based upon a perceptible change in the level
of prices. Back in the Great War years the
idea of a cost of living bonus was introduced
and the trend followed in wage develop-
ments was that wages were in a constant
effort to catch up with the changing level of
prices. We depended heavily, in arguments
before boards of conciliation and in face to
face meetings with employers, on the price
level as a means of getting the wages up.
This is not wage-cost pushing prices up. Ra-
ther it is wages trying to catch up with al-
ready advancing prices.

A report to the National Council of the
United Electric, Radio and Machine Workers
Union in November pointed out the follow-
ing:

"Management never lets up screaming
that wages are going up faster than produc-
tivity ... The wage rate index must be put
in terms of constant dollars—that is, take
the price element out of the index by deflat-
ing it for cost of living changes. Then we
have a comparison of real wages |i.e., of

As soon as protests against high prices
started to mount, what happened?

All the magazines, women's pages of
newspapers, radio and TY programs beamed
to women came forward with the same
theme—it's the housewife who's to blame!

How is that possible? Well, it seems that
if the housewife stopped buying all the ex-
pensive items, all the items that have fancy
packaging, all the items that are quick to
prepare, etc., her food bill would be lower.

“Experts” tried to prove that it's really
possible to feed a family of four on less and
less money. All that stands against balanc-
ing the family budget is the inability of the
average housewife to use her common sense
and buy the inexpensive way.

To follow their argument out to the logical
conclusion, the only reason for the existence
of expensive items is the demand of the
housewives.

There are two sides to this question. One
is the fact, and there is absolutely nothing
wrong with it, that housewives do want fast-
er and easier ways to prepare meals for their
families. The other, and this of course all
these "experts" ignore, is the fact that there

constant purchasing power) with real or.

physical output like this:
MANUFACTURING
(Percent Increase Each Year)

Year Real Wages Real Output

1960 2
1961 Ji,
|
|
|

.

1962
1963
1964
1965

"In fact on this basis, manufacturing pro-
ductivity has increased more than real wages
each year since 1949 with the exception of
1952, 1953 and 1957..." :

So while it is really very convenient to
blame the workers for increase in prices the
facts hardly bear it out. Not only do workers
not cause the high prices, as consumers they
are the victims of them!

Maybe, then, it's the housewife who's to
blame?

3
4
4
3
3
5

ON OOMMN

the housewife ?

are big profits to be made out of the promo-
tion of new and different articles to the wo-

_men shoppers. We'll say more on this later.

Back in 1960 a Royal Commission on Price
Spreads spoke of the amount of money that
was being spent on promotion and packag-
ing and that made up such a large proportion

SISTs)

“Unfortunately, madam, we have nothing that
would substitute for food and cost less.”

amt)

si SBR bs

SE STA TE Dit I hi Oe RE 2 LE OR ty ee

of the consumer's price. And since then, the

ratio has increased.

There have been big advances made in
food processing, There are the frozen food,
the prepared and semi-prepared foods. They
help make it possible for women to get out
of the kitchen. They are a real boon to the
thousands and thousands of working wives
who must continue to prepare meals for the
family.

To suggest that women are to blame be-
cause they buy what is; available and take
advantage of new products is the equivalent
of saying that woman's place is in the home
and the ideal is that of the pioneer house-
wife who baked the bread, cured the meat,
canned the fruit and vegetables herself.

All across the country women said that
they felt one thing that led to high prices
was the trading stamps and other games.”
They said they would prefer the prices cut
to all these gimmicks. Then came the blast
that the only reason why stores used stamps
and such things was because the women
wanted them. What is the truth? Well, it's
mighty doubtful that anyone can show proof
that any store or chain in this country started
a game or stamp giveaway as a result of
the petitioning of the women who shop
there. Most women discover what the store
is using as promotion when they go in to
buy, or when they read the store ads and
flyers. |

Fh ae

The argument is also put forward that wo-

men are complaining about high food prices
in the supermarkets without taking into ac-
count that many non-food items are bought
along with the groceries. In other words,
there really is no increase in food prices.

If so, then someone ought to fell all the
statisticians in Ottawa that the figures they
keep announcing on rising prices just aren't
true. And that the housewife who has been
buying in the same store (food and non-food
items alike) over the last year and finds the
bill higher has a faulty memory, or something.

Why is all this hogwash being trotted out
now?

It's fairly obvious that something had to
be done to try and halt the growing move-
ment of the women who were protesting the
high prices. And what better way than to
try to confuse and befuddle, to attack the
protesters themselves, to sow disunity.

As a matter of fact, if the women of Can-
ada were tomorrow to start following the
‘advice of all these experts, to refuse to buy
all the expensive items, to ignore the blan-
dishments of the frozen and prepared foods,
there would be an even bigger holler go up,
to prove to women that no family meal is
really complete without these items.

So if it's not the farmer, not the worker,
not.the housewife that's responsibe for these
high prices, who is?

the advertiser?

Approximately $800 million is spent in
Canada on advertising. One-quarter of this
is for food products. This cost is added to
the price you pay for goods in the store. Is
it worth while?

The Institute of Canadian Advertising ap-
pearing before the Senate-House Committee
argued, "Any significant cut-back in adver-
tising would restrict the competitive forces
in the marketplace that in our economic sys-
tem bring the consumer a wide range of
benefits."’ They add that without advertising
the prices of goods and services would be
higher.

But what do we actually find? Take a com-
pany like Kellog's, which has a wide range of
breakfast cereals. They advertise all of them.
They set out’ to convince children — and

through them the parents—that ‘'crunchies"’
are better than 'cracklies’’ . . . although
they make both products. They put all sorts
of things in the box along with the cereal.
And is the price lowered? Why last Septem-
ber there was a !0 percent increase of prices
on all Kellogg products. They are now spend-
ing about 14 percent of sales on advertis-
ing. Is their price increase one of the ''bene-
fits''?

Advertisers also claim to have a code of
ethics. One clause states, ''No advertising
shall be prepared, or be knowingly accepted,
which contains false, misleading, unwarrant-
ed or exaggerated claims."

Quite properly the members of the Senate-
House Committee asked about this clause
in relation to such advertising slogans: as