St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1902-02-15
THE COST OF LIVING.

The COST OF LIVING.
Consistent Scale Of Ex-
penditure.
There are few women who careful-
ly estimate the actual cost OF the
daily living of their families and
logically adjust it to their income.
In estimating the cost of living the
necessaries of life, which should be
the first things counted, are not al
ways estimated in their place. 1t
should be remembered that neces-
saries are not always the same for
different persons. What is neces-
sity for one woman living in GER
tain way may be luxury to another,
who lives in much simpler manner.
1t is the duty of everyone to adopt
q scale of expenditure in consistency
with her income, says the New York
Tribune. The taste and even the
health of individuals cannot regulate
the amount of money they should ex-
pend. In time of sickness, when ex-
ira money must be used, there should
be the most rigid economy, wherever
economy can be exercised, to meet
the extra expense of the family, or
bankruptcy will be the result, if the
income is limited. Literary and artis-
tic tastes are commendable in man
or woman, but the possession of such
taste without means to crafty it
is no excuse for exercising it. The
taste, if INDUCED in, calls for rigid
economy in other directions, when
the income is limited one.
A great many women appear to
lay out scale of living in consisten-
cy merely with their tastes, and pro-
coed to adopt it, without counting
the cost. They seem to imagine that
in some way they will escape the
logical results of their acts and live
with an income which is wholly in
adequate to their expenses. 1t is
such household management as this
which is responsible for the various
defalcations and other populations
that are SO frequently discerned in
business houses, banks and in pub.
lie office. 1t is the old story of some
extravaganza to which so many OF
the disgraceful occurrences must be
laid. Every intelligent woman whose
husband lives on salary knows what
his income is, and she also knows,
or should know, at what scale she
is using money in household matters
She knows whether she is living be-
yond her husbands income, and she
is then as responsible as he is if he
yields to the temptation which impels
him to sacrifice honor and take that
| which does not belong to him. The
woman in such case cannot plead
81 did not know when the disgrace
of wrongdoing is brcslght home tc
the husband. It is her duty as wife
| to know how much her husband car
afford to spend and to regulate he1
expenditure within that sum.
1t is often easier for a woman tc
| retrench in her household expendi
| lures than it is for her husband te
| ask her to do so. Pride and many
| things tempt him to keep the house
hold expenditures at a generous limit
| and it is the wife's duty to see thai
this generosity is not imposed upon
There are undoubtedly cases of thu
"closeness" of men who, like Mr.
Barkis, are ''little nearer" in mat
tiers of household expenditure thar
they should be, but we do not believ'
these cases are as common as thos'
where the man of the house is tempt
I'd to be more generous than h
should be to his home. The goot
old-fashioned time when the majorit.
of refined women gloried in doinl
their own work in the best and mos
careful way seems Ito be past. W.
often hear inquiries like the follow
ing: "What should family with al
income of $1,000 year pay for
servant?' In old-fashioned times NJ
mistress of house with an income
of $1,000 or even $4,000 would thinl
of keeping a servant, but she Woult
do her own work, and it costs to-da.
almost as much as it did to keep
servant so years ago. It is much east
er to do the work of a house to-da.
than it was in the old-fashioned days
when our grandmothers did thei
work with their own dainty hands
and the price of servant, with he
board, is proportionately create
than it ever was. "a wise womal
looketh well to the ways of he
household" s'The heart of her hus
band doth safely trust in her, so tina
he shall have no need of spoil"