us plays around that selection of goods and
services dear to such as these. But records of ex
penditures are anathema to this class. Also the
class submits to no questioning, rarely even to self
questioning. Thus far the scientist has passed

GETTING AND SPENDING

them by.1 Only the two other classes have hitherto
been the subjects of investigation.
The first of the two classes usually studied spends
as it goes and as “ needs must” forces it. The mass
of published household expense histories and “ esti
mates” are displays of the goods and services these
low-skilled wage workers buy. We know much
about the spending ways of the poor because, on
the whole, unskilled wage-earners’ families have
been less inclined, or perhaps less able, to avoid
the questioning of investigators interested in them
or in their standards of living. Thus, the major
part of the “ budget” studies past and present, in
tensive or extensive, in Europe or the United States,
shows the distribution of expenditures for those
masses of a given population who live at or near
the “ subsistence” level. At all times, these family
groups with low and irregular incomes supply
themselves with meager and routinized dietaries,
with elothing that is cast-off or common; with dwell
ing-places equally cast-off and common. “ Higher
wants” are “ satisfied” spasmodically in a short
though slowly lengthening list. All these studies
of family expenditures are proof that a low level of
earning power dries up a deep-set impulse to exer
cise choice. As exhibits of spending ways, this
largest class of budget studies permits a generaliza
tion. The facts they assemble show plainly that
small and insecure incomes breed a chronic dread of
pauperism, accompanied by, if not actually causal to,

1 Except of course as Veblen in his Theory of the Leiswre Class has
paid his respects to them with his well-known brilliant generaliza
tions about conspicuous waste.

ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY

a dull patience that balks the human craving for va
riety which the economist and the business man value
so highly. Thus low purchasing power is cause and
effect of that “ unconscious acquiescence of habit”
expressed by “ low” and routine ways of living.
The second class of budget studies includes in
general, persons educated to expend “ reasonably”
and for “ solid satisfactions” ; which means, of
course, spending according to a tradition well recog
nized though not easy to describe accurately. For
this class of spenders the proclaimed object of all
purchases is the satisfaction of physical and cultural
needs which have after judicial deliberation been
selected as “ real” or “moral.” One leading char
acteristic, the convention of “ simplicity,” may
safely be indicated. The major influence directing
choice is essentially a habit of resistance to innova
tion. Canons controlling the consumer’s selection
pronounce for durability, for costliness whenever it
pays and only then; against the whimsical in fash
ion. The point of departure is “ get your money’s
worth.”

The expense histories contained in this study be
long on the whole to this second class of spenders.
The standard of living presently to be shown is
thus somewhat apart. The study increases by one
a very small group of previous investigations that
give precisely the nature and the costs of a year’s
satisfaction of household needs at a middle-class,
professional or comfort standard.
Viewed as an earning group, the breadwinners

GETTING AND SPENDING

studied here are of +he class that draws salary.
Thus, these families have a flow of income that
however small is at least regular and secure as
compared with earnings of wage workers, which
come in uncertainly day by day, or even as con
trasted with the larger but relatively irregular and
uncertain fees of the doctor or the lawyer.
But the standard of living that directed the ex
penditure of money in these 96 households is the
same as that of the doctor and the lawyer. It is
the nebulous though reputable brand of spending
theory popularly known as a “ simple” or “ com
fort” standard of living. The scale of living is a
middle-class, professional, American standard of
living.
The standard of these families may with good
reason and without evidence of bias be thus credit
ably labelled. The way faculty families want to
live, that is, the “ standard” of living they ascribe
to themselves has, I think, never raised any chal
lenge of luxury living. On the contrary, it has
been usual to recognize it as a scale of living where
emphasis falls on wants for that class of needs most
commonly indicated by the dubious term, “ higher
goods.” In theory and method, the ways of expen
diture shown in the tables which follow certainly
conform to methods of using income most widely
considered exemplary;—which is not, however, the
same as to say that these are the spending ways
generally regarded as the most enviable.
The standard guiding these household expendi
tures is not only the “ exemplary middle-class’’ or

ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY

“ comfort” standard; it is also tlie standard of the
professional. The isolations and traditions of aca
demic life may “ rationalize” it slightly but the
scheme of spending probably does not otherwise
diverge far from the average in other professional
groups. The trend of the times already discussed,
a trend that acts with increasing force to lead the
professor away from his study, or to direct the
public to that erstwhile “ closet,” rapidly irons out
any differences that may still exist between profes
sionals. The professor may, like the minister and
government official, be a poor relation among pro
fessionals. Nevertheless he is evidently of the class,
subject to the same general vocational disciplines
and exemptions and with the same objectives that
shape the standards of all professionals.
Lastly it seems reasonable to call the standard
of living these budgets express, the American stand
ard of living per se. First, this is the American
standard because it is a professional standard. The
statement that the aspiration of all Americans
strains toward the professional life and toward a
professional standard of living is surely too obvi
ously true to need supporting argument. What
standard but this has American youth been admon
ished to strive for?
Perhaps less obviously but at least to the author
quite as plainly, this standard of expenditure is
American because in the scheme of spending the
chief stress is laid upon “ higher w ants.A m erican
spending precepts always emphasize “wants for
higher goods.” Particularly the median expendi

GETTING AND SPENDING

tures of these families show all the spending aspira
tions conservative Americans permit themselves.
The tables show always a standard disciplined by
and respectful of the currently preferred commu
nity conventions about using money.
Then too, the standard is American because the
expenditures show the influence of the dual national
standard already described wherein keen respect
for thrift competes with approval of a generous sat
isfaction of increasing wants. Many of the spenders
in view in the tables presently exhibited, took evi
dent pride in thinking themselves among the few
left who tread the Smilesian paths of thrift. Most
of them professed allegiance enforced or real to
‘‘Poor Richard’s ’’ rules of spending. But with rare
exception these 96 families illustrate the tendency
Yeblen first pointed out in explicit terms—the ten
dency for the standard of living to go as high as
earning power “ with a consistent tendency to go
higher.” The tables show plainly how, on the one
hand protecting its own repute so to speak, this
group responds to the levelling-up trend now af
fecting all classes of American consumers, charity
levels of living not excepted. The “ new known
goods” such as automobiles for instance, appear as
additions to its scale of wants. On the other hand,
thrift, particularly in the purchase of food and
clothing, is evidently an inherent part of their
scheme of things.
Since then these household accounts show thrifty
and reasoned spending according to a standard that
desires “ simple,” “ comfortable” living and since,

ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY

at the same time, they express the professional’s
preferences as a consumer, it seems fair to say that,
in an exact sense, these tables show spending at the
“ American” standard of life and that the way of
living hereinafter appearing expresses in items and
costs 96 attempts to use income according to the
national standard of living, the nation’s received
theory of spending.

Naming the general standard these budgets show
does not necessarily illustrate precisely the stand
ard which directed the expenditures these expense
histories detail.
Such exact specifications are rarely available but
they are at hand for these budgets. Certain mem
bers of the 96 academic families have put on record
their theory about what they considered a “ reason
able” standard of living for their occupational
group. Recently, the stock of needs a professor’s
family may justifiably consider “ right and proper”
has been worked out. It seems useful to preface
the tables that follow with a brief of this analysis
of the academic standard. When all is said, the
specifications given remain sufficiently and unde
sirably incomplete and subjective. However, as
compared with anything else of the kind available,
the statement is definite and inclusive enough to
merit a brief statement.
The immediate circumstance that brought out this
analysis of a standard of consumption considered
“ just” for a professor,—for which read, that stand

GETTING AND SPENDING

ard believed to be customarily recognized,—was an
article that appeared in the U niversity of C alifornia
Chronicle of October, 1922.
When prices began to skyrocket after 1914, when
the rising costs of living emphasized more sharply
the fact of lagging salaries, the faculty at the Uni
versity of California, like the academic world every
where, felt the strain upon their habitual standards
of living. By 1921 protests at first occasional and
mild had acquired force and acrimony.
The authorities finally took account of the situa
tion. In 1922 a change in the salary scale was an
nounced. The new arrangement gave instructors
$1,800 to $2,200 with promotion each year for
three years if work was acceptable; assistant pro
fessors $2,400 to $2,700 on a similar three year pro
motion plan; associate professors $3,000 to $3,900;
professors, a minimum of $4,000 and a maximum,
for a very few, of $8,000.
An article in the U n iversity C hronicle 1 reviewed
the salary scale announced. Admitting that the
raise in pay was neither notable nor one that caught
up to the recent rise in prices, it was argued that
none the less the salary scale represented a suf
ficiency and that the announced system of advance
ment in rank and salary, on the one hand secured the
University against superannuation and incompe
tence, and at the same time gave able men a new
certainty of fairness. Expressing the conviction
that the “ plan was adequate’’ and might serve to

1 Barrows, David P., What are the prospects of a university pro
fessor? University of California Chronicley April, 1922. Vol. xxiv,
p. 192.

ECONOMIC UTILITY OF THE STUDY

draw and hold men of “ patience, courage and sobri
ety, ’’-^those men who loved “ quiet for research and
writing,” the essential opportunities of a pro
fessor’s working life,—the author said he believed
the new salary scale “ promised outside the work
hour, wife, children, a few hooks and freedom from
the anguish and humiliation of debts.”
This essay and especially, I think, the “ simple,”
sober, unpopular standard of living it implied,
aroused strong feeling in certain quarters. In par
ticular, the professor’s wife raised her voice. Col
laborating with eight other wives of the faculty,
Dorothy Hart Bruce published a protest.2 These
nine wives of faculty members, all in excellent stand
ing, give their answer to the important question,
what is a college couple warranted in considering a
legitimate way of living and what are the necessary
costs of such a standard of consumption?
In brief, their theory of this professional stand
ard and the amount it would cost runs about as fol
lows :
College professors may justifiably claim:—food
of the simplest with very occasional meals away
from home; clothing of a quality sufficiently good to
keep from being “ ashamed” ; a house large enough
to make it unnecessary “ to move again before the
birth of the second baby,”—a house with at least
two bedrooms,—desirably with a study, and some
quarters for help. The house operation allotment,

“Bruce, Dorothy Hart, What are the prospects of the university
professor’s wife? University of California Chronicle, October, 1922.
Vol. xxiv, No. 4, pp. 508-531.

GETTING AND SPENDING

it was decided, ought to be enough to include pay
ments for water, light, fuel, laundry, repairs (in
cluding the garden and its upkeep), and some sur
plus for service. Income ought to furnish at least
a minimum for savings, set at 10%. Maintenance
of health was set at a minimum cost of $120, ex
clusive of special illnesses or special dental work,
which it was recognized might suddenly run nearer
a thousand. The right to satisfy a modest desire
for books, music, the theatre, travel and entertain
ment of friends was taken for granted.
The “ academic” standard of living having been
thus outlined at a minimum, it was then bluntly
asked: “ Can the University salary scale satisfy
these requirements even in their most modest ex
pression?” “ Given the salary scale proposed, what
has the wife of a professor to expect of life?”
“ What can a university couple do with the amount
the man receives in return for his engrossing work
at the university?”
These questions were answered after (1) talks
with “ a number of the most intelligent, capable and
level-headed” of the faculty wives; and (2) a re
view, on the part of these nine wives, of their own
experience with the current costs of living.
A rough-hewn quantity and cost estimate testified
to what the authors believed represented in Berke-.
ley, and in the year 1921, the unavoidable expenses
of a faculty family of two adults. This estimate led
to the conclusion that “ the least sum by which this
type of family by ‘extreme hard work’ and ‘due
sacrifice ’ can meet their entirely legitimate and rea

ECONOMIC UTILITY OP THE STUDY

sonable expenses” was $248 or $258.85 a month,
that is, about $3,000 a year.
Moreover, it was held that the sum of $3,000 a
year would be enough only on condition that (1)
there were not debts as was so often the case, money
obligations holding over from the long period of
training absolutely required before a man can get
the post of instructorship; (2) that no dependents
outside the home,*neither parents nor other rela
tions, were to be cared for; (3) that there were no
children. The arrival of a child, it was estimated,
would cost $5003 and therefore it was declared,
a couple desiring two children must be able to set
aside $20.80 a month for four years to provide for
their coming.
)
When a total is given that does “ not allow a dol
lar for books, for the doctor, for medicine, for the
dentist, for any amusement, for any vacation nor
for the birth, food, clothes or care of a child,” the
student of “minimum,’’ estimates recognizes in this
“ estimate” a close relation to the many others
where a “ total” was made up before including the
costs of imperative social needs.
In the way described these wives concluded that

? Estimates of the cost of being born become slowly available. One
estimate recently made by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Com
pany sets the average costs of the birth of a child at between two and
three hundred dollars for medical and hospital charges alone. An
estimate made by the Heller Research Committee of the probable
costs, if the doctor’s requirements at the present standard of health
care are respected, proved to be about $375 including a layette
already made and the services of a specialist at $100. A careful
record of the arrival of her first baby, October, 1924, handed me by
a young mother who kept her accounts accurately, put the figure at
$888.26. This figure however included the purchase of a new washing
machine at $150.

GETTING AND SPENDING

with the salaries now offered them, unless they had
outside incomes, instructors and even professors
could not meet the scale of living that habit and cir
cumstance justified. Failing income from property,
they declared that the low salary scale forced a
faculty member to do outside work, overtime work,
in order to supplement income; that such work fre
quently reacted adversely upon his health and teach
ing ; even more frequently affected his progress in re
search and thus his status in the University and the
world, while at the same time it balked his native
propensities. Further, they found that all overtime
efforts of the man notwithstanding, these low sala
ries could not ordinarily be sufficiently supple
mented to make it possible to pay for domestic
service. As consequence it was stated that perforce
academic men’s wives dedicated themselves unre
mittingly and for years to household tasks. Since
as a group, women who married into the profession
were specialized women “ of education, refinement
and good taste,” with traditions that lead them to
the more ladylike pursuit of the fine arts and of
hospitality rather than to routine domestic work,
these years of strain, of trying to content themselves
with being “nothing more than a good cook, house
maid, seamstress, nurse and washerwoman,” it was
asserted, broke their health and constituted, a long
drudgery which undermined the morale of many of
them.
Here is their conclusion in their own words:
“ Thus it appears that the professor’s wife, if
illness, or children or other dependents have any

ECONOMIC UTILITY OP THE STUDY

part in her life, cannot expect her husband to have
leisure for research either during or between semes
ters, cannot expect freedom from debt, cannot ex
pect her husband’s income to increase in propor
tion to the increase in the size of their family and
the needs of his growth and of her own, cannot
expect sabbatical years, cannot expect any material
expression in her home of her love of comfort and
beauty, or any intellectual or artistic quality in her
daily occupations; in fact can expect little but house
work.”
y

Thus, to the question “ Does the average salary
paid in a university buy the level of living which a
professor thinks himself entitled to,” the wives
of the professors answered emphatically “ n o . ”
The direct reason for making the study whose re
sults appear here was the desire to test the validity
of their position by a more searching and sustained
inquiry.
Obviously other queries are pertinent. It might
be asked, What level of living is a professor really
entitled to ? Could not the range of salaries, or at
least the average salary of the professor, buy all
that reasonable desires ask for?
Such questions may not be answered with confi
dence. Only those will dare, who have adopted some
positive theory of “ wise” spending. To state what
it is reasonable to desire is to indulge in a specula
tion. Data for any physiological or psychological
certainties in this regard are still wanting.

GETTING AND SPENDING

Given tlie present lack of knowledge about real
needs and nurture needs, safety in deciding on a
reasonable scale of living lies in an appeal to current
ideas of tbe proprieties in the use of goods.
There seems good ground for contending that the
only fair gauge of any standard of living, and just
now the only ground on which it may be called
“ reasonable,’’ is the way of living most widely ac
cepted as “ right and proper” for a given class.
As Mill pointed out long ago, standards of consump
tion are human institutions. To date, our scanty
stock of knowledge regarding what is physically
useful influences our standards of living but slightly.
Sumner's position that “ the standard of living is
the measure of decency and suitability in material
comfort, (diet, dress, dwelling, etc.) which is tradi
tional and habitual in a group,” states the bald fact.
It will not I think be doubted that the budgets ana
lyzed here conform to the traditions and habits of
the professional class under consideration. Thus
they index a level of living to which the professor
is “ entitled” by accepted custom.
Further, it might be asked,—were the incomes
of these academic men of whatever size expended to
the best advantage?
To answer this query calls for some criterion
as to what is the best advantage. That criterion
is the accredited American plan for spending. If,
as the writer believes and has already stated, these
budgets express America’s “ standard” way of us
ing income, that way which convention and opinion
in this country most often agree to approve, then

ECONOMIC UTILITY OP THE STUDY

these professors are thereby shown to have spent
their incomes to the best advantage, as their world
estimates the meaning of “ best.”
The attempt to argue the position taken here has
its attractions. The temptation must however be
resisted. In this connection and at this time, it
seems best to rest content with simply naming the
expenditure level and classifying the expenditure
methods the study shows. On proof to the contrary
but not until then will it be admitted that this picture
of getting and spending is other than that medias res
which preceptors teaching us how to spend the
family income extol as “ correct.’’ Since habits of
consumption very like those shown here are taught
in the many books now giving dogmatic creeds of
how to spend family income wisely, until evidence
of error is available it will be assumed that students
of consumption may study here the way careful
Americans spend when trying to make both ends
meet and to use their incomes after an approved
national standard of expenditure.
Tabulation of the standard of living or expendi
ture level thus adopted has modified the finding in
no way. Neither the plan of the investigation, the
collection of the data, nor their interpretation, has,
it is believed, been affected by the writer’s way of
classifying this group of spenders. The definite
display of the ways in which faculty families earn
and spend) immediately following, should give evi
dence upon which persons interested in spending
ways may base their own conclusions.

CHAPTER II
THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
I. S chedule

The facits on which this study of 96 academic
families is based were collected in six weeks during
December, 1922, and January, 1923.
The schedule 1 and the instructions were planned
to procure a detailed account of the incomes and
the expenditures of each of the 96 families during
the year December 1,1921, to December 1, 1922. As
means to analyze the social relationships and the de
tails of income and expenditure, the form of the
schedule proved sufficiently workable.
II. C o l l e c t in g t h e D a t a
The data were all collected through interviews.
Each interview was arranged for in advance and a
schedule form sent out before the investigator’s
visit so that the family might be as fully as possible
prepared with the facts desired when the visitor
called.
The interviewers were all trained college gradu
ates, all but one of them graduate students, some of
them also wives of faculty members. Most of them
had done previous field work,—all of them were ex‘ See appendix.

THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

perienced in the problems of household expenditure.
They were not paid.
III. R e l ia b il it y o p t h e D a t a
As to those interviewed, the investigators re
ported meeting everywhere a generous effort to
make each schedule as accurate as possible. The
thoughtfulness, genuine interest and superior train
ing of the family groups under investigation guaran
tee the relative reliability of the information.
Those who gave the facts for this somewhat intru
sive and detailed schedule did it in a spirit of can
dor and co-operation, cordial and conscientious
enough to warrant a sense of security about the
data. When called upon to live up to their agree
ment, the vast majority of the families that con
sented to give a year’s record were found ready.
All resources for making the record accurate had
been requisitioned. Where they had been kept, ac
count books were freely put at the disposal of the
interviewers. When, as in 60% or more of the cases,
there were no account books, check books and bills
for the previous year were as freely made accessible
to the interviewers. These schedules are, in large
proportion, pecuniary estimates of annual expen
ditures rather than bona fide expense histories. But
when made as these estimates were, such family ex
pense histories compare favorably it is believed with
expense accounts kept under surveillance for a given
number of weeks or months. With rare exceptions,
the sources of income and the spending policies were
frankly analyzed as check upon the figures. In

GETTING AND SPENDING

general, the habits of spending proved to be care
fully planned and more or less inevitably routinized
as, for that matter, most household expenditures
prove to be on investigation. The interviewers re
ported none of the tendencies usual in studies of this
sort. No one wanted to exaggerate or underesti
mate his expenditures though many deplored the
nature of the cold facts they gave. The desire was
not so much to make a showing, good or bad, as to
furnish the real facts and to await the interpretation
of the data. The method of selection secured the in
terviewers against the limitations of many earlier
studies of the same kind. Nothing of the indiffer
ence, the suspicions or the inflations dictated by
pride that have so often baffled other interviewers
was met with among the families investigated.
TV. The P rice Level
The price level herein recorded is that of 1922,
a year when the prices for necessaries had dropped
well below the peak of 1920. In the San Francisco
Bay region the index number fluctuated during
1922 between 164 (December, 1921), and 157 (Sep
tember, 1922).2 In Berkeley the costs of housing
were at that time notably high, possibly because
Berkeley, also, had its full share of the national
housing shortage.
V. T he

M ethod

S e l e c t in g

the

F a m il ie s

The families selected are, it is believed, typical of
the group they belong to. The survey contemplated
3 December, 1914 = 100%.

49
a study of faculty families permanently settled in
Berkeley. The plan thus excluded those engaged
in the University’s work elsewhere, as in the South
ern Branch at Los Angeles and at the Medical School
in San Francisco. Though resident in Berkeley, the
members of the Department of Military Science and
Tactics were also omitted because of their different
relation to the University. Lecturers in residence
for less than a year were likewise excluded from
this investigation.
A count showed the total membership of the
faculty at Berkeley to consist of 433 persons hold
ing the ranks of professor, associate professor, as
sistant professor, instructor and associate, and giv
ing what the administration considered full-time
instruction. Obviously a study of families excluded
the unmarried members of the faculty as well as the
widowers and widowed. This unmarried class
proved to be represented by 186 persons or 43%
of the total faculty. (Table I.) When set apart,
the married proved to be made up of 247 persons or
57% (Table I) of the faculty. The census of 1920
reports 60% of the population as married. The pro
portion of 57% married faculty members and 43%
not married thus corresponds roughly to the general
tendencies for the country as a whole.
It is interesting to note that when marital rela
tions are correlated with rank (Table I) the aca
demic rank affects the percentage of the faculty
assuming matrimonial responsibility in just the
way that might be expected. As the rank ap
proaches the professorship, there is a steady int h e m eth o d of in v e st ig a t io n

GETTING AND SPENDING

crease in the percentage of those married. In the
lowest rank 20% only are married; in the highest
rank—that of professor—75% are married.3
T able
P roportion'

M arried a n d op S in g le P ersons
A cademic R a n k

T otal
F aculty *
A cademic Ra n k

No.

Married

Per
Cent No.

E ach

S ingle

Per
Cent No.

Per
Cent

All ranks ................................. 433 100.0 247 57.0 186 43.0
Associate ........................
80.2
81 100.0
16
19.8
65
Instructor ............................... 53 100.0 25 47.2
52.8
28
Assistant Professor ............. 105 100.0 63 60.0
40.0
42
27.6
Associate P rofessor............. 76 100.0 55 72.4
21
25.4
Professor ................................. 118 100.0 88 74.6
30
* Departments at Berkeley, excluding Department of Military Science
and Tactics.

VI. N a t u r e o p F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t io n
A. Relative Number of Total Married Persons
Included.—Invitations were sent to the 247 married
members of the faculty, asking if investigators
might call to get the information desired for a study
of the cost of living an academic life.
One hundred and twenty-one or a little less than
50% of the 247 refused this invitation.
As to the reasons for refusing to share in the
study, no reply was received in 17 cases. Accord
ing to preference, this silence may be interpreted
to indicate indifference, carelessness or disapproval.
’ These figures may or not have significance as related to income.
Instructors are at the typical “marrying age.” It would look as
though low pay postponed the period. But without more facts on
this point, generalization is probably unwise.

THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

Thirty-six refused without giving a reason, 11 fam
ilies pleaded illness or bereavement that made the
year too exceptional to warrant sharing in the
study. The majority of those who refused really
camouflaged lack of interest by pleading lack of time
or inclination to do thé necessary work.
The rank of the nonrparticipants and in particu
lar their reasons for not consenting tq share in the
annoyance of so personal a survey have a definite
interest. The greatest percentage of refusals came
from the full professors; the associate professors
and the assistant professors were about equally
divided in their willingness to participate. Pro
portionately speaking, the younger members, the
instructors and the associates, co-operated most
fully. It is probably hazardous to try to explain
this greater willingness on the part of the younger
faculty members. Does it mean they felt greater
discontent because of lower pay? Does it imply
more esprit de corps in men trained under the so
cializing influences of today? Is it the hope and
faith of youth? The readér shall decide.
It seemed worth while to consider whether re
fusal to participate might be connected with the
opportunities for large outside fees that inhere in
certain departmental specialties,
A review of the facts makes it seem possible to
assert there was no relation of this sort. In the
first place, it was found that certain departments
could not in any case have been represented in the
study since all members of these departments were
celibates, The University of California has 45 de-

GETTING AND SPENDING

partments of instruction. At the time this study
was made, five 4 of these departments contained no
married members.
Forty departments remained from which to draw
family schedules. Examining the schedules finally
obtained, with regard to departmental affiliations,
we find that these schedules represent on an aver
age about one-third of the members of each of these
40 departments. Inspection of Table I a will show
how safely it may be asserted that refusal to par
ticipate and willingness to take a share in this study
were mental attitudes but slightly connected with
the subject taught and its pecuniary opportunities.
P roportion

op
m ents

T able I a *
t h e M arried M embers
W ho W ere I ncluded

L ess T h an 25%
I ncluded

Architecture
Art
Bacteriology
Biochemistry
French
Irrigation
Music
Oriental Languages
Physics
Political Science
Spanish

25%

50%

op th e V arious
in th e S urvey

I ncluded
Agriculture
Anatomy
Botany
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Education
English
History
Hygiene
Jurisprudence
Latin
Mathematics
Mech. Engineering
Physical Education-Men
Psychology
Public Speaking
Semitic Languages
Zoology

D epart

M ore T han 50%
I ncluded
Astronomy
Economics
Geography
Geology
German
Greek
Household Science
Mining
Philosophy
Physiology
Slavic

* Anthropology, Household Art, Italian, Physical Education for
Women, Sanscrit.

THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

True, it can be seen that certain departments, e.g.,
architecture and irrigation—specialties in which
earnings from outside sources are possible, are
varied, and may be large in total—are among the
11 departments with less than 25% of the married
members included in the sample. As compensation,
the departments of economics and mining, with
similar possibilities, are to be found among the 11
departments more than 50% of whose married
members contributed to the facts of the study.
Finally, the two departments of civil and mechanical
engineering, whose members may command large
fees, are of the 18 departments wherein 25% to
50% of the married members furnished data. Re
fusal to participate represents then no specific
groups but scatters somewhat evenly through all
departments.
For one reason or another, in addition to the 121
who refused to be interviewed, 30 families are
not in the study. Five or ten families changed
their original consent to a refusal when they faced
the detail work the schedule required. Despite the
cheerful co-operation of the group and the patience
and competence of both families and interviewers,
15 or more schedules that came in were not com
plete enough or convincing enough to warrant using
them.
When all returns were in, 96 schedules proved to
be complete, comparable and ready for tabulation.
As Tables III and IV show, this was 22% of the
total number in the class under survey or 39% of
the married faculty. Twenty-two per cent is a sam-

GETTING AND SPENDING

pie somewhat larger than it is usual to get by the
voluntary questionnaire method; it is a fair sam
ple. Therefore it is believed that the facts these 90
schedules contain may be assumed to be typical of
the faculty as a whole.
B. Representation of the 96 Families Included by
Professional Rank.—This 22% is not alone a fair
sample of the whole number of faculty families.
Tables II, III and IV give ample evidence that the
sample also contains a fair representation of all
the grades within an academic group. Each of the
different ranks of the faculty appears in the sample
at within 2% of its proportion in the total faculty
for all groups except the associates and associate
professors. Of the former, there are 10% less than
the proportion in the whole faculty; of the latter,
10% more. As finally used, the sample includes
29% full professors; 27% associate professors;
23% assistant professors; 13% instructors, and 8%i
associates. (Table II.)
In the analysis that follows, in addition to con
sidering the faculty group in general, each rank
has been considered separately in order to obviate
a possible overemphasis on the general average
that may arise from the discrepancy in representa
tion. Also throughout the study ranks have been
considered separately because of a well-marked
distinction of age and salary. Finally, this method
seemed advisable since the situation in each rank
is different and the highest rank has a special in
terest. One of the essential interests of the inquiry

THE METHOD OP INVESTIGATION

T able n
N umber a n d P er C e n t op R epresentation op t h e D ifferent
A cademic R a n k s i n (a ) t h e T otal F acu lty op t h e
B erkeley D epartm ents , (b) t h e T otal M arried
F acu lty a n d (e) t h e 96 F am ilies I ncluded
i n t h e S tudy
T otal
F aculty *

T otal M arried
F aculty

A cademic Ra n k

No.
All ran k s............... 433
Associate...............
81
Instructor ............. 53
Assistant Professor Ì05
Associate Professor 76
Professor ................ 118

Per
Gent
100.0
18.7
12.2
24.3
17.6
27.2

No.
247
16
25
63
55
88

Per
Cent
100.0
6.5
10.1
25.5
22.3
35.6

N umber
I ncluded
the Survey

No.
96
8
12
22
26
28

Per
Cent
100.0
8.3
12.5
22.9
27.1
29.2

* Departments at Berkeley, excluding Department of Military Science
and Tactics.

T able

III

C omparative N umber a n d P er Ce n t op F ac u lty M embers
R a n k (a) i n T otal F a cu lty , (b ) i n T otal M arried
F acu lty a n d ( c ) I ncluded i n t h e S tudy

(Percentage to total)
- T otal
F aculty *

T otal M arried
F aculty

A cademic Ra n k

No.
All ran k s............... 433
81
A ssociate...............
Instructor .............
53
Assistant Professor 105
Associate Professor 76
Professor................ 118

Per
Cent
100.0
18.7
12.2
24.3
17.6
27.2

No.
247
16
25
63
55
88

Per
Cent
57.0
3.7
5.8
14.5
12.7
20.3

N umber
I ncluded
the Survey

No.
96
8
12
22
26
28

Per
Cent
22.2
1.8
2.8
5.1
6.0
6.5

* Departments at Berkeley, excluding Department of Military Science
and Tactics.

GETTING AND SPENDING

T able IV
P ercentage in E ach R a n k A mong
M embers R epresented in
A cademic Ran k

All ranks ...................................
Associate ...................................
Instructor ...................................
Assistant P rofessor..................
Associate P rofessor..................
Professor ...................................

th e
th e

M arried F aculty
S tudy

T otal M arried N umber I ncluded
in the S urvey
F aculty *

No.

Per Cent

No.

Per Cent

247
16
25
63
55
88

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

96
8
12
22
26
28

38.9
50.0
48.0
34.9
47.3
31.8

* Departments at Berkeley, excluding Department of Military Science
and Tactics.

here is to consider whether the abstinence of the
earlier years of the academic career show propor
tionate pecuniary rewards clearly marked in the
professor’s income and expenditure.
VII. G e n e r a l A p p l ic a b il it y o p t h e F in d in g s
This is then a study of the family income and
expenditures of 96 families of academic faculty
members of whom 29% are full professors, 27% as
sociate professors, 23% assistant professors and
21% instructors and associates.
It seems justifiable to believe that this detailed
review of the incomes and the expenditures of 96
academic families at the University of California
here following is a fair example not only of the
married faculty families at this University but of
university faculties in general. The connection be
tween all universities is so close and the mobility
among faculties at different universities so high,

THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

that it seems permissible to assume this occupa
tional group has a similar standard of living the
country over. A show of the incomes, the stand
ards and the costs of living of a sample of the aca
demic families at one uniyersity should give facts
that may be regarded as on the whole descriptive
of the household problems of academic families at
most of the universities in the United States.
The salary scale is also certainly typical. Both
in terms of real and nominal income, the salary
scale at the University of California is comparable
with that paid at most of our universities, lower
than a few but higher than many. Comparison of
the salaries paid at the University of California
with those paid at ten state universities of the
Middle West and Par West in 1920, showed Cali
fornia ranking just above the average.. The recent
raises in salary would probably make her position
still higher. Such facts as are available lead to the
conclusion that the salaries paid at the University
of California are comparable with those paid at
most state universities and at certain of the largest
universities on private foundations. The salary
scale proved lower at some prominent Eastern uni
versities, higher at half a dozen others. Outstand
ing in the California scale is the fact that, low as the
salary is, instructors are paid as well as or better
than at any other institution in the country.5 It is
BThis is however less advantageous than it sounds since at the
University of California the rank of instructor is given only to those
who have served the long apprenticeship of the Ph.D., while it is
given even at Harvard, Yale and Princeton to young men working
toward that degree.

GETTING AND SPENDING

the middle and upper ranks that are comparatively
poorly paid at California.
It seems permissible then to believe that the facts
which this study shows, probably indicate fairly well
the situation all over the country. What is true of
the University of California is likely with slight
variations to be descriptive of the majority of the
universities of the country.

CHAPTER III
THE SOCIAL DATA
The main purposes of this inquiry made it nec
essary to know certain salient characteristics of
these faculty families. The age of the parents in
the families had intrinsic interest but was of spe
cial importance in its bearing upon questions of
academic rank and size of family. Especially in
teresting was the size and the composition of these
academic families. How many persons must these
salaries support ? If the size of the family proves
notably small, is this because the groups are made
up of persons too young to have larger families or
because incomes are so small that prudence dic
tates a restricted number of children? Or are the
families small simply because these families fell
in with the general tendencies of the day toward
the “ small family system” ?
It was of interest to find what nationalities we
were dealing with, not only because of the general
interest such a question always has but here in par
ticular because the place of birth explains certain
main modifications of the standard of living.
I.

T h e N um ber

in t h e

S t u d y : S ex

and

M a t u r it y

The schedules showed that the 96 households
under review comprised some 387 persons; that in
59

GETTING AND SPENDING

addition to the 96 husbands and 96 wives, these
family groups included 145 children, of whom 121
were under 16 and 24 were over 21 years old. In
addition 19 adult relatives shared in the family
expenditure entirely or in part. The facts of sex
and maturity are shown in Table V.
T able V
T otal N umber op P ersons in A ll H ousehold Groups
th e 96 F amilies by S ex and M aturity
Maturity

T otal
N umber *

Total num ber....................
A d u lts.................................
Children under 1 6 ...........

387
266
121

S ex

Female
210
157
53

Male
177
109
68

♦ This number includes all persons who were members of the household
group for more than three months during the year.

II. A ge
When inspected with regard to age, the majority
of the faculty members studied proved to be be
tween the ages of 35 and 50. (Table YI.)
A ge

T able YI
F aculty M embers and H elpmates *

A ge
All a g e s ................... ...................
Less than 35 y e a r s..................
35 to 50 years............................
50 years and o v e r....................

F aculty Member

No.
96
23
60
13

Per Cent
100.0
24.0
62.5
13.5

H elpmate

No.
96
41
44
11

Per Cent
100.0
42.7
45.8
11.5

* The use of the word “helpmate” in the schedule and elsewhere may
at first glance appear eccentric. But the sex of the faculty members was
not always masculine and the more familiar terms “man” and “wife”
could not therefore be used. The term “helpmate” was adopted because
it seemed descriptive enough of either partner in the business of the
household irrespective of sex.

THE SOCIAL DATA

One-fourth, it will be noted, were under 35; 14%
were over 50. Though slightly younger than their
husbands in every case, the wives fall into about the
same age groups.
Table YII brings out certain facts that merit
consideration.
F aculty M embers

T able YII
A cademic R a n k

A ll A ges
A cademic B a n k

All ran k s........... *.
A ssociate...............
Instructor.............
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor ................

No.
96
8
12
22
26
28

U nder 35

and
35

S pecified A ge

TO 50

50 and Over

% of
% of
% of
% of
all No. all No. all No. all
Banks
Banks
Banks
Banks
100.0
8.3
12.5
22.9
27.1
29.2

23
4
10
6
3

100.0
17.4
43.5
26.1
13.0

60
4
2
16
22
16

100.0
6.7
3.3
26.7
36,6
26.7

100.0

1
12

7.7
92.3

The data were compiled so as to find in what way
the ages of these groups correlate with rank. As
was to be expected, the largest single group of those
under 35 were instructors. At 35, none are profes
sors and only three had attained the rank of asso
ciate professor. Between 35 and 50, one-fourth,
27%, are professors; 63% are assistant professors
or associate professors. After 50, only one is not a
full professor.
When it is remembered that instructors’ salaries
run at highest to $2,400; that these men must have
a minimum of seven years’ training before they
may get even the $1,800 that is offered them in re
turn for a full-time teaching schedule, a clue is not
wanting to the reluctance with which young men of

GETTING AND SPENDING

our times enter a profession where 35 years of age
finds most of them still forced to practice the rigid
economics an income of $2,400 to $3,000 entails.
III. T h e F a m il y T y p e
A. Size and Composition of the Family —Follow
ing very common precedent, this study concerns it
self with family groups only as so many persons de
pendent upon a given income. The facts given may
or may not tell the actual birth-rate in each family.
The term “ size of family” as employed here means
only thos6 children who were partially or entirely
dependent upon the family’s resources. That is to
say, size of family includes all children at home
and children away from home to whom regular
allowances were being sent.
One hundred and forty-five were living at home
or otherwise dependent on the family income.
Twenty-four of these, being over 16, are listed in
Table VI as adults in the count of all persons de
pendent upon income but are counted as “ children”
when considering the size of the faculty families.
Of the children living at home, the average num
ber in each family proved to be 1.5. Half of the
families have one child or none. Twenty-eight per
cent of the families had no children; nearly 80%
had less than the three dependent children until re
cently considered the “ normal” or “ census” family.
Thus the average size of the family lies between
three and four persons, that is, two adults and two
children. (Table VIII.)
Since recent research shows that at the present

63
time, whether the family be in the wage-earning
class or in some other occupational group, the typ
ical number of children under fourteen is 1.9, these
academic breadwinners may be said to have what
recent investigations 1 suggest is the typical family
of our time. In addition to the faculty member,
who, with few exceptions, brings in the major
part of the income, 2.5 persons depend as an average
upon the total income.
THE SOCIAL DATA

N umber

C hildren
of

T able Y I I I
in th e A cademic F amilies S tudied

Children

All families . . . . *............... ..
No children ................................
One c h ild .......................................
Two children ..............................
Three children ..................... ..
Four children...............................
Five children .......................... ....

No. of F amilies
of
H aving Given N o. PAercentage
ll F amilies
of Children
96
100.0
27
28.1
24
25.0
25
26.0
11
11.5
7
7.3
2
2.1

B. Size of Family in Relation to the Age and the
Income of Faculty Members.—This study offers no
confirmation of the theory that low academic in
comes tend to reduce the number of children below
that size family a faculty member would elect to
have were a more generous income available.
Tables VII and VIII and Table IX which fol
lows all illustrate these facts. The relation shown
is between size of family and rank. As rank

1 Douglas, Paul H., Wages and the family. University of Chicago
Press, 1925. Chapter III. Also Douglas, Paul H., Is the family of
five typical? Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.
X I X : 322. September, 1924.

GETTING AND SPENDING

expresses roughly the gradations of income, the
point seems sufficiently clear. No particular rela
tion appears between the size of family and the
income. The upper and lower limits in the size of
income and the size of family are correlated to a
certain extent. One family with an income of less
than $2,000 has no children. The family with the
T able
S ize

I m m ediate F a m i l y A ccording

A cademic R a n k

S ize op I mmediate F amily
A cademic B ank
A ll
op F aculty
F
amilies
Member,
3
2
5
6
4
24 25
11
27
7
All ran k s............... 96
1
4
8
3
A ssociate...............
6
1
2
Instructor ............. 12
3
2
4
1
Assistant Professor 22
7
8
7
1
1
8
Associate Professor 26
8
7
5
5
4
6
Professor................ 28
P ercentage

All ran k s............... 100.0
8.3
A ssociate...............
Instructor ............. 12.5
Assistant Professor 22.9
Associate Professor 27.1
P rofessor................ 29.2

7
2
1
1

A ll F a m ilie s

28.1 25.0
4.2 1.0
3.1 6.3
8.3 4.2
8.3 7.3
4.2 6.3

26.0 11.5
3.1
2.1 1.0
7.3 2.1
8.3 1.0
5.2 7.3

7.3
1.0
1.0

5.2

2.1
1.0
1.0

highest income, $16,000, has four children but the
two largest families, of five children each, have in
comes between $4,000 and $5,000. In each thousand
dollar income level, the average number of children
is usually one and a fraction. No genuine deviation
from the general average appears.
Neither does age seem to make any particular
difference in the number of children. When the
age of the head of the family is below 35, the aver

THE SOCIAL DATA

age for the families of such faculty members is one
child. When the average age is above 35, the aver
age number of children is not quite two.
It would thus appear that, on the whole, the influ
ences making for the small family must be sought
elsewhere than in age and income.
IV. P l a c e o f B ir t h
The families are typically native American from
the North and West sections of the country. (Tables
X, XI, XII.) For the faculty members representa
tion from the South is inconsiderable, less than
10%; 26% are natives of the Western states. One
in every five was born on the Pacific Coast. Evi
dently a fair proportion of the faculty members
came to the Coast and married here. An even
larger percentage of helpmates, 30%, were also na
tives of the West. While more than half of the
faculty members and their wives are from the
Northern sections of the country, only 11% are
from New England, customarily considered the
home of academic traditions. The largest repre
sentation is from the North Central states whence
come 40% of the faculty members and 31% of the
helpmates.
Only'10% of the faculty members and 10%' of
their wives were foreign bom ; of those foreign born,
all the men were European. Two of the helpmates
were bom in Asia, children of missionaries living
there. Three were natives of Canada. As was to
be expected, the larger proportion of the children
are native bom and Western. Ninety-eight per cent

GETTING AND SPENDING

were born in the United States; 84% in the West,
and 76%' on the Pacific Coast.
Along with many other influences standards of
living are determined hy early social habits. Geo
graphical and occupational traditions possibly in
fluence standards most directly. The origins of this
T able
N um ber

P er C e n t op N atives a n d op F okeign - born A
A ll M embers op t h e
F am ilies S tudied *

and

m ong

A ll Countries U nited S tates A ll F oreign

Ho.
All P ersons...........
Faculty Members.
H elpm ates.............
Children ................

337
96
96
145

Per
Cent
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-

Ho.
314
86
86
142

Per
Pent
93.2
89.6
89.6
97.9

Ho.
23
10
10
3

Per
Cent
6.8
10.4
10.4
2.1

* Excludes 50 persons other than members of immediate family who
are otherwise included in survey.

faculty group would indicate that their ideas and
ways of living and spending might be preponder
antly those of the Middle West and the Pacific
Coast always of course tempered by that respected
academic standard developed and given its stamp
in New England.
These data would suggest that if one may deal
with a creature so mythical as an average person,
the average faculty member of the particular group
under consideration is a native American from the
North or West, between the ages of 35 and 50, who
has married and settled in Berkeley with one or
two children bom on the Pacific Coast.

P lace
P lace

B irth

T able X I
A ll M embers op th e 96 F amilies S tudied *

A ll P ersons in
I mmediate F a m i l y * F aculty M embers

H elpmates

Children

Number Per Cènt Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Ntimber Per Cent
337
100.0
96
145
100.0
100.0
96
100.0
314
93.1
86
142
98.0
89.6
86
89.6
46
13.6
16
7.6
16.7
19
11
19.8
11
3.3
4
1.4
2
4.2
5
5.2
76
22.5
38
39.6
5.5
30
8
31.3
6
1.8
3
3.1
3
3.1
175
51.9
25
26.0
29
121
83.5
30.2
23
6.8
10
2.1
10.4
3
10
10.4
16
4.7
10
10.4
.7
5
1
5.2
2
.6
2
2.1
3
.9
3
3.1
2
.6
2
1.4

THE SOCIAL DATA

All Countries..................
United S ta te s...............
North A tla n tic.............
South A tla n tic.............
North C entral................
South C entral...............
Western ..........................
All F oreign ....................
Europe ........................
Asia .............................
Canada ........................
A u stralia....................

* Excludes 50 persons other than members of immediate family who are otherwise included in survey.

F urther D etails R egarding P lace

A ll
387
329
132
35
18
44
35
17
11
3
3
180
22
158
6
2
1
uo
1
3
3

T able XII
B irth of A ll M embers

F aculty
Members H elpmates
Oft
96
86
OO
54 11
49 11
JLKJ.
JL1
O
8
25
12
13
18
7 A
8 pr
it
0
oo
3
25 K
29
O
6
on
ù\J
23
4 1
2 i
JL
1
1JL
1JL
1
J.1
3 9
o

of th e

Children
145
142
19
9
2
6
2
2
2
121

96 H ouseholds

Relatives
19
9
7
4
1
1
1

Others
31
6
3
2
1

3
2

GETTING AND SPENDING

Geographical D ivision
Total of All Countries........... „.
The United S ta te s......................
The North
New England ..........................
Middle A tla n tic......................
East North C entral...............
West North Central...............
The South
South A tla n tic........................
East South C entral...............
West South C entral................
The West
M ountain...................................
Pacific .......................................
North Western Europe
E n glan d .....................................
Irelan d ......................................
Sw eden.....................................
Iceland .....................................
Central Europe
Germany .................................

3
2
1

THE SOCIAL DATA

Eastern Europe
Russia ...........
Lithuania . . .
Southern Europe
Spain ............
Asia
China .............
Japan . . .........
America
Canada ...........
Other Countries
Australia . . . .
Not Reporting .

1
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
10

o*
CO

CHAPTER IW
ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES
I. Salaby and I ncome
With regard to salaries and incomes, the schedule
was planned to secure all possible facts about the
typical sources of each family income,—(1) the sal
ary of each faculty member; (2) the relation of that
salary to the total income; (3) the nature of the
additions to salary and especially the way in which
any supplementary income was divided between
earnings and property income.
The findings of this report seem to justify en
tirely the protest that served as the immediate in
centive of this study. The claim that the salaries
now offered do not suffice for the standard of living
of the group seems substantiated. Every one of the
96 families reported incomes higher in greater or
less degree than the salary received in return for
giving regular instruction in the university. If, as
has been assumed, this faculty group is typical of
all universities, university faculties are a class
whose salaries do not meet the costs of their way
of living. In these cases, the salaries proved usually
to be about two-thirds of the total income, and were
characteristically supplemented by an amount be
tween $1,000 and $2,000.
70

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

A. Salary Range
1. General.,— Customarily in all universities the
salary schedule varies almost directly with academic
rank. For this group as a whole, the average sal
ary thus depends on the proportion of different
ranks within it. As we have seen, this proportion
is the same in the sample of 96 used in this survey
as it is in the whole faculty. (Table I.) And it
may be assumed these 96 families are typical of all
the faculty group. The salary range at the Uni
versity of California would thus seem to lie between
$1,431 and $8,000. The great majority of the sal
aries, 90% in fact, are, however, between $2,000 and
$5,000, only 5% getting less than $2,000 and 5%'
more than $5,000. Only a, single individual of the
96 gets as high as $8,0001 and more than two-thirds
get below $4,000. Hence the average salary2 of
the group is a trifle over $3,000.
2. Salary Range by Rank.;—A more just idea of
the distribution of salaries than the general aver
age can give, is obtained when each academic rank
is considered separately. The variation in the sal
ary scale is greatest for the full professors, who

1 There are but three such cases in the whole faculty.
“Given the data of this study it was decided the median is in most
instances the better indication of the average salary in the sense of the
most usual or most characteristic salary ; the mean was made un
duly high by a few individuals at the upper extreme. Also, in such
a study as this, the mean indicates the likelihood of getting a cer
tain amount whereas the median, of course, always indicates that
half of the families get more and half get less. In both the salary
and the total income data, the whole group and the different ranks
are characterized by massing at the lower limits and tailing out at
the upper. The few individuals who get very high amounts influence
the mean out of all proportion to the ordinary man’s chance at
these sums.

