Evening star., 1943-07-11
Food Costs Held
Relatively Low
By John H. Cline.

real facts of this question. This prefer
ence for propaganda, as against truth,
has been so conspicuous that 1t might
almost be said that the facts have been
deliberately ignored because they refute
rather than support the claim that prices
have been outrunning the ability Of the
people to buy enough food. But, what
ever the motive behind this studied
avoidance of the truth, the result is that
the country now is embarked on costly
program of subsidization and price roll
backs which is based on flagrantly dis
torted conception of the ability of the
American people to buy food with their
current incomes.
To large extent this misconception
is based on misleading or wholly in
accurate statements by labor leaders
seeking higher wage rates and by Gov
ernment officials who are unduly sensi-
tive to the demands of pressure groups.
John l.. Lewis, for instance, has asked
the country to believe that miners are
close to starvation because Of their in
ability to buy food at prevailing high
prices. And the War Labor Board has
issued a statement contending that If
food prices are not rolled back 1t will
have to lease the privations" Of the large
number of low wage earners by an up
ward revision of the minimum wages
necessary to correct substandards OF
living" The WLB does not specify what
it means by low wage earners, nor does
it make the obviously important distinc-
ton between actual wages, including
overtime, and the wage rates paid for
straight time. AS matter OF fact, the
whole approach Of the WLB and other
administration officials to the question OF
the ability of workers to buy food at
prevailing wage rates has involved fiat
refusal to give any weight to overtime
wage payments. So far as the WLB Is
concerned, a dollar earned by worker
for overtime is worthless when he goes to
the store to buy groceries Obviously,
however, if the problem be one of main
tanning the ability of workers to buy food,
this attitude is absurd.
Subsidies Are Infiationary.
Nor is it less absurd to contend that
people with low incomes can be helped
only through the device Of price roll
backs. When the price OF any COM
modify is reduced, every buyer benefits
the profteers, the highly-paid workers
and those whose earnings are small. Yet
for the avowed purpose of aiding this last
group, the Government says that 1t must
give new wage increases disguised as
price reductions to everybody. And at
the same time it solemnly proclaims
that it wants to prevent imitation.
The undeniable. but generally ignored,
fact of the matter is that there can be
no justification for general reductionin
food prices. The person whose income has
remained stationary, or who has had only
a slight increase, needs help. But the
great majority of people-those who
make up the "average"-are paying pro-
portionately less for food today than at
any other time in the past 25 years.
The Bureau of Agricultural Economics
of the Department of Agriculture,
thoroughly reputable organization. Is the
authority for this statement. But its
factual voice has been drowned out by
the clamor of politicians bent upon CIV
ing a handout-at public expense-to
everybody, not just to those who need
relief.
The findings of the BAE are con-
tanned in report prepared several weeks
ago, which constitutes serious effort to
unearth the facts pertaining to the exist
ing relationship between food prices and
consumer incomes. And these facts are
rather startling. Retail food prices, the
report says, are at a record low in rela-
ton to consumer income. During the
period from 1885 to 1889 food basket"
representing the average annual con-
sumption per person during that period,
cost the average consumer % per cent
of his income. In other words, % per
cent of his income went for food and
78 per cent remained for other purposes.
But by the end of 1912 that same food
basket cost the average consumer only
16 per cent of his income. This means
that because of the increase in earnings
last year, the proportion of total income
going for food actually was per cent
less than in the base period, assuming
the same kinds and quantities of food
we're purchased.
People Eating More.
In reality, of course, this assumption
Is not valid. The average consumer to-
day is buying more food. he is getting
better quality food and he Is spending
more money for food through expensive
outlets such as restaurants But even
the picture as to actual food expendi-
lures is favorable, amounting for all
civilians in l935-1939 to % per cent of in
come. This had dropped to 81 per cent
of the high income level reached in
March of 1943. In other words, with
people buying more food, better food,
and eating in more expensive places, a
slightly smaller percentage Of their in
come went for food in March Of i943
than in the base period.
Against this factual background, and
with the propaganda put aside for the
moment, the administrations rollback
program takes on its appropriate po-
itical coloration. Instead Of attempting
to do something for those who need and
deserve help in meeting their food bills.
the administration insists on a subsidy
program which amounts to another wage
increase, and therefore will tend to stim-
ulate the inf1ationary forces already
hard at work in this country. And this
is being done, not because the facts are
unknown, but because the men who