COST OF LIVING.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 172, 23 July 1929, Page 3

COST OF LIVING.

FOR WORKER'S FAMILY. NEARLY £5 14/ A WEEK ? WATERSIDERS CLAIM INCREASE. In stating the case of the Waterside Workers' Federation, which is asking for higher wages, Mr. J. Roberts told the Arbitration Court in Wellington that on the last occasion when the dispute was before the Court he presented cost of living figures dealing with house rents and the commodities required to maintain a man, his wife, and two children, and the prices of the commodities. Before estimating the commodity requirements of a family per week, the Watersiders' Federation in 1923-24 obtained family budgets not only from waterside workers but from workers engaged in other industries. In that year also they obtained a considerable amount of data in regard to house rentals, and they found.that for the worst type of house of three or four rooms the rentals were from £1 3/ to £1 7/6. Taking the four main centres, he believed the rentals would be higher than £1 7/6. He was of opinion that if a worker could obtain a four or fiveroomed house fit for habitation in Wellington for a weekly rental of £1 12/3 he would think he was getting a bargain. Only 16/ Allowed for Rent. In 1914, said Mr. Roberts, the Labour Department in its annual report published a diagram allocating the expenditure of the worker's wages into the different groups as follows:—Food, 34.13 per cent; clothing, 13.89;-fuel and light, 5.22; rent, 20.31; other items, 26.45; total, 100.00. "As far as I know the Court of Arbitration, to some extent at least, assesses the basic wage by this method up to the present time," said Mr. Roberts. "On that basis the proportion allowed for each group would be as follows:— Food and fuel, £1 11/4J per week; clothing, 11/4J; miscellaneous, £1 1/9*; rent, 16/1}; total, £4 0/8 per week. "With further reference to house rentals, it will be seen from the foregoing that house rent is put down at 16/ li; that is 20 per cent of £4 0/8. Everyone knows that it is impossible for any worker in any of the ports in New Zealand to obtain a house for that rental. We have obtained returns this year also, and these indicate that for a four or live-roomed house in any of the main centres throughout New Zealand at least £1 7/6 to £1 15/ is paid. "However, in the schedule of costs., we allow only £1 5/ per week for house rent, and may I say that in the cost of commodities generally we have underestimated rather than overestimated the quantity and prices of the commodities required by a family." He arrived' at the following weekly expenditure:—Rent, £1 5/; food, £1 17/11; clothing, £1 1/7; miscellaneous, £1 1/9; light and fuel, 7/8; total, £5 13/11*. No Allowance for Saving. "It would be an easy matter, and indeed very justifiahle, to add to the foregoing considerably. Take the amount the worker should save annually—put it down at 4/ per week, or £10 8/ per year. This is a very small amount to meet the requirements during periods of unemployment, sickness or accident, or during old age. Then there is the further question of a higher education for the worker's children, to which, I claim, they are entitled. This would cost at least an extra 2/ per week, and, if %ve add the" amount of the foregoing, it will be found that the wage necessary to maintain a working class family in a reasonable standard of living is £5 19/11*. "It must be understood also that under the foregoing scale there are no holidays for the workers. He must work 52 weeks in every year to obtain the standard of living I have indicated. There are no expenses allowed for a holiday, and I think the Court will agree that a worker is entitled to some respite from hard daily toil. "May. I say that I have compared these lists with retail prices for the last seven years, and I find that instead of prices being reduced they are slightly on the up grade. Four years ago the cost of these commodities would be £5 17/2. This indicates that the prices of commodities are not being reduced, but over all slightly increased. "Reliable information has been supplied to me that the original basis for our standard of living figures in New Zealand was taken from 09 families in 1914. At that time there were 172.000 families in New Zealand; therefore, the 69 families only represent .04 of the total number of families in the Dominion. "Can the Court," asked Mr. "rely to-day on the data obtained from 69 families in New Zealand which was supplied fifteen years ago? I submit it cannot, and some more commonsense method must be adopted in assessing the basic wage of the workers of this country."