THE COST OF LIVING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18414, 21 May 1920, Page 4

THE COST OF LIVING.

A coREJisroxDENT whose letter is published id another column writes from Wellington in criticism of our comments on ibe Government Statistician’s report on the cost of living as published in tbe April “ Abstract of Statistics,” and some of his remarks seem to call for reply. He asks if we are not aware that “ stocks of tea which some months ago be purchased at a comparatively low figure are being sold to-day At a lower retail price than the wholesale price of the stocks now' coming on the market.” This apparently is intended as a reference to our statement that the Statistician’s retail prices have been in sonic instances below the wholesale quotation given by the same authority. From timo to time we have given instances of this sort of thing, not only applying to tea but to other commodities- We are not aware that it is the practice of retailors to undercut the wholesale price, and if our correspondent can supply us with the name of any retailer who does so, we have no doubt that tbe opportunity will bo seized with joy by readers of this journal. Our correspondent is good enough to correct our arithmetic in regard to the Statistician's basis of arriving at an ail-xouud increase in tnc

cost of living of 63 per oenti, but like ourselves he finds there is a discrepancy. We, through an ovorsight in rsgard to the grouping of percentages, arrived at a figure 3.83 in excess of the Government Statistician’s estimate. Our correspondent after correcting our oversight, is 1.95 below it, so that honours are fairly even. We hnvo not at hand a copy of Mr Malcolm Eraser’s 1915 report) in extenso, hut wo have the Year Book summary, in which the statement of weighting percentages is rather hazy and indefinite. Our correspondent, however, seems to miss the point of our comments, which was that while information concerning 34 per cent of household expenditure is supplied by retailers who have the best of reasons for not divulging the extent of their profits and while 41 per cent is a subject for guesswork rather than definite estimate, it is scarcely safe to acceptl the Government Statistician’s index number as an infallible guide for the regulation •of wages throughout the Dominion, as is apparently the case. Our complaint all along has been that the Statistician has never given the public adequate data upon which the war-timo increase in the cost of living may be estimated —at all events with the accuracy required f6r the important uses that are made of his figures. This complaint stands.