Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-05-15
SHOES COST HALF
SALEPR|CE, CLAIM
w. Jett Lauck Declares Diff.
ference Passes Into
Form of Profits.

The actual cost Of producing a pair
one-half the price paid by the con-
sumner, the balance passing in the
form of profits into hands through
which the goods pass. according to
w. Jett Lauck. former secretary of
the War Labor Board, in a survey OF
present conditions in the boot and
shoe industry made public today.
Mr.. Lauck. as consulting economist
OF the brotherhoods and unions, made
a detailed study Of "profiteering" in
every line OF American industry in
support of the demand for q minimum
living wage Of at least $4,000 per year
for railway workers.
Claiming that the entire cost OF
manufacturing shoes for which the
consumer paid $3.50 in 1917 was only
$3.46. Mr.. Lauck presents in his report
detailed analysis Of the cost and
pront in each operation from the un-
finished hide down to the product in
the merchants window.
Labor Gets Little.
The contention that wage increases
given labor are responsible for the
amazing price advance is declared by
labor leaders to be shattered by the
report. which shows that OF repre-
sentative $3.50 increase in prices
during the war on a pair Of shoes
labor received only Is cents. or less
than one-twentieth of the advance.
Mr.. Lauck places the blame for the
"profiteering" in shoes jointly on the
packer. tanner, manufacturer, whole.
saler and retailer, with the heaviest
burden of guilt on the leather pro-
ducers.
THE retailers margin Of profit.
declared Mr.. Lauck. 'is by far the
largest. absorbing over one-third the
price, but it does not show so large
an increase as the packers and tan
ners' profits. AS the largest tanner
les are indirectly a part of the big
packers varied interests. 1t can be
said without danger Of contradiction
that their proflteering is very large
ly responsible for the high price OF
shoes.
ARetailer Gets 10. Per Cent"
1.-THE retailer has increased his mar
gin l02 per cent. or $LS2 per pair. or
the basis Of shoes selling for $3.50
The manufacturer appears to have in
creased his profits less than the others
| although 1t should be mentioned that
he took his highest profits in 1916
! during which year they amounted tc
| twice the amount he took in 1914"
| Condemning the shoe trade for as.
! cribing wage advances as the com
! pelling cause for the fantastic price
| increases. Mr.. Lauck said that in 1914
! all the labor costs. from the hide tC
the finished shoe, absorbed less thar
| one sixth Of the price paid by the con.
| sumer, while in 1917 this share of la.
! Dor had decreased to one ninth of the
/ price.
/ wage increase Of IS per cent aftel
1914, he asserted, WAS responsible fol
a direct increase Of merely Is cents ir
a pair Of shoes.
| Cost OF Mems Shoes.
/ Showing how the cost Of pair Of
mems shoes increased from IS to $3.50
Mr.. Lauck revealed that the cost o.
hide used in n pair Of shoes jumped
from s1.03 in 1914 to $1.44 in 1917. Of
1913 per cent the packers margin from
| cents to 46 cents. or ATS per cent
tanning material from 20 cents to 2:
cents. or 10 per cent: labor in tanning
from cents to II cents. or 33 per cent
factory expense from s cents to II cents
or 37.5 per cent: administration ex
pnnse from . cents to cents. or 10t
per cent: tanners profit from 10 cent
to 33 cents. or 221 per cent ; shoe manu-
| featuring material from % cents to 8:
cents. or II per cent; labor in shot
manufacturing from II cents to 83 cents
or 1o per cent: overhead from 80 cent
to 81 cents. or 23.3 per cent; manu-
facturer's profit from "a cents to g.
cents. or 54.2 per cent. and retail prof
from Sl.1S to $3.50, or 1922 per cent