SHOULD THE FAMILY BE THE ECONOMIC UNIT?

Otago Witness, Issue 3395, 9 April 1919, Page 50

SHOULD THE FAMILY BE THE ECONOMIC UNIT?

Or the State and the Family economically considered.

The increased and increasing cost of living is driving many who have hitherto given little attention to economic problems to inquire if something must not be done to lessen the burden of those who have to support families on small or moderate earnings. The usual remedy proposed as compensation for rise in cost of living is a rise in wages. But this is a rough and ready expedient which often does little or nothing to help those most in need of help. Obviously, an increase in wage drives up still higher the cosfc > of all the goods and services affected—i.e., a rise in the wages of coal miners will raise the price of coal and if the wages of carriers, railway hands,, and others engaged in transport are raised too—and a rise in the wages of one class of workers soon brings about a rise in the wages of other classes—coal will go up higher and higher. Doubtless manufacturers and dealers often take advantage of a rise in wages to,,' increase their prices in more than due proportion, but this is a matter I cannot go into; to do so would involve consideration of our whole competitive and individualistic system of industry. If ,when wages rise necessaries rise in similar proportion, the individual worker who has only 'himself to provide for is just where he was before. But the most serious objection to wage-raising as a remedy for increased cost of necessaries is that as regards pay one person, the wage earner, is the unit, while as regards consumption, the family numbering perhaps six or eight persons, is the unit. Obviously the family may lose rather than gain. Workers need to realise more fully than they commonly do at present that it is not the amount of their wage in pounds, shillings, and pence, but the purchasing power that counts. And all interested in the well-being of their fellows and in national progress need to give more heed to the family as an economic unit. The State rests on the family; its strength depends on the security and soundness of family life. All the greatest and sanest of modern thinkers fully recognise this. The best rearing and education given in institutions is but a poor substitute for nurture in' an ordinarily good home, with love of father and, mother, comradeship of brothers and sisters, opportunities for free play of individuality and for intercourse with the world at large. Yet of late years comparatively little attention has been given to the claims of the family as such, to the burden of the family bread-winner, and of the mother, who, if not the bread-winner —as she should not be—bears and nurtures the future citizens of the State. And many modern reforms, good and necessary. as they are, do yet, while unsupplomented by other reforms, add to the burden of parenthood, and thus tend to the restriction of the family. Consider public education. Formerly the children of the poorer classes early began to work and contribute to the upkeep of the family. In primitive types of society this, relatively to the needs and standards of the time, worked well enough, but we know the horrible results of unrestricted child-labour in industrial Britain during last century—how it turned childhood -, into slavery and drove down the wages of adult workers. Happily at last the public conscience was aroused; child-labour was restricted, first little, then more, and now the tendency is to abolish it altogether. For State says to the parent, "Your children are not to assist you in your calling, or to work for wages, but to attend school." This is right, and by all means let education be improved and prolonged so that the young may be fitted for the intelligent discharge of their duties as citizens. But what of the parent who, on a wage that a single man or woman spends without apparent extravagance, is called on to support a family of children to the age of 14 or longer before they begin to earn money? What above all of the mother who toils all these years, often far beyond her strength, to rear her children well, and keep up a respectable appearance? Often she is not only overworked but oppressed by constant anxiety as to how to keep out of debt and find the wherewithal for absolute necessaries. Some mothers, to supplement their husbands' earnings, go out to work, though they have more than enough to keep them employed at homo. I know of mothers going out charring three or four days in the week, and this though the husbands' are steady hard-working men. If a woman cannot or will not do so she

must in similar circumstances do more "going "without." The last few years the constant rise of prices has made a veritable nightmare for mothers with small means, again and again they have had to cut out or cut down some household item, often something that should be liberally used if the family are to be healthy and strong. This means that many children are not being fed as they should be, while the frequent want of blankets and warm underclothing was often brought under notice „at the time of the influenza epidemic A teacher in one of our large town schools lately said to me that she could distinguish a difference in the physical standard of her scholars within the last two or three years; more of 'them than previously having an ansemic, underfed appearance And since she spoke, the price of milk has gone up, and I hear of families cutting down their milk supply from three to two pints daily or in proportion. Where means are small and the family is not, food must be lowered in quality, and. clothing and firing must often be insufficient. Let any one take a pencil and paper and work out a budget for a family of six living on three pounds a week, remembering that a liberal margin should be left for illness, accidents, and other unavoidable extra expenses, and it will be surprising if the result appears satisfactory. It seems to me that, the remedy_ for the present hardship to families lies in making the family rather than the individual the economic unit to be considered in regulating economic concerns —wages, taxes, and many other things. To a limited extent, and in a rough way, this principle has perforce been followed in the past, since the majority # of male wage-earners have been married, and have roughly proportioned their demands to the cost of supporting an averagesized family. On the other hand "Equal pay for equal work" has of late years been adopted as a cardinal labour principle. The principle sounds fair, and is fair —viewing the matter with regard to the service performed alone. But to the human worker it may be very unfair, and if not supplemented by proper expedients its action may be socially mischievous. It means that the unmarried youth or girl receives the same wage as the man or woman with several dependents. The former may get more than they need, and as unhappily only the few think of saving, may be tempted into extravagance and self-indulgence. The latter, who give and care for the coming citizens of the State, get less, often far less than they need on any_ reasonable standard. I am far from advocating the adoption of a favourite socialist principle "To each according to his needs." To make reward dependent on work is certainly the way to get the most work done, and to proportion it to the real value of the service performed is most conducive to the interests of the community. But my _ quarrel with the present system is precisely that it takes no account of the work of parents in their capacity of parents; specially that it wholly ignores the priceless services of the mother. . .

The question is beset with difficulties. I do not advocate any crude scheme off subsidising motherhood, but I think that much might be done towards lessening the burdens of mothers. This article is meant to be suggestive only; to direct the attention of those who may read, it to the economic claims of the family and . lead them to inquire further. I have space only to enumerate a few obvious expedients for . lightening the economic burdens of parenthood. 1. Necessaries of life to be exempted as far as possible from taxation, since a married wage earner pays the taxesof a household.

2. State or municipal enterprise to provide good and cheap milk, vegetables, fish, and perhaps other produce. 3. Free nursing and medical attendance at child-birth. 4. School books and requisites free. 5. Other provision for proper treatment of illness or disability, including free dentistry for children; convalescent homes for mothers recovering from illness or requiring a rest. 6. Provision of good housing at reasonable rates for workers; steps to prevent excessive rent charges, and the letting of unsuitable dwellings. 7. Compulsory insurance, to begin as soon as the youth or girl is in receipt of a living wage. ■ Let women make use of their political powers to improve social conditions; let them be zealous, but not impulsive and one-sided; considering everything in the lisrht of the general weal. E. H.