THE LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY Digitized by Microsoft® This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation witli Cornell University Libraries, 2007. You may use and print this copy in limited quantity for your personal purposes, but may not distribute or provide access to it (or modified or partial versions of it) for revenue-generating or other commercial purposes. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® National Industrial Conference Board IS BEACON STREET, BOSTON, MASS. BRANCH OFFICE 724 SOUTHERN BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. THE National Industrial Conference Board is a co-operative body composed of representatives of national and state industrial associations, and organized to provide a clearing house of information, a forum for constructive discussion, and machinery for co-operative action on matters that vitally affect the industrial development of the nation. Frederick P. Fish Chairman Frederic C. Hood Treasurer Magnus W. Alexander . . Managing Director MEMBERSHIP American Cotton Manufacturers' Association American Hardware Manufacturers' Association American Paper and Pulp Association Electrical Manufacturers' Club Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the U. S. National Association of Cotton Manufacturers National Association of Manufacturers National Association of Wool Manufacturers National Automobile Chamber of Commerce National Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association National Council for Industrial Defense National Erectors' Association National Founders' Association National Metal Trades Association Rubber Association of America, Inc. Silk Association of America The Railway Car Manufacturers' Association United Typothet^ of America ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP Associated Industries of Massachusetts Associated Manufacturers and Merchants of New York State Illinois Manufacturers' Association Digitized by Microsoft® WARTIME CHANGES IN THE COST OF LIVING Research Report Number 9 August, 19 18 Copyright 1918 PROPERTY OF LIBRARY ^!iW YGHK STATE SOflOOL CORNELL UHlVERSiTY National Industrial Conference Board ij Beacon Street Boston, Mass. K- ' ■ Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® CONTENTS PAGE Foreword vii Introduction 1 Sources of Information 4 I. Food 7 Food Prices for the Country as a Whole ... 7 Food Prices in the State of Washington .... 12 Other Local Studies 15 SiniMARY 19 II. Shelter 22 Communities Where Rents of Wage-Earners' Houses Increased Not More Than Ten Per Cent 23 Communities Where Rents of Wage-Earners' Houses Increased More Than Ten Per Cent 26 Communities Where Exceptional Rent Increases Were Reported 31 Communities Where Rents Decreased 34 Summary 35 III. Clothing 45 Yard Goods 48 Hosiery and Underwear 51 Outer Wear and Furnishings 54 Clothing Budgets 60 Summary 63 IV. Fuel and Light 65 Fuel 65 Light 68 Fuel and Light Combined 69 Summary 70 V. The Complete Budget 71 Final Estimate of Increase in Cost of Living, 1914^1918 74 Conclusion 78 79 ^lAi A!,'u" Cn^ciH }ft® CORNELL UNiVEi^Sfl Y 1U0'*0 Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1: Relative Increase in the Cost of Food as Measured by Wholesale Prices and by Retail Prices 2 Table 2: Allocation of Expenditures for the Principal Items in the Annual Budgets of Wage-Earners' Families 4 Table 3: Relative Retail Prices of Food in the United States, January 15, 1913, to June 15, 1918, Inclusive 9 Table 4: Relative Retail Prices of Selected Articles of Food in the United States, 1913-1918 10 Table 5: Annual Cost of Foodstuffs for a Family of Five in the State of Washington, 1914^1918, Based on April Prices . . 13 Table 6: Percentages of Increase between February, 1916, and February, 1918, in the Cost of a Wage-Earner's Food Order for One Week, in 16 Localities 17 Table 7: Percentages of Increase in Food Prices, 1914-1918 . 20 Table 8: Average Retail Prices of Selected Yard Goods, 1914^ 1918 48 Table 9: Percentages of Increase in the Prices of Selected Yard Goods, 1914^1918 48 Table 10: Average Retail Prices of Selected Articles of Hosiery and Underwear, 1914^1918 51 Table 11: Percentages of Increase in the Prices of Hosiery and Underwear, 1914-1918 53 Table 12: Average Retail Prices of Selected Articles of Outer Wear and Furnishings, 1914-1918 54 Table 13: Percentages of Increase in the Prices of Selected Articles of Outer Wear and Furnishings, 1914-1918 .... 55 Table 14: Trial Budgets of Clothing for a Wage-Earner for One Year, 1914 and 1918 61 Table 15: Trial Budgets of Clothing for a Wage-Earner's Wife for One Year, 1914 and 1918 63 Table 16: Relative Retail Prices of Coal in Ton Lots for House- hold Use in the United States, January 15, 1913, to January 15, 1918 65 Table 17: Annual Cost of Fuel for a Family of Five in the State of Washington, 1914^1918, Based on April Prices 66 T Digitized by Microsoft® LIST OF TABLES— Continued PAGE Table 18: Percentages of Increase Between June 1, 1914, and June 1, 1918, in the Retail Price of Coal in Selected Cities . 68 Table 19: Percentages of Increase Between February, 1916, and February, 1918, in the Combined Cost of Coal and Kerosene in 16 Localities 70 Table 20: Increase in Cost of Living in Representative American Communities, July, 1914-June, 1918 75 Appendix Table A: Average Retail Prices of Selected Yard Goods and Wearing Apparel, 1914^1918 80 Appendix Table B: Percentages of Increase in the Average Price of Selected Yard Goods and Wearing Apparel, 1914^1918 81 LIST OF CHARTS page Chart 1 : Food, United States : Relative Retail Prices as shown by U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Index Numbers, 1913-1918 8 Chart 2: Food, United States: Relative Retail Prices of Selected Articles of Food, 1913-1918 to face 10 Chart 3: Foodstuffs, State of Washington: Relative Annual Cost for a Family of Five, 1914-1918 14 Chart 4: Clothing, United States: Percentages of Increase in Retail Prices of Selected Yard Goods, 1914-1918 50 Chart 5: Clothing, United States: Percentages of Increase in Retail Prices of Hosiery and Underwear, 1914-1918 . . .52 Chart 6: Clothing, United States: Percentages of Increase in Retail Prices of Selected Articles of Outer Wear, 1914-1918 . 56 Chart 7: Clothing, United States: Percentages of Increase in Retail Prices of Selected Furnishings, 1914-1918 57 VI Digitized by Microsoft® Foreword "r\ISCUSSION of the increased cost of living in war- *~^ time has been characterized by much confusion. There has been a general failure to discriminate between changes in the cost of living and fluctuations in com- modity prices, and a frequent tendency to base conclusions on only one, or only a few, of the essential factors in the problem. Because of the immediate importance of the subject in its bearing on the determination of wage scales, the National Industrial Conference Board presents in this report a study of changes in the cost of living since the outbreak of the war in July, 1914, primarily as these changes affect the wage-earning population. The report deals with the extent of increases in the cost of living, and not with causes. Nor does it attempt to establish the requirements of a normal standard of living or the sum needed to maintain it. Instead, condi- tions existing at the outbreak of the war have been accepted as a basis from which to measure subsequent changes. The results here presented apply to the great majority of American wage-earning communities. This report^ must not be used, however, as a basis for adjustment of wages in particular localities without first determining whether the increases in the cost of certain items, particu- larly shelter and fuel, are representative of local conditions. Vll Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living INTRODUCTION During the last two decades the advance in price of those commodities most important in the family budget has been a world-wide phenomenon. Unusual conditions created by the war gave added impetus to this upward price movement and destroyed the equilibrium between cost of living and income. It has been a common practice to base conclusions regarding changes in the cost of living on the wholesale prices of a number of articles, some of which enter directly, but many only indirectly, into the budget of the average family. It should be emphasized, therefore, that changes in wholesale prices and changes in the cost of living are by no means synonymous. Although leather goes into shoes, lumber into houses, cattle and grain into foodstuffs, and chemicals into a great variety of articles of common use, changes in wholesale prices of the primary articles are not a fair indication of changes in the cost of the final products. While wholesale prices may be a satisfactory measure of market conditions, they are not, taken alone, a reliable index of changes in prices to the retail purchaser, especially in times of rapidly rising prices. This is clearly indicated in Table 1, which gives the relative increase in the cost of food as measured by whole- sale prices and by retail prices.^ These figures were col- lected by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; each group starts with the average price for the year 1913 as 100. ^Monthly Review of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, February, 1918, pp. 100-101; ibid., April, 1918, p. 137; Monthly Labor Review, July, 1918, pp. 58, 73-74. Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE I : RELATIVE INCREASE IN THE COST OF FOOD AS MEASURED BY WHOLESALE PRICES AND BY RETAIL PRICES Average price for the year 1913 = 100 (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Index Numbers) Relative whole- Rela- Relative whole- Rela- Year and month sale price of tive retail price of food Year and month sale price of tive Farm pro- ducts Food, etc. Farm pro- dTucts Food, etc. price of food 1913 1916 Average for year 100 100 100 Average for year 122 126 114 January 97 99 98 January .... 108 114 107 April 97 96 98 April . . 114 117 109 July ■ 101 101 100 July 118 121 111 October 103 102 104 October .... 136 140 121 1914 1917 Average for year 103 103 102 Average for year 188 177 146 January .... 101 102 104 January . 147 150 128 April 103 95 97 April . 180 182 145 July . . . 104 103 102 July 198 180 146 October 103 107 105 October . . . 207 183 157 1915 1918 Average for year 105 104 101 January 205 188 160 January .... 102 106 103 April . 217 179 154 April . . 107 105 99 July 108 104 100 October . 105 104 103 If the increase between any two given dates since the beginning of 1916, when food prices first manifested an unusual upward movement, be measured by both whole- sale prices and retail prices, it will be at once apparent that the advance in wholesale prices is not reflected by retail prices until months later; to measure the increase in the cost of foodstuffs to the consumer by wholesale prices would therefore give an inaccurate indi- cation of the changes which have occurred. Again, changes in retail prices of food have frequently been taken as a measure of changes in the cost of living. This practice likewise is mistaken. Food, it is true, is the most important item in the family budget; yet, as a rule, it represents less than 50% of the total outlay. To get a true indication of changes in the cost of living as a whole, it is necessary to consider price changes not only in Digitized by Microsoft® respect to food but also in respect to the other items which enter into the family budget: clothing, shelter, fuel and light and sundries. Since certain of these items figure more prominently in the family budget than others, each item must be given its proper weight in determining the average increase in the biadget as a whole. A simple average of the increases for the individual items wOuld give very misleading results. The method of weighting is shown in Table 20. The distribution of annual expenditures of wage-earners' families for these major divisions of the family budget has been carefully studied by a number of different agencies. On the whole these studies show such close agreement that an independent investigation for the pur- pose of this report was unnecessary. The most important of such studies is that of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1901,' which found that expenditure for food required about 43% of the total; for shelter, about 18%; for clothing, nearly 13%; for fuel and light, nearly 6%; and for sundries, a little over 20%. These figures, which reflected the expenditures of over 11,000 families, to- gether with the results of more limited studies by the same bureau, are given in Table 2. The distribution of these items in the budget as shown by studies made by the United States Railroad Wage Commission, by the Dallas, Tex., Wage Commission and by Dr. R. C. Chapin are also included.' 'United States Commissioner of Labor, Eighteenth Annual Report, 1903, p. 101. Prior to 1913 the official designation of the Bureau was the United States Bureau of Labor. 'Monthly Review, March, 1918, p. 112; ibid., April, 1918, p. 152; United States Railroad Administration, Report of the Railroad Wage Commission to the Director General of Railroads, April 30, 1918, pp. 87, 91; Dallas, Tex., Report of Survey Committee to the Dallas Wage Commission, April 25, 1917, p. 6; R. C. Chapin, The Standard of Living in New York City, 1909, p. 70. Other collections of family budgets may be noted as follows: Louise B. More, Wage-Earners' Budgets, 1907; Margaret F. Byington, Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town, 1910; Monthly Review, October, 1917, pp. 1-17; ibid., November, 1917, pp. 1-12; ibid., June, 1918, pp. 99-103; Monthly Labor Raiew, August, 1918, pp. 132-134. Cost of living studies made by charitable organizations sometimes show that 50% or more of the income is necessarily spent for food and more than 20% for rent. (Cf. Michael M. Davis, Jr., Food Supply in Families of Limited Means, League for Preventive Work, Boston, December, 1917, p. 14.) So large an apportionment of the family income to the primary necessities is not repre- sentative of the expenditures of average wage-earners' families. 3 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 2: ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS IN THE ANNUAL BUDGETS OF WAGE- EARNERS' FAMILIES Authority, date and number of families Pood Shelter Clothing Fuel and light Sundries All items U. S. Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics, 1901; ll,156fami lies, U. S 1917; 608 families, New York City 1917; 512 families, Philadelphia U. S. Railroad Wage Com- mission, 1915; 265 fami- lies, U. S Dallas, Tex., Wage Com- mission, 1917; 50 fami- lies, Dallas R. C. Chapin, 1907; 31 families, income $1,000- 81,099, New York City. 43.13 45.01 43.31 38. 45.01 44.7 18.12 12.91 12.04 20. 14.51 18.1 12.95 14.84 15.97 15. 12.57 15.5 5.69 4.61 4.95 6. 9.11a 4.5 20.11 22.63 23.74 21. 18.80 17.2 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Average, weighted accord- ing to number of families 43 . 13 17.65 13.21 5.63b 20.38 100.00 a Includes expenditures for ice, telephone, water and laundry , as well as for fuel and light. b Includes Dallas, Tex. Excluding Dallas, the average proportion of the total expenditure for fuel and light is 6.61%. While no allocation of the family budget can be uni- versally applied, the average results given above un- doubtedly are fairly representative of the distribution of expenditures of a vast number of wage-earners' families. These averages are therefore used in this report.' Sources of Information In determining how far the cost of the major items in the budget had increased since the outbreak of the war, available information already assembled by reliable agencies was utilized wherever possible. Such information is, however, widely scattered and more or less incomplete. The United States Government has published no com- prehensive report on the cost of living since 1904,'' and no nation-wide investigation of prices covering a considerable period has been made since that on which the Aldrich. > See pp. 75-76. 'United States Commissioner of Labor, Eighteenth Annual Report. 4 Digitized by Microsoft® Report of 1893 was based.' More recent studies of the subject have been made by the state of Massachusetts (1910), by New Zealand (1912) and Canada (1915), but obviously none of these is of assistance in showing changes in the cost of living in the United States between 1914 and 1918. Recently, however, several United States Government bureaus have made cost-of-living studies in limited areas. These are discussed in some detail in the present report as are also the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers^ of food and fuel prices and the findings of a few other agencies, both public and private. These include records of changes in food and fuel prices kept regularly since 1914 by the Bureau of Labor of the state of Washington. With respect to food prices, the results of investigations by other agencies were collectively so complete as to make an original inquiry unnecessary; the Board has, therefore, based its conclusions as to changes in the cost of food on the data thus already available. Information as to changes in clothing prices, however, was lacking and a first-hand study therefore was made by means of a questionnaire sent to representative retail dealers throughout the country, supplemented in some cases by field investigations. Rent data were likewise secured for the most part directly from real estate brokers and others closely in touch with local conditions. Changes in the cost of fuel were estimated partly from data obtained from government bureaus and partly from prices secured from local coal dealers in representative communities throughout the country. The group of sundries, embracing a 'great variety of items, is subject to such extraordinary variation with Wholesale Prices, Wages and Transportation. Report by Mr. Aldrich, from the Committee on Finance, Senate Report No. 1394, 52d Congress, 2d Session, Washington, 1893. The cost-of-living data presented in the Aldrich Report are wholesale price figures, although an attempt was made to weight them according to probable consumption. 'Index numbers are obtained by using the prices of selected commodities at a specified date, or the average price for a given period of time, as an arbitrary base or starting point and representing prices of these same commodities at other dates as percentages of this base price. 