OCR Text |
Show M PI M , , - COST OPHVfNG ' x t Most of us fall eAiily into the mistake of taking the relative price of commodMes as a relative measure of the cost of living. In offhand, XTealing with the subject that is pretty nearly inevit-ablev""Y"et inevit-ablev""Y"et it is a mistake even as to wage earners' familie, that are the common subject of cost of living discussions. For example, from July, 1914, to June, 1918, commodity prices in the United States, taken as a whole, rose about a hundred hun-dred per cent. But a recent report concludes that the cost of living for an average wage earning family increased fifty-five per cent in the same time. Rent, which takes about a fifth of the average wage earner's income, rose only fifteen per cent. Fuel and light rose only forty-five per cent. In every family above actual poverty there are sundries consisting of reading matter, movies, street car fares, doctor's bills which, generally speaking, have increased but little. Every family above the actual hread line has a much greater command over its income than offhand coat of living statements commonly assume. Eyen in the leading item, food, a less expensive expen-sive article, equally nourishing and palatable, can often be sub-stitutel sub-stitutel for a more expensive one. It is only in very poor families that cost of living necessarily keeps in close correspondence with commodity prices. Cost of living studies gsnerally assume that the whole income is spent. Wherever there was a surplus tlje family must, as a rule ,have lived in such a way that many retrenchments were practicable. There are many families whose cost of living now need not be any higher than it was in 1914. There are millions of families that can readily offset higher comjnodity prices to a great extent. Saturday Evening Post. |