plied by the average amount consumed by workingmen's families, represents, at the August, 1917 prices, an annual expenditure of $566.31 per family. Assuming that this represents two-thirds of the

Jan Mar May July|Sept|Nov|Jan Mar May July Sept Nov Jan Mar May July Sept

CHART IV

-1917

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

20

110

100

90

80

70

60

total expenditure for food, which is approximately correct, the annual expenditure per family for food at the August level of prices was about $850. The corresponding figure at the August, 1915 prices was $530, and at the August, 1916 prices, $590. The annual

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Report, 1901.

Jan Mar May July Sept Nov Jan Mar May July Sept Nov Jan Mar May July Sept

cost per family for food is accordingly $260 greater than it was one year ago and $320 greater than it was two years ago. To a family of moderate income this means a serious financial strain. True, to a certain extent the increased cost of living can be offset by resort to less expensive but equally wholesome kinds of food, but it is doubtful if this can be of any very great effect. The habits of persons do not change readily in such matters, and those who are likely to suffer most by the increased prices are usually too ignorant or lacking in judgment to effect such a substitution. Moreover, a change to cheaper diet is a thing to be deplored where it represents a real lowering of the standards of living of the people. But aside from this, the rising costs have so seriously affected the basic articles of food like flour, potatoes, sugar, milk, etc., that it is difficult to escape them by substitution. In other words the high cost of living is a serious problem, and it has got to be faced.

The writer was interested in ascertaining how far the consumer has it in his own power, by discriminative purchasing and selection of dealers, to reduce the cost of living for himself. While this inquiry was not pursued very far, some interesting things were brought to light. It is well known to economists that the "free competition" which is assumed to be the moving force of our present economic system is not in fact free. This is probably particularly the case with retail food dealers. The housewife is guided not solely by her pocketbook, but in great measure by whims and caprices, her likes and dislikes. She deals with this store or that because it gives her social prestige, or because she likes the proprietor, or because she is given credit there, or for a thousand other reasons. Were she to buy always where she got the most value for her money she could get her food products considerably cheaper. A study of the simple average price of 38 articles of food in some two hundred Philadelphia stores on March 15, 1917 showed not only a wide variation between individual stores but between whole districts of the city. The relative prices ranged from 88 in the lowest district to 108 in the highest, a maximum difference of 23 per cent. There is a considerable difference, too, between the prices of the independent stores and the large scale chain dealers. In Philadelphia in March, 1917 the average prices of the four largest chain stores were 7 per cent lower than the average prices of two hundred independent stores. Were competition perfectly free the independent stores

TABLE I.-RELATIVE RETAIL PRICES OF THE PRINCIPAL ARTICLES OF FOOD IN PHILADELPHIA, JANUARY, 1915 TO AUGUST, 1917

(AVERAGE PRICE FOR 1916=100)

134

141

174 196 112 107

102' 138

109

100

could scarcely remain in business under such circumstances, yet the Philadelphia business directory shows that there are about 4,550 independent grocers alone supplying food to Philadelphia consumers, not to mention the numerous meat dealers.

However, this is not a discussion of causes and remedies, but an analysis of tendencies. It has shown that the trend of food prices is decidedly upward, and has accurately measured that trend for Philadelphia. Moreover, it appears that the upward movement is likely to continue. While prices fell in July of this year they started upward again in August, and presumably are still on the increase. So long as the United States continues to feed a world whose production is curtailed by the ravages of war, and so long as gold continues to pour into this country at its present pace, prices may be expected to continue to rise. The question that now presents itself is that of real wages. Are the money wages of the masses keeping pace with the trend in prices? If not, real wages are falling, standards of living are being lowered, and from the standpoint of social welfare, we are not prospering. The study of wage statistics which follows will answer that question for Philadelphia.

THE TREND IN WAGES

CHARLES REITELL, PH.D.

The purpose of this wage study undertaken by the writer for the Mayor's Food Committee was to find out primarily what changes had taken place in individual wages paid in Philadelphia from January 1, 1916 to March 10, 1917. In order to determine such changes as thoroughly and completely as possible two distinct sources of information were used:

1. Wage returns from trade and labor unions.

2. The direct study of payrolls. This second source, which was by far the more complete, had the actual pay records of the employer as working material. Not only so-called wage-earners, but salaried men as well were considered.

The results of these two divisions of the work are given in detail.

'I TRADE AND LABOR UNIONS

To acquire the wage data from unions, special forms were sent to every labor organization in the city. This form requested wage