THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1908. THE COST OF LIVING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14282, 3 August 1908, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1908. THE COST OF LIVING.

Tra suggestion contained in the proposal brought forward by the Hon. Mr Barr in the Legislative Council, that the Government should take into consideration tho devising of some practical i:iL>;isnirc.s to lessen tho heavy cost of living at present borne by the married workers as compared with the unmarried, will assuredly appeal to a 'largo section in the community as a laudable endeavour to advance the recognition of a very desirable principle. The abstract justice of N the appeal nude by Mr 13arr c-an hardly bo questioned. It becomes a serious ■matter for a State when its citizens shirk marriage and parental responsibility and when tho birth rate is low and diminishing. It is unfortunately the case, however, that it is upon the married worker, just by reason of the responsibilities ho has assumed, that the burden of making both ends meet at a time when employment is uncertain and the cost of living is liigh falls most heavily. Exceptions to the general rule being loft out of consideration, it- plainly costs the married worker, because of those dependent on him, much more to live than it (loos tlio unhampered and perhaps more selfish individual whose position in a much lass marked degree restricts his independence. In the circumstances it is not altogether surprising that the. argument should be advanced that, inasmuch as the miitried ■worker with a. family is a more useful asset than the single worker, the State should encourage him by doing its best to relieve him of some of tho disabilities under which the necessity of feeding many mouths places him. The argument is logical and reasonable enough in this form, for tho entirely irresponsible and reprehensible manner in wliicli marital responsibilities are assumed by many individuals whoso chronic penuriousness, improvidence, and thriftlessness prevent the possibility of their ever being a valuable asset to any State is merely a side ifisuo that ■has 110 bearing on the merits of the principle, however much it may complicate a solution of the actual problem to be dealt with. Unfortunately, whatever measure of agreement there may be with Mr Burr's conclusion that parenthood is a duly which carries with it a claim upon the State, abstract ■justice does not always harmonise with the facts of everyday life. Interesting and in most respects reasonable as Mr Barr's speech was, it was deficient in tbisj that it really advanced 110 practical proposals to secure the furtherance of the principles which it championed. 1 Presumably, had he seen clearly how the State could proceed to carry out J his suggestions, lie would have bad i something more practical to offer. Tho subject is, however, one so difficult that Sir Barr showed his good sense in confining himself in the main to urging the Government to extend the practice of giving married men- preference in regard to employment. He might

easily lmve gono much further and have made some decidedly Socialistic propositions, all calculated to reduce tlio burden of parental responsibility to a quantity of merely trilling significance to elm individual. In New Zealand the Government lias already recognised, and put into practice in more ways than one, the principle of giving special consideration to married workers. Under the Land Act tlio married' ma-n with a family is accorded a. measure of preference in regard to lands opened for selection; in some departments of tlie public service the marriod ma-n is remunerated more highly than he would he if- single; -under the Government Advances to Workers Act advantages are offered of which tlio married worker is more likely than others to Avail himself; and the workers' dwellings scheme was instituted with the position of hard-working and thrifty married workers in mind. Mr Barr's proposal that preference of employment should be given to married workers is in no way new, and the Government has, where other tilings are equal been generally understood to adopt the principle to a- considerable extent in the selection of labour for railway undertakings and such works. Probably, as it is, the married man- usually gets in like manner the advantage of preference even with private employers, though no doubt-, as Mr Barr soems to think, a wider recognition of this principle might be advantageously brought about. Whatever the State can do, and what' ever it may endeavour to do, to ensure the married worker who is worthy of it some permanence of employment and a house-rent as iow as possible will no doubt be regarded with satisfaction by the whole community, provided the measures adopted involve no palpable injustice to any section of it and lend no encouragement to workers to discard single blessedness without due regard for tho responsibilities of the future. As for other methods of lightening the burden of the cost of living, particularly in the case of the married worker, it is not apparent that the State can do much beyond proceeding with care and discrimination along the lines upon which it has already approached the question in this country.