GETTING AND SPENDING

received anywhere from $3,000 to $8,000. But the
mass got between $4,000 and $5,000 with an average
of about $4,000.
This range of $5,000 for the highest rank in a
faculty is surprisingly long. The average of $4,000
explains the irritation of incumbents and the hesi
tations of young men contemplating entering the
profession. Professors are those who are at the
top of their profession, the men who have given
the universities from ten to twenty-five years of
service. Yet the average amount these men can
earn is about $4,000.
The salaries of associate professors, also persons
who have for the most part served at least ten years,
ranged between $2,000 and $5,000. Nearly 80 %! got
between $3,000 and $4,000 with an average a trifle
over $3,400. The assistant professors got $2,000 to
$4,000, three-quarters between $2,000 and $3,000
with an average of about $2,800. All the instructors
after a minimum apprenticeship of six years were
paid less than $3,000; their average salary is about
$2,200. Half of the associates got less than $2,000,
half $2,000 to $3,000, with an average just under
$2,000.
B. Income Range.3—The total incomes have a
range of $14,000, from $1,800 to $16,000, compared
* This study of total income is slightly affected disadvantageously
by the fact that four of the family groups did not report their total
income from all sources. Two refused to report the amount of the
total income; two failed to give complete returns. However, by
giving their salary and their expenditures, these four family groups
furnished all the proof necessary to show that salary did not pay
for living expenses.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

with the salary range of $6,000, from $1,400 to
$8,000. However, there are few at either extreme.
Only one family reported a total income of less
than $2,000 ; only two, more than $12,000. The mass
ing is in the lower income groups. Sixty per cent
of the families were living upon less than $5,000;
nearly 80% upon less than $6,000. Almost threefourths of the families, 70%’, had between $3,000
and $6,000. In every group except the instructors,
there were à few incomes of $10,000 or over. These
extreme cases and the great variability naturally
affect the average. The mean income is $5,300,4 the
median, $4,800.
.As we have seen, more than half of the cases are
under $5,000. By rank, the mean incomes are:
associates, $5,665.29; instructors, $3,792.09; assist
ant professors, $4,187.47 ; associate professors,
$5,419.25; professors, $6,681.66.
Further analysis within each rank showed the
following details: The associates have by far the
widest range of income. The 8 cases in this group
included the lowest income studied, $1,800, and one
income of $14,000. The others scattered between
$3,000 and $8,000 with a median about $4,800, the
general average for the whole study. This group of
associates is, however, too small and too hetero
geneous for any income to be really typical.
The 12 instructors present a very different situa
tion. Three-fourths have incomes between $2,000 and
$4,000. The others are isolated cases scattered be4 Excluding the two cases in which the amount of income in
addition to regular salary was not reported.

GETTING AND SPENDING

tween $4,000 and $8,000, so that the median of $3,500
is distinctly typical of this group, young men begin
ning their careers with closely similar resources.
The incomes of the 22 assistant professors show
the same tendency to concentrate within a com
paratively small range. Seventy-seven per cent of
them lie between $3,000 and $5,000; half of them, be
tween $3,000 and $4,000. The median, $3,500, is the
same as that for the instructors but the mean is dis
tinctly higher and indicates that the income of the
assistant professor is, on the whole, higher than
that of the instructor, and it is thus higher because
a few of this group have incomes on higher levels.
That is to say, the majority have progressed only a
little; a few men have found new opportunities for
distinctly higher incomes.
The incomes of the 26 associate professors are
more variable. The nearest approach to a type in
come occurs between $4,000 and $5,000; 42% of the
cases lie here. None of-the associate professors
command less than $3,000. Three-fifths of them
reported incomes between $3,000 and $5,000.
As for the 28 professors, since the lower limit
naturally rises as the basic salary is increased, none
of them had incomes, of less than $4,000. Their in
comes varied from $4,000 to $16,000, but nearly
70% lie between $4,000 and $6,000; the median is
$5,400. Above $6,000 there is no regularity in the
distribution of incomes; 14% had $10,000 or over.
O. Salaries and Incomes Compared.—The total in
comes of the group are thus higher than the salaries

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

and the variety is greater. While the salaries range
from $1,400 to $8,000, the incomes have a range
twice as great, from $1,800 to $16,000. Nearly 90%
of the salaries lie between $2,000 and $5,000; 90%
of the incomes, between $2,000 and $8,000. The to
tal incomes exceed the salaries at every point.
Five of the group received salaries under $2,000;
only one had a total income as small; 70% of the
salaries were below $4,000. Less than half as many
incomes, 30%, were below that amount. Only one
individual received a salary of $7,000 or over; 18%
had a total income of that amount. Tested by the
three methods of getting an average, all methods
show the total income to be about $2,000 higher than
the salary. In such data as these, the modes are not
significant because there is no emphatic clustering
at a single point. The modal income is between
$4,000 and $5,000 while the modal salary is between
$2,000 and $3,000. The median income is $4,800, the
median salary $3,100, closer than the mean or the
mode. The mean income is $5,300; the mean salary
$3,400. These latter averages for the total income
are based upon the 94 cases in which complete
returns were given.
Thus the salary at the University of California
seems to represent between three-fourths and twothirds of the income of any faculty member. Also,
typically, the salary is supplemented by an amount
between $1,000 and $2,000. The median salary is
65%! of the total income; the mean salary, 63%.
Much the same relations of income and salary hold
true for each academic rank. The associates show

GETTING AND SPENDING

the greatest discrepancy between salary and income.
The median salary in this rank is only 40%' of the
income. The figures show that instructors ’ salaries
were 62% of their income, assistant professors’,
79%; associate professors’, 70%; and full pro
fessors’, 79%. Considered as separate groups, the
assistant professors and professors depend most
upon their salaries ; the associates, least. The mean
proportions of salary to income for different ranks
are: associate 35%, instructors 57%, assistant pro
fessors 67%, associate professors 63%, professors
68%. These facts concerning salary and income
appear in tabular form as Tables XIII, XIY, XV,
and XV a.
T able

XIII

R elative A m o u n t of R egular S alary a n d op T otal
I n co m e R eceived b y t h e 96 F a m ilie s

A mount or Salary
or I ncome

All A m ounts...............................
Less than $2000 ........................
$2000-2999 .................................
3000-3999 .................................
4000-4999 .................................
5000-5999 .................................
6000-6999 .................................
7000-7999 .................................
8000-8999 .................................
9000-9999 .................................
$10,000 and o v e r......................

N umber of F amilies R eceiving a
S pecified A mount of

Regular Salary
96
5t
35
28
23
1
*3
1

Total Income *
96 *
1
7
21
28
18
4
6
1
2
8

' * Includes 2 families who failed to report amount of income in addition
to regular salary.
f Two men with reported salaries of less than $2,000, but who were
employed for a half year only, are included in this table on a full yearly
basis.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES
T able

XIY

P ercentage of 96 F am ilies W h o R eceived L ess T h a n a S peci
fied A m o u n t of R egular S alary or of T otal I n co m e

P er Cent of A ll F amilies W ho
Received L ess T han a S pecified
A mount of

A mount of S alary
or I ncome

Less than $2000 ......................
3000 ......................
4000 . . .................
5000 ......................
6000 . ....................
7000 ......................
8000 ......................
9000 ......................
10000 ......................
All amounts ..............................

Regular Salary
5.2
41.8
70.9
94.9
95.9
99.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

T able

Total Income
1.0
8.3
30.2
59.3
78.1
82.3
88.6
89.6
91.7
100.0

M edian A m o u n t of S alary a n d of T otal I ncom e
G iv e n A cademic R a n k s

A cademic Rank

R egular
S alary

I ncome

All ran k s.....................................
A ssociate.....................................
Instructor...................................
Assistant Professor..................
Associate Professor..................
Professor ...................................

$3125.00
1941.65
2191.67
2800.00
3412.50
4250.00

$4784.17*
4815.65
3535.48
3532.50
4858.66
5399.16

T otal

for

P er Cent
of
S alary
to T otal
I ncome
65.3
40.4
62.0
79.3
70.2
78.8

* Excludes 2 cases in which the amount of income above regular salary
was not reported.

GETTING AND SPENDING
T able X Y a
M e a n A m o u n t op S a la r y a n d op T otal I n co m e
G iv e n A cademic R a n k s

Regular S alary
A cademic Rank
All ran k s.....................................
$3375.76
1973.66
A ssociate.....................................
Instructor ...................................
2152.77
2814.39
Assistant Professor..................
Associate Professor..................
3433.97
Professor ...................................
4525.91

II. T he

S ources

N ature
I ncom e

and

fob

T otal I ncome
$5343.50
5665.29
3792.09
4187.47
5419.25
6681.66

S upplem entary

(Tables XVI to XXII, inclusive)
A. The General Findings about Supplementary
Income.—The amount and the sources of additional
income throw light upon much-debated questions
of how far a faculty member has vested income;
how far he is diverted from the major interests
of a university career to do extra work; whether
the work is undertaken to provide for his family
needs or because of personal preferences.
All 96 families interviewed reported supple
mentary income.5 The smallest addition to regular
salary was $12.00, less than 1% of the family’s total
income. The highest amount was $12,500, or 87 % of
the total income. The median proved to be $1,212,
or one-fourth of the total income; the mean, $2,000,
or 38% of the total income.
The amount of outside resources seems to bear
no relation to academic rank. For the whole group
of 96, the mean, median and mode fall between $1,000
8 Two failed to report the amount.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

and $2,000 which is also the median for the ad
ditional income reported by professors, the asso
ciate professors and the instructors. The median
for assistant professors is only $750. Of this rank,
86% reported additional resources of less than
$2,000, which accounts for the close approximation
of the total incomes of instructors and assistant
professors. Possibly, with a, raise of salary, the as
sistant professors took occasion to relax a little in
their struggle for supplementary income. The me
dian amount of outside resources reported hy as
sociates is $2,600; three-fourths of them have out
side resources of $1,000 or more. In all ranks, at
least one individual had additional income as high
as $5,000.
More to the point than the total amounts added
to salary is the question of the ways in which these
additional funds come to each family.
To find the exact sources of income other than
salary, the schedule asked for the figures hearing
upon supplementary earnings and all other types
of income. The additions to salary which the faculty
member was able to get from extension work or
summer session teaching, or public lectures; from
research; from some other occupation alternating
with his academic work, such as public service or
some direct or indirect relation to a private
business enterprise—these things were listed, as
well as the earnings of the helpmate and of the
children, the income from property, from gifts and
any other miscellaneous additions to the family
exchequer.

GETTING AND SPENDING

Barring a few exceptional cases, the main sources
of additions to the regular salary proved to be (1)
additional earnings through various types of extra
work done by the faculty member and (2) returns
from some form of ownership.
B. The Supplementary Income of the 96 Families
from Work.
1. F aculty Membebs’ A dditional E abnings.

a.
The
K in d of A dditional W ork Under
and the R elative Frequency .—As has been said, the

faculty members themselves contributed the largest
share of the amounts that supplement salaries evi
dently felt to be inadequate.
Three-fourths of the faculty members added to
their salaries by doing some work other than that
called for by their regular schedule.
Generalizing from the facts the schedules show,
it would seem that when these faculty members de
sired to add to their incomes by extra work they
proceeded in one or more of several directions.
They gave outside lectures or they taught addi
tional hours, working usually with the extension
division or in the summer sessions. In one or two
instances, coaching was resorted to. A few did
administrative work in the University. Many
did research work; in particular they wrote text
books. Finally, a definite number added some alter
nating occupation to the teaching required by
their contract with the University, engaging
in activities which for lack of a better phrase

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

have been gathered together under the title “ busi
ness.” 6
Additional instruction is the most popular, per
haps because the most accessible or most congenial
way of adding to income. But within-the field of
additional instruction, the specific activities vary
with rank. Extension work is the resource of the
associate, with representation here of associate pro
fessors and full professors. Summer session teach
ing appears most often in the middle grades.
Nearly three-fourths of the assistant professors and
associate professors gave summer school courses;
only half of all other ranks. Public lectures are
given by members of all classes; 17% of the whole
group of the 96 faculty members gave public leer
tures at one time or another during the year. Coach
ing disappears in the higher ranks.
With regard to research, many more may have
had studies under way but only 33 persons, or 34%
of the 96, reported income from this type of work.
As might be expected, full professors lead with this
class of income, 43%, or 5, reporting returns from
research as compared with 25% to 35% in the other
grades. Text-book writing seems a prerogative of
the three highest ranks and the rewards plainly in
crease with rank. Two groups have a monopoly
of the administrative offices within the University;
the highest pay for this work goes to full profes-

As here adopted the term covers not only a few adventures in
actual business enterprise but also any form of consultant work,
either paid for by the job or by a regular salary when done for the
business or the professional world. Though frequently called re
search, this work is less often true search after new facts and prin
ciples than it is the re-arrangement and interpretation of material.

GETTING AND SPENDING

sors. Though the opportunity is of course open to
all grades, the highest rewards for work on spe
cial problems were reported by the lower ranks.
Every grade is represented among those who have
some relation to business, though all the men who
made more than $1,250 were associate professors or
full professors. Also those who did some “ public
service” work were in all academic grades, but with
the exception of the full professor and one asso
ciate, such work was almost unpaid. Apparently
public service is done for the love of it or for the
prestige it may bring.
With the exception of the associate professors,
there seems to be a general increase in the number
doing outside work as the faculty member advances
in rank and income. As the years go on, there is
little or no change in the field of endeavor. Large
returns from additional work seem possible for cer
tain men of any grade. But the data suggest that
the average man can increase his earnings only
gradually and by much over-time work, between
the years he enters as an instructor and the time
at which he achieves a full professorship. In this
as in all cases, the associates, who get the highest
average returns, seem an exceptional class.
One outside occupation in addition to the regular
teaching does not seem to preclude others. Many
of the faculty group under consideration added to
salaries by one or more of these expedients but
only one or two used all of them. One professor
with a salary of $6,250 undertook, in addition, pub
lic service for which he received $2,000, research at

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

which he earned $875, and additional instruction
that yielded $150. One young man, an associate,
besides his $2,400 salary earned $1,000 for additional
instruction, $1,500 from research, and $750 from
business. Such cases are however distinctly excep
tional and the risks of overwork are evident.
Though outside opportunities to earn were widely
employed, it may not of course he taken for granted
that need or profit was the only incentive to under
taking the several forms of work. Indeed, given
the facts that in many cases the returns are, in the
first place, nominal, and that, secondly, much of this
work is undertaken by professors with the salaries
that supply the median requirements of the group,
it would be difficult to argue that the necessities
of the family budget were the sole driving force.
Non-pecuniary motives doubtless entered into much
of this kind of work. Figures can furnish no clue
to the proportion.7
b.
Classes of W ork.

The M oney R eturns from the S ever

(1) g e n e r a l a m o u n t s .—With regard to the
actual additions to income which the faculty mem
bers gained by additional work, the lowest iamount
earned was $12.00; the highest, $8,400. One-half

7 Interviews on the question showed faculty members themselves
distinctly uncertain about the ruling motive. No one was however
uncertain about the relative size of the pecuniary returns available in
return for the faculty member’s painstaking efforts either inside or
outside the university. There was general agreement that with rare
exceptions the salaries and fees habitually asked by and offered to
the academic man compared unfavorably with the sums that suc
cessful men habitually command in other classes of professional
service.

GETTING AND SPENDING

these faculty members reporting supplementary
earnings from work added $500 or less. Nearly
one-third earned $1,000 or more by their labors;
11% earned more than $2,000; one individual re
ported $5,000 and one, as has been said, $8,400.
The typical total earnings circle about $500.
(2) AMOUNTS MADE THBOUGH OCCUPATIONS OUT
SIDE t h e u n iv e b s i t y .— Eighteen men earned more
than $750 through work other than teaching, such
as public service, administration, or that outside
consulting work which has been classified as busi
ness. Half of those engaged in business got between
$1,000 and $3,500. The man whose outside work
added the most to his salary, $8,400, earned it as a,
consultant. The median amount from this type of
work was slightly less than $1,200. Fifteen received
pay for some public service work but in the major
ity of cases the sums were trifling. Three earned
between $1,000 and $5,000 but the median for the
group is only $75.00 and two-thirds reported $100 or
less. Eight men reported some other alternate work
which brought them from $100 to $360.
(3) GAINS THBOUGH ADMINISTBATIVE WOBK.---The five men doing administrative work for the
University received between $400 and $1,000; the
median return was $750.
(4) GAINS THBOUGH ADDITIONAL TEACHING.—
Forty-four of the faculty members (46%) added to
their salaries by giving additional instruction in the
summer session, in extension work, or elsewhere.
In point of the numbers affected, 28% of the whole

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

group of 96, the summer session work proved to be
much the most important resource. Apparently
the summer sessions afford the faculty member a
convenient way of adding a moderate sum to his
salary. Though it curtails, perhaps, his time for
possible research and certainly shortens his much
envied “ long” vacation, he frequently takes advan
tage of the opportunity it offers.
The work rarely adds a large sum to income. The
average earnings were $400. Of the amounts gained
by summer session work, 85% lie within a range
of $250, from $250 to $500. In a single case, the
earnings were as high as $1,100.
Extension work, only half as popular with this
faculty sample as summer session work, includes
but one-eighth of the whole group of 96, 27% of
those who gave additional instruction in some form.
Also it yields earnings that vary much more than
those yielded by summer session teaching, ranging
from $35.00 to $1,700. The median of $300 is about
$100 lower.
Lecture courses offered goocLrewards to a few.
The pecuniary rewards for lectures are small. One
individual earned thereby $1,900, but all of the
others received less than $300 and half of these
less than $100. Lecture courses to the public
pay much better than the occasional lecture but the
opportunities are less frequent. The four men who
gave such lectures got average returns between $300
and $400; the possible gains appear to be as high
as $900.
Since the average returns for coaching are but

GETTING AND SPENDING

$150, it is not surprising that this form of work
proved to have been used by only 5% of the faculty
members.
It is apparent, then, that of those faculty mem
bers who added to their income by additional in
struction, nearly half of the total group did so
through summer session teaching with average earn
ings of $400 or through extension work by which
they made an average of $300. By additional
teaching a faculty man may earn anywhere from
a few dollars to $2,000. But half of those doing ex
tra teaching earned less than $400; 11% less than
$100; only 14% earned over $1,000. In other words,
those who do additional teaching have one chance
in seven of making over $1,000; one in nine, of
making less than $100. Typically they may make
between $300 and $400.
(5)
SUPPLEMENTARY EARNINGS THROUGH
SEARCH.—As applied here, the term research covers
more than its essential meaning of new contribu
tions to knowledge. "Wherever a man received a fee
for some special isolated study, wherever he pub
lished in periodicals, wherever he wrote a book, text
book or other, such work was classified under re
search'.8
Judged by this sample of the academic world, re
search work done at the University brings academic
men who bravely undertake it less reward than
teaching. Of the group, 34% added to their income

8 There may be some slight confusion in the actual reporting or in
tabulation. Work of this kind done as a business consultant may
have been sometimes listed as research and sometimes as business but
such work has never been counted in both places.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 87

through research. But, supremely useful though it
is to the world, research is evidently not a lucrative
pursuit. The median earned was $200;9 that is
to say, one-half of those who spent long hours in
assembling and recording facts or gathering new
data got less than $200 for it. The majority
earned from $100 to $300. Thus, although onethird of the faculty members added to income by re
search, 15% of those working in this way earned
less than $100. The 12% who earned $1,000 or
more might possibly have been better classed with
those engaged in a distinctly alternate occupation.
With the single exception of the instructor who got
$3,500 for the piece of research work on a special
problem he undertook for a private corporation,
the research work seems to bring the average in
dividual, returns lower at every point than those
he would get from additional instruction.
Apparently two fields only among those that have
been called research add appreciably to income,—
special or consultant research and text-book writing.
Special consultant research offered higher re
wards—$1,000 or more—to the few, 10%, who en
gaged in consultant research on special problems
and earned through this channel amounts varying
from $125 to $3,500. Here, again, no representative
amount is earned. Sixty per cent got $300 or less;
40%, $900 or more. This grouping really repre
sents two distinct types of work, the one, occasional;
the other, something approaching an alternate occu
pation. Therefore, in this type of work there seems
9 This is probably not net returns.

GETTING AND SPENDING

equal possibility of very appreciable rewards or of
a return less than that which comes from the unex
citing average of occupation and earning that
summer session teaching and extension work usually
offer.
(6) t e x t -b o o k w r it in g .—"Writing text-books
is not only the most frequent form of “ research” ;
it is also the most generally remunerative. To those
who succeed, text-books bring the same remunera
tion as additional teaching. Of this faculty group,
15% had written text-books. From these they re
ported returns of $40.00 to $1,000; the mean and the
median returns lie between $350 and $450. Natur
ally there is no definite assurance of any typical
returns.
In the cases under inspection, no appreciable
gain seemed to come from writing books other than
text-books. In contrast to the 14 authors of text
books, only five wrote other classes of literature.
The difference in profit is striking. During the year
in question three got $25.00 in royalties; one, $100;
another $166, a decided contrast to the text-book
average of between $300 and $400.
This particular group of families seems to include
no very fortunate authors. Contributions to period
icals also yielded but little. Though 10% published
articles, the highest amount thus gained was $170;
the average gain was between $50.00 and $75.00.
From the minor sources classified as research, the
income was generally less than $100.
It is a good thing for human progress that men
who engage in research are usually prompted by mo

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

tives other than that of adding to income. Were
this not. so, were pecuniary reward, rather than new
facts, the only incentive, with money payments
at the rates shown above, the search for new facts
would swiftly cease. As things are, though research
is not actually cut off, real search for new knowl
edge is undoubtedly halted because pressing needs
turn energies away to more lucrative though less
socially valuable occupations.
c.

A dditional E arnings in R elation to

It seemed worth while to inquire whether the pos
sibilities of added income within these different
fields vary much with the academic rank. Of the 96
faculty members, 71 earned something above their
salary. The proportion within the several academic
ranks adding to income by earnings does not differ
greatly from that within the group of 96 as a whole,
—there are a few less associates and associate pro
fessors and a few more professors. That is to say,
a trifle over 60,%i of the associates and of the asso
ciate professors, 75% of the instructors and assist
ant professors and 86% of the professors added to
their salaries. In so far as it is a function of aca
demic rank, there seems to be an apparent increase
in the number of those in the higher ranks who earn
additions to their salary. If love of the work
and habituation to it are taken as motives entering
into or competing with the desire for profit, addi
tional work proves to be definitely most common
among full professors and brings them a better re
turn. Also it was to be expected, and the facts
prove, that between the period of the instructorship

—

GETTING AND SPENDING

and that of the full professorship, the faculty mem
ber’s gains from outside work apparently increase.
A comparatively smaller percentage of associate
professors were engaged in outside work. The ex
planation of this latter fact is not clear. It may
possibly derive from the further fact that this is a
group of men many of whom may possibly never
reach the full professorship. This associate pro
fessorship is their ultimate goal, and they may
therefore have settled down to live upon their sala
ries without the ambitions that seem necessary if
professorships are to be won. It is also possible
that the proportion of those in the higher academic
ranks doing additional work is greater because this
outside work, particularly research, becomes a part
of their professional duties, or interests, or habits.
The financial returns are thus in part the by-product
rather than the end.
At any rate and whatever the reasons, the mass
of faculty members increase their outside earnings
as they advance in rank from instructor to asso
ciate professor^ The increase is not a question of
the highest amount that may be earned, since all
ranks except the assistant professors have within
them representatives earning $3,000 or more above
their salary, and all have representatives earning
less than $300. The increase is not necessarily due
merely to rank except as rank is connected with the
fact that the individual is advancing at the same
time in age, experience and reputation.
Examination of figures concerning each rank, the
number within each university grade that do extra

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

work and the kind of work each rank undertakes,
revealed nothing surprising, hut experience was
verified satisfactorily. Nearly 80%! of the instruc
tors made $500 or less; 50% made less than
$250. The mass of instructors is at the lower
levels of additional income, scattering out up to a
single individual who made $3,500. The assistant
professors show a small but perceptible increase in
earnings. True, none of them made as much as
$1,500 hut only 70% made $500 or less, and the
median, $400, is $150 higher than that of the
instructors. In other words, the unexceptional man
of higher rank makes more than the instructor.
As has been said, the associate professors differ
from other ranks. The group has the fewest mem
bers earning anything in addition to their salary.
Those who do earn show a curious distribution;
56% earned $600 or less; the other 44% earned
$1,400 or more, apparently again representing two
distinct points of view, the one to which the out
side interest is only incidental, and the other to
which it is an important financial and probably in
tellectual interest. With such a distribution, there
can be no valid average. This group also appar
ently got the best returns. The full professors
showed a smaller proportion of very high earnings;
only 12% of professors earned more than $1,400
as contrasted with 44% of the associate professors,
and they showed to some extent the same curious
gap though they divide less evenly into two groups:
88% earned under $1,400; the other 12% earned
over $2,500. About one-third got less than $500.

GETTING AND SPENDING

About half of the associate professors received less
than $500. The increase in the earnings of the
average man, however, is shown by these decreasing
percentages of small rewards, one-third of the full
professors and 50% of the associate professors, twothirds of the assistants and 70% of the instructors
being in the group under $500. Probably the ad
ditional annual earnings of the full professors lie
typically between $600 and $700.
Some further particulars concerning the earn
ings through work according to each grade in the
faculty are given below in the belief that the facts
have a certain interest.
(1)
a ss o c ia t e s .—The associates it will be re
membered are a peculiar group in the general
academic ranks. Of the associates, 63% report more
earnings, and those who do earn more than salary
have the highest average additional earnings.
Typically the outside interests of this group are
pecuniarily important to them. Is the new genera
tion a better bargainer? The average associate who
did supplementary work—about two persons out of
three—got at least $900 for it. Usually he earned
this sum through additional instruction. The group
has representatives among those who do extra work
in the fields of research, business and public service.
But four out of five, one-half of the whole group of
associates, did extra teaching. All of them did some
extension work; half of them gave occasional lec
tures; half taught in summer session and one did
coaching. Extension work proved most profit
able. One earned only $50.00; but the typical

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

earnings were about $750. The group is too small
to generalize about its opportunities in research.
Only two men represented the group here, one mak
ing $150; the other, $1,500. One associate made
$750 in business; one, $1,350 in public service.
(2) in s t r u c t o r s .—Three out of four of the
12 instructors (75%) added to their salaries. Here
also additional instruction is the most common re
course but a smaller percentage of the instructors
(42% ) made use of this expedient than among the
associates. One-third engaged in research; one
was in public service and earned $100; another
was in business. His additional income was
$1,100. Of those who did extra teaching, none
earned over $500. The average was about $250.
Unlike the associates, the instructors did no exten
sion work, possibly because of less eligibility or of
preoccupation in the courses which they were offer
ing for the first time. Two taught in summer ses
sions;. three lectured; two did coaching'. In re
search, consulting work or periodical articles appear
to be the only possibilities for the lower grades.
Apparently none were yet writing text-books. One
of this group made $50.00 by writing for periodicals;
one, $175 for consulting work; one, $3,500 for re
search under private employment.
(3) a s s is t a n t p r o f e s so r s .—Of the 2 2 assist
ant professors, the number who did outside work
proved but slightly higher than the proportion of
instructors, 77 % as compared with 75%* As in all
ranks, additional teaching was the most popular re

GETTING AND SPENDING

source; also, as usual, about half of the men of
this rank made use of this expedient. One-third
were employed in research, five in public service
and one in business. The returns from additional
instruction were all under $700. The most typical
returns lay between $300 and $350, a slight gain on
the earnings of the instructors. Three-fourths of
those giving additional instruction taught in sum
mer session; only one did extension work. Coaching
and lectures are represented, one man making $350
from a lecture course. The gains from research
are all under $900 with an average around $350,
higher by $150 than the median of $200 for all ranks.
With this group text-books and other books appear
as source of income. One assistant professor re
ceived the largest sum for a non-text, $166. The
highest return for text-books quoted in this rank was
$630. The number who did consulting work, on spe
cial research problems, almost equal to the number
of those who did research, made between $125 and
$900 thereby. One reported a business income of
$1,200. The five who were in public service received
less than $100 for their work. Three had $100 to
$250 from other sources. The assistant professors
are the only group besides the full professors who
earned an appreciable amount from administrative
work; two assistant professors were paid respec
tively $650 and $750 for this class of extra work.
(4) a ss o c ia t e p r o f e s s o r s .—The proportion of
the 26 associate professors doing outside work is
as low as that in the “ associate” rank. Only 42%
of this rank did extra teaching; 35%; did research.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

This is the group for which the business interest
was the most important. Three men had outside
business relationships yielding them respectively
$300, $3,000 and $8,400. On the other hand, the men
in this group doing public service all reported earn
ings less than $100. None of those doing extra
teaching selected the refuge of coaching. Lecture
work on the contrary was often listed in this
rank, one man making as much as $1,900 from it
though the others made $250 or less. Of the eleven,
three did extension work. Summer session teaching
was the chief resource for this associate pro
fessor group. The gains in this field have the same
range, $150 to $600, as for the whole group. Re
search work scattered over all fields. The returns
range from $12.00 for an article in a periodical up to
$1,500 for consultant work. Two of the four men
who got $800 and over for text-books were associate
professors.
(5) f u l l p r o f e s so r s .—Of the 28 full profes
sors, 86% did additional work. Rank counts. This
rank had a practical monopoly of the good positions
in administrative and in public offices. Three of the
five administrative positions were held by full pro
fessors including the two posts paying over $750.
Two men in this rank got $1,000 for administration.
All the positions in public service paying $250 or
more were held by full professors; two of the five
professors in public service got $2,000 and $5,000 re
spectively while only one got under $100, a sharp
contrast to the assistant and associate professors,
whose public service work brought them for the

GETTING AND SPENDING
96
most part less than $100. All the men earning over
$1,200 in business are associate professors or full
professors. One professor’s business connections
bring him $2,100. An average number, 46%, did ad
ditional teaching. As might be expected, the pro
portion of full professors engaged in research is
much higher than in any other rank; research is an
intrinsic attribute of the professor’s rank. The
most striking fact about the group of full professors
engaged in research is the absence of all of them
from the field of special problems. None of the large
rewards which this work offers were paid to full pro
fessors. The highest sum a professor reported for
this kind of study was $200. The only substantial
pecuniary resource reported by these full professors
was the writing of text-books. The very highest an
nual return reported from this source, $1,000, went
to a full professor. One-fourth of all the professors
got some return from texts and one-half of all the
text-book writers were full professors as compared
with 29% associate professors and 21%’ assistant
professors. Also, the largest incomes from texts
went to full professors; an associate professor occa
sionally earned as much. Contributions to pe
riodicals and other hooks also added a fair sum to
professors’ incomes. The median amount earned
for all types of research is a trifle above the gen
eral average of $200; the mean is $340. Of the full
professors, 40% earned between $100 and $300 in
research.
As for additional teaching, the majority of the
professors who gave any additional instruction

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

taught in summer session, receiving on the average
$500, a trifle above that of the lower ranks. Sev
eral earned comfortable sums by lecturing; the lec
ture course by which the largest amount was earned,
$900, was given by a full professor. A few of this
rank did extension work. When contrasted with all
the other ranks, the full professors show no unusual
distribution of gains through additional teaching.
Probably they taught less, for the stipend paid to
this rank is slightly higher than the ordinary
amount.
In other words, provided always that this group
is representative, professors have little or no chance
of large extra gains. On the other hand, the unex
ceptional man has a good chance of moderate re
turns. (See Tables XVI and XVII.)
T able X Y I
M e a n a n d M ed ian A m o u n t op A dditional E ar n in g s
F a c u lty M embers op S pecified A cademic R a n k s

A cademic Ba n k

All ran k s............................ ..
A ssociate.....................................
Instructor ..................................
Assistant Professor..................
Associate Professor..................
Professor ...................................

A mount of
P er Cent
B eforting A dditional E arnings
A dditional
E arnings
Mean
Median
73.9

$ 992.43

$500.00

62.5
75.0
77.2
61.5
85.7

1378.60
706.39
529.70
1550.38
975.05

895.00
250.00
400.00
560.00
681.83

2. H e l p m a t e ’s S u p p l e m e n t a r y E a r n in g s .—The
faculty member’s helpmate supplemented the family
income in 40% of the cases. Nine helpmates re
ported a regular remunerative occupation; that is,

S ource

E arnings

F aculty M embers

A ll

Regular
Occupa I nstruc
tions

tion

T able X Y II
w ith M ean

A ll
A ddi
tional
Occupa
tions

A ddi
tional
I nstruc
tion

and

M edian A m ounts

R e
search

from

E ach S ource

E xpert
P ublic
A dvice or A dminis
S ervice
trative
B usiness

Other

A ll S ources

XYIII

T able
of I ncome of th e F amilies S tudied w it h
A mounts from E I ch S ource

I ncome from F aculty
M ember ’ s W ork

T otal
I ncome

Regular
S alary

Other
E arn
ings

I ncome

T otal

E arn
ings of
H elp
mate

Number Reporting.. 94*
38
96
71
861
Mean A m ount......... $5343.50 $3375.76 $992.43 $1099.61 $723.41
Median Amount....... 4784.17 3125.00 500.00 492.50 271.93

M ean

from

and

M edian

Other Sources

E arn
ings OF
Children

I ncome
FROM
P roperty

Gifts

Other

64
4
57
11
$58.75 $1006.64 $366.08 $948.05
30.00
288.00 100.00 350.00

* Excluding two cases in which the amount of income above regular salary was not reported.
t In two additional cases the amount was not available; in two of the cases included here only a part of
amount was available.

the

GETTING AND SPENDING

96
96
71
44
Number Reporting..
33
15
8
5
8
Mean A m ount......... $4002.71 $3375.76 $992.43 $505.36 $485.16 $645.67 $2153.56 $766.66 $183.74
Median Amount. . . . 3787.50 3125.00 500.00 400.00 200.00
75.00 1164.25 750.00 160.94

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES

an occupation bringing in more than $750. This
figure includes the husbands of three female faculty
members. Twenty-nine wives reported some alter
nate occupation; that is, one in addition to their
regular housewifely occupation. But at the alter
nate occupation, not usually a full-time job, all
earned less than $750. While teaching was the most
popular form of work, the list of occupations shows
a wide scattering of endeavor all the way from
seamstress work to acting as a government official.
(Table XIX.)

Table XIX

R egular

and

A lternate R em unerative O ccupations
H elpm ates

Occupation op Helpmate

................
. .. .
,x
.
Sewing ................................
Coaching ................................
Music teacher ...........................
Reader (at University) ................
Manager of apartment h ou se ..........
Organist ...........................................................
W riter...............................................................
Hot reporting $ ........................
Boarding and lod gin g ..................
Total number reporting
.................
Lawyer * ......................
Teacher ..................................... ...................
(rovernment official ....................................
Salesman * ............... ..........................

N umber
Humber
Reporting Reporting
Regulart Alternate t
Occupation Occupation
9
2
3
1
1
1
1§

29
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
8

* Male helpmates, husbands of female faculty members,
f Alternate occupation for helpmate is occupation yielding an income
of less than $750 during the year. Regular occupation for helpmate is
occupation yielding an income of more than $750 during the year.
These persons reported earnings without naming the source. Three
of them, however, reported total earnings of less than $100 for the year
in question.
§ This woman also- earned $54.00 during the year as a part-time library
assistant.

283817

100

GETTING AND SPENDING

Reviewed by rank, the associates, a group belong
ing by and large to the younger generation, had the
largest percentage of gainfully occupied helpmates;
50% of the wives were at work; the full profes
sors had the smallest percentage, 32%. In the
other ranks, 41%: and 42% of the helpmates were to
some extent wage-earners. Thus, every academic
grade shows helpmates with regular outside occu
pations. The amount of the earnings varies from
a nominal salary of $1.00 for government work to
$7,500.10 Of those gainfully occupied, 76% earned
less than $750; nearly one-half, less than $250; and
two-thirds, less than $500. The three highest
amounts, all above $2,200, were earnings of the hus
bands of women faculty members. However, three
wives earned from $1,200 to $2,200. The amounts
earned in alternate occupations were widely scat
tered, except in the case of the instructors; in this
group all the wives but one earned, individually, less
than $250.
In nine cases the helpmates’ earnings included
gross returns from boarders and lodgers. In eight
of these cases, the earnings were exclusively from
boarders and lodgers and in the other case $880
out of $935 gross earnings was gained in this way.
If boarders and lodgers are cared for, this is usually
the sole occupation. In only one instance was this
type of effort to earn combined with another pursuit
and in this case boarders and lodgers were the ma
jor source of revenue. The returns varied from
$30.00 to $880, with an average between $250 and
$350, though two-thirds earned less than the latter
10A male helpmate.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 101

sum. Earnings from this source are limited to the
three principal ranks in about equal proportions.
The reasons are not plain.
In summary, the figures suggest that other influ
ences besides real need acted to make the helpmates
of these academic men seek paid work. Particularly
this seems true of the associates, whose average in
comes were larger than those of instructors or as
sistant professors yet whose wives were adding a
greater proportion to income than the wives in the
other academic ranks.
3. S upplementary E arnings oe Children.—In
only four cases, the children contributed to the
family income ; in one case, $150, in the others $25.00
or $30.00. The contributions are relatively insignifi
cant in three out of the four cases. All this class of
contribution to income comes, as might be expected,
from the children of associate or full professors,
the families in this rank being ordinarily the only
ones who have children old enough to earn.
C. Income from Property.—As has been said al
ready in preliminary, returns from property come
next in point of frequency to income from the extra
earnings of the faculty member. One-third of the
96 have no returns from property. In two-thirds
of the 96 cases returns from property supplement
the regular salary. The amounts vary from $3.00
to $5,000. Indeed one-third of these families quoting
property incomes have only nominal returns below
$100. Evidently therefore, contrary to the usual
notion, less than half of this faculty come to the

102

GETTING AND SPENDING

profession with any appreciable outside resources.
No significant average for property income appears
since half the incomes from this source are below
$288; 30% amount to $1,000 or more. Five families
of the 96 have incomes from property greater than
the salary of these faculty members.
As related to rank, the percentage of rentiers is
much the same for all the academic ranks, being
from 58% to 68% for all cases except the associates,
of whom only 50% own some form of income-hearing
property.
But the amount of income from this source is
definitely correlated with rank, probably because
of the age factor and the well-defined habit of ac
cumulating new capital. According to the several
ranks, the general average was as follows: for asso
ciates, $2,608; for instructors, $95.00; for assistant
professors,. $100; for associate professors, $510; for
professors, $903.11 Once again the associates are
the exception. One-half of this rank got less than
$500 from this source; half reported $5,000. But all
the instructors had less than $2,000 from property
income. Three-fourths had less than $250. Half
of these youngest additions to the faculty had $100
or less from investments or savings to count upon
as addition to earning power. For the majority
of these instructors, then, income from property is
an insignificant factor in the family budget.
11 The median is more indicative than the mean in this case, since
it shows the low sums characteristic of the majority of the group.
Due to the presence of occasional large figures, the means are very
much higher: all ranks, $1,007; associate, $2,560; instructor, $312;
assistant professor, $479; associate professor, $970; professor, $1,390.

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 103

For the assistant professors the tipper limit was
$3,000. Nearly two-thirds reported less than $250
from property income. The median for this rank is
$100, an amount very close to that of the instructor.
For the upper 50%, however, property incomes were
slightly higher than those of the instructors. Of
the associate professors only 47% had less than
$250. In contrast with the half of the instructors
and assistant professors whose income from this
source was $100 or less, half the associate profes
sors were able to quote property income in the
amount of $500 or over. Indeed, the associate pro
fessor’s income from property ranges as high as
$5,000 though two-thirds got less than $1,000. Of the
full professors, only 37%: quoted less than $250 from
this source; more than half got $600 or more; onethird reported between $2,000 and $5,000 as con
trasted with 13% of the associate professors. Only
one of the assistant professors and no instructors
are within these limits.
These! figures seem to justify the generalization
that as the faculty member advances in age, and
also more slowly and in a less natural course of
things in academic rank, with rigid economy the
average increase in his property income will be from
$100 to $900.
D. Income from Gifts and Miscellaneous Sources.—
Gifts added something to the income in 59% of
these families. In the majority of cases, however,
the addition to income from gifts proves an unim
portant item in the total income. In 18% of the

GETTING AND SPENDING

104

cases, the gifts reported amounted to less than
$25.00; in half, to less than $100. There was how
ever a minority, 14%, who reported income from
this source of $1,000 or over. All gifts over $500
but one were in money. The gifts in kind were
chiefly clothing.
With regard to the several ranks, the associates,
again the exception, reported gifts to only 25% of
their number. Otherwise the number reporting gifts
decreases as we ascend in rank, falling from 83%
of the instructors to only 54% of the full profes
sors. The amount of the gift does not, however,
seem to depend upon rank. Therefore, despite the
greater frequency of gifts among the younger men,
it is not quite safe to say that the figures show the
salaries of the lower ranks to be subsidized by gifts
presumably from relatives.

T able XX
M edian - A m ount op T otal I ncome S how ing (1) A m ount and
P er C en t op I ncome prom E ach S ource and (2) N umber
R eporting E ach T ype op I ncome

S ource

I ncome

Total Incom e....................
Faculty Member’s Salary
Faculty Member’s Sup
plementary Earnings..
Helpmate’s Earnings . ..
Children’s Incom e...........
Property Incom e.............
Gifts ...................................
O ther...................................

N umber
Reporting

M edian
A mount

P er Cent op
M edian T otal
I ncome op A ll
F amilies R eport
ing I ncome prom
T his S ource

96
96
71
38
4
64
57
11

$4784.17
3125.00
500.00
271.93
30.00
288.00
100.00
350.00

100.0
65.3
10.3
5.6
0.4
5.8
2.2
7.2

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 105

Eleven of the 96 families reported unspecified
sources of income bringing in from $36.00 to $4,000.
Tables XX to XXII give in tabular form the
facts just discussed.
T able
M edian I ncom e

I ncome

XXI

E a c h A cademic R a n k A ccording
to S ources

A ll

Ranks

A sst .
P rof. Assoc.
P rof. P rof.

In
sso
struc A
ciate
tor

$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Incom e............. 4784.17 5399.16 4858.66 3532.50 3535.48 4815.65
Income from W ork... 4085.00 4933.82 4141.00 4072.50 2440.00 3157.50
Faculty Member
E arnings.................... 3787.50 4879.66 3937.50 3200.00 2363.65 2792.50
Salary ........................ 3125.00 4250.00 3412.50 2800.00 2191.67 1941.65
Supplementary Work 500.00 681.83 560.00 400.00 250.00 895.00
Helpmate’s Earnings. 271.93 300.00 240.00 350.00 80.00 1715.00
Children’s Earnings.. 30.00 30.00 30.00
Income from Property 288.00 903.00 510.00 100.00 95.00 2607.50
Gifts ............ ................. 100.00 59.00 107.50 56.50 268.50 685.00
O th er............................ 350.00 500.00 120.00 1625.00 500.00
T able
M e a n I nco m e

I ncome

XXII

E a c h A cademic R a n k A ccording
to S ources

A ll
Assoc. A sst .
R anks P rof. P rof. P rof.

In
sso
struc A
tor ciate

$
$
$
$
$
$
Total In com e............. 5343.50 6681.66 5419.25 4187.47 3792.09 5659.66
Income from W ork... 4350.89 5527.74 4633.02 3415.35 2804.19 4207.79
Faculty Member
4062.61 5361.67 4388.05 3223.71 2682.56 2835.29
E arnings...........
Salary ........................ 3375.76 4525.91 3433.97 2814.39 2152.77 1973.66
Supplementary Work 992.43 975.05 1550.38 529.70 706.39 1378.60
Helpmate’s Earnings. 723.41 493.89 576.29 468.46 291.90 2757.50
Children’s Earnings.. 58.75 68.33 30.00
Income from Property 1006.64 1389.65 969.89 479.27 312.29 2560.00
Gifts ............................ 366.08 360.43 300.00 211.14 773.40 685.00
Other ............................ 948.05 500.00 181.67 1821.00 699.17

106

GETTING AND SPENDING

E. Non-pecuniary Income.
1. V acation.—Money income it is now often said
is accompanied by certain benefits or opportunities
that may be regarded as in the nature of real in
come. Frequently we are told that the professor
has such non-pecuniary income. What though his
money income is relatively small, certain opportuni
ties of status and work it is urged constitute real
additions to salary. The non-pecuniary incomes
most frequently named include the satisfactions of
work done for the joy of the process and the product,
and not for money; the security of tenure, with
certain though slow advancement and a pension;
freedom to select a schedule for the working day
that may vary in hours and emphasis; and finally,
the long vacation.
The data permitted dealing statistically with only
two of these so-called privileges of the profession,
to-wit; opportunity for a long vacation and the
chances of advancement.
One-third of the faculty members and their wives
reported that, if vacation be taken to mean a break
from some kind of regular work, they had no vaca
tion at all in 1921. Forty per cent took less than
two weeks of real vacation; 60% less than four
weeks and nearly all—that is, 90%, reported less
than two months. Since 27 of these men report sum
mer session teaching, evidently for 28% of these
academic men the three months ’ holiday from teach
ing reduces at once to only six weeks’ exemption
from teaching. In general, the helpmates reported

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 107

less vacation than the facnlty members. While this
absence of real cessation from work is in part com
pensated for by some change in the type of work
done during the vacation months, certainly there
seems little evidence in support of the popular con
ception of the academic instructor who for three
happy months of the year betakes himself in cheer
ful irresponsibility to a “ wise passiveness” in the
mountains or to country clubs and the golf links.
2. Opportunities eor P romotion.—Since the
schedule also permits some study of advancement
from rank to rank, the moot question of the rate of
advancement could also be examined. Since ad
vancement to higher ranks means service recognized
and pecuniarily rewarded, light on this subject
should show the opportunities for pecuniary as well
as honorary progress in the profession.
We have seen that at a given time, this sample
of 96 faculty members showed 29% professors, 27%
associate professors, 23% assistant professors,
13% instructors and 8% associates. Thus, the aver
age faculty member in these family groups will cer
tainly be within one of the upper ranks. It will also
be remembered that four-fifths of these instructors
and one-half of the associates were under 35. None
of the assistant professors was over 50; nearly
three-fourths were over 35. Of the associate pro
fessors, 83% were between 35 and 50; only 10%
gained this rank before 35; only a small fraction re
mained there after the age of 50. No full professors
were under 35 and nearly half were over 50. Thus,
it would seem that the man under 35 would probably

108

GETTING AND SPENDING

be an instructor with one chance in four of an assist
ant professorship and one in eight of an associate
professorship. Between the ages of 35 and 50, 10%
still lingered as instructors or associates, though the
vast majority not promoted have been eliminated
from the profession through disheartenment or
sense of incompetence. Associates, a special group
outside the regular academic progression, need not
be considered.
Granted that conditions at the University of Cali
fornia are representative, it would appear that, typ
ically, few men under 50 can expect a full professor
ship with its present minimum salary of $4,000, its
average of $4,000 to $5,000 and its maximum of $8,000.
3. L ength op Service and Salary.—Length of
service is also an aspect of opportunity. How long
do men wait for advancement? Over half the men
included in this study have been with the University
between two and eight years; 12% have been on
the faculty over twenty years; 6%! less than two
years. All the instructors had been on the regents ’
roll less than six years; one-fourth of these, less
than two years.12 The associates had served be
tween two and nine years. One assistant professor
attained to this rank in less than two years; another
assistant professor failed of promotion during four
teen years’ service.13 None of the associate pro.“ The prevailing custom established four years,ago tends to elimi
nate men who after four years’ service as instructors do not seem
to merit promotion.
“ The present system of promotions eliminates this type of men
since assistant professors may now consider failure to get advance
ment after three years, evidence that they cannot expect reappoint
ment.