5 Digitized by Microsoft® respect to individual families that it was impracticable to secure detailed information as to changes in their cost. Therefore, the increase in the cost of sundries has been placed more or less arbitrarily at what is considered a liberal figure. To measure precisely the changes in the cost of the various items making up the family budget it would be necessary that the standard of living should have re- mained constant. It is impossible, however, to preserve this identity of standard in wartime. Official regulations such as those of the Food and Fuel Administrations, patriotic impulses to thrift, economies forced by necessity, a tendency to raise standards as wages have advanced and other influences, have inevitably brought about con- siderable alterations in the scale of living. Nevertheless, so far as possible, the same standards have been observed in the comparisons here presented. Thus, in the case of food prices, the items used are, in the main, those the quality of which has not been affected by wartime regula- tions. In the case of shelter, the comparison has been related to the same general class of accommodations, and in the case of clothing, of which a first-hand study was made, quotations were asked for articles which were selling in July, 1914, at a specified price. In this way the disturbing influences injected into the problem by the war have been minimized so far as reasonably possible. While no single percentage of increase in the budget as a whole can be applied to all communities alike, and while even in a single community there may be wide divergencies in the increase in cost of living among individual families, the conclusions reached in this report are broadly repre- sentative of the changes which have occurred in the cost of living during the period of the war. Digitized by Microsoft® I FOOD Food is the leading item in the family budget. Expendi- ture for food constitutes 40% to 45% of the average annual outlay. The larger the family or the smaller the income, the greater the proportion of the total necessarily spent for food. Food Prices for the Country as a Whole Index Numbers of Retail Food Prices. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics is the most important source of information regarding changes in retail food prices in this country. For a number of years the Bureau has collected quotations monthly from retail dealers in the principal cities. The articles listed are those which hold chief place in the normal family diet. Table 3 and Chart 1 show the relative retail prices each month from January 16, 1913, to June 15, 1918, inclusive, of the principal articles of food as combined in the con- solidated index numbers of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Prices are expressed in terms of the average price for the year 1913, which is represented by 100. In 1913 prices were recorded for only 15 articles of food. In 1914 prices of bread, chuck roast and plate boiling beef were included, and in 1915 prices of cheese, rice, coffee and tea were added. The food price curve is, therefore, not strictly comparable throughout its length, but in 1914, 1915 and succeeding years is a com- posite of more articles than in 1913.* It is not always clear, moreover, in the reports of changes in prices from month to month, that the index numbers of retail food prices for all articles combined refer, not to the 15 articles itemized, but to those 15 articles plus 7 others. These facts do not have a significant effect on the accuracy of comparisons, however. monthly Review, Febraary, 1918, pp. 99-101; ibid., April, 1918, p. 137j ibid., June, 1918, p. 77; Monthly Labor Review, July, 1918, p. 58; ibid., August, 1918, p. 116. The list as published in the Monthly Review, later the Monthly Labor Review, since March, 1918, gives 16 articles, including bread, but the February Review lists only 15 and it is stated that since bread prices were not reported until 1914, relative prices in other years cannot be computed on the 1913 base. It is, therefore, not certain whether 15 articles or 16 are included in the index number for 1913. Digitized by Microsoft® . ====g = SIS a s S CO ^ «. as a; "^ ■8 "^ ■£ ■§, , i 1^ "^' s_ fK -^ u -6 ~ S 1^ i ► '-i 1 ^ i "^s^ f-« (k; h ^s >ti -a t SPl 25 § '3 eci '^ V3 1 13 5J !». ' i *!» ^ A i^ -i_ 1 o ^>^ « 's >>. 4 •p 5^^ 3 1 X iG'^t^ *-s s^ "I •^ ^ ii p i^ •^ ^ Sir A 1 .- in » 8 ^ A < FOOD JNITED STATES ELATIVE RETAIL PRICE S-BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTIC INDEX NUMBERS 1913 - 1918 2 ^ U- "^ g >^ ^ 3 ^ S 1 S U1-4 3 > ^n+ g 5)3 h. - 1. k« to ^ i g ^ s > -.^ 1 s ,^ ^ J f A 1 I J 6 T -fi^ !5 t; 1 J ■^ s=s ^\r-'cST - ^t 1| > ip /^ i^ t,^ 3 > J _h l: ^i X ^ ^ \ ^ "^ ^i " \ 25 ^^ _jO>!1 " ^Zlpi " -t 1 " IJ t i ^ ^ I S ^ § § § § = Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 3: RELATIVE RETAIL PRICES OF FOOD IN THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY I5, I9I3, TO JUNE I5, I918, INCLUSIVE Average price for the year 1913 = 100 (Monthly Review of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) Month 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Average for year 100 102 101 114 146 January . . . . 98 104 103 107 128 160 February 97 101 101 106 133 161 March 97 99 98 107 133 154 April 98 97 99 109 145 154 May 97 98 100 109 151 158 . une 98 99 100 112 152 162 , uly 100 102 100 111 146 August 101 107 100 113 149 September . . . 102 107 101 118 153 October 104 105 103 121 157 November . . . . 105 105 104 126 155 December . . . . 104 105 105 126 157 It will be apparent from the above figures that while there were the usual seasonal fluctuations in 1914 and 1915, there was no unusual change in average prices. For this reason food prices in 1918 may be compared with those prevailing prior to January, 1916, almost as satis- factorily as with those in 1914. Or, if comparisons be made with the average price for 1913, the result will be practically the same as if 1914 prices were used. When the war started, at the end of July, 1914, retail prices of food were slightly higher than in immediately preceding months. In August and September they continued to advance, but in the latter part of the year they fell, not to mount so high again until January, 1916. During 1916 they rose more rapidly and this upward movement continued in 1917 and. 1918. Be- tween the outbreak of the war in July, 1914, and June, 1918, retail food prices advanced 59%.' Between June, 1914, and June, 1918, the increase was 64%. Taking the average price of food for the entire year 1913 as 100, the average price in June, 1918, was 162, an increase of 62%. The average price for each year from 1913 to 1917, inclusive, and for January 15 to June 15, 1918, inclusive, is given for each of 15 principal articles of food in Table 4. 'Inasmuch as index numbers are themselves round percentages, calcula- tions based on them may also be expressed in round percentages. Thus the percentages of change may be fractionally inexact. 9 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 4: RELATIVE RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED ARTICLES OF FOOD IN THE UNITED STATES, I9I3-I918 Average price for the year 1913 = 100 (Monthly Review of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) Article Average price for the year 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 Average prices, January 15 -June 15, 1918 Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June Sirloin steak Round steak Rib roast Pork chops Bacon . . Ham Lard . Hens Eggs Butter Milk Flour . . Corn meal Potatoes Sugar . All articles combined 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 102 106 103 105 102 102 99 102 102 94 100 104 105 108 108 101 103 101 96 100 97 93 97 99 93 99 126 108 89 120 108 110 107 108 106 109 111 111 109 103 102 135 113 155 146 124 130 126 152 152 142 175 134 139 127 125 211 192 253 169 129 137 130 163 180 162 208 154 195 148 151 200 233 188 173 131 141 133 160 179 163 209 170 177 151 151 200 233 188 193 133 143 135 161 181 164 210 a 128 144 -151 200 240 147 167 144 155 148 170 183 166 209 a 123 132 148 200 237 129 165 157 170 161 175 187 170 208 178 123 133 148 200 233 129 165 168 182 169 177 191 173 206 177 123 133 146 203 223 171 165 100 102 101 114 146 160 161 154 154 158 162 a Conforming to tlie ruling of the United States Food Administration, no live or fresh hens were sold. These same facts for 10 of the 15 articles, chosen so as to be fairly representative, are shown in Chart 2, by months, from January 15, 1913, to June 15, 1918, in- clusive. In both Table 4 and Chart 2 the average price for the year 1913 is taken as 100 and prices at other periods are expressed in relation to that average. The price of potatoes dropped considerably in 1915 as compared with 1914, and most other prices fell some- what, but the average prices of sugar, flour and corn meal were higher. In 1916 every article showed an upward movement of some momentum, which continued into the next year. Indeed, while the rate of increase up to June, 1918, varied for the different articles, none in the list save potatoes showed a lower price than it bore in 1916. It appears that one of the most important factors in the rising cost of food in 1917 was the abnormally high point reached by potatoes, flour and corn meal, and the advance in the cost of sugar and lard, all of which, but especially potatoes, flour and sugar, count heavily in the average food budget. The drop in the prices of potatoes and flour in the winter of 1917 and spring of 10 Digitized by Microsoft® Chart S, National Industrial Conference Board, Research Report No. 9 Digitized by IVIicrosoft® Digitized by Microsoft® 1918 apparently brought down, if only slightly and temporarily, the consolidated food price curve, despite the advance in price of other articles.' Special Studies. The United States Railroad Wage Commission, appointed in January, 1918, by the Director General of Railroads to make a survey of certain matters connected with the wages of railroad employees, used the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers as the basis of its study of food prices, and concluded that the average price of food throughout the country increased 52% between January 1, 1916, and January 1, 1918. This is tantamount to a 52% increase within the war period, since, as already pointed out, no significant increase in food prices occurred until 1916. The percentages of increase were : eastern territory, 52% ; southern territory, 56%; western territory, 47%. ^ A study of actual expenditures for food by 265 families, made for the Railroad Wage Commission, showed, however, that the average outlay in the calendar year 1917 was only 40% more than the average outlay in 1915. It is explained in the Commission's report that "these are not true relative increases, but are some indication of the substitutions and economies practised. "^ But changes in food prices between January, 1915, and January, 1918, necessarily differ from changes in average expenditures for food in the entire years 1915 and 1917; moreover, in periods of rising prices, quotations in January would inevitably be higher than averages for the entire year preceding. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers of average prices for the calendar years 1915 and 1917, for example, show an increase of only 45% as against an increase of 55% between January 15, 1915, and January 15, 1918. Hence, while substitution of ^The lower average prices observable in March and April, 1918, were re- presentative of a true decrease as well as of the customary spring decline. This is evidenced by comparing price increases between 1913 and 1918 at each of the first six months in the year, as follows: Between January 15, 1913, and January 15, 1918 . . 63% Between February 15, 1913, and February 15, 1918. 66%^ Between March 15, 1913, and March 15, 1918 .... 59% Between April 15, 1913, and April 15, 1918 57% Between May 15, 1913, and May 15, 1918 63% Between June 15, 1913, and June 15, 1918 66% ^Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, pp. 82, 1 'Ibid., p. 86. 11 Digitized by Microsoft® different articles was undoubtedly practised, the saving effected apparently was not so great as the Railroad Wage Commission concluded. In some cases, indeed, prices of substitutes have risen more than have prices of the articles they replaced. ' In a brief submitted by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen to the Director General of Railroads in support of its demand for increased wages in 1918, an attempt was made to bring up to date the workingmen's budget compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1901. The figures for 1914 and 1917 were obtained "by applying to the principal items of the 1900 budget the percentages of increase in those years as compared with 1900."' According to this estimate, food increased in price 50% between 1914 and 1917. Food Prices in the State of Washington Since 1914 the Bureau of Labor of the state of Wash- ington has made annually a special study of the retail prices of foodstuffs and fuel throughout that state. The articles and quantities listed are those considered, after careful investigation, to be representative of th« actual annual consumption of an average family of five. The prices are April quotations submitted by upwards of 40 dealers in all parts of the state. In 1918 a number of changes were made in the list of foods in order that it might conform to the regulations of the government; the totals for different years are nevertheless regarded by the Washington State Bureau of Labor as comparable.* Table 5, showing the annual cost of foodstuffs in different cities and sections of the state, based on prices in April of each year since 1914, has been compiled from the figures published by the Washington State Bureau of Labor. ^Monthly Review, April, 1918, p. 192. This investigation covered a period from 1900 to 1902, but is usually referred to as the investigation of 1901, since the majority of budgets mentioned therein were for that year. ^"Substitutes. IVIany substitutes for foodstuffs ordinarily in use have come into the daily diet of the people since the United States entered the War. This has so affected the quantity of staple articles consumed that comparison be- tween the itemized figures of 1918 and those of any previous year would have little value in this table. In the 1918 list there are food products reported which are not mentioned at all in the reports of previous years, such as barley flour, oat flour and hominy. Other articles are either eliminated or merged with some other commodity. . . . Because of these changes, those desiring to make comparisons must turn to the totals by years. . . The high prices of substitutes very materially increase the cost of living." State of Wash- ington, Bureau of Labor, Foodstuffs and Fuel, Olympia, April, 1918. 12 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 5: ANNUAL COST OF FOODSTUFFS FOR A FAMILY OF FIVE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, I9I4-I918, BASED ON APRIL PRICES (Bureau of Labor, Olympia, Washington) Actual Cost Items by locality Groceries, vegetables and fruits Seattle. ... Tacoma Spokane . .... Southwestern part of state Northwestern part of state Eastern part of state . . 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 $236.66 238.83 238.13 230.07 231.31 231.63 $264.04 247.57 252.10 247.10 243.04 246.94 $268.78 253.85 256.43 246.75 253.80 254.23 $331.30 335.50 342.82 331.27 328.26 333.40 $335.48 327.74 333.32 331.15 328.01 320.89 Meat and fish Seattle. Tacoma Spokane . .... Southwestern part of state Northwestern part of state Eastern part of state . . 137.53 145.11 124.94 137.14 134.22 138.22 141.53 143.33 135.88 134.63 130.19 138.81 146.44 139.88 147.82 138.00 137.52 142.62 183.71 194.42 169.59 174.77 184.02 174.82 Groceries, vegetables, fruits, meat and fish combined Seattle Tacoma" Spokane Southwestern part of state Northwestern part of state Eastern part of state 228.13 234.62 228.93 219.95 215.74 221.96 374.19 383.94 363.07 367.21 365.53 369.85 395.57 390.90 387.98 381.73 373.23 385.75 415.22 393.73 404.25 384.75 391.32 396.85 515.01 529.92 512.41 606.04 512.28 608.22 563.61 562.36 562.25 551.10 543.75 542.85 Relative Cost April, 1914, Price = 100 Groceries, vegetables and fruits Seattle. . ... 100 107 114 140 142 Tacoma . . . 100 104 106 140 137 Spokane . .... 100 106 108 144 140 Southwestern part of state . 100 107 107 144 144 Northwestern part of state . 100 105 110 142 142 Eastern part of state 100 107 110 144 139 Meat and fish Seattle. 100 103 106 134 166 Tacoma 100 99 96 134 162 Spokane . .... 100 109 118 136 183 Southwestern part of state . 100 98 101 127 160 Northwestern part of state . 100 97 102 137 161 Eastern part of state . . 100 100 103 126 161 Groceries, vegetables, fruits, meat and fish combined Seattle. . . . . . 100 106 111 138 151 Tacoma 100 102 103 138 147 Spokane . . 100 107 111 141 155 Southwestern part of state . 100 104 105 138 150 Northwestern part of state . 100 102 107 140 149 Eastern part of state . . . 100 104 107 137 147 13 Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® It will be seen from this table and Chart 3 that in the four-year period the combined prices of groceries, vege- tables, fruits, meat and fish increased 47% to 55%, the degree of increase varying in different sections of the state. The rise in price of meat and fish was everywhere con- siderably greater than that of groceries, vegetables and fruits. Meat and fish prices continued in 1918 an upward movement which first became marked in 1917, whereas prices of groceries, vegetables and fruit increased only slightly, if at all, in 1918. In some parts of the state they decreased. The rate of advance in food prices as a whole between 1917 and 1918 was less rapid than it had been between 1916 and 1917. These price movements in the state of Washington, although computed on a different base, are nevertheless in substantial agreement with the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers. Other Local Studies Fifteen Shipbuilding Districts. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics up to June, 1918, had pub- lished the results of investigations of the cost of living among families in 15 shipbuilding districts, made in co-operation with the Shipbuilding Wage Adjustment Board of the Emergency Fleet Corporation. Reports of these studies state that "schedules covering in detail the income and expenditure for the year 1917 . . . were secured through personal visits of the agents of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to the homes of families of workers in shipbuilding establishments and others in the localities in which shipbuilding workers reside," and that "informa- tion as to the increase in the retail prices from 1914 to 1917 of each of the various items of cost of living was obtained, by personal visits of the agents of the Bureau, from retail dealers patronized by workers in the same localities."* It was learned from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, that, instead of making such local investigations of food prices in each individual community, the changes in cost of this item as shown by prices in Jacksonville alone were applied to four other shipbuilding districts in the South Atlantic states, while New Orleans prices were monthly Review, March, 1918, p. 112. See also ibid., April, 1918, p. 151, and ibid., June, 1918, pp. 99, 104. 