The Connecticut labor news., 1921-09-16
AMERICAN FAMILY?
Practical Bearing Shown When At tempt Is Made to Determine
 Wages.

American wage earner? The ques- ton has immediate and practical bearings when 1t IS attempted to estl- mate the budget of a Worklngman $ family for purposes Of determining a fair wage. For several years 1t has been generally accepted that the aver age wage earner's family consists oi hve-normally the husband, Wltc and three children under II years Ot age.
 On this assumption various bud gets have been made up, as for eN,, ample the Substance leVeI' and minimum comfort" level budgets. commission, for instance, i'll 1914 de termined a substance budget al $87o43, which in May, 1920 (the peak of the price rise), increased to $I,76425. Similarly, the minimum comfort budget prepared by the Philadelphia bureau ot municipal re search in 1919 stood at $I,992.47 in May. 1920. The comfort budget sub mitted by Prof. Osburn to the Ma tional war labor board, corrected to inc same date, was $2,52o.l4.
 All these budgets were based on the, family of five theory as estab- lished by the L. ;. bureau ot labor statistics.
 The basis has been used generally by public and semi-publc organlza- tons in estimating the wage neces- sary to maintain the subsistence or the minimum comfort level
 As noted in the Industrial Review of this service, July 7, 1921, the m dustrial relations committee of Phil adelphia Chamber of Commerce has made a study, based on census sta 4:- he theory.
 The fallacy of using figures for tke cost of living for a family of five as a specific basis for the determ1na- ton of minimum or average wage scales" said the Philadelphia com mittee, lis apparent for the following
 It is difficult to determine the basis of living which may be consid- cred suitable and satisfactory for the family of an American worker. 1h1S is evidenced by the cost of difference in the figures given from the two sources quoted above.
 "The average person engaged III gainful occupation III this country does not support family Ot hVe, and those persons who have three or more children, are, as a rule, only
 
 lives to support that number.
 "It is impossible under existing conditions for all workers, skilled and unskilled, to receive a minimum an nual pay, or even average pay, equal to the living cost for a family, of I've" :"
 According to the U. s. census, the total population of the country was oo,556, 52I. in 1910. Of this total, 38,- I67,336 were gainfully employed These figures bear out the conten- ton of the committee in showing that one out of an average 2.37 persons was a wage earner of some sort.
 Although totals for the industrial population have not yet been pre- pared by the census bureau for 1920 an estimate has been made for 1917. In this year there were 43,282,9II persons engaged in some gainful oc- cupation If this figure IS applied to the total population i'll 1920 of Ioo,- o8,ooo it is found that the average number of persons supported by one ably an overestimate as there was an undoubted growth of industrial popu- alton between 1917 and 1920.
 While census figures bear out the contention of the Philadelphia cham Der of commerce committee, there are certain notifications which may be applied to their statements, these figures, therefore, indicate that each worker of the country need only earn an average of about three-ffths of the amounts stated earlier Ill order that every group of five may have the support called for on a basis of reasonable living standards"
 This contention is open to question since the removal of two persons from a family of five does not re move two-ffths of the expense. There are certain fixed charges that remain substantially the same for family of three as for family of five. This is obvious to anyone familiar with overhead either in business or house hold economy.
 Another question which may be ap piled to the problem of the size of the workingman' family relates to the support of those families which contain number of non-wage earn CTS above the average fOt the coun- try. If all wages were determined on a basis of one and one-half de pendents for each wage earner, hard ships would be imposed upon work CTS having a larger number of de- pendents.
 The underlying problem seems to be whether an attempt should be made to establish an ideal minimum wage which, according to the com mittee quoted, industry is unable to pay, or whether those families hay ing more than the average number of dependents must subsist on an in adequate income.
 An arbitration board in Kansas City in dealing with building trades dispute has recently handed down a decision accepting the theoretical family of five and has granted wages considerably higher than those gen orally prevailing. The board states, that, "a budget setting forth the mini mum requirements of an average family consisting of husband, Wlte and three children below the age ot "a years and following similar bud get established by the United States bureau of labor e.atistics, was given careful attention. In no craft will the wage produce an annual income re ouired by the budget These condl- tions caused the board to fix a seal which many may consider too high, but. if conditions are to rema1n sub stantially as they are at present, the board is of the opinion that the scale is not too high and, if future cond1- lions as to living and other materials affecting building trades warrant It
 co,1,a fairness will