Han

ee)

56.2 percent.

By CYNTHIA CARTER

“VCE the beginning of the war cost of living in Canada,
according to the Dominion Bureau-of Statistics, has risen

3ut according to Canadian working men and women the

<# al cost of living today is at least 25 percent higher—despite

Snoere’s something wrong
swhere,” the wife of a ship-
worker said the other day in
‘er to my question as to the
}t of rising living costs on her
fet
fy husband is making a little
js than he used to, and al-
Heh were buying bonds, and
5 are higher, the extra money
Id.take care of that. But
thow were spending more
getting less than ever before.
pay as much now for three
iS as we used to for a house.
ed to pay 10 cents a pound
stewing beef, and make a
on it. Now the same meat
; closer to a quarter. My hus-
meeds new work clothes,
the children’s teeth need at-
‘on. Sometimes I wonder how
* get through the winter.”
‘© truth of the matter is that
2 the DBS figures are techni-
correct, they give the wrong
fession for two basic reasons.
rst of all, statistics are calcu-
i to apply to average families.
“average families” are about
zarce as Hitler’s true Aryans.
fondly, while government sta-
2s apply to wages of this “av-
-e” family, in British Colum-
alone 57 percent of heads of
ilies at present employed not
make less than this “aver-
“wage—but actually make less
‘ welfare bureaus consider
isSary to maintain a family
#iuinimium living standard.

- c)
ERE is how it works. A glance
fat Chart I will show how
@ working class family in-
le is spent. It will be noticed
) the largest percentage of that
ame goes to buy food, shelter
@ clothing. The man with a
Mier income, however, spends a
-h smaller percentage of his
Hme on food, and a2 much
Miter portion on recreation,
mies, health care, travel, etc.
ow take a look at Chart 2.
me it can be seen that the rise
@ rice on every item on which
worker spends most of his
miey has been much greater
mi on those the man with a
© income can buy.
ar instance, food has risen 23
Ment, clothing 20 percent. Yet
| rise in cost of the miscellan-
®@> items, which include health
=>, amusements, etce., on which
worker can’t spend much,

srnment statistics—than it was in September, 1939.

cent. x :
Therefore, it is: immediately ap-
parent that while the “average”
family has only a rise of 16.2 per-
cent to contend with, and the
rich man's family an even smaller
increase to meet, the actual in-
erease in living costs for the
worker's family amounts to as
much as 20 or 25 percent.

The reason for such discrepan-
cies is this: the DBS’s average
family apparently spends the
same amount of money on enter-

Higher living standards build higher morale!

tainment as on food, on transpor-
tation as on clothing. The actual
worker’s family can’t afford lux-
uries. And the lower the wage,
the higher the percentage that
must be spent on food. The cost
of living rise, in short, hits the
worker where it hurts most.
Se

HERE is another side of the

question which the govern-
ment statisticians overlook. The
Toronto Welfare Council made a
study in 1939 which proved that
a minimum income of $28.35 was
necessary to cover the bare es-
sentials for health and selfre—
spect for the average family.
This figure, of course, applies to
the city of Toronto, and has to
be adjusted slightly to meet the
needs of other communities

CHART 1.

fway, have risen only 5.8 per-

This index is based on a study of the expenses of 1439
families in 12 cities during the year ending Sept. 1938.
The famiiles averaged 4.6 persons, and their incomes
ranged from $1,200 to $2,500 per annum, but incomes be-
tween $1,200 and $1,600 were most common in the group.
Average income was $1,414.

Miscellaneous (health, personal care, trans-,

portation, recreation, life insurance) _........ 22.6%

CHART 2.

Food Rent Fuel Clothing Furniture Misc. Adj.*
1939 — 109.3 103.8 99.0 1001 1009 101.3 100.0
1942 — 132.4 111.3 112.8 120.1 117.8 107.1 117.7
The figures for 1942 are up to Nov. 2, 1942.
*Adjusted to base 100.00 for August, 1939.
CHART 3.

: British Columbia
Heads of Families:
1939 — 103,911 29.98 2439 70,673 15.09 9.40
1942 — 148,068 30.85 27.68 84,005 17.78 9.90
Other Males:
1939 — 75,912 1426 1230 43,031 eis AD
1942 — 107,946 15.30 13.91 61,187 997 3.94
Females:
1939 — 43,799 10.85 11.65 30,826 7.61 4.04
1040 = 62.411 1437, 1317 A39P5 9.86 331

where living costs are relatively
higher or lower.