15 Digitized by Microsoft® applied to eight shipbuilding districts in Gulf states. Furthermore, the prices were for December alone of each year instead of averages for the entire year. While this method was probably sufficient for the immediate purposes of the study then being made by the Bureau, It should be recognized that the application of the Jacksonville and New Orleans prices to other districts gives no added breadth to the Information as a basis for judging changes in the cost of living over a more extended area. The New Orleans figures showed 57.32% Increase in the cost of food between December, 1914, and December, 1917, and Jacksonville figures an increase of 50.83%. In Philadelphia within the same period the advance was 54.41%, and In New York, 55.28%.^ Pacific Coast. A study of the cost of living on the Pacific Coast, made by the United States Shipping Board, indicated that between June, 1916, and February, 1918^ food prices advanced 52%.'' The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers for this same period for the country as a whole showed an increase of only 44%. Bankers Trust Company, New York. In the latter part of 1917, the Bankers Trust Company of New York made an investigation, later continued to June, 1918, of changes In the cost of living since 1915. Its purpose was to estab- lish a working basis for adjustment of salaries. Accounts of expenditures were kept by employees, and, wherever possible prices in 1917 and 1918 were compared with average prices for the entire year 1915. The In- vestigating committee came to the conclusion that the retail cost of food on June 30, 1918, was 60% higher than the average cost throughout the year 1915.' This is in ^Monthly Revieta, March, 1918, p. 112; ibid.. April, 1918, pp. 151-152; ibid., June, 1918, pp. 99-104. Reports of investigations of the cost of Uving in seven shipbuilding districts on the North Atlantic Coast, made by the same agencies, showed increases in the price of food between December, 1914, and March, 1918, as follows: Portland and Bath, Me., and Portsmouth, N. H., 47.28% (based on Manchester, N. H., prices); Boston, Mass., 39.40%;, Baltimore, Md., 60.34%; Norfolk and Newport News, Va., 53.32% (based on Richmond, Va., prices). Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, pp. 132-135. 'Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, p. 86. 'Report of Special Committee Appointed to Investigate Increased Living Costs, December 15, 1917, Bankers Trust Company, New York; Compensation for Increased Living Costs, Report of Committee Covering Six Months Ending June 30, 1918, Bankers Trust Company, New York. See also New York Times- Annalist, January 14, 1918. 16 Digitized by Microsoft® accord with the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers, which show that between the average price in 1915 and the average price June 15, 1918, the increase was 60%. Food Budgets in Specified Localities. The cost of a food order for wage-earners' families reported from widely separated parts of the country showed, on the whole, a- fair similarity of increase between February, 1916, and February, 1918. The items included in the order for which prices in the different sections were compared were : tea, coffee, sugar, bacon, cheese, butter, eggs, milk, pota- toes, flour, bread, beef, mutton, veal and pork.^ . The increase in the price of these 15 articles combined is shown in Table 6. TABLE 6: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE BETWEEN FEB- RUARY, I916, AND FEBRUARY, I918, IN THE COST OF A wage-earner's food ORDER FOR ONE WEEK, IN 1 6 LOCALITIES State Locality Percentage of increase State Locality Percentage of increase California A 50.9 Maryland I 56.7 Colorado B 55.4 Montana J 60.6 C 33.4 Nebraska K 34.9 D 36.7 New Jersey L 56.5 E 58.2 Texas M 45.9 F 49.5 Utah N 62.5 Idaho G 55.4 64.8 Illinois H 47.2 Washington P 38.6 From the above tabulation it appears that in these 16 different localities the reported increase in cost of such a food order between February, 1916, and February, 1918, varied from 33.4% in Colorado to 64.8% in Utah. The average increase was approximately 50%. 'Private local studies. Manuscript report. 17 Digitized by Microsoft® Of less importance, because covering briefer periods and not sufficiently reflecting wartime changes, although significant, are certain other studies of the cost of food. Dallas, Tex. A survey of the cost of living in Dallas, made in the spring of 1917 by a wage commission ap- pointed by the mayor to obtain data on which to base city employees' salaries, disclosed that among 50 families reporting there had been an increase of 45.1% in the cost of food between April, 1914, and April, 1917. ' In the country as a whole, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers, retail food prices for the same period increased 49%. New York, N. Y. The New York City Board of Esti- mate and Apportionment concluded from a study of the conditions which must be met by the family of an un- skilled laborer that the cost of food increased 28.3% between February, 1915, and February, 1917.' The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers give an increase of 33% within the same period for the entire United States. Quincy, Mass. An investigation of prices in Quincy by the Fore River Shipbuilding Corporation, for the Emer- gency Fleet Corporation, made by means of interviews with retail merchants, and covering the year July 30, 1916, to July 30, 1917, showed an average increase for meats of29.6%(pork,34%; beef, 25%; lamb, 38%,; veal, 21%) and for fish (fresh, salt, smoked and canned), 41%. For flour an increase of 78% was reported; for bread, 71%; for potatoes, 51%. For 14 selected articles the increase in Quincy was 34% as against a general advance of 39% throughout the country, as recorded by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers. Wollaston, Norfolk Downs and Atlantic, communities adjacent to Quincy, showed average increases of 25% for meat and 29% for fish ; prices of groceries in these three neighbor- hoods rose 30%.' 'Report of Survey Committee to the Dallas Wage Commission, p. 5. * Report on the Increased Cost of Living for an Unskilled Laborer's Family in New York City. Prepared by the Bureau of Personal Service of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, February, 1917, p. 11. 'Manuscript report. 18 Digitized by Microsoft® Food Expenditures of Families with Subnormal Incomes. Among families with very small incomes, accustomed to restricted diets, increases in the cost of food have ap- parently been somewhat greater than the increases already noted as applicable to average wage-earners. One budget illustrative of such diets was furnished by the Pitts- field, Mass., Associated Charities. This shows that in the two-year period, October, 1915, to October, 1917, the advance was 89%. This budget, however, includes no meat except lamb and salt pork, which in the period under consideration increased in price 156% and 200% re- spectively, and includes no butter, milk or fresh fruit. On the other hand, the budget included other items, such as beans and eggs, which increased nearly 200%, and potatoes, the price increase of which was over 200%. In comparison, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers show an increase in food prices within the same period of only 52%. A more varied food order for families with subnormal incomes, prepared by the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, shows an increase from November, 1915, to March, 1917, of 41%. Another food order providing "the practical requirements for maintaining a decent standard of living," constructed by the Supervisor of the Social Service Bureau of Bellevue Hospital, New York, shows an increase in the cost of food between March, 1915, and March, 1917, of 41%.> The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers for these two periods show increases of 28% and 36% respectively. These increases in food budgets of charitable societies are thus seen to be considerably greater than the increases shown for wage-earners generally. Summary From the data thus far presented, an approximation of changes in food prices throughout the country be- tween 1914 and 1918 is possible. The most pertinent evidence is summarized in Table 7. 'Report on the Increased Gjst of Living for an Unskilled Laborer's Family in New York City, pp. 25-28. 19 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 7: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES, I9I4-I918 Authority Percentage of increase between Locality June, 1914- June, 1918 April, 1914- April, 1917 April, 1914- April. 1918 Feb., 1916- Feb., 1918 Deo., 1914r Dec, 1917 United States United States U. S. Bureau of La- bor Statistics .... U. S. Railroad Wage 64 49a 59a 52 525 52^. 47b 50 Eastern Territory Southern do. . . do. . do do United States Brotherhood Loco- motive Firemen 50<: State of Washington Seattle . . Bureau of Labor do 38 38 41 38 40 37 51 47 55 50 49 47 Tacoma do. . Spokane do S. W. part of state N.W. part of state E. part of state do do. . .do Locality P California, LocalityA Private local studv 38.6 50.9 52d 55.4 60.6 62.5 64.8 55.4 33.4 36.7 58.2 49.5 34.9 47.2 do. . . . U. S. Shipping Board Private local study . do Idaho, Locality G . . Montana, Locality J Utah Locality N Locality . . do do Colorado do Locality C do Locality D .do Locality E do Locality F Nebraska,Locality K do do do New York, N. Y. Bankers Trust Co. . U. S. Bureau of La- 60^ New York, N. Y... 55.28 Philadelphia, Pa. . . do do 54.41 50.83 New Orleans, La. do. .. 57.32 Dallas, Tex Wage Commission . . 45.1 Texas, Locality M Maryland, Locality I NewJersey,LocalityL 45.9 56.7 56.5 do a United States Bureau of Labor Statistics consolidated index number for April, 1914, was low, hence the increase shown is perhaps too great to be representative. 6 January, 1916, and January, 1918. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers for the period show an increase of 50%. c Given as averages for the years 1914 and 1917. d June, 1916, and February, 1918._ United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers show an increase for this period of 44%. ■ Averages for the year 1915 and June 30, 1918. 20 Digitized by Microsoft© An analysis of this table makes it clear that no matter what the base or starting point for comparisons, changes in food prices within any given period show on the whole a marked advance the country over. From the evidence available it appears that between the spring of 1914 and the spring of 1917, when the United States entered the war, food prices rose 35% to 50% and have continued to rise since that time. Although it is true that standards of living, transportation, accessibility to supply and other factors cause some local variations, 60% to 65% fairly reflects the advance in food prices from the out- break of the war in the summer of 1914 to the middle of June, 1918. The fact that certain charitable organizations reported larger increases in no wise invalidates the general con- clusion. Their estimates are, as a rule, bare existence budgets. These include a large proportion of those articles for which the greatest price increases have been made and are not typical of the average American wage-earner's family diet. No other single percentage is as representative of the rise in the cost of food during the war period as that indicated by the food index numbers of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; the Bureau's figures are, more- over, substantially in accord with those of other reliable agencies. Using average prices for the year 1913 as a base,' those index numbers show an increase in the prices of food up to June 15, 1918, of 62%. This percentage has, therefore, been adopted in this report as measuring the increase in cost of food from the outbreak of the European war to June, 1918. 'See p. 9. 21 Digitized by Microsoft® II SHELTER Rent constitutes 12% to 20% of the total annual ex- penditure of a representative wage-earner's family. The average shown in Table 2 is 17.65%. Since comprehensive data showing the extent to which rents had changed since 1914 were not available, inquiries were addressed by the National Industrial Conference Board to real estate associations and brokers, members of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, bureaus of municipal research, housing associations and charitable and welfare organizations in a large number of industrial cities. In addition, recourse was had to the reports of other agencies which had made recent investigations of the rent situation.^ The evidence thus assembled necessarily reflects judg- ments based on more or less narrow experience. Probably the opinion of no single authority could be accepted as final regarding changes in rent in any given locality. Charitable organizations have one point of view, real estate brokers another, and chambers of commerce still another. Moreover, in large cities rent conditions are not the same in all neighborhoods. For this reason reports from the same community are not always in accord with one another. Nevertheless the evidence here presented affords a fair basis for estimating the change in the cost of shelter which has occurred since 1914. In analyzing the evidence thus obtained, the com- munities included in the study have been classified into 'An estimate by the Railroad Wage Commission showed an increase in rent between January 1, 1916, and January 1, 1918, for the entire country, of 10%. This varied from 5% in the southern territory and 7% in the western territory to 15% in the eastern territor>. The experience of 265 families actually ques- tioned for the Commission likewise showed an average increase of 10% in expenditures for rent between 1915 and 1917. (Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, pp. 82, 86.) The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemenand Engine- men, in the brief submitted by them to the Director General of Railroads, placed the increase in rents between 1914 and 1917 at 20%. {Monthly Review, April, 1918, p. 192.) 22 Digitized by Microsoft® four general groups: (1) communities where there had been no particular disturbance of normal conditions by- war business and where rents had been stationary or had increased not more than 10%; (2) communities where rent increases were somewhat greater; (3) communities where a war boom was accompanied by congestion of population, shortage of housing accommodations and exceptional increases in rents; and (4) communities where on account of the withdrawal of labor or for other causes rents had decreased. The greater part of the country lies in one or the other of the first two groups; the abnormal housing conditions created by war booms and rent profiteering which have characterized some localities are not representative. The grouping of localities has been arranged ac- cording to the percentage of change in the rents of wage-earners' homes as reported in the replies to the questionnaire. As the available evidence is incomplete, the classification must be regarded as a convenient means of picturing the situation in a broad way, rather than as a precise determination of exact changes in specific localities. Where opinions conflicted as to conditions in any given section, the higher estimate has usually deter- mined the classification. Not all cities from which infor- mation was secured are mentioned in the text; a list, together with a summary of changes in rent since 1914, is given at the end of this chapter. As this report is concerned chiefly with conditions as they affect the average wage-earner, changes in rents of expensive houses and apartments are noted only as they throw side lights on the main problem. Communities Where Rents of Wage-Earners' Houses Increased Not More Than Ten Per Cent In the group of communities where no rise in the rents of wage-earners' houses had taken place since 1914, or where at most an advance of not more than 10% had occurred, may be placed Boston, Lynn and Fall River, Mass.; Providence, R. I.; Rochester, N. Y. ; Birmingham, Ala.; Atlanta, Ga.; Pascagoula, Miss.; Beaumont and Orange, Tex.; Cincinnati, Elyria and Columbus, Ohio; Chicago, 111.; St. Louis, Mo.; San Francisco and Los 23 Digitized by Microsoft® Angeles, Cal. Other cities showing similar tendencies will be found in the alphabetical list at the end of this chapter.' Boston. Boston showed a considerable variety of rent conditions and in this respect may be representative of other large urban areas for which it was not practicable to secure such complete returns. Although in three sec- tions of the city increases of more than 10% were found, in the great majority of the districts where workingmen and their families live, rents had changed but little within the last few years. Investigation by agents of the Board indicated that in the early summer of 1918, in the North End, South Cove and East Boston districts, rents of workingmen's houses, which predominate in these sections, were 10% to 20% higher, and in East Boston even 40% higher, than in 1914. In the West End, most of Roxbury, Dorchester and South Boston, with their large wage-earning populations, rents for the most part were stationary. Yet in the older sections of Roxbury they had been decreasing. In Dorchester instances of rising rents might occasionally be found, owing to an unusual demand for accommodations by shipyard workers in Quincy and Squantum, which adjoin that part of Boston. In some sections of South Boston there were decreases; in sections nearest the shipyards, slight increases. In the South End, a lodging house dis- trict, and Charlestown, rents were 10% to 20% lower than they were a few years ago.^ * Lynn, Providence and Fall River. The Lynn Chamber of Commerce reported that no extensive change in rents had recently taken place. A Providence real estate broker made the same statement regarding the situation in that city. In Fall River, according to the Chamber of Commerce, a 10% advance was made in the summer of 1918, although there were said to be several thousand vacant tenements. ^Reports of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics investigation of /cost of living In certain shipbuilding centers on the North Atlantic Coast .showed rent increases between December, 1914, and March, 1918, as follows: Portland, Me., 3.46%; Portsmouth, N. H., 3.28%; Norfolk, Va., 8.32%. .Monthly Labor Review!, August, 1918, pp. 133-134. 'The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics study of families in the Boston shipbuilding district brought out an increase in rent of less thsin 1% lup to March, 1918. Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, p. 133. 24 Digitized by Microsoft® Rochester. Inquiries made by the Chamber of Com- merce indicated little if any general rise, although a tendency to advance was reported from one or two sections. Birmingham and Atlanta. One large real estate com- pany in Birmingham stated that after a period of de- pressed rents in 1915, low-price houses in the industrial sections of the city were renting early in July, 1918, "for as much as or probably a little bit more than in July, 1914." It was expected that rents would soon increase. In Atlanta, a broker reported rents had been lower in 1914 than in preceding years, but in 1918 a general advance of 10% was made. It was said that in no instance did the increase bring rents above prices prevailing prior to the 1914 reduction. Pascagoula, Beaumont and Orange. In the shipbuilding districts of these towns, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found that up to the end of 1917 rents had increased in Pascagoula, 4.84%; in Beaumont, 2.30%; in Orange, 7.41%.