ANALYSIS OP SALARIES AND INCOMES 109

fessors had served less than two years; one, more
than twenty-fonr. As the length of service in
creases, between two and fourteen years character
istically, the men move up gradually from the rank
of assistant professor to that of associate pro
fessor 14 when they may usually consider themselves
permanently attached to the University. The full
professors sharing in this study had served any
where from six to more than twenty-six years.
Thus, the most probable term of service is between
fourteen and eighteen years. Of the 96, 85% had
served less than eighteen. The man reporting under
two years’ service will, of course, be an instructor or
an associate unless called at higher rank from an
other university. An assistant professorship is not
assured until after six years of service. At the Uni
versity of California, one-fourth of the men in this
study were still instructors after two to six years on
the regents’ roll. One-tenth were still associates.
None were as yet full professors. Between six and
ten years’ service the first opportunity appears of
becoming a full professor—one chance in four. The
incumbent may linger on as an associate, the lowest
rank of all. Probably however he will be either an
assistant professor or an associate professor.
When he has served between ten and fourteen years,
he will most probably be an associate professor, his
chances of becoming a full professor increasing to
one in three. If he is on the faculty at all, he will
14At the time this study was made the more definite scheme of pro
motion had just been made effective. However, the new plan nat
urally did not apply to many of the faculty members in this study
since they had been with the University previous to the new ruling.

110

GETTING AND SPENDING

certainly by this time—that is, after ten years—be
an assistant professor. After eighteen years, there
is only one chance in fourteen that he will not have
attained full professorship.
If the story of the professional history which the
96 schedules tell be’ typical, during the past twenty
years at the University of California progress has
meant an instructorship for the first two years at
least; an assistant professorship or associate pro
fessorship between two and ten years’ service with
the first chance of a professorship after six years’
service; an associate professorship between ten and
fourteen years’ service. Between fourteen and
eighteen years of incumbency, a full professorship
is to be expected; after eighteen years it is practi
cally assured.
Hence, given such conditions as those that con
trolled salary rates at the University of California
up to 1922, during his whole working time the aver
age man in academic life can apparently count upon
an increase in salary of only a little over $2,000. He
will begin at about $2,000. When, after a service
of anywhere from six to eighteen years, he has at
tained full professorship, the highest possible rank,
he usually gets about $4,000; one in twenty has a
chance of the higher rewards of $5,000 to $8,000.
Since salary is thus correlated with academic
rank, the salary prospects of a given age or term of
service will be much the same as the chances of ad
vancement in rank. Of the salaries under $2,000,
72% are paid to men under 35. The majority of
salaries between $2,000 and $5,000 are paid to men

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 111

between 35 and 50 with a distinct increase of the
older men at the $4,500 level; all the salaries of
$6,000 or over go to men over 50. As things were in
1921, a man under 35 could not expect as much as
$4,000; most probably he would be earning between
$2,000 and $3,000 with one chance in six of getting
$3,000 or more. Between 35 and 50, his opportunities
are more widely varied. In the vast majority of
cases, however, he will be earning between $2,000 and
$4,000 with one chance in 60 of getting $5,000 or
more. When he has passed 50, he is .sure of getting
$3,000 or more; the typical salary is between $4,000
and $5,000 with a fair chance, one in four, of $6,000
or $7,000. Even among the elderly men, 15% con
tinue to get between $3,000 and $4,000.
The term of service affects the salary more or less
directly. With regard to the length of time they
have been with the University, two individuals have
served between six and eight years and still get less
than $2,000 but these must of course be exceptional
instances. The majority of salaries under $2,000
are paid to men who have been with the University
less than two years. No one who has served less
than six years has as much as $5,000. The highest
prizes, however, are not necessarily gained by the
longest service. The single $8,000 salary is that of
a man who has served the University between ten
and twelve years. The $6,000 salaries are paid to
men who have served anywhere from six to twentyfive years or over. Those who have served less than
two years all get less than $3,000; two-thirds get
less than $2,000. In the two to five years’ service

112

GETTING AND SPENDING

group, the majority get between $2,000 and $3,000;
there is only one man who receives more than
$4,000. Where service has been between six and ten
years, salary lies probably between $3,000 and
$4,000, certainly between $2,000 and $5,000. The
same salary is typical for the next four years; but
the few who have lingered on at salaries below
$2,000, presumably because they were considered
less competent, are weeded out at the end of eight
years, and one-third of the men in the six to ten year
service group have salaries over $4,000 with a
chance—“ their main chance”—of a salary of $8,000.
The progress toward a salary of $4,000 appears to
begin with the twelfth year of service. After twelve
years of incumbency, salaries below $3,000 are not
found except in one isolated case in the fourteen to
sixteen year group; after twenty-five years, every
incumbent appears to be certain of $4,000. Fourteen
years of service will bring at least two-thirds of the
men to $4,000 or $5,000 with about one chance in ten
of earning $5,000 to $7,000.
If these facts are typical of university salaries
in general, and, as has been said, comparison with
available facts about other universities warrants the
belief that they are representative, the young man
entering university work after a preparation aver
aging from eight to ten years can only expect less
than $2,000 the first two years; $2,000 to $3,000 the
next three years; $3,000 to $4,000 between six and
fifteen years of service with the chance of rising to
a salary between $4,000 and $5,000 during the latter
years of that period. After fifteen years’ service,

ANALYSIS OP SALARIES AND INCOMES 113

this salary is assured, with one chance in ten at the
higher salaries.
Just now, the top of the academic ladder seems
below a level that would admit faculty men to the
1% of the nation that earns $8,000 and up, the
group pointed out to sanguine young Americans as
the objective of just ambitions.
A comparatively low level of earning at the top
of the ladder and a comparatively long period to
wait before reaching that level represent factors of
this type of professional life discouraging enough.
Yet to these another exasperating fact is added.
The slow process of advancement in rank and salary
which this investigation has revealed can rarely be
hastened except when offer of a higher salary comes
from another university. Eeward in money and
rank in many instances still comes on a competitive
basis. Increased returns come more rapidly upon
evidence that another employer estimates the in
dividual highly than they can be earned by services
conscientiously rendered to a given university. The
man who desires rapid rise in rank and salary in
most institutions of the country finds it almost nec
essary to feel only a moderate loyalty to a given in
stitution. He who desires rapid advancement must
be always ready to hear and to respond to a call at
higher rank and salary. On the contrary, those who
receive no offers from other institutions at salaries
higher than the regular promotion scheme their own
university would give them, even those who receive
an offer but decide to stay with the institution, ordi
narily find themselves practically penalized by a

114

GETTING AND SPENDING
T able

L e n g th

S ervice

of t h e

XXIII

F ac u lty M embers S tudied

Length of Service

N umber

P er Cent of All
F aculty Members

All terms of service....................
Less than 2 y ea rs........................
2 to 5 years ...............................
6 to 8 years ...............................
10 to 13 years ...............................
14 to 17 yeaTs ...............................
18 to 21 y e a r s ...............................
22 to 25 years ...............................
26 yeaTs and o v er........................

96
6
37
16
13
10
6
5
3

100.0
6.3
38.5
16.7
13.5
10.4
6.3
5.2
3.1
T able

A cademic R a n k

A ll T erms L ess T han
of S ervice 2 Y ears
A cademic R a n k

All R a n k s...............
Associate . . ...........
Instructor ...............
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor ___ ____

Per
Per
Cent No. Cent
No. of
of All
All
Ranks
Ranks
96 100.0 6 100.0
8.3 2 33.3
8
50.0
12 12.5 3
16.7
22 22.9 1
26 27.1
28 29.2

F ac u lty M embers

6 TO 9
2 to 5
Y ears
Y ears
Per
Per
Cent
Cent
No. of All No. of All
Ranks
Ranks
37 100.0 16 100.0
4 10.8 2 12.5
9 24.4
12 32.4 5 31.2
12 32.4 5 31.2
4 25.0

ANALYSIS OF SALARIES AND INCOMES 115

rigid and slow process of promotion for preferring
to remain at the one institution. Almost, the pres
ent scheme of things offers the incentive to move
about from place to place and limits unfortunately
to a minimum the loyalty given to any one uni
versity.
The basis of the above generalizations will be
found numerically set forth in Tables XXIII and
XXIV.
XXIV
R elated

to a

10 TO 13
Y ears

S pecified L e n g th

14 to 17
Y ears

18 to 21
Y ears

S ervice

22 to 25
Y ears

26 Y ears
and Over

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Cent No. Cent No. Cent No. Cent
No.
No. ofCent
of All
of All
All
of All
of All
Banks
Banks
Banks
Banks
Banks
3 100.0
13 100.0 10 100.0 6 100.0 5 100.0
3
6
4

23.1
46.2
30.7

1
2
7

10.0
20.0
70.0

100,0

1
4

20.0
80.0

100.0

CHAPTER Y
GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES
I. The S tandard op E xpenditure
The main question that gave the impulse to this
study was whether or no these 96 families had salary
enough to pay for an accepted standard of living.
The breadwinners of these families did not seem
to think so themselves, since, as has been shown,
most of them felt obliged to add to salary in order
to meet the annual expenditures that their standard
of living led them to make.
But how did they spend what they made? The
best available index of the sufficiency of a salary is
the use made of it. Were these salaries spent
wisely? In other hands, could these salaries have
bought all that was really needed ?
A close inspection of what these 96 families
bought with the incomes they derived from various
sources with differing costs in time and effort ought
to give solid grounds for a confident answer to
the fundamental question.
The facts set down in the expenditure tables here
following register several things. In the first place,
these expense histories show the purchasing power
in money and credit of each family and of the 96
families as a whole. In the second place, since more
116

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 117

than the usual detail of a scale of wants appears,
the reader interested in evaluating the disburse
ments can study the general selection of goods and
services, the plan that allotted expenditures to each
of the major divisions of household expense histo
ries, and the way in which the emphasis fell among
the expenditures within the major subdivisions of
these expense accounts.
A. The Method Used.—In framing the questions
calculated to show what expenditures were made,
it was assumed (1) that the accuracy of the results
in this section of the inquiry would depend funda
mentally upon the completeness with which “ house
hold needs” were analyzed and listed; (2) that all
the facts were to be gathered by interviews; (3)
that account books were not likely to be serviceable.
Even if in a minority of cases they proved to have
been kept, the form used would probably not be
planned to meet the purposes of this study.
The good-will and the intelligence of the groups
to be interviewed seemed warrant for using a long
list of items. The analysis finally adopted (see
schedule) was made in the belief that the more de
tailed the list of goods and services, the greater the
probability of accurate totals and sub-totals. Only
a deterring respect for precedent and a desire to
keep the results comparable with earlier studies
kept the analysis from being carried farther.
The classification of wants adopted varies some
what from precedent. Traditionally the major divi
sions have been listed as “ food,” “ shelter,” “ fuel

118

GETTING AND SPENDING

and light,” “ clothing,” and “ sundries.” The five
main headings used here, food, clothing, shelter,
house operation, and miscellaneous, seemed to prom
ise both order and completeness in showing the facts
of first importance.
The sub-classifications under each major division
of goods and services need no explanation. It is
hoped they will seem appropriately placed as well
as inclusive.
It is regrettable that the study could not include
a story of the quantities used. Data of this kind
were not available. However, if the hypothesis of
“ standard” habits of selection be true, the direction
and emphasis these buyers give their purchasing,
particularly the way tliey selected among a pos
sible list of items qP house operation and miscel
laneous, may contain some general implications
worthy the consideration of students of marketing
and demand.
B. The Standard of Living and Expenditures.—In
what follows the aim has been to show with as many
details as accuracy permitted the range of the scale
of wants satisfied with the incomes in question and
also to show where the emphasis fell. When the
reader has before him the details of the decisions
regarding the way the incomes were used, when he
has seen how the money was apportioned for food,
clothing, shelter, savings and investment, and other
“ social needs,” he can decide concerning the pro
priety of these allotments and expenditures. By
such tests as each has at hand, those examining the

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 119

following tables will be free to pronounce for them
selves upon the methods of purchasing and to class
ify the standard of living.
The reader is reminded that to the writer the
tables following seem to show the details of a stand
ard widely accredited though far less widely prac
ticed, a standard that was classified though not
evaluated in Chapter I as American, professional,
middip! class. This is to say that the scheme of
disbursements here following in the main conforms
to that theory of spending which the phrase “ plain
living and high thinking” expresses.
II. The Total E xpenditures
The total amount of money spent for family needs
has less interest than other points when the amount
of income is the issue.
The relation between the range of the total in
come and the range of expenditure is of course sig
nificant. In these cases where, it will be remem
bered, the incomes ranged from $1,800 to $16,000, the
range of expenditures proved to be from $2,200 to
$14,000.
When family groups are of the type under con
sideration here, it was to be expected that the
amount disbursed would in each family correspond
fairly closely with the total income available. It
was also a foregone conclusion that the spending
would be cautious. On the whole these assumptions
proved to be the case. With few exceptions the
limits of income set the limits of expenditure.
Broadly speaking, the amount of family expendi

120

GETTING AND SPENDING

ture varies just as widely as income and a little
more.
However, discrepancies between income and ex
penditure, a recurrent fact in budget studies of all
times, reappear even in this essentially “ rational”
spending group. The average of the expenditures
under examination goes always a trifle above the
income.
The spenders gave varying reasons for these dis
crepancies. In only a few cases was this fact ad
mittedly due to an absolute deficit. Rather it was
attributed either to some error in calculating the
expense of the year analyzed, or to the fact that
expenditures were running perforce something more
or less than a month ahead of income. When the
truth is better known, this sort of discrepancy will
probably prove to be fairly typical of contemporary
middle class household expenditures at least in the
United States where credit is so generously offered
to consumers of all classes. Actually these budgets
verify Yeblen’s theory of the relation between earn
ing capacity and spending already referred to.1
For the 96 families taken as a whole, the mean
expenditure proved to be $5,511.77. The median of
$4,893.22 indicates the average more precisely.
The total expenditure varies of course with in
come and salary. When correlated with rank the
variations in total expenditure show the results dis
played in Table XXV.
Obviously, from the figures in this table, the
spending of all 96 families tends to about the same
1Yeblen, Theory of the Leisure Class, p. 112.

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 121
Table XXV
M e a n A m o u n ts

Rank

E xpenditur e

All Ranks . . . . ............ . . . , .......................
A ssociates.........................................................
Instructors .. . .......................................
Assistant Professors.....................................
Associate Professors ...................................
Professors ................. ....................................

for

E ach R a n k

A mount
$5,511.77
6,169.27
4,016.08
4,298.96
5,407.30
7,014.88

standard. Typically the instructors, whose salaries
never exceed $2,200, supplement earnings to larger
amounts than the other ranks so as to meet at least
the minimum needs of an expenditure, standard com
mon to all ranks. Typically, as will he emphasized
again later, impelled by the standard, instructors
allot a most unusual proportion of expenditure to
miscellaneous.
III. T h e R e l a t io n B e t w e e n t h e M a jo r D iv is io n s
of t h e

H o u s e h o l d E x p e n d it u r e s

A. General Relationships.—Tables XXVI to
XXVIII inclusive here following show how as an
average the emphasis fell when these families
selected goods and services.
The most cursory examination of these expendi
ture tables shows the proportional allotments to the
major divisions of expenditure to be exceptional.
These faculty families allot as an average only a
trifle over half of what they spend, 57%, to the re
current aspects of expenditure that food, shelter,
house operation and clothing represent. Food and
shelter it will be noted cost equally, each absorbing

122

GETTING AND SPENDING

an average of 17% of the income. The costs of
house operation come next with an average of 13%.
The three classes of expenditure which group to
gether as general household expenses offer in reality
a wide range of choice within each division. For
these three divisions of expenditure, however, no
striking tendency to differ from customary expendi
ture appears when the average expenditure of these
T able

XXYI *

M edian D istribution am o n g D iffer ent I tem s
for A ll 96 F a c u lty F a m ilie s

E xpenditure

Amount of P er Cent of Total
Expenditure
E xpenditure

I tem
F o o d ................................................
C lothing..........................................
Shelter ............................................
House Operation ........................
Miscellaneous ...............................

$807.50
440.33
684.50
568.21
2047.19

16.8
8.8
15.8
12.2
41.2

T able X X Y I a *
M e a n D istribution
for

a m o n g D iffer ent I te m s of E xpenditure
A ll 96 F a c u lty F a m ilie s

I tem
Total Expenditure ......................
F o o d ........................ .......................
C lothing.........................................
Shelter ............................................
House Operation ........................
Miscellaneous .......................... ....

A mount of P er Cent of Total
Expenditure
Expenditure
$5511.77
893.73
487.78
. 871.11
746.49
2512.44

100.0
17.3
9.4
17.1
13.1
43.1

* The percentages of these two tables do not represent the exact rela
tion of the average amount spent for each item to the average total
expenditure. They are instead the mean and median respectiyely of the
series of percentages that food, for example, bears to total expenditure
in each of the 96 families. It is believed that in this way a more
accurate idea of the typical proportional expenditure is obtained than
by reducing the average amounts to percentages. The mean percentage
figures for this latter method would be the same as those in Table
XXVII.

GENERAL CHARACTER OP EXPENDITURES 123

96 families is examined. Quite the contrary is true
of the division, clothing. Here, a well defined
“ standard,” a decision for rigorous simplicity,
T able
D istribution

of t h e

XXVII

E xpenditures

I tem
Total expenditure of 96 families
F o o d ...........................................
Clothing ...................................
Husband ..................................
Wife ............................................
Children ............. .....................
Shelter .................................
Souse Operation .......................
Light ..........................................
Heat and F u e l........................
Ice ..............................................
Telephone and Telegraph . . .
Service .......................................
Garbage R em oval....................
Personal Cleaning Supplies..
House Cleaning Supplies . . .
House Laundry and Supplies
Furniture and Furnishings..
Stationery and Postage . . . .
Other .........................................
Miscellaneous
Investment ...............................
Automobile ...............................
Recreation ................................
Health .......................................
Dependents ...............................
Gifts .................................. . . .
Education ............... .................
Professional .............................
Incidentals ...............................
Associations ............................
Church .......................................
Charity .....................................
Tobacco .....................................

of t h e

$529,130.82

h o le

G roup *

P er Cent
100.0
16.2
8.8
3.1
3.4
2.3
15.8
13.5
0.7
1.9
0.1
0.7
4.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.7
4.2
0.2
0.3
45.6
13.1
'7.0
5.2
5.7
1.6
2.3
3.0
3.0
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.7
0.4

* feince no one family spends for every item of the budget as enumerated
here, the sum of the average expenditures for the different items would
not constitute a representative budget for an “average” family. How
ever, the group as a whole does spend for all the items, and the above
table shows how the total annual expenditure of the 96 families, $529,130.82, is distributed.

T able
M ean

and

XXYIII

M edian A m o u n t s and P ercentages op T otal
A llotted to E a c h I t e m op t h e B udget

penditures

N umber op
F amilies
Reporting
Expenditure
96
96
96
96
96
96
90t
55
96
95
34
94*
96
93*
95
94
52
90§
611

Mean
$
$
5511.77
893.73
487.78
871.11
746.49
2512.44
774.34
673.35
286.50
316.33
250.39
123.41
164.06
169.27
93.23
75.74
64.01
41.47
34.21

Median
$
$
4893.22
807.50
440.33
684.50
568.21
2047.19
357.50
364.00
197.85
203.16
200.00
100.00
69.30
60.00
55.00
49.70
30.00
27.00
25.00

P er Cent op Total
Expenditure
Mean
100.0

Median
100.0

17.3
9.4
17.1
13.1
43.1

* In 1 additional case, expenditure was reported but the exact amount was not available,
f In 2 additional caseS, expenditure was reported but the exact amount was not available.
§ In 3 additional cases, expenditure was reported but the exact amount was not available.

16.8
8.8
15.8
12.2
41.2

12.7
10.3
5.1
5.7
5.1
2.3
2.6
2.9
1.7
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.6

7.9
6.2
4.1
3.9
3.1
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.4

GETTING AND SPENDING

Total Expenditure .........
Food ...................................
Clothing ............................
Shelter ..............................
House Operation.........;.
Total Miscellaneous . . . .
Investments ..................
Automobile ..................
Recreation ............... ....
Health ..........................
Dependents ..................
Gifts ..............................
Education ....................
Professional Expenses.
Incidentals .................
Associations..................
Church ....................
Charity ..........................
Tobacco ........................

A mount op Expenditure

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 125

shows plainly. For middle class incomes, custom
has long assigned to clothing costs for a family an
allotment of 15% to 25%. In these expenditures
now under consideration, the average costs of cloth
ing form scarcely 10% of the outgo. All the re
maining expenditure, 43%, goes for miscellaneous.
B. The Proportionate Expenditures According to
Expenditure Levels.—A much more distinct rela
tionship to changes in the proportional distribution
of expenditure is apparent when, by grouping the
families according to total expenditure by thousand
dollar levels, from $2,000 to $10,000 and over, the
different income levels are considered separately, as
in Tables XXIX and XXX (pp. 133-134).
1. F ood.—'Examination of these family expendi
tures in this way shows that the proportion assigned
to food definitely decreases in relative importance as
the total expenditure increases. The range is 11%,
from 9%; to 20%. Those with incomes of $2,000 to
$3,000 spend almost 21% on food. Where incomes
range from $3,000 to $4,000, almost 19 %; is allotted
to this division of expenditure. But when incomes
rise to between $4,000 and $8,000, there is no appre
ciable decrease; about the same proportion goes to
food. As was to be expected, the $8,000 to $10,000
group spends proportionately least. When the in
come goes over $10,000, the proportion again rises,
as it does also with clothing. This would seem to
indicate that the groups with incomes lower than
$10,000 are spending what they consider an absolute
minimum upon food; that, as incomes increase, they

126

GETTING AND SPENDING

assign, only a trifle of the additional funds to this
item, though they add more to food than they do
to clothing. With larger incomes they get either
more food or a little more costly food. But they
soon cease increasing their absolute expenditure for
this item. Only with the very highest incomes a
new standard of food consumption appears.
2. Clothing.—The proportion assigned to cloth
ing shows the traditional tendency that Engel
pointed out; it decreases as the total expenditure
increases. The average proportion given to cloth
ing was 9% with a variation of about 7%. All fami
lies spending less than $5,000, spend above the aver
age amount for clothing; all spending $6,000 or over,
pay out less than the average for clothing; and the
decrease is a fairly steady and apparent one with
only occasional fluctuations. The group spending
$10,000 or more, shows the only real increase in the
allotment for clothing. Exactly the same absolute
amount is not, of course, spent for clothing by all
families. On the whole, however, as incomes in
crease, a definite willingness to retrench on clothing
expenditures is regularly evidenced. Other needs
continue to take precedence. Not until we reach
families spending above $10,000, the highest income
group, does a standard of dress other than that of
the majority of the group come into view. Even
then, the “ standard” allots an exceptionally low
proportion to this division of expenditure.
In fact, economies are most evident and startling
in the clothing expenditures, particularly in those
of the wives. One family, consisting of a man, wife

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 127

and two children, reports using less than $200 to
clothe the whole family during the year. For the
whole academic group, the average is less than $500
a year for the clothing of a family of four. Only
one family spent over $1,000 and this family had
four growing children in the house.
3. S helter.2—The cost of shelter tends also to
decrease as income rises though neither so markedly
nor so consistently. Beginning at 17 for both the
$2,000 to $3,000 and the $4,000 to $5,000 expenditure
groups, the cost of shelter rises to more than 20 %|
when, with larger incomes, the families begin to
buy their own homes. The peak is definitely reached
in the $6,000 to $7,000 class. The proportional ex
penditure then drops irregularly to 6% or 7 %. A
distinct if irregular decrease appears in the higher
income groups, but the costs of housing do not rise
when the expenditures are greater than $10,000 as
the costs of food and clothing do.
The academic standard for housing can best be
described by the English term, “ house proud.”
This is an occupational group that will eat the plain
est food and spend resignedly a total sum upon
clothing that underpaid clerks would rebel against,
but as a class they will insist upon owning a home in
a good neighborhood with at least six rooms and
a Viewed as a whole, the housing costs of these groups were in
creased and complicated by the fact that certain costs of purchase
appear along with the regular running expenses directly comparable to
rent. Costs of housing include payments made toward ownership,
partial or total if made during the year. The decision to include
these was an alternative to arbitrary omissions and computations that
seemed to introduce even greater risks of inaccuracies than including
all actual expenditures for housing.

128

GETTING AND SPENDING

usually more. Housing is, what clothes and food
are not, a vital item in this class standard of life,
a supreme source of “ psychic income.” The fact
that the professor’s house is part of his stock in
trade; that he feels called upon to do a certain
amount of general entertaining, as well as to invite
students to his house, is doubtless an element in
shaping this bias of mind. A comfortable and pre
sentable home seems to him a necessity. The welldefined standard of living in respect to housing finds
expression as soon as possible. The standard may
confidently be said to be the same for all the income
classes.
4. H ouse Operation.—In general, house operat
ing costs do not show the regular increase with rise
of income that might be expected. Clearly differing
possibilities of expenditures inhere in a group of
expenses that cover the costs of light, fuel, heat, ice;
of telephone and telegraph and garbage removal;
personal and house cleaning supplies and house
laundry; domestic service; furniture and furnish
ings ; stationery and postage; and incidentals. Costs
of fuel, heat and light, of telephone and garbage re
moval are the most regular, due in part no doubt
to the fact that they are largely the fixed charges
of public or quasi-public utilities. Housekeeping de
tails like the cost of ice, of cleaning supplies, laun
dry, stationery and especially of furnishings, show
wide variation according to size of the house, per
sonal preferences, theories of economy and the
amount of income.
The lowest amount spent for house operation was

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 129

$175, the highest $3,000, 4 % i to 30% of the total bud
get. But half of the families spent between $300
and $700, a range of 7%, from 8% to 15%. Where
the expenditures for running costs were peculiarly
high, this was due to the inclusion of some large bill
for additions to furniture, either in furnishing a
new house or re-furnishing an old one. The four
families who spent more than 25% on this item did
it for this reason. Three families at the other ex
treme spent less than 5%. In one case, the amount
was not phenomenally low, but the size of the house
hold, 7 persons, so increased the size of the food
bill that the relative cost of house operation was
dwarfed in comparison, since this item is only sec
ondarily affected by variations in the size of the
family. The instructor and his wife who spent only
$173 for their running expenses, less than 5% of
their total budget, represent the maximum of absti
nence or of management. They were renting; they
spent little or nothing for furniture, nothing for
service, nothing for ice, less than $50.00 for all the
costs of personal and house cleaning supplies and
laundry. This was also the situation in one large
family. An associate professor with a household of
eight and an income of $5,000 reported only $230
for house operation. With student help, the family
spent only $10.00 for service,3 nothing for ice, $50.00
for furniture. And in this case also the size of the
food bill dwarfed the relative cost of household
operation.

8 The student’s food costs that appear in the family’s food expendi
ture are of course really a cost of service, which could not however
be thus ascribed.

130

GETTING AND SPENDING

A second generalization about the cost of house
operation seems warranted. This item of expense
does not follow closely that of housing. With a
range of about 6%, tendencies are uncertainly ap
parent hut are all toward a slight increase in the
proportion the higher income groups allot to these
needs. This division of expenditure remains, how
ever, irregular in its fluctuations. Running ex
penses relatively are lowest for the $7,000 to $8,000
group, next lowest for the $4,000 to $5,000 group
and at highest for those with $9,000 to $10,000. The
standard of life gives the urge to residence in a
certain neighborhood and for a house of a certain
size and quality, hut it does not apparently dictate
as definitely the details of household operation. The
needs in this budget group seem to he more a mat
ter of individual choices, and in particular related
to varying theories about what constitutes thrifty
methods of management.
5. Miscellaneous.—Naturally the group of
items headed “miscellaneous” shows the greatest
diversity. Taken together, these items may be called
the field of choice. Gn the average, with these fami
lies, miscellaneous absorbs 43%', ranging over varia
tions of 20%, and increasing with fair regularity
as the income grows. Unquestionably, these non
physical necessities control the “ standard” and ab
sorb the margin of income in these 96 families. In
the lower income groups, a third of the total ex
penditure goes to miscellaneous; in the upper levels,
the proportion grows to more than half.
The amount spent for the 13 items under miseel-

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 131

laneous is necessarily closely correlated with the
amount of total expenditure. All the families who
spend below $1,000 for miscellaneous, report total
expenditures under $7,000: 80% of those who spent
less than $1,000 report total expenditures below
$4,000. Of all the families that spent between $1,000
and $1,500 for miscellaneous, 60% reported total
expenditures between $3,000 and $4,000 while 100%
reported less than $5,000. Nearly three-fourths of
those spending from $1,500 to $2,500 are in the
‘$4,000 and $5,000 expenditure groups. Two-thirds
of those spending more than $4,000 for miscel
laneous have total expenditures of more than
$9,000.
Examining the different items of this group to see
how the distribution of the miscellaneous sub-items
varies with an increase in the total appropriation for
miscellaneous also has interest. When considered
by $500 levels, the expenditures move from a group
spending less than $1,000 to one spending more
than $3,500 for this division of expenditure.
The proportion spent for miscellaneous varies for
the whole group from 12% to 77% of the total an
nual expenditure.4 But more than half the families
spent between 30% and 50% of their income in this
division and, as has been said, the average is 43%.
As has been the case in previous studies, the propor
tion spent on miscellaneous rises as the total income
increases. But it does not follow that all the high
allotments for miscellaneous lie in the large incomes.
4 Five families reported spending something more than 70% of
their total budget for miscellaneous items.

132

GETTING AND SPENDING

The group that spends more than 50% for miscel
laneous includes families with total expenditures
anywhere from $3,000 to over $10,000 although most
of the families with high incomes are included here.
On the other hand, though the majority of those al
lotting less than 30% to this division have total
budgets under $5,000, two families spending more
than $9,000 are also included here. Evidently, both
large and small income groups will elect to spend
more than half of what they disburse for miscellane
ous. These 96 families include some household
groups who devote a large proportion of their in
come to miscellaneous items whenever they can af
ford it and some who do so even when they cannot.
Though the rigid necessities of minimum require
ments for food, clothing and, to a less degree, shel
ter force most of the families with small incomes
to apportion less to miscellaneous items, any expan
sion permitted by increasing purchasing power
seems to go first in this direction. In the academic
world, as Tables XXIX, XXIX a and XXX plainly
show, the lowest income group, spending between
$2,000 and $3,000, holds insistently to a minimum, a
“ decency” standard, as applied to items included
under miscellaneous, and therefore will not reduce
the proportion devoted to miscellaneous as low as
it goes commonly with other classes of spenders,
even when incomes are larger. If, in maintaining
this standard for miscellaneous items, economies
are necessary, these are apparently made as has
been shown by refusing to expand expenditures for
food and clothing.

GENERAL CHARACTER OP EXPENDITURES 133
Table XXIX

Mean Amounts Spent for Different Items of Budget by
F amilies with a Given Amount of Total Expenditure
House Miscel
Amount of Total Food Clothing Shelter O
pera
Expenditure
tion laneous
All Amomits.......
$2000-2999 ...........
3000-3999 ...........
4000-4999 ...........
5000-5999 . . . . . .
6000-6999 ...........
7000-7999 ............
8000-8999 ...........
9000-9999 ...........
10,000 and over ..

$
893.73
543.91
657.38
779.21 .
969.20
1162.90
1326.67
1187.40
857.29
1477.11

$
487.78
310.95
362.66
441.73
522.74
515.68
519.13
719.20
430.47
935.78

871.11
431.83
683.81
736.71
1084.39
1401.97
830.84
1107.72
1235.83
861.07

$
746.49
334.36
453.29
499.70
740.08
1023.28
764.01
1042.72
1493.92
1727.82

$
2512.44
990.19
1352.09
1981.46
2082.08
2334.17
4190.55
4264.59
5322.40
6450.74

Table XXIXa

Mean P ercentage Distribution of Expenditure among
the Different Budgetary I tems for a Given
Amount of Total Expenditure
Amount of No.
ouse
OF All Food Cloth Shel OHpera
Total Fami

ter

I
tems
ing
Expenditure lies
tion
All Amounts...
$2000-2999 . . .
3000-3999 . . .
4000-4999 . . .
5000-5999 . . .
6000-6999 . ..
7000-7999 . ..
8000-8999 . . .
9000-9999 . . .
10,000 and over

* One item of

96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5
8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

17.3
20.9
18.8
17.8
17.9
18.1
17.6
14.4
9.1
13.0

9.4
12.0
10.4
10.0
9.6
8.0
6.8
8.7
4.6
8.2

17.1
16.5
19.5
16.5
20.3
21.7
11.0
13.1
13.3*
7.6

50.7%, the other 4 less than 10.0%.

13.1
12.8
13.0
11.2
13.4
15.8
10.0
12.7
16.0
15.2

M isa
43.1
37.8
38.3
44.6
38.7
36.4
54.7
51.1
57.1
56.0

134

lies

All Amounts . . .
$2000-2999 ___
3000-3999 ___
4000-4999 ___
5000-5999 . . . .
6000-6999 . . . .
7000-7999 ___
8000-8999 . . . .
9000-9999 ___
10,000 and over .

96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5
8

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Mean Median Mean Median Mean
17.3 16.8 9.4
8.8 17.1
20.9 22.0 12.0 12.0 16.5
9.7 19.5
18.8 17.8 10.4
17.6 16.7 10.0
9.0 16.5
17.9 15.9 9.6 10.1 20.3
7.8 21.7
18.1 17.3 8.0
6.8
6.9 11.0
17.6 18.7
7.9 13.1
14.4 14.7
8.7
4.2 13.3*
9.1 10.4 4.6
8.4 '7.6
9.7
8.2
13.0

* One item of 50.7%, the other 4 less than 10.0%.

Median
15.8
16.8
19.0
15.3
18.7
23.3
10.7
7.9
2.7*
6.4

Mean Median Mean Median
13.1 12.2 43.1 41.2
12.8 13.6 37.8 36.4
13.0 12.4 38.3 36.7
11.2
9.8 44.6 43.2
13.4 10.8 38.7 40.2
15.8 11.9 36.4 36.4
10.0
9.5 54.7 48.2
12.7 11.9 51.1 44.1
16.0 17.6 57.1 55.6
15.2 12.7 56.0 61.6

GETTING AND SPENDING

Table XXX
Meak and Median Percentage Distribution of Expenditure among the Different Budgetary
Items Correlated with Given Amounts of Total Expenditure
Percentage Distribution of1Expenditure
No.
Amount of Total OF All
House
Miscel
Clothing
Shelter
Expenditure Fami Items Food
Operation
laneous

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 135

0. The Allotment of Expenditures According to
Academic Rank.—The proportionate allotment of
expenditures among the several divisions of a familyhousehold expense does not differ strikingly when
considered according to the different academic
ranks.

Table XXXI
Per Cent Distribution or the.Mean Expenditure among the
Different Items of the Budget for Given
Academic Ranks
General
Academic Bank
Average
Item
for All Prof. Assoc. Asst. Instruc Asso
Banks
Prof. Prof. tor ciate

Food ....................
Clothing .............
Shelter ...............
House Operation
Miscellaneous . . .

17.3
9.4
17.2
13.1
43.1

16.4
9.1
12.1
14.4
48.0

15.4
9.0
16.8
12.1
46.7

16.8
8.6
20.1
16.3
38.2

17.5
8.6
12.9
10.6
50.4

15.8
8.0
22.2
11.9
42.1

Clothing proves least variable when rank is con
sidered just as it did when related to income levels.
On an average there is a difference of only 1% be
tween the lowest proportion spent for clothing, that
spent by the associates, and the highest proportion
spent by the full professors’ families. There seems
to be a slight tendency to increase expenditure for
clothing with higher rank but not enough to insist
upon, given such small limits. Food also shows very
little variation, less than 2%, and no definite order
of increase shows as rank changes. The cost of
household operation varies more than twice as much
as food, 6%; the highest costs are for the assistant
professors, the lowest for the instructors. Possibly
this may be attributed to the fact that the instruc

136

GETTING AND SPENDING

tors do not yet own their houses; that they have
smaller families and hence have smaller costs than
the older men, for furniture, for service and for
general running expenses. But the relation of this
cost to rank is certainly not distinct. The cost of
shelter is still more variable among the several
ranks, 10%; the lowest amount, 12%, the highest,
22%. This charge is lowest for full professors and
for instructors, probably because the instructors
have not yet bought houses and the professors have
finished paying for theirs. Also, the professor’s
costs seem lower than they really are because, since
it did not seem wise to disregard a poor tradition,
the interest on the money invested in these homes
has not been included here as a housing charge on
owned houses. With the exception of the instruc
tors, proportional housing costs seem to decrease
with rank, being highest for the associates and
lowest for the full professors. The proportion as
signed to the group of miscellaneous items is the
most variable of all the main classes of expendi
ture, highest for the instructors, lowest for the as
sistant professors. No relation to rank is appar
ent nor are there any striking variations. Prob
ably this group of items would always take the
largest proportion of the incomes of the instructors
with their lower salaries because of the fact already
emphasized that, in the academic way of living, a
definite minimum standard prevails concerning
this class of expense, a standard below which in
structors as well as professors will not go. When
this class standard touches the expenditure plans

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 137

of those with relatively smaller incomes, high pro
portionate costs for miscellaneous in all classes and
especially among instructors with lower total ex
penditures become almost a certainty.
D. Broad Details Concerning Expenditures for
Miscellaneous.—What does the average faculty
member do with the relatively large allowance for
these thirteen items of miscellaneous? He cer
tainly does not smoke it up; less than two-thirds
report any expenditure for tobacco. What tobacco
is used takes less than 1% of the total miscella
neous.5 He does not give it to charity. The con
tributions in this direction are relatively small,
though nearly all the families give something.
Three-fourths of the contributions were less than
$50.00 annually. Nor is it contributed to the church
since the amounts in this class are relatively low;
in fact, not much more than half of the families give
anything to support churches. Those who con
tribute reported in two-thirds of the cases con
tributions of less than $52.00 a year. Seventy
dollars a year or 1.5% of the total budget for edu-

8 Owing to the smaller number of cases and the greater irregularity
in the expenditure figures, together with a tendency already ob
served for the cases to cluster at the lower end of the scale with one
or two disproportionately high individuals at the upper end, the
means for these sub-items of expenditures are even more unreliable
than for the data already discussed. Hence, the medians have been
used as more indicative of the mass of the families studied. The
very high cases must not of course be ignored completely since it is
characteristic of this group to show always a few individuals who
devote a preponderant share of their income to a single item but they
should not be allowed to exert undue influence upon the type which
is supposed to characterize the general spending tendency. The
means have, therefore, been included in all of the tables and have
been used in a few cases where the median is obviously fallacious.

138

GETTING AND SPENDING

cational facilities seems a small expenditure for a
group whose interest in the best training is pre
sumably high. Only $60.00 a year as an average for
professional expenses means that in most cases the
faculty member, or his wife for him, has spent
many hours at clerical drudgery. Automobiles
consume a large proportional amount ; slightly
more than half the families own them, but those
who do, spend almost as much for them as for
clothes. More than a third of the families were
contributing to the support of dependents outside
the home. Items, each one of which absorbs 3% or
more of the total expenditure, are investments,
automobiles, health, recreation and dependents.
All spend the largest amounts on investments, on
health and on automobiles. But, while practically
every family must and does meet the charges for
recreation, for the preservation of health and for
investments, only 57% have automobiles and only
one-third gave to dependents outside thè home.
The gifts that cost 2% of the total expenditures
probably do not often include gifts made within the
family, which are sometimes counted under the costs
of clothing or of furniture.
Taken as percentages of the total allotment for
miscellaneous, it appears that more than one-fourth
of the amount which is not spent for what it is
usual to call physical necessities, is invested in
some way calculated to meet the hazard of the
future. Seventeen per cent is spent on the auto
mobiles though by only 57% of the families. About
the same amount, 10%, goes for each of the three

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 139

items, health, dependents outside the home and rec
reation. The gifts take nearly 5%, and education,
professional expenses, incidentals and associations
about 3% and 4% of the total amount spent for all
miscellaneous items. Church and general charity
absorb less than 1
y 2%of this quota of expenditure
The same is true of tobacco.
It is interesting and important to note how the
direction of expenditure among the different items
of miscellaneous varies with increases in the total
expenditure and in the total appropriation for
miscellaneous.
As the total expenditure of these faculty groups
rises, more is spent for investments, especially in
the groups with incomes above $5,000. The propor
tion spent for automobiles fluctuates. Expenditures
for gifts, professional expenses, church and char
ity, the costs of recreation remain a fairly constant
proportion of the total. As purchasing power in
creases, the cost of maintenance of health decreases.
The burden of dependents is heaviest on the $3,000
to $6,000 expenditure groups, and lowest actually
and proportionately for the high incomes. The
costs of tobacco are so notably irregular as to lead
to the inference that its use is a matter of personal
preference rather than of budget planning.
E. Summary.—Summarily reviewed the spending
ways of these 96 faculty families and thus possibly
academic families in general show that regardless
of income they tend to spend a fixed amount for
food and clothing, an amount that approaches the

140

GETTING AND SPENDING

minimum. Indeed, most of them seem to set so
little relative value upon these two classes of needs
that added income does not lead to more expendi
tures for either of them. With a proportion that
is low at the lowest levels, the proportional cost of
food and clothing regularly decreases as income
rises,—the new standard of spending that appears
above $10,000 possibly excepted. Disbursement for
shelter also follows very definitely a class standard.
This is the item least modified by size of income.
The expenditure for housing is thus fairly constant,
although it bears most heavily upon the middle
class income groups who are beginning the enter
prise of owning a home, and decreases evidently for
the higher income groups. The expenditures in the
division of house operation rise to a certain extent
with income but variation shows here more plainly
than in any other division. Since the housing is so
notably alike for most of the incomes, a certain
proportion of the operating cost will necessarily be
constant and the percentage should decrease with
increased income. But this tendency is in great
part balanced by individual economies in service
in the lower income groups or by the expansion of
the apportionment to this item in the upper income
groups, notably for service.
The proportionate decrease in the cost of the socalled physical necessities as income rises is of
course compensated for by the expansion in the
proportion devoted to miscellaneous items, although
the proportion given to this latter from the outset
is notably high.

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 141

These findings prove expenditures that conform
amazingly to thé theories about the class standard
under consideration. In 1912, Mr. and Mrs. Robert
Bruère recorded the average expenditures of a
group of educators, largely high school teachers.
The table here following shows how these high
school teachers as an average allotted their expen
ditures among the major items of a family expense
account. The similarity to the way the academic
families under inspection allocated their incomes is
evident and surprising.

Table X X X I a
Comparison op F aculty Allocation op Expenditures with
That op High School Teachers in Bruère
Study, 1912
Faculty
Bruère (1912)*
(1922)

Food ........., ...............................
C lothing.......................................
Shelter .........................................
Operation ............................ ..
Miscellaneous ............................
Advancement Incidentals ___

* Bruère, 1912,
M. B.pp.and316-17.
R. W.,
Macmillan,

17.3
9 .4
17.1
13.1
43.1

17.7
10.4
12.9
12.7
45.6
(deficit .6 makes
up 100.0%)

Increasing H om e Efficiency \

New York,

Only one important discrepancy appears between
the spending of these two groups. The academic
groups reviewed here pay 4% more for shelter, as
a result perhaps of disproportionate increases in
general housing costs during the past ten years.
This extra expense for house room reduces directly
the amount devoted to miscellaneous in 1922, al

142

GETTING AND SPENDING

though, the higher charge for housing is partly off
set by a 1%!economy on clothes.
Both these expenditure allotments differ mark
edly from that “ division between departments ac
cording to ideals” laid down by Mrs. Richards
twenty years ago and continuously repeated today
with but slight variation in the percentage distribu
tion assigned by banks and other agencies suggest
ing methods of thrifty spending. Table XXXII
permits comparison of the currently advertised
schemes of allotment with Mrs. Richards ’ oft-quoted
allotment and the average allotment of these 96
families.
In most of these plans for “ ideal” expenditure,
it will be noted that 75% of the income must sup
posedly go t• physical necessities, leaving only
25% for “ higher life.” Within the same range of
income, $4,000 to $5,000, the Berkeley families allo
cate to this division of expenditure at lowest 36%,
at highest 44%, and as an average for all incomes,
43.1%. The 96 families of this academic group
elect to save, for save they must, chiefly on food and
clothing. On food, theyi spend 8% less than the
ritual allowance of 25%, and a trifle less than any
but the unusually low Pittsburgh allotment of 16%.
To clothing they have assigned 6% less than the
rigid “New England” standard of 15%. Rent and
house operation ajso fall 3% below this standard.
The Bank of Italy estimate for the San Francisco
Bay region and that of a Pittsburgh bank both of
which gave 15%: to shelter and 15% and 20% re
spectively to house operation show interesting de-

Faculty S tu d y ...................................
Richards, Mrs. E.* ...........................
Metropolitan Life Insurance Com
pany, New York ...........................
Anglo-California Trust Company,t
San Francisco ....................
Society for Savings, Cleveland**.
Peoples Savings & Trust Co.,
Pittsburgh .....................................
Bank of Italy, tt San Francisco ..
Pacific Oil Co., Amalgamated Oil
Co., and Affiliated C o.§...............

