MY COUNTRY NOTEBOOK

Otago Witness, Issue 3969, 8 April 1930, Page 66

MY COUNTRY NOTEBOOK

By

MURIHIKU.

(Special for the Otago Witness.)

We talk a lot to-day about our standard of living. If we read speeches by our public men we will never find anyone agreeing that the standard should be lowered. That would be heresy. It is always very unpopular to suggest that wages should be reduced. Even if men —for instance, on unemployment relief works—cannot earn the “ living wage,” it must be given to them.

In New South Wales they are passing through critical times, and people are beginning to wonder how long those who do some work can support those who are not working. One writer draws attention to the fact that eleemosynary grants—or, in plain English, charity, or pauper relief—cost the people of the State 15s per head of population. A bill totalling considerably more than £1,600,000 under this head is borne by about 2,000,000 people. This is to say nothing of Federal and other pensions of various kinds and the baby bonus.

It has been suggested that the present centralisation of relief should be supplanted by a scheme under which shires and municipalities would be compelled to levy a local rate and relieve distress in their own districts. This idea, while it would not be likely to be carried : unanimously by ; the local authorities, would delight any political party which might be in power, for charity-mongering .has become part of the general political stock-in-trade in Australia.

I think we are entitled to comment here that not only in New South Wales, but in every‘country which has the democratic franchise, the same catering for votes takes place. Our Sydney friend' laments that ‘‘ every party on the hustings finds that it. has to buy a measure of support'.’in ' this direction, to offer the people something for nothing, and to try to outbid its opponents in the eleemosynary .line if it is to stand any chance of occupying the Treasury benches. Governments anxious to save their political skins will have to accept the role of milch cows, at the expense.of the taxpayers, of course, if they cannot shoulder local authorities with some, at least, of their social burdens.” The chances of foisting any more financial responsibility on to the city ratepayers of New Zealand are very small. The city councils this winter will repudiate responsibility. They say it Is the Government’s business. And, Sir Joseph Ward promised to end unemployment, perhaps the city councillors Sire not greatly to blame for the stand thev are taking.

The farmers’ point of view is: If our national‘income is down six or seven millions sterling as the result of the drop in export prices, then, if everybody in a permanent job expects to receive as much as he did last year, someone must go without altogether! Hence we have unemployment. At any rate, the farmer’s income is reduced. His standard of living does not appear to be sacred.

The standard of living in the country is not so high as in our towns. But are living conditions improving in the country? I believe they are. E. L. Kirkpatrick, of the United States Department of Agriculture, in ' his bulletin, “ Standard of Life in a Typical Section of Diversified Farming,” defined the standard of life as a “ measure of life in terms of the sum total of values enjoyed by a family, as evidenced through the acquisition and expenditure of income, and through the-use of time in the satisfaction of wants for things both material (as food, clothing, and shelter) and spiritual (as education, music, and art).” We have to take this pronouncement in sections to see what it all means.

Certinly wo cannot go back to oldtime conditions and keep our self-re-spect. One writer truly points out: “ Complexity of modern civilisation has made it impossible to go back to the good old days when you could drive your horse down any side of the street, hitch it to any convenient tree, pasture your cow on the roadside, keep you’ - pig in the back yard, and die unmolested of your neighbour’s typhoid water.”.

Let us examine the several headings under which Kirkpatrick has classed those things which bring physical ’-Veilbeing and thereby raise the life standards :

(a) Food in sufficient quantity and variety to maintain the efficiency and health (including the growth and development of children) of all members of the family.

Well, in reply to that we can say that, with one exception, our children —both in town and country—are as healthy and well nourished as any in the world.. That exception, of course, is the state of our children’s teeth. They certainly are deplorable. Visiting doctors tell us we do noU'diank enough milk—not even on the farms, where it is plentiful. And certainly children do not get enough vegetables. On the farm there is no excuse for this. It is laziness on the part of the men about the place. With more milk and vegetables, it should be possible for the country child to be better off than the town child in regard to diet. It is our own fault if it is not.

