The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1917. COST OF LIVING

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 9, 5 October 1917, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1917. COST OF LIVING

Tub ostensible object of the deputation which waited on thb Piumi Minister on Wednesday evening >vas to make -representations, froir iho Labour standpoint, on tho sub iecfc of cost of living. The proceed ngs degenerated in fact into i loisy and disorderly demonstration vhich did no service to Labour ane iertainly did .nothing to bring a lolution of the cost-of-living prob em nearer. Responsible men in the Labour, .movement will recognise .hat-such demonstrations arc nol inly foolish, but hold certain dan--sersi It would no doubt be easy ;o popularise the idea amongst an mthinking section of the comraunty. that the present high cost bi iving admits of an easy remedy, incl that the remedy will be applicc f it is demanded noisily enougl md with a sufficient show of rudeness and discourtesy to public menis Labour- leaders who have ironbled to look into the question i»re quite well aware, however, these ideas have no foundation in -fact rhc cost-of J living problem, broughi into sharp pronlinencc and heavilj intensified by the war, has hithcrfc lefied successful treatment all ovei ;hc world. The wage-earners of this :ountry will not reduce the cost ol iving by organising rowdy demonstrations, and it is probably domf them no more than justice to saj iliat a great majority of them, art piite aware of tho fact. In any cast ;hc repetition of scenes like thai which occurred on Wednesday even ing could only result in losing | or janised Labour the sympathy, of c very large number of people in the Dominion who find the high cost ol living-a heavy burden and arc intensely desirous of discovering » temedy. ' Organised Labour, ol course', has a perfect right to make its voice heard on this question, a; :>n others; it is, indeed, desirable that it should' do so, but it will onlj damage its own cause and alienate athcr sections of the community bj resorting to disorderly tactics. Practically every man and woman in the sountrv wants to reduce, the cost bi living," but while- it is easy to give jxprcssion to this desire tho difficulty is to find a method of satisfying it. It cannot bo said that anj practical proposals were made bj those who took a prominent part ill the recent deputation, and tho meeting which and they spoke from a standpoint in many respects unreasonable and irrational For instance, one of them evidentlj considered that ho had scored.. a point and exposed a glaring wrong when ho stated that a storekeeper 111 n Wellington suburb had advisee him that the price of 160 articles bad increased on an average 52.2 pci ;ent., as against' the 32.7 per cent. *iven bv the Government btatistiSian as "tho'average war increase in cost of living. But even if the speaker in question is right in Ins contention, what is his remedy i Does he propose to compel the store keeper to lower his prices? Since the storekeeper as well, as otliei people is. paying war prices, t.M only result would be to ruin him and close his business without benefiting the community. The merchant behind the storekeeper has the same defence, and the increased prices the merchant has to pay are accounted for bv the increased cost ot producing goods abroad under war conditions, and above all. by enormously increased shipping freights These last, though they are attributed to the unprecedented woil ■ shortage of shipping tonnage, hav undoubtedly involved an clement ol exploitation, but the. matter of controlling shipping freights is outside the province of the New Zcalanc Government except that itcanmak representations on the subject te. th Imperial authorities. If it Can la shown that individuals or comnier cial firms in this country hav taken advantage of war conchon. to exact illegitimate profits, then undoubtedly they should be punished and the practice should be stopped. 3ut it is quite futile U fulminate against the re.gnu.gogi cost of living and ignore factou which' make it inevitable. ' It is, of course, absurdly, unreason able to contend that any increase n [to* cost of living i» war period, simply because it ar incrcU inflicts an into en Mo wrong upon the people of Urn country. The demand was voiced by a speaker at Wednesday's meeting that, either by lowering price, or by increasing tho payment of labour, wages should be made cqua to the wages of Ihis^ imphe. that the people of New Zealand should be made entirely free of the acrificcs- and hardships necessanlj incurred by every country engagce in the war. Anyone she- ild lie a.ile io see for himself.that this is a.i imnossible aspiration. No magu ha" been device! which will enahh a -country or an empire to devote a larfic part of its productive coer ;isto.neetii.gwar.den.andsamlu the same time to maintain a* higl -I standard ol coin fort as in Hie i.<T,„S. 1M paying more than cl', ed to pay for articles in cc mon use and in doing without st,iu

things we arc contributing to the < mighty economic effort which' backs tho effort of our Army and Navy. < People who stay fit bonio, in New 1 Zealand ,or elsewhere, have no . reason to complain at being called I upon to share to this extent the I burdens and sacrifices which fall so 1 much more heavily upon those who : arc cast for a fighting part. This is subject to the reservation that the , exaction of illegitimate war-profits should bo as far as possible suppressed, but it is idle to ignore tho fact that scarcity and high prices m-o in any case inevitable in wartime. While complete immunity from these conditions is impossible, Neu Zealand is vastly bettor off where cost of living is concerned than other countries at war. Eyiclcnco on this point was supplied by the Board of Trade in its last report. It shows as follows, on'what I. it considers a fair basis of comparison, the pcrcentago of increase in the cost of living in tho countries named since July, 1914:— . Austria (January, 1917) i:i./ . Germany (January, 1917) 110.5 United Kingdom (March, 191 i) «4 Norway (Nov., 1916) M Holland (March, -1917) 70, Sweden (Feb., 1917) 66 United States (March, 1917) ... SI Canada (March, 1917) 44 Australia. (March, 1917) 25.6 New Zealand (March, 1917) 25.-i9 Other evidence is readily available to show that the people of this country are very much better off in tho matter of cost of living than those of Great Britain and other countries at wan Tho problem in its actual dimensions remains. Nothing that can bo done in a practical way ta 'brini? down prices should, be neglectccl, but the biggest initial difficulty is that most people are anxious to solve the cost-of-living problem at the expense of someone else. Some unthinking people, for example, are anxious to impose penal restrictions on our primary, producers-a course that would not only be utterly unjust as singling out one section of the commum.y for treatment of this kind, but would strike at the foundation of ■nit national prosperity. Such tentative efforts as have been made, in this country to reduce cost of living bv fixing prices have illustrated the difficulty 'of achieving satisfactoy results in this way. But f such methods arc to be adopted, and 'elaborated then m common justice and in order to avoid crippling oui most valuable industries they must be applied not only to the farmer but to all who produce or import goods, not forgetting the labour employed in producing or handling commodities. Such panaceas at lest are of doubtful and limited value. Auart from a proper restriction on illegitimate "profiteering" the only rcX hopeful lino of attack on the ostlf-living problem. to c°.centrato upon increased efficiency in 1 production. . i