T otal

F ood

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

17.3
25.0
22.0
20.0
21.3
16.0
18.3
25.0

Clothing
9.4

15.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
14.0
18.3
11.7

S helter

17.2
20.0
23.0
25.0
25.0
15.0
15.0
18.3

House

Operation

13.1
15.0
14.0
13.7
15.0
20.0
13.3

M iscel
laneous
30.4

25.0
11.0
15.0
12.5
13.0
15.0
20.0

I nvest
ment AND
S avings

12.7
15.0***
28.0
12.5
27.0
13.3
11.7

Richards, Cost of Living, p 39- (apportionment for $4,000 in 1900). John Wiley & Son, N. Y. 1900
S ir
°f items' Item "nder
caned’ “Maintenance”
**
Size
of
family
not
given,
tf§ Income
Incomeofof $3,600.
$3,000.
*** Includes
8% for insurance.

GENEEAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 143

Table XXXII
Percentage Distribution of Expenditure for the Main Items of the Budget for a Family of.F our
with an I ncome Equivalent to $ 4,800 per Year—the F aculty Distribution
Compared with Distributions Proposed by Various Organizations

144

GETTING AND SPENDING

partures from Mrs. Richards’ pioneer theory of
division of income on the one hand and a nearer
approach on the other to the spending habits of
the 96 families under survey.
Even at the lowest income levels, $2,000-$3,000,
“ wants for the higher goods” are sharply in evi
dence. Given the income range, in order to satisfy
this desire for “ higher goods,” at least half these
family groups must hold “ physical” requirements
uncompromisingly in check.
As result of such studies as those of Engel and
Le Play and a few studies of professional groups
with low hut regular earning power, it has become
an established habit to look upon the number and
kind of the wants in addition to those comprehended
in the class of food, shelter and clothing, as the
real index when the standard of living is to be eval
uated as high or low. The dictum goes to the effect
that the best general index of a “ high” standard
of living is the amount spenders assign to the
group of items herein collected together under the
word “ miscellaneous.” The standard is said to rise
as the proportion spent for these less tangible items
in a scale of wants rises. Most theories about the
art of spending consider a rational standard of
spending indicated when expenditure for this class
of need goes above 25% of income.
Accepting this position without debating its
merits, the facts just noted make it obvious that,
since they assign all increase in income to “ miscel
laneous” rather thqn to a more lavish dietary or to
more and more expensive clothing, these expendi

GENERAL CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES 145

ture tables prove these 96 families to be consumers
with spending ways that are “ high.”
Still another outstanding point appears as the
data are reviewed. The rank and income of the fac
ulty member make very little difference in the
scheme of expenditure. A well-defined class stand
ard of living seems to control the spending in all
ranks. At every level of income, the same standard
of consumption is plainly evident. A pricking
temptation to pause and analyze that standard must
at this time be resisted.
Whatever relationship existed between changes in
the standards of living and the distribution of ex
penditure appeared when the families were grouped
according to their total expenditures by thousand
dollar levels from $2,000 to $10,000 and over. For
the different ranks, the variations in the allotments
to the several divisions of expenditures seem largely
incidental to the factors of age, income and salary
and, to a less degree, to the size of the families in
volved. Only in small degree do the variations seem
to result from differing theories about the use of
consumption goods.
The important index of standard is the rise or
fall of the percentage distribution between the sev
eral divisions of expenditure. For the group as a
whole, this index shows plainly a common set of
preferences that control decisions as income rises.
No matter whether income is $4,000 or $7,000, ir
respective of size of income, this group as has been
pointed out keeps the proportion it spends for food
and clothing about the same. This fact is less true

146

GETTING AND SPENDING

of housing and is not true of expenditure for house
operation or miscellaneous, where the proportions
allotted to this item vary with income or rise as in
come rises. Viewed according to rank,6 the evi
dences of a common standard are even clearer. At
the median level of incomes for the instructors,
$4,016.08, 50% of expenditure goes to miscellaneous.
The assistant professor shifts some of the expendi
ture in this field to invest it in a house, thus reducing
the allotment for these items to 38.2%. Through
devoting more income to investment, the associate
professor returns to within 4% of the proportion
set by the instructors ’ expenditures, giving 46.7 % to
this division of expenditures as compared with the
instructor’s 50.4%. The professors permit them
selves apparently more of the positive satisfactions
in this division of expenditure such as an automobile
and other forms of recreation, but they continue to
have about the same allotments for food and cloth
ing and thus give the same proportion as the in
structor to shelter and slightly more to house opera
tion. Thus they approach again the median ex
penditure of the instructor class, allotting as median
nearly 48% to miscellaneous expenditure—only 2%
less than at the lowest income level. As might be
anticipated the instructors, the group with the
lowest average of income, allot the highest propor
tion to this division of household expenditure.
Grouped according to rank and taking the average
within each group, the expenditures of the several
ranks go contrary to what proved to be a regular
• See Tables XXV and XXXI. Also chart in appendix.

GENERAL CHABACTER OF EXPENDITURES 147

example of Engel’s law when the expenditures were
reviewed by income levels. With median incomes
slightly above $4,000, the amount allotted to sun
dries is highest when the average income is lowest.
As the average of incomes rises, the proportion al
lotted to this division of expenditure diminishes in
stead of increasing as it does when these family
incomes are viewed simply as ineome levels. The
proportion thus subtracted reappears irregularly
in the divisions of shelter or house operation, while
food and clothing and miscellaneous remain almost
constant throughout all ranks.

CHAPTER VI
FURTHER DETAILS OF THE EXPEN
DITURES FOR FOOD, CLOTHING,
SHELTER AND HOUSE OPERATION
In Chapter V the main lines of spending theory
have been outlined, and the reader has been in
formed concerning the broader facts which charac
terized the allotment of the incomes of these 96
families.
The student of consumption will it is believed wel
come further details. In this chapter and Chapter
VII, a series of facts appear, facts significant both
for the immediate purposes of this inquiry and as
an index of the spending ways of professionals in
general.
I . F ood 1

To examine first certain aspects of food selection
and costs.

1The schedule called for little beyond the broad details of food
costs. It was certain beforehand and proved to be true, that those
interviewed could not give the separate totals of the several classes
of food-stuffs. Since the investigation contemplated neither a sub
sistence nor a dietary study, omitting these subheadings of a food
list does not, it is hoped, work seriously against the merits of the
findings. In many cases the sublists helped to make the total more
accurate. Some of the traditional inaccuracies that arise from the
fact that the average grocery bill includes small items of household
goods such as brooms, matches and soap, may still inflate the food
charges but every effort was made to transfer such charges to the
costs of household operation where they belong.
148

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 149

A. Amounts Allocated for Food.—The food re
quirements naturally vary with the size of the
family more directly than any other item of the
budget. Where large proportionate expenditures
for food appear in this study, these are almost uni
formly the expenditures of the larger households.
The general average of $900 for a family of four is
by no means unusual. This average allotment, 17%,
it will be recalled, is close to the figure given in
government and other quantity and cost estimates
as the proportion required at the wage earner’s sub
sistence plus level. It is current belief that with
careful management, $900 per annum provides a
frugal but sustaining dietary for a family of four.
The amounts spent for food vary from $400 to
$2,500. Sixty per cent of the families spent between
$500 and $1,000. Food took 10% to 25% in the case
of 82 families. There are exceptional cases of
high expenditures for food. One family of four
spent one-third of an income of $4,100 on food, at
the expense of course of the miscellaneous items
which thus amounted to only 27% of expenditures.
The housing costs for this family were low; food
and clothing seemed to furnish their major satisfac
tions. But this is the only case of the kind. An
other family that spent a large proportion upon food
cut down its clothing proportion rather than its mis
cellaneous—the man, his wife and their two children
each spending less than $100 on dress. At the other
extreme, where the amount devoted to food seems
very low, it can sometimes be explained by the ab
sence from home of some member of the family.

150

GETTING AND SPENDING

The family of four which spent the lowest amount
for food, $370 for the year, was that of an as
sociate professor, who was absent for at least one
meal in nine, these meals away from home paid for
by the University for some reason. .Another family
which spent only $427 for food consisted of only two,
a man and his wife, therefore no illustration of ex
ceptional economy.
Food is an absolute requirement of existence, both
as to quantity and quality. The question of how far
expenditure can go below the general level of the
average allotment made in these budgets without
risking the health of these families seemed worth
examining. Considering the relatively small sum
of money expended, were the quantity and the
variety of food adequate for this class of family or
for any family? The attempt to answer this ques
tion precisely brought no satisfactory result for two
reasons. In the first place, the “ standard” of diet
requirements that specialists set in practice applies
to “ relief’’ dietaries only. Should it be used as the
test for the professional standard? Certainly a
debatable question. In the second place, the data
permitted no computations about the food values
of these food purchases. Only primary comparisons
were possible.
Within these limitations, the comparisons that fol
low were made. They permit at least a guess about
the relation of these money expenditures for food
to money’s worth. Certainly, once more and beyond
cavilling, the figures prove this at least, that the
food standard under inspection is a simple standard.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 151

A weekly per capita cost was estimated for sixtyfive families. Only tliese sixty-five of the ninety-six
families sent in schedules wherein details as well as
totals of food costs were sufficiently available.
Since many of the food estimates were originally
computed from weekly expenditure records, it
seemed best to calculate the costs on a weekly basis.
Due allowance was made for meals eaten away from
home, though no general and regular habit of this
kind had to be, taken into account. Where meals
were eaten out, a deduction was made from the
regular costs of food at home. In this way, an
average weekly per capita was found.
For the average household of 3.9 persons, the
usual cost proved to be $4.25 per capita per week or
$.60 per day per capita. This per capita and total is
well above the sum that makers of minimum diet
requirements assigned as “ standard” costs in 1922.
All the relief offices in the San Francisco Bay dis
trict use the Jaffa budget, named for Professor
Meyer E. Jaffa, the widely-known food specialist of
the University of California, who computes such a
“ relief budget” annually. In 1922, Professor Jaffa
estimated that the minimum diet requirements of a
family of four persons represented a necessary ex
penditure for food of $2.50 per week per capita or
$.36 per capita per diem. Dr. Agnes Fay Morgan,
head of the Department of Household Science in the
same University, using a somewhat different theory
of food supply and scale of food values, estimates
the necessary minimum per capita at $2.75 per week
or $.39 per diem. Accepting either one of these

152

GETTING AND SPENDING

estimates as standard, and accepting the comparison
of money expenditures with all its limitations as
criterion, these faculty families, even those below
the average, still spend enough to buy more than
the minimum diet requirements. (Table XXXIII.)
Little though the quota allotted to food appears
to be, these faculty wives seem to have spent money
enough to purchase a plain but nourishing dietary.
B. Food and the Size of the Household.—The re
lationship between total expenditure and amount or
proportion spent for food is always complicated by
the factor of size of household. Both a larger total
expenditure and a larger family tend to affect the
actual amount spent, but total expenditure seems
to count more. The proportional expenditure is
more closely related to these two factors than is the
actual amount. Also, since the proportion spent for
food decreases as the total expenditure rises but
increases as the family grows, their influence is dia
metrically opposed. When each is considered sepa
rately, by means of a partial correlation, the
proportion allowed for food falls even more sharply
as the total expenditure increases while it rises
almost as steadily with an increasing family.2 In
2 The correlations and partials are:
Between amount for food and total expenditure.................57
With the influence of size of household partialled out .. .51
Between amount for food and size of household.................46
With total expenditure partialled o u t .....................................37
Between the proportion for food and total expenditure.. —.45
With size of household partialled out .............................—.60
Between proportion for food and size of household.............31
With total expenditure partialled o u t .......................................53
Between total expenditure and size of fa m ily ............. .... .30

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 153

so far as the character of the data will justify
sweeping inferences, it would seem that the aca
demic family thinks in terms of an amount to he
spent for food rather than a proportion of its total
budget and that this amount does not increase as
rapidly as does the total expenditure. Thus the pro
portional importance decreases. Inspection shows
that the size of the family exerts surprisingly little
influence upon the amount which is spent for food
but a great deal more upon the proportion.
T able XXXIII
Comparison op Average Weekly F ood Cost per Capita for
F aculty F amilies with ah Estimate by Dr. Agnes F ay Morgan
and Professor Jaffa’s Relief Budget by Size of Family
(Prices as of 1922 )
A ll
F am i lies

Faculty Families . . .
Morgan * ....................
Jaffa ............................

E stimated W eekly Cost P er P erson
for F a m ily of
2

$4.25 $5.00
3.80
3.05

$4.66
3.10
2.85

$3.94
2.75
2.50

$4.10
2.52
2.30

$3.49

$2.94

2.35

2.50

* TheofMorgan
foodestimate
budget,ofasperyetcapita
unpublished,
compiled
for a4
family
five.are The
costs
forwasfamilies
of 2,only
3 151%,
and
given
above
based
upon
the
assumption
that
such
costs
would
be
122% and 109% respectively of the per capita cost in a family of five.

Thus the conclusion already drawn is justified
concerning the way the proportional importance of
food costs decreases as the income rises, is inde
pendent of the size of the family, and indeed becomes
more marked when this element is withdrawn.
Tables XXXIII a and XXXIV here following
plainly show this tendency.

Table XXXIIIa
Size of Family Correlated with the Amount Spent for Food *
Number in Family
All Amounts..
$250-499 ___
500-749 . . . .
750-999 . . . .
1000-1249 . . .
1250-1499 . . .
1500-1749 . . .
1750 and Over

No.
96
11
28
30
11
9
3
4

T otal
E xpenditure

2-33000'
4000
4-55000
6000
6-77000
8000
8-9- 10000 9000

10,000 & over

% No. % No. % No. % No. % No.
100.0 21 100.0 22 100.0 21 100.0 18 100.0 9
11.5 6 28.6 3 13.6 2
9.5
29.2 11 52.4 9 40.9 8 38.1
31.2 3 14.3 6 27.3 7 33.3 7 38.9 5
11.5
3 13.6 3 14.3 3 16.7 1
9.4 1 4.8
4.8 2 22.2 2
1
3.1
4 11.1
4.2
1
4.5
2 11.1 1
A verage!N o.
in F amily

3.1
3.5
3.5
4.1
4.2
5.0
6.0
4.0
4.5

% No. % No. %
100.0 4 100.0 1 100.0
55.6 2
11.1
22.2 1
1
11.1

50.0
25.0
25.0

100.0

* Some
ofinthegroup
apparent
correlationtobetween
the amount
spent
for foodspent
and
the
number
is expenditure—or
attributable
avice
correlation
between
the
amount
for
food
and
the
total
versa—since
the
size
of
the
total
family
group(More
has than
a slight
positive
correlation
theinamount
total due
ex
penditure.
when
children
alone are with
counted
size ofoffamily,
to
presence
of
servants,
student
aid,
etc.)
See footnote on p. 152 for partial correlations.

GETTING AND SPENDING

F amilies

Families
All Amounts.
5 -9 .9
10-14.9
15-19.9
20-24.9
25-29.9
30-34.9

....
....
....
....
....
....

No.
96
8
27
29
21
9
2

N umber in F amily
2

% No. % No. % No. % No. % No.
100.0 21 100.0 22 100.0 21 100.0 18 100.0 9
8.3 1
4.8 3 13.6 3 14.3
1
28.1 9 42.9 6 27.3 6 28.6 5 27.8 1*
30.2 8 38.1 7* 31.3 4 19.0 4 22.2 3
21.9 2 9.5 5 22.7 5 23.8 5 27.8 3
9.4 1 4.8 1 4.5 2 9.5 3 16.7 1
2.1
1 4.8 1* 5.6

* See footnote to Table XXXIII

100.0
11.1
11.1
33.3
33.3
11.1

No. % No. %
4 100.0 1 100.0
3
1

75.0
1 100.0
25.0

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 155

Table XXXIV
Size of Family Correlated with the Per Cent of Total Expenditure for F ood

156

GETTING AND SPENDING

II. C l o t h in g 3
In addition to what has been already said about
clothing, some detail of the relative expenditure of
the man, the wife and the children seemed worth
seeking out and recording.
A. Expenditures of Husbands and Wives Com
pared.—Ninety-two families reported the clothing
costs for husband and for wife separately.4 In these
92 families (Tables XXXV and XXXVI), the
men have a notably constant standard of clothing
expenditure, probably the absolute minimum of de
cency. Two-thirds spent between $100 and $200;
80%, between $100 and $250. Thirteen women spent
less than $100 in contrast to the 8 men. On the other
hand, 13 women spent over $300 while only 3 men
were so extravagant. The maximum amount, about
$500, was spent by individuals of both sexes. These
figures indicate further a class ideal that cares little
about fashion even when income permits some em
phasis in this direction.
As for the comparative expenditures of husband
and wife, the facts are surprising and unusual at
this level of income. Although most faculty men are
traditionally and obviously not extravagant in
dress, yet in some forty per cent of the cases the
3 The schedule provides only such analysis of clothing as would
show the total each member of the family spent for clothing. It
was well understood at the outset that, like the world in general,
these families kept no detail of each individual’s clothing list. Re
viewing the data it seems that the clothing lists on the schedule might
have been more detailed.
4 Estimates for children were obtainable only as a lump sum and
therefore have not been‘further analyzed.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 157
Table XXXV
Percentage Spent for Clothing by the Husbands and by
the Wives of the Families Studied
Husbands
Wives
Amount of Number
Number Percentage
Expenditure
Percentage Spending
for Clothing Spending
of
All
of All
a Given
a Given
All Amounts . . .
Under $100 ___
$100-$149 .........
150- 199 .........
200- 249 .........
250-299 . . . . .
300 and over ..

Amount
92*
8
28
33
12
8
3

Husbands
100.0
8.7
30.4
35.9
13.0
8.7
3.3

Amount
92*
13
27
17
13
9
13

Wives
100.0
14.1
29.4
18.5
14.1
9.8
14.1

was* Excludes
given butfour
not families
allocated.where the total amount expended for clothing
Table XXXVI
Mean and Median Amount of Excess op Wipe’s Expendi
ture fob Clothing Over That of Her Husband
and Vice Versa
Excess of Wife’s Excess of Husband’s
Clothing Expendi Clothing Expendi
ture Over Husband’s ture Over Wife’s
Number Eeporting . . . .
Mean A m ount...............
Median Amount ...........

48
$83.27
65.20

39
$56.89
41.00

wife’s bill for clothes was even lower than that of
the husband. In face of all current estimates which
usually presume the social necessity of a greater
quantity and cost allotment for the clothing of
women living at middle class standards, this fact is
especially noteworthy. A dozen wives and eight

158

GETTING AND SPENDING

husbands each reported spending less than $100 on
clothes during the year. An exceptional woman re
ported an expenditure of only $27.50, a dress allow
ance below even the subsistence working class stand
ard, evidence of course that no actual replenishment
of the wardrobe took place during the year.
B. Costs of Clothing and Gifts.—A factor which
partially accounts for the very limited total of the
clothing expenditure is the gifts of clothing slightly
more than one-third of the families received. In
half of the families with a total expenditure for
dress of $300, gifts supplemented the stock of cloth
ing. The difference is not always appreciable but
at least one in five of these very economical families
received clothing worth $100 or more and the gifts
of this class amounted in one family to more than
$400. Thus the proportion registered by the ex
pense account does not in some cases at least in
dicate fully the amount of clothing which the family
really had.
Half of the families where the man spent less
than $100 for clothes and 60% of those where the
woman did likewise, had received gifts of clothing.
The women received gifts of less amount than the
men but one-third of each sex listed gifts of clothing
worth more than $50.00. Of the men’s gifts, none
was worth $100; of the women’s none as much as

$200.5

5 This fact of gifts that supplement clothing needs is more usual
than reports on expenditure would, in general, lead us to believe.
The account of it given by these families under inspection is probably
extraordinarily accurate.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 159

There remain, however, 50%' who dress them
selves without gifts on less than $300. It is a satis
faction to note how the figures show that the people
who spent the very smallest amounts for clothing
received supplementary gifts more commonly than
those whose expenditures were higher. However,
the woman who spent only $27.50 received no gifts
at all.
At least one-third of the families who spent less
than $800 a year on this item, reported gifts of
clothing. It is, of course, impossible to say whether,
in every case, those who spent more than $800 did
so because they had no gifts of clothing or whether
no gifts came to them because they could afford to
dress themselves.
The lower income groups are definitely those who
reported the most frequent gifts. More than half
the families having incomes of less than $4,000 had
gifts of clothing though, to he sure, half of these
gifts were worth less than $50.00. One-third of the
families with incomes between $4,000 and $6,000 re
ported clothing expenditure supplemented in this
way, half of the gifts, however, being again worth
less than $50.00. Beginning with the $6,000 income
level, such gifts become sporadic; for incomes above
$9,000, they disappear.
C. Expenditures for Clothing and Academic Rank.
—The same tendencies hold true by academic
rank. None of the associates received any gifts of
clothing. Of the instructors 58% received gifts and
the gifts that came to them were the most valuable,

160

GETTING AND SPENDING

one-third of the whole group receiving clothing
worth $100 or more.
The percentage receiving such gifts decreases
regularly with the increase in rank; thus, only 25%'
gifts were worth less than $50.00. One-third of the
the families may receive such gifts hut they are
usually unimportant. Half were worth less than
$50.00; only 17%, $200 or more; 20% were worth
less than $25.00, the latter probably trifling Christ
mas or holiday gifts. Clothing is evidently more
often given to children than to adults since less than
one-fifth of the families with no children reported
gifts, nearly one-half of the others. The first child
receives more clothing than successors do. When
the family has four or five children, in most cases
the income is again supplemented by gifts of cloth
ing.
All this fails to bring these clothing expenditures
up to any “ standard” estimate. The amounts these
faculty wives report make current estimates of the
working girl’s minimum for clothing look unduly
large. The amount the faculty wife quotes ap
proaches the old “ subsistence” estimates for women
wage-earners.
What pressure forces down these allowances for
clothing is not clear. Is it preference, the ingenuity
of “ fairy fingers” or genuine privation? It might
be the size of the family, those costs of children,
that Dr. Ogburn tells us usually enforce a cut down
ward in the woman’s wardrobe among the working
classes. On examination it proves true that the
husbands and wives who spend less than $100 apiece

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 161

on clothing are typically the parents of several chil
dren. Such self-sacrificing parents occur in 40,%i
of the families with two or more,children and these
seem to be the groups in which economic pressure
is greatest. But 7%' of the families having no chil
dren and 8% of those with only one child also con
tain a husband or a wife spending less than $100 on
clothes. If we except two families with five chil
dren, in both of which cases the wife spent less than
$100, since families with three and four children
show only 27% and 28%, of the parents spending
less than $100, the uniformity of clothing expendi
ture is striking. Nearly 50% spent between $250
and $500, and the general tendency to spend below
standard is even more pronounced when allowance
is made for the size of family.
These facts account for the sentiment expressed
in Mrs. Bruce’s penetrating phrase “¥ e save on
clothes—and are ashamed.” 6 Quite possibly
viewed from a high spiritual plane they should not
be ashamed. But, as has been pointed out, these are
the days of the “ rising standard of living.” The
mother of a working class family can somewhat
deliberately cut her clothing allowance and not suf
fer relatively a sense of serious privation. Her
many household duties keep her at home. As a
busy housewife and by a usage still widely con
trolling though changing, she needs less for street
clothes and for ceremonial dress, the latter always
the most expensive part of a woman’s wardrobe.

6 Bruce, Dorothy Hart, et a l What are the prospects of a pro
fessor’s wife? University of California Chronicle, October, 1922,
p. 527.

162

GETTING AND SPENDING

On the other hand, theoretically at least, a part of
the role ascribed to the college professor’s wife is
entertaining and dining out, attending college func
tions, receiving students and the like. If economic
pressure from other sources deprives her of at least
the elements of a formal wardrobe, there must be,
and there evidently is, a continued sense of going
without. As we shall see presently when examining
the items of miscellaneous, this restriction in cloth
ing expenditure really arises just as it does with the
worker’s wife from economic pressure in other di
rections. Money that with less thoughtful women
goes for clothing, that with poorer women must be
absorbed by food costs, is spent here on the costs of
the children’s illness, perhaps in particular on the
care of their teeth. It goes to provide against the
hazards of life. In 55 cases the belief in the im
portance of the out-door freedom and relaxation
which using an automobile makes possible is prob
ably the influence that offsets and suppresses some
of the desire for better or more clothing.
III. S h e l t e r 7
A. Further Details of Cost of Shelter.—As we
have already seen, the mean amount spent for hous
ing was $870; the median, $684. Beginning with the
7 With regard to housing, the schedule was designed to get those
facts that would show the exact character of the dwelling, the type
of tenure and the details of the main running costs. The general
object in making this part of the schedule was to get not only the
precise items of the costs of housing, but also to provide the material
by which to show the relative costs of owning and renting. Also
the questions were aimed to bring out facts that would make pos
sible some accurate statement about the general character of the
dwelling quarters used by the group.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 163

middle incomes, the proportional cost seems to de
crease as income rises.
B. Owners or Tenants.—In further explanation of
the relatively, high proportion that goes to housing,
Berkeley conditions fairly force the faculty member
to own his home as soon as possible. The houses to
be found for rent are few, are often obsolescent or
in poor condition. Apartments and flats are not
only small and very dear but this class of spender
considers them no place in which to bring up chil
dren. Both rents and land values tend to be specula
tive and high though Berkeley dwelling site prop
erty is, on the other hand, on the whole readily sold
or rented and thus a good investment. Because of
the desire to have a house that expresses their ideals
of a home, because ownership is almost necessary
and relatively speaking a slight risk, we find nearly
every one of these families whose income is over
$4,000 beginning to buy a house or owning one.
No family spending under $3,000 owns a house; only
40% of the $3,000 to $4,000 group do so. But 61
out of the group of 96 or nearly two-thirds,8 80%
spending $4,000 or more, are householders. Of the
35 tenants, 60% have total expenditures below
$4,000; 80% spend below $5,000.
O. Academic Rank and Tenantry.—The percentage
of owners increases with each step up the academic
ladder. In view of the distinct relation between total

8 In the few cases where the family is scheduled as both owning
and renting, because the house was bought in the middle of the year,
these people have been excluded from the group of renters and classed
as owners.

164

GETTING AND SPENDING

income and academic rank, it is not surprising that
86% of the professors own homes and only 25% of
the instructors. Over 70% of the tenants are below
the rank of associate professors. The associates as
always are the exception, half owning and half rent
ing. Income is of course not the only factor in this
situation. The men of the lower academic ranks are
less permanently settled; the families are smaller;
there are less demands on their hospitality. The
housing demand is not identical for the different
academic ranks as might be the case with food or
clothing or certain of the items in the miscellaneous
group.
D. Relative Costs of Owning and Renting.—The
relative costs of renting and owning did not
prove readily comparable in this study because
the tenants and the householders are distinctly dif
ferent groups with different requirements, such
as space, which is dependent upon the size of
the families, different incomes, and, hence, differ
ent possibilities of paying a given amount for
shelter.
Selected housing is an item to which the margin
of income is devoted as soon as possible and the
traditional choice between an owned home and a
rented one holds for these families. Renters seem
clearly to be those who cannot afford to pay as
much as can the owners. The cost of renting for
this group in Berkeley ranges between $200 and
$1,400, though 60% pay between $400 and $700. The
total housing costs of the owners are usually sup

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 165'

posed to represent a certain expenditure for invest
ment as well as for shelter.
What seemed an unavoidable inclusion of pay
ments toward meeting the original price of the house
causes rather wild fluctuations in the report on hous
ing costs for the several families who own. These
may be anywhere from $200 to $15,000. Some are
under $200; some, over $2,000; 36 are paying in
stallments on the principal; 39, interest on the
mortgage. Those paying $1,000 or more upon the
initial cost are almost exclusively in the expenditure
groups between $4,000 and $8,000; half of them be
tween $6,000. and $8,000. In the upper expenditure
levels, the cost of housing decreases because the pay
ments are already made.
The size and kind of house also follows traditional
expenditure standards. These families are not
patrons of apartment houses or flats; they are
householders. Also the number of rooms occupied
by these faculty families in their separate dwellings
increases very definitely both with the size of the
household and with the amount of total income,
though a trifle more perceptibly with the former,
the correlation being .51 and .46. Part of the re
lationship between the number of rooms and the
size of the household is due to the factor of increas
ing income, but not all. When the factor of income
is partialled out, the correlation between the num
ber of rooms and the size of the household becomes
.45. Whether this is really a close degree of rela
tionship cannot be determined in the absence of a
control group which would give the correlation for

GETTING AND SPENDING

166

the world at large. These facts with regard to size
of household and number of rooms appear in Tables
X X X VII to XLIII.
XXXYII

T able
P ercentage

T otal E xpenditur e D evoted

P ercentage op
T otal E xpendi
ture D evoted to
H ousing Costs
All Amounts .....................................................
Less than 5 %>'...................................................
5.0- 9.9 ..............................................................
10.0-14.9 .............................................................
15.0-19.9 ..............................................................
20.0-24.9 ..............................................................
25.0-29.9 ..............................................................
30.0-34.9 ..............................................................
35.0 and Over ..................................................
T able
M ean

and
ter

H ousing

H umber op F ami
lies WITH A
Given P er Cent
op H ousing Costs
96
7
14
20
26
14
6
4
5

XXXYIII

M edian A m o u n ts a n d P ercentages S p e n t for S h e l
for a G iv e n A m o u n t of T otal E xpenditure

Amount
op Total
Expenditure
All Amounts . . .
$2000-2999 ___
3000-3999 ___
4000-4999 . . . .
5000-5999 ___
6000-6999 . . . .
7000-7999 ___
8000-8999 . . . .
9000-9999 . . . .
10,000 and Over.

Median

Mean
Amount
$
871.11
431.83
683.81
736.71
1084.39
1401.97
830.84
1107.72
1235.83
861.07

Per Cent
17.1
16.5
19.5
16.5
20.3
21.7
11.0
13.1
13.3*
7.6

Amount
$
684.50
426.00
633.47
669.50
954.80
1492.03
838.00
643.68
246.56
773.30

* One item of 50.7%, the other 4 less than 10.0%.

Per Cent
15.8
16.8
19.0
15.3
18.7
23.3
10.7
7.9
2.7*
6.4

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 167
T able
R elative H ousing C osts

XXXIX
for

Ow n e r s

and

T e n a n ts

Owners
Tenants
Paying a
Paying a
Amount of
Per Cent of Given
Amount Given Amount
Housing Costs All Families
100.0

All Amounts . . . . . .
Less than $200 ___
$200-399 ..................
400-599 ..................
600-799 .................
800-999 ..................
1000-1199 ...............
1200 and O ver.........

1.0

13.6
20.8
22.9
13.6
9.4
18.8
T able

N umber

Per Cent of
All Owners
100.0
4.9
18.1
13.1
9.9
18.0
11.4
24.6

Per Cent of
All Tenants
100.0
0.0

11.4
34.3
37.1
11.5
2.9
2.9

and P roportion of O w n e r s a n d T e n a n ts
S pecified A m o u n t of T otal E xpenditure

Amount of Total
Expenditure
All Amounts . . . .
$2000-2999 ...........
3000-3999 ...........
4000-4999 ...........
5000-5999 ...........
6000-6999 ...........
7000-7999 ............
8000-8999 ...........
9000-9999 ...........
10,000 and Over..

All Families

Owners

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Tenants

Per Cent
Per Cent
of All No. of All
Families
Families
36.5
35
61
63.5
8 100.0
59.1
40.9
13
9
33.3
7
14
66.7
17.6
82.4
3
14
12.5
87.5
1
7
3 100.0
4 100.0
20.0
80.0
1
4
25.0
2
75.0
6

No. Per Cent No.
96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5
8

for a

GETTING AND SPENDING

168

T able X L I
N umber

and

P roportion of O w n e r s an d T e n a n ts
S pecified A cademic R a n k

All Families
Academic Rank
All R a n k s.............
Associate .............
Instructor .............
Assist. Prof...........
Assoc. Prof............
Professor ...............

Owners

No. Per Cent No.
96
8

12
22
26
28

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

61
4
3

10
20
24

for

Tenants

Per Cent
Per Cent
of All No. of All
Families
Families
35
63.5
36.5
4
50.0
50.0
9
75.0
25.0
12 54.5
45.5
76.9
6
23.1
4
14.3
85.7

T able X L II
M ean

Size of
Household
All
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

M ed ian N um ber of R ooms O ccupied
H ousehold of a S pecified S ize

an d

.............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................

Number of
Families
96
21
19
24
16
10
5
1

Number of Rooms
Mean
7.6
5.5
6.5
8.2
9.4
8.7
10.8
8.0

Median
8.0
5.0
6.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
8.0

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 169
T able X L III

Mean- and Median Number op Rooms Occupied by
Household of a Specified Income
S ize

I ncome

All ......................
Less than $2000...
$2000-2999 .............
3000-3999 .............
4000-4999 .............
5000-5999 . . . . . . .
6000-6999 .............
7000-7999 .............
8000-8999 .............
9000-9999 .............
10,000 and Over . . .

N umber of
F amilies

96
1

7
21
28
18
4
6
1
2
8

N umber

R ooms

Mean
7.6

Median

6.0

4.0
5.5
7.5
9.0
10.0
8.5
11.0
12.5
9.0

4.6
5.8
7.5
8.7
10.2
9.5
11.0
12.5
9.0

8.0
6.0

IV. H ouse Operation
Exact knowledge about what really are the costs
of “ house operation” and of “ miscellaneous,”
these two important and growing sections of ex
penditure in all standards of living, is still singu
larly lacking. For the reason in general that such
knowledge is needed and because in particular it
seemed a foregone conclusion that, given the group
to be dealt with, these two divisions would prove to
absorb a large proportion of the total expenditure,
every effort was made to provide the means for
complete and accurate returns.
It is hoped that the classification used to gather
the data for house operation will recommend itself.
Certain of the items appearing here under house
operation have heretofore gone into “ sundries” or
“ incidentals.” The list of twelve items worked out

170

GETTING AND SPENDING

under “ house operation” is somewhat insistent.
Four of the items, .“ service,” “ personal cleaning
supplies,” “ house cleaning supplies,” and “ furnish
ings,” were given subheadings that have, it is be
lieved, aided in yielding accurate results.
The item of “ furnishings,” a constant charge on
income, has no established position in household
accounting. Some authorities make the item a
separate division. Others class the more durable
articles of furniture such as a dining-room set, a
piano and the like as investments, and then charge
upkeep to “ incidentals” or to a separate item called
“ furnishings.” Logically, furnishings could be bet
ter placed than under “ house operation,” where it
appears in this schedule. But well-known habits of
keeping household expense histories that charge all
annual expenditure for furnishings in one column
made it seem expedient to deal with the item in this
way. In spite of all attempts to eliminate such
items, it is possible that some purchases- added dur
ing the year to the previous total permanent invest
ment in furniture, and really chargeable to general
capital investment in furniture, are in a few cases
charged under “ additions.”
Laundry costs, it will be noted, were divided into
two classes. The cleansing of household goods was
charged to “ house operation” ; the costs of cleaning
the family’s wearing apparel was ascribed to the
clothing costs of each member of the family. The
plan may be open to the criticism of being more
logical than practical, and to the further and more
serious charge that separating costs habitually kept

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 171

under one item risks additional error in computing
the several items. But the separation of these
charges was, it is believed, with few exceptions
made successfully and the costs of clothing are thus
more really shown.
As for carfare, except for those recurrent pay
ments of carfare made in going to and from work,
all charges of this nature were charged to “ in
cidentals. ”
The further details about the several items of
house operation here following are given in the be
lief that each section throws considerable additional
light upon a division of expenditure not always
suspected of absorbing a sum as large as it actually
takes.
A. Light, Fuel, and Heat.—Costs of fuel and heat
ing depend largely upon the type of housing and the
heating arrangements. Unavoidably in a few cases
these items appear included in the rent of an apart
ment. The costs of heating a home and of fuel for
cookery, and, for that matter, lighting also, depend
on certain other factors;—the types of fuel available
and their price; the climatic conditions; finally, upon
the “ gumption” shown in using the goods and
services. Throughout this study, the group under
consideration have all been assumed to be, relatively
speaking, possessors in considerable degree of the
last of these qualities. In California the close
proximity of oil fields creates in the householder
tendencies toward the disuse of coal. Anthracite
has always been a luxury in California. Bituminous

GETTING AND SPENDING

coal is dear and from the housekeeper’s viewpoint
also dirty, heavy and inconvenient. Therefore, it
can be safely said, and the schedules also suggest it,
that the costs of lighting, fuel and heat recorded
here are mainly those that derive from the use of
gas, gasoline, electricity and kerosene.
Since charges for gas and electricity are often
rendered on the same bill, accounts compiled from
check stubs were apt to confuse the two items. Of
the 96 families, 68 only reported expenditures for
light and for fuel and heat which seemed to be
genuinely separated and fairly complete. In the
following analysis of costs of lighting and of heat
ing, only those 68 families have been used. All 96
families were included when light, fuel and heat
were considered as a total.
The amounts spent for light vary from $12.00 to
$135 a year, but 44% lie between $35.00 and $50.00,
the most recurrent estimate being $3.00 or $4.00 a
month. Only 19% spent over $50.00 a year and these
estimates are very scattering in contrast to those
below $50.00. The mean is $40.78, the median $36.00.
Since the average number of rooms is 8,9 the average
cost of lighting per room per year is $4.50 or $5.00.
The amount spent for light increases fairly regu
larly with the number of rooms, but the cost per
room decreases from about $7.00 for the smallest
houses to about $4.00 for ten rooms or more. The
amount spent for light also increases with the total
income, due evidently to the increasing size of the
houses since the cost per room does not increase.
* The mean number of rooms is 7.6, the median, 8.0.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 173

From this cursory analysis, the cost of lighting
would seem to be chiefly affected by the size of the
house.
Fuel and heating costs show little or none of the
tendency toward a standard amount seen in the
lighting bills. The figures given vary evenly from
$20.00 to over $200. The only evidence of a central
tendency is between $100 and $105, where 10% of
the cases lie. The average is about $10010 or be
tween $12.00 and $13.00 per room. The total cost in
creases with the number of rooms in the house, but
the cost per room decreases more or less. The same
tendencies appear as the total expenditure increases.
For the majority of families, i.e., those spending
from $3,000 to $6,000, the cost per room is about
$14.00. This figure, however, is much less signifi
cant than is that for lighting, since it includes the
cost of gas for cooking, which is independent of the
number of rooms, varying instead with the size of
the family and the possibilities of economies.
The total cost of light, fuel and heat combined is
about the same for the entire group of 96 as for the
smaller group which has just been considered, that
is, $140.u The range is very wide, from $38.00 to
$347, and there is little or no standardization, the es
timates scattering fairly evenly from $60.00 to $210.
The nearest approach to a control tendency is the
group of 21 cases lying between $100 and $125, in
clusive. Although very irregularly, and with ten
dency not markedly pronounced, the cost increases
10The median amount is $96.12, the mean $102.95.
11 The median amount is $137.50, the mean $143.74.

174

GETTING AND SPENDING

with the number of rooms and the amount of total
expenditure. The cost per room of course thus de
creases. The average annual cost for fuel, light and
heat per room is $18.00.
The cost of fuel, light and heat naturally increases
with the size of the household. Personal and family
preference in relation to quantity of light and heat
cannot be overlooked. Such habits of using con
stitute a regular source of variability in relation to
cost. Since, however, the number of rooms also in
creases with the size of the household, the cost per
room remains about the same whether the family be
large or small. The exact interrelationships aré im
possible to determine without more elaborate sta
tistical procedure, but it seems safe to hazard a
guess that the cost of fuel, light and heat is more
dependent upon the family income and the size
of the house than upon the size of the household.
Therefore the average per capita cost of $35.00 is
less significant than the cost per room.
B. Ice.—Only 28 of the 96 families spent anything
for ice. In Berkeley, this is not a routine need as it
is in climates where at certain seasons of the year
the thermometer mounts higher and where houses
are not built with cool closets. The presence of an
ice chest in a home in Berkeley is no test of the level
of income. Eather it expresses a personal pref
erence.
Only ten families spent as much as a dollar a
month on ice, that is, included a small quantity of ice
regularly as an item of family expense. The lower

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 175

income groups evidently purchased neither ice nor
an ice chest. None of the families spending less
than $3,000 bought any ice and only one family in
the $3,000 to $4,000 group. As income rises to the
higher levels, the percentages increase distinctly;
one-third of those in the $4,000 to $7,000 group, 55%
of those with incomes of $7,000 or more, purchased
ice. Though a small expenditure and therefore not
an appreciable economy in the total budget, ice is a
rather typical example of the academic family’s
cautious way of spending.
0. Telephone and Telegraph.—Custom has now
made a telephone a routine necessity in most homes.
Only two families reported no expenditure for tele
phone. Of these, one was a case of the telephone
being disconnected for uncertain reasons; the other
family had the use of a telephone as part of their
apartment service.
The costs of this public utility naturally tend to
uniformity. For two-thirds of the families, the
annual charge was $30.00 to $50.00. Evidently the
two types of service are used. Those at $30.00 had
the two-party service and kept the toll charges at a
minimum; those in the $50.00 group probably used
a one-party line the annual charges for which
amount to $42.00, leaving a small margin for tolls.
D. Service.—As striking as the clothes allowance
are the costs of domestic service. The amounts
spent are all small relatively speaking.
On the Pacific Coast the price of domestic service
has always been high as compared with eastern

176

GETTING AND SPENDING

rates. Since tlie war, this class of service has been
both scarcer and more expensive.
In Berkeley, the going-rate for one really com
petent resident helper of the old-fashioned general
housework variety, has for the past six years or
more been about $75.00 a month or $900 a year.
Even at this rate, help is hard to find and harder to
keep. Helpers who live out are more readily obtain
able than those who live in. All this accounts in part
at least for the fact that of the 96 families under con
sideration, only 7 had full-time resident domestics
and that all of these families with this traditional
form of help were among the 28 families who spent
more than $6,000 per annum. The reason may be
in part other than pecuniary, for there seems some
thing distinctly exceptional in the fact that only
three of the eight families spending more than
$10,000 had this class of service.
Student help is the most available class of assist
ance. In Berkeley as in all college towns, but pos
sibly here in larger proportion than in the average
college community, students can be found who will
work at household tasks by the hour or for three or
four hours daily in return for board and lodging.
Student aid may appear in these families without
being classified as a cost under service where the
cost of such aid was only board and lodging. Four
teen families, chiefly those who expended between
$5,000 and $6,000, employed this type of assistance.
On inspection, however, these helpers proved to
do little or none of the heavy work. They were
reported as coming in chiefly for the care of the

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 177

children or for the lighter domestic tasks. The
housewife of the academic family or her husband or
both must do a notable amount of the heavy work
of the household.
The most amazing fact that develops on analyzing
these schedules with regard to service, is the ap
parent absence in certain cases of any assistance,
part-time or other, in house cleaning and in the
laundry work. Although the regular rate for those
who come in to do cleaning in Berkeley is high,
$4.00 a day, this type of aid is readily available.
The cost of such service one day a week for thorough
cleaning would amount to a little over $200 a
year. More than half the families studied must
lack such assistance since 10% paid out absolutely
nothing for domestic service; 15% paid less than
$25.00, a group which evidently calls in outside
workers upon extraordinary occasions only.
That the absence of the use of domestic service
represents a stem economy in favor of expenditures
in other directions is proved by the fact that the
amount of service definitely increases with the in
come. Of those spending less than $3,000, only 75%
paid for outside workers. In only one case is there
regular part-time assistance, assuming $200 to be
the minimum cost for such assistance. Above $6,000
all the families report at least occasional assistance.
Thus it would appear that with the $6,000 salary and
not before, the faculty member and his wife feel they
can pay for some service. No families with a total
expenditure below $6,000 have any full-time resident
servants. Only two-thirds of the families with in

178

GETTING AND SPENDING

comes above $6,000 pay out $200 or more for this
item of house operation. As has been said, the
majority of such servants are found where incomes
are $8,000 or over. The usual cost of these resident
servants is $60.00 a month.
The 38 women who added something to the family
income through outside work used house servants
no more than the group as a whole. In fact the
proportion with no household assistance of any sort
is somewhat higher. However, this is chiefly true
of the women whose earnings are small. The divid
ing line is apparently close to $350. Women earn
ing less than that sum do practically all their own
housework in addition to their efforts to add to in
come, for 22% of this class have absolutely no
assistance and only 17% have service of the kind
which costs $200 or more a year. On the contrary,
of the 15 women earning $350 or more only one
has no service at all; two-thirds spend more than
$200 a year for it, and four spend over $500,
which is a far higher proportion than for the whole
group of 96. But there are always the wives who do
both. One woman taught for five months of the year
and, at the same time, did all her own work including
the laundry. Another earned $750 as a reader at
the University and spent $6.00 for service during
the year. Of the three women who taught in the
University, only one had a resident servant. The
women who do work outside the home are, however,
better off for servants than are those who add to
the family income by taking in boarders and lodgers,
although the latter implies work that is more phys

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 179
ically exhausting. Nearly 30% of these latter

women cared for their enlarged household with no
assistance at all. From this review of domestic
service it would appear that the heavy work
of household administration remains upon the
shoulders of the housewife, shared perhaps by her
husband and children in “ free” hours. Probably
however such work is for the most part the wife’s
responsibility. If budget studies mirror the facts,
she carries this mass of duties along with her selfdenial in clothes, as most women carry it, quietly,
courageously, as matter of course.
The facts about household expenditure give pret
ty clear evidence that, given this controlling stand
ard of living, where salaries are less than $6,000,
the housewife will feel that she must face what the
housewives already quoted have less patiently but
quite aptly called “ the never lightening burden of
too great physical labor.”
E. Garbage Removal.—In Berkeley in 1921, gar
bage was taken away by city contract. The charges,
fixed according to the quantity and the frequency of
calls, are collected from each householder by the
city. The city garbage department reports that
practically no one has garbage removed more than
once a week. The climate makes this fact less shock
ing than might appear.
The reports for this item of expenditure evidence
wide variations in practice. Six spent less than
the minimum for garbage removal and eleven re
ported no expenditures at all. The family spending

180

GETTING AND SPENDING

$.50 and four others reporting no expenditure had
chickens to which they fed the garbage. The dry
trash may be and still is burned in the garden or
the open street. In four cases, the rent included
the charge for garbage. One of these families had
moved into their own home where they had an in
cinerator. Two reported the city had never pre
sented any charge for this service. One family in
cluded this item under taxes. Another family
reporting an expenditure of $4.80 divided this ex
pense as well as the telephone with another family
in the same house. Though not so stated, this is
probably also the case with a family living in an
apartment whose reported expenditure for this item
was $2.70 for nine months.
With regard to the amounts spent, the range of
expenditure is from $.50 to $36.00. The mini
mum charge for regular weekly service is $6.00 a
year. Fifty per cent of the families spent be
tween $6.00 and $7.20. The most usual expenditure
was $6.60, 27 spending this amount. Twelve spent
$7.20.
Amounts more than the regular charge that sum
up from one dollar to five dollars a year are prob
ably accounted for by the fact that these families
paid additional charges for carrying away extra
trash. Five families, however, reported an ex
penditure of $15.00 and over, the highest being
$36.00. One spent $25.00; one, $19.20, and two,
$15.00 and $15.60 each. These amounts, while more
difficult to explain, are probably the costs of special
services.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 181

F. Personal Cleaning1Supplies.—Ninety-nine fami
lies made estimates of the cost of personal cleaning
supplies, which term includes tooth brushes, combs
and brushes, shoe polish and brushes, listerine and
other drugs for hygienic purposes, toilet and bath
soap, bathroom and toilet equipment. Two of the
five families who failed to report on these goods
had included them inextricably in some other subitem, such as “ incidentals,” the grocery bill or the
druggist’s account.
In the 91 cases reporting, the average amount
spent falls between $25.00 and $30.00. The mean is
$30.27, the median $24.40. The estimates vary from
$3.00 to $150 but more than 75% lie between
$10.00 and $50.00. The greatest concentration is
in the $10.00 range, from $17.50 to $27.50, where lie
35% of the cases. Two of the estimates over $50.00
include house cleaning supplies as well and three
include all drugs, while two others include a bill for
drugs of $50.00 or more. One assistant professor’s
family of four, spending $9,000, give the following
detail of a $90.00 total: tooth brushes, $2.50; combs
and brushes, $5.00; shoe polish, $15.10; listerine and
similar drugs, $15.00; toilet and bath soap, $13.00;
bathroom and toilet equipment, $39.40. The lowest
figure, $3,00, is only a partial total, and all others
below $10.00 are undetailed estimates and hence
probably low even though all of them are for fami
lies below the average income.
Gr. House Cleaning Supplies.—Only 66 families re
ported house cleaning supplies as a separate item.

