they are then taxed for this type of insurance at the same rate as other workers, their periods of covered employment are often too short or too infrequent to enable them to meet the requirement of at least the minimum amount of time in such occupations to achieve an insured status. Thus only rarely do they obtain actual protection under the program.

A survey of white household workers in Chicago, made by the OldAge and Survivors Insurance Bureau of the Social Security Board, showed that about 17 of every 100 women had some earnings in covered employment in the period January 1937-June 1941, but not more than 2.2 percent of all women interviewed had worked continuously and regularly enough and had received sufficient earnings from covered employment to build up insured status. Not an encouraging statistical picture, if it can be taken as at all typical.

But, as already pointed out, the war increased the extent to which household workers have entered covered employment. The many exhousehold workers employed in factories and other commercial jobs acquired rights toward insurance benefits, but unless coverage is extended to household service, many of those who have built up insurance rights will lose them if they return to household work.

FACTORS MAKING FOR INSECURITY

Even more than other types of employees, those in household service must cope with various conditions making for insecurity. Those involved in a discussion of old-age insurance fall under the following headings:

Wage trends.

Training and employment problems.

Iregularities of employment.

Illness and accidents.

Responsibilities for family support.

Lack of legal safeguards.

PAY PATTERNS

THE QUESTION OF WAGES

The design of one's living is naturally shaped, to a high degree, by the amount of one's income. Almost the first questions asked by workers seeking a job are: What will it pay me? Will I earn enough to live on- and to save for old age and other emergencies?

The man or woman considering a job in household employment gets less clear-cut answers than do those applying for a job in a factory, store, or laundry. The latter applicants are more likely, if they are regular in attendance, to find in their pay envelopes a definite amount in dollars and cents, to have a definite hour schedule with pay for overtime work, and, with increase in skill and experience, they may

hope to earn more money. In many cases they belong to unions that will help them get their special difficulties adjusted through the machinery of collective bargaining.

In Cash and in Kind.-The household worker on going into a private home is generally assured a set cash wage, but faces other uncertainties. Pay will in part be in the form of meals, and for those who "live in," in lodging. Now, a dollar is a dollar any way one looks at it, but a meal is not always a satisfactory unit of remuneration, especially as the worker must in general consume it or leave it. As for the proffered room for "living in," the worker may definitely leave it, preferring the privacy of living in his or her own home.

In the present discussion of old-age insurance, payment "in kind" has a particular significance. Even when it substantially raises real wages, it is not expendable for other purposes, and it can't be saved up for emergencies such as a jobless old age. Obviously, there is less flexibility to this form of wage payment. With the full wage in cash, the workers can juggle their funds better to meet their specific needs, pooling money for food and shelter with that of other members of the family to make it go further.

Moreover, the trend toward smaller homes and apartments has further discouraged even when the worker is willing-the living-in practice. For example, in 1944 only about a third of 409 newspaper advertisements for full-time household workers in the Washington, D. C., area, analyzed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, asked for a "live-in" worker. Common knowledge leads us to believe this one illustration could be duplicated more or less in many cities.

Studies indicate that household workers who live out may not be paid more than, if as much as, those who live in, especially where the housewife prefers the latter arrangement. Many workers will choose the situation offering a little less wage and a little more independence and privacy in their way of living. At any rate, representative surveys of household employment in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Washington, D. C., showed that the largest proportion of workers who lived out were paid lower cash wages than those who lived in and who received, in addition, both board and room.

Even when household employees are given a fair remuneration in cash and in kind, their wages are often not sufficient for them to put any aside for all types of rainy days, particularly for the last uncertain period of old age. Immediate emergency needs are apt to be robbers of the fund for care during the more remote declining years.

The Ups and Downs.-Another factor making for a highly spotty pay situation for household workers is the great variation from the prewar to the war, and to the postwar period, and from one section of the country to another. Even in the same community wage rates differ

766399°-48-2

considerably from home to home and from time to time. This is due largely to the catch-as-catch-can tradition typical of this field, where there is woeful lack of wage standards in relation to skill, experience, and competency. Two causes of dissatisfaction among workers are the tendency in many homes to require much overtime with no extra pay and the failure by some housewives to give reasonable raises in wages after years of service.

Unfortunately wage studies in this field have been too few and too scattered to serve as satisfactory yardsticks of trends and possible standards. However, prior to World War II, low cash wages were typical for the most part.

WARTIME RATES

Mention of household workers' wages during the war inevitably brought out assertions, and evidence too, of spectacularly high rates paid by many homemakers. Undoubtedly the general level, which still prevails to a considerable extent, is the highest ever attained by domestic workers in private homes in this country. Even so, wide variation in wages still exists, as indicated by such weather vanes as the rates offered in newspaper "want ads."

