Australia and the depression 1928-1938
...eceived an income of less than the basic wage . The unemployed, many of the part time employed and the vast numbers of workers receiving bellow award wages are the poor referred to by Wheelwright and Buckley. For the workers, mass unemployment was fundamental. Due to rudimentary social services there was the constant fear of a families breadwinner being sacked. There were pockets of poverty and deprivation as the distribution of unemployment was uneven, the inner industrial suburbs being the worst hit. In 1933 the Sydney suburbs of Redfurn and Paddington had male unemployment rates of 48% and 46% respectively . For those still employed, although the basic wage was a legal minimum, many employers payed less knowing workers could not afford to complain in fear of losing their jobs to the masses of unemployed looking for work. The unemployment rate for unskilled and seasonal workers was much higher than the average rate of unemployment for all workers. Even with the easing of the Depression and the improving position of skilled and semi skilled workers, the tragedy of the large portion of the workforce that was not skilled continued . Under pressure from the government, many single men were persuaded to travel ‘outback’ in search of casual work. Alternatively large numbers of single and unemployed men were maintained in special camps, where an official eye could be kept on militants and troublemakers. Unemployment went far beyond the resulting fiscal measures that lead to deprivation, it had significant social ramifications affecting existing family values and structures in a very patriarchal society. The performance of wage labour was the source of a workingman’s income but just as importantly, it was the basis of his standing amongst family and friends and proved definitive of his very identity. The derogatory term ‘dole bludger’ derives from the moral reproach against a man living of a woman . The attitudes of the unemployed was reflected in the slogans of demonstrators : ‘What do we want? Work!’ ‘We want work, not charity!’ Many personal relationships broke down due to the inability to maintain traditional gender specific roles and dignity. Similarly, the oral historian Janet McCalman in her book Struggletown, documents how people perceived it was the men who were used to employment who suffered not just financially, but their esteem. McCalman cites her informants as saying, ‘The ones who didn’t have anything before, well they just went along with it’; it was ‘those that had money and came down’ who suffered . Those who were accustomed to periodic periods of unemployment had developed the techniques of survival, they willing to accept charity and had become acclimatized to the stigmata of poverty and unemployment. Weelwright and Buckley suggest the development of a distinct caste system developing during this period with the poor people being assigned a lower caste status by those more fortunate . McCalman describes the same phenomena, describing how, “an army of outcasts had suddenly appeared, not carrying leprosy or syphilis but poverty”, these she describes as the new caste of untouchables . Some of the attitudes towards these people by those more fortunate are reflected in two key attitudes of the period. The first attitude is illustrated by a Victorian magistrate in his remark following the conviction of two men for their part in an anti – eviction demonstration, “It is the fault of many persons themselves that they are not working at present. There is nothing to hinder people from seeking work and doing something if they really desire it.” Macintyre, also depicts the attitude of those in authority towards the poor in his description of a ganger in middle-class Melbourne suburb of Hawthorn who abused his workers (‘I want some bloody work from you two faced f….. bastards’) and lunged at one of them with a spanner; his victim was imprisoned for defending himself with a shovel . The second attitude was one attributed to a proportion of ‘ordinary people’. It was argued that relief must be distanced, impersonalised, organised by authorities. McCalman takes describes the sentiment that if an ordinary person helped one (needy unemployed) there were hundreds of others who might impose their needs on one’s scarce resources: ‘tramps have signals-the word gets around that you’re a soft touch’ . Both these suggested attitudes hinge on a concept of respectability, central to people’s perceptions during the period. Those more fortunate were still able to cling to this central concept of respectability, whilst those starving and without a roof over their head were more likely to come to the realisation that, however desirable it might be, respectability alone did not ensure the survival. Again, McCalman gives some insight into the issues surrounding respectability. From an ‘ordinary persons’ perspective, ‘those who kept to the rules of respectability were safe to help; they would use their sustenance properly and try to keep clean. Above all their pride would deter them from making excessive demands.’ Weelwright and Buckley suggest that the poor got little sympathy from those in authority and that they were ostracised as untouchables. There are sources such as McCalman and Macintyre that do suggest that this was often the case, however, the examples listed above highlight the darker deeds of Australians dealing with a national crisis. It is important to note that although these attitudes were prevalent during the period there are also many sources that demonstrate a sincere effort to help by benevolent societies and charitable organisations. Examples of goodwill, and the good work of benevolent societies and charitable organisations can also be referenced, however, they continually faced a deficit in resources. The problem with charity was the stigmata attached. Case histories compiled by relieving organisations confirm that applicants only came to them when they had exhausted all other sources of support from family and friends, and usually after they were deeply in debt to shopkeepers and landlords . The more common form of assistance was direct and personal. An employer keeps on a superfluous employee and a housewife finding some food for a neighbor. The gift relationship did serve as a form of social affirmation, but was unpredictable. Kindly responses by some failed to influence the greater public conscious; which was still strongly influenced by the work ethic; slow to accept that work was not available; wrapped up in the idea of equality of sacrifice and quick to pick up on the short comings of the recipients of sustenance. Disregarding whom was responsible for aiding the poor, children went to school hungry, families were malnourished, and people were deprived of a basic standard of living. For these reasons it is impossible to deviate from Weelwright and Buckley’s claim that the darkest days of the depression represented misery, ill health and deprivation for the poor people. The second conclusion Weelwright and Buckley draw was that there was ‘little tangible gain, except in volume of production’ during this period. The context of this comment is cautionary, that to compare the recovery with the depths of the depression is to exaggerate it . Economic recovery beg...