182

GETTING AND SPENDING

The real range for the 66 reporting is from $2.50
to $62.00, but more than 75% of the estimates are
between $5.00 and $25.00 and 50% are between
$5.00 and $15.00. The mean is $15.15 and the
median, $11.41. The two largest expenditures,
$62.00 and $41.00, are for large families with ex
penditures of $10,000 and $6,500. The reports on
this item are undoubtedly the least satisfactory of
any item in the whole annual expenditure.
H. House Laundry.—A study of the reported
laundry costs gives further index of the rigorous
type of domestic economy that a professor’s wife
must face. Twenty-one wives of faculty members,
most of them college bred, did their own laundry
work including all the heavy house laundry, sheets,
towels, and table linen. Of these 21 women, 70%
were doing washing for a household of four or
more persons; five did general washing for a house
hold of six or seven. That the majority were driven
to this labor by pressure of low incomes and a long
and insistent scale of wants for miscellaneous,
seems evident when it appears that 80% of them
were housewives in families spending less than
$5,000. Only 4 were in families where expenditures
were from $5,000 to $9,000. Possibly these four hold
to earlier ideals and believe that the home should
be the economic unit; or, possibly they shared a
widespread and deep-rooted objection to public
laundry work yet could not find laundresses to come
to the house. For 70% of the 21 women, the work
was less arduous than might on first thought appear

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 183

since this proportion had electric washing machines
to mitigate the drudgery. But even with this laborsaving device, doing the family laundry is exacting
and time-diverting work. No mangles were re
ported.
I. Furnishings.12—Most of the families spent very
little for new furnishings during the year in ques
tion. Only eight of the 93 making statement about
this item spent $700 or more. These expenditures
seem very definitely to represent new investment
rather than replenishing or repairing old stock.
Five of the eight bought houses in the same year;
one was obviously refurnishing an old house; two
were renting. Given the current costs of furniture
and furnishings, $200 is an amount that would cover
little more than repairs and some one addition to a
stock of furnishings. Nearly three-fourths of all
the expenditures are less than $200. The proportion
of these low allowances for furnishings decreases,
however, as the total expenditures increase. Those
buying houses on incomes of $3,000 to $5,000 felt as
most purchasers of furniture do under such circum
stances. Some outlay for this item seemed un
avoidable regardless of ability to afford it. Those
with incomes above $6,000 did more than repair.
They bought new furniture or redecorated. As re-

“ As it appears in the list under house operation, the item fur
nishings presents the same problem met with under housing. In
a few cases a lump sum reported to have been expended on a per
manent investment has been included along with the statement of
annual costs of additions and repairs. Given the few schedules in
which the error occurred inclusion seemed unavoidable. Changes
in the few cases in which the fact occurred risked greater inaccuracies
than those which arise from computing in this way.

GETTING AND SPENDING

184

suit, the moderate amounts of expenditures for
furniture, $200 to $300, appear more commonly with
the higher income groups. It is not possible to say
how far this purchase of furniture was made on the
installment plan.
J .. Stationery and Postage.—Eighty-six families re
ported the costs of stationery and postage. It varies
from less than $5.00 to as much as $50.00 or $120.
Twenty-five dollars a year will buy stamps and rea
sonably good stationery for an average family of
T able
M ean

and

M edian

Operation

and

X L IY

E xpenditur e foe A ll I tem s oe H ouse
M e a n a n d M edian P ercentage to
T otal E xpenditure

Item
All House Operation.........
Light .....................................
Heat and F u e l....................
Ice .........................................
Telephone and Telegraph.
Service .................................
Garbage Removal .............
Personal Cleaning Supplies
House Cleaning Supplies.
House Laundry & Supplies
Furniture & Furnishings..
Stationery & Postage . . . .
Other .....................................

Number
Report

Mean

Median

% of
% of
ing Amount Total Amount Total
Expend
Expend
iture
iture
$
$
96 746.49 13.1 568.21 12.2
48.96 0.9 39.50 0.8
80
96.12 2.0
96 102.95 1.9
11.88 0.2
6.00 0.1
28
39.59 0.7
38.04 0.8
94
86 260.93 4.7 153.50 3.1
8.13 0.1
84
7.20 0.1
91
30.27 0.5
24.40 0.5
15.15 0.3
11.41 0.2
66
49.27 0.9
36.00 0.7
71
93 236.56 4.3 126.00 2.6
15.15 0.3
88
12.00 0.2
9
15.70 0.3
4.00 0.08

Note
mean
andandmedian
percentages
were
by taking
the
per
cent: the
ofThethe
mean
median
amounts
topercentages
theobtained
total instead
ofitem,
cal
culating
mean
and
median
of
the
actual
for
each
as has been done in all other tables.

FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES 185

four. Nearly one-third of these 86 families spent
between $10.00 and $15.00, and three-fourths of
them between $5.00 and $20.00. The man’s right to
use professional stationery at the University may
account for something of the characteristic small
ness of this item among families that undoubtedly
have considerable correspondence. These were all
estimates, possibly none of them absolutely accurate.
Tables XLIV to XLYII inclusive (pp. 184, 185
and 186) show the proportionate expenditures for
household operation to total and the proportion each
Mean

Table XLY
and Median Expenditure for All Items of House
Operation and Mean and Median Percentage to
Total Costs of House Operation
I tem

N umber
R eport

All House Operation.........
Light .....................................
Heat and F u e l....................
Ice .........................................
Telephone and Telegraph.
Service .................................
Garbage Removal .............
Personal Cleaning Supplies
House Cleaning Supplies.
House Laundry & Supplies
Furniture & Furnishings..
Stationery & Postage . . . .
Other .....................................

96
80
96
28
94
86
84
91
66
71
93
88
9

ing

Mean

Median

% of
% of
Expend
Amount Expend
Amount
iture
iture
for H.O.
for H.O.
$
$
746.49 100.0 568.21 100.0
40.78 5.5
36.00 6.3
102.95 13.8
96.12 16.9
11.88 1.6
6.00 1.1
39.59 5.3
38.04 6.7
260.93 35.0 153.50 27.0
8.13 1.1
7.20 1.3
30.27 4.1
24.40 4.3
15.15 2.0
11.41
2.0
49.27 6.6
6.3
36.00
236.56 31.7 126.00 22.2
15.15 2.0
12.00
2.1
0.7
15.70 2.1
4.00

te : The mean and median percentages were obtained by taking the
perN ocent
of the
and
median
amounts
the total instead
cal
culating
the
meanmean
median
of the
actualtopercentages
for eachofitem,
as has been
done
inand
all other
tables.

186

GETTING AND SPENDING

item bears to total expense of house operation, the
expenditures for furniture and service correlated
with size of income and family.
T able X L Y I

Families R eporting Expenditure foe F urnishings
A mount op
T otal
E xpenditure
A ll Amounts . . .
$2000-2999 . . . .
3000-3999 . . . .
4000-4999 ___
5000-5999 ___
6000-6999 . . . .
7000-7999 ___
8000-8999 ___
9000-9999 ___
10,000 and Over.

T otal. No.
op F amilies

N umber op P ercentage
F amilies
WITH A R eporting REeporting
xpendi
Given
A ny E x
op
A mount op penditure ture
L ess
T otal E x por F ur T han
$200
penditure nishings
96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5
8

93
8
22
20
17
8
3
4
5
6

73.1
87.5
86.4
90.0
82.3
50.0
66.7
25.0
20.0
33.3

P ercentage
R eporting
E xpendi
ture op
M ore
T han $200
26.9
12.5
13.6
10.0
17.7
50.0
33.3
75.0
80.0
66.7

Table XLYII
F amilies Reporting Expenditure for Service
A mount op
T otal
E xpenditure

T otal N o.
op F amilies

P ercentage
R eporting
A ny E x
Given
A mount op penditure
T otal E x for S ervice

WITH A

penditure

All Amounts . . .
$2000-2999 ___
3000-3999 . . . .
4000-4999 . . . .
5000-5999 . . . .
6000-6999 . . . .
7000-7999 . . . .
8000-8999 . . . .
9000-9999 . . . .
10,000 and Over.

96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5
8

89.6
75.0
90.8
81.0
88.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

P ercentage
R eporting
E xpendi
ture op
L ess
Than $200

P ercentage
R eporting
E xpendi
ture op
M ore
T han $200

52.1
62.5
86.3
47.7
41.2
50.0
33.3
50.0
25.0

37.5
12.5
4.5
33.3
47.0
50.0
66.7
50.0
100.0
75.0

CHAPTER VII
INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ITEMS
OF MISCELLANEOUS 1
I.

T h e D ir e c t io n , t h e R e l a t iv e O c c u r r e n c e
t h e C h a n g e s i n t h e D ir e c t io n o f
M is c e l l a n e o u s

and

The facts concerning expenditure for “ miscel
laneous” given in Chapter VI show plainly that
academic families hold expenditures for the socalled physical requirements of food and clothing
rigidly to a subsistence plus standard so as to make
a larger surplus of income available for the so-called
social needs classified here as miscellaneous.

1 The nondescript word “miscellaneous’’ was selected for use in the
schedule as an act of mere conformity. The term seemed the least
undesirable among several,—“sundries,” “higher life,” “advancement,”
“miscellaneous,”—now passing muster as the means to draw together
under one heading, twelve or more important and recurrent classes
of expenditure. Some of the items classed under “miscellaneous”
customarily appear in a division called “incidentals” or are listed as
separate items. The method adopted here of listing these less ma
terial needs essential to group life, even to the absolute existence of
civilized beings, will, it is hoped, seem acceptable and sound. The
thirteen items and subheadings, a considerable number, represent a
comparatively insistent analysis that might have gone even farther.
As it stands, the list has made it possible to collect and compute the
details and the totals of “miscellaneous” as of “house operation”
with much more than the traditional completeness. Together, these
two fields of expenditure represent a steadily rising proportion of the
living costs in all income groups. The detailed analysis of these costs
herewith presented, show, it is confidently believed, a more than
ordinarily accurate approximation to the sums middle class profes
sional families must actually spend for these two divisions of house
hold expenditure given current ways of living.

187

188

GETTING AND SPENDING

The findings showing the exact nature and spe
cial emphasis of the expenditures for miscellaneous
items whose general character has been outlined in
Chapter VI seemed interesting and novel enough
to warrant giving a chapter to further details about
the direction of the expenditures for the several
items of this important major division.
Little is really known about the distribution and
the emphasis of the expenditures within this depart
ment of wants though, as has been already pointed
out, it is orthodoxy to regard the total proportional
amount allocated to it as the ear-mark of the
standard of consumption and the test of the wise use
of income, that is, of reputable habits of choice, and
the real criterion of the kind of welfare which the
money expended secured. Detailed consideration
of the emphasis in this division thus promises more
light in a shadowy field of knowledge. At the same
time, the way is thus opened further for those who
desire to pronounce.
To these ends, the 13 classes of needs assigned to
miscellaneous are here intensively analyzed to show
for each item the frequency distribution and the
changes in the direction of expenditures for each
and all of them as income rises.
II. T h e R e l a t io n ' o p t h e I t e m s o p “ M is c e l l a n e
o u s ” to

T o t a l E x p e n d it u r e a n d
T o t a l f o r M is c e l l a n e o u s

to t h e

A. Investments, Insurance, Savings.—As classified
here investments include the purchase of real estate
other than a home; stocks and bonds; savings; and

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 189

the various forms of insurance other than the fire
insurance charged to shelter costs.
The most recurrent type of investment is in
surance, carried by 90 families including one with
a paid-up policy.
Sixty families reported some savings other than
insurance; 36, savings; 38, investments in stocks
and bonds or forms other than savings or insurance.
The average amount spent for investment is $500,
twice as great as the average savings of $270, 9%
and 5% of the total expenditure respectively. It is
natural to find that the higher income groups are
more apt to make investments than to deposit sav
ings. Of the investments, 34% were made by people
spending $6,000 or more. Only 22% of those record
ing bank savings came from these groups. Exclud
ing the three families who devoted more than
one-third of their expenditure to investment in the
form of new houses, the range of the amounts of
investments and of savings is very nearly the same.
But there are twice as many savings accounts under
2.5% as there are investments and half of all the
savings are less than 5% of the total expenditure
while this is true of only one-third of the invest
ments. Forty-seven per cent of the investments are
over 10% of the total expenditure and only 22%
of the savings.
Only four families made no investments whatso
ever during the year under consideration.2 The
aIn the succeeding description the two cases which reported ex
penditure for investment but not the amount thereof are included
although they are necessarily excluded wherever the actual amounts
invested are used.

190

GETTING AND SPENDING

total expenditures of these families, 2 in each class,
are between $3,000 and $5,000, and between $6,000
and $7,000. Their appropriations for miscellaneous
are all below $2,500, and, except for a single case,
below $1,500. This last instance is a childless family
with an income of $6,000, half of it from sources
outside the University. Of these four cases there is
only one where the absence of investment is
obviously forced by low income. This is the case of
a full professor with three children living on $4,000,
with little or no outside resources and economizing
at every point; spending only $370 for clothing
for a family of five; only $1,200 for miscellaneous
and $800 of the $1,200 for “ health,” very little
indeed for recreation and professional expenses,
and nothing for tobacco. The other families not in
vesting are childless. Two bought houses within
the year, doubtless considering these an investment
and an adequate protection for the wife.3
The facts demonstrate beyond question that the
habit of foresight controls the group as a whole.
Whether they are poor or are already well pro
tected by outside resources, the overwhelming ma
jority of the families invest nevertheless.
1 . R e l a t io n o p A m o u n t o p I n v e s t m e n t to T o ta l
E x p e n d it u r e .— In considering the percentage of the

total expenditure which is invested, two distinct
groups appear: one whose investments represent
less than 7%% of their total expenditure, one where
3 It is of course possible and even probable that certain assets not
reported here such as the definite hope of inheritance, small funds
not yielding incomes, etc., are reasons for the absence of sayings
against hazards.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 191

they represent 15%'. Taking the 96 families by ex
penditure levels, those having $8,000 and over show
a percentage of investment that rises from 15% to
21%. These are the groups which for the first time
have a real margin from which to make substantial
provision for old age Without robbing themselves
of items considered present necessities. All those
in the income groups below $8,000, invest less than
7%% on an average with the exception of the $4,000
to $5,000 class which is saving 17.%'. When the in
dividual cases are investigated, it becomes apparent
that this group and some of the members of the
$3,000 class are saving to buy a house. Two types
appear within this $3,000 to $5,000 expenditure
group: those saving less than the general average,
those saving much more. The latter are almost ex
clusively families which do not yet own their house
and are saving to purchase it; the former, those who
have already done so. With the exception of this
latter group, the necessity for providing against
hazard naturally presses harder upon those with
expenditures between $2,000 and $4,000 than upon
those with incomes between $5,000 and $8,000 though
in all cases the proportion is low, between 4%! and
7%%.

2.
R e l a t io n o p A m o u n t o f I n v e s t m e n t to T o ta l
M is c e l l a n e o u s .—Considered as percentages of total

miscellaneous rather than of the total expenditure,
the same tendency is apparent though in a less strik
ing degree. There is a gradual rise from 20% of
miscellaneous set aside for investing among those
spending $2,000, to 36,%' for this purpose given by

192

GETTING AND SPENDING

the $4,000 group, falling after $4,000 to 13% and
rising again to 35% at $8,000. In other words,
while the families with expenditures below $4,000 do
not invest much more proportionately of the total
expenditure than do those with incomes between
$5,000 and $8,000, their appropriation for all mis
cellaneous expense is first reduced by the demands
of physical subsistence and then the necessary sav
ing steals more from the other miscellaneous items.
In general, investments preempt 20%^ of the mis
cellaneous appropriation when it is below $1,000;
but the median proportion decreases up to the $3,000
group with the exception of those already mentioned
who are saving to buy houses. After $3,500, there
is an irregular increase. More than half of the large
proportions for “miscellaneous” prove to be for
investment. Where more than half of the mis
cellaneous allotment is reinvested, in these cases
the total miscellaneous expenditure is either be
tween $1,500 and $2,500 or $5,500 and over.
3. General F acts A bout I nvestment.—Both the
amount and the proportion invested by different
families vary enormously. Four families invested
less than 1% of their total expenditure; 8, more than
one-third of their total expenditure. Eight families
spent less than 5% of their miscellaneous appro
priation on investments and 14 more than half of
it. There is no very typical amount of investment.
The investments of nearly half of the families are
between 2% and 10% of their total expenditure;
for one-third of the families, between 2% and 6%.
The median is 8% or about $360. The mean is

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 193

twice as great.4 One-half of the dozen families who
invested more than 25% of their total expenditure
made large purchases of real estate. Those who
reported very small investments, less than 2%, with
two exceptions had incomes around $5,000 and
most of them had, in the same year, made large pay
ments either on houses or on automobiles which
they probably regard as liquid assets. One of
the exceptions was a family whose total expendi
ture of $9,000 dwarfed the reasonable amount of
insurance which was carried. The other was an in
structor’s family with one child and no dependents
living on $2,600 and paying only $40.00 premium on
insurance.
4.
IirsuBANCE.—For this academic group, in
surance 5 is the most typical way of providing
against the hazards of the future. This favored
form of investment is carried by 85 families; 83
carry life insurance; two others, accident but no
life. The tendency is apparently to insure in pro
portion to income rather than for a fixed amount,
and for the appropriation to be increased when it is
felt that income permits. Only 4 paid premiums of
more than $500 a year; 6 paid less than $50.00 and
the most typical sums, paid by a third of the fam
ilies, were between $50.00 and $150.00. The average

4 Three of the families that invested more than 40% of their
incomes bought houses within the year and entered the purchase costs
here instead of under the costs of housing.
6 As used here, this term includes only life and accident insurance.
Fire insurance premiums are included under housing costs, automo
bile insurance under the costs of automobiles. Fire insurance is a
necessity for all these householders. There were 62 policies and 61
house owners. The average costs are less than half o f 1% or less
than $25.00 annually.

194

GETTING AND SPENDING

was $162, or about 4 % of the total expenditure. If
the average cost of life insurance be considered as
$26.00 per thousand, this would represent a policy
of about $6j000. Every one with a total expendi
ture below $3,000 and all those spending between
$7,000 and $10,000 were insured as were 80 %| to
90% of those with expenditures from $3,000 to
$6,000. But of the $6,000 to $7,000 income groups
and of those with $10,000 and over, only 75% were
insured. Possibly the latter had certain assets con
sidered sufficient to provide for the family in case of
emergency. The $2,000 to $3,000 group probably
represents young men recently married who took
out a policy at the time of their marriage. The
$2,000 to $3,000 group carries by far the lowest
absolute amount but, due to the small incomes, the
proportional costs of insurance average 3%%.
The $3,000 to $4,000 group shows distinctly the
highest percentage of the total expenditure, 4.7%,
and- carries the highest absolute amount until we
reach expenditures of $7,000. From $4,000 to $7,000
the proportion devoted to insurance goes below the
average; from $7,000 to $10,000, it increases and,
after $10,000, the groups with incomes from prop
erty, there is a distinct decrease absolutely as well
as relatively.
In almost every level of income there are a few
families with insurance costs of less than 1% or
more than 10 %! of their total expenditure.
5. A ccident I nsurance.—Nearly one-third of the
families had accident insurance including three
cases in which the accident insurance was covered

Table XLYIII
Mean- and Median Amount and Percentage op Total Expenditure Devoted to Different Types of
Investment and Insurance
A ll F orms
r\*m
U J!
I nvestment

Amount

I nvestment

Total

Amount

Number
90 t
60
reporting .. $774.34
12.7 $832.42
Mean.........
Median ...... 357.50 7.9 514.00

and

Investment
%

Amount

I nsurance *

S avings
%

Savings

Amount

Total

Amount

Life
%

Amount

and Mis
Accident Fire
cellaneous
% Amount % Amount %

62
82 §
27
89
36
38
13.0 $919.13 13.6 $429.39 7.1 $246.72 4.7 $219.55 4.3 $58.21 1.2 $40.07 .07
10.2 510.00 9.2 271.50 5.0 202.00 4.1 162.00 3.7 30.00 0.6 23.75 .05

* Includes fire and miscellaneous insurance which are included elsewhere, under housing and house operation, not
under total investments.
t Two additional cases reported expenditure; amount not available.
§ Includes 3 cases of combined accident and life insurance; excludes one paid-up policy.

196

GETTING AND SPENDING

by the same policy as the life insurance. Costs are
usually less than 1% of the total expenditure. Table
XLVIII gives the main facts with regard to
investment.
B. Automobiles.—The schedule called for the origi
nal purchase price and upkeep of cars. Though
obviously for most professors primarily an instru
ment of recreation, the cars used by this group are
considered apart from the general expenditures for
recreation because special interest attaches to a
relatively new type of expenditure that custom is
rapidly ranging in the class of necessities though
comfortable conservatives still regard it darkly as
a luxury.
1.

A mount

E xpenditure

for

A utomobiles.—

The costs of an automobile fall into two distinct
groups, the original purchase price and upkeep.
Nearly two-thirds of the 55 car owners spent less
than $500; one-fourth, more than $1,000. More
than half spent less than 20%' of their total mis
cellaneous for this item but one-tenth spent more
than 50%. The average expenditure is 6% of the
total expenditure, 17%' of the total miscellaneous,
or about $360 a year. High expenditures for a
car are not necessarily restricted to high incomes;
they also appear in the $4,000 to $6,000 expendi
ture groups though less commonly. The expenses
of car-owning are not apparently adjustable to in
come. The alternative is the decision not to pur
chase rather than economies in the proportionate
expenditure. Twenty-two spent less than 5% of

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OP MISCELLANEOUS 197

their total expenditure upon automobiles but 3%
spent more than 25%.
2. F requency.—The proportion of motor owners
increases very definitely with a rise in total ex
penditure and is almost as regular for increases in
the total miscellaneous. In the group spending be
tween $2,000 and $4,000 for all purposes, a trifle
over one-third own cars; between $4,000 and $6,000
more than half, between $6,000 and $10,000 threequarters, and over $10,000 nearly 90,%| have auto
mobiles. The increase is regular in the lower levels
of the total expenditure for miscellaneous but grows
irregular after the total expenditure for mis
cellaneous exceeds $2,500.
3. R elation to A mount op T otal E xpenditure.—
As the total expenditure increases, not only does
the total number of automobile owners rise, but the
proportion of the budget devoted to automobile
costs also increases. It begins at 4%% of the total
expenditure for those members of the $2,000 to
$3,000 expenditure group who own cars and in
creases gradually until the $6,000 level is reached.
Above $7,000, the costs drop until the very highest
expenditure groups where they rise to 12% of the
total expenditure. The same is true for the absolute
amounts. There is a distinct peak for the families
spending from $6,000 to $7,000. It is here that we
see a sudden increase in the proportion of car
owners; this is apparently the income at which
many feel free to buy. In this class are two groups,
—one spending a small proportion obviously for

GETTING AND SPENDING
198
running expenses, and one a large proportion to
meet the original purchase price, the latter being in
the majority. In cases like the latter type, 14%
of the total expenditure and 40%' of the expenditure
for miscellaneous goes into a car. When 40% of
the miscellaneous is spent in this fashion unavoid
ably this means little or no other amusement. These
expenditures for the automobile are a nice illustra
tion of the general tendency of this faculty group
and doubtless other groups, if comparative data
were available, not only to concentrate expenditures
first in one direction and then in another hut to con
sider a car the most adequate form of relaxation for
leisure hours.
4. R elation- to T otal E xpenditure for M iscel
laneous.—Only three families spending less than

$1,000 for miscellaneous own automobiles and these
were not bought within the year so that the expendi
ture on them is less than 20%. Between $2,000 and
$3,000, one-fifth are spending more than half of
their miscellaneous on automobiles and one-third are
spending 30% or more, for it is here that the group
is buying cars. Thereafter, it decreases until the
very highest miscellaneous groups when it once
again approaches more than one-fourth of the total.
O. Recreation.—The costs of recreation include re
current expenses for social entertainment, theaters,
concerts, lectures, sports, toys; finally, the costs of
vacation. Every family of the 96 reported some
expenditure for one or more of these forms of
recreation.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OP MISCELLANEOUS 199
1. R elation to A mount of T otal E xpenditure .—

The proportion of total expenditure devoted to
forms of recreation other than automobiles varies
comparatively little with the amount of total ex
penditure. Remembering that an automobile is a
form of recreation and that more than half of these
families own cars will help to interpret why recre
ation is apparently an item that does not expand
proportionately with income. In fact, the relative
costs of recreation decrease in the higher levels
of total expenditure and the absolute amounts in
crease but little. At $4,000, we find the peak for the
percentages. Further study shows that this ex
penditure is subject to sharp economies in in
dividual cases but this does not appear when
considering the ranks of income. The amounts ex
pended vary around 4% of the total.

2. R elation to T otal E xpenditure for Mis
cellaneous.—As regards recreation, the proportion

of families spending over 20%' of their miscel
laneous appropriation for it remains the same up
to a total miscellaneous allotment of $2,000 although
the number spending very little decreases. That is
to say, a very small absolute appropriation for mis
cellaneous will not prevent some families from
spending a good proportion of it for recreation, al
though others will find in the same recreation ex
penses, their opportunity for enforced economies.
When the total miscellaneous expenditure is be
tween $2,000 and $3,000 about one-tenth of it is
spent for recreation. This 10% is the general
average. Thereafter, the proportion decreases so

200

GETTING AND SPENDING

that apparently the greater appropriations to mis
cellaneous are not expended in the direction of
diversion.
3.
A mounts and T ypes op E xpenditube .— The
amounts spent for recreation are fairly evenly dis
tributed over a range from a fraction of 1% to 15%
of the total expenditure or to 25% of the total mis
cellaneous. Half of the families spent less than 10%
of the total miscellaneous for recreation; 7% spent
more than 25% of total expenditure for miscel
laneous and 10% of the families spent less than 1%
of their total expenditure on this item. The average
was between 4% and 5% of the total budget.
The median amount allocated to recreation is
about $200. The high amounts reported are costs
of vacation journeys which sometimes include living
expense for the' time spent away from home. For
example, one family took a three-months ’ vaca
tion which cost nearly one-third of their total income
but the food expenses for this family were cal
culated for 9 months only, the other three months
being included in the vacation costs. Like clothing
purchases, expenditures for recreation offer a tra
ditional opportunity for economies. A dozen
families reported less than $50.00; two less than
$20.00. Of these latter, one was a childless family
living on $3,400; they had bought a house that year
and undoubtedly found the recreation they sought
in their automobile which they already owned,
economizing meanwhile on all the other recreation
expenses. The other family was that of an in
structor living on a salary of $2,400. There was one

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 201

child and a visiting relative; the health bills con
stituted 70% of the $840 allotted to miscellaneous.
A family spending such an amount on doctors and
drugs has little choice except to practice the most
rigid economy at every point. Much the same is
true for the assistant professor with two children
on a $2,700 salary who, out of $900 allotted for
miscellaneous, spent $144 for dependents outside
the home; he had nothing left for recreation. Of
the other families spending less than $50.00, one was
on sabbatical leave. The charges comparable to
recreation appear under travel. Another had
bought a car the same year. The others, all living
on less than $5,000, had made large expenditures
for health, for investments or for houses within the
year under consideration.
4. C o m m e r c ia l A m u s e m e n t s .—Economy is clearly
indicated by the amounts spent for “ recurrent
recreation” such as theaters, concerts and the like.
This is especially true of those families with total
expenditures between $3,000 and $4,000, none of
whom spent over $100. It is not clear whether
this allotment represents a preference, a pet
economy, or an enforced saving since larger in
comes do not necessarily show a more frequent use
of commercial amusements. The small amounts ex
pended may represent a “ standard” concerning the
patronage of commercial amusement or perhaps a
bias in favor of types of relaxation that cost noth
ing, walks, evening reunions, club gatherings, etc.,
influences the amount of time available for theaters
and the like. Of those with total expenditures over

202

GETTING AND SPENDING

$10,000, 25% still spent less than $100 for recur
rent recreation. Nearly half of the 96 reported less
than $50.00 for recurrent expenses of this nature;
more than three-fourths, less than $100. Five of the
six who spent more than $200 for these items had
incomes of $6,000 or more. The other was a child
less family with a $4,000 income, already owning its
own house and comfortably settled. It looks as
though commercial amusements would fare badly if
they had to depend upon academic faculties for their
patronage.
5. • V a c a t io n .—Taking a vacation seems also to
depend on other factors than the amount of income.
Surprisingly little relation appears between the
costs of vacation and income. About two-thirds of
the families on each level of total expenditure had
some vacation, 71% of the whole 96. For every
expenditure group except the lowest, the average
cost is close to $200. Faculty families would seem
to have well-defined ideas about vacation. This cost
seems to be a standardized charge for all classes
rather than a prerogative of higher incomes. The
28 families who took no vacation were for the most
part rather obviously economizing. One-third had
bought a house or a car in the same year; one was
on sabbatical leave. Several had large health bills.
In some cases, the lack of the vacation was com
pensated for by a larger recurrent expenditure for
other pleasures. In other instances, the figures tell
plainly a story of a family of four living on $2,700
or of six on $3,300, scrimping desperately at every
point.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OP MISCELLANEOUS 203

6. S o cia l E n t e r t a in m e n t .— The social entertain
ment data proved practically worthless except as in
dex of each family’s general theory about the rela
tive deductions from or additions to food costs that
might be made for this item. With these academic
groups as with most family groups, the costs for
guests consist mainly of extra meals at home. Such
costs are included in the general bills for food and
overhead. Of the 72 who reported amounts spent in
social entertainment including the costs of guests
outside the home, only 8 estimated expending more
than $100. The faculty member with a $16,000
income who estimated $780 for the cost of enter
taining guests at the club, is far from typical.
D. Health.—The maintenance of health includes
the costs for dentists, doctors, nursing, drugs, hos
pital and opticians. Reports did not permit dis
sociating the costs of preventive medicine from
those due to neglect or to too great economy in re
gard to the care of health, nor can any evidence he
given about the sudden emergencies or serious ill
nesses which overtook a few families.
One fortunate family reported no expenditures
for health. This was the family of an instructor
with a small child of 3, all three members of the
family living upon an income of $3,400 and saving
$1,200 of it.
1. A m o u n t a n d T y p e s o f E x p e n d it u r e .:— By and
large, the costs of health maintenance constitute a
very appreciable item in the average academic
family’s budget. To he sure, 9 families spent on

204

GETTING AND SPENDING

health or, more accurately on sickness, less than 1%
of their total income hut six spent more than 15%.
One instructor’s family of four people, living on
$2,400, spent $600, 25% of their total expenditure,
70% of their total miscellaneous, for health. The
average for the whole group is 4%, about $200.
Two-thirds spent less than $250; 25%, less than
$100, hut 16% spent more than $500. Five families,
two of which had incomes under $5,000, spent
between $1,000 and $2,000 for health. The tendency
to economize in this direction whenever it is pos
sible shows plainly. Of the 8 families spending less
than $50.00, all have total expenditures less than
$6,000 and 7 of the families have a total of less than
$5,000.
As to particulars in the health expenditure, 82
families reported physicians’ bills averaging $75.00;
40 paid for specialists at an average of $35.00; 55
had optometrists’ bills averaging $20.00; 90 re
ported dentists’ bills whose average size was $50.00.
There were 36 who had hospital bills averaging
$62.00. Twenty-three had nursing charges averag
ing $45.00, 66 reported the costs of drugs as averag
ing about $10.00, the latter usually an estimate. In
the matter of cost, physicians’ bills are the heaviest
item, although the dentists’ bills affect more people.
Next in importance are hospital costs, then nursing,
specialists, optometrists and drugs in the order
named.
As has been said, it is not possible to differentiate
the costs of preventive medicine and by inspection
of these charges determine whether low salaries

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 205

force the academic class to economize on this item
of expenditure. Dentists’ bills, however, have per
haps something of this quality since dental care may
he temporarily neglected as an acute appendicitis
or any disabling sickness cannot he. An inspection
of the outlay of these families for dental care seems
to bear out tile presumption that lack of funds, not
ignorance of the value of dental prophylaxis, forces
neglect of proper precautions, for the amount spent
on dentistry increases directly with the amount of
total expenditure. The six families reporting no
dentist bills were all living on amounts less than
$5,000 and the six who spent less than $10.00 on
dentistry are in the same income group. A total
expenditure of $6,000 seems very definitely the di
viding line. Below that income, 50% to 60% of the
families spent less than $50.00 a year; more than
80% spent less than $100. The exception is the
$4,000 to $5,000 group. Here only one-third spent
less than $50.00; 28% spent $100 or more. This
increase and emphasis is probably due to the pres
ence of growing children in these families. "When
the total expenditure exceeds $6,000, the cases
spending less than $50.00 practically disappear and
more than half spent over $100. For the first
time, we see some families spending more than
$300. It may be argued that the higher expendi
ture groups as contrasted with the higher income
groups, for they are not completely identical, have
a few more children and that these children are per
haps older and more in need of dental care. But in
spection proves this to apply accurately only to the

206

GETTING AND SPENDING

lowest group with expenditures below $3,000, who
are all younger men with the average of only one
child. From the data, it seems fairly certain that
the faculty group economizes on preventive dental
work because it must. Indeed, the higher costs for
the higher expenditure levels may be in part at least
due to previous neglect enforced by lack of surplus
for this purpose, by poor food or some other among
the unfortunate by-products of low income.
2. R e l a t io n to A m o u n t o p T o ta l E x p e n d it u r e .—
The proportionate cost of health decreases steadily
as the total expenditure increases although dis
tinctly lower for the $4,000 group than for others.
Even the absolute amounts increase very little;
health costs are apparently a fairly constant sum
regardless of income. The proportional costs would,
of course, bear most heavily upon those with the
lowest incomes. But the group spending $10,000
or more shows a sudden increase in the absolute
amount and in the proportional cost of health main
tenance, rising from 2% to 5% of the total expendi
ture and from 4% to 11% of the miscellaneous. Is
it because with incomes over $10,000 one can make a
luxury of being ill? The answer, based on facts long
observed, may safely be that faculty families do not
as a class “ enjoy poor health.” Is it because the
doctor, informed about increased income, raises his
charges? Given the average physician’s well-known
leniency toward the academic beginner and the
growing practice of pro-rating doctors’ fees to in
come, the latter interpretation would seem to have
some relevance.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 207

Relation op H ealth Costs to T otal E xpendititbe for Miscellaneous.—The costs of health
maintenance average about 15 % of the miscellaneous
in cases where the total for all miscellaneous is less
than $2,000; in a few cases more than half of miscel
laneous is spent for health. Above $2,000, health
is less than half as absorbing of income and the
cases in which much of the miscellaneous goes for
this purpose practically disappear. In fact, where
health costs are 25% or more of the miscellaneous
expense, the total for miscellaneous appropriations
was in most cases under $3,000,
E. Dependents Outside the Home. —As classified
here, dependents are persons maintained or par
tially supported outside of the home.
1. A mount of E xpenditure.—The support of de
pendents outside or in the home proved fairly typi
cal in these faculty families. Many families had re
lations living with them in the household.6 More
than one-third of the 96 contributed to the support
of dependents outside the home. These families
were usually childless. To the families thus sending
help to relatives not in the home, the cost of de
pendency constitutes a distinct additional burden
upon income, possibly a substitute for the costs of
children, averaging 3% to 5% of the total expendi
ture. A little more than one-third spent only 2% or
3% of their total expenditure but for three-fourths
this item absorbed close to 7%% of the total or
8Following
custom,
dependent
relatives
living
withupon
the income
family were
counted
in
the
general
household
and
any
charges
they
may represent are included in general family expenses.

208

GETTING AND SPENDING

something under 15% of the miscellaneous expendi
ture. There is only one case where outside depend
ents cost less than 1%; three cases cost more than
10% of the total expenditure. The highest propor
tion appears in a case where the dependents were
given 22% of the total expenditure and 54% of the
expenditures for miscellaneous. This was a child
less couple, apparently supporting their relatives as
well as themselves on $3,600. No other case repre
sented a total support of the outside dependents.
Half a dozen contributed less than $100 annually but
all of these cases occur in families with small in
comes. The most typical amounts thus expended lie
between $100 and $400, with the average between
$200 and $250. The burden of dependency falls
most heavily on the moderate incomes. Five out of
the six families who gave over $400 for dependents
have total expenditures below $6,000, typically
$5,000.
2. F requency.—By and large, the support of de
pendents is only indirectly a matter of choice. The
number of families making this expenditure, 34 all
told, bears little apparent relation to the income.
Those with total expenditures between $3,000 and
$4,000 and between $8,000 and $10,000 reported a
larger proportion of outside dependents than for
any other expenditure levels. The group with the
smallest proportion of dependents was that spend
ing between $6,000 and $7,000. Also a decrease was
evident in the number of dependents among those
with incomes that exceed $10,000.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 209

3. Relation to the A mount op Total E xpendi
ture.—The real burden of dependency is indicated

by the relative costs as well as by the number re
porting. Dependents outside the home were not
an appreciable burden upon families spending less
than $3,000, costing them only 2% of their total ex
penditure. This item is heaviest for the families
spending between $3,000 and $6,000. Something
over a third of the families have such dependents ;
they spend over 5% of the total and 14% of their
miscellaneous expenditures upon them. Above
$8,000, a definite falling off is apparent, the ex
penditure decreasing in absolute amount and drop
ping to a third of the previous proportional costs.
The burden of dependency falls heaviest upon the
moderate income groups who have also 4he highest
costs for other items, such as housing.
4. R elation to Total E xpenditure for Mis
cellaneous.—-The most notable effects of this bur
den of dependency upon other expenditures for mis
cellaneous appear where the total appropriations
for miscellaneous are small. In the group under
$2,000, cases occur where the cost of dependents is
one-fourth of the total miscellaneous. Where ap
propriations to miscellaneous were largest, none of
the families spent more than 5% for dependents.
F. Gifts.—The term gifts includes presents made
upon all occasions, such as Christmas, birthdays,
weddings or in times of illness. Gifts of clothing
or household furnishings made between members
of the family may not, in some cases, have been in

210

GETTING AND SPENDING

eluded under this heading; hut to compensate for
this inaccuracy it seems probable that in five in
stances at least those making the schedules classified
flowers sent to funerals under incidentals instead of
under gifts.
Ninety-four reported expenditures for gifts.
1. A mount of E xpenditure.—Gifts tend to take
a fairly standardized amount. These families as
signed in this direction from one-tenth of 1% to 8%
of their total expenditures, or %% to 25% of the
total expenditure for miscellaneous, averaging
about 2% of the total expenditure and 5% of the
miscellaneous. The amounts are more constant.
One-third of the families spent between $50.00 and
$100; half, between $50.00 and $150. The average
is $100.
2. B elation to A mount of Total E xpenditure.—
The relation of the proportionate costs of gifts to
the amount of total expenditure is obscure, if in
deed any relation exists. Gifts are apparently a
more important item of expenditure for families
spending between $4,000 and $5,000 and between
$8,000 and $9,000 than for those with the very small
est or very largest incomes or for the middle groups
spending between $5,000 and $8,000. But this may
very well be the result of chance factors rather than
of any determining influence exerted by the size of
the income. While actual amounts increase with
total expenditure, the increase is irregular. Habit
and human relationships are determining factors
here.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 211

3. R e l a t io n - to T o ta l M is c e l l a n e o u s .— Given the
above fact of a tendency to a standard amount ap
portioned to gifts, it is not surprising to find that
as the amount allotted to miscellaneous increases
the relative cost of gifts decreases although un
steadily. All families wherein gifts cost more than
10% of the total miscellaneous have a miscellaneous
appropriation of less than $3,000. In the higher ex
penditure levels, this item becomes more stereo
typed.
G. Education.—The item education includes peri
odicals and books of general rather than purely
technical interest, the cost of the children’s lessons
and, in some cases, college fees for the wife. The
man’s technical books are included in professional
expense.
1.
A m o u n t a n d T y p e o f E x p e n d it u r e .—All of the
families studied reported some expenditure for
these items. The nearest approach to a character
istic amount expended lies between $20.00 and
$60.00. The average amount is $70.00. It is difficult
to say what would be a “ normal” allotment for edu
cational costs. To be sure, this group has extraordi
nary advantages. The whole family may use the
facilities of the University with its library and many
free lectures; for the man, his faculty club also pro
vides easy access to many newspapers and periodi
cals. If such facilities are lacking in the home, it is
the faculty member’s wife, characteristically a
woman of education and intelligence, who is de
prived.