- (b) Clothing for warmth, comfort, and cleanliness, with an additional attire of an appearance and style which will permit individuals of the family to move in their respective social groups and in public with a fair degree of mental satisfaction. Thus certain spiritual as well as material wants will be satisfied.

The day has gone by when you could tell country folk by their old-fashioned dress. The rapidity of transit, the daily mail, and the regular newspapers have all been factors in taking the fashionable clothes of the day into our most out-of-the-way districts. In the old days the country boy went to town with clothes which marked him out as a “ country bumpkin.” To-day the phrase is never heard, for the country boy, with his daily contacts with his fellows and with machinery is as alert as anv other. And his clothes are procured from the same source as bank clerks’. To a very large extent, our clothes in town and country have been standardised.

¥ V V (c) Shelter affording sufficient room, warmth, light, and sanitation for the maintenance of comfort and health of the family, and providing for the necessary privacy of individuals as well as for the entertainment of friends. In addition, a style of architecture which will meet with a certain degree of approval from the public is desirable.

In regard to “room” and “warmth” there is little difference, but the majority of country houses are not so well equipped as houses in town. That is but natural. By community organisation it is easy to provide each house with running water, good sanitary arrangements, and electric light. To many countrv towns these boons are still denied. It costs money to an individual to put in a water supply. The generation of electric light and power is expensive for individual plants. The majority of city women would not tolerate what country women have to put up with. But thing's are moving. Every year sees more bathrooms being fitted up; more enamelled sinks being put in; more provision of electricity and telephones. But the country home still lags behind the city home. So when our American friend asks the questions raised here:

(d) Items of operation, including • equipment, furniture, and furnishings, which are essential for keeping the home “ plant ” in working order with the maximum efficienty in economy of time—we are forced to reply that it is difficult in the old Imuses existing in the country to bring them up-to-date, and to make them as attractive and as convenient as it is with new houses. The new residences going up in the country are every bit as attractive as those built in the city. But there is a lot of leeway to be made up. And the alterations will need inonev.

(e) Maintenance of health through the prevention of treatment of bodily ailments that may menace the physical well-being and development of' individuals composing the -family.

The greatest assets the countrv man and woman possess are the fresh air and the regular bodily exercise included in the daily work. Most farm men and women do not rust out, they wear out. How to relieve farm women of the hard work and long hours is a difficult problem. The old saying that “a woman’s work is never done ” is very true of a New Zealand farmer’s wife—especially if she has a young family, or one going to school. The work of several organisations which try to provide capable “ relieving housekeepers,” who can go into a farm home and let a mother have a much-needed holiday is worthy of more examination and experiment than has vet been made. The medical inspection'of school children, and the dental clinic system are both means of dealing with juvenile ill-health in the country centres.

(f ) Insurance, in the form of property or money sufficient to bear expenses growing out of abnormal con-

ditions, as sickness, old age, and death. The farmer’s bank and his gold reserve are generally considered to be his farm and its improvements. But more and more fanners are to-day making provision for sickness and old age through the insurance companies. I can hardly think it is true,' but one of the curiosities of insurance comes to me in the form of a story about a farmer and his prize pig. He had insured the animal for £lOOO, but it had not occurred to him to insure himself. One day the pig strolled on the railway track as a train was approaching. The farmer ran to save his pig, and both were killed. What remained of the pig was buried in a ditch; the man’s body was interred expensively. Happily the insurance from the pig paid for this, settled his debts, and made provision for his widow!

The greatest difficulty in regard to our country standard of living is the fluctuations of our incomes. A man who works in an office or at a trade has a fairly stabilised salary or wage. City wage's and standards of life appear to' be considered sacred. But the country men and women have to take what the world’s markets offer them. Recently in Scotland potatoes were unsaleable at £1 per ton; oats could hardly be given away. Here in New Zealand fleece wool is 7dj and butter is only worth Is in London’ These prices determine our incomes. One year they may be up—two years they may be down. The trouble is that al'l New Zealand has adopted a standard of living based on the farmer’s high income in good years. In bad years the

farmer has to come down below the' standard. The farmer is convinced that* there is no equality of sacrifice. How to' arrange it would possibly baffle Solomon.'