A HIGHER AND A LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—We have lately heard much about these, most lately in President Coolidge's statement in reference to the pronouncement of the conference of business men in favour of the abolition of tariff walls, that no alteration would be made in the fiscal arrangements of the United States which would result in lowering the standard of living of the American people.
But what makes a standard of living high or low ? To answer this we must answer the question what is the highest standard of living, by comparison with which the height of any other standard may be determined. For one of the lower animals I suppose the highest standard would be the largest amount and the most attractive kind of food consistent with health and the greatest amount of comfort. But is this the highest standard for rational animals ? Is not for them the highest standard in food to be found in the consumption of the smallest amount consistent with the maintenance of health and strength and of the simplest kind, thus leaving more money disposable for the help of those in need and for other good altruistic objects and for expenditure on supplying the cultural needs of the spirit ? Any departure from this in defect or excess is the adoption of a lower standard of living. Those whose food is insufficient for the maintenance of health and strength or is.of an unappetizing character are forced to adopt a lower standard of living, while those who take more than is needful or indulge in luxury are voluntarily adopting a lower standard of living.
I fear that since the War there has been a considerable declension on the part of the well-to-do from the height of simple living to which so many then attained. If reports are true, is not the standard of living prevalent in the United States a low one, with all its luxury, with so many who need not do so using motor-cars instead of healthily exercising their legs ?—I am, Sir, &e., H. S. V.
Previous page