212

GETTING AND SPENDING

The average proportion absorbed by this item of
expense is 1%% °f the total expenditure but onethird spent less than 1% on the expenses classed
under this general heading. One childless family
spending $4,700 bought only the daily paper during
this period; they were saving to buy a house and
economizing in every direction. Half a dozen others
spent less than $20.00, which would obviously permit
only the purchase of one daily paper, perhaps a
couple of magazine subscriptions or three or four
books. At the other extreme, six families spent over
$500 and three, over $1,000.
2. Relation to A mount of Total E xpenditure.—
In the amounts devoted to education, those of the
lowest and highest income groups show about the
same proportion to the total expenditure although
the lower spend nearly twice as much of their mis
cellaneous appropriation. In fact, the actual amount
spent by those in the $2,000 group is higher than
for the $3,000 or $4,000. The younger and more
poorly-paid men are apparently the more ambitious
and may also have young wives finishing a college
course hitherto interrupted by matrimony, the fees
for this training causing the increase in the educa
tional costs. The proportional importance of edu
cational costs increases up to $9,000 but the expan
sion is appreciable only in the $7,000 and $8,000
groups and decreases again from $9,000 on.
3. R elation to A mount of Total Miscellaneous.
—The educational costs in proportion to the total
miscellaneous are scattered and no relation to the
total amount spent for miscellaneous is apparent.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 213

4. E x p e n d it u r e fo r B o o k s .—All 96 families re
ported some expenditure for periodicals or books;
two-thirds spent less than $50.00 a year and prac
tically all, less than $150. The expenditure here
increases, of course, with the income although up to
$7,000 some still spent less than $25.00 a year. But
of those with total expenditures over $8,000, at
least half spent over $100. The average expendi
ture, however, for all except the very lowest group
is between $25.00 and $75.00.
5. E x p e n d it u r e f o r I n s t r u c t io n .—Two-thirds of
the 69 families having children reported making
expenditure on special or general aspects of their
education. In the $4,000 to $6,000 expenditure
groups, more than 90% of those having children re
ported some education costs. This expense, how
ever, depends of course upon the age of the chil
dren. It happens that the children of the four
families spending between $9,000 and $10,000 are,
with one exception, under 6 years old, so that there
is only one family in this group with any expendi
ture for the children’s education. The age factor
also explains the solitary expenditure for children’s
education in the $2,000 to $3,000 group and the small
percentage of such expenditures, 43%, in the $3,000
to $4,000 class. The age of children also affects the
amount of the expenditure for their education so it
is not solely a matter of economy that makes the
amount so spent rise with the income. The number
of very small expenditures decreases with increas
ing income. Eighty-three per cent of the $3,000 to
$5,000 class; 50% of the $5,000 to $7,000; one-third

214

GETTING AND SPENDING

of the $7,000 to $9,000 and none of those with total
expenditures over $9,000 spent less than $100 on the
children’s education. None of the families with
total expenditures under $8,000 spent more than
$400 here. But some with incomes as low as $4,000
spent $300. Evidently, as a class, these faculty
groups do not patronize the private school. A cost
of less than $50.00 for one-third of the families and
less than $25.00 for one-fourth proves the rule to b©
occasional lessons, not paid schooling. The average
cost for the children’s education lies between $50.00
and $100.
H. Professional Expense.—Professional expenses
include the costs of technical books and magazines,
secretarial work, supplies, professional organiza
tions and travel for professional purposes.7
1. A m o u n t a n d T y p e o p E x p e n d it u e e .—The pro
fessional expenses show a wide range of variability,
absorbing from one-tenth of 1% to 38% of the total
income. In the majority of cases, these expendi
tures are very small. Two-thirds allotted to such
items less than 2% of their total costs and 22 men
out of the 96 spent less than one-half of 1%. The
average is 1.3% or $60.00. Ten faculty members
reported less than $10.00 spent for professional ex
penses. One of these is a woman associate with a
total family income eight times as much as her uni
versity salary and her only professional expense,

? The last item makes the total under this heading unduly high
in a few cases by including the food and lodging and costs of a sab
batical trip. Also in two cases, report of professional expense was
omitted.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 215

$6.00 for a professional organization. The other 8
all have incomes under $6,000. Professional ex
penses are highest for associates who, here as every
where else in this study, are outside the usual
academic progression; otherwise these charges in
crease in the higher ranks. Over 80% of the as
sistant professors, 73% of. the associate professors
and 58% of the professors spent less than 2% of
their total income in this way. Nineteen per cent
of the professors spent over 5%, twice as much as in
any other rank except the associates. Three of the
four men who spent over $1,000 were taking sab
baticals. They were all members of the two highest
ranks. The fourth inade a trip to Europe financed
by a gift of $1,000.
Of the main types of professional expenses, or
ganization dues, books, secretarial assistance and
travel, 86 reported organization dues averaging
$14.00; 78, books and technical magazines at a cost
of $25.00; 29, travel for professional purposes
averaging $55.00; and 16, secretarial service cost
ing an average of $16.00.
2. O b g a n iz a t io n D u e s .—The bulk of the profes
sional organization dues are between $10.00 and
$20.00. Eleven per cent spent under $5.00; 7%,
$50.00 or more and only one spent more than $100
in this direction. This was a man with a $16,000
income.
3. T e c h n ic a l B o o k s .—Of the expenditures for
technical books 25% was in sums under $10.00;
55%, under $30.00; 72%, under $50.00. Only 8%

2 16

GETTING AND SPENDING

spent more than $100 on professional relation
ships. The latter group includes one man whose ex
penditures seem to satisfy the cartoonist’s idea of
the typical professor. In 1922 he reported spend
ing $57.00 on clothes and $800.00 on books. But a
childless man with an income of $9,000 can afford
this decision. Many however are indubitably starv
ing their research work or overworking themselves
on details.
4. S ecretarial S ervice.—Only 16 of these 96
faculty members reported any secretarial assist
ance ; four men in addition received it from Univer
sity funds.8 More than half of these 16 men paid out
$20.00 or less. The highest expenditure for secre
tarial assistance was $230, reported by an in
structor whose total expenditure was $6,000. With
the exception of one instructor whose $65.00 ex
penditure for secretarial assistance was probably
the typing of his thesis, all of the men reporting
secretarial assistance had incomes of $4,000 or over.
5. P r o f e s s io n a l T r a v e l .—Only 26 reported the
amounts spent in professional travel. These were
chiefly minor amounts, surcharges not paid by the
state while visiting schools or on extension lectures.
Thirty-eight per cent spent less than $50.00 and only
23% above $100. Probably the only amounts that
represented travel for professional advancement
rather than unavoidable supplements to an expense
account for school visiting or extension work are
8 It is possible that a few others misclassified this charge under the
costs of the typewriter; almost certainly one did who assigned
$200.00 to that item.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 217

the expenses for the three sabbatical periods and the
one European trip already mentioned.
6. R e l a t io n

A m ount

T o ta l E x p e n d it u r e .—

The actual amount spent for professional expenses
increases hardly at all between the $2,000 and the
$4,000 expenditure groups. Thereafter, the actual
amounts and the percentages of the total increase
slowly up to the $7,000 income level. In this sample,
the group with total incomes between $7,000 and
$8,000 is very small and happens to include a family
on sabbatical leave so that the figures for profes
sional expenses are completely thrown off. After
$8,000, the cost of professional expenses drops and
even the actual amounts are lower so that the sur
plus is applied to professional expenses no more
than to educational, and it cannot be said that this
is attributable to the receipt by men in the higher
ranks of clerical and research assistance from Uni
versity gifts, since the cost of professional expenses
does not decrease with academic rank.
7. ■ R e l a t io n to T o ta l E x p e n d it u r e fo r M i s
c e l l a n e o u s .—Equally little relationship appears be
tween the professional costs and the amount of total
miscellaneous expenditure except that they are
lower proportionately for the higher groups. Most
of those with a total appropriation for miscellaneous
over $5,000 spent less than 2%% for professional
expenses.
I. Incidentals.—Incidentals include such items as
carfare other than that of the faculty member in
going to work and of the children going to school;

218

GETTING AND SPENDING

lawyer’s fees, the barber’s services, moving ex
penses, funerals, and items not otherwise classified.9
Practically all families reported expenditures for
some of these items.
1. A mount and T ype or E xpenditure.—Nearly
half of the expenditures for incidentals are between
one-half of 1% and 1%%, the median being 1.2%
or $55.00. Nearly 80% spent less than $100. The
only expenditure over $400 for incidentals includes
the allowance of a daughter away from home for
a visit. Only 80% reported the exact amount of
additional carfare. Twenty-five reported moving
expenses and 7, lawyer’s fees, both items averaging
about $20.00.
All reported tonsorial costs for man, wife and
children. The average was $13.00 per annum.
Twenty-eight per cent spent less than $10.00 a year;
only 4%, more than $60.00, that is more than $5.00 a
month. Is the barber the subject for a careful minor
economy? Are the family long-haired by preference
or are they “ too busy” ?
Only two funerals occurred in this group, one
costing $25.00, one $92.00. Five other sums re
ported, of $15.00 or less, were doubtless the gifts of
flowers misclassified here.
The item under incidentals which is entitled
“ other” was the unavoidable catch-all for expenses
otherwise unclassified. Thirty-nine made some re•Unavoidably, incidentals cover items difficult to classify as well
as those occurring very irregularly. In 5 cases, in order to balance
her budget, an arbitrary figure has been thrown in here by the house
wife when making out the schedule. In other instances, a similar
item affected the size of the allowance for incidentals.

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 219

port here, the average amount being $38.00, but
there is the widest possible variation. In the five
cases where the sums were admittedly included to
balance the budget, the amounts recorded range
from $30.00 to $290. Included here are taxi charges,
photography, plants, ice cream and candy, baby
buggies, traveling expenses for relatives, bank
charges for carrying accounts under $50.00, taxes,
allowances to children away from home. The last
includes the one case of $1,000 allowance already
mentioned. Since some of these items were prob
ably scattered out under other headings by the rest
of the families reporting, the costs for incidentals
as given in the schedules are not worth comparing.
2 . R e l a t io n

to t h e

A m ount

T o ta l E x p e n d i

—Incidentals are a larger factor for the very
lowest income groups than for any other but since
in all cases these expenditures vary only slightly
from the average of 1%, they have, it is believed,
been kept an appropriate proportion of total
expense.
3. R e l a t io n to T o t a l E x p e n d it u r e f o b M i s
c e l l a n e o u s .— The relative cost of incidentals, on the
other hand, decreases distinctly especially where the
amount for miscellaneous exceeds $1,500.
J. Associations.—Association costs, as differen
tiated from professional organization expense,
represent the social clubs of the faculty member or
the helpmate. The charges here listed include social
and civic clubs, alumni obligations, the Faculty
Club for the faculty member and the social and pro
ture.

220

GETTING AND SPENDING

fessional clubs of the helpmates. Two families re
ported no associations for either man or wife; these,
groups obviously deprived themselves through mo
tives of economy since the total expenditures of both
were under $4,000 and their miscellaneous expendi
ture under $2,000. Ninety-two faculty members and
72 helpmates reported some association expendi
tures.
1.
A m o u n t a n d T y p e o p E x p e n d i t u e e .—The dis
tribution of costs is like that of incidentals, nearly
half between .5% and 1.5%, the median 1.1% or
$50.00. Seventy-five per cent spent less than $100;
four over $250, the highest amount was $425.
Three are families with incomes over $10,000. The
exception is one family with 3 children and a total
expenditure of $6,000, the expenditure in this case
being for a country club. Alumni obligations are
an important factor in increasing association costs.
In each of the four cases where over $250 was
spent, the helpmate had contributed $100 toward
alumni obligations. Of these 96 faculty members,
85 belong to the Faculty Club, which costs $26.40
per annum. Of the 11 who did not belong, seven
are living on small incomes and economizing every
where. One is an assistant professor whose family
of five lives on $3,500, and who did not feel able to
spend anything for association expenses. Two
others have only recently joined the University.
Two could obviously afford the Faculty Club but
inspection of the distribution of their expenditures
suggests that these two are not “ joiners.” Not
only do more faculty members report association

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS 221

dues than do their wives, but where both expend,
the faculty member’s item is usually three times as
great. The median annual expenditure for the fac
ulty member’s associations is $36.60, for the help
mate’s, $10.50. Indeed 89% of the latter’s hills are
below $50.00, and in only 4 cases, all over $200, do
they exceed $75.00. Of these 4, one is the male help
mate of a woman faculty member, two of the others
paid alumni contributions of $200 and the third con
tributed over $100 to the same purpose.
2 . R e l a t io n to T o ta l E x p e n d it u r e .— As the total
expenditure rises, the costs of associations vary but
little from the general average of 1% possibly
decreasing a trifle until we reach the $10,000 level,
the country club class, when it increases distinctly
in importance.
3. R e l a t io n to
laneo us.

T o ta l E x p e n d it u r e

fo r

M is c e l

—The cost of associations remains almost
a constant proportion of the total amount of miscel
laneous when the allotment to this division exceeds
$1,500, varying around 2% ; below $1,500, it is dis
tinctly more absorbing, averaging 3 % .
K. Church and Charity.—These items are self-ex
planatory. It would seem improbable that the num
ber of church supporters is determined by financial
status, especially in view of the fact that the 52
members of this group who report church contribu
tions are mainly those with small total expenditures.
Indeed, with the exception of those families with
total expenditures between $8,000 and $10,000, the
percentage supporting church decreases as the total

222

GETTING AND SPENDING

expenditure rises, from 62% of those with expendi
tures below $3,000, to 38% of those with expendi
tures above $10,000. Three families in the low
income groups reported no expenditures for charity.
Three others declined to state the amount of their
contributions.
1. A m o u n t or E x p e n d it u b e .—Of the 96 families,
52 were church supporters giving contributions
that varied from one-tenth of 1% to 7%% of their
total expenditure. Only two spent over 5%. The
median is .6 of 1%, or $30.00. Two-thirds spent
less than a dollar a week and 23% of those report
ing contributed less than one dollar a month. Sev
enteen per cent gave more than $100 during the year
and three more than $250 but these sums in some
cases include the gifts to charity. The highest con
tribution to church alone was $350, or 7% of the
total expenditure. The one family living on $3,000
that contributed $270 to church and charity to
gether is good evidence that the size of the church
contributions does not depend upon income. The
largest sums, however, appear to come from full
professors.
2 . R e l a t io n

m ount op

T o t a l E x p e n d it u r e .

—The range of charitable contributions is from onetenth of 1% to nearly 4% of the total expenditure.
There are fewer high contributions than to church.
The median is about the same, $27.00. Three-fourths
spent less than 1%, that is, less than $50.00. The 8
contributing $100 or more to charity all have a total
expenditure over $6,000 and are associates or in the

INTENSIVE ANALYSIS OP MISCELLANEOUS 223

two tipper ranks. The 11 contributing less than
$10.00 all have total expenditures below $6,000 with
the exception of one family having four children,
living on $8,000 with peculiarly heavy expenses.
The percentage spent for church and charity re
mains fairly constant so that these items are a pro
portional rather than an absolute cost, apparently
controlled somewhat by the old theory of the tithe
though the amounts are not a tenth but less than one
one-hundredth of the total incomes.
3.
R e l a t io n - to T o t a l M is c e l l a n e o u s .—Church
contributions for families with a miscellaneous bud
get less than $3,000 average between 1% and 2 %
though sometimes they rise to nearly 15%. There
after, they are less than 1%.
Charitable contributions vary most for those with
low miscellaneous expenditures ; some spending less
than $1,500 give to the needy more than 5% of their
allotment to miscellaneous. The average is around
2%. As in the case of church contributions the pro
portion given decreases to less than 1% for the
higher groups.
L. Tobacco.—No expenditure for tobacco may in
dicate either an enforced economy, or a conviction
about morals, a theory of personal hygiene or sim
ply a preference. With the exception of the low
est income groups spending under $1,000 for all
miscellaneous items, the percentage of those who
buy tobacco increases rather regularly with the
size of the total allotment for miscellaneous. In
the higher income levels, however, where the elimi

224

GETTING AND SPENDING

nation of this expense would count relatively little,
the percentage of those who buy fluctuates.
1. A m o u n t o p E x p e n d it u r e .— Of the 63 who re
ported expenditures for tobacco including two who
did not report the amount, three spent less than onetenth of 1% for smoking. Only one gave over 2%
of the total expenditure to this item. The median is
less than half of 1%, about $25.00 per annum; 75%
reported spending less than $4.00 a month. Eleven
spent less than $10.00 per annum, only a half dozen
spent $100 or more. The highest amount was $170
spent by an assistant professor living on $6,500;
though he is probably quite unaware of it, tobacco
constitutes 20% of his total expenditure for mis
cellaneous.
2. R e l a t io n to A m o u n t o f T o t a l E x p e n d it u r e
f o r M is c e l l a n e o u s .—In particular, tobacco is an im
portant item of miscellaneous for the groups spend
ing less than $3,000 all told. The pleasures of the
weed absorb nearly 2y2% of their miscellaneous as
contrasted with the general average for all incomes
of less than a 1% expenditure for tobacco, higher
for this group than for any other. Other fluctua
tions are irregular. The main point is that the cost
of tobacco does not appear to be a perceptible econ
omy of lower incomes. The cost of tobacco defi
nitely decreases as the amount of miscellaneous in
creases. Under $1,000 the costs represent 3%;
between $1,000 and $1,500, 2%; and over $3,000,
less than 1%.
Tables XLIX, L and LI and Tables LY to LX in
clusive, Appendix III, show the facts just reviewed.

T able X L IX
M edian A m o u n t a n d P ercentage of S pecified I tem s
M iscellaneous to T otal E xpenditure *§

Amount

I tem
Total Miscellaneous ...............................
Tobacco ..........................................i . . . .
Charity ......................................................
Church ......................................................
Associations ..................................... ..
Incidentals ............................ ...................
Professional ..............................................
Education .......................... .......................
Gifts ...........................................................
Dependents ................................................
Health .........................................................
Recreation ................................................
Automobile ....................................... ..
Investment and Savin gs........................
T able

$
2047.19
25.00
27.00
30.00
49.70
55.00
60.00
69.30

100.00
200.00

203.16
197.85
364.00
357.50

P er Cent
41.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.0
3.1

3.9
4.1
6.2
7.9

M ed ian A m o u n t a n d P ercentage of T otal M iscellaneous
A llo tm en t S p e n t for S pecified I tem s of M iscellaneous

P ercentage
96 F amilies

I tem

Total Miscellaneous . . . . . .
Investments ........................
Automobile ..........................
Recreation............................
Health ...................................
Dependents ..........................
Gifts .....................................
Education .............................
Professional ....................
Incidentals ..........................
Associations ........................
Church ...................................
Charity .................................
Tobacco .................................

Reporting
Expenditure
for Given Item
100.0
95.8 t
57.3

100.0

99.0
35.0
99 .0*

100.0

97 .9*
99.0
97.9
54.2
96.9 §
65 .6*

Miscellaneous Expen
diture for Given I tem
of Miscellaneous
Amount

Per Cent of
Total Mis
cellaneous
Expenditure

$
2047.19

100.0

357.50
364.00
197.85
203.16

26.3
16.9

69.30
60.00
55.00
47.70
30.00
27.00
25.00

3.7
3.0

200.00
100.00

10.0
9.9
10.2
4.8
2.8
2.7
1.4

1.4
0.9

* Includes 1 case where expenditure was reported but amount was not
available.
t Includes 2 cases where expenditure was reported but amount was not
flY flilftb lC

§ Includes 3 cases where expenditure was reported but amount was not
available.

225

T able L I

Number and Percentage of Families with a Given Amount of Total Expenditure Who Reported
Expenditures for Certain Specified Items under Miscellaneous
A ll F amilies
A mount of T otal
E xpenditure

A utomobiles

No. Per Cent No.

Church

D ependents

T obacco

Per Cent
Per Cent
Per Cent
Per Cent
of All No. of All No. of All No. of All
Families
Families
Families
Families

All A m ounts........................

100.0

57.3

35.0

54.2

63*

65.6

$2000-2999
3000-3999
4000-4999
5000-5999
6000-6999
7000-7999
8000-8999
9000-9999
10,000

8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5
8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3
8
12
10
6
2
3
4
7

37.5
36.3
57.2
58.8
75.0
66.7
75.0
80.0
87.5

3
10
6
6
1
1
2
3
2

37.5
45.4
28.6
35.3
12.5
33.3
50.0
60.0
25.0

5
13
12
8
2
1
4
4
3

62.5
59.1
57.2
47.1
25.0
33.3
100.0
80.0
37.5

4
12
13*
14
6
3
3
3
5

50.0
54.5
61.9
82.3
75.0
100.0
75.0
60.0
62.5

.................... ..
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................

and O ver..................

* Includes 2 cases where expenditure was reported but amount, was not available.

CHAPTER VIII
TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES
AT A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
A series of twelve typical family expense records
appears in this chapter as further illustration of the
characteristics of income and expenditure peculiar
to this professional standard. For certain persons,
concrete expense accounts give perhaps a clearer
picture of the standard of living and the methods of
expenditure than the massed statistics of previous
chapters.
Twelve expense accounts have therefore been se
lected from among the 96 household expense his
tories collected. Each budget record shows the
particulars of income and expenditure of a given
family. The expense records were chosen to show
the range of income, $1,800 to $10,000, and to illus
trate the variations in type of family rather than
because they were especially exemplary specimens
of the art of spending. They are simply examples
at characteristic income levels.
Students of habits of choice and expenditure will
find each record an illustration of the variation in
the emphasis, the direction and thé distribution of
expenditures at the professional standard of living.
Those who study the poverty line will also get new
227

228

GETTING AND SPENDING

light. These are families with total incomes higher
than 84% of the population of the United States can
command.
The level of living shown is none the less in
variably “ simple.” It will he enlightening to any
who are making quantity and cost estimates to con
trast the costs of living and the proportional allot
ments among customary goods and services given
here with the decisions that have been made by spe
cialists deciding by items, quantities and prices what
it costs to live at a subsistence plus level. On the
whole, these budgets show what has been called “ the
cost of better living.”
Those looking for practical inspiration in the per
plexities of spending their own incomes may also
find suggestions in these expense histories. Since
the expense histories of the kind here displayed are
ordinarily so “ sacred to family life” that the
student of choices in goods and services or those
engaged in the business of buying for families are
not frequently able to examine this class of expendi
ture table, a certain novelty and possibly a practical
utility are also justification for giving them.
Finally it seems fair to expect that a candid in
spection of these expense histories will bring the
conviction that the expenditures are those of a
spending class consciously seeking the means where
by to be able to acquire and give knowledge, a class
with no desire to make an appearance of material
prosperity, rigorously holding food, clothing and
shelter as secondary to some scheme of expenditure
that calculates the hazards of life, while it at the

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 229

same time aims to pay for those things that express
simply the satisfactions of hospitality, generosity
and citizen life.
BUDGET NO. 1.
Family of 2.

Man and wife, both under 35; no children.
The regular salary of $1,431 was supplemented by $260 from
outside work of the faculty member including extension and high
school work and $100 from the wife’s sewing. Twenty-five dollars
additional income derived from property.
A deficit of $400 was met from previous savings.
Expenditure

I ncomb

Total Amount Per Cent

Total I n c o m e ............................... $1819.00

Total Exp. ..$2235.00

Earnings
Man
Regular s a l a r y ..................
Teaching in High School
and non-scientific article.
Wife
Occasional s e w i n g ...........

Food ...........
Clothing . . .
Man .........
W ife .........
Housing . . .
House Opera
tion .........
Miscellaneous
Investment.
Automobile.
R ecreation.
Health . . .
Dependents.
Gifts .........
Education .
Professional
Incidentals.
Associations
Church . . .
Charity . . .
Tobacco . .

Income from property ...........
Deficit of
savings

$429 taken

from

1481.00
213.00
100.00
25.00

20.6
14.5

460.00
325.00
175.00
150.00

7.8
6.7
12.1

270.00

14.9
37.9

333.60
846.40
218.00

9.8

185.00
90.00
50.00
45.00
62.00
85.00
43.00
26.40

8.3
4.0
2.2
2.0
2.8
3.8
1.9
1.2

27.00
15.00

1.2
0.7

The food costs are comparatively low though they include two
weeks’ vacation.
Clothing costs are comparatively high, averaging $162.50
apiece.
Shelter is very much lower than the average because the couple
were living in the house of a friend for six months at a nominal
rent. The other half of the year they rented a six-room flat at
$35.00 per month.

230

GETTING AND SPENDING

The proportion assigned to house operation is a trifle above
the average because the family spent $200 for furniture. But
no domestic service of any kind was employed; the wife did all
the laundry work without the aid of a washing machine.
The proportion for investments runs a good deal over the
average. Savings takes the form of insurance, the couple pay
ing $218 premium on insurance and having no other savings.
There is no automobile. The proportion spent for recreation is
twice as large as the average. Recurrent recreation absorbed
$100 including $25.00 for movies and $50.00 for the theater.
A two weeks’ vacation cost $50.00 and $35.00 went toward enter
taining guests. Other than $90.00 spent for the dentist, health—
ill-health—cost nothing. This is an expenditure total below the
average. Dependents, gifts and education, which includes $50.00
for books, was average. The family did not skimp professional
expenditure as most families with low incomes did; $60.00 was
spent for technical books. Expenditure for incidentals was the
average. The only expenditure for associations was the Faculty
Club. Expenditure for charity was above the average, for
tobacco below. No expenditures whatever were reported for
church.
This family declared itself comfortable and contented. The
“comfort” is in part due to a subsidized housing cost, to no large
burden of health or dependency, and to a cheerful faith in in
surance as the only vital form of savings. They are willing to
work. Surplus is spent on pleasure-giving activities. There is
no outside income but savings are being used up. The family
economizes only on food and service. They “would like to own
their own home” but are not saving for it. Though they say
they “would rather stay at home and read than go about” their
recreation allotment is nearly twice as large as that of the
average of their colleagues ! Since they “ask no better way of
living,” they are a rare and notable example of persons content
with their lot!
BUDGET NO. 2.
Family of 2.

Man and wife both born about forty years ago; no children.
There are no outside resources. With a salary of $3,200, the
faculty member feels forced to supplement income by teaching

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 231

in summer school. As consequence, he regrets lack of time and
quiet for research. The couple reported a six weeks* vacation
during which the man was probably chiefly recuperating from
teaching and preparing for the next winter’s work.
Expenditure

I ncom e
Total Income
Earnings
Man
Regular salary
Summer session

Total Amount
. . . $3200.00

, ,
( t T.

2850.00
350.00

Per Cent

Total Exp. . .$3394.25
564.60
Food ...........
484.20
Clothing . . .
277.70
Man .........
206.50
W ife .........
528.50
Housing . . .
House Opera
399.25
tion .........
Miscellaneous 1417.70
Investment.
Automobile.
320.50
R ecreation.
140.00
Health . . .
325.00
Dependents.
100.00
Gifts .........
51.80
Education .
37.00
Professional
339.00
Incidentals.
53.40
Associations
Church . . .
25.00
Charity . . .
26.00
Tobacco . .

16.6
14.3
15.6

8.2
6.1

11.7
41.8

9.4
9.6

4.1
3.0
1.5
1.1
10.0
1.6

0.7
0.8

Examining the expenditures it will be noted that only 17%,
less than the average, was spent for food. The actual expendi
ture, however, is greater than that of a family of three living
on $9,000. They are not economizing here; neither are they wast
ing. Seventy-seven cents per day per person provides a generous
but not a luxurious dietary.
Clothing is much higher than the average, over $200 apiece.
Housing costs are lower because the couple are renting. For
$40.00 a month they were getting an undesirable four-room
house partly furnished and in bad repair. The amount allocated
to house operation is below the average partly because water
and telephone are included in rent. Since the housewife employs
only occasional service, the total yearly cost was $50.00. The
laundry being sent out adds to the total of this division.
No investments of any kind, not even furniture insurance, were
reported. The couple did not own an automobile. Recreation,
however, is comparatively high; $75.00 went for recurrent
recreation and $175 for vacation. The faculty member had six

232

GETTING AND SPENDING

weeks and his wife had two weeks, a trip to New York not
primarily a pleasure trip.
The proportional expenditure for health is average. The bur
den of dependency outside the home is large, 10% of the total
income going for this purpose. The $50.00 spent for education
is about average. Professional expenses are also just average,
$37.00. Faculty Club costs were $25.00. No expenditure was
made for church; the expenditure for charity was a trifle above
the average as was the allotment for tobacco. The trip to New
York by the wife, which was necessitated by illness in her family,
cost $250. A deficit of $90.00 thus created was met out of the
wife’s savings.
This family lacks insurance, service, and leisure. Only by re
ducing the food and clothing expenditures could they have found
the money for additional savings. Should they have done so?
BUDGET NO. 3.
Family of 4.

Faculty member and wife, both between 35 and 45;
two children, boy aged 8, girl aged 2.
No outside resources. The $3,000 salary was supplemented by
$295 earned at odd jobs.
Expenditure

I ncom b

Total Amount Per Cent

Total Income ........................
Earnings
Man
Regular salary ........... . .
Lectures— occasional . .
Consulting work .........
University Examiner .

Total Exp. ..$3282.42

3000.00
120.00
50.00

Food ......... .. 683.60
Clothing . . .
275.10
Man .........
151.00
W ife .........
61.00
Children (2 )
63.10
Housing . . .
523.00
House Opera
tion .........
429.07
Miscellaneous 1371.65
Investments
408.00
Automobile.
132.00
128.00
R ecreation.
106.00
Health . . .
200.00
Dependents.
Gifts .........
69.00
Education .
130.70
Professional
41.25
Incidentals.
16.50
Associations
49.20
Church . . .
60.00
Charity . . .
31.00
Tobacco . .

20.8
8.4
4.6
1.9
1.9
15.9
13.1
41.8
12.4
4.0
3.9
3.2

6.1
2.1

4.0
1.3
0.5
1.5

1.8
0.9

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 233

The food expenditure is somewhat above average, being nearly
21% of the total expenditure.
Clothing cost is below average. The faculty member spent
$150, his wife, $60.00; she “hadn’t had a new dress in three years.”
Housing cost is below average. They rent a four-room un
furnished house, apparently in poor repair, paying $40.00 a
month. The investment of $500 in furniture includes no con
veniences. The house operation costs are about the average,
though only $20.00 was spent for occasional service. This wife
does all the laundry for four.
Expenditure for miscellaneous, due to relatively large invest
ments, goes well above the average for incomes of $3,000 to
$4,000. A large life insurance is carried and the family saved
$80.00. Investment and savings consumed 12% of total income.
Expenditure for dependents is also large, 6% of total income.
A regular allowance of $200 is annually sent to dependents
outside the home, a distinct burden on a $3,300 income. For the
income level, education expenditure is very large, 4%; $52.00
was reported spent for children^ lessons, presumably for elder
child; $50.00 went for books. Expenditure for church and
charity is comparatively high, 3%. Expenditure for professional
associations, for gifts and for recreation was average. A week’s
vacation cost $11.00. Of the $69.00 reported for gifts, $40.00
went for stadium subscription. The faculty member belongs to
the Faculty Club and his wife to a social club. Professional
books cost $35.00. The faculty member employed no clerical
help and belonged to no professional associations. Costs for the
automobile were below average as well as costs for health, though
a child was reported in need of an operation. The faculty
member does not smoke.
The family has no funds wherewith to take a sabbatical leave.
They reported themselves needing seriously a larger home, more
clothing and an operation for one of the children.
BUDGET NO. 4.
Family of 3.

Faculty member and wife, both over thirty;
one child a year old; no other dependents.
A $3,000 salary is supplemented by $350 in gifts, $90.00
from property and $500 from the sale of stocks and bonds.

234

GETTING AND SPENDING

Neither man nor wife does any outside work. The supplementary
income, $940, is less than average.
Expenditure

I ncome

Total Amount Per Cent
Total Exp. . .$3840.00

Total Income ........................
Earnings
Man

Regular salary ........... . .

3000.00

Income from property . . . .
Sale of stocks and bonds . . . .
Gifts
Money .................................
Clothing .............................

500.00

490.40
Food ...........
265.50
Clothing . . .
138.00
Man .........
127.50
W ife .........
C h i l d * ____
1040.00
Housing . . .
House Opera
746.70
tion .........
Miscellaneous 1297.40
370.00
Investment.
Automobile.
47.00
R ecreation.
517.00
Health . . .
Dependents.
50.00
Gifts .........
27.00
Education .
107.00
Professional
114.80
Incidentals.
49.60
Associations
Church . . .
15.00
Charity . . .
Tobacco . .

12.8
6.9
3.6
3.3
27.1
19.5
33.7
9.6
1.2
13.4
1.3
0.7
2.8
3.0
1.3
0.4

* Gifts covered all costs of the child’s clothing for the first year.

The food bill is very small, $490, 13% of total expenditure
as compared with the average expenditure for food of 17%.
There are only two adults but during part of the year at least
food must have been provided for the child.
The family elected to spend a comparatively comfortable sum
for clothing, $265. Husband and wife each spent between
$125 and $150, personal laundry excluded. Clothing for the
child was all gifts. Seven per cent spent for clothing is a
small proportion as conventions go but in this group, it is well
to remember, 10% is the average.
More than one-fourth of their income, over $1,000, goes to
housing costs. With an income less than $4,000, the family
owns a comfortable eight-room house in a good location, with
all modern conveniences. It is well furnished. The house was
purchased in 1919 for $6,000 and the family is carrying a $4,800
mortgage. During the year reported upon, they paid $700 on
interest and capital, and installed a furnace costing $200.
Household operation also cost above the average, being $746.70,

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 235

19,5% as against an average of 12.2%. Of this amount $300
went for furniture. No regular service is employed but $165
was spent for occasional service, largely in times of illness.
Miscellaneous is 34% of total expenditure, a trifle lower than
the average for this income level, 38%. The amount spent on
miscellaneous seems regularly to fall when housing costs are high.
Investments are above the average, absorbing $375 or 9.6%,
including life insurance premiums of $250 and $120 invested
in stocks and bonds. There is no automobile. Recreation
expenditure is small, the family having spent $20.00 for music,
$15.00 for a three-weeks’ vacation for the faculty member. The
wife had no vacation, a fact which the family explained by re
porting the birth of a child within the year.
Health costs absorbed 13% of the total expenditure. The
greater part of this sum, $500, was paid for the birth of a child—
specialist’s fees, hospital and nursing, etc. The $50.00 spent for
gifts is a trifle below the average. Education is also relatively
low, $27.00, but of course there was no expense for the child.
The $27.00 all went for papers and periodicals; no books on
general subjects were purchased. Professional expenses were
quite high, $60.00 being spent for professional books and maga
zines, $107 in all going for this item. The faculty member
belongs to the Faculty Club; his wife to a social club.
There was no expenditure for church nor for tobacco. Fifteen
dollars was given for charity.
This was a “thrifty” year for this family, buying and furnish
ing a house. They are well insured and are saving money. The
child was bom without disrupting the family finances. They
want a car but feel that otherwise they are comfortable. The
striking economies in recreation, books, gifts and other items were
possibly enforced by the birth of the child. They were probably
also economizing on food. The faculty member has a relatively
high expense allotment and is doing no outside work. The strain,
if any, does not fall on him.
BUDGET NO. 5.
Family of 6.

Faculty member and wife, both between 35 and 50. There are
four children, bom in California: 15, 14, 13 and 4 years of
age respectively.

236

GETTING AND SPENDING

The family is practically living on the $4,200 salary, with
$90.00 from property and $50.00 worth of minor gifts in kind.
The faculty member does no outside work.
Expenditure

I ncom e

Total Amount Per Cent

Total Income ............... .
Earnings
Man
Regular salary

........... . . .

Total Exp. . .$3961.05
Food : .........
Clothing . . .
4200.00

Income from property . . . .

90.00

Gifts
Clothing and b o o k s .........

60.00

Man ...........

979.80
440.66

24.7
11.1
211.00
101.90
127.76

W ife .........
Children (4 )
Housing . . .
626.29
House Opera
tion .........
525.99
Miscellaneous 1388.31
Investment.
232.80
246.00
Automobile.
197.71
R ecreation.
248.50
Health . . .
Dependents.
112.00
Gifts .........
. 99.40
Education .
92.50
Professional
42.20
Incidentals.
62.40
Associations
16.80
Church . . .
37.00
Charity . . .
1.00
Tobacco . .

5.3

15.8
13.3
35.1

2.6
3.2
5.9
6.2

5.0
6.3

2.8

2.5
2.3
1.1
1.6
0.4

0.9

0.0

This family spent what is usually considered the average pro
portion, 25% for food, 8% above the general average for this
group. This is partly due to the size of the family but they
are no doubt well fed. They use very little meat but have plenty
of milk, butter and eggs.
Clothing expenditure is also above the average, though not so
much above as food. “Mrs. X insists that her husband be de
cently dressed, so has worked out for him a certain clothing re
placement cost,” $211.
Housing costs are below the average, because the family rents
an unfurnished house at $45.00 a month. It is large and ap
parently in fair repair. They own their own furniture.
The house operation expenditure is average, and includes
$160 for furniture. Service costs above the average, being
$178, $12.00 a month and $34.00 for occasional service. The
wife does the laundry and also dry cleans her own and the chil
dren’s clothes. She has a vacuum cleaner and an electric washer.
For miscellaneous the total spent is a trifle below the average
for this expenditure level. Investments are somewhat lower.

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 237

The faculty member carried life and accident insurance but re
ports no other savings. They are not saving toward a house.
The absence of savings is anxiously regretted. They have an
automobile and the upkeep for it, $246, is below the average.
Recreation costs are about average, recurrent expenses of this
class being small, especially for four children, but the item in
cludes a two-weeks’ vacation that cost $100. Expenditure for
health is above average. More than one-half of the sum spent
went for dentist bills. There are no outside dependents. Fortysix dollars was spent for children’s lessons; $20.00 for magazines
and papers; nothing for books. Though this expenditure is
above the average it cannot be called large. Costs of maintain
ing a large family do not deprive the faculty member of nec
essary professional expenses. His secretarial service is supplied
by the University but he has large organization dues, spends
$50.00 for professional books, a sum which, though anything
but extravagant, is above the average. He belongs to the Faculty
Club. His wife belongs to no clubs. Expenditure for church
and charity is below the average. The faculty member uses
practically no tobacco.
The apparent surplus is probably due to some error of estimate
since the family complains of lack of savings. Investigator re
ports, “the children particularly attractive” and a notably
reasoned wifely management of funds.
BUDGET NO. 6.
Family of 4.

Faculty member and his wife, both past 35 and two daughters,
20 and 16 years of age respectively. The elder daughter married
during the year. The parents of the faculty member visited
with the family for part of the year, affecting the food costs.
Property resources negligible; but the faculty member adds to
a $3,400 salary by summer session teaching and the wife’s work
adds $750.
Expenditure for food was $835 for five grown people but
the daughter left in August. This is exactly the median propor
tion for the $4,000 to $5,000 level of expenditure.
Clothing expenditure is above the average. The faculty mem
ber used $190, his wife $180. Clothing for the two girls cost
$250.

238

GETTING AND SPENDING

Housing costs are a trifle below the average, including $350
rental for nine months. The family purchased a new house in
October making a first payment of $2,000 which, being taken out
of savings, does not appear in the schedule. They pay $80.00 a
month principal and interest on a $6,000 mortgage.
Expenditure

Income

Total Amount Per Cent

Total Income ............................. $4822.80

Total Exp. . .$4997.80*

Earnings
Man
Regular salary ................
Summer s e s s io n ...............
Other .................................
W ife
Reading at the University
occasionally . , . . .............

Food ...........
Clothing . . .
3425.00
500.00
100.00

Income from property ...........

56.00

741.80

Man .........

W ife .........
Children (2 )
Housing . . .
House Opera

835.00
626.60

16.7
12.6
191.75
181.35
253.50

669.50

13.4

tion .........

431.60
Miscellaneous 2435.10
Investment.
Automobile.
Recreation.
Health . . .
Dependents.
Gifts .........
Education .
Professional
Incidentals.
Associations
Church . . .
Charity . . .
Tobacco . .

3.8
3.7
5.1
8.6
48.7

841.90
420.00
385.00
77.00
120.00
260.00
106.20
65.00
80.00
45.00
15.00
20.00

16.9
8.4
7.7
1.5
2.4
5.2
2.1
1.3
1.6
0.9
0.3
0.4

* Deficit met by surplus in savings but possibly in part a hold-over of
bills from previous year.

House operation expenditure is low. Only $6.00 went for
service although the housewife also does outside work. How
ever, two grown daughters at home doubtless helped in the house
work. There is a vacuum cleaner but no washer. The family
purchased very little furniture for the new house. Light and
heat costs were low; little economies show everywhere.
Miscellaneous costs were distinctly above the average, espe
cially those for recreation, education and gifts. A six-weeks’
vacation and week-end trips cost $250 a year. They have an
automobile and use it more than the average, $35.00 a month
being spent for this purpose. Entertainment costs of $75.00 are
the expenses of a wedding just as the $200 for gifts is largely an
expenditure for the trousseau, etc., of the bride. Under “edu
cation” $90.00 went for music lessons. No books were purchased.
The faculty member spent but $25.00 for professional or tech

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 239

nical books, $65.00 being the total for professional expenses.
This is average. The health of the family is evidently good for
health costs are very low, $77.00. Dentist bills amounted to
only $25.00. Of course, there are no young children in this
family. The support of dependents outside the home amounted
to $120 a year. The faculty member belongs to the Faculty
Club and his wife to one social club. The expenditure for
associations is below the average. Church and charity expendi
tures are also small. No tobacco was purchased.
“This family is industrious and frugal, having a few comforts
and substantial savings,” said interviewer. The family knew
how to enjoy what they had. The wife said she needed household
“help.”
BUDGET NO. 7.
Family of 7.

Faculty member and wife, both over 35. Three boys, 12, 4 and
2 years old, 2 girls, 11 and 7. The family employs student help
which is included in the family group. An eighth person thus
enters into food and housing costs. There are no outside
dependents.
Expenditure

I ncome

Total Amount Per Cent
___________ A __
Total Exp. . .$5074.61

Total Income .
Earnings
Man

"Rpcnlnr nnlnrv

______ . .

Extension
Occasional lectures . .
Summer s e s s io n ...........
Gifts
Money .........
Clothing . . .
Furniture . .

3125.00
900.00
250.00
400.00
50.00
100.00
50.00

22.5
Food ........... 1139.00
7.6
Clothing . . .
383.00
2.0
100.00
Man . . . . .
83.00
1.6
W ife .........
4.0
Children (5 )
200.00
22.2
Housing . . . 1127.60
House Opera
4.5
tion ......... 230.36
43.2
Miscellaneous 2194.65
9.7
Investment.
492.00
1178.50
23.2
Automobile.
42.75
0.8
R ecreation.
163.00
3.2
Health . . .
Dependents.
45.00
0.9
Gifts .........
0.7
36.00
Education .
1.6
83.00
Professional
0.6
28.00
Incidentals.
1,1
57.40
Associations
0.7
35.00
Church . . .
0.6
32.00
Charity . . .
0.0
2.00
Tobacco . .

240

GETTING AND SPENDING

Except for gifts of $200, consisting principally of clothing,
this family has no vested resources. This means that the faculty
member, brave father of five, must do all sorts of odd jobs to
supplement his salary of $3,100. He has been with the Univer
sity since 1919 only. He supplements his salary by extension
work, lectures, summer session, the largest sum, $900 being
obtained from extension work. As might be expected, he com
plains of lack of time for research.
Food and housing each absorb about one-fourth of the total
income. With eight people in the family, food is naturally high.
The faculty member’s clothing only cost $100, the wife’s but
$80.00. With $200, they clothe the five children.
When they came to Berkeley in 1919 the family bought a
seven-room house for $4,750. It is too small for the family,
there being but two bedrooms. The first year, they paid $900
on the mortgage.
Economizing is most notable in clothing and house operation.
The latter is only one-half of the average proportion spent for
such running expenses. Only $10.00 was spent for service in
addition to the aid of the student helper who, since no re
muneration was given in actual money, gave, evidently, the three
hours daily of aid generally accepted at the University of Cali
fornia as equivalent for payment of room and board. They
bought practically no furniture. Expenditure for fuel and light
was very low.
The expenditure for9miscellaneous is just the average. More
than half of miscellaneous went for the car,—one-fourth of the
total income, as much as for housing. Here is, indeed, an im
perative desire for a “new known good.” Life and accident
insurance cost 10% of the total. Three per cent, $163, for
health, is just average; the five children must be healthy for
there is no complaint of enforced economy here. Professional
associations, church and charity are also average, but represent
a very small proportion of the total. Only $40.00 went for
technical books. The faculty member said he needed clerical
help badly. Faculty member belongs to the Faculty Club and
to civic clubs. The wife belongs to none. Church and charity
together comprise about 1.5% of the total expenditure for mis
cellaneous. Gifts and recreation are especially low. Only $45.00
was spent for gifts and there are five children to claim birthday
and Christmas gifts or to go without them. Still less went for

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 241

recreation. The family took no vacation, $20.00 was spent for
one brief trip. Education items were reduced to a minimum.
The family reports a serious lack of service, of enough house
room, of opportunity for travel and for professional activities.
BUDGET NO. 8.
Family of 4.

Faculty member and his wife both under 50.
Boy, 10; girl, 7.
The family also includes a student helper.
The family has no outside resources but the regular salary of
$4,250 is augmented by summer session teaching. The faculty
member does no other outside work. The family received gifts
of books and clothes amounting to $60.00, and $125 for rental
of their house during the summer. This about covered their
vacation expenses.
The deficit of $1,800 was covered by previous savings.
Expenditure

I ncom e

Total Amount

Total I n c o m e ........................ .... $4934.00

Total Exp. . .$6770.58

Earnings
Man
Regular salary

Food ........... 1250.50
Clothing . . .
516.60
Man . . . . .
169.60
235.00
W ife .........
Children^ 2)
112.00
Housing . . . 1703.33
House Opera
tion .........
614.75
Miscellaneous 2685.40
330.00
Investment.
1538.00
Automobile.
R ecreation.
267.50
90.20
Health . . .
Dependents.
10.00
Gifts .........
229.00
Education .
108.00
Professional
24.60
Incidentals.
68.10
Associations
Church . . .
20.00
Charity . . .
Tobacco . .

................

Summer session...............

4250.00
500.00

Income from property
Rent of house for sum m er..

125.00

Gifts
Clothing .................................
Books ............................ .......

29.00
30.00

Per Cent

18.4
7.6

2.5
3.5

1.6

25.1
9.1
39.7

4.9
2 2 .r
4.0
1.3

0.1
3.4
1.6
0.4
1.0
0.3

Food costs are a trifle above the average for the expenditure
level; $1,250 was spent for this item for five people.
Clothing costs of $500 for the four is about average. The

242

GETTING AND SPENDING

wife spent $235. They also received $30.00 worth of clothing
as gifts.
Housing is somewhat above the average for the expenditure
level, 25%, and took more than one-third of the annual income.
During the year, this family paid off: one-half of a $1,200 mort
gage along with the interest. The family also spent $700 for a
garage and additions to the house, which has ten rooms.
House operation costs are distinctly lower. Service is limited
to a resident student helper, who receives carfare; and to a seam
stress. The total amount spent for this item was about $100.
The wife does the washing with their electric washing machine
and says “she suffers physically for it and wants service,” but she
spent $225 on new furniture rather than on laundry.
Miscellaneous is also below the average for the income level,
being 40% of the total expenditure. During this year they
bought an $1,100 car and spent $300 on its upkeep. Thus,
the automobile and the housing costs absorb two-thirds of the
total income. Recreation is about the average. The family
spent $60.00 for recurrent recreation and $200 for a sixweeks’ vacation, renting the house for $125 during this period.
BUDGET NO. 9.
Family of 4.

Faculty member and wife, both over 35. Two girls aged re
spectively four and two. No outside dependents.
The faculty member has been with the University since 1918.
His salary of $2,800 is less than half the total income. The
family’s income from property amounts to $1,700. The wife
earns $900 as a teacher; gifts amount to $730 of which $400
is cash. The apparent surplus of $130 over expenditures is
ascribed to some error in estimating.
Actual food costs are above the average, being $936. This
is 16% of total expenditure for the family of five including
servants. This sum includes a comparatively large number of
meals away from home for faculty member and wife are both
working.
Clothing costs are about average, being 10%, but this ex
penditure really represents more than appears on the surface
because the children are young and their clothes cost less. The

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 243

faculty member received $50.00 in gifts of clothing and his wife
received $90.00. In addition to these gifts, each spent $250.
Housing costs are quite low, 13%, or $776. They bought a
ten-room house in 1920 for $7,000 with a $1,200 mortgage and
very small payments. They complain that they are unable to
spend enough on upkeep and that the house is too small. There
is no space for a quiet study.
^
Expenditure

I ncome

Total Amount Per Cent

Total Income ............................. $6316.89

Total Exp. ..!$5860.14

Total Money Income * ...........

Food . . . . . .
936.00
16.0
Clothing . . .
587.95
10.0
Man .........
263.00
4.5
W ife .........
248.25
4.2
Children (2 )
76.70
1.3
Housing . . .
776.65
13.3
House Opera
tion ......... 1403.46
23.9
Miscellaneous 2156.08
36.8
Investment.
349.18
6.0
690.00
Automobile.
11.8
379.50
R ecreation.
6.5
Health . . .
218.50
3.7
Dependents.
Gifts .........
72.00
1.2
Education .
115.50
2.0
2.8
Professional
163.00
28.00
0.4
Incidentals.
103.40
1.8
Associations
Church . . .
32.00
0.5
Charity . . .
5.00
0.1
Tobacco . .

Earnings
Man
Regular salary ................
Extension
Visiting junior co lle g e s ..
W ife
Salary as teacher ...........
Occasional earnings . . . .

5998.39

2800.00
140.00
35.00
868.60
40.00

Income from p r o p e r t y ...........

1704.79

Gifts
Money .....................................
Money for t r a v e l ..................
Clothing and j e w e l r y .........
Books and artist’s materials

180.00
230.00
283.00
35.50

* Deducting $283.00 and $35.50 of gifts in kind.

