The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1919-08-19
S H O E S +!


Our readers were interested in the arti-
cles on shoes in our last issue. Some were
alarmed lest the price of shoes should adj
vance from So to So per pair "in the
twinkling of an eye," and ran as fast as
legs would permit them to stock up on
shoes. Others kept their heads and decid-
ed to "think it over" We have no quar-
rel with either class of good citizens, this
is a free country, and all may follow the
course their judgment dictates.
In the articles printed in our last issue
one quoting the Federal Trade Commits
sion, concluded that ''leather manufactur-
ers, the manufacturers and retail
shoe merchants" were all making
unprecedented profits, while the
other attempted to show that the mer-
chants profits were extremely small, ev-
en- so small as to be ridiculous in the light
of present conditions, and then launched
the boom for higher shoes this fall, stat
ig that the price would advance from ~
to So per pair.
If Mr.. Bronn's figures are correct,
shoes ought to be higher, and a collec-
ton should be taken up for the shoe mer-
chant for his patriotism to date, because
no merchant can do business and pros
per on four per cent profit. But the good
Lord and everybody else knows that shoes
are too high now, and a further raise
will do nothing but breed germs of dis
content, and work hardships on the peo-
pie. Let us look at Mr.. Bronn's figures.
He claims profit of hut A per cent on
shoe that costs S1.75 and retails for $3.50
allowing 26 per cent of the sales for doing
business. There is rs cents of profit on
this sale, after deducting 26 per cent of
the selling price, or 65 cents, leaving net
profit of 10 cents which is per cent on
the selling price or nearly 6 per cent on
the cost price. 1t does not make much
difference to the people, and we do not
think it makes any difference to the mer-
chant whether the profit is figured on
the cost or the selling price. The amount
of profit, and not the per cent of profit
is the meat in the nut The second case:
A shoe that costs $3.05 retails for SIS, leav-
ing net profit of $1.95. Deduct 26 per
cent of SIS or $1.30, leaves net profit of
65 cents, Ii per cent on the selling price,
and over 20 per cent on the cost price. Mr..
DTOIliI CldlitlS tIldt SuCu q SIiOC WOuiu Hoe
sell for S.. and that $3.50 per pair is ex-
IRENE, while on the other hand the report
of the Federal Trade commission states
that such have sold as high as $500 per
pair, in which case the profit would be 80
per cent on the sale price or 70 per cent
on the cost In other words the shoe mer-
chant on such sale would make $2.13 on
$3.05 of his money invested and $685. of
the money he received from the person to
whom he sold the shoe in advance of the
cost. In other words the moment Mr..
Patron handed the shoe merchant 81, he
got his money back, his 26 per cent for do
ing business, $213 clear, which is 30 per
cent on the money he paid for the shoe,
the money he has paid for doing business,
and the advance Mr.. Patron has paid him
or just 70 per cent of the money he has
invested. But why cavil at figures; why
attempt camouflage? Why not get
down to basis where all can understand
it, and work it out together. In Mr..
Bronn's argument two facts are evident
He cuts the profit so low that people will
not believe him and the price of shoes is
too high. Then why are they too high?
That's the point He says task the pack
err" The Federal Trade commission says
all are in combine.
Since the appearance of these articles
we have been informed that the shoe men