This study of the low income inhabitants of Jakarta Indonesia covered 3 overlapping groups. A pretest questionnaire was used to interview 518 persons in low income occupations. A later full scale survey covered an additional 233 people was drawn at random from low income neighborhoods. In addition an open-ended interview with 30 persons was designed to provide an indication of attitudes on some issues. Survey data on income are always subject to significant error but 3 facts emerged clearly from the survey data: in absolute terms the poor of Jakarta were poor indeed for their typical income was Rp 200-300 a day in 1972 (equivalent to $0.50-$0.75); in relation to the rural poor they were substantially better off and some were in comparison almost rich; and there were great differences among the poor differences which may have become wider in the last few years. The full scale survey confirmed the absolute proverty of the group surveyed. None of the respondents was able to buy meat or fish 66% ate only rice and vegetables only 27% had at least 3 sets of clothing and only 24% spent money for recreation. The problems with the water supply meant that over 2/3 of the sample had to purchase drinking water which is a significant expense. The income was not only low; for many occupations income was quite erratic. Indonesia unlike other Asian countries where Islam is the dominant religion has a substantial number of women in the labor force. Since the full scale survey was designed to cover household heads and many women in the labor force would not be the principal income earners that survey provides only some indirect information on womens work. Yet several facts were striking. In the sample the largest group of women were in petty trade and their income approached that of men in the same occupation. Only 3 of the 13 women in this activity were currently married suggesting that most of them were not supplementing family income but were the principal earners. Prostitution seemed to have become a significant income source and an index of social disorganization in the city. Women were not significantly represented in other low income occupations. Where a few of them did work primarily in service jobs their incomes were substantially below those of men. Poor as they were the migrants to the city were better off on the average than they had been in the rural areas. Their reported income had increased by over 2/3. About 1/2 of the migrants had come to Jakarta from the surrounding area of West Java and 1/3 form neighboring Central Java. There were great income differences within the group of income poor by occupation and even more within occupations. Those who were the worst off in the city in general also seemed to have been the poorest before migration. There was a high degree of stability in occupations. The migrants ties to others from the same region were related to their continued connection with the rural areas from which they came. The level of education was quite high.