^ Cincinnati. An investigation by the civic and in- dustrial department of the Chamber of Commerce, made in March, 1918, at the request of the United States Rail- road Wage Commission, brought out that there had been no general increase in rents for the wage-earning population. Conditions were unchanged up to the latter part of May, 1918. The Better Housing League re- ported that rents of houses occupied by white industrial -workers had been raised only when extensive repairs or alterations had been made or when new tenants had come in. In such cases increases of 50 cents to $1 per month per family were usual. In the higher-price tenements, where skilled workingmen live, an increase of $1 per month per family had been asked, and negro tenants were paying an increase of as much as |2 to |3 per month. Columbus and Elyria. A vice-president of the National Association of Real Estate Boards said that Columbus had had but little war work and that the situation there was not at all as in near-by centers of war industry. "There has been a slight increase in rentals here and there over the city . . . but no horizontal increase." ^Monthly Review, June, 1918, pp. 102, 103. 25 Digitized by Microsoft® The Chamber of Commerce of Elyria found rents to be very little higher than in peace times. Chicago. A large industrial corporation estimated that the cost of shelter in Chicago to individuals earning common labor rates advanced 10% from January, 1915, to January, 1918. According to the Chicago Renting Agents' Association, however, which represents 250 agents handling about 80% of the property managed by agents, increases were confined to the better class of apartment buildings. A poll of the various real estate offices was said to show no blanket increase in rents up to July, 1918. Many real estate men and property owners predicted a 10% increase in the rent of steam-heated apartments in Chicago in the fall of 1918. St. Louis. From the City Plan Commission, on authority of the Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate Exchange, the statement was received that there had been a more. or less general increase of 10% to 15% applicable particularly to apartment houses, but not as a rule to the homes of wage-earners. An increase of about 10% in rents of new buildings was considered likely. San Francisco. The Commonwealth Club of San Francisco furnished the information that "rentals for persons in industrial occupations had not been increased since 1914." This opinion was also expressed by one of the city's real estate brokers. Los Angeles. Rents for persons in industrial occupa- tions were practically unchanged in May, 1918, from those of 1914 and there was no tendency toward an increase, in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce. The president of the California State Realty Federation inclined to the belief that within the last few years rents had been reduced. There has been little business in Los Angeles resulting from the war to attract workingmen to the city. Recently some shipbuilding plants have been established in San Pedro, a suburb of Los Angeles, but it was stated that because of the large number of houses available no increase in rents was probable. Communities Where Rents of Wage-Earners' Houses Increased More Than Ten Per Cent Larger increases in rents have occurred in Lowell and Pittsfield, Mass.; New York, Schenectady, Utica and 26 Digitized by Microsoft® Buffalo, N. Y.; Newark, N. J.; Philadelphia, Altoona and Pittsburgh, Pa.; Baltimore, Md.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; Fort Wayne and Gary, Ind.; Rockford, 111.; Kenosha and Waukesha, Wis.; Portland, Ore.; Seattle, Wash, and other cities included in the summary table.' Lowell. War contracts, bringing to the city a great addition to the industrial population, accelerated a general increase in rents, which, beginning in 1911, amounted in April, 1918, to between 18% and 30%, according to the Lowell Board of Trade. Since April, 1918, further increases up to 50% have occurred. Pittsfield. Rents in 1918 were generally higher than in 1916 but lower than in 1914. From 1906 until 1914 rents were fairly high, but in 1915 they declined some- what. Semi-det-ached houses which in 1914 brought $25 on one side and $35 on the other rented in 1915 for $15 for each side. In the next three years rents rose, until in 1918 the lower-price side was renting for $18, the other for as much as $22. Here are apparent increases of 20% and 47%, but 1918 rates still were considerably less than those ruling in 1912-1914. New York. Rent advances in New York were ex- tremely irregular. Up to February, 1917, according to the investigation made by the city's Board of Estimate and Apportionment, 2 unskilled laborers' rents were no higher than in 1915. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found in its investigation of conditions among shipbuilding workers in the New York district that an increase of 2.63% had occurred between 1914 and the end of 1917.' The committee of employees of the Bankers Trust Company allowed for a 10% increase in rent between 1915 and June 30, 1918. The Real Estate Board of New York found from inquiry among representative brokers in May, 1918, that 'The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in its investigation of North Atlantic shipbuilding districts found that between December, 1914, and March, 1918, rents increased in Bath, Me., 26.33%, and in Newport News, Va., 14.57%. Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, pp. 132, 134. ^Report on the Increased Cost of Living for an Unskilled Laborer's Family in New York City, p. 11. 'Monthly Review, April, 1918, p. 152. * Compensation for Increased Living Costs, p. 3. 27 Digitized by Microsoft® for accommodations usually renting for not more than $50 per month rents generally had advanced in the Bronx, Queens, Richmond and certain sections of Manhattan boroughs. In Brooklyn, flat increases of $1 to $5 per month for heated apartments were reported by one broker, while another stated there were as many cases where former rates still prevailed. In the eastern Harlem and southern Bronx districts increases of about $1 per month per apartment had sometimes been made, but for tenements and the older types of apartments there had been no increase. The New York Tenement House Commissioner stated in June, 1918: There has been no general increase in rents throughout New York City [for persons engaged in industrial occupations]. ... In the East Side of the Borough of Manhattan, which consti- tutes the principal tenement house district of New York City, there has been no increase in rentals since 1914. In fact, there has actually been a slight decrease in rentals in the extreme lower East Side, that is to say, below Grand Street. This is attributed largely to the increased transit facilities to other boroughs in recent years and to the fact that many of the tenement houses in this district are of a very old type, which, of course, cannot com- pete with the newer and better types which are readily accessible in other boroughs, especially in the Borough of Brooklyn. In certain sections of the city there has been an increase of from $1 to $2 per apartment of four or five rooms. In the high- class apartment houses there has been an increase of about 10%. The report from the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor was to the effect that rents of apartments occupied by industrial workers had gone up more slowly than the prices of other necessities. In the spring of 1917 additions of $1 per month on rents of $8 to $15, and of $2 or $3 per month on rents of $15 to $22, for new tenants were reported. No further advance was made in the winter, but in the spring of 1918 every section of the city experienced rises in rent. These amounted to 50 cents per month for rear rooms; $1 per month for front rooms or apartments renting for $11 to $15; and $2, $3 and $5 per month for apartments renting for $25 to $35. 28 Digitized by Microsoft® Schenectady. Rents in Schenectady showed no tendency to increase until the spring of 1918, when a great influx of workers caused a sudden upward movement amounting in some cases to 20% to 50%. The chief complaint from Schenectady was that accommodations were insufficient to meet the demands of home-seekers and that at times individuals unable to rent a house purchased one and turned out the former occupants. Utica. Although Utica is an important munitions center, rents advanced only slightly between July, 1914, and April, 1917. In the latter part of 1917 and early in 1918, however, according to a local real estate broker, increases of about 15% were made. A heavy demand for houses was reported and an additional advance of 10% to 15% within another year was predicted. Buffalo. The president of the Real Estate Association of the State of New York wrote from Buffalo : We have had a large influx of skilled labor with very little building comparatively and the demand for housing has exceeded the supply. A year ago there was more or less concerted action on the part of landlords to increase all rents from 10% to 25% and this spring [1918] another advance has been generally made. This estimate, of 10% to 25% increase is practically corroborated by two real estate brokers. Another broker, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Builders Associa- tion Exchange said that rent in Buffalo had gone up only about 10%. The Buffalo Charity Organization Society placed the advance at as much as 33M% to 50%. Newark. The secretary of the Board of Trade of Newark declared in the spring of 1918 that rent con- ditions in his city were unsettled. A greatly increased demand for all classes of houses resulted from the recent extension of many lines of war industry, which brought to the city between 65,000 and 70,000 liew workers. Rent increases of 18% to 25% had been made and further increases were considered probable, especially for accom- modations in apartment houses. Philadelphia. Although the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found that up to the end of 1917 rents 29 Digitized by Microsoft® in the Philadelphia shipbuilding district had increased only 2.6% above those of 1914/ there was apparently a more general advance from the summer of 1917 on. With both city and suburban areas working under high pressure on government orders, bringing an additional population estimated at 100,000 or more, there was, up to April, 1918, very little new building, according to the Phila- delphia Housing Association. In some rents increased 30% to 50%. Pittsburgh and Altoona. Reports from the Chamber of Commerce and the Civic Club of Pittsburgh agreed that there had been an average rise of 10% to 15% in rents up to the spring and summer of 1918. In Altoona, according to the local real estate exchange, rents had not changed within the war period until recently, but in the summer of 1918 increases of 10% to 20% or 25% were made. Baltimore. The Chamber of Commerce reported an increase in rents all over the city since 1914. Where tenants had heat, elevator and other service there was an advance of between 10% and 15%, according to the Merchants and Manufacturers Association. The Fede- rated Charities in Baltimore stated that rent increases had averaged 20%. The secretary of the Real Estate Board said: From the investigations we have made . . . we would suggest that the increases run from 10% to 25% on all classes of rented property.^ Chattanooga. This city experienced no increase in rents until April, 1917, in the opinion of a local real estate broker. An advance was then made amounting to 20% to 25% for small houses renting at $15 to $30 per month, while for $30 to $50 houses the advance was placed at 12^% to 25%. Chattanooga is a manufacturing city, close to the military cantonment at Chickamauga Park. Fort Wayne, Waukesha, Rockford, Gary, and Kenosha. Reporting on changes in rents between 1914 and the 1 Monthly Review, March, 1918, p. 112. 'An earlier letter, written before careful investigation had been made of the situation, put the increase in rents at 5% to 40%. In the Baltimore shipbuilding district, rates increased between December, 1914, and March, 1918, 4.83%, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, p. 133. 30 Digitized by Microsoft® spring of 1918, local real estate brokers placed the advance at 15% to 20% in Fort Wayne, at about 25% in Waukesha, and at 25% to 50%, most of it since April, 1917, in Rockford, near which is located a military can- tonment. The president of the Gary Real Estate Ex- change placed the increase to both old and new tenants at 20% on the average; one of the city's trust companies made a similar estimate. Kenosha, according to the Kenosha Homes Company, experienced an increase of 10% to 25%. Portland and Seattle. The United States Shipping Board concluded from its study of conditions in Pacific Coast shipbuilding districts that between June, 1916, and February, 1918, rents had increased about 16%.' In Portland, according to the local realty board, the growth of shipbuilding operations in 1917 brought a decided increase in rents all over the city. In Seattle, likewise, a broker reported that rents of houses occupied by industrial workers had gone up generally. Rents of property bringing $10 to S50 per month were raised about 15% in the spring of 1918 and it was expected that further advances would be made. The Associated Charities re- ported even greater increases. Communities Where Exceptional Rent Increases Were Reported In a few cities, relatively unimportant in the total number, rents were more seriously affected by the war than in those already described, so much so as completely to disarrange prevailing housing standards and to cause serious social and economic problems. In several of these localities there were charges of profiteering by landlords, and in some, special investigations under federal, state or -city direction were ordered. Bridgeport, Conn. One of the first cities to feel the effects of war industries on its housing problem^ was Bridgeport, where, since 1915, high wages in munitions factories have attracted workers from other sections. In 1916 a median increase of 22% in rent beyond that charged in 1915 was found among 77 families specially studied and advances of 50% or more were noted.* That ' Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, p. 86. • Amy Hewes, Women as Munition Makers, New York, 1917, p. 74. 31 Digitized by Microsoft® conditions had not materially improved in the spring of 1918 is indicated by this statement from the Chamber of Commerce : Rents in Bridgeport have increased 10% to 100% since 1914. The increase has been propor- tionally greater for cheaper dwellings and less for high cost dwellings. ... It has generally- been "all that the traffic will bear." With an in- crease in population of about 70,000 since 1914, when our population was 114,000, an increase in rents was inevitable. The average increase up to June, 1918, among 979' families was found by the Bridgeport Manufacturers' Association to be 32.5%.' Waterbury, Conn. Owing to repeated charges of ex- cessive rents in Waterbury an investigating commission was appointed by the Governor of Connecticut in December, 1917. For 102 houses personally investigated by the commissioners, average increases in rents of 84% were found. The average period covered was 2^ years; average first rent, $15.16; average last rent, f27.96j average number of rooms, 5.2. The Commission found that the practice was not universal, but a small minority of Waterbury landlords, especially those who had only recently become owners of real estate, had taken advan- tage of the economic situation to demand rents far above any fair or normal level, and that even while demanding these excessive rents they had failed to supply decent accommodations. Chester, Pa. In 1914 Chester had a population of about 40,000; by 1918 this had increased to 80,000. The building of dwelling houses was by no means proportionate.^ The Manufacturers Association of Delaware County wrote in August, 1918, that it was the best opinion in real estate circles in Chester that rents of wage-earners' houses had increased 50% since July, 1914. Cleveland, Ohio. In April, 1918, the City Council of Cleveland investigated the local housing situation. An account of the hearing before the Council, in the Cleve- land Plain Dealer of April 26th, contained statements 1 The Iron Age, July 18, 1918, p. 146. •John Ihlder, How the War Came to Chester, The Survey, June 1, 1918, pp. 243. ff. 32 Digitized by Microsoft® that rent increases ranged from 20% to 160% on property which had depreciated 10% to 90% in assessed value. Rents for small and insanitary houses were found to be particularly out of proportion to the service given, and the federal government was memorialized to take steps against profiteering. The Cleveland Welfare Federation, from a rapid survey of conditions, concluded that the increase in rents in the last few years had sometimes been as high as 60%. Within the last year or two, according to the secretary of the Cleveland Real Estate Board, apartments and houses renting for less than $30 a month had been ad- vanced 10% to 15%; apartments and houses renting for over $30 had gone up 10% to 25% ; especially was this true of houses in the negro quarter. Youngstozvn, Ohio. The secretary of the local real estate board reported that in many instances of which he personally knew rents had increased as much as 200%, but that the increase in general had not exceeded 50%: Our housing conditions are very bad, and it is esti- mated that we are short from 3,000 to 4,000 houses. . . . The real estate men are of the opinion we can expect further increases in rent in this district in the near future. Detroit, Mich. The course of rents in Detroit has been highly irregular. While the increase in 1918 over 1914 was estimated by the Citizens Charter Committee at 16% to 20%, according to the Board of Commerce there was a period in which much higher figures prevailed. The latter stated that a general increase of perhaps 10% was made in 1915 and that in 1916 and 1917 there were much larger advances : ... In October of that year [1916] this Board made a canvass of a number of representative dis- tricts in the different wards. . . . The increases in rents were 25% to 40% and in some cases even 50% to 60% or 70%. It was diffi- cult for the newcomers to obtain houses even at that. The Committee found two colonies of families living in tents on vacant subdivisions in the suburbs. . . . There has been considerable recession in rents, though not to the same extent as the advance in 1916. . . . Residence rents still average fully 20% higher than in 1914. Many landlords took advantage of the situation to make extortionate raises in rents. 