TABLE X-K.-Economic characteristics of existing housing: Nonfarm families, with income from wages and salaries only, classified according to family wage and salary income and contract or estimated monthly rent 1

None 3.

$1 to $499.

$500 to $999.

$2,000 to $2.999.

$500 to $999

$3,000 to $4,999.

1 The census data with respect to family income and rent, upon which this table is
based, are limited to families without other income than income received from wages or
salaries-that is, families in which no persons 14 years of age or older received income of
$50 in 1939 from any source except wages or salaries. Of the total of about 28,000,000 non-
farm families, 15,793,020, or about 60 percent, had no other income other than income
received from wages or salaries. Family wage and salary income represents the combined
wages and salaries reported by all related persons in the family for 1939. Contract or
estimated monthly rent is the rent reported for the dwelling unit in which the family
lived in April 1940, the date of the enumeration of the census.

2 Of the total of 15,793,020 nonfarm families with income from wages and salaries only,
15,341,980 reported on both family wage and salary income and contract or estimated
monthly rent.

Because of the definitions and procedures used by the United States census, 1940, this group corresponds more nearly to a "Not reporting" category than to a "None" group.

It is composed of many different elements. Some of the families in this group are new
families, formed after the end of 1939. Others are married couples supported by their
parents while attending school. Some had money receipts during 1939 (such as lump-
sum insurance settlements, occasional gifts, money received from illegal activities, etc.)
which were not classified by the census either as wages or salaries or as "other income."
Some had cash or other capital assets. Thus many of the families in the "None" classi-
fication evidently had money or money receipts which did not fall within the census defi-
nition of income. It is probable, however, that some of the families in this group actually
had no income or money receipts whatever during the year 1939.

Source: United States Census, 1940, Population and Housing, Families, Tenure and
Rent.
National Housing Agency, Office of the Administrator, Housing Market Service, Nov.
27, 1944.

Mr. BLANDFORD. And it is this economic approach to the housing problem that we attempt to move up on in the next chart. (See chart X-L in Appendix.)

TABLE X-L.-Economic characteristics of existing housing: Nonfarm families classified according to family income in 19391 and contract or estimated monthly rent of dwelling units occupied in 1940

1 Due to the fact that the official estimate of the distribution of families sccording to family income in 1939 will not be available for some time, the preliminary or rough estimate shown in this table has been prepared. This estimate is unofficial and is extremely tentative. Accordingly, it should be used only for purposes of general illustration and then only until such time as the official estimate becomes available. Less than 25.

Source: Estimate prepared by National Housing Agency on basis of data from Bureau of the Census,
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, and Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
National Housing Agency, Office of the Administrator, Housing Market Service, Dec. 18, 1944.
NOTE. In rounding, figures have been forced to add to totals.

We take, in that, for 1939, the income classification of more than 27,000,000 nonfarm families, and this chart shows, by the grouping of the red bars, what the families paid per month for their rent, whether it be rented housing or owner-occupied housing. I am not going to burden you with a restatement of the figures which this chart displays, but by glancing at it you can see the direct correlation between the income and amounts spent for housing or between income and what we might call effective housing demand. Particularly to be noted are the large numbers of families bunched in the income groups below $1,500 a year, and especially below $1,000 a year coupled with the fact that the vast preponderance of these families pay less than $20 a month for their housing.

Now, the small amount which so many families can pay for their housing would be of no particular significance if they got decent housing at that price, or if they constituted a demand for new residential construction at that price. But chart X-M-1 shows an extraordinary corrrelation between income and the quality of housing received. The black bars indicate the number of families in each rental group, as I understand that.

(See chart X-M-1 in appendix.)

