The sun., 1919-08-31

''~e~>s - tAtG AhAhCA ANoa cNahOnAu VI
living"7 This veteran question is put
on parade in the July issue of tn,
Labor Revieic, published by the
United States Department of Labor
by ROYAL MEEKER, Commissioner Of
Labor Statistics. He admits at thu
outset that 1t is a difficult problem
and particularly so In these times Of
abnormal prices; but he goes to Il
resolutely, baslng his findings on the
Of BOO department
agents who looked into the receipt.
and expenditures of 1900 familie.
In seventy-one large and twenty-si,
small towns.
= One Of the first Of Mr.. MEEKEn's
is that, contrary to 9
rather common belief, the American
family does not suffer from over
feeding:
I'VE can say with confidence that
II requires to-day an expenditure Of
from so to so cents per man per day
for food to secure a we'll balanced
diet sufficient In the number of cal
cries and in variety. This means
that American families consisting of
husband, wife and three children be-
low the age of IL years. living in
large and medium sized cities, must
spend about 500 per annum for food
TO keep themselves properly nour-
ished for health and efficiency. This
expenditure for food goes with in
comes OF from $500 to 1850, SO
we may say that American families
on the average are not fully nour-
'-N~S WITT the,- yearly income
reaches $500. These figures do not
indicate that our people are to-day
suffering from eating too much meat.
or even too much of other foods not
so expensive. The average income
aud the modal income both fall well
below $500. The mode is about
$3.50 and the average not greatly
higher. Conclusions must not be too
hastily drawn from these figures
They do not mean that our working
population is dying of slow starva-
ton: nothing of the sort. But they
do indicate that the workers Of
America are obliged to live on n
diet too restricted and monotonous for
the maintenance of as high a degree
of efficiency and health as ought to
be maintained as a reasonable mini
mum I am Of the opinion that the
most efficacious remedy Is not higher
wages. but rather improved systems
for distributing and marketing food
stuffs and the education of house
keepers in the art of keeping house,
with emphasis on diets. Housekeep-
ing is not exactly lost art II is
one OF the arts that has not yet been
completely found"
This dictum that a family of five
cannot live on less than $50 worth OF
food each month may arouse protest,
from some domestic wizards WHIT
claim to keep physical and menta
energy at high peak on a diet of pea
nuts. lettuce leaves and happy
thoughts; but most of our reader.
will incline to award a medal to the
housewife whose grocery and meat
bills are kept down to $1.67 a day
when there are five In family.
In the matter of clothing, says Mr.
MEEKER, the American workingman
as rule is not extravagant. For hi.
own raiment he spends from $50 L
$3.50 a year, according to his income
A married man who makes $112 {
month does not spend more thar
$3.50 of 1t for clothes; and surely
$50 year is not too much in the va
ried American climate. 1t is no
enough. says Mr.. MEEKER, that a mar
ohAOuAa AhEO ChOu6h SlOlnluk W pro
tect him from heat, cold and precipi
tation. for at is repugnant to our
sense of right that the working classes
should dress in a way to set then
apart from the more well to do" Mr.
MEEKER might have added that II
these times the workIngman In Ger
tain trades is distinguished from tn,
luckless clerk or lawyer by the fac
that he wears a silk shirt at IS Will,
the other fellow sticks to cotton.
How about woman's reckless ex
pendltures for adornment? we cal
hear the cynlcs ask. By and large
according to Mr.. MEEKER, this Is an
other fiction, for he declares tina
wives spend less for clothes thar
husbands until We reach the higher
income. about $500 a year" wher
economy is necessary it is mad,
largely at the expense OF the wife,
wardrobe. ''The first baby makes Q
cut In the mothers clothes mona,