33 Digitized by Microsoft® Washington, D. C. The- situation at the national capital is so abnormal as to be totally unlike that in any other city in the country. The unprecedented influx of government employees has made it possible to demand almost any price for shelter, and rents have increased 60% to 200%.' Communities Where Rents Decreased Evansville, Ind. In this woodworking center manu- facturers have had no war contracts and many workers have been attracted by high wages to other localities. The result, according to the Chamber of Commerce, was many empty houses and decreasing rents. In a few cases rents of the more modern apartments increased 5% to 10%. East St. Louis, III. The Chamber of Commerce stated that rents in East St. Louis were somewhat lower in 1918 than in 1914. The same condition existed in the entire East St. Louis district, embracing Granite City, Venice, Madison, Brooklyn, Fairmount City, Cahokia and Dupo. Tampa, Fla., and Other Southern Shipbuilding Centers. According to a local real estate broker, up to July, 1918, there had been no increase in rents since July, 1914, except for the usual winter advances. Vacant houses have been numerous because of the exodus of workers to other localities. In 1918, however, two shipbuilding plants attracted workers to Tampa and the houses filled up again. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found that up to the end of 1917 rents in the shipbuilding district in Tampa had decreased 5.94%. In Mobile, Ala., the same agency found a decrease of 3.6%; in Jacksonville, Fla., 18.65%; in Pensacola, Fla., 6.05%; in Brunswick, Ga., 2.13%; in Savannah, Ga., 4.32%; in Houston, Tex., 7.72%.* El Paso, Tex. Many skilled laborers left El Paso for other parts of the country where wages were higher; day laborers also drifted to other sections. Since 1917 rents of day laborers' houses had declined one-third; those of skilled laborers' houses 10% to 15%. ' Congressional Record, 65th Congress, 2d Session, March 13, 20, 21, 1918. " Monthly Review, June, 1918, pp. 99-103. 34 Digitized by Microsoft® Summary This broad survey of changes In rents discloses a variety of conditions. In some communities rents have increased, in some the increase has been abnormal, in others rents have decreased and in still others they have remained stationary. To epitomize in a single percentage estimate the change in rents for the country as a whole is out of the question. The best that can be done is to fix on such a figure as will fairly represent a maximum number of communities, although such an estimate will be in- applicable in one way or another to many cities for which corrections must be made to allow for the local situation. In communities where industrial conditions have been about normal, rents have risen 5% to 15% between 1914 and the summer of 1918. This estimate portrays not only rent changes in the greater part of such large industrial centers as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Boston and Pittsburgh, with their millions of wage-earners, but also represents a large number of smaller industrial cities. In most of these places the advances were of recent date and in some of them further advances in the autumn of 1918 were predicted. The extraordinary increases in rent in a few centers where extensive shipbuilding operations, munitions making or other war activities have resulted in an unusual congestion of workers are not, however, indicative of conditions in the average American community. It should be repeated that rents are peculiarly subject to local variations and influences, that there is no national market in which rates can be stabilized, and that any estimate of the changes which have occurred' can be regarded only as a loose average, applicable to a very large proportion of the wage-earners of the country, to be sure, but not to be used indiscriminately as a measure of changes in any given community unless confirmed by local investigation. On the whole, it appears that an estimate of 15% in- crease in the rent of workingmen's houses is sufficient except for communities subject to peculiar conditions. 35 Digitized by Microsoft® 10 u H l-l u < o \A I £. 8 ^ 6 ON tk! !5 T CO H O O CO On -s i' 3 o T3 60 • Ih u ^ u 1 ij.s » y . 1 2 Q. —2 1 c ■" '^'3 '- t n u CO e tS • ^ p K F « <> o a . u » ^ I 60 -" .i3 T-t B -y 2 ^■s g s s l-i 4-> ? rt e ^ fi-s g 12 « « c l-> V U nt ^ g s ° S >^ C CO u a cs'" « 'I to U 5^i 1h 09 4J 3 a 60 a §•5- 0) u Pi "'laii 05 cn ^ £ « 2 b )_ bH CQ U Ok U S to> c c« B u ^2^ '3 "'a i-H T-H r-t S^ "T, ■ i>«o S 7" 6 IT St3 2 I- a rt o «* g e " ■*o 2 a vi 6? 1— I ■*-* a> s « "•OS as « a « a j3-a ,o 3^ S ,5 a . — S & S « « o. R " o 0500^ i-H ^ i-H .2 2 §1 o " 2! O u oj a to a §•2 65 S6S m >7 u ^ *-t (^ *-• »-* 6? O 60 £• ■H a tu ,^ r " p n ^ pq ^ « ^i td rt rt ,-; to m Www Pi Pi Pi e .H -o S -tt 13 U j3 M *tt ^ « ° _ *-" L„ T3 ts b W *^ OJ +J (O •2 « W a ^ rt -O t« ^ u u O W Pi pq CQ W W Pi Pi h ^^ ^ TJ O O .9 o o ^^ t« o 1 ^ S a H ii •a *rt <; < < P3 +j < a o S 60 nn .a B . c C3 h O •o (H O 09 PQ pS ^ H o ts s ^o tt M :^ PQ PQ n 36 Digitized by Microsoft® "H e-rS • • S- K-ri ^-^-e f'-3 ^ S S 5 °^ C^ a j3-g O 0) o » •So 60 to O'ja a "" EX Ort J a § « i^ s s^ Sm- e^ ^ a fi 2 3^ s, „ J o - ™-a« rtSS°aS-SgooogB„&oS' 3-a « •-i-Sk'-.o "oJ 02. ^•2 .s;: 2^ «--2og ^-S S .a «-S^2S S3S 823§«aSsgs^ g&Q g a ""Sks^ g,s S g -a ¥5^ Jl- § a rt.-OO 00 O^ OOUOOCJ b->.cs ^CC y~i tH O V^ V s O e -a CJ V ti^i rt R -a, •fi J^ :a o M ZM'-'i'Si-i I— ii-i.-(eO'-i .^ 1-I.-110 u c ^ V o «« ■Jj M ii.S i a a o 1 § ■a 'o V a o a o 1 1 1 1 Strial Cor inquiry rolier Indu local do. do. . O I-. O () £ pq pa M .Srt « -§ -s B CO •^ o a' 2 1:8 2 ^^ S U a 1 -a 1 4-> ional oard, lEst *3 a ^ S"5 0) t^M g z o pa o o p< rt Pi PJ Z Pi ■M +J c< (« ■M ■♦-» BO CO H W Pi p^ a 1 s P3 13 a 6 J3 ^ r\. 3 V c^ ^ ^ ^ o >- :z; O M 3 3 oj on rt -9 St; " S tt3 K rt [3 eg rt „ 3 rt Jii^^ .rj j:3 pq pq U U O U 37 Digitized by Microsoft® 1 low e nee ber 10' T3 *J ■? §u s " "§ c< fi 28 s * H 0) E > ■*-> CO « U O CO to "-t? a; O a .2 . !:& to U 0« u (u 2 3 O002 3 J i! S 8 ^E S ■♦-* c u S 2 •a M ex O . u > a > e(U '^ u u ^ W CO P « ?! -o o « ^ S a> rt -— flj _ ttJ 2 •- O r. QJ .tt 00 ■S.a St3 f>.c3 S cr.a ta U3 V V 2 o a o 'L bo e>o . gj3 60 P a OS a o •J3. u u B ^^■.3 3 fi fe 0) si .2 " .2? a "Sew " 3 B "•■•St! g rt » 60 a « 60.S .a o-.c ju '-'^ St; P S j3 p S c t^ ° S 2 g S ■g 6 3^ « o ;g S ° " -a S" ^8 S-B G § as; 6S o 00 4 05 '"'1 Ir, ^ ob s:s ^^ (O CO 0) c« >-• V U t-" C O.S - s . rt O <» l-r to ■*-' V .» cj C CO U CO "* (J ^ fi j> B ^ 2 B (_ QJ U B D. S g oo'.S c h to (u o •9b o o •z i; « E H a i K •? '■ "60 '7 60-- 1 B-a T- " .t o ■z 60 45 U O u B -c 2 .2? 6 o o. 2 -5 6^ o ^»| B S-O O B- B I " ^ B J3 4J 4* goo S • Scs. S6? feS o ."CO S S •5 . O (U u « ^ CO P" c8 -73 6? "^e© B O I B o . » CO t-i OJ ^ J3 **^ +j 0) O 6§ 2^ P 00 g C B 00 cj V T3 RJ 60 ^?' ^ ' 1^ CO 3 i'Ssi 1-t M T-I ^ o o < a < « § '" go a 3 S «> ti g •< S g 60 2 u w o O 60 o 8 W 'o B B J3 u •c iJ J3 CJ n 3 o pa S a .2 g - "Z Pi J3 o +J to ■2 W d^ O -TJ u c Cll CO ?^ P tt' _ !>^ o-y S o (3 S *-■ " « g rtT3 . 3 ci ^ o .2,3 -- M -Th r^ "4 "Oi-i IS a.S «3 "3 ti •si feg ^ w • •-• at « s eg. ^ CI i1 "5. Sod l32o5 J2J3 do a a » u^ g so o G U bo H 3 " a " •" g a ii 3 i 3.- -^ U>4-. o ^3 3 U) V ^ CO .A l».C <" U ii -O CS 60 Jd S 4; -M .3 O "U CO ^ CO CO t* O +J Sua -o a u u R CO CO ^ U o J3 S .13 "-I & c» 5 t* « ^ rt « c « c^ « - «3 2 so - 0) o as -^ ^^ ^ .^"^ (fl to lo r^ "C tc ag 4j ^ 001— ' S &!>. O 3 S o3 *^ 3 t3 .§-2 « « Jf^ CO " U CQ CO Jli 3 •" O 00 !3 « OS "o ^ S »2.2 ^2 u 5 a o a M-i U . CO M -a .a a S .3 U o a . &■- -3 O i-l G "3 5" 6S o " 9 C.2 CQ 4-J > cd nr) +J CO -^ a V o" i5.S o. OS 303 00 "^ a 4 1:5 oi 00 (-. •rj 03 Soo — rt O oa J3-0 3 00- « o S j3 a :3 ^. CO o t >• u CO 00 P< a & o U •s •a O 6 .3 o o O o J3 1i 3 CO jj pq p:; M n W W Pi Fi 1-t 0) -o g Fi a B ft a 7^ 5 g S 1^ B a n s o o o O n pq u U p:) o a o o ^3 O o o u b +j & 2 l-l "n ^ Ezj w ^ •6 (3 •a -2 .J3 V "i -3 jB ". ^ o u P^ »; U U ffl u m 3 o- 3 3 Q ^ •T3 3 , , 3 3 -T3 in )-H S ^ G 1— 1 .^: d4 •5 3 CO t; u w H w H M 2 PC4 .a 39 Digitized by Microsoft® 6 5 " 3 o a> 4) to .Si 5 Ceo O ra U 'S 3 -a S « S ■5 00 05 3 CO fll O S *^ 2 M v.'O " tj u & i c u 1 C tio ! >. C 1 OJ Cit > >JS 1, [. O 3 CO O CO -o.g " h CO .£1 rt tJ *" 3 fli CO ^^ Si si 0) 4> S-( •5 " •O 3 ,3 O MH D. C.S O 4J 0) T3 _rt-Q **-< «§,§.- 6S ^i C *H (U I 2 c 3* fas CO dJ op QJ " J3 u 3 4> ;« a* « 00 &) .s •- i •a e s •s '3 I O W 9 n ^ u feSS ^2 3 2 S CO > cij ca X 6§ o r-l ^^ ^ s S3. 2 c.t: ^^ O T-t 1— I tH u 3 1.1 QJ V 3 3 rt 2 si +-' t- " O 3 s^ t^ .. 3 *^ fll CO 13 W Oi pi! eq W fA & O i-t pp fA to Xi 5 u +^ *-• ■*-• (-! -rl to to to 'H WW W -a .2 .t! o Q S u 3 o •g T3 3 13 3 -r; o vh U CL, PQ o -a 3 O 3 u CO to nl to ^ O H C! 2 <: x 0) CO o 40 Digitized by Microsoft® 2 ■" Safe's" " S-s- ° 1 B- i- 8 -S 3 s §6-?, ^.a prrl S >s aiss^a J3 00 o u3'-'--5-a2 „.Su y S.S2 ■» p-a -"3 ^ bo »-j O O « >H •«) S O J t^ 3 O ■9 V -o d §111 I g gg «« s^5s 41 Digitized by Microsoft® 8 ■I 8 ^■3 g t^ as O o U ill « T3 t ft* p «-2 as "*" 1:! rt O a "^ bOT3 ft) " ft> o o bo '-' 2 CO '. CO S s§ u m • CJT3 ■S B^ nn3 W) ►S ^ ffi .. 3 pq < 77! i-H > CO "I 0* V CO ■^ 9 & e O O 2& 43 fti N cd g O o ^ c e.ss o CO 3 j3- . ° g B « 6 8 3 ftl u qa-o rt 3 s cj , ti CO a:: O m B g ft)^- . O. 00 s8>^ 0) SfcP (jog- 05M 4J C ' ■'-' « ft) — 0013 S3 J 'B o ; ".5 ft) '+3 a. oj ft) CO 3 o ft) 3 CTJ ^ CO t- o - " cd 0) 3 ^ CO "^ .X U ft) S C 3 J^"^ ft) S O ^ 6§ i o i3 ■§ ft" S " S CO cq CO 3 ctt 3 m ft) ft) 0) ft) bo l-« 4-' )-• 65° 00- S So2 ^ & go ? 3 60 a rt ft) 3 ^ 3 u U M W J3 I u ft) ^ 4-) ft) =-? cd ^ i J "£• ^b dustrial al inqu d 1 ■333 'is a al In d, loc Boar PS al In d, loc er of Js^ H c 1; -2 .2 a > rt 1-^ 4) (U ts«^ U iz; p5 p; ■z J3 CO 3 0) ^ a u (U ? P5 rt u 3-3 o ft) CD '^ cd ^ PL, CL, CO JO PL, Pi ^ S = s T3 3 (0 8 ft) -a ff ft) 1 CO -P ,^ 3 J3 u >, hJ 3 q Pm P4 a ps; Pi P< CO 42 Digitized by Microsoft® « 2 •a .s Is §s *> in +J o .5 tj , .„ e ■— ■ 3 jH, w o P ;;;-5^ — Z 2 < c c ^b Uh itrial inqui rities Ih >trial inqui roker P3 al Indu d, local ted Cha Indu local ate B ■M Vn w w .9 § § W w Mn':^ a S nJ HH fl) P5 pq W pj 0:; 2; rt « m m CO CO »; Pi m w p« m M Pi j3 -^ 2 r, ™ pq ° (U ° 2 4-> 2 W U\ isco, C nutd Ga. Franc annah CIJ tl B o C/3 o U3 IT" " P. a CIS fS U 1-4 5 ^ 43 Digitized by Microsoft® c o a >» ji 1-2 Oh "J3 -a S'o 2 « ^ i> ^-t n > -t-t 3 l.> . SP JO " s •S.H "^ J3 bo u Is J a Ca 2 « g ^ CO CO PL, "■9 4-* O O O4 J3 C/3 4J " O at S 6? O 00" S "3 -^ "B Ji ^ i-H s-^ S '^ t; U si?i ease of crease, u rt e is .s ° h • -9 4> M-. .Su u ;i f!§ «S "2 S5 I— ( ai-ffl An averag investig 1914^18, li rt n 3S 1— 1 s a S U X s "< a rt -3 -a m (O w J S w ff ti rt ^« SI 1-1 P^ '^ 1:^ pq w P^ c o U ^ ^ ^ &: 44 Digitized by Microsoft® Ill CLOTHING Clothing requires 12% to 16% of the total annual ex- penditure of the typical wage-earner's family. The average indicated by the cost-of-living studies summarized in Table 2 is 13.2%. No authoritative record covering increases in clothing prices during the entire war period was available. Al- though a few studies have been made by certain govern- ment agencies^ these did not of themselves afford a ' The Railroad Wage Commission found that between January 1, 1916, and January 1, 1918, the cost of clothing advanced 44%, varying as follows: eastern territory, 43%; southern territory, 50%; western territor}-, 41%. These estimates were believed to be low. On the other hand, family budgets collected for the Railroad Wage Commission showed an increase for the same period in the cost of clothing of only 29%; but this was believed not to be truly repre- sentative because of the use of lower-price substitutes and the practice of other economies. (Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, pp. 82, 86.) In the brief submitted bj' the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the increase in the cost of clothing between 1914 and the end of 1917 was placed at 74%. (Monthly Review, April, 1918, p. 192.) In the Philadelphia shipbuild- ing district, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics found that between 1914 and 1917 the price of clothing advanced 51.33%; in the New York ship- building district, 54.21%; and in the 13 shipbuilding districts of the South, 35% to 72%, with the average less than 50%. In shipbuilding centers on the North Atlantic Coast, increases in the cost of clothing between December, 1914, and March, 1918, were found to be as follows: Bath, Me., 55.02%; Portland, Me., 53.45%; Portsmouth, N. H., 67.02%; Boston, Mass., 78.82%; Baltimore, Md., 77.44%; Newport News, Va., 66%; Norfolk, Va., 59.39%. (Monthly Review, March, 1918, p. 112; ibid., April, 1918, p. 152; ibid., June, 1918, pp. 99-104; Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, pp. 132-134.) The United States Shipping Board's study of Pacific Coast conditions showed that between June, 1916, and February, 1918, the cost of clothing rose 74% (Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, p. 86). Other estimates of increases in the cost of clothing covering a shorter period of time were those of the New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which placed the increase between February, 1915, and February, 1917, at 22% (Report on the Increased Cost of Living for an Unskilled Laborer's Family in New York City, p. 11); and the Dallas Wage Commission, which found the increase between April, 1914, and April, 1917, to have been 35.8% (Report of Survey Committee to the Dallas Wage Commission, p. 5). An investigation made by the Fore River Shipbuilding Corporation showed that in the year ending July, 1917, clothing prices in Quincy, Mass., increased 33|% (Manu- script report). A large industrial corporation in Chicago estimated that between January 1, 1915, and January 1, 1918, cost of clothing used by Chicago workmen earning common-labor rates rose 50% (Manuscript report). 45 Digitized by Microsoft® sufficient basis for conclusions as to comparative costs in 1914 and 1918. This being the ca:se, an original investigation of changes in the prices of representative articles of clothing and yard goods was undertaken by the National Industrial Conference Board. This was made by means of a ques- tionnaire sent to retail merchants in representative cities; by inquiries addressed to manufacturers' and jobbers' associations, commercial and trade papers, and others in close touch with the retail dry-goods trade; and to a limited extent by field investigations. The analysis of clothing prices which follows is based on the data thus assembled. The questionnaire called for retail prices, as of July 1, 1915 and 1916, April 1, 1917, and June 1, 1918, of selected yard goods and wearing apparel of grades which sold at specified prices on July 1, 1914. The 25 articles chosen were, in general, those in most common use by average American families. No attempt was made to obtain prices for a complete clothing budget, but the items chosen were those which it was believed would bring out the general trend of clothing prices. The 25 articles were: Article 1914 Price Yard Goods Serge ... $1.00 Poplin ... 1.50 Broadcloth . 2.00 Percale 07fi Gingham . ... .10 Longcloth .... 12>i Fruit of the Loom .15 Voile 25 Underwear and Hosiery Men's hose .15 Women's hose .25 Men's knit union suits .50 Women's knit vests .10 Women's muslin combinations 1 . 00 Outer Wear and Furnishings Men's suits 15.00 Women's suits ... .... 15.00 Women's blouses 1 . 00 Men's work shirts 1 . 00 Overalls .75 " Men's shoes . . . . 3 . 50 Women's shoes 3.00 Men's dogskin gloves , 1 . 25 Women's cape gloves 1.00 Men's felt hats 2.00 Women's velvet hats . . . 1.60 Women's straw hats 1 . 00 46 Digitized by Microsoft® Questionnaires were sent to 106 retail stores in 45 cities. Replies were received from 46 stores in 32 cities. These replies, which showed a great diversity of price changes, even between stores in the same locality, have for pur- poses of analysis been grouped geographically in four districts. The cities and number of stores included in each district were: Eastern Middle Western Baltimore, Md 2 Akron, 1 Boston, Mass. 1 Chicago, 111. ... .2 Buffalo, N.Y. 1 Cincinnati, 1 Fall River Mass. . . .1 Columbus, 1 Newark, N.J. 2 Detroit, Mich 1 New Haven, Conn. . . .1 Kansas City, Mo. . . .1 New York, N.Y. . . .5 Lincoln, Neb 1 Philadelphia Pa 1 Louisville, Ky 2 Pittsburgh Pa 1 Minneapolis, Minn. . .1 Scranton, Pa 1 St. Louis, Mo 1 Southern St. Paul, Minn. . .1 Austin, Tex 1 Birmingham, Ala 1 r rr^ . Charleston, S. C 1 Far Western Little Rock, Ark. . . .2 Butte, Mont. . . .2 New Orleans, La 1 Denver, Colo 1 Richmond, Va 1 Salt Lake City, Utah. . . 1 Tampa, Fla 3 Seattle, Wash. . .3 Average prices on the dates mentioned, as furnished in replies to the questionnaire, are presented in Appendix Table A, for the four districts separately and for all districts combined. The percentages of increase over 1914 prices are given in Appendix Table B. No attempt I was made in computing the averages to take into account the population of the cities or the niimber of stores in- cluded. A simple average is sufficiently accurate for the present purpose, especially in view of the fact that the number of replies received from the different districts was roughly in proportion to the industrial population. While for the country as a whole the number of replies received is sufficient to warrant the broad conclusions drawn as to average prices and average percentages of increase, the limited number from any one section scarcely justifies close comparisons among those of any single district. No section, however, shows a uniformly higher average percentage of increase than the average for the country as a whole. In some stores one article may be higher; in others, another; but local variations are quite as likely to be due to differences in buying facilities and merchandising methods as to the influence of geographical location. 47 Digitized by Microsoft® Yard Goods Advances in the prices of yard goods have everywhere preceded advances in the prices of garments made from them. The remarkable increase in the cost of yard goods is at once apparent from Tables 8 and 9.* TABLE 8: AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED YARD GOODS, I9I4-I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Article Price Julyl, 1914 Average Retail Price July 1. 1915 July 1. 1916 April 1, 1917 June 1, 1918 Woolen Yard Goods Serge Poplin Broadcloth . . Cotton Yard Goods Percale .... Gingham .... Longcloth . . . Fruit of the Loom Voile $1.00 1.50 2.00 .07 J^ .10 .12^ .15 .25 $1.12 1.60 2.16 .09 .11 .13 .16 .25 $1.38 1.84 2.59 .12 .14 .17 .19 .27 $1.72 2.23 3.17 .16 .19 .21 .24 .33 $2.17 2.89 4.04 .25 .29 .29 .32 .41 TABLE 9: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF SELECTED YARD GOODS, I9I4-I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Price July 1. 1914 Percentage of Increase above 1914 Prices Article IJuly 1, 1915 July 1. 