House operation is relatively high, being one-fourth of the
total expenditure, due to service at $850 including one resident
servant and regular weekly cleaning and laundry. Apparently
they had student aid for five months and a resident servant for
seven. Otherwise the costs are about normal.
Miscellaneous expenditure is close to the average for families
with $6,000 to $7,000, being $2,150 or 37% of total expenditure.
This is lower than the general average, due to the costs of
service in house operation. Nearly one-third of miscellaneous
expenditure went for an automobile, 12% of the total expendi
ture. This per cent is about average. The initial payment was
$450, the upkeep $240. Six per cent of income is investment,
which amounts to $350. Fifty dollars of this sum goes for life
insurance, $200 toward sabbatical expense and $100 into general

244

GETTING AND SPENDING

savings. General recreation amounts to more than this, being
$380. Of this amount, $213 went for a vacation, three weeks for
faculty member and two for his wife. Recurrent recreation cost
them $100, there being a comfortable allocation for theaters,
music, excursions, etc. Entertainment cost $60.00. Health costs
were about 4%, a trifle over $200, more than half being doctors7
bills. This is about average. About 3% of the total expenditure
went for professional expenses. This included no secretarial
service. $100 went for travel; $50.00 for books. The faculty
member complains that this is a scanty allowance for books, but
it is well above the average. Only $5.00 was spent for books
other than professional and most of the educational expense is
tuition for children. Associations absorbed $100, the faculty
member belonging to the Faculty Club and the wife to social
clubs. They spent $58.00 for alumni obligations for both
faculty member and wife. Gifts cost $72.00, charity but $5.00.
Only $5.00 went to the purchase of tobacco.
BUDGET NO. 10.
Family of 6.

The household consists of man and wife, both over 50, their
three children, two daughters of 17 and 14 respectively and a
boy of 12, the man’s mother and a resident maid.
The family income derives from the man’s salary of $4,000 and
$1,000 for his administrative work, and is supplemented by about
$3,000 from the wife’s private means. She declared that “the
family could not possibly exist” on the man’s earnings alone.
The total yearly expenditure is $8,000. The percentage ex
penditure for food is a trifle higher than usual and the actual
amount considerably higher, necessitated of course by the large
household.
The 12% for clothes is considerably above average. The
amount, $1,000, is comparable only to the $10,000 income class.
This is partly attributable to the young daughters but the wife
spends more on dress than is customary in the academic circles.
Housing costs, consisting chiefly of taxes and repairs, are on
the contrary low on an owned home.
The most unusual expenditure is $900 for service, 11% of
the total budget. This makes the total for house operation nearly

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 245

twice the average, although the other items in this group are
about customary. It is noticeable that there is a regular servant,
additional aid for cleaning, sewing and gardening, and that all
the laundry is sent out, so that the wife is relieved of a large
portion of the household tasks.
Expenditure

I ncom e

Total Amount

Per Cent

Total Income ........................ .... $7692.77

Total Exp. . .$8049.36

Earnings
Man

18.3
Food ........... 1470.00
995.00
12.4
Clothing . . .
2.2
174.00
Man .........
224.00
2.8
W ife .........
597.00
7.4
Children (3 )
10.6
Housing . . .
854.36
House Opera
22.7
tion ......... 1829.00
36.0
Miscellaneous 2901.00
2.0
161.00
Investment.
4.5
364.00
Automobile.
7.1
575.00
R ecreation.
4.0
325.00
Health . . .
Dependents.
3.4
275.00
G i f t s .........
882.00
11.0
Education .
0.2
20.00
Professional
0.2
17.00
Incidentals.
0.6
52.00
Associations
1.9
150.00
Charity . . .
0.7
50.00
Church . . .
0.4
30.00
Tobacco . .

Rpgnlar salary TT.............
AHminifltrflt-i^TI

, ........... -

Income from property, rent,
interest, etc........................ ..

4000.00
1000.00
2692.77

The division of expenditure thus far discussed implies nec
essarily that the expenditure for miscellaneous is less than the
customary average for incomes over $7,000, only 36% in
stead of the usual 50%. Much the most important item in
“miscellaneous” is the children’s tuition at a private school, which
with their music lessons costs close to $800 a year. The family
has an automobile which costs about the usual amount, $364,
for upkeep and provides the means for a vacation in the form
of a camping trip that involves small additional expense. They
spend very much more for recreation than is customary, $200
for a country club, $100 each for music and the theaters,
though the latter may be an overestimate. Savings, on the con
trary, are limited to an insurance policy and the man reports
practically no professional expenses. There are no dependents,
other than the old mother living in the household. Health costs
are not exorbitant.
In short, this family approaches much more closely to the

246

GETTING AND SPENDING

general idea of what a professional standard of expenditure is,
than it conforms to the usual academic type. This is particularly
true for clothes, amusements and service.
BUDGET NO. 11.
Family of 2.

Faculty member and wife both over 50 years old.
No children. Resident student aid.
The salary of $6,200 is supplemented by $950 from the
faculty member’s outside work, $600, of which is public service,
and there is a $2,000 income from property.
Expenditure

Income

Total Amount Per Cent

Total Income ........................

Total Exp. . .$9043.27

Earnings
Man
Regular salary ...........
Research .................... . .
Public service .............
Other ............................

Food ...........
549.77
6.1
Clothing . . .
221.30
2.4
Man .........
57.22
W ife .........
164.08
Housing __
246.56
2.7
House Opera
tion ......... 1588.35
17.6
Miscellaneous 6437.29
71.2
Investment.
3658.36
Automobile.
R ecreation.
444.40
Health . . .
127.92
Dependents.
265.00
Gifts .........
208.96
Education .
329.80
Professional
869.17
Incidentals.
not reported
Associations
101.78
Church . . .
431.90
Charity . . .
not reported
Tobacco . .

Income from property . . . .
Gifts

.......................................

150.00

0.6
1.8

40.4
4.9
1.4
2.9
2.3
3.7
9.7
1.1
4.8

The food costs are very low, even though only three are being
fed.
Clothing is also low, being only a quarter the average amount
spent by all the family groups. The faculty member spent only
$57.00; his wife, $160.
Housing costs are small, $247, because the 11-room home,
built in 1904, is owned and cleared of indebtedness. Thus only
taxes, insurance and minor repairs must be taken care of.
House operation is above the average, but this cost statement
includes an expenditure of $950 for furnishings. Service cost

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 247

$310 for the year and included resident student aid, help for
one full day weekly for cleaning, some help for gardening and
for sewing.
These expenditures accounted for 29% of the total expenditure.
Of the 71% remaining for miscellaneous, 40% was reinvested as
well as any possible surplus over this amount. The family has
no car. They report no recurrent expenditures for recreation.
Four hundred dollars was spent for vacation, the faculty member
taking two weeks, his wife, six.
They reported spending $26.00 for guests. Health costs are
well below the average but there are no children. Expenditure
for dependents and for gifts are average. Two hundred dollars
went for books of general interest. This expenditure and the
general professional expenditure of $870 is relatively very high;
$800 of this latter item went for technical books. Association
costs are in major part those of the helpmate. The faculty mem
ber’s association costs are chiefly for professional entertaining.
He does not belong to the Faculty Club nor any other. Very
large gifts are made to church, 5% of total income. They de
clined to state how much money they gave to charity.
This family spent $1,000 for books, only $200 for clothes.
They are living to a scale below $6,000 including a small sum
for savings. They are really living on less than their salary
despite the outside income. They have no car and disapprove of
expensive dress. The faculty member has had sabbatical leave
twice and will not leave his work to take another.
BUDGET NO. 12.
Family of 3.

Faculty member and his wife both between 35 and 50;
their only child, a boy of ten.
This family has a private income of at least $5,000. The
faculty member earns $1,700 in addition to his salary. Prob
ably he engaged in outside activities for reasons professional
rather than economic.
Food costs appear to be lower than the class average. How
ever, they cover only a period of nine months and for only three
people; also, the family had a three-months’ vacation. In reality
$760 is much above the general standard considering these
conditions. It is apparent in looking over the itemized expendi-

248

GETTING AND SPENDING
Expenditure

I ncomb

Total Amount Per Cent

Total Income ......................
Earnings
Man
Regular salary ......... . . .
Lecture courses .........
Summer s e s s io n .........
Textbook ....................
Periodicals ..................
Income from p ro p e rty .. . . . . .

Total Exp. .$10405.91

3725.00
126.00
600.00
5000.00

Food ...........
Clothing . . .

Man .. .. .. rTT_
Wife

Child ____
Housing . . .
•House Opera

762.06
905.70

7.3
8.7
186.95
551.70
167.06

1.8
5^3
1.6

315.84

3.0

754.61
Miscellaneous 7667.70
Investment.
Automobile.
R ecreation.
Health . . .
Dependents.
Gifts .........
Education .
Professional
Incidentals.
Associations
Church . . .
Charity . . .
Tobacco . .

7.3
73.7

tion .......

3000.00
180.00
3228.65
341.00

28.8
1.7
31.0
3.3

185.00
156.90
141.75
58.00
336.40

1.8
1.5
1.4

3.2

30.00
10.00

0.3
0.1

0.6

ture that this family spends a larger proportion than many for
meat and fruit.
Clothing is high for this group, the family spending $900
in all for clothing. The faculty member’s clothes cost $187
but the wife spent $550 on hers. The boy’s clothes cost
nearly as much as his father’s. This expenditure, probably com
pares with the average clothing expenditure in well-to-do families
outside university circles.
Housing costs are very low. Their home, an eight-room house
built in 1914, is owned and free of all debt. It is furnished with
special taste.
House operation is relatively low; a fact due in part to the
three-months’ absence. However, there is very little service. No
resident servant is kept and only $143 was spent for non
resident help. Laundry was done outside the house.
Miscellaneous items absorb three-fourths of the budget, owing
to large investments and the fact that a three-months’ vacation,
including meals, shelter, etc., appears under recreation. The
faculty member pays $400 premium on life insurance. The
policy total would equal earnings for two years. Other in
vestments are large, more than one-fourth of the total income.
Recurrent amusements cost $100, and the three-months’ vacation

TYPICAL FAMILY EXPENSE HISTORIES 249
over $3,000. A ssociations are also high due chiefly to w ife ’s
alumnae contributions. E ach belongs to several clubs. P ro fes
sional expenditures inclu de $75.00 fo r books, $66.00 fo r organ
ization s— which m ay include som e profession al publications
since som e organizations carry publications w ith dues; no sec
retarial service. This is average fo r the expenditure level as are
also costs fo r g ifts. H ealth costs below average. There w as no
serious illness. The health costs consisted chiefly o f a large
d en tist bill. E ducational costs are very m uch below the average.
There is a very sm all allow ance fo r books and papers, $57.00,
and, since there is only one child, they spent only $100 fo r
lessons. Charity expenditure w as som ew hat sm all, bein g $30.00,
and nothing w ent fo r church. Ten dollars was sp en t fo r tobacco.
The fa cu lty m ember has taken no sabbatical leave because
the U n iversity has thus fa r p aid his expenses on his sp ecial leaves
o f absence.

CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Chapters III, IY, V,
VI, V I I and VII
whole a mass of detail interesting rather to the specialist
than to the general reader. Something may be gained
therefore by gathering up into a chapter the principal
findings of this study. The specialist will thus find a
resume—the general reader will perhaps prefer to read
this chapter first and go farther if he becomes interested
in the supporting data.
When tabulated and interpreted the data gathered
to test the assumptions of Mrs. Bruce’s article
amply justify the protest of the professors’ wives.
The facts show plainly that, given prevailing prices,
and recognizing that a simple, middle-class, profes
sional standard of consumption is permissible and
necessary for this academic group, “ no due care in
spending” can make three thousand dollars pay for
the needs of a professor’s family. If in addition to
exceedingly modest allotments for food, clothing and
shelter these families are to pay the costs of sick
ness and of indebtedness carried over from ap
prenticeship days; pay for children, for dependents
away from home, for domestic service enough to re
lieve the housekeeper of the heavier physical strains
of house management, for church and charity, for a
250

SUMMARY OP FINDINGS

251

very modest supply of the positive satisfactions that
derive from such social needs as hospitality, asso
ciations and gifts, and are to save a little, the mini
mum sum required in 1922 seems to be five thousand
rather than three thousand dollars. (See Table
XXVIa.) And only persistent care in spending
could make $5,000 suffice. Let us review the facts
that are the basis of this statement.
I. T he S ocial D ata

The investigation has analyzed the income and
outgo of 96 married faculty members and their
families, some 22% of the faculty at the University
of California.
A. Rank.—Of these faculty members, 8% held the
rank of associates; 12% were instructors; 23% as
sistant professors; 27% associate professors; and
29% professors. The proportion corresponded
closely to the proportion of each rank in the total
faculty at the University in December, 1922, when
the investigation was made. Thus fortunately all
ranks seem fairly represented.
B. Nationality.—Analysis of the social data the
schedules contained showed these families to be
typically native Americans from the North or West
of the United States.
0. Age.—Characteristically the heads of these 96
family groups composed of 387 persons, 266 adults
and 121 children under 16, were in the prime of life.

252

GETTING AND SPENDING

Sixty-two per cent of the faculty members reported
their age as somewhere between 35 and 50. Their
wives were in about the same age range, though
slightly younger.
D. Size and Composition of Families.—Tabulation
showed these 96 families to represent the “ small
family ’’ system. Half the families had one child or
none; 28% had no children; 80% had less than three
children. The average number of children in a
family proved to be 1.5. The average family is 3.5
persons. An average of 2.5 persons thus depend
upon the earnings of the faculty member.
Neither age nor income seemed to have any share
in making for these small families. The facts of
the schedule do not support the theory that the small
size of the academic families was directly caused by
low salary. Nor does the small family correlate
with age. Influences affecting the size of the family
must be sought for outside both age and income.
In 19 cases adult relatives lived with the families,
sharing in part or in whole the family expenditure.
II. S alaky and I ncome

As a rule, the salaries of these university pro
fessors did not pay their living expenses. To live
even at the advisedly modest type of the profes
sional standard which a university circle represents,
supplementary income was needed. The data make
this very plain. As will presently be seen the spend
ing program was uniformly worked out according to
a spending plan in good repute among those teach

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

253

ing “ how to spend wisely.” None the less in
three-fourths of the cases, the average salary did
not pay for those things regarded as needs;
75% of the faculty considered supplementary
earnings necessary. In some way, amounts
representing as a median or mean from onefourth to a little more than one-third of the total
income are obtained from a source other than
salary.
If this University of California group is typical,
—and a careful review of the facts in other univer
sities gives good ground for believing it is typical,
—faculty members form a class giving services for
which they receive a subsidy rather than a fulltime
salary.
As matter of fact, while salary is more than
three-fourths of income in 47% of the cases, for
40%, the salary is less than two-thirds of the total
income. For all ranks, the median salary is 65%
of the total income; the mean salary, 63%. On
the other hand, the type sometimes assumed to be
common in university circles, the family whose
vested income largely exceeds salary, was found in
5 cases only. There was one case where the salary
was only 13% of the total income, the other 87%
was made up of returns from property and addi
tional earnings. For the major part of the group
of 96, however, the median and the mode for the
additional resources reported by the professors,
associate professors and instructors who constitute
64% of the group ranged between $1,000 and $2,000
and resulted largely from supplementary earnings.

254

GETTING AND SPENDING

This relation of salary to income holds true for
each academic rank.
A. Salary Range.—The salary range proved to be
about $6,600; from $1,400 to $8,000. The average
salary was a little over $3,000. Five per cent re
ceived salaries of less than $2,000. Another
5% were paid more than $5,000. But the
mass of the salaries, 90%, lay between $2,000 and
$5,000.
1. S alary R ange by R ank.— The mass of those
with a professor’s rank got between $4',000 and
$5,000. Of the associate professors, 80% were re
ceiving between $3,000 and $4,000; the average,
$3,400. Three-fourths of the assistant professors
got less than $3,000. After an apprenticeship whose
minimum term was probably six years, instructors,
men between 30 and 35 as a rule, all of whom must
have trained for at least three years after taking a
bachelor’s degree, were paid less than $3,000. The
average salary for instructors was $2,200.
B. Income Range.—The total incomes ranged more
widely than salaries, from $1,800 to $16,000. Only
a few were at either extreme. The massing is in
the lower income groups. One family alone of the
group was trying to live on less than $2,000. Only
two commanded more than $12,000. For all ranks,'
the mean income proved to be $5,300,- the median,
$4,800. Thus, more than half of these 96 families,
60%, have total incomes of less than $5,000, that
amount which to the writer’s mind represents the

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

255

minimum cost of health and decency, granting the
accepted needs of a professional standard.
■ As for range of income in relation to rank, the
associates, a heterogeneous group, showed the
widest range, $1,800 to $14,000. Instructors, in
quite the opposite case, proved to have a short range
between $2,000 and $4,000 with a median of $3,500
distinctly typical of the group. The same median
income of $3,500 typifies likewise the assistant pro
fessor. "With regard to the associate professors,
three-fifths of them reported total income between
$3,000 and $5,000. For the 28 professors, incomes
ranged from $4,000 to $16,000; 70% being between
$4,000 and $6,000; 14% had $10,000 or over.
1. S ources op S upplementary I ncome.-—To make
up the difference between an average salary of
$3,000 and an average income of $5,300, certain addi
tions to salary were drawn from three directions:
(1) from supplementary earnings of the faculty
member or his family, (2) from property income,
(3) from gifts.
As might be anticipated, of these three sources of
additional income, that one most often used and
which added most appreciably to income, was ad
ditional work of the faculty member. Returns from
property were next in importance. But the most
superficial inspection of the data shows plainly that
vested income was not the important factor in pro
viding additional means of expenditure which tra
dition has supposed it to be. The theory of the
large vested income which faculty members bring
to their career gets no support.

256

GETTING AND SPENDING
a.Supplem entary

—
Ear Inquiry
kind of work which faculty members undertook in
order to supplement their salaries showed interest
ing though not surprising facts. Three-fourths of
the faculty members reported earned income beyond
what the University paid them. To supplement
salaries considered insufficient the breadwinners of
this group resorted habitually to one or more of
the following forms of work: additional teaching,
paid administrative work, research or consulting
work relating to business. One or two were found
actually sharing in some business venture.
Additional instruction was the expedient most
frequently resorted to. During the year under in
vestigation, 46% reported having done either ex
tension work, summer session teaching, public
lecturing or a little coaching, one, two or all three.
Five,, or 5%, did administrative work; 34% reported
income from research; 10% did consultant work of
some type outside the University.
(1) ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS EARNED.---Through
some or all of these activities, at the sacrifice of
both time and effort, one-half of these faculty
members added $500 or less to their salaries during
the year under analysis. The least amount earned
was $12. A little less than one-third earned a thou
sand, dollars or more; 11%; gained more than $2,000.
One individual reported earnings of $5,000 and one,
$8,400.1

1 This large sum was earned as a consultant. This faculty member
has since left the University where he was receiving $3,000 in salary
to accept a salary of $20,000 as consulting expert in a national busi
ness enterprise.

SUMMARY OP FINDINGS

257

The typical earnings, however, range around
$500. The 46% who did more or less additional
teaching reported average earnings between $300
and $400. These sums contrast disadvantageous^
with median earnings of $1,200 reported by those
who did non-teaching work outside the University.
Administrative work within the University also
yielded more than teaching. The income from this
source ranged from $400 to $1,000 with a median of
$750. Such work was however apparently available
only for men in the higher ranks. Public service
work appeared to be but poorly paid. Those who
did it reported a median return of $75.00. Research,
the work most attractive to the larger number in
this profession, proved also to yield relatively small
returns. The median gains for this class of work
were $200. The most remunerative form of re
search, if the rearrangement and simple presenta
tion of facts that this kind of work usually repre
sents may be called research, was text-book writing.
Those who published such books reported median
returns of between $350 and $450.
As the faculty member rises in rank supple
mentary income from work increases slightly but
undoubtedly.

b.
Supplem entary Earnings by Other M em bers
of the F am ily .—As for earnings other than those of

the faculty member, 40% of the families reported
helpmates who brought in additional earnings.
Three husbands of female faculty members con
tributed relatively large additions to faculty earn
ings. These men added from $2,400 to $7,500.

258

GETTING AND SPENDING

Twenty-nine wives contributed something. Three
wives earned $1,200 to $2,200. The average amounts
earned were less than $750, mainly through teaching
with a fair margin of other occupations. The chil
dren proved slight contributors to income. Only
four families reported this source .of income, in
negligible sums ranging from $25.00 to $150 with a
median of $30.00.
c.Income from P ro p erty .—Property income
appears next to supplementary earnings in point of
frequency. Two-thirds of the 96 cases, that is, 64
families, reported some form of income-bearing
property, the amounts ranging from $3.00 to $5,000.
There is no significant average. One-third had
merely nominal property incomes in amounts less
than $100. One-half of the property incomes were
below $250; 28
%\reported vested income of $1,000
or more. The five with incomes from property
greater than their salaries have already been men
tioned. Reviewing these income figures certain
points stand out clearly. First, evidently for the
majority of these faculty members, property income
is an insignificant factor in the family budget. We
are thus led to believe that men are venturing into
this profession without private incomes. Next,
these findings on property income emphasize again
the fact that as the faculty member advances in
age and rank not only his salary but his property
income increases. This is also true for the minority
whose total income is relatively high. The fact of
this regular increase in property income seems con
vincing evidence that we are dealing with a group

259
which habitually uses surplus for new accumula
tions of capital rather than for the satisfaction of
whim or for shifting the standards of consumption.
d.
Income from G ifts .—In the majority of
cases the gifts received proved a relatively unim
portant portion of the total income Fifty-seven
families reported gifts in money or in kind. The
latter were chiefly clothing. Of 11 gifts above $500,
all except one were in money. Fourteen per
cent reported income from this source of $1,000;
18 reported less than $25.00; one-half reported
less than $100. Those receiving the large money
gifts were most frequently in the lower ranks. But
it cannot therefore be fairly said that the figures
show the lower ranks to be regularly subsidized by
gifts.
O. Non-pecuniary Rewards.—Income other than
money is not readily measurable. It is broadly cus
tomary to believe that certain non-pecuniary re
wards inhere in the academic life and constitute a
respectable portion of the returns of the profession.
In particular the long vacation, the security of
tenure and a definite certainty of promotion in re
turn for creditable work, are pointed out as such
genuine non-pecuniary advantages.
The data the schedules contained permitted an ex
amination of the merits of this position as it con
cerns vacations and promotions.
1. V acation.—As for the long vacation, the pro
fessor’s three months’ holiday proved a theory.
One-third of the faculty members and their wives
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

260

GETTING AND SPENDING

reported no vacation at all; 40% had taken less than
two weeks away from regular work; 60% less than
four weeks and 90% less than two months. In gen
eral the helpmates reported less vacation than the
faculty members.
2. P romotion.—Studying what the schedules told
about the certainty of advancement in return for
service brought out little that justified favorable
assumptions about advancement presumed to offset
the anxieties and humiliations of low salary. The
facts tell the young inquirer into this professional
opportunity nothing especially attractive or ad
vantageous. If the chances for promotion or se
curity of tenure these schedules show are typical,
the occupational history of faculty members seems
neither exceptional nor alluring.
Given that the facts these schedules contained are
the fair sample of academic life.they are believed
to be, the characteristic progression in most univer
sities, or at least at the University of California, is
an instructorship for the first two or three years’
service; an assistant professorship or an associate
professorship after a service of between two and
ten years. At the end of ten to fourteen years’
service, the associate professorship seems to he a
certainty. The first chance of a professorship ap
pears after six years’ tenure, but the persons who
reported for this study had given an average ser
vice of fourteen to eighteen years before they ob
tained full professorship.
Thus when the average faculty member passes
50 years of age, he seems practically assured of an

SUMMARY OP FINDINGS

261

associate professorship the rank at which the
average reward it will be remembered is between
$3,000 and $4,000 and tenure becomes certain for
the first time. At the same age, he has 12 chances
in 13 of a full professorship.
As for age and advancement, the man under 35
proved to be an instructor, with one chance in four
of an assistant professorship and one in eight of an
associate professorship. Between the ages of 35
and 50, 10% still lingered as instructors or asso
ciates. It is hard not to think of this 10% as
the residual failures in the profession. Others
were progressing to the full rank of professor
ship. In the profession under examination, men
may serve from twelve to twenty-five years and
be close to 50 years of age before they may be
sure of getting $3,000 to $4,000. Only after fifteen
years of service, $4,000 to $5,000 a year is typically
assured, with one chance in ten of earning $5,000 to
$7,000.
Assuming the situation in this University be
fore and during 1922 to be representative, it seems
safe to say that a young man entering a university
faculty after three to five years’ apprenticeship as
a teaching fellow or a candidate for a higher degree,
can command a salary of less than $2,000 for the
first two years; $2,000 to $3,000 for the next three
years; $3,000 to $4,000 after six to fifteen years of
service. The chance of a salary of $4,000 to $5,000
comes only during the later years of this six to fif
teen year period. Fourteen years of service are
necessary to bring two-thirds of the faculty group to

262

GETTING AND SPENDING

security of tenure and a salary between $4,000 and
$5,000.
The further noteworthy fact derived from these
salary figures is this: After serving for years,
after slowly reaching the top of his profession in
rank at least, the median salary of the full professor
is $4,250—as contrasted with a median income of
$5,399.16; the mean salary was $4,525.91—as con
trasted with a mean income of $6,681.66.
The facts seem to permit the statement that the
full professor who has given fifteen years of service
at the least, and is, so to speak, at the top of his
career, unless he has the property income which few
professors can reckon upon, must still do overtime
work to meet the expenses of family life. Moreover,
the average must do a considerable amount of such
overtime work before he can get a regular income
of more than $6,000 to meet his own personal, pro
fessional and social needs as well as those of a
family.
Also, these facts seem to warrant the attitude of
mind sketched in the Introduction. This is the
pecuniary situation that turns ambitious young men
to other professions and at the same time dis
heartens and embitters many of those actually en
gaged in the work.
III. E x p e n d it u r e s
Custom and logic warranted testing the adequacy
of income by the use that was made of it. Much of
interest appeared when the expenditures of these
families were thus analyzed.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

263

In general when statistically examined the ex
penditures all showed small but undoubted margins
of personal preference. Taken separately, each
family expense account registered both individual
differences and tendencies common to all. When
allocating expenditures to the five main divisions of
a family budget and to the subdivisions within each
of these larger budget parts, a given family was
always found emphasizing some need in a way
peculiar to itself. Some one item, shelter or fur
niture, or food, or books or travel or sickness, ab
sorbs an atypical amount. On the other hand, the
96 family groups proved alike in that the expendi
ture details show that all these families were
cautious spenders, that they tended to standardize
their food and clothing expenditures and to hold
them to a less expensive standard than they were
relatively willing to assign to shelter and to mis
cellaneous items.
The spending was obviously careful. Usually it
followed a plan. In many cases the plan was re
ported to be a routine that perforce repeated itself
in the main year by year except as the hazards of
life interfered.
In all the expense histories, the emphasis of ex
penditure falls most heavily on what in conserva
tive circles it has been usage to call “ higher
life.” The items in the subdivisions under “ mis
cellaneous” and shelter express with especial
clearness the ideological spending objective
current in universities, “ plain living and high
thinking.”

264

GETTING AND SPENDING

A. Making Both Ends Meet.—The amount of familyexpenditure was found on the average to vary just
as widely as income and a little more. Arithmetical
discrepancies between income and expenditure ap
pear frequently. The average of expenditures
under examination went a trifle above the income.
This fact was however admittedly due to a hank
deficit in a few cases only. On the whole these ex
penditures verify the tendency Yeblen has pointed
out. Careful spenders though they are, spenders
who are still without “ important and desirable
things,” the expenditures of these family groups
run close to income with a further irregular tend
ency to go higher.
B. Total Amounts Spent.—For the whole group of
96 families, the mean cost of family living, for
families whose average size it will he remembered
was 35 persons, at the standard that social habit
prescribed, proved to be $5,511.77. Possibly the
median of $4,893.22 is more indicative. (See Table
XXVIII.) The amount of expenditures varies with
the income of course hut also with the salary and
with the rank of the faculty member.
Reviewed according to rank, the average full pro
fessor proved to have spent $7,014.88 to meet his
costs of living; the average instructor spent $4,016.
The discrepancy between the average income and
these amounts was $333.22 for the professor and
$223.91 for the instructor.
C. Allocation of Expenditures.—Reviewing the dis
tribution of expenditures among the major items of

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

265

the household budget as set forth in the schedule,
food, clothing, shelter, house operation and miscel
laneous,—the facts showed that these families habit
ually purchased unusually small quantities of food
and clothing. As an average, 17 % of income was
allotted to food and 9% to clothing. Shelter took
an average of 17%; house operation 13%; miscel
laneous 43%. These percentages contrast notably
with the percentage distributions of expenditure
now being sent out for popular consumption where
in at the same level of income, say about $4,800, the
expenditure for food is set at from 18% to 25%;
for clothing at from 11% to 18%; for shelter from
15% to 25%; house operation from 13% to 20% ;
and miscellaneous, including investments and sav
ings, ordinarily from 26% to 40%. Professors as
a group spend 48% of income for miscellaneous;
associate professors, 46%; assistant professors,
38.2%; instructors and associates give 50.4% and
42% respectively to these thirteen items. (See
Table XXXII.)
1. F ood and Clothing.—As the total amounts ex
pended annually increase, the percentage assigned
by these families to food and clothing regularly
decreases to reappear in increased expenditures for
the items of miscellaneous. Engel’s law is once more
verified. It would seem that, viewed as an average
group, these families when they spend, think about
food and clothing in sums with fixed upper limits.
Wherefore the proportion decreases as income rises.
An average expenditure of $900 for food to feed a

266

GETTING AND SPENDING

family of four passes everywhere just now as the
cost of minimum food requirements for those living
at a subsistence plus level. This sum of $900 is the
average amount spent by these families. The same
extreme simplicity plainly controls clothing costs.
Two-thirds of the husbands and one-half of the
wives reported spending between $100 and $200
apiece annually. Thirteen women and eight men re
ported spending less than $100 each; the maximum
spent by either sex in families with the highest in
comes was about $500. Forty per cent of the wives
spent less than husbands whose traditional sim
plicity and economy in clothing verify the figures.
The reason for this low expenditure moreover does
not seem to lie in the costs of the children’s clothing.
The low costs of clothing for the adults appear as
well in the expenditures of childless families with
fairly large incomes. Plain clothing is “ standard.”
Food costs, like clothing costs, may be generally
reported as approaching an upper level which con
forms to the amount for food just now being
ascribed to the subsistence plus standard. Also,
comparatively speaking, this amount remains un
changed as income increases.
2. S helter.—Definite standards are also evident
with regard to shelter. Comparatively, this
standard is at a higher level of living, and so costs
more than the food and clothing standard does.
Since the standard of living as it regards a home
leads to selecting an owned dwelling whose size
averages seven or eight rooms, the relatively high
proportion that shelter bears to the total expendi

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

267

tures is accounted for. Thus, although the average
allotment for housing costs of 17%! is not high as
compared with the generally accepted estimates
about the appropriate apportionment among the
several divisions of expenditure, the percentage sub
division is disproportionate when compared with
the percentages these families spent for food and
clothing.
3. H o u s e O p e r a t io n .—Running the house took
13% on the average, with a range from 4% to 30%.
Fuel and heating costs run from $20.00 to $200 with
an average of $100. Fuel, heating and light average
$140. The cost of fuel, heating and light per room
averages $18 and seems a significant unit of cost for
this item. Annual costs of light averaged $4.50 to
$5.00 per room; heating, between $12.00 and $13.00
per room.
All of the families in this faculty group showed
a consistent effort to dispense with domestic service
or to use a minimum of it. Ten per cent spent noth
ing for help in the home; 15% paid out less than
$25.00 a year. No family with a total expenditure
below $6,000 had full-time domestic service. In the
families with incomes above $6,000, two-thirds paid
only $200 or more annually for “ help.” The mean
spent for domestic service was $260; the median
$153. Even when the wives go out to work, the situ
ation was but slightly changed. Evidently the pur
poses for which these women supplemented income
had no close connection with the desire to shift
housework to some one else. The desire to save the
costs of domestic service was so thoroughgoing that

268

GETTING AND SPENDING

21 of these wives, most of them college bred, did all
their laundry work, their husbands aiding perhaps.
Of these 21 women, 80%j were housewives in families
spending less than $5,000. A stern theory of do
mestic thrift or an eager striving for other things
plainly dictates a policy such as these figures show.
Garbage removal was reported as an average an
nual charge of $6.00 to $7.20.
Only 91 families estimated the costs of personal
cleaning supplies, a term that included tooth
brushes, combs and brushes, shoe polish, listerine,
etc. The average amount spent for these things falls
between $25.00 and $30.00; 75 % f of the estimates re
ported amounts between $10.00 and $50.00.
Only 66 families were able to make report for
house cleaning supplies as a separate item. The
range of expenditure for these 66 families was from
$2.50 to $62.00 but 75.%j of the estimates were be
tween $5.00 and $25.00 and 50% were between $5.00
and $15.00. The mean of $15.00 is probably less
characteristic than the median of $11.41.
The costs of furnishings proved to be uncertainly,
and on the whole unsatisfactorily, estimated. Most
commonly a flat sum of $200 to $300 is recorded for
the higher income groups.
Eighty-eight families reported on stationery and
postage in amounts that vary from less than $5.00
to $120. But three-fourths of the families spent
from $5.00 to $20.00.
4. Miscellaneous.—In general, these family
groups gave precedence to the thirteen items classi
fied here under ‘*miscellaneous. ’’ All the margin of

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

269

income goes into this division of household needs.
This margin is available only because, as has been
shown, a policy of stern economies controls! the
spending for the items of food, clothing and house
operation. In the low income groups this division
of “ miscellaneous” absorbs a little over one-third
of all expenditures; at the higher income levels, it
takes one-half or more. The median proportion of
expenditure allotted to miscellaneous is 43% with a
range of 64%.
The details of these miscellaneous items give spe
cial and interesting evidence as to the level of con
sumption of professional groups in general, and
the standard of living of these academic family
groups at the University of California in particular.
a.D ependents Outside the Home. —One-third
of these families, usually but not always those who
were childless, paid out of “miscellaneous” for the
support of some one or more dependents outside the
home. This charge on income took from 3% to 10%
of the total expenditures. In one case only such ex
pense cost less than 1%. In three cases the cost
was more than 10% of the total expenditure. The
average was 3% to 5% of the total. A majority of
the families allocated between $100 and $400 to this
item with an average of about $200.
b.
A utom obiles .—Out of 96 families 55 reported
owning automobiles. For these 55 families, auto
mobiles absorbed on the average about $360 a year,
17% of the miscellaneous expenditure or 6% of the
total expenditure. When incomes ranged from

270

GETTING AND SPENDING

$2,000 to $4,000 a trifle over one-third of such fam
ilies owned cars. At the level of $4,000 to $6,000
more than 50% had their own automobiles. Be
tween $6,000 and $10,000, three-fourths had auto
mobiles. With incomes over $10,000 nearly 90%
reported cars. The increase in the number owning
automobiles shows most distinctly when incomes are
at the level of $6,000 to $7,000. Apparently this is
the income level where the professional family with
rational spending ways feels freest to buy. Also the
figures seem to permit the conclusion that, like the
rest of the world, faculty families consider a car a
most satisfactory way to occupy spare time.
With regard to the costs of automobiles, nearly
two-thirds of the car owners spent less than $500
annually; one-fourth spent more than $1,000.
The strong lead in favor of owning a car is
further shown by the fact that in this group that own
automobiles 11% reported no expenditure for
domestic service, apparently preferring to spend for
the combined service and recreation an automobile
represents.
c.
Recreation.— The average amount spent for
forms of recreation other than the automobile
proved to be $200. The majority of these families
assigned to these items between 1% and 8% of their
total expenditure, or an average of 10% of the total
miscellaneous. Apparently, with the standard of
spending under examination, the cost of recreation
is an item that does not expand proportionately as
income increases. In fact the relative costs of
recreation decrease in the higher levels of total

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

271

expenditure ; the absolute amounts increase but
little. The percentage peak appears at the income
level of $4,000. The proportion of families spend
ing over 20% of their miscellaneous appropriation
for this item remains the same up to a total mis
cellaneous allotment of $2,000. Or to put it in an
other way, where the absolute appropriation for
miscellaneous is small, families insist none the less
on spending a fair proportion of this division for
recreation. Only a few select this recreation ex
pense as an opportunity for enforced economies.
The general average of the relation of recreation
expenditure to total expenditure for miscellaneous
is 10%. It is possibly worth noting that a special
standard of living is plainly evident in the amount
spent for commercial amusements,—the theater,
concerts, the movie and the like. Whether this is a
constrained economy or whether the fact represents
a preference is not quite clear. The tables show that
certain of the possessors of large incomes also
patronize commercial amusements infrequently, so
it looks as if, relatively speaking, members of
academic faculties use other classes of recreation
more than commercial amusements. Judged by
their expenditures, social entertainment for in
stance seems their preferred form of recreation.
Hospitality took a proportionately large sum. Sev
enty-two out of 96 estimated spending about $100
annually on this item.
d.
.Health—The cost of maintaining health was
examined in considerable detail. The totals quoted
include subtotals for the costs of the doctor, the

272

GETTING AND SPENDING

dentist, nursing, optician’s fees, drugs and the
hospital.
Only one family reported no expenditure for
health. For a few the amounts were very high in
deed; 5 families, 2 of whom had incomes under
$5,000, reported health costs between $1,000 and
$2,000. One instructor’s family of four persons liv
ing on $2,400, during the year 1921-1922 spent 25%
of the total income on this item. For two-thirds of
the families, health expenditure absorbed less than
6%, $325; for 16%: the same item took $500 and
more.
As to the particulars in health expenditure, 82
families reported physicians’ hills averaging $75.00
a year; 40 paid specialists an average amount of
$35.00; 90 reported dentists ’ bills whose average size
was $50.00; 55 had optometrists’ bills • averaging
$20.00; 23 set down nursing charges which averaged
$45.00 and 36 reported hospital hills averaging
$62.00. Sixty-six reported that drugs cost an aver
age of about $10.00.
From the data it seems fairly certain that these
faculty families economize on preventive dental
work because they must. In this they are probably
representative of a large class of spenders in the
world at large. All higher costs of dentistry ap
pear in the higher expenditure levels only. From
this fact it seems fair to argue that the lower
costs of dentistry in the lower income groups may
be due in part at least to inability to pay or to
a relative unreadiness to allot surplus to dental
prophylaxis.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
273
Investm ent and S avings .—Expenditure to

provide. against the future takes first place in the
general spending plan of these families. The
largest single item among the expenditures for mis
cellaneous is investment. As a whole, investments
absorb 26% of miscellaneous and 13% of the total
expenditure. Only 4 families report setting no
money aside for investments during the year in
question. Of these, however, 2 families bought
homes, a purchase popularly classified as invest
ment. There is no significant average for in
vestment as an expenditure. About one-half
of the families assigned from 2% to 10% of their
total expenditure to this class; about one-third
gave between 2% and 6%; the median is 8% or
$360. It will be remembered that the reported
average expenditure for the 55 families who owned
automobiles was just this same amount of $360
and that two-thirds of the families spent $325 on
health.
The most recurrent type of investment was life
insurance. Ninety per cent of the families carried
some form of insurance; 83% carried life insurance.
All the men with incomes below $3,000 were insured
but only 75% of those spending $10,000 or more
carried insurance. The average premium is $162
and there is a distinct tendency to insure propor
tionately to income up to $10,000.
Sixty families reported savings other than in
surance. In 36 cases these were bank savings; 38
reported stocks, bonds or other forms of securities
on real estate. Those making investments of this

274

GETTING AND SPENDING

class set aside $500 on the average. Those report
ing savings reported an average of $270.
/. G ifts. —Gifts, which term includes Christ
mas, birthday and wedding presents, and gifts to
the sick, took a fairly standardized amount. The
average expenditure for all types circles about $100
annually, 2% of the total expenditure and 5% of the
miscellaneous. Gifts are apparently a more im
portant item of expenditure for families with in
comes between $4,000 and $5,000, or $8,000 and
$9,000 than for those with the very smallest or very
largest incomes. But this may be the result of some
chance factors. The tendency is toward a standard
amount apportioned to all classes of gifts. Evi
dently, therefore, as the proportion allotted to mis
cellaneous increases, the relative cost of gifts de
creases.
g. P rofessional E xpenses .—Review of the costs
of technical books, magazines, secretarial service,
supplies, professional organizations and travel for
professional purposes, brought out a wide range and
variability in expenditure. This charge absorbs
from one-tenth of 1% to 38% of the total income.
In the majority of cases, however, the expenditure
for this item was very small. Out of 96 men, 22
spent less than one-half of 1%. Two-thirds allotted
less than 2% of the total expenditure to the costs
of such items. The average is $60.00 or 1.3%.
h. Incidentals .—Nothing especially notable ap
pears as result of examining such items of expendi
ture as carfare other than that of the faculty mem

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

275

ber going to and from work and the children going
to school, lawyers’ fees, barbers’ services, moving
expenses, funeral expenses, etc. Nearly 80% spent
less than $100 on this item. All reported tonsorial
costs for man, wife and children averaging about
$13.00 annually. The questions arise whether long
hair is preferred, whether preoccupation with other
things or plain economy influences the smallness of
this amount. The reader is left to decide. The study
gives no positive ground for an answer.
In the lowest income groups of course, inciden
tals form a large proportion of expenses. Since,
however, when all cases are considered, these
expenditures vary only slightly from the average
of 1%, it is confidently believed these residual
items have been kept to a due proportion of the
expenses.
i. A ssociation D ues .—In most instances, the
faculty member or his helpmate or both reported
some expenditures for associations, in 92 cases for
the faculty member and in 72 cases for the help
mate. Two families reported no association for
either man or wife; the budgets made it obvious that
this fact was part of a scheme of economy. The
distribution of costs for this item varies little until
we reach the country club class at the $10,000 level
when it increases distinctly in importance. The
average charge upon miscellaneous of this item of
associations is 3%. The costs of associations remain
almost a constant proportion of the total amount of
miscellaneous when the allotment of this division ex
ceeds $1,500; below $1,500, it varies around 3%. As

276

GETTING AND SPENDING

to the relation to total expenditure, the costs of asso
ciation vary but slightly from the general average
of 1%.
j.
Church
and
Charityv—In studying
of expenditure for church and charity, it was evident
that the expenditure for church support was only
slightly related to financial status. The 52 members
of the group who reported church contributions
were mainly those with small total expenditures.
Indeed it may generally be said that the percentage
supporting churches decreases as the total expendi
ture rises. It is 62% of those with expenditures
below $3,000; 38% of those with expenditures above
$10,000. For the 52 families out of 96 who sup
ported churches, the contributions varied from onetenth of 1% to 7.5%' of their total expenditure. Only
two spent over 5% ; the median is six-tenths of 1% or
$30.00. Two-thirds spent less than $1 a week; 23%
of those reporting contributed less than $1 a month.
Three of the family groups contributed $250 a year
which included gifts to charity as well as to church.
The highest contribution to church alone was $350 or
7% of the total expenditure. The larger range of
charitable contributions is from one-tenth of 1%
to 4%i of the total expenditure. The median is
$27.00. Eight contributed $100 or more to charity.
The total expenditure of all these families was over
$6,000. The whole expenditure for this item seems
controlled somewhat by the old theory of the tithe.
Although the amount given is less than the one-tenth,
the tendency to a quota is unmistakable.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
277
Tobacco.—Sixty-three families reported ex

penditures for tobacco. Thus thirty-three families
did not use the weed. Of those who did, three fami
lies spent less than one-tenth of one per cent for
smoking. The highest and exceptional amount re
ported was $170. The median amount was less than
one-half of one per cent of the total median expendi
ture, about $25.00 per annum. Eighty per cent spent
less than $4.00 a month. In general, tobacco is an
important item of miscellaneous for groups spend
ing less than $3,000. The pleasures of the weed in
this class absorb 2%% of their miscellaneous as con
trasted with the general average for all incomes of
less than 1%. But for those who do smoke, the
costs of tobacco definitely increase as the amount
assigned to miscellaneous increases. Tobacco is
apparently regarded as a fixed charge rather than
as a luxury permissible only when income rises.
To summarize. With these 96 families, those
items of expenditure least frequently analyzed yet
of such increasing importance at every income level,
—investments, automobiles, health, recreation and
dependents outside the home,—each absorb as an
average 3% or more of the total expenditure. Every
family meets charges for recreation, health and
investment, but only 57% have automobiles
and only one-third have dependents outside the
home.
Two per cent of the total expenditure goes for
gifts. Education takes 1%%! of total expenditure.
Professional expenses, incidentals and associations

278

GETTING AND SPENDING

are about the same charge on income, taking a trifle
over 1%; church, charity and tobacco absorb less
than 1%.
The outstanding fact concerning the expenditures
of these faculty families is this: as the total expendi
ture increases, more is spent for investments espe
cially after the income becomes $5,000. The propor
tion assigned to automobiles is fluctuating. The
proportionate cost for recreation and for the main
tenance of health decreases with increase of income.
The burden of outside dependents is heaviest on
the $3,000 to $6,000 expenditure groups. Expendi
tures for gifts, professional expenses, church and
charity remain a fairly constant proportion of the
total for all classes of income. The cost of tobacco
is irregular and scarcely related to purchasing
power.
In general, of the amount not spent for those
things commonly called “ physical necessities” such
as food, clothing, shelter,—one-fourth goes toward
preparing to meet the hazards of the future by in
surance and investment. For health or more prop
erly for sickness, an average of 10% is spent.
Which is to say that providing against the future
and the mischance of illness absorbs 35% of that
43% assigned by these families as an average to
that division of a budget euphemistically called
“ higher life,” and supposed to represent the field of
choice.
To get a conclusive opinion about the standard of
living and of spending, the reader is asked to look

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

279

again carefully at Table XXVIII and then at Table
LII here following.
T able
E xpenditures

LII

P rofessors ’ F am ilies (M e a n A m o u n t s )

(Average Size of Families: Four Persons)
op

er Amount Per
Amount CPent
Cent

ToTAi Expenditure.................. $7014.88
Food ............... ............................. 1151.70
C loth in g............... ..................... .. 638.71
Husband
C lothing.................................
Upkeep .................................
Wife
C lothing.................................
Upkeep ................................
Children*
C lothing.................................
Upkeep .................................
Mousing ......................................... 848.56
Mouse Operation ........................ 1007.97
Service .......................................
Fuel and h e a t..........................
Garbage removal ....................
Light .......................... ..
Household laundry & supplies
Telephone and telegraph . . .
Personal cleaning supplies ..
House cleaning supplies . . . .
Furniture and furnishings ..
Stationery and postage . . . .
Ice .............................................
Other .........................................
3367.85
Miscellaneous
Insurance and investment ..
Automobile ...............................
Health ........................................
Becreation * ............................
Education ............... .................
Professional expenses...........
Dependents ...............................
Church and ch arity................
G ifts ......................................... ..
Incidentals ..............................
Associations .............................
* Includes tobacco.

