The daily Alaska citizen., 1919-08-14

l " ING.


 Who is to bIame-if "blame" is the right Word-for the high cost of living? The question is disturbing one just at present. We know the watering of the dollar, due to the enormous war loans, is partly responsible. To the extent that prices are high because the dollar io worth less than it used to be, we are helpless
 What practically concerns us is to know whether prices are higher than they need to be because oi prohteerng or a Wasteful sys- tenn of distribution or both.
 The question o1 prohteering obviously cannot be settled oHhand. Each suspicious case requires its own investigation as in the case ol the price Oi cement, which is now be ing inquired into by the State of Kansas. Just as obviously there is an element of eX- pcnSc i'll the delivery system that stores gen. craIy feel obliged to maintain. But this par tCuar item IS open to the individual prefer cnCe of the consumer Ii he doesn't wish to pay for the convenience of having his goods delivered he can usually find store that does not maintain d delivery system.
 There remains to be considered the gen eraI expense Of getting goods from the pro- duccr to the consumer. W. H. Ingersoll presents, ill the National Civic Federation Re view, a diagram based on an inquiry in the early part of l9l6 The products of forty factories producing foods, drugs, hardware supplies, house furnishings, shoes, clothing and similar material were traced from maker to user. The diagram was made up from the averages thus obtained.
 No excessive profits were disclosed The manufacturer got percent, the wholesaler } and the retailer 0. The curious fact how ever, that 1O the dollar paid by the purchaser only thIrty-SeVen percent went to pay the cost of production. That is, of the consumer s dollar fifty cents went for cost of production and profits. The other fifty cents paid the ex- pcnSc. The manufacturers selling cost was Here the biggest item was the retailers ex- pense. Che manufacturers selling cost was twelve CentS the wholesalers expense ten cents. It cost the retailer tWenty-eight cents for every dollars worth of goods sold.
 Mir, lngerSOll pOinnts out that no way has been found to get rid of the wholesaler and retailer in doing business. Sometimes their names are changed. But every device that has been tried, whether cooperative in stitutons, chain stores, mail order houses or what not have to include somewhere the work done by the wholesaler and retailer
 In view of this experience he suggests that we stop chasing rainbows and running ''iINl iNNolttiOiiellJ oINo llie'l e'l lN'Oilt- tionary only on paper. The only hope, he thinks, is in improving the existing system.
 The greatest opportunity for improve mcnt he believes is the slow turnover of stocks. If merchant has his money tied up in piece of goods for a long period of time, he is forced to ask high price for it to cover his carrying charges, his expense of doing business. He writes:
 In my experience, have seen a moder-
 ately successful drug store that was turn
 ing its stock barely twice year come un-
 der new management and do five times the
 volume of business on half the stock-in
 other words, turn it's stock ten times in-
 stead ot twice. It was able to give far bet
 ter values to it's customers and yet make far
 more itself.
 Great study and preparation goes into production. Technical and engineering schools give special training to young men that tends to make production cheaper. Much less at tention has been paid the matter of distrib,l- ton. In MT. Ingersols opinion there is req sonable ground to believe that more careful training in the art of merchandising will re- suit in a quicker turnover of stocks and so in