In Chart 3, using the Toronto
Welfare Council’s figures, and
working out present costs -of liv-
ing to allow for the alleged rise
of 16 percent in the cost of liv—
ing, fairly accurate estimates have
been obtained for British Colum-
bia. :

Here it can be seen that the

-average head of a family in Brit-

ish Columbia makes $30.85 after
his income tax has been deducted.
The average budgét for -B.C.
workers with families to support
is $27.68 a week. But of the 148,-
068 employed workers in this
province, 84,005 make an average
of $9.90 per week less than neces-
sary for minimum living stand-
ards. And although the average
weekly wage of workers in B.C.
has increased since September,
1939, by 87 cents, cost of living—
using the government’s conserva-
tive estimate of about 16 percent—
has risen by $3.39. This means,

-in actual purchasing power, that

the average B.C. worker’s pay
cheque is worth exactly $2.52 less
than before the war “make a capi-
talist out of him.”

“It can also be seen on Chart
3 that although conditions for
women workers in B.C. have im-
proved slightly since 1939, over
70 percent of all women em-
ployed make only a wage of
$9.86 weekly—$3.31 less than wel-
fare boards deem necessary.
@

HE story is repeated across

Canada. On the prairies, 100,-
678 heads of families need an ex-
tra $10.93 in their pay envelopes
to support their families. In On-
tario, 247,834 female workers make
less than they require to live on.
In Quebec there are over 229,000
men making an average weekly
wage of only $9.91. In the poorer
Maritimes, the average wage of
heads of families, other males
and females, is less than mini-
mum budget requirements, and a
total of 193,843—or 78 percent of
the entire working population,
make less than welfare board fig-
ures say they must have to live
and carry on their work.

The results of such a state of
affairs are obvious. As the ship-
yard worker’s wife put it!

“We are as patriotic as any-
body. We want to see the war
won as quickly as possible—and
we want to help win it. But my
husband makes 50 cents an hour,
about $26 a week with all the
taxes off, and we have three chil-
dren to feed. I see him go off to
work without proper food or
clothes, and Tm beginning to
wonder just how long he can
manage to do his part. A ceiling

is all right on wages, but how long
must we wait before we get a
floor?”

While few Canadian workers
would ~suggest -that wages be
raised to such astronomical fig-
ures that the war effort should
suffer, or that a vast amount of
consumer good be manufactured
in, place of war materials, doubts
are at the same time raised in
their minds as to whether pres-
ent conditions are actually con-
ducive to all-out prosecution of
the war.

Surely the worker who knows
his family are going without suf-
ficient food, clothing and medical
care is not in a position to con-
tribute his best efforts on the pro-
duction front. The fact that the
government has seen fit to con-
fuet such an extensive campaign
{fn connection with the National
Nutrition program illustrates the
elose relation between proper
nourishment and top efficiency.

The problem of too low wages
Is a grave one, threatening na-
tional security and proper pros-
ecution of the war. It is a prob-
lem that the government, and
particularly the Department of
Labor, must face immediately. And
{t is a problem to which organized
labor has the solution. Out of
every workshop, down every as-
sembly line, from every trade
union meeting come urgent de-
mands for:

@ Guarantees of adequate mini
mum wages for every worker,
so that no Canadian taking an
active part in any phase of war
work will be insufficiently
clothed or fed. No worker’s
Wage must be “frozen” below
levels which make possible
a decent living standard.

@ Labor-management production
committees in every plant and
factory. Labor must be given
a chance to help in the plan-
ning of war production as well
as in the production itself.

@ Legislation guaranteeing work
ers recognition by manage-
ment of the union of their
choice; proper collective bar-
gaining machinery, outlawing
of company unions.

@ Representatives of labor on
very board, committee or sub-
committee dealing with any
phase of war production, labor
allocation, rationing of com-
modities and economic plan-
ning.

Such a labor policy in Canada
would not only boost national
health and morale, but would re-
sult in tremendous increases in
production, and, consequently, the
Strengthening of the part this
country can play in an early vic-
tory over fascism.