Evening star., 1934-01-10
What the Statistics Show.

While denying to Government en-
ployes a wage increase for another six
months, the Presidents long awaited
proclamation yesterday succeeded ad-
mirably in presenting the futility Of
linking wage-raise policies directly with
cost-of-living statistics as these sta
tiStics are at present compiled.
Government salaries, in the first
place, were not based on ost-of-Hving
data. Had they been so based they
would have risen rapidly during the
boom days of 1928 and 1929.
When the salaries were cut the econ
oray bill, however, linked the cut with
the decrease in the cost of living for
the whole United States, providing that
when such living costs rose again to
within fifteen per cent or less of the
first six months of 1928 salaries would
be restored proportionately.
But the cost of living, as everybody
knows, depends on where one lives as
well as upon how one lives. Govern
ment employees who live in Washington,
for instance, must inert higher costs
of living than those who live in some
other sections or cities Of the country,
as the living survey demonstrates.
1t was decided and wisely so, to de-
termine the cost of living in Washing
ton today as compared with 1928, as
well as to determine the average cost
of living for the United States as a
whole. The Presidents proclamation
reveals the result. The cost of living
for all classes of Government workers
in Washington today is only 14.6 per
cent below the cost of living for the
first six months of 1928-a year when
the boom was nearing its peak. For
the country at large the cost of living
is still 21.l per cent below the base
year-1928.
This means that the Federal worker
in Washington has suffered full Is
per cent statutory salary cut, though
his cost of living has decreased only
l46 per cent. In theory, he should be
entitled to four-tenths of one per cent
increase now. But the President must
use the cost of living statistics for the
country at large. So the cost of living
statistics for Washington are of no
practical benefit, except to illustrate
the inequities of the pay cut.
These inequities are the more glaring
by reason of the well-nown fact that
a great number of Federal workers have
suffered larger reduction In pay than
Is per cent. The procedure last July
was to discharge as many as possible
and furlough the rest. E. Claude Bab-
cock, president Of the American Feder-
alton Of Government Employees, has es-
timated that furlough pay cuts have
run as high as SO per cent; that the
possible average will be II per cent-in
addition to the Is per cent statutory
cut. Many employees, therefore, have
experienced a 26 per cent pay cut, while
their cost of living has decreased since
AoSo OAAAJ 4E.O PCA SCL4I. SuCIl employees
are not only due the restoration of pay
in full, but should have a salary pro-
notwithstanding to the economy laws
own theory of fixing salaries.
1t is surprising that no attempt has
been made-or, if it has been made, no
results have been announced-to dis
cover the full reduction in pay suffered
by Federal employees through the
statutory cut plus the furlough cut.
Such statistics have a very pertinent
bearing on the situation, yet they are
unknown to the public.
The difference between cost of liv-
ing in Washington and elsewhere should
certainly be recognized in future legis-
lation. If cost of living is to be made
the basis of salary, it is palpably ab-
surd not to increase the salary of an
employe because somebody else's cost
of living is still low. The only i'm
portant cost of living for the Govern
ment employe in Washington is the cost
of living in Washington.