1916 April 1, 1917 June 1, 1918 Woolen Yard Goods Serge Poplin Broadcloth .... Cotton Yard Goods Percale Gingham Longcloth Fruit of the Loom . . Voile $1.00 1.50 2.00 .07^ .10 .12>^ .15 .25 11.9 6.4 8.2 18.0 12.5 7.2 7.5 1.0 38.1 22.4 29.7 60.0 43.3 32.9 25.1 9.9 72.3 48.4 58.4 111.0 93.4 64.4 57.7 30.7 116.7 92.5 102.1 238.4 189.6 135.0 115.3 65.8 'In all tables of average prices, fractions of one-half cent or more have been considered as adding one cent to the price; smaller fractions have been disregarded. In computing percentages, however, which are of greater importance in this study, the exact average prices have been used. The per- centage figures, and the average price figures as given in the tables do not always appear, therefore, to be in strict accord. 48 Digitized by Microsoft® While the movement of these prices has been steadily upward since the beginning of the war, the greater part of the advance occurred during 1917 and 1918. Woolens. The average advance in the price of standard woolen goods the country over was rather more than 100% between 1914 and 1918. Of the three items selected for study, only poplin showed an increase of less than 100% during the four-year period, and even for this fabric the advance was 92.5%. Serge which sold at $1 a yard in 1914 was in June, 1918, selling well above $2; the average price was $2.17. In some stores this quality of serge was quoted as high as $2.50, while only three sold it for as little as $1.75. Broadcloth which sold at $2 in 1914 averaged in June, 1918, slightly above $4. The 1918 prices for this particular fabric ranged from $3.50 to $5.50, but the price most frequently quoted was $4. Cottons. Cotton yard goods showed their greatest price increase in the heavier and coarser grades such as ginghams and percales. Ten-cent ginghams of 1914 were in June, 1918, selling at 29 cents and longcloth quoted at 12J^ cents in 1914, in 1918 brought 29 cents also. In- creases for all but the finest cottons averaged over 100%, and in some cases the increases were in the neighborhood of 200%. Less comprehensive information as to changes in the cost of drillings, denims and the like, indicated increases of 200% in some instances. Medium weight cottons increased less than the heavier grades, and the finest grades least of all. Chart 4 presents graphically the main facts regarding changes in the price of yard goods between 1914 and 1918. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, which for a number of years has been collecting average retail prices of standard brands of yard goods in representative cities, found increases as follows between May 15, 1915, and May 15, 1918, In the prices of 8 items for which comparative quotations were secured i"^ Torty-four cities in 1915; 45 in 1918. The lists of cities are not absolutely- identical. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 197, June, 1916, pp. 325-352; Monthly Labor Review, July, 1918, pp. 68-70. 49 Digitized by Microsoft® Chart 4r National Industrial Conference Boards Research Report No. 9 ZOO- CLOTHING UNITED STATES PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED YARD GOODS 1914-I918 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONrERENCE BOARD — — '-— VOtLC — — — SERaE __-._—. POPLIN -^i-^<-^^ QINQHAM ^-^— PERCALE ■ ■ ■ LONOCLOTM ta-o-o-o- BROADCLOTH —"•'--—•FRUIT OF THE LOOM -200 100- -100 19 1-5 -- Ig M 1917 T9I8" 1914 Digitized by Microsoft® Article Apron gingham . Calico Bleached muslin Outing flannel . Increase in 1918 over 1916 Price 228.4% . 215.4% 192.5% 181.6% Article Percale Dress gingham . Bleached sheeting Bleached sheets . Increase in 1918 over 1915 Price . 157.0% 150.4% 140.0% 132.2% Although the list of articles included is not exactly the same as that studied by the Board, the trend of prices as brought out by both investigations is similar. Hosiery and Underwear Advances in the prices of hosiery and knit underwear have been marked in practically all sections of the country. In Table 10 are shown changes in average prices for all districts combined, as ascertained from replies to the questionnaire. TABLE lO: AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED ARTICLES OF HOSIERY AND UNDERWEAR, I9I4-I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Price July 1. 1914 Average Retail Price Article July 1, 1915 July 1. 1916 April 1, 1917 June 1, 1918 Hosiery Men's Women's Knit Underwear Men's union suits . . Women's vests . . . Muslin Underwear Women's combinations $ .15 .25 .50 .10 1.00 % .16 .26 .52 .11 1.02 S .17 .28 .63 .12 1.10 S .21 .35 .77 .16 1.29 $ .27 .45 .99 .20 1.64 Table 11 gives the equivalent advances in the pricei of hosiery and underwear in terms of percentages. 61 Digitized by Microsoft® Chart 5, National Industrial Conference Boai-d, Research Report No. 9 1 1 1 1 3o CLOTHING UNITED STATES PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN RETAIL PRICESOF T10SIERY AND UNDERWEAI^ 1914 - 1918 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERCNCe BOARD Ortrt ?(Y urki'n MOOE n's Hose UNION SUITS N^ UNOERveaTS n's MUSLIN COHt TO '■■ ' "— WOMC 6o inn /■■ / /•' ,• / / // / — I — 7^ -^^ -A — /• /' A '• ,' # — y^ — 4- — ^ // -y — ■■/ /' / ■ / y y / '/ '^ — j^^ ' y? ^ — y^ yy > 1^^ ■=: {{ 0^ »*■ — 19: in IT 1 ■ ' ' \ -__ J Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 1 1 : PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF HOSIERY AND UNDERWEAR, I9I4-I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Price July 1, 1914 Percentage of Increase above 1914 Prices Article July 1, 1915 July 1, 1916 April 1, 1917 June 1, 1918 Hosiery- Men's . . ■ . . . Women's Knit Underwear Men's union suits . . Women's vests . Muslin Underwear Women's combinations $ .15 .25 .50 .10 1.00 3.7 2.6 3.9 5.2 2.3 15.8 13.9 26.1 21.4 10.2 41.8 38.5 53.3 56.9 29.1 83.3 81.5 97.2 98.4 63.9 From these tables and Chart 5 it is apparent that dur- ing the first two years of the war the upward movement of hosiery and underwear prices was not especially marked. Since 1916, however, the increase has been more rapid. For the entire four-year period the advance in hosiery prices exceeded 80%; knit underwear advanced nearly 100%. Hosiery. For men's hose which in 1914 sold at 15 cents the price In 1918 was in but one instance less than 25 cents and sometimes was as much as 30 cents or 35 cents. For women's 25-cent hose the usual price in most stores in 1918 was 50 cents, although quotations as high as 59 cents and as low as 35 cents were reported. The average price was 45 cents. Knit underwear. The increase in the cost of men's knit union suits retailing at 50 cents in 1914, and of wo- men's knit vests retailing at 10 cents in 1914, averaged 97.2% and 98.4% respectively up to June, 1918. In most stores the advance was 100% or more. Muslin underwear. Increases in the price of muslin underwear varied greatly from store to store, but were in no case as marked as the increase in the price of knit goods. In general, the changes in price of the finest and most elaborate undermuslins were not as great as for garments made from the cheapest muslin and the heavier cottons. The average increase in price up to 1918 for 53 Digitized by Microsoft® women's muslin combinations selling for $1 in 1914 was 63.9%. There were stores where the increase was 100% or more, while in others an advance of only 25% had occurred. The advance most frequently noted was 50% to 75%. Outer Wear and Furnishings Table 12 gives the average prices of wearing apparel for which comparative figures were secured. Table 13 gives the corresponding percentages of increase during the four-year period of the war. The percentage comparisons are shown graphically in Charts 6 and 7. TABLE 12 : average RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED ARTICLES OF OUTER WEAR AND FURNISHINGS, I9I4-I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Price July 1, 1914 Average Retail Price Article July 1, 1915 July 1. 1916 April 1, 1917 June 1, 1918 Suits Men's Women's Shirts and blouses Women's blouses . . Men's work shirts . . Overalls ... Shoes Men's Women's Gloves Men's dogskin . . . Women's cape . . . Hats Men's felt Women's velvet . . Women's straw . . . $15.00 15.00 l.OO 1.00 .75 3.50 3.00 1.25 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 $15.57 15.52 1.02 1.06 .80 3.78 3.55 1.31 1.09 2.00 1.54 1.04 $17.40 17.93 1.07 1.23 1.01 4.31 4.13 1.54 1.37 2.35 1.68 1.15 $19.98 21.16 1.25 1.49 1.39 5.06 4.96 1.91 1.73 2.71 2.02 1.43 $24.44 25.68 1.51 1.86 1.96 5.92 5.66 2.29 2.06 3.33 2.61 1.78 54 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 13: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF SELECTED ARTICLES OF OUTER WEAR AND FURNISHINGS, I9I4-I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Price Percentage of Increase above 1914 Prices Article '%^- July 1. 1916 AprU 1, 1917 June 1, 1918 Suits Men's $15.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 .75 3.50 3.00 1.25 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 3.8 3.5 1.7 6.0 7.0 7.9 18.3 4.6 8.9 a 2.7 3.6 16.0 19.5 6.7 22.7 35.3 23.1 37.7 23.4 37.0 17.4 11.8 15.0 33.2 41.1 25.0 48.8 85.0 44.6 65.4 52.6 73.4 35.5 34.9 42.5 63.0 Women's .... 71.2 Shirts and blouses Women's blouses Men's work shirts Overalls 50.5 86.0 160.9 Shoes Men's 69.1 Women's .... 88.5 Gloves Men's dogskin Women's cape . . Hats Men's felt . . . 83.5 106.5 66.5 Women's velvet Women's straw . 73.7 78.0 a No change. Advances in the prices of outer garments and furnishings have been highly irregular, ranging all the way from 50.5% for women's blouses to more than 160% for men's overalls. Exceptional advances were recorded for men's work shirts as well as for overalls; also for women's shoes and gloves. Relative prices of made-up garments for outer wear are particularly difficult to determine with accuracy be- cause not only does the amount of material used vary but qualities of fabric are subject to change. These circumstances, together with innovations in the cut of garments, affect somewhat the comparability of quo- tations. For example, in 1918 cheaper linings were sometimes used and fabrics were "filled" to resemble all-wool goods; women's skirts were narrower than they had been in previous years and contrasting materials were used more extensively for trimming on dresses and blouses. 55 Digitized by Microsoft® Cha H 6f National Industrial Conference Boards Research Report No. 9 CLOTHING UNITED STATES PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED ARTICLES" OUTERWEAR 90 9o 19I4-I918 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD —" — ^ OVERALLS -..^.— hen's SUITS ENS SUIT9 r — ENO BLousea / / ■ / / ^ A u i X y a • f- ^ .' yf ^ — ^ '^ ^y" _ ^- - — y.-'jt'n ^' jgUSliTm^ :::^««^^ i^ — fS. 1914 1S15 1916 H 17 - isis"^! \ \ , — ^^ Digitized by Microsoft® Chart 7, National Industrial Conf srerece Board, Research Report No. 9 1 CLOTHING UNITED STATES PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED FURNISHINGS 1914-1918 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFCftCNCE &OARD en's shoes 'S DOfiSKlN 4aLOVG3 'JEft's CAPE QLOUES 70—. — fV MP 1ENS VELUET HATS / y t ■r . •' y ■' '/^ / / jT / y J^ ^ «- ; ' X/ ^i — — -z^ -^ yy .i, ^ . yy p4^ y^y" 3o •^y V" ,• i,^ "^ >v ». y y ..^ ,.<>^ 2o i— J -^ — »'—. ^-^^ yiT ,^ / ->•>= \,^i^- *^ p^^gy" — ^ 1914 1 19 10 1916 1917 . 19 IB 1 -1 ^-^ \ 1 1 ... 1 ^1 Digitized by Microsoft® Men's suits. There has been a steady advance in the price of men's clothes since 1915. Suits which in 1914 retailed for $15 were in 1918 most frequently quoted at $25; the average price was only slightly less than $25. This is an increase of 63% in the four years. Information from other sources than replies to the questionnaire indi- cated that suits which retailed at $25 in 1914 sold in 1918 for $35 or $40, an increase of 40% to 60%. This is in line with other evidence that increases in the cost of the more expensive grades of clothing have been less marked than for the cheaper grades. Women's suits. Women's suits selling for $15 in 1914 were sold by most dealers at $25 in June, 1918. A number of merchants priced them as high as $30, but in two stores the 1918 price of this grade of garment was only $19.75. The average increase since 1914 was 71.2%. Women's blouses. Women's blouses showed the smallest price increase of any of the 25 selected items: 50.5%. Blouses which retailed for $1 in 1914 were as a rule quoted at $1.50 in June, 1918. Although there was con- siderable variation in the increases among the different stores, advances much in excess of 50% were unusual. Men's work shirts. From the beginning of the war the prices of men's work shirts had been mounting steadily and this movement was greatly .hastened in 1917-1918. The average advance of 86% ascertained through replies to the questionnaire is rather more than the adyance of many other items in Table 13. While a somewhat wide range of increases was noted, amounting in a number of instances to considerably more than 100%, the price of this grade of work shirt in 1918 was seldom less than 75% higher than the 1914 price. From sources other than the replies to the questionnaire it was learned that the advance in the price of work shirts which in 1914 retailed for less than $1 was even more marked. Overalls. The increase in the price of overalls was extraordinary. Overalls which in 1914 brought 75 cents frequently sold in 1918 for $2 or more; the average price was only slightly less than this figure. Of the 160.9% increase in the price of these garments in the four years, the larger portion came after the spring of 1917, although from the beginning of the war an upward tendency was clearly apparent. 58 Digitized by Microsoft® Shoes. The average increase in the price of nnen's shoes between 1914 and 1918 was 69.1%; of women's, 88.5%. Men's shoes which retailed at $3.50 in 1914 were in June, 1918, about $6, while women's shoes formerly $3 most frequently brought from $5.25 to $6, with an average price of $5.66. The range in the price changes reported for both men's and women's shoes was very great, however, and no one price at present may be said to be representative. Thus in 1918 men's $3.50 shoes cost all the way from $4.50 to $7.50 and women's $3 shoes from $4.50 to $10.00. Information regarding shoes assembled by means of the questionnaire was substantially corroborated by infor- mation otherwise obtained. The secretary-treasurer of the National Shoe Retailers Association of the United States stated in a letter dated March 16, 1918: I am safe in saying that . . . the consumer is not paying over 75%, and not less than 60%, more for his shoes than he did in 1913 for exactly the same style shoes, and this applies to men's, women's, and children's shoes. A retail dealer in Boston furnished comparative prices for the years 1913 to 1918 inclusive for a number of different styles of shoes, which indicated the following percentages of increase : Retail Price Increase in 1918 in 1913 over 1913 Price Infants' black kid boots $1.00 65% Infants' tan welt boots 1.65 82% - 97% Children's tan welt boots 3.15 48% -59% Women's black boots 4.00 100% Men's tan boots 5.00 70% A company manufacturing a well-known make of shoes for both the wholesale and retail trade reckoned the increase in the price of a medium grade of shoe from 1914 to 1918 at 71%. Another well-known shoe manu- facturing company, also selling at retail, furnished com- bined average prices of men's, women's and children's shoes in seven of its stores; these showed increases between 1913 and 1918 of 76% in three stores, 77% in one store, 79% in one store and 83% in two stores. 59 Digitized by Microsoft® Inasmuch as there had been some increase in the price of shoes prior to the war, comparisons of 1918 prices with those of 1913 probably somewhat overstate the increase for the war period alone. Men's hats. Men's felt hats retailing at $2 in 1914 cost $3 or more in most cities in 1918. A large part of the average advance of 66.5% has occurred since 1916. Women's hats. Women's velvet hats which in 1914 sold for $1.50 almost never sold for less than $2 in 1918, and in many stores were priced at $3 or more. The increase up to June, 1918, was 73.7%. In the cities of the East and Middle West women's straw hats retailing at $1 in 1914 showed a greater increase than women's velvet hats in the same localities. The average increase for women's straw hats retailing at $1 in 1914 was 78%. Gloves. Large increases in glove prices were everywhere noted. Men's gloves which sold for $1.25 in 1914 ad- vanced in the four years an average of 83.5%; in many cases the increase was 100% or more. Very few stores were selling these gloves in June, 1918, for less than $2. Women's gloves showed an even greater advance in price. Cape gloves which cost $1 in 1914 averaged more than $2 in 1918. Of the 34 stores reporting on this item, two charged $1.85, six charged $1.75, one charged $1.50j in the other 25, the price was $2 or more. The average increase in the price of women's gloves between 1914 and 1918 was 106.5%. Because of increasing difficulty in securing the cheaper grades of gloves it is possible that the 1918 quotations apply to a somewhat better grade than that which was previously sold at $1 and, conse- quently, the percentages of increase may be somewhat exaggerated. Clothing Budgets Increases in the cost of yard goods or of individual gar- ments do not give a true indication of the change in the clothing budget until these articles are related to the use made of them by the average family. It is therefore desirable to construct tentative clothing budgets on the basis of 1914 and 1918 prices. 60 Digitized by Microsoft® Obviously, no budget of this sort can be universally applicable. One person may think it necessary to purchase two or more suits of clothes a year, while another may buy only one; the grades may not be comparable. Such matters as the requirements of occupation, personal taste and standards of living cause wide variations in the clothing purchases of individuals in the same locality receiving the same income. Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest trial budgets which, although not typical in the strictest sense, will still permit of the determination of a representative percent- age of increase in the cost of the average family's clothing. TABLE 14: TRIAL BUDGETS OF CLOTHING FOR A WAGE- EARNER FOR ONE YEAR, I9I4 AND I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Trial Budget A Trial Budget B Article 1914 1918 1911 1918 Suit Overcoat . ... Heavy trousers . . 2 shirts .... 3 work shirts . . 3 pairs overalls .... Shoes and repairs 8 pairs hose . . 5 sets underwear . . . 2 nightshirts .... Collars and ties .... Hats, cap and gloves . . Sundries 815.00 10.00 3.50 2.00 1.75a 2.25 9.00 1.20 3.50& 1.50 1.50 5.00 2.50 $25.00 18.00 6.00 2.70 3.75 5.50 15.00 2.00 7.00 2.50 2.05 8.00 4.25 810.00 10.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 8.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 .85 3.25 1.50 $17.50 18.00 5.50 2.20 3.50 4.50 14.00 1.85 6.00 1.75 1.25 5.50 2.63 All articles . . $58.70 $101.75 $46.60 884.78 Increase 1918 over . . 