100.0
16.4
9.1

12.1
14.4

48.0

$153.57
27.78
169.06
20.57
246.48
41.50

2.2
0.3
2.4
0.3
3.5
0.6

455.69
132.82
89.68
62.22
56.53
48.16
39.18
18.38
23.03
21.10
12.32
3.52
874.77
852.16
499.33
339.82
315.38
295.29
295.00
164.99
,159.62
130.77
110.94

6.5
1.9
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
12.5
12.1
7.1
4.8
4.5
4.2
4.2
2.4
2.3
1.9
1.6

280

GETTING AND SPENDING

In Table XXVIII tbe details of the median ex
penditure by tbe 96 families are given. Table LII
shows the mean expenditure of the twenty-eight
professors’ families included in this inquiry. For
the author at least it is difficult to believe that any
one, after carefully examining these two tables, can
find in either table grounds for any imputation of
extravagant spending. Eather it seems that a fair
judgment will pronounce them the simple and mini
mum expression of the ideological American middleclass demand for goods and services. The tabular
form displays a satisfaction of needs without waste
fulness and with the use of foresight though with
an intelligent interest in finding and enjoying
in moderation the “ new known goods.” In par
ticular these tables were warrant for the statement
that the minimum sum required at any rank in
academic life to meet the professional academic
standard without annoying and impeding anxiety
about spending is an amount near $5,000 and not
the average of $3,000 which is now usually available.
With less than $5,000 needs go unsatisfied that it is
now socially conceded desirable and professionally
necessary to satisfy. When carefully inspected,
Table XXVIII makes absurd the contention that a
comfort basis to professional life can be maintained
on less than $5,000. Indeed, Table LII shows plainly
that $7,000 is requisite to maintain a reasonable
comfort basis for professional life. With any sum
less than $7,000, much energy is deflected from con
structive tasks, either to be used up by the absti
nence attitude so at variance with the dominant

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

281

thinking of our American life, or to go toward
efforts to force a lesser total upward.
To the question originally raised,—“ Does the
average salary of $4,000 represent a sum large
enough to attract and hold competent and aggres
sive men,” the answer seems to be emphatically,
“ No.” Today, with this income, the man on the
University staff who has arrived at the top, has not
enough to permit him to join freely either in busi
ness hours or socially in the life of other profes
sional subgroups. A sense of serious financial limi
tations forces him, first, to an effort to earn supple
mentary income, or frequently out of the university
life to other opportunities where his mental powers
and special aptitudes find play at better pay.
Since, as things now are, it takes most professors
a fifteen year period of service to get a salary of
$5,000; since this salary buys only the bare minimum
of the goods and services that it is recognized his
professional standard of living requires; since many
never get even $5,000, the case seems clear. Offer
ing as universities now do, $2,000 to $3,000 less than
$7,000 to men who have given from ten to fifteen
years service, after an apprenticeship rather longer
than that given in other professions, universities
lose out. To set this salary scale for men whose
promotion to the professorship declares them satis
factory members of their craft, is to ask of these
men one of two things. Either they are tacitly told
they may consider the university job a part-time

282

GETTING AND SPENDING

occupation or it is implied that academic men must
live in other ways than the professional classes in
general. If the assumptions in the Introduction are
true, to ask either of these things is probably to
lose in the coming generation many desirable addi
tions to the profession.
The limits of this study are reached. The find
ings about the cost of living an academic life in
general and the story of how 96 families got income
and spent it in Berkeley in 1922 are before the
reader. The stock of evidence presented with re
gard to the spending ways of the academic world,
will, it is hoped, merit attention from those inter
ested in the problem of the professor’s pay and,
since there is probably in these spending ways a
close resemblance to middle class spending ways in
general, also from those who give special attention
to the consumer problem. If this study gives an
impetus for similar studies that will test the general
application and the special merits of this inquiry,
something will have been accomplished.

APPENDIX

284

APPENDIX

TABLE
T a b l e Sh o w in g N u m b e r a n d P e r c en tag e op F a m ilie s W it h
W ho R eported E xp e n d it u r e s for th e D if f e r e n t I tem s

Number and Percentage Reporting
Expendi
ture for
Miscel
laneous

A ll
F am ilies
No.

All
Amts...
Less
than
$1000..
10001499..
15001999..
20002499..
25002999..
30003499..
35003999..
40004499..
45004999..
50005499..
5500
and
over. .

Invest
m ent
No.

A u to
m obile
No.

Recrea
tion
No.

H ealth
No.

D epen
dents
No.

G ifts
No.

96 100.0 92f 95.8 55 57.3 96 100.0 95 99.0 34 35.0 95* 99.0
12
20
15
19
10
3
3

100.0 11
100.0 18
100.0 15
100.0 18
100.0 10*
100.0 3
100.0 3
None
3 100.0 3
3 100.0 3
8

91.7 3
90.0 7
100.0 7
94.7 15
100.0 7
100.0 2
100.0 3

25.0 12
35.0 20
46.6 15
79.0 19
70.0 10
66.7 3
100.0 3

100.0 12
100.0 20
100.0 14
100.0 19
100.0 10
100.0 3
100.0 3

100.0 5
100.0 7
93.3 2
100.0 i 8
100.0 3
100.0 1
100.0 1

41.6 12
35.0 20
13.3 14
42.1 19
30.0 10*
33.3 3
33.3 3

100.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 1 33.3 3 100.0
100.0 2 66.7 3 100.0 3 100.0 2 66.7 3 100.0

100.0 8* 100.0 6 75.0 8 100.0 8 100.0 4 50.0 8 100.0

* Includes one case where expenditure was reported but the amount
was not available.
t Includes 2 cases where expenditure was reported but the amount
was not available.
§ Includes 3 cases where expenditure was reported but the amount
was not available.

APPENDIX

285

LIII

a Given Amount of Total Expendituee Foe Miscellaneous
Undee the General Heading of Miscellaneous
Expenditures fob
E du ca
tion

No.

In c i
dentals

P rofes
sional

No.

96 100.0 94 , 97.9 95
12
20
15
19
10
3
3

100.0 11
100.0 20
100.0 15
100.0 19
100.0 10
100.0 3
100.0 3

91.7 12
100.0 20
100.0 15
100.0 19
100.0 10
100.0 3
100.0 3

A ssocia
tions

No.

Church

No.

C harity

No.

Tobacco

No.

99.0 94 97.9 52 54.2 93 § 96.9 631 65.6
100.0 11
100.0 20
100.0 14
100.0 19
100.0 10
100.0 3
100.0 3

91.7
100.0
93.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

41.6
50.0
53.4
63.2
60.0

10
19
15*
19
10
3
3 100.0 3

5
10
8
12
6

83.4 10
95.0 9 *
100.0 10
100.0 13
100.0 7 *
100.0 3
100.0 2

83.4
45.0
66.6
68.4
70.0
100.0
66.7

3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 1 33.3 3 100.0 1 33.3
3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 1 33.3 3 100.0 3 100.0
8 100.0 7 * 87.5 7

87.5 8 100.0 6 75.0 '8 t 10Ò.0 5

62.5

286

APPENDIX

TABLE
T a b l e S h o w in g N u m b e r a n d P ercen tage of F a m ilie s W ith
E xpen d itu r es for the D iffer ent I tem s U n d e r

Number and Percentage op Families
Amount op
Total Ex
penditure

All
Families
No.

AH
Amts...
$20002999..
30003999..
40004999..
50005999..
60006999..
70007999..
80008999..
90009990..
10,000
and
o v er..

96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5

Invest
m ent
No.

100.0 92f
100.0 8
100.0 21
100.0 20*
100.0 17
100.0 6
100.0 3
100.0 4
100.0 5

A u to
m obile
No.

95.8 55
100.0 3
95.4 8
95.2 12
100.0 10
75.0 6
100.0 2
100.0 3
100.0 4

Recrea
tion
No.

57.3 96
37.5 8
36.3 22
57.2 21
58.8 17
75.0 8
66.7 3
75.0 4
80,0 5

H ealth
No.

100.0 95
100.0 8
100.0 21
100.0 21
100.0 17
100.0 8
100.0 3
100.0 4
100.0 5

D epen
dents
No.

G ifts
No.

99.0 34 35.0 95*
100.0 3 37.5 8
95.4 10 45.4 22
100.0 6 28.6 21
100.0 6 35.3 16*
100.0 1 12.5 8
100.0 1 33.3 3
100.0 2 50.0 4
100.0 3 60.0 5

%
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
94.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

8 100.0 8* 100.0 7 87.5 8 100.0 8 100.0 2 25.0 8 100.0

* Includes one case where expenditure was reported but the amount was not
available.
t Includes 2 cases where expenditure was reported but the amount was not
available.
§ Includes 3 cases where expenditure was reported but the amount was not
available.

APPENDIX

287

LIV
a Given Amount of T otal E xpenditure W ho
the General H eading of M iscellaneous

R eported

Reporting Expenditures for
E duca
tion

Profes
sional

No.

In c i
dentals

No.

A ssocia
tions

Church

No.

97.9
87.5
95.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

52
5
13
12
8
2
1
4
4

C harity

No.

Tobacco

No.

96.9
87.5
91.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

63f
4
12
13t
14
6
3
3
3

65.6
50.0
54.5
61.9
82,3
75.0
100.0
75.0
60.0

8 100.0 8 * 100.0 8 100.0 8 100.0 3 37.5 8 * 100.0 5

62.5

96
8
22
21
17
8
3
4
5

100.0 94*
100.0 8
100.0 21
100.0 21
100.0 17
100.0 8
100.0 3
100.0 3
100.0 5

97.9 95
100.0 8
95.4 22
100.0 21
100.0 17
100.0 8
100.0 3
75.0 4
100.0 4

99.0 94
100.0 7
100.0 21
100.0 21
100.0 17
100.0 8
100.0 3
100.0 4
80.0 5

54.2 93§
62.5 7
59.1 20 *
57.2 21
47.1 17
25.0 8
33.3 3
100.0 4
80.0 5 *

288

APPENDIX

TABLE

T able Showing M ean and M edian P ercentage of the
U nder the General H eading of M iscellaneous by

Percentage op Total
A uto
mobile

Recrea
tion

All A m ts.. 43.1
$2000$ 2 9 9 9 .... 37.8
3000
3 9 9 9 .... 38.3
4000
4 9 9 9 .... ,44.6
5000
5 9 9 9 .... ’38.7
6000
6 9 9 9 .. ..136.4
7000
7 9 9 9 .. .. 54.7
8000
8 9 9 9 .. ..51.1
90009 9 9 9 .... 57.1
10,000 and
over. . . . 56.0

41.2
36.4
36.7
43.2
40.2
36.4
48.2
44.1
55.6
61.6

12.7
8.4
12.5
16.4
6.9
7.7
8.8
22.1
22.1
19.2

7.9
6.5
7.3
16.9
4.1
5.3
4.2
15.3
16.7
21.0

10.3
7.5
5.0
13.0
10.2
12.6
4.8
8.9
11.2
12.7

6.2
4.6
5.0
7.3
7.0
13.6
4.8
4.5
12.2
12.1

5.1
4.9
5.2
6.0
3.5
4.3
5.8
4.2
5.2
7.1

4.1
4.1
4.1
5.6
3.1
3.9
7.8
4.4
4.3
3.5

H ealth
\

D epen
dents

G ifts

Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median

diture

Invest
ments

Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
i Median

Amount op
Total Expen

Total
M ise.

5.7
9.9
5.7
4.2
5.9
4.2
7.5
4.2
5.3
7.3

3.9
6.5
4.1
3.4
3.9
3.8
2.6
2.7
2.2
4.8

5.1
2.9
6.9
5.1
6.5
3.2
5.1
2.4
3.4
1.6

3.1
2.2
5.3
4.6
6.8
3.2
5.1
2.4
2.9
1.6

2.3
1.8
2.2
2.9
2.1
1.6
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.0

2.0
2.0
2.2
2.6
1.8
1.1
1.8
2.6
2.3
1.7

APPENDIX

289

LV
T otal E xpenditure Spent for the D ifferent I tems
F amilies W ith a Given A mount of T otal E xpenditure
Expenditure Spent pob
P rofes
io n a l

Mean

Educa
tion

2.6
2.8
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.2
7.7
5.6
3.8
3.9

i .5
2.7
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.4
3.1
5.0
1.3
2.4

1.3
1.5
1.6
1.2
5.4
3.8
15.5
0.9
2.9
2.0

In ci
dentals

A ssocia
tions

Church

1 I 1 I 1 1
a a a i I

2.9 1.7 1.2
1.2 1.8 2.0
1.0 2.2 1.2
1.2 1.6 1.3
1.7 1.7 1.4
1.7 i .5 1.2
7.8 0.7 0.5
1.0 0.6 0.6
0.7 1.4 1.2
1.4 2.4 1.3

1.3
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.5
1.1
1.3
2.0

§
?

C harity

1 1

1.1 1.3 0.6
1.2 1.3 0.5
1.0 1.6 0.7
1.3 1.1 0.6
1.0 1.3 0.8
0.6 1.5 1.5
0.6 0.1 0.1
0.5 0.8 0.6
1.3 1.4 0.5
1.9 0.8 0.3

0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5

0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.5

1.0
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.7

Tobacco

0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7

1.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6

i
i

0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7

APPENDIX

290

TABLE

T able Showing M ean and M edian P ercentage op the T otal
I tems U nder the General H eading op M iscellaneous bt
Amount
r»wTììtat.
ExpendíTUBS

AH
Amts.

Total
M ise.

1 a!

Invest
ments

!
a

A uto
m obile

I
a

Recrea
tion

Health]

Ia aa a®
tí

D epen
dents

<8® 1
a a

G ifts

a® 1a Ia

27.5 26.3 22.5 16.9 12.2 10.0 14.9 9.9 11.9 10.2 5.8 4.8
$20002999 100100 21.3 20.1 17.5 9.1 12.8 10.7 26.8 17.4 8.2 5.9 4.6 4.6
30003999 100100 29.8 27.7 14.4 13.6 13.3 9.7 16.1 12.4 17.6 13.9 6.4 6.0
40004999 100100 35.2 35.7 25.0 17.8 13.7 14.2 17.3 6.7 9.9 10.5 6.0 5.3
50005999 100100 18.3 13.3 24.9 16*4 8.6 8.1 15.2 9.9 15.9 16.3 6.1 4.3
60006999 100100 16.2 13.3 30.7 35.9 13.9 12.5 12.8 11.9 9.7 9.7 4.8 3.8
70007999 100100 17.6 7.3 10.2 10.2 12.0 16.3 14.9 3.8 10.6 10.6 4.4 3.5
80008999 100100 38.6 34.9 17.4 12.6 9.6 8.6 8.7 7.3 3.9 3.9 5.7 6.3
90009999 100100 33.9 30.1 20.1 20.6 8.9 6.2 11.8 4.0 5.7 4.1 4.5 4.0
10,000
and
over. 100100 37.3 39.1 20.2 18.5 11.7 6.8 14.4 10.9 2.5 2.5 4.2 2.4

291

APPENDIX

LVI

E xpenditure for M iscellaneous S pent for the D ifferent
F amilies W ith a Given A mount of T otal E xpenditure

6.4
4.5
4.1
2.9
12.1
8.9
24.6
1.8
5.8

3.0
3.4
3.0
2.1
3.8
4.6
16.3
1.7
1.1

4.5
5.0
5.7
4.4
4.4
3.2
1.3
1.1
2.7

2.8
5.5
3.5
2.9
4.3
2.4
1.1
1.0
2.8

3.3
3.2
3.5
3.7
3.2
2.9
1.0
2.2
2.6

Church

C harity

Tobacco

Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median

3.7
7.4
2.8
2.8
5.0
3.9
6.4
8.1
5.0

A ssocia
tions

Median

6.5
8.2
4.9
4.3
6.4
8.7
12.2
12.3
7.1

Inci
dentals

Median

Mean ' I

Profes
sional

Mean

Educa
tion

2.7
3.0
3.4
3.3
2.2
2.2
0.9
1.3
2.0

2.8
3.0
4.2
2.2
3.0
3.2
0.3
1.9
2.5

1.4
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.8
3.2
0.3
1.2
1.6

1.9
2.1
2.5
1.7
1.4
2.4
1.3
2.9
1.8

1.4
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1
2.2
0.9
1.6
1.0

2.0
2.2
1.6
1.7
2.2
5.1
0.4
0.6
0.7

0.9
2.4
0.8
1.2
0.8
1.8
0.4
0.7
0.7

8.0 3.7 4.7 2.1 4.5 3.8 4.2 3.6 1.1 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1

APPENDIX

292

TABLE

T able Showing M ean and M edian P ercentage of the T otal
I tems U nder the General H eading of M iscellaneous
M iscellaneous
por
Misc.

T otal
M ise.

Invest
ment

A uto
m obile

Recrea
tion

H ealth

D epend
ents

G ifts

Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
! Median
Mean
Median

Expen
diture:

All 100100
Amts.
27.5 26.3 22.5 16.9 12.2 10.0 14.9 9.9 11.9 10.2 5.8 4.8
Below
$1000. 100100 20.5 21.1 16.3 22.7 12.9 9.1 19.6 11.8 10.3 10.0 9.0 6.4
10001499 100100 22.2 18.7 14.5 9.6 14.2 13.0 22.7 18.9 20.2 14.6 6.6 6.9
15001999 100100 27.5 13.3 17.6 13.0 14.7 14.2 15.0114.8 18.0 18.0 5.6 4.3
20002499 100100 33.3 35.1 25.9 17.8 10.9 9.9 9.3 6.7 10.9 11.5 5.6 4.3
25002999 100100 22.7 14.4 30.6 33.4 11.8 9.5 11.7 8.4 16.9 16.9 5.4 5.3
30003499 100100 26.7 37.4 9.5 9.5 7.7 3.7 6.6 7.1 10.6 10.6 3.4 3.5
35003999 100100 29.4 21.5 16.4 6.8 9.7 5.6 18.5 13.9 3.6 3.6 5.0 4.2
40004499 N one
45004999 100 100 21.6 12.9 16.5 8.6 6.2 3.7 23.2 19.0 11.1 10.6 5.4 5.4
50005499 100100 13.1 6.1 34.6 34.6 10.0 6.2 3.7 3.8 6.5 6.5 4.0 3.4
5500
and
over. 100100 51.0 53.0 22.2 25.3 10.7 6.3 8.5 6.1 3.3 3.7 2.8 2.5

APPENDIX

293

LYII

E xpenditure for M iscellaneous Spent for the
by F amilies W ith a Given A mount of T otal
E xpenditures

C harity

Tobacco

Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median

C hurch

| Median

A ssocia
tions

| Mean

In c i
dentals

Median

P rofes
sional

Mean

E duca
tion

D ifferent

6.5
11.1
4.5
7.3
3.9
8.8
2.1
4.3

3.7
7.4
3.4
4.7
2.8
4.3
2.2
5.3

6.4
3.1
4.4
9.6
3.9
5.1
33.8
2.4

3.0
2.4
3.0
3.4
2.0
3.8
31.2
2.4

4.5
5.3
7.3
4.1
3.3
0.4
2.2
1.6

2.8
6.0
5.3
2.3
3.2
1.5
2.8
1.1

3.3
4.0
3.7
2.8
3.2
3.6
3.9
1.0

2.7
3.2
3.5
2.2
1.9
2.6
1.8
1.2

1.9
3.0
2.4
1.6
1.5
1.1
1.2
2.1 1.4 5.7

2.8
4.7
3.0
3.7
1.3
5.2

1.4
1.4
1.5
2.1
1.2
4.3

1.4
2.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.9
6.1

2.0
4.8
2.2
1.4
1.7
1.7
0.5
0.6

0.9
2.8
1.8
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.5
0.6

4.4 2.6 7.4 8.2 5.6 6.5 6.1 5.4 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.6 2.6 2.6
17.2 22.9 19.0 1.1 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6
6.2 3.7 3.1 1.4 2.5 0.8 2.1 1.8 1.9 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4

TABLE
T able Showing M ean and M edian A mount Spent F or the D ifferent I tems U nder thr Gen
Amount op

Amount op Total
Expenditure

Total M iscellaneous

Mean

All
amounts $2,512.44
990.19
$2,000-$2,999
1,352.09
3.0003,999
1,981.46
4.0004,999
2,082.08
5.0005,999
2,334.17
6.000-6,999
7.0007,999
4,190.55
4,264.59
8.0008,999
9.0006,450.74
10,000
and over9,9995,322.40

Median

Investments

Mean

$2,047.19
$774.34
899.53
220.21
1,334.53
444.94
2,034.76
2,164.40 732.46
369.24
2,296.95
3,789.00 484.25
648.83
4,107.35
1,868.20
5,391.05 2,052.88
7,028.94
2,256.50

Median

$357.50
170.25
256.00
841.90
209.00
347.50
327.00
1,305.10
1,620.00
2,372.46

Autom obile

Mean

$385.77
203.56
183.22
575.23
559.15
820.69
357.50
722.40
1,069.30
1,486.58

Median

Recreation

Mean

$286.50
$364.00
126.94
120.00 181.60
168.90
268.35
351.90
193.61
375.00
274.82
854.50
439.73
357.50
346.72
364.00
933.59 485.26
1,696.12
779.51

Median

Health

Mean

$197.85 $316.33
113.25
138.00 258.86
198.34
240.00
258.16
169.80 319.16
245.75
273.11
560.00
581.66
366.50
347.50
402.50
425.80 494.99
836.05

Median

Dependents

Mean

$203.16 $250.39
179.75 240.44
74.66
140.00
153.00
218.50 231.66
350.83
200.00
224.25
200.00 400.00
223.50 202.50
205.00
321.66
592.00 210.00

Median

$200.00
50.00
175.00
215.00
385.00
200.00
400.00
202.50
265.00
210.00

LVIII
eral

H eading op M iscellaneous by F amilies W ith a Given Amount op T otal E xpenditure

Total Expenditure Spent for
G ifts

Mean

$123.41
47.33
76.89
127.18
114.34
101.31
176.00
216.25
226.79
225.97

E ducation

Median

Mean Median

$100.00 •$164.06
71.66
47.50 58.00
72.00
75.23
105.00
128.80
95.00 145.15
70.00 599.10
143.00
212.50 261.02
355.55
208.96
205.00 444.58

$69.30
62.50
37.28
30.30
82.90
82.75
243.00
154.90
122.50
290.50

P rofessional

Mean

$169.27
38.89
58.23
54.37
266.81
233.39
1,199.33
69.83
266.43
217.68

Incid entals

A ssociations

Church

C harity

Tobacco

Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

$60.00
32.50 $93.23
36.80 47.37
76.42
48.50
67.46
86.00
90.25
109.00 96.36
559.00
57.40
81.00 50.25
62.00 127.05
143.00 265.85

$55.00 $75.74
29.39
48.75 43.60
43.10
69.21
55.00 68.72
72.50
72.76
74.00
39.00 41.47
44.00 122.48
92.38
115.70
138.00 230.00

$49.70
31.40 $64.01
34.10
37.40
56.00 59.29
50.95
52.40 100.00
67.31
39.70 10.00
46.00
64.25
47.25 131.10
118.60
243.20 91.91

$30.00
$41.47
12.00
20.29
30.92
25.00
25.00 29.44
29.65
37.00
100.00
10.00 61.81
53.33
51.00 105.75
57.00
43.75
36.00 82.00

$34.21
$27.00
19.62
20.00
17.50 26.82
18.53
25.00
19.50 37.35
37.00
50.00 62.33
17.66
61.00
22.53
55.00 39.78
54.00 71.00

$25.00
20.50
16.00
25.00
15.00
33.00
15.00
25.00
40.00
90.00

APPENDIX

295

S ta n d a rd o f L ivin g
o f the
F a cu lty o f the U n iversity o f C aliforn ia
SU RVEY
1. F a cu lty M em ber's A cadem ic G rade.......... 4. Schedule N o .............
2. Salary on R egents' R oll (J u ly 1, 1 9 2 2 ) . . 5. V isitor .....................
3. Tim e o f service at U . C .: f r o m .............to 6. D ate o f V i s i t .. .
present.

Group Tacts

7. Rela
tion to
Head
Familyof
a. self
b. wife
c. eldest
child
d. next
child
e. next
child

12.
No. of
Meals 13.
14.
10. 11. Taken
9. Birth
8.
Length
Date
of
Occupa
Sex Age place Marriage Away tion Vacationof
From
(in wks.)
Home
(per yr.)

gh.
i.
i•

k.
1.
15. K in d : D w e llin g .. . T en em e n t.. . H o t e l.. . N o. o f s to r ie s .. .
E le v a to r .. . N o. o f e n tr a n c e s.. .

296

APPENDIX

HEATING
16
Rooms
Use
Inc.
Fire Gas
Steam Hot Stove
HaU
place
Air

LIGHTING
Electricity Kerosene

Hot
Plumbing Water
Supply

1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11
12

1 7 . R en t: owned h o u s e .... purchase p r i c e .... date o f pur
ch a se------am ount o f m ortga ge-------- interest on m o r tg a g e .. . .
in stallm en ts------ g ift: y e s . . . . n o . . . . p a r tia l.. . .
R e n te d .. . . rate per m o n th .. . .
In clu d es: fu rn ish in g s____lig h t_____ h ea t_____ hot w a te r .. . .
kitchen sto v e------ w ater re n t____ telep h on e____
garbage rem oval____
18. Investm ent in fu rn ish in g s____am ount p u rch ased _____ am ount
g if t s ..........
19. Investm ent in labor savin g devices : E lectric w ashing m a
ch in e------ D ish w ashing m ach in e____ V acuum c le a n e r ....
O ther..........
20. D efects : ....................................................................................................................
Cause o f defects : .............................................................................................
Com m ent (fu rther description o f house) :
21. Sum m ary o f Incom e : T o t a l ______
......
a. Incom e from w ork: T o ta l.......
.............
.F a c u lty M ember. T o ta l.............
.............

APPENDIX
(a ) T eaching .................................
R egular in str u c tio n ...........
E xten sion in stru ction ____
Coaching .................................
L ectures .....................
O c c a s io n a l.....................
Courses ...............................
Sum m er sessio n ....................
(b ) R e s e a r c h ..................*...............
S p ecial problem s ...............
P ublication s .........................
T ext b oo k s.........................
O ther b oo k s.......................
P eriodicals .......................
(c) B usin ess en terp rise.............
(d ) P ublic service (p er diem
or other) .................................
(e) A d m in istration ....................
( f) O t h e r ...........................................
2. H elpm ate. T o ta l............................
(a ) R egular ......................................
(b ) Irregular .................................
3. Children. T o ta l......................... ..
(a ) R egular .......... ..
(b ) Irregular .................................
4. O ther (sp e c ify ). T o t a l ....* .
b. Incom e from B oarders and
Lodgers. T o ta l..............................
c. A d dition to incom e from g ifts.
T otal .......................................................
1. R egular m oney a llo w a n ce .. . .
2. O ccasional m oney g if t ...............
3. R eal p r o p e r ty .. . . . *....................
4. Stocks and b on d s.........................
5. C lo th in g ........................................
6. F u r n itu r e .......... *...........................*
7. B ooks . . .......... ................ ................
8. E ducation fo r c h ild r e n .............
9. T ravel . . . . i .....................................
10. R esearch .................................
d. N et incom e from rent, interest,
etc........................; . . *................... .. . . i .
e. N et incom e from garden, chick
ens, etc.................................................
f. O ther ( s p e c ify )..............................

298

APPENDIX

22. Estimated Expenses: Total......
a. Food: Total per year..............
1. Meals provided at home:
Total per year...................
Total per week.................................
Bread, cake, etc..................................
Butter.................................................
Eggs..................................................
Milk ..................................................
Dry groceries............... . . ............. .
Fruit and vegetables...........................
Meat, fish and poultry.........* .........
2. Meals bought:
Total per year...................
Total per week.................................
b. Clothing (per year): Total....
Replacem ent Upkeep
1. Man ..................................................
2. Wife ...........................................
3. Children................... .....................
c. Housing (per year): Total---1. Charges on owned home.......
Installments paid on principal .........
Interest charges on mortgage..............
Taxes ........................ .......................
Assessments ......................................
Fire insurance...................................
Repairs .............................................
Depreciation ......................................
Water rent ..........................
Carfare to and from work.................
Garden...............................................
Garage...............................................
Other (specify) ............................... .
2. Rent charges on rented home..
Rent ..................................................
Water rent ........................................
Repairs (not paid by owner)..............
Carfare to and from work...................
Garden............................... . ......
Garage ..........................................*..
Furniture ta x ................... .. .........
Other (specify) .................................
d. House Operation (per year):
Total.......................................

APPENDIX

1. Light (electricity, kerosene).
2. Fuel and heat (coal, wood,
kerosene, gas, electricity).......
3. Ice (No. of months__ ) ....
4. Telephone and telegraph ....
5. Service : Total.....................
fa) Resident, number.......... .
(b) Non-resident ..
(1) Regular
cleaning
laundry
care of
children
gardening
cooking
sewing
(2) Occasional................
(3) Extra caused
by illness................
6. Garbage removal..................
7. Personal cleaning supplies :
Total.....................................
tooth brushes .................................
combs and brushes..........................
shoe, polish and shoe brush,
listerine and other drugs for
hygienic purposes.......... .........
toilet and bath soap........................
bathroom and toilet equip- .........
ment ...........................................
8. House cleaning supplies : Total
soap ...............................................
borax .............................................
ammonia..........................................
insect powder...........................
other ...............................................
9. House laundry and supplies..
10. Furniture and furnishings (per
year): Total......................
(a) Replacement and additions .........
(b) Renovations and repairs................
furniture
table linen
bedding
No. ofhrs.
per mo.

Amt. paid
per mo.

299

300

APPENDIX

towels
kitchen ware
table ware
curtains, etc.
electric bnlbs
tools, etc.
rugs and carpets
(c) Furniture tax...............
11. Stationery and postage.........
12. Other (specify) ...................
e. Recreation (per year) : Total...
1. Recurrent expenditure .........
moving pictures................
theater ..............................
dances...............................
pool and billiards..............
sports .......... ...................
music ...............................
art exhibitions...................
excursions ........................
toys and playthings for
children .......................
other ...............................
2. Vacation (out of city)..........
general travel....................
other (specify).................
3. Social entertainment..............
guests at home.................
guests at club, in town, etc..
f. Vehicles (per year): Total.......
1. Automobile .......... ..............
paid as initial expense.......
insurance ..........................
upkeep per month ..; per yr.
2. Other (specify).....................
g. Education (per year): Total..
1. School expenses (children only)
tuition ..............................
books ...............................
supplies ............................
carfare ..............................
other...........................
2. Periodicals............................
3. Daily papers..... ....................
4. Books ...................................

APPENDIX

5. Lessons (for children)..........
music
..............
■ dancing.............., . , . ........
languages ................. ......
6. Other education expenses.......
h. Investment and. savings (per
year) : Total............................
1. Real estate.............................
2. Stocks and bonds...................
3. Life insurance.......................
4. Accident insurance............
5. Savings ...............................
for Sabbatical..... .............
general . . ...............
6. Other ...............................
i. Church (per year) : Total.........
j. Charity (per year) : Total.....
assistance to colleagues.........
general support of charities..
k. Dependents outside house: Total
1. Regular allowance.......... .
2. Occasional allowance.........
l. Health (per year): Total.......
1. Fees for physician..............
2. Fees for dentist....................
3. Fees for other specialists.......
4. Drugs on prescription..........
5. Eyeglasses ..........................
6. Hospital expenses.................
7. Nursing ...............................
8. Other ...................................
m. Expenses of profession in ques
tion: Total (per year)..............
1. Costs of professional organiza
tions ....................................
2. Technical books and magazines
3. Typewriter ..........................
4. Stationery and stamps.......
5. Secretarial services................
6. Travel cost above refunds....
n. Associations (per year): Total.
1. Faculty member...................
(a) Faculty club...................
(b) Social clubs ...................
(c) Civic clubs .....................

301

302

APPENDIX

(d) A. S. U. C. . . . .............................
(e) Alumni obligations........................
2. Helpmate ..............................
.........
(a) Professional club..........................
(b) Alumni obligations........................
(c) Social clubs...................................
(d) Civic clubs................. ..............
o. Tobacco (per year): Total.......
.........
(per week) (no. of per
sons) .......................
.........
p. Gifts: Total..............................
.........
1. Christmas ............................
.........
2. Birthday ..............................
.........
3. Wedding ............................
.........
4. Sick friends..........................
.........
5. Other ...................................
.........
q. Incidentals (per year) : Total..
.........
1. Other carfare .......................
.........
2. Moving ...............................
.........
3. Lawyer fees..........................
.........
4. Funeral ...............................
.........
5. Tonsorial ..............................
.........
man................................................
wife ...............................................
children ........................................
6. Other....................................
.........
23. Amount of surplus or deficit.........
.........
24. If surplus, how used? If deficit, how met.............................
25. Are these figures based on actual accounts?..........................
Over what period of time were these accounts kept?..............
26. How often has Faculty Member taken a Sabbatical?............
If not, why not?...................................................................
27. What are the important and desirable things you now find
yourselves without?...........................................................

INDEX
Age, 251; correlated with rank,
61; with size of family and in
come, 63; with promotion, 107,
260-262. See also Income;
Rank
Academic salaries. See Salaries,
academic
Academic standard of living, 3743
Accuracy, 47, 117
Administrative work, 84, 95
Advancement. See Promotion
Alberti, cited on use of income, 5
Alumni, 26
American standard of living, 13,
34-37
Amusements. See Recreation
Anglo-California Trust Go., bud
get distribution, 143
Assistant professors, sources of
income, 93, 97 (which see) ;
property income, 103; gifts,
103 (see also Gifts) ; range
of income, 255. See also In
come; Promotion; Rank; Sal
ary
Associate professors, sources of
income, 94, 97 (which see) ;
property income, 102; range of
income, 255. See also Income;
Promotion ; Rank; Salary
Associates, sources of income, 92,
97, 104 (which see) ; prop
erty income, 102; range of
income, 255. See also Income;
Rank; Salary
Associationism, 20
Associations (not professional
organizations), 123, 124, 219221, 225, 275, 279 ; in typical
budgets, 229-249 passim

Automobile, 123, 124, 196-198,
225, 226, 269-270, 279 ; in typi
cal budgets, 229-249, passim
Bank of Italy, expenditure al
lotment, 142
Birth. See Nationality
Birth-rate, 62
Boarding and lodging, occupa
tion of helpmate, 99, 100
Books, 213, 215
Bruce, Dorothy Hart, et at,
cited, 161
Bruère, M. B. and R. W., cited
on expenditures of high school
teachers, 141
Budget studies, 29 ; of the masses,
32-33 ;
Budgets, 12 typical, 229-249
Business (consultant research),
source of income, 84, 87, 98,
256
Charity, 123, 124, 221-223, 225,
276, 279; in typical budgets,
229-249 passim
Children, in academic families,
62, 63 ; supplementary earnings,
98, 101, 104, 105, 258
Church, 123, 124, 221-223, 225,
226, 276, 279 ; in typical bud
gets, 229-249, passim
Citizen service. See Public ser
vice
Cleaning supplies, house, lz3,
181, 268, 279 ; personal, 123,
181, 184, 185 ; in typical bud
gets, 229-249 passim, 268,
279.
Cleveland Society for Savings,
budget distribution, 143

303

304

INDEX

Clothing, expenditure for, 122,
123, 124, 125, 139-140, 141; in
relation to income, 126, 133,
134; to rank, 135, 159-160; of
husbands and wives compared,
156-158; gifts of, 158-159; in
fluence of economic pressure,
162; in typical budgets, 229249 passim; summary of find
ings, 265-266, 279
Coaching, source of income, 81,
85; occupation of helpmate, 99
“Comfort” standard of living,
34-35, 280
Consultant research (business),
source of income, 84, 87, 256
Cost of being born, 41 footnote.
Cost of living, test of rate of
pay, 29
Data, method of collecting, 46;
reliability, 47; social, 59-89,
251-252
Departments in study represent
ed, 51-53
Dependents (outside the home),
123, 124, 207-209, 225, 226,
269, 279; in typical budgets,
229-249 passim
Domestic service, 267
Earnings. See Income
Education, expenditures for, 123,
124, 211-214, 225, 279; in typi
cal budgets, 229-249 passim
Engel’s law, holds true by income
levels, 126, 265; reversed, 146147
Expenditures: method of han
dling, 117; in relation to stand
ard of living, 118; to income,
119, 135, 264, to rank, 121, 145,
264; major divisions of, tabu
lated, 122, 123, 124, 133, 134,
135, general conclusions, 139140, summary, 264-281; of high
school teachers and faculty
members, compared, 141; com
parative distribution of, tabu
lated, 143; personal preference,
263; summary of findings, 264-

281; the outstanding fact, 278.
See also Budgets; Income;
Standard of living; and under
each of the thirteen subdivi
sions of “Miscellaneous”
Extension work, income from, 16,
81, 85, 86, 92
Extra-mural occupations, source
of income, 84. See also Admin
istrative work; Consultant re
search (business) ; Public
service
Faculty helpmates, earnings, 97,
100, 104, 105, 258; occupations,
99; correlated with rank, 100;
vacation, 260
Families, selection of, 48-49; size,
sex, maturity, 59-60, 252; com
position of, 62, 252; size of, in
relation to age and income, 63;
nativity, 65, 2f51; size corre
lated with food, tabulated, 154,
155; expense histories, 227-22°;
typical budgets, 229-249
Food, expenditure for, 121, 122,
123, 124, 139-140, 141; in rela
tion to income, 125, 133, 134,
to rank, 135; amounts allocated
for food, 149-152; food and size
of family, 152-155; in typical
budgets, 229-249 passim; sum
mary of findings, 265-266, 279
Fourier, cited on pay for talent, 6
Franklin, cited on use of income,
5
Fuel. See Heat and fuel
Full professor, sources of income,
95 (which see) ; property in
come, 102; minimum and maxi
mum salary, 108; range of
income, 255. See also Income;
Promotion ; Rank ; Salary
Furniture and furnishings, 123,
183, 184, 185, 186, 268, 279;
in typical budgets, 229-249
passim
Garbage removal, expenditure for,
123, 179, 184, 185, 268, 279
Gifts, 103, 123, 124, 209-211, 225,
259, 274, 279; correlated with

INDEX
rank, 104, 259 ; in typical bud
gets, 229-249 passim
Government official, occupation
of helpmate, 99
Health, 123, 124, 203-207, 225,
271-272, 279; in typical bud
gets, 229-249 passim
Heat and fuel, expenditure for,
123, 171, 184, 185, 267, 279
Helpmates. See Faculty help
mates
High school teachers, expendi
tures of, compared with those
of faculty members, 141
“Higher wants” (life), 35, 278
House operation, expenditure for,
122, 123, 124, 140, 141; in pro
portion to income, 128,133,134,
to rank, 135; detailed discus
sion, 169-186; tabulated, 184,
185, 186, 187; in typical bud
gets, 229-249 passim; summary
of findings, 267-268, 279
Housing. See Shelter
Human relations, wider, factor in
rising standards of living, 16
Ice, expenditure for, 123, 174,
184, 185, 279
Incidentals, 123, 124, 217-219,
225, 274, 279
Income, correlated w ith: age and
size of family, 63-64, salary, 70,
74, 75-77, 252-254, with rank,
89-97, 255, with expenditures,
119, 145; range of, 72, 254-255
Non-pecuniary, 106, 259-262;
vacation, 106, 259; promotion,
107, 260; length of service and
salary, 108, 261-262
Sources, 78-79, 255; work,
kinds of, 80-83; money returns
from, 83-89, in relation to rank,
89-97, tabulated, 98; help
mate’s earnings, 97-101; chil
dren’s earnings, 101; property
income, 98, 101-103, 258-259;
gifts and miscellaneous sources,
103, 259; income tabulated in
correlation with rank, 105

305

Supplementary, 78-98, 255,
259; money returns (earn
ings), 83-98, 256-258; gifts,
103, 259. See also Income,
sources
Instruction, children’s, expendi
ture for, 213-214
Instructors, 93, 102. See also
Income ; Rank ; Salary
Insurance, life, 193, 196, 273,
279 ; accident, 194, 195
Interviewers, duties of, in this
study, 46-47
Investment (insurance, savings),
expenditure for, 123, 124, 188,
225, 273-274, 279 ; in typical
budgets, 229-249 passim
Jaffa, M. E., food budget, 151,
153
Laundry, house, and supplies,
123, 182, 184, 185, 268, 279
Lawyer, occupation of helpmate,
99
Lectures, sources of income, 81,
85
Length of service, 108-115; corre
lated with promotion (rank),
109, with salary, 111; tabu
lated, 114, 115
Library assistant, occupation of
helpmate, 99 footnote
Light, expenditure for, 123, 171,
184, 185, 267, 279
Literature, as source of income,
88, 94
Loyalty, penalized, 113
Manager of apartment house, oc
cupation of helpmate, 99
Marriage, time of, 49; proportion
married, 50
Masses, a consuming class, 3133
Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, budget distribution,
143
Mill, cited on standards of con
sumption, 44

306

INDEX

“Minimum” salary required to
meet professional academic
standard, 280, 281
Miscellaneous, expenditures for,
122, 123, 124, 141; in propor
tion to income, 130, 133, 134, to
rank, 135; broad details, 137139; index to standard of liv
ing, 144, 145, 146; intensive
analysis of 13 items: invest
ments, insurance, savings; auto
mobiles ; recreation; health ; de
pendents ; gifts; education;
professional expense; inciden
tals ; associations; church;
charity; tobacco: all of which
see, 187-226; tabulated in fam
ily budgets, 229-249 passim;
summary of findings, 268-281,
279; tabulation of items, 284293
Money income and goods, 3
Morgan, Agnes Fay, food budget,
151, 153
Music teacher, occupation of
helpmate, 99
Nationality, 66, 251
Organist, occupation of help
mate, 99
Organizations ( professional),
dues, 215, 275
Owners or tenants, 163-168
Pacific Oil Co., Amalgamated Oil
Co., and Affiliated Co., budget
distribution, 143
Participants in the study, 50-55
Payment according to needs, 29
Pittsburgh, Peoples Savings and
Trust Co., expenditure allot
ment, 142, 143
Poor, The. See Masses
Poverty line, 227
“Plain living and high thinking”
discussed, 4; exemplified, 119
passim
Price level, 48
Professional expenditures, 123,
124, 214-217, 225, 274, 279; in
typical budgets, 229^249 passim

Professor. See Full professor
Promotion, opportunities for, 107115, 260; in respect to age and
term of service, 261-262
Property, source of income, 98,
101-103, 258-259; correlated
with rank, 102; with age and
rank, 258-259
Public service, factor in rising
standard of living, 17-18, 23;
source of income, 81, 82, 84,
93, 94
Rank, as represented in the
study, 54-56, 251; correlated
with age, 61, with size of fam
ily, 63-64; in relation to salary,
75-76, to supplementary income,
78, 81, 89, 91-97; correlated
with rentiers and property in
come, 101; correlated with
gifts, 103; income of, accord
ing to sources, 105; rate
of advancement, 107; in rela
tion to expenditure, 121, 135,
145, 146; and tenantry, 163
“Rational” spending (spenders),
5, 12, 31, 33, 144
Reader (at University), occupa
tion of helpmate, 99
Recreation, 123, 124, 198-203,
225, 270-271, 279; in typical
budgets, 229-249 passim
Rentiers, in relation to rank, 102,
163-164
Research, source of income, 82,
86, 88, 93, 94, 96; two types
of, 87. See also Consultant re
search
Richards, Mrs. E., expenditure al
lotment, 142
Salaried professional class, stand
ard of living, 34-37
Salaries, academic, factors affect
ing, 3, 4-10, 16-18, 23; com
parative similarity of in all
universities, 57; correlated with
income, 70, 252-254; range of,
71, 254; compared with in
come, 74-77; increase in, corre

INDEX
lated with rank, 110, 254, 260,
with term of service, 108, 111,
254, 260
Salesman, occupation of help
mate, 99
San Francisco Bay region, esti
mated expenditure allotment,
142
Savings. See Investment
Secretarial service, 216, 274
Schedule, form of, 46, 294-301
Service (domestic, household),
expenditure for, 123, 175, 184,
185, 186, 267, 279; in typical
budgets, 229-249 passim; secre
tarial, expenditure for, 216,
274
Service income, 3
Sewing, occupation of helpmate,
99
Shelter, expenditure for, 121, 122,
123, 124, 140, 141, 162-168; in
proportion to income, 127, 133,
134, to rank, 135; in typical
budgets, 229-249 passim ; sum
mary of findings, 266-267, 279
Social entertainment, 203
Social data, 59-89, 251-252
Social research, factor in rising
standard of living, 17-18
Spenders, consuming class, 31
Spending, thrift, 12-13; spender’s
theory, 14; standard of, 279281
Standard of living, essential
characteristic, 13 ; American,
34-37; academic, 37-43; justi
fication for, 4 4 ; similar in all
university groups, 56, 145; ef
fect on, of social habits, 66; in
relation to expenditures, 118;
index to, 144, 145; conclusion

307

regarding, 279-281; of the fac
ulty of the University of
California, schedule for, 294301. See also Citizen service;
Expenditures ; Extension work;
Public Service; Social Re
search.
Stationary and postage, 123, 184,
185, 268, 279
Subsistance plus level, 266
Summary of findings, 250-282
Summer session teaching, income
from, 81, 85, 86, 97
Sumner, cited on standard of liv
ing, 44
Teacher, occupation of helpmate,
99
Teaching (instruction), addition
al, source of income, 81, 84.
See also Income
Telephone and telegraph, expen
diture for, 123, 175, 184, 185,
279
Tests of rate of pay, 29
Textbook writing, source of in
come, 81, 87, 88, 96
Theatre. See Recreation
Thrift, 12-13, 36
Tobacco, 123, 124, 223-224, 225,
226, 277; in typical budgets,
229-249 passim
Travel, professional, 216
Vacation, non-pecuniary income,
106, 259-60; recreation, 202
Veblen, cited on standard of
living, 36, 120, 264
Wants, classification of, 117;
index to standard of living, 144,

188

NOV 13 1990 Ml

JWÏMW imJUlii 1 6 1992 »

BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED
BEFORE THEIR DUE DATES

vn.i&i

Full text of Getting and Spending at the Professional Standard of Living : A Study of the Costs of Living an Academic Life

FRASER