WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.
(To THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR.") Sia,—I quite appreciate the point Mr. F. H. Young draws attention to in his letter that labour is working shorter hours than pre-war though drawing higher pay. It emphasizes
my contention that all classes of producers in this country must now make greater efforts if we are to hold our own. But in using the Ministry of Labour's figures as to wages, which Mr. Young (poles, he must. bear in mind that they are based
mainly on the earnings of organized labour forced up by the Trade Unions to a higher level than the wages of the mass of unorganized labour. I notice the Labour Gazette points out that for this reason its estimated average increase of wages in December last of 170 to 180 per cent., compared with pre-war, may he somewhat in excess of the true averase_for all industries. The Gazette gives the increase in cost of living in working-class expenditure at the beginning of December as 169 per cent. and November 176 per cent. It also estimates the average increase in wages a year ago to have been about 120 to 130 per cent., which contrasts with an increase in living cost then of 130 per cent.
All these figures would seem to bear out the view that wage- increase has followed up cost of living, and there are other signs now that wages will follow living-cost down. I suggested in my previous letter that low-grade salaries should also be taken into account, and, if so, one is certainly left with the doubt I expressed whether on an average all over wages and lower-grade salaries increased more than the cost of living or even as much. Mr. Young's inference from the Labour Gazette figures that the average workman was in December last re- ceiving wages enabling him to live on a 10 per cent. higher basis than pre-war is obviously incorrect. —I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