Across the Country.-Examples of wages offered household workers in newspaper advertisements in each of 23 cities in various parts of the country were examined by the Women's Bureau early in 1945. They tell an aresting story of what unusually high wages some of the women who have stuck to this field were able to make from East to West, North to South, and also what low wages still prevailed. The weekly wages ranged from $7.50 to $36 for general household workers, from $10 to $46 for cooks. Wages were, of course, higher in industrial war centers than in nonwar areas, or wherever the keen competition of other fields of employment had to be reckoned with.

The wartime earnings of household employees should not be considered as a gage of their long-time ability to save for old age and dependents. But it is to be hoped that a drive toward better standards all along the line will prevent a relapse to the inadequate prewar pay received by many workers in this service.

If we draw back the curtain and look for a moment into the period just before the war, we are reminded that the household workers' heyday in wages has been one of only a few short years.

PREWAR RATES

Over-all Picture from the 1940 Census.-The most comprehensive and most convincing revelation of low earnings of household workers just before the war comes from no less important a source than the 1940 Census. This shows for the country as a whole median cash earnings of $312 for experienced women household workers employed full time in such service 12 months in 1939.

The general average, however, tends to be misleading. It discloses neither the worst nor the best levels. Considerable variation was found from one section of the country to another. In Mississippi in 1939 the median was just under $150 a year, and in South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama it ranged from $158 to $164. In only six States-California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut-did women household workers with 12 months of employment in 1939 show median annual cash earnings of more than $500. The highest median cash earnings-$566—were reported for women household workers in Connecticut.

For the benefit of skeptics who doubt that such low wages ever prevailed, it is well to point out that these medians do not reflect additional remuneration in the form of room and board where such existed. Be that as it may, the cash wages of many workers as reported by the census necessitated substandard living for them and their families. Much evidence from a number of prewar studies of household employment exists to corroborate this statement.

Washington. On this score the city of Washington offers a striking illustration. Compare the median of $20.35 a week, as revealed by a Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis of the weekly rates offered in a group of 323 out of 562 Washington newspaper advertisements for women household workers in the fall of 1944, with the median weekly earnings of $8.10 for such workers in 1940, according to a YWCA survey. Of the 564 women included in the latter study, the majority were Negroes. The median of the week's cash wages of the full-time workers living in was $9.35 for the white women and $8.85 for the Negroes.

These 1940 medians stress the reasons for the exodus of household workers into war jobs in the Government service or munitions plants in the Washington area. The rates offered in 1944 underscore the length to which housewives were forced to go when hard pressed for household help.

Baltimore. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Bureau survey of Negro household workers in Baltimore in 1941 revealed a far from roseate picture. The average cash earnings of the women interviewed, approximately 35 percent of whom were day workers and part-time workers, were about $330 in 1940. For the women who worked 12 months in that year the average cash earnings were $497.

Chicago. To turn the spotlight on another part of the country: The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Bureau made a survey of white women household workers in Chicago and found that their earnings for 1940-41 differed but slightly from those reported in Baltimore. Average cash earnings for all Chicago workers interviewed were about $415. The women who were employed for 12 months in 1940-41 averaged $485.

AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION

With earnings high today or low tomorrow, with the many variations and vicissitudes that characterize the wages of workers in this field, with saving for the future not easily possible-it appears to be established that household employees have need, just as do other types of labor, of the strong arm of the law to guarantee their saving for old age. Thus they could be assured of some means of support if and when they reach their sixty-fifth milestone, or of some wherewithal to offer a modicum of security for their survivors.

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS

BASIC WEAKNESS

One of the conspicuous weak spots in the over-all story of household employment to which all who probe into the problems point a challenging finger is lack of adequate training, and the haphazard training at best, for this field. Then comes the inevitable "why," since this situation makes for serious difficulties all round. It results in inconveniences and annoyance for housewives, lessened opportunity and increased insecurity for the employees, and greater relief expenditures by taxpayers for incompetent workers who fall to the down-and-out level.

The Untrained and Unemployable.-The untrained household worker is at a great disadvantage on various counts. In efforts to raise standards both of work performances and of working conditions, the importance of increasing the worker's efficiency through training cannot be overestimated. Many untrained household employees are unable to meet even the usual standard of work expected of them. As a result, they all too often have difficulty in holding any one job for more than a short time, go from job to job, and finally are classified as "unemployables."

A State employment office reported that in 1 week in 1937 it was not able to refer to any of 15 employers who had asked for skilled and competent domestic workers one of the 20 persons who had applied during the week for household jobs but who were obviously inadequate for such. In January 1937 at least 500 cities faced a shortage of trained household workers, according to estimates of the United States Employment Service. Yet in July of the same year 400,000 applicants describing themselves as household workers were registered in the active files of public employment offices.

NEED FOR PARALLEL ACTION

Excellent training schools for household workers might and could be set up, but if girls and women are to be attracted, they must be offered other inducements. They must be assured good employment standards and safeguards similar to those in other fields. Which