TABLE X-M.-Economic characteristics and quality of existing housing: Nonfarm dwelling units classified according to contract or estimated monthly rent and according to state of repair and sanitary facilities, 1940

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

1

TABLE X-M-1.-Economic characteristics and quality of existing housing: Nonfarm families, classified according to contract or estimated monthly rent, compared with nonfarm dwelling units, classified according to contract or estimated monthly rent and state of repair and sanitary facilities

1 The figures shown in this table are estimated total numbers of occupied nonfarm
dwelling units and all nonfarm dwelling units after adjustment to include units which
did not report on contract or estimated rent or on state of repair and sanitary facilities.
The estimated number of households or occupied nonfarm dwelling units in each rental
value class was obtained by raising the figure shown in table X-J by the ratio of all occu-
pied dwelling units to the number of occupied dwelling units reporting on contract or
estimated rent. The estimated number of all nonfarm dwelling units, and the distribu-
tion by state of repair and sanitary facilities, were obtained as follows for each rental value
class: (1) the figures reported in table X-M for the rental value class were raised by the
ratio of all nonfarm dwelling units in the rental value class to the number of units in the
rental value class reporting state of repair and sanitary facilities; and (2) the result was.
then further raised by the ratio of the total number of units in all rental value classes to

the units reporting on contract or estimated rent.er

2 Due to the method that must be used to distribute dwelling units not reported in the
source data, the difference shown in these estimates between cocupied and all dwelling
units in any given class should not be interpreted as the number of vacant units in that
class.

The United States Census of Housing, 1940, classifies a dwelling unit as needing major
repairs if parts of the structure, such as floors, roof, plaster, walls, or foundation require
major repairs or replacements-that is, repairs or replacements of such character that their
continued neglect will seriously impair the soundness of the structure and create a hazard
to its safety as a place of residence.

Source: United States Census, 1940, Population and Housing, Families, Income, and
Rent.
National Housing Agency, Office of the Administrator, Housing Market Service..
Dec. 18, 1944.

Mr. BLANDFORD. 4,000,000 families pay under $10 a month; and the right-hand bar showing the condition of the housing supply, the deep solid red being in need of major repairs, and progressively other conditions, only the gray being not in need of major repairs or plumbing and the like.

But this chart is so central to our inquiry that I would like to summarize what it shows:

(1) Of the almost 41⁄2 million families, coming to about 16 percent of the total, who paid less than $10 a month rent or its equivalent, more than 94 percent of the housing which they occupied was deficient to some degree.

(2) Of the more than 61⁄2 million families, coming to more than 24 percent of the total, who paid between $10 and $20 a month in rent or its equivalent, more than 60 percent of the housing which they occupied was bad in some degree.

(3) Of the more than 6,000,000 families, coming to more than 22 percent of the total, who paid between $20 and $29 in monthly rent or its equivalent, about a quarter of them occupied bad housing in varying degrees and about three-quarters of them occupied housing that was good in varying degrees.

(4) And finally, of the more than 10,000,000 families who paid more than $30 a month in rent or its equivalent, well over 90 percent of them had satisfactory housing.

Senator BUTLER. Mr. Blandford, thus far you have spoken considerably of the relation of income to rental conditions.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.

Senator BUTLER. I notice that your statement is quite long, and possibly you are going to touch on this subject I am going to ask you about now. Do you get to the point where you relate income to the wealth-production program? You are talking here altogether about the urban, city population.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The nonfarm housing conditions.

Senator BUTLER. Yes; nonfarm housing.

Mr. BLANDFORD. And the relationship here of income to rent, and income and rent, to the condition of the housing supply.

Senator BUTLER. It is all very good; but the nonfarm populationthis may be an exaggerated statement to some extent, but it is basically true-lives on the farm population. Now, that is not-you have got to include the-

Mr. BLANDFORD. They certainly purchase farm products.
Senator BUTLER. You have got to include the mine-

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.

Senator BUTLER. And the fisheries and farm production, forest production of wealth, and all those things.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, of course, if we should include a picture here of farm housing, it would be a much more dismal picture than we have here, because the condition is much worse.

Senator BUTLER. That is why I am wondering if you are going to touch on it some place there.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I am not presenting the statistics on the farmhousing picture, thinking these are gloomy enough; but, more important, that the Secretary of Agriculture is going to testify on that. A little later, though, we do take in the national income picture and trace