1914 73.3% 80.6% a One at 75 cents, two at 50 cents. b Three at SO cents, two at $1.00. In Trial Budget A an attempt has been made to approxi- mate the clothing needs of the average workingman for one year. The list does not show the total amount of clothing used in the year, but, rather, the quantity actually bought during that time. Ordinarily a person's wardrobe 61 Digitized by Microsoft® will include a number of articles bought in previous years, The percentages of increase used in constructing Trial Budget A were taken from the replies to the Board's questionnaire, except that for a few items not included in the questionnaire they were estimated from other infor- mation gathered in the course of the inquiry. This budget indicates an increase in the cost of ^lothing between 1914 and 1918 of 73.3%. It is possible that Budget A represents an expenditure for clothing beyond the means of certain workers in certain localities. To meet this objection. Trial Budget B, which calls for a smaller outlay, is presented. Since the evidence gathered in the course of the Board's inquiry indicated more marked increases for the cheaper grades of clothing than for medium- and higher-price goods, somewhat larger percentages of increase have been applied in working out Budget B. As thus constructed, Budget B shows an increase for the four-year period of 80.6%. An endless variety of such budgets could be arranged, but it will be found on experiment that almost any budget constructed on a reasonable basis will show an increase of 70% to 80%. Trial Budget C, showing changes in the cost of a woman's clothing between 1914 and 1918, has been built up on the same general lines as Budget A. Trial Budget D shows the revisions made in Budget C by a wage- earner's family to whom it was submitted. Prices given in these budgets are in all cases for articles pur- chased ready to wear. If some of the clothing were made at home, the cost would be less both in 1914 and 1918, but the percentages of increase within the four years would be greater because the prices of yard goods have advanced more in proportion than have the prices of made-up garments. Budget C shows an increase of 71.4% for the four-year period. Budget D, a lower-cost budget, shows an increase of 78.7%. The more modest budget showing the larger percentage of increase is probably more truly typical. Information gathered during the Board's investigation brought out that, generally speaking, children's clothing 62 Digitized by Microsoft® had advanced in price proportionately with that of adults and it was thus not necessary to study children's budgets separately. TABLE 15: TRIAL BUDGETS OF CLOTHING FOR A WAGE- EARNEr's wife for one YEAR, I9I4 AND I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Trial Budget Trial Budget D 1914 1918 1914 1918 Coat or suit . . Woolen dress Woolen skirt ... 2 cotton skirts 4 waists 2 house dresses . . . 3 aprons Shoes and repairs Overshoes . Corsets Hosiery 3 summer union suits . . 3 winter union suits . . 4 sets mushn underwear 3 petticoats 3 nightgowns .... Winter hat . Straw hat . Gloves Sundries $15.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 .90 6.00 .65 2.00 1.50 1.00 2.25 3.20 1.75 2.40 1.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 $25.00 9.50 3.00 3.50 6.00 4.00 2.10 11.00 1.00 3.00 2.70 1.50 4.50 5.00 3.00 3.75 1.75 1.75 2.60 5.00 $10.00 5.00 2.00a 1.50 2.00a 2.00 .90 6.00 .65 3.00 1.50 1.00 2.25 3.20 1.75 1.00 3.00a 2.00 1.50 3.00 $18.00 9.50 3.00a 2.25 4.00a 4.00 2.10 11.00 1.00 4.25 3.00 1.50 4.50 5.00 3.00 1.80 5.75a 3.50 3.00 5.00 All articles . . . $58.15 $99.65 $53.25 $95.15 Increase 1918 over 1914 71.4% 78.7% a Articles reported as purchased oace in two years. Summary It is evident that the price of every article important in the clothing budget of the average family increased greatly between 1914 and 1918. The price of yard goods showed the greatest advance. Cotton fabrics have mounted higher in price than have woolens, and the cheaper grades of all fabrics advanced more than the finer and more expensive grades. Increases in the price of wearing apparel seem to have been greatest for work clothes and for the less expensive clothing. Hosiery and underwear advanced in price more than outer garments and furnish- ings, with the exception of shoes and gloves. 63 Digitized by Microsoft® Considering all of these factors in connection with the price data and trial budgets above presented, it appears tha^t a fair estimate of the increase in the cost of clothing for a wage-earner's family between July, 1914, and June, 1918, would be 70% to 80%. As the increase for lower cost budgets tends to approach 80% rather than 70%, the average increase has been placed at 77%. 64 Digitized by Microsoft® IV FUEL AND LIGHT From 4% to 6% of the expenditure of the average Ainerican wage-earner's family is for fuel and light. Prices of fuel and light are much less uniform throughout the country than are prices of food or clothing and the changes since 1914 have varied widely from place to place. Fuel Coal prices have been collected for a number of years by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics from repre- sentative dealers in a number of cities. The course of average coal prices throughout the United States from January 15, 1913, to January 15, 1918, as shown by the Bureau's index numbers, appears in Table 16. The average price for the year 1913 is taken as 100 and prices in other years are expressed as percentages of that average.' TABLE l6: RELATIVE RETAIL PRICES OF COAL IN TON LOTS FOR HOUSEHOLD USE IN THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 15, I9I3, TO JANUARY I5, I918 Average price for the year 1913 = 100 (Monthly Review of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March, 1918) Pennsylvania Anthracite White Ash r Bituminous Stove Chestnut 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 100 96 97 99 116 123 100 97 98 100 116 122 100 101 97 96 123 133 ^Monthly R/viete, March, 1918, p. 107. 65 Digitized by Microsoft® There was no appreciable advance in the price of coal until the winter of 1916-1917, since which time the move- ment has been steadily upward. Prices of stove coal were 28% higher in January, 1918, than in January, 1914; prices of chestnut were 26% higher, and prices of bitu- minous 32% higher. Figures secured from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and from the United States Fuel Administration indicate that among different sections of the country and even among localities in close proximity to one another, the amount and percentage of increase in the cost of coal has varied greatly. Cost of Fuel in the State of Washington, 1914-1918. Table 17 presents the cost of 4 tons of coal and 4J^ cords of wood, representing the annual fuel needs of a family of five in the state of Washington, as ascertained by the state Bureau of Labor. This indicates that between 1914 and 1918 the cost of fuel in the three principal cities and in the three main divisions of the state exclusive of these cities, increased from a minimum of 13% in the northwestern part of th,e state to a maxi- mum of 114% in Seattle. I TABLE 17: ANNUAL COST OF FUEL FOR A FAMILY OF FIVE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, I9I4-I918, BASED ON APRIL PRICES (Bureau of Labor, Olympia, Washington) Actual Cost 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Seattle Tacoma $44.27 47.63 60.96 38.72 51.29 59.09 $48.15 43.32 56.94 43.07 44.96 56.31 $46.20 43.62 59.25 40.14 44.46 56.70 $47.69 41.50 66.60 28.05 48.17 61.04 $94.76 72.50 76.76 Southwestern part of state . . Northwestern part of state Eastern part of state 45.39 68.02 89.47 Relative Cost April, 1914, price = 100 Seattle Tacoma Spokane Southwestern part of state Northwestern part of state Eastern part of state . . 100 100 100 100 100 100 109 91 93 111 88 95 104 92 97 104 87 96 108 87 109 73 94 103 214 152 126 117 113 151 66 Digitized by Microsoft® The increases from year to year, as is evident from this table, were by no means uniform. Indeed, in some sections of the state, prices in 1917 were considerably lower than in 1914, although in all sections the 1918 price was higher. The increase between 1917 and 1918 was due to the greatly increased cost of coal. The price of wood declined in those parts of the state which showed the smallest change in the total fuel cost.' Cost of Coal in the Summer of 1918, The data thus far presented deal with changes in the retail price of fuel up to the spring of 1918. To obtain comparative summer prices, questionnaires were sent by the Board to coal dealers in representative cities asking for prices of coal on June 1,_ 1914, and June 1, 1918. Replies giving com- parable prices were received from 22 dealers in 21 cities. While the quotations are not conclusive as to specific changes in the cost of coal, since prices are known to have varied among dealers as among cities, they nevertheless afford a fair indication of the general average of changes which have taken place in the coal situation in the last four years. The results brought out by the questionnaire are given in Table 18. The minimum increase for anthracite was reported from Detroit, 17.6%; the maximum, 51.7%, from Fall River. Bituminous coal showed greater diversities of price changes. San Francisco reported only 11.3% increase, Springfield, 111., 21.7%, Salt Lake City, 23.5%, and Butte, 28.6%; but Cincinnati showed 85.7%, Baltimore, 87.5%, Birmingham, 96.5%, and Fall River, 100%. Such wide variations forbid any close estimate of average changes in the price of fuel since the war began. 'The annual cost in each of the years 1914:-1918 of the 4-ton unit of coal alone included in this fuel budget was: (Bureau of Labor, Olympia, Washington) 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Seattle Tacoma Spokane Southwestern part of state Northwestern part of state Eastern part of state . . $18.75 21.75 25.50 17.25 22.35 24.75 $18.90 19.13 24.99 19.80 24.15 24.53 $18.75 19.14 25.50 17.64 20.25 24.39 $20.13 19.00 29.00 13.20 24.86 28.13 $35.36 32.00 40.76 30.28 35.80 39.70 67 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE l8: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE BETWEEN JUNE I, I914, AND JUNE I, I918, IN THE RETAIL PRICE OF COAL IN SELECTED CITIES (National Industrial Conference Board) Anthracite Bituminous Stove Egg Nut No. la No. 2 a Baltimore, Md. . . . 35.8 37.0 32.7 75.0 87.5 Birmingham, Ala. . . . 92.0 96.5 Boston, Mass. . . 36!6 36!6 32!3 Buffalo, N. Y. . . 32.6 28.0 26.3 Butte, Mont. . 28!6 32 .'i Cincinnati, Ohio . 32!3 32!3 28! i 85.7 Cleveland, Ohio . . 20.4 18.0 19.4 74.1 Detroit, Mich., Dealer A 25.0 23.8 17,6 66.7 58.6 Detroit, Mich, Dealer B. 29.3 29.3 28.4 43.6 43.0 Duluth, Minn. 45.9 Fall River, Mass. . 46^7 5l!7 46:7 100.0 Grand Rapids, Mich. 20.8 19.0 18.5 m.i Louisville, Ky. . . 62!5 54.3 Memphis, Tenn. . . . 52.3 Minneapolis, Minn. 32^2 29!7 29!6 52.8 Pittsburgh, Pa. . . 41.94 43.34 38. 8i Portland, Ore. . . . ib.'T 44^4 Providence, R. I. . 56.6 56!6 44:8 Salt Lake City, Utah . 23!5 36;4 San Francisco, Cal. 11.3 St. Paul, Minn 32^2 29^7 W.Q 52.8 Springfield, 111 21.7 46.6 a Trade names of bituminous coal vary so much from place to place as to make any comparison of price increases as between cities impossible. In computing percentages of increase in each city, however, 1914 and 1918 prices for identical grades of coal were used. & Anthracite has been out of the market since June 1, 1918. Light Information regarding the price of gas on April 16th of each year from 1913 to 1918, inclusive, has been gathered by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.^ This relates to the price per thousand cubic feet of manu- factured and natural gas for household use.'' Com- parative rates for manufactured gas in 1914 and 1918 are given for 46 companies operating in 34 cities, and for natural gas for 12 companies operating in 8 cities. Of the 46 companies supplying manufactured gas, 24, including some operating in New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Birmingham, New Orleans, Memphis and San Francisco, reported no change in price from April 15, 1914, to April 15, 1918. Ten companies reported a decrease ranging from 15.8% to a little less than 4%. Among these were companies in Monthly Review, June, 1918, pp. 87-88. *Gas is of course used to some extent as fuel, but this does not prevent employing its cost as a measure of the cost of Ught. 68 Digitized by Microsoft® Baltimore, Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis, Portland, Ore. and Richmond. Twelve cities showed an increase, the lowest, 4% in Jacksonville, Fla., and the highest, 25% in Chicago and Seattle. No increase in the price of natural gas was reported from five cities of the eight. Louisville, Ky., showed an increase of 4.5%; Cincinnati, of 66.6%; and Kansas City, of 122%. These two sets of figures on the whole justify the con- clusion that few changes of importance took place in the price of gas between 1914 and 1918. Fuel and Light Combined Increases in the cost of fuel and light combined between the years 1914 and 1917, as reported in the cost-of-living studies among families of shipbuilding workers made by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, were as follows :' Increase in Increase in Locality 1917 over Locality 1917 over 1914 19U New York, N. Y. 19.92% Slidell, La. . . . 32.56% Philadelphia, Pa. 21.54% Madisonville, La. . 35.50% Mobile, Ala. . 27.11% Moss Point, Miss. . . 14.48% Jacksonville, Fla. 15.07% Pascagoula, Miss. . . . 25.00% Pensacola, Fla. 18.11% Beaumont, Tex. . . . 10.95% Tampa, Fla. . . 12.68% Houston, Tex . . 22.70% Brunswick, Ga. . . . 13.15% Orange, Tex . 2.34% Savannah, Ga. 21.11% These figures show that among certain groups of in- dustrial workers the maximum increase in cost of fuel and light up to the end of 1917 was 35.5%. In only 4 cases was the increase as much as 25%. The families investigated by the Dallas Wage Com- mission in April, 1917, paid on the average only 10% more for fuel and light than in April, 1914. ^^ Percentages of increase between February, 1916, and February, 1918, in the price of 100 pounds of coal and one-half gallon of kerosene, an actual weekly fuel and light budget reported for industrial workers in 16 localities of the country, are shown in the following table ;' monthly Review, March, 1918, p. 112; ibid., April, 1918, p. 152; ibid., June, 1918, pp. 99-104. Among the families in seven shipbuilding districts on the North Atlantic Coast, between December, 1914, and March, 1918, the cost of fuel and light increased as follows: Bath, Me., 51.32%; Portland, Me., 41.98%; Portsmouth, N. H., 38.03%; Boston, Mass., 39.74%; Baltimore, Md., 42.07%; Newport News, Va., 44.16%; Norfolk, Va., 42.95%. Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, pp. 132-134. ^Report of the Dallas Wage Commission, p. 5. This includes also increases in expenditure for water, ice, laundry and telephone. "Manuscript report. 69 Digitized by Microsoft® TABLE 19: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE BETWEEN FEBRU- ARY, I916, AND FEBRUARY, I918, IN THE COMBINED COST OF COAL AND KEROSENE IN 16 LOCALITIES Percentage Percentage State Locality of Increase State Locality of Increase California A 26.5 Maryland I 8.0 Colorado B 33.3 Montana J 35.0 C 9.1 Nebraska K 85.7 D 28.9 New Jersey- L 104.3 E 60.0 Texas M 90.9 F 30.0 Utah N 23.7 Idaho G 33.3 23.7 Illinois H 43.5 Washington P 40.0 In 3 of these 16 localities the increase in the cost of fuel and light during the, two-year period was in excess of 85%. In one it was 60%; in the other 12 the range of increase was from 8% to 43.5%. Summary The cost of fuel and light in different cities varied so greatly in response to a number of local conditions and the price changes have been so divergent as to make even an approximation of the increase very difficult. It would appear, however, that in June, 1918, the average price of anthracite was 30% to 35% higher than in 1914; the advance in bituminous coal was considerably greater. The price of gas showed a much smaller percentage of increase and in many cities remains unchanged. The increase in the cost of fuel and light has been placed at 45%. This estimate has not the same validity as have those for food and clothing. For the latter the data secured were not only more extensive but more uniform than was the case with fuel and light, for which local conditions determine many of the factors entering into the increased cost. Since, however, fuel and light constitute less than 6% of the total family expenditure, a considerable variation in the percentage of increase has but little effect on the budget as a whole. 70 Digitized by Microsoft® V THE COMPLETE BUDGET Before making a final estimate of the increase in the total cost of living between the summer of 1914 and the summer of 1918, on the basis of the foregoing analysis of changes in the prices of food, shelter, clothing, fuel, light and sundries, attention should be directed to certain recent studies of changes in the cost of living as a whole among limited groups of wage-earners, to which refer- ence has already been made in discussing the separate budget items. Information regarding changes in the cost of living among industrial workers was obtained by the Railroad Wage Commission from a variety of sources in different sections of the country. The conclusion was reached that between December, 1915, and the end of April, 1918, the cost of living increased as follows: For families with incomes up to $600 43% For families with incomes from $600 to $1,000 . 41% For families with incomes from $1,000 to $2,000. 40% It was pointed out in the report, however, that during the interval covered by the study many cheaper articles had been substituted, so that the percentages of increase recorded might fall short, by as much as four or five points, of showing the true advance in the budget as it would have been provided standards had in every case remained the same. The commission said that the above figures should, therefore, be regarded as conservative. As between the three territories covered by the report — eastern, southern and western — the differences In in- 71 Digitized by Microsoft® creased cost of all items combined were so small that they were disregarded.' In the brief submitted by the Brotherhood of Loco- motive Firemen and Enginemen to the Director General of Railroads in support of demands for increased wages, the advance in the cost of living between 1914 and 1917 was placed at 43%.