THE COST OF LIVING.

Southland Times, Issue 17468, 24 March 1915, Page 2

THE COST OF LIVING.

To the Editor. Sir, —Mr Donald Fraser has something to say a,bout tho cost of living in' your issue of even date. He in his wisdom blames tho extravagance of the wageearners for the high cost of living, and gives a list of the dishes ho asserts are to be found on (he dinner table of the average worker. Now, Sir, the list may represent Mr Fraser’s own menu, hut I ant prepared to say that were he to pay a round of visits to. the homes of the average worker l at dinner time he would find several of the articles he mentions conspicuous only by their absence. •There is no doubt of the fact that Mr Fraser is tho fortunate possessor of a master mind. Just Imagine the sublimity of the reasoning whereby lie arrives at the conclusion that the extravagance of the wage-earner is the cause of bread being tcnponce the four-pound loaf, and the same cause operating to place the present price on wheat. Then your esteemed contributor says the Government should not be blamed for the higii cost of living. Certainly the Government may not have had any active hand in causing prices of foodstuffs to rise, but 1 would ask what have they done in particular to deserve the thanks of the worker? We will cheerfully admit that they bought a quantity of wheat to cover a shortage in tho dominion: but was it not their plain duty to do so? People should not expect praise for simply doing their duty. They certainly merit blame if they do not do their duty. ■ Are tho Government" not the custodians of the country's welfare and wealth? Was it not with a portion of tlie country’s wealth that the Government bought this wheat? Therefore were they not to ho expected to use tho wiieat for the benefit of the consumers, of whom Labour constitutes the majority? Who was the greatest gainer by this importation of wiieat? Was It not Mr Massey’s friends the (lounnillers? Your correspondent in his wisdom may ask me why, so I will endeavour to give the answer. Mr .Massey bought a quantity of wiieat at about 6s 3d a bushel. This same wheat lie sold to tho millers at 5s 9d; in other words, as a business proposition the people as a whole lost 6d a bushel cm the transaction and the millers gained to that extent. The flour to he ground from this wiieat was supposed to be sold at £ll 10s per ton. But was it sold at that figure'-’ No. Mr Fraser may use the millers’ excuse and say the wheat had to be mixed with New Zealand wheat (which they say—without proof, of course —cost them up to 7s a bushel) to enable them to turn out a satisfactory (lour. Jt is generally admitted that a good method of arriving at the merits of any proposition is to apply tho principle of the "parallel case.” The Victorian Government were also fared with a shortage ami bought wiieat which they were to supply to millers at 7s Sd per bushel provided the flour was sold at £l6 a ton. What a difference? Victorian Government wheat 7s Sd a bushel; flour £l6 a ton. New Zealand Government wheat as ;t(l a bushel; flour £l7 10s | ton. Even if N’ew Zealand millers had to use all New Zealand wiieat at 7s a bushel they should still have been able to make a handsome profit at the price fixed for flour in Victoria. .So here, we have a Government using the peoples money to buy wheat and supplying that wheat at a loss to (lie millers, and then calmly permitting the millers to charge their own price for the flour milled from the people's own wheat. Why. this is a most glaring case of the consumers being exploited by the millers at both ends of the transaction. 1 do not doubt but tlie actions of the Government in this connection meet with the hearty approval of the millers and all profit mongers. J Should also like to ask. Sir, if it is a. fact or only newspaper rumour, that even in England, where wheat is said to cost Ss a bushel, the four-pound loaf can lie procured for oightpence? If such is the ease, what can we call the people in New Zealand who cause the price of bread to be tenpence when the flour was ground from the people's own wheat supplied to millers at as lid a bushel? And what can \Vc call a Government who will permit such a. monstrous wrong? Especially so when they have ample power to prevent it. Then Mr Fraser has a fling at flic luxuries enjoyed by those who attend moving picture theatres, and also adversely criticises some of the pictures screened as being likely to affect the purity of the audience, f trust that Mr Fraser will never permit himself to come under an eminent Australian's definition of a “Wowser" as being a person who would be less affected by a whole mountain of misery than by the appearance of hall'-an-inch of underskirt. Mr Fraser may be a very efficient tradesman, hut even if bis hammer is wielded by a skilled user I am afraid his pen will have to produce something more logical before he can convince the worker that it is extravagance (hat puts high prices on the necessaries of life, or that the Government is not culpably apathetic to tlie poor man in the present crisis.— I am, etc., WAGE EARNER. Marcli 17.