Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-07-03
BY ROGER w. B.ABSO\.

RABSON PARK. Mass. July S.-A
few weeks ago 7 gave an interview
an the question of budgets. dis
GUESSING horh business budgets and
family budgets. My statements in
connection herewith have created q
large amount of criticism. especially
his comments on family budgets. The
following letter written 10 the Boston
Transcript is only one of hundreds re-
CeiVcd in connection Herewith:
'To the Editor of the Transcript: ~
Page 10 of your Saturday issue has
q budget by Mr.. Rabson for families
will an income OF s. 900 u year. lie
prefaceS this 10y stating that 33 per
cent of families have less than 5000
1t year.
I'm Mr.. I:ahsou's budget not one
cent is allowed for maintaining Il ear
In her words. more than 80 per cent
of families shouldn't have cars. ac-
cording to Mr. Babson. How will that
Strik" automobile manufacturers? Mr..
BdbNOn puts the maximum rent at sou
q month. SO more than IS per cent
of the families should pay less than
$50
MIR. Babson's budget II adopted ny
The United States. would bring the
worst panic and most lasting one We
have seon. Mr.. Bahson may he giving
statistics. but not common sense.
tSicnedl "DANIF,L l.. HANSON.
Boston. May 3"
MY sympathies are wholly with
these people who have criticized my
budgets They all give definite items
which should be increased. Most OF
the CRITICS insist that il IS impossible
for the average family t" get by on
the allotment which / have made.
Furthermore, | am helpless in explain
S.s,II. ia. cot t,kF n
allotment in question. None OF theSe
critics, however, suggest from what
allotment the additional amount de-
sired should be deducted. In other
words. the critics of my budget de-
mand greater allotment for certain
items. such as rent. clothing and au-
tomobile. and yet they refuse to allow
me to cut down any of the other items
or suggest that the family heads
should render to their employers and
the public better service SO as 10 earn
n greater income. The result of this
Is that it is impossihlc-With the
changes they suGgest-to make the
total come within the total income
considered.
From the above facts. three things
are Self-eVident: First. there Is gen
eral feeling that the budget allotments
] made are altogether too small Tor
rent. tiDt nlf.. hhlDllODlit anu WI tam
other items. This seems To be an non
est and universal riticiSln. Secondly,
only I; very small percentage OF the
families in the country have an IN
come of S. 900 or over. while the great
majority of families must get on with
a total of from 81 800 to SO 300, accord
ing 10 the number of workers IN the
family Thirdly, these two conditions,
and the fact that a multiplication ia
bic cannot he manipulated, means that
Someth hing * wrong. Ny conclusion IS
that budgets are Very little used ana
because thcy are not used many fanll
, lies are gradually nut constantly get
ting into debt The average family
apparently buys without any relation
to the budget and bases is purchases
on what its neichhors have rather
than on what it's own income is, In
dividual budgets cannot be increased
without increasing the total of the
items. which total is limited by the
income of the family. This means
that the head of the family must work
harder and more efficiently and thus
increase his income. Otherwise the
budget must stay practically as out
lined unless. of course. the FAMILY Is
willing To go into debt.
Should Watch 'Installment Purchases.
| would not urge 81 strongly the
use Of family budgets were it not for
the growth of the instalinent bust