^ Results of the studies by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics of the cost of living among families in 15 shipbuilding districts, referred to in previous chapters, show that between 1914 and 1917 the total cost of living advanced as follows:' Percentages of Increase in Locality Number of Families Cost of Living, 19U-1917 (White) (Colored) (White) (Colore^ New York, N. Y. 608 ., 44.68 Philadelphia, Pa. 512 43.81 Mobile, Ala. 100 33 43.16 43.85 Jacksonville, Fla. .54 27 41.63 39.20 Pensacola, Fla. .65 27 39.52 41.23 Tampa, Fla. .51 28 39.64 38.67 Brunswick, Ga. .35 15 39.96 39.79 Savannah, G'a. .40 14 42.49 42.18 Slidell, La. .50 46.69 Madisonville, La. .27 26 46.56 48.72 Moss Point, Miss. .26 45.92 Pascagoula, Miss. .32 i9 49.38 49.89 Beaumont, Tex. .50 43.44 Houston, Tex. .91 44.89 Orange, Tex. .45 48.26 'Family budgets giving incomes and expenses for the calendar years 1915 and 1917 were secured by the Railroad Wage Commission through newspaper editors in selected cities in all sections of the country. The total increase in the cost of living between 1915 and 1917 as thus determined was found to be 27%, varying considerably in different localities. The investigators for the commission construed the difference between the 27% increase observed in the budgetary studies and the 37% to 40% increase determined by obtaining comparative prices in the years 1915 and_,1917, as evidence of economies and substitutions practised in an effort to make incomes cover expenses rather than as true discrepancies serious enough to discredit inferences drawn from the studies as a whole. It was stated, however, that the estimates were little more than careful guesses. Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, pp. 80, 82, 88, 92. 'Monthly Review, April, 1918, p. 192. ' Monthly Review, March, 1918, p. 112; ibid., April, 1918, pp. 151-152; ibid., June, 1918, pp. 99-104. Among the families in seven shipbuilding districts on the North Atlantic Coast, the cost of living advanced between December, 1914, and March, 1918, as follows: Bath, Me., 47.82%; Portland, Me., 42.70%; Portsmouth, N. H., 45.88%; Boston, Mass., 42.95%; Baltimore, Md., 56.80%j Newport News, Va., 51%; Norfolk, Va., 48.99%. Monthly Labor Review, August, 1918, pp. 132-134. 72 Digitized by Microsoft® The figures for these different shipbuilding districts indicate increases in the cost of living for certain groups of workers up to the end of 1917 of 40% to 50%. A repre- sentative figure would be somewhat less than 46%. Some of the qualifications to which these data are subject because of the method used in securing comparative food prices have already been noted.' Another study of conditions among families of ship- building workers on the Pacific Coast, made by the United States Shipping Board, indicated that between June, 1916, and February, 1918, the cost of living had gone up 46%.' The committee of employees of the Bankers Trust Company, New York, concluded from its study that, in order to meet the advance in the cost of living between 1915 and the end of 1917, increases of 47.5% to 52% in salaries would be needed. Among employees in the smaller-earnings group advances of 48% to 50% were thought necessary.^ A supplementary report by the same committee dated June 30, 1918, gave results of further study and placed the increase in cost of living at approximately 60%, but advances of only 30% to 40% were recommended, on the ground that employees should expect to accept "the common duty of retrenchment and reduced uses of earnings which should now be a voluntary and willing sacrifice by all."* Neither of these estimates, however, makes any allowance for changes in the cost of sundries. Food price data, moreover, were partly, although not entirely, based on wholesale quotations. While em- ployees of the Bankers Trust Company are not wage- earners as the term is commonly used, the earnings of many are no greater than those of industrial workers. iSee pp. 15-16. , 'Report of the Railroad Wage Commission, pp. 86, 87. The Dallas, Tex., Wage Commission found by comparing actual expenditures in the one month, April, 1917, with prices current in the same month in 1914, that the cost of living advanced in the four-year period 23.8%. (Report of Survey Committee to the Dallas Wage Commission, p. 5.) The New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment's study of the cost of living for families of unskilled laborers in the two years from February, 1915, to February, 1917, indicated an advance of 16%. (Report on the Increased Cost of Living for an Unskilled Laborer's Family in New York City, p. 11.) While the increases brought out by each of these studies agree very well with other investigations covering the same time interval, they are of only secondary interest since they do not offer evidence covering the entire war period. 'Report of Special Committee Appointed to Investigate Increased Living Costs, p. 5. 'Compensation for Increased Living Costs, p. 3. 73 Digitized by Microsoft® Taking collectively those studies which cover the major part of the war period, it appears that at the close of 1917 the cost of living for representative wage-earning families was 40% to 50% more than in 1914, but ap- parently the average increase was not more than 45%. Final Estimate of Increase in Cost of Living 1914^1918 Only one of the estimates thus far reviewed brings the information as to the increase in the cost of living up to the summer of 1918. An estimate is therefore pre- sented for the entire period from July, 1914, to June, 1918, on the basis of the evidence assembled and discussed in the preceding chapters. This evidence shows that in representative communities between the summer of 1914 and the summer of 1918: The cost of food increased 62% The cost of shelter increased 15% The cost of clothing increased 77% The cost of fuel and light increased .... 45% The four major items — food, shelter, clothing, fuel and light — together constitute approximately 80% of the cost of living of the typical wage-earner's family. For these the average increase between the summer of 1914 and the summer of 1918 was 52.5%. The remainder of the budget consists of such sundries as carfare, furniture, insurance, medical service, books, recreation, religious and charitable expenditures, luxuries and incidentals. Of the sundries items carfare is one of the most im- portant for a large number of wage-earners. In many communities this item has not increased since 1914, and even where it has, the increase rarely has been over 35%. The cost of medical service has generally increased, in some cases as much as 50%. Insurance, on the other hand, has shown practically no change. Expenditures for recreation, such as moving pictures, have frequently increased only by the amount of the war tax, and in many instances where there has been a greater advance this has been much less than that for some of the major items in the budget. Obviously, no average increase can be allotted such items as religious and charitable contributions, war bonds and similar expenditures. But it is certain that expenses for recrea- 74 Digitized by Microsoft® tlon, carfare and such incidentals as tobacco and con- fectionery, which in the aggregate make up a considerable proportion of the sundries item, have increased less than the average for the four major items. Since, how- ever, it is impossible to give a definite figure for the increase in the cost of sundries, an allowance of 50% has been made which is only slightly less than the average increase for all other items of the budget combined. Having thus determined the percentages of increase in the cost of the different items, in order to obtain the per- centage of increase in the budget as a whole, each item must be weighted according to the proportion of income spent for it by wage-earners. Using as a basis the average allocation of items in the budget shown In Table 2, the average increase in the cost of living between June, 1914, and June, 1918, was as follows: TABLE 20: INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING IN REPRESEN- TATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, JULY, I9I4 JUNE, I918 (National Industrial Conference Board) Budget item Distribution o£ family expenditure Increase in cost during war period to June, 1918 Increase as related to total budget All items Food 100.0% 43.1% 17.7% 13.2% 6.6% 20.4% 62% 15% SI 50% 52.3% 26.7% Rent 2.7% Clothing Fuel and light Sundries 10.2% 2.5% 10.2% On the above basis the increase in the cost of living between July, 1914, and June, 1918, was 52.3%. The distribution of the items of expenditure can be varied somewhat, but no reasonable rearrangement will cause a wide change in the percentage of increase in the total cost of living. For instance, if instead of this average distribution of items in the budget, food be allocated as much as 45%, rent and clothing 15% each, fuel and light 5% and sundries 20%, the indicated increase in the total cost of living between 1914 and 1918, using the percentages of increase for the respective items as estimated by the Board, would be 54%. 76 Digitized by Microsoft® If the allocation determined in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics study of the cost of living in 1901 be used as the basis, instead of the average allocation, the increase between 1914 and 1918 would be 52.1%. If the allocation of expenditures of shipbuilding families studied by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in Philadelphia be used as a basis, the increase would be 56.1%; with the allocation of similar New York families, the increase would be 54.7%. If the allocation of the United States Railroad wage Commission be adopted, the increase would be 51.3%. If the allocation of the Dallas, Tex., Wage Commission be adopted, the increase would be 53.3%. If the allocation of Dr. Chapin for families in New York City having annual incomes of $1,000 to $1,099 be adopted, the increase would be 53%. From the above it is clear that any estimate of the in- crease in the cost of living between the outbreak of the war in July, 1914, and June, 1918, based on a reasonable allocation of the major items in the budget and using the same percentages of increase respectfully, would fall somewhere between 50% and 55%; in certain communi- ties peculiarly affected by war conditions the increase would be somewhat greater. Certain local studies of the cost of living show more marked advances for the war period. Thus an inquiry conducted by the Manufacturers' Association of Bridge- port, Conn,, showed an increase of 61.4% in that war- industry center between January, 1915, and June, 1918, in the cost of food, housing, fuel and light combined, which in Bridgeport were found to comprise 64.9% of the total budget.^ However, the average increase in rents in Bridgeport was 32.5% as compared with the Board's allowance of 15% for average communities. This would explain some of the difference between the two findings as to total increase. A more important factor is that the Bridgeport Manu- facturers' Association used index numbers of wholesale prices as a measure of changes in the cost of food. On this basis, the increase in the cost of food within the period "■The Iron Age, July, 1918, pp. 146-147. 76 Digitized by Microsoft® January, 1915, to June, 1918, was placed at 76%, whereas the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index num- bers of retail food prices showed an increase within the same period for the country as a whole of 57%. As already pointed out in the introductory chapter, wholesale prices are not an accurate measure of changes in the cost of food over a period of rising prices, since at such a time wholesale prices tend to increase more rapidly than retail prices. Taking into account the exceptional increase in rent , in Bridgeport and the fact that wholesale prices were used in computing the cost of food, it will be seen that the results of the Bridgeport study are not in conflict with the findings of the Board as applicable to communities where conditions were more nearly normal.' ' In a study made by a large industrial corporation in Chicago, the estimate of increase between January 1, 1915, and January 1, 1918, in the cost of living for Chicago workingmen earning common labor rates was 61%. In this case the increase in clothing cost was placed at 60%; in rent at 10%; and the cost of fuel, light and sundries at 35% each. These estimates were based on retail prices. The increase in the cost of food, however, obtained from wholesale commodity quotations was 96%. In view of the fact that the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers of retail prices showed an increase within this period of only 55%, an estimate of 96% as the increase in the cost of food to the consumer is obviously excessive. (Manuscript report.) 77 Digitized by Microsoft® CONCLUSION Taking into consideration ail of the factors in the problem, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that for the great majority of American communities the average increase in the cost of living between July, 1914, and June, 1918, lies between 50% and 55%. Clothing showed the most marked advance of any of the major items in the budget — 77% — but quantitatively this is less important than the 62% increase in the cost of food, since food represents about 43% of the average expendi- ture, while clothing represents only 13%. It should be repeated that in certain localities, par- ticularly where there have been unusual advances in rent, the increase in the budget as a whole has been somewhat greater. Since rent requires about 18% of the ordinary family expenditure, each further increase of 5% in this item means the addition of about 1% to the budget. It is thus a simple matter to adjust the Board's estimate to fit communities where unusually large rent increases have occurred. Similar adjustments to allow for local condi- tions affecting the cost of fuel would not result in an important modification of the general average. 78 Digitized by Microsoft® APPENDICES Digitized by Microsoft® 1 1 8 £ 1 Si 4 |2 $2.31 2.90 4.19 (NCOCO --^ t— r-t 05. 00 -co 1—1 1—1 tH < (N ^^ ■N (M to --I 9 1—1 gg OS 00 1-t rH 9*9 tH 1— 1 I— 1 St2 TtJcO 100s coco .—1 rH 00 lOCO CO t>- r-( Is t^ CO ^-H i-i coco SqS :^ 10 10 s- s 1— ( 99 1—1 1—1 8S0O T-ll-l 1— 1 1— I 8gS 1 o e i 1 8 OOJOO ^(m'm T*< 05 03 lO CO C- 000s 1-H T-4 99 i*M lO CO 10 CO I-H 1—1 ^99 (NrHr-J ii R^^^^. -^ g^ 9 1—1 10 lO 1—1 1—1 99* cocci CO 1—1 1— ( 8g8 1 CO at 1 1 ■^2 §2 1— ) OOIOO T-H 00 1-H (NciTti 10 OS i> 00s (N (N(MCO CO S^ 1— ( OS Oi-i ^.99 .-ii-i(>q 8^ CD id coco gSf: ed(N.-i t^T-lO -^^.^.R (M (MCO 10 10 00 00 2§g 1—1 1— 1 i-H 8g id^ji OS 00 1-) rH 9-9 (N(N.-i CO |2 1-1 i-H (N q^^sg^ SS5 00 (N IOt-H S 1—1 000 000 0600 1—1 1—1 8SS 1— 1 1— 1 1— I (MCO 1-100 'jJcd gg 1— I 1—1 (MIOO ■*t-co cqr-i.-i ■^2 S2 §2^S¥5 3^ ss 8 8S CD 10 1-1 1-1 8888 rH 1-1 i^ ■* coco COO 1-1 1-t 8Sg lN.-H.-i 1 1 1 0000s 1-1 050 cq (N COCO'* ^^ 8S CO 99 i-i(Ni-i coed (Nr-i 999 cdcd COi* OCO 99^. •-1 T-H en -^ CO 00 CO (M '^ CO 00 00 1-1 ^ 1-1 1-1 C 10 (N ■* §g 9 1—1 sis i-( coco »O00C3S 1— 1 ^H 1— I IMCO OS CD id id OS CO «MO (N tM COrHOO COCOt^ CO (N rH |S (N CO b- T-H (N CO COOS 1-t '* CO i-lt-^(M(NCO WCO 1> CO !>. 1-1 ir-l to OS OS c<»-*co 1-1 1-1 1-1 99 idi* 1-^ CO ost^ 1-1 1-1 rH (N CO t~Oi* (N (N.-1 ^«5 •— 1 00 -^o CO 00 10 T-H rH (M 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 (N ^^ CO CM CO 1-1 1—1 1—1 *9 .—1 1-1 9"° 1—1 1—1 1—1 .-ICO CO 1-1 ■*TtI -*i^ 10 CO 1—1 1— 1 1000 10 CO COrH Nr-irH |2 *N CO rH CO 1-1 OS i-lCO COiO i-< i-< 1-1 C<| s§ ^^ 9 1— t 1>IM T— 1 1—1 999 1-1 1-1 coed So 1-1 1-1 SSo (NrH.-i £32 8S8 r-(C<) S2 8 1—1 88 1—1 1—1 8St2 1-1 i-( gs coco 1-1 1-( sgs (Nr-ii-i ' CO cj ■ wPhPQ 5 : : -^ : >3 Ph c-o 3 a u a » " i4 ,0 . . . . - .g ' » s S „ ' S-5 S 2:3 a u ■ g g N ■ -Miz !§• is »J • 'S-^^ ■ " M" *j > " ^co .m'^wO, .CO oco "^co^eo -s "a "c "2 "c ^ "a "° "c "" "a "a -) V couCucom oiU coU coUO c S -a 6 ^ e~a= -a fi ""a S "a S 8 G 1 II is go 130.8 93.6 109.4 233.3 220.0 146.7 '64.0 T)i5p 5D05 1O ■*T-1C0 t-oco -o 050 ^d I-) 1-1 OO CO 00 OO CO OOO 00 00^ coo 3^ OCO odd CO oqt-iffl oddcd 1-1 1-1—1 4S 1>00 ; 1— 1 1— ( 1— ( <3 CS CO <3d CS 00 IM CO « csot; coco CO 00 t- "3d 1— ( t-^«o 1-1 CO CO (MCO cot- (NCO oiotfi lodd (NCOt- ^ CO 1-1 1- COIO CO^JI cod oeqi-i ^ CO CO >.2 W3COCO (MlOtd COIM CN coco r-Hr^rJH (N t^ (MO —4 1—1 S2 (M T-l CO 00 t-'(N 1-1 »0(N cq lod 1-1 cq 030 oooco gt-:«; ■32 ■*IOQO 05 10CO C0 00rt<0 locdodo « oar- (nV i CO (N 1— I <3^ cq t-l-l lOoi i*q -*d CS « « is §1 •33 .-HQO lOOO CO 00 to 00 oo 00 (N 03 C^ CO CO OCO CO 00 1-1 CO t- Tti COCO •*00CO 1—1 t-oo •cjlco 1-1 1-1 O3C0 1-1 OCOO lO COt- l-OOt- t-o>o 05(M iO t^ Tjl C^ Ci ^H CSIO C<1 1-1^ t- 00 1—1 as 0!MCO cDio r^ Oco OOO OO O cot- coco CO 11*1 00 coo 00 odd — 1 lo o 030 OOO t-TtICO ^ "^ CO F;SS 101>OOIM T-1 ^H CO COCO 1-1 1-t (N05 ma OCO 32 1 Ttir-oo 1-ioot-co l>(M t-o O d 1—1 coco ss' cooo O3 00 OO S8 00 t-o ■^ss CO CO CO cq 1-1 cot- CDOl 1—1 1— i ii Ir-00.-i T— 1 00 00 coo odocotd « es cs o « C3 coco coirj t- cs csd 1—1 1-1 CJ t-co OO •Old coco «idoo" o 1 ■S3 ora §2 1— » (N.-I10 05^ 05-^ 00 t- cq -*' CO 00^ cot- 00 CO CO TtitNii* UD O CO T-l 1-1 t- O GO COiO (M t-lO coco o coo t-l-lt- !NCoS coo INt-1 CO ^ 00 "^2 "32 COO— 1 COIN CO OS coo GO o Ot- OCO 1* d 1— ( 00 CO 3S iMi-id rHTtlj; t- 1- CDCO com o>o ■«id coco lOOOOl (Nio't>: 1-1 1— 1 1.H 4s 10 10-* O CO »oooo t-CO CO 00 1* l-ITIi ooit- ifflt-d 1—1 (MCO IMCO 1-1 CO t-'os t-t- 00 lO COOl 1— ( ed 1-1 co5< OOOO W2 001O (N-*oo CO"* CD Til IMcd lOt- inosio in-iiiN COCOi* ff^g i-ICO-^O-O 1-1 OSCOiOCO 1— ( i!r CO coco t2 >—> 1— 1 --^ Ir^ O C0O5 rH OJ 00 Ol I-ITJI d 1-* oio CO OS 1—1 1—1 t-t-CO 1-1 1- S?5 TJIO ?5?o TtiQoq t-^— I'ld 1-1^1-1 ?S?5S S5SS°^ lOCO 1— f I— ( (nS Oi-^lM 0»0 (N lOO t-CO Ol(N CO (N 00 lO coco t~;oq i-idt- OiCO t-'og C0 03 Tt■ S o fi?"il (L »i3 . O U ^ cfl Ov. --"i III •n a w s "aj w CO sii Digitized by Microsoft® Publications of the National Industrial Conference Board IS Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. Research Report No. 1. Workmen's Compensation Acts in THE United States — The Legal Phase. April, 1917. Summary of Research Report No. 1. Research Report No. 2. Analysis of British Wartime Re- ports ON Hours of Work as Related to Output and Fatigue. November, 1917. Research Report No. 3. Strikes in American Industry in Wartime. March, 1918. Research Report No. 4. Hours of Work as Related to Out- put and Health of Workers — Cotton Manufac- turing. March, 1918. Research Report No. 5. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. April, 1918. Research Report No. 6. Sickness Insurance or Sickness Prevention? May, 1918. Research Report No. 7. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Boot and Shoe Industry. June, 1918. Research Report No. 8. Wartime Employment of Women IN the Metal Trades. July, 1918. Research Report No. 9. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living — July, 1914, to June, 1918. August, 1918. Research Report No. 10. Arbitration and Wage-Fixing in Australia. October, 1918. Research Report No. 11. The Eight-Hour Day Defined. December, 1918. Research Report No. 12. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Wool Manu- facturing. December, 1918. Research Report No. 13. Rest Periods for Industrial Workers. January, 1919. Research Report No. 14. Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living — July, 1914, to November, 1918. January, 1919. Research Report No. 15. Problems of Industrial Readjust- ment tn the United States. February, 1919. INDUSTRIAL NEWS SURVEY Important industrial news in concise form. Weekly. $2.00 per year Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Cornetl University Library HD 69S3.N3 Wartime changes in the cost of living .. 3 1924 002 695 017 Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft®