Fourth. Real, sound peacetime prosperity must be based upon increased purchasing power for this low-income group. Peacetime prosperity cannot be based upon starvation wages or income, either before or after taxation. Automobiles, radios, decent housing or living will not be bought with family incomes of $1,000 or even $2,000.

EVERY AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD IS ENTITLED TO A DECENT LIVING

In 1933 when Mr. Roosevelt first took office he stated, and properly so, that one-third of the people in America were ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed. At that time the total income payments of the Nation reached a low point of $46,000,000,000 a year. By income payments I mean the total income of the Nation including wages and salaries, farm income, rents, dividends, and so forth. It is this income against which taxes are levied. Only recently Mr. Roosevelt in a message to Congress set forth what he called a second Bill of Rights in which he stated that every family had:

First. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation.

Second. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a rate which would give him and his family a decent living.

Third. The right of every family to a decent home.

Fourth. The right of a good education.

Fifth. The right to adequate protection through old-age security, accident and unemployment insurance, and so forth.

He made the statement, "Necessitous men are not freemen."

Again, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff out of which dictators are made."

To all this I readily agree. Hungry men and women brought about the French Revolution.

However, Mr. Roosevelt's definition as to who is entitled to a decent living is too narrow. He continues to talk about men and women without a job. He speaks of the farmers not having a decent income, to all of which we agree. He seems to have forgotten the millions of small investors who have invested their savings in stocks, bonds, mortgages, insurance policies, or who are receiving retirement pay and who are depending on that type of income for a decent living. The widow who has invested her life savings or perhaps the insurance of her husband in some business, stocks, bonds, or mortgages and is receiving a reduced income on those savings can be just as hungry if that investment is not producing enough to give her a decent living as if she were out of a job.

A railroad worker, postal, or other civil-service worker, or a worker who has retired from private industry, who depends upon his retirement pay, can be just as hungy if his dollar is not purchasing enough to give him that decent living as if he were in the relief line. People on old-age assistance and socialsecurity benefits are in the same class. Many of these people are being paid retirement or insurance annuities in a dollar that today purchases as little as 50 percent in living costs compared to what the dollar purchased which they paid into the fund years ago. Many of these people find themselves in a position where their purchasing power has been reduced to a point where their income no longer pays for the necessities of life, not to speak of a decent standard of living. Interest rates on bonds they have purchased or the investment made by them either directly or through insurance companies have been drastically reduced. Dividends on the small amount of stock they may have purchased have been and are being eaten up by taxes until there is little, if anything, left. It is for this reason that I am speaking of low-income groups which include low wage and low farm income groups rather than low wage or low farm income groups only.

I shall confine my remarks to the discussion of the present cost of living, present incomes, including wages and the difficulties of the low-income group to live decently now. I shall not attempt to discuss the question of why we are where we are in this field. The important thing now is to try to bring relief to this low income group.

II. WHAT CONSTITUTES A DECENT LIVING?

The question as to what constitutes a decent living for an individual or a family group depends upon the city or locality in which they reside. To compare the cost of living in different cities, a standard budget was established by the Works Progress Administration. The family budget was first devised by the

Works Progress Administration in 1935 and was made up of goods and services which they estimated were needed by a 4-person family of an unskilled manual worker living at the "maintenance level." "Maintenance level" is described as above the "minimum of subsistence level" or "emergency level" of relief budgets, but below the standard of the skilled worker. It is stated that this budget does not "approach the content of what may be considered a satisfactory American standard of living."

This was the budget upon which the WPA based its relief program in 1935 and subsequently. The Labor Department has simply taken this WPA budget and brought it down to date by adding the percentage of increase in the cost of living since then. No one, of course, would contend that this sort of a budget constitutes a decent standard of living, certainly not as defined by the President. Exhibit I of this budget gives the cost of living of a 4-person manual worker's family at maintenance level as defined by the WPA in 33 large cities of the United States as of June 15, 1943.

Exhibit II gives the indexes of the cost of living for the same family group in the same cities as of June 15, 1943. This takes the living cost in the city of Washington, D. C., as a basic index number of 100. The hypothetical family for which the budget was prepared is made up, according to WPA, of the active man who wears overalls at his work, his wife, a boy aged 13, and a girl aged 8. No household help is employed. The family live in a four- or five-room house or apartment with one indoor toilet and bath, has gas, electricity, and a small radio, uses ice for refrigeration, and has no automobile. They read a daily newspaper and go to the movies once a week. Their food is an adequate diet at minimum cost. They pay for their own medical care. No savings other than life insurance is provided.

I asked F. A. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, to bring these figures from June 15, 1943, down to date. On February 10 he wrote me a letter in which he gives percentage increases down to December 15, 1944. I am inserting the two tables into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks as exhibits I and II.

Exhibit I is exceedingly interesting. For instance, this table fixes the budget for a typical family of four for the city of Washington at $1,809.17 with the following items:

Food, $668.25, or $2.30 per person per week.

Clothing, $226.88, or $56.72 per person per year.

Rent, $351.75, or $29.30 per month.

Fuel and light, $122.26, or $12.10 per month. This covers, of course, lighting, heating, and cooking.

Furniture, household equipment, and so forth, $45.11 per year.
Miscellaneous, $394.93 per year.

Mr. Hinrichs, in his letter of February 10, stated that the increase in cost from June 15, 1943, to December 15, 1944, for the average of the larger cities was 1.8 percent on all items. He stated the rental increase was 0.3 percent. I called him by telephone and asked where in the District of Columbia anyone could obtain a four- or five-room house or apartment with indoor toilet and bath, gas, and electricity and, of course, water-for $29.30 per month. I stated that I knew a lot of folks who would like that kind of apartment or dwelling. He replied that the price was, of course, low and that they had taken the 1935 WPA budget and simply figured the increases in the cost of each item of living since that time. In other words, that whole statement was based upon a so-called maintenance level for relief purposes or practically upon a subsistence level and is still on that basis.

On February 13, 1945, I received another letter from Mr. Hinrichs in which he wrote that they had done some recent work on rents in Washington, D. C., but that only preliminary results were available as yet. The letter reads in part as follows:

"The housing cost of a four-person annual worker's family at maintenance level at Washington, D. C., which is shown at $351.75 in June 1943, would be adjusted according to the revised figures to $426.22, or approximately $35.50 per month on the average."

The letter continues:

"In order to approximate the maintenance level presented in our releases on intercity differences, all rents for a 4- or 5-room dwelling with running water, private bath, electricity, and heating equipment were tabulated. The lowest 30 percent of these rents were then averaged, with the resultant 21 percent increase in the housing cost for Washington mentioned above. I should like to emphasize that this housing cost applies only to the maintenance level, that the rents are

based on dwellings now occupied, not those available for rent to people moving to Washington. The rent does not necessarily include the monthly cost of running water, electricity, and heat. It only provides the necessary equipment for the tenant to be furnished with it.”

I am still looking for that 4 or 5-room apartment or house in Washington with electricity, heating equipment, running water, inside toilet, and bath for $35.50 per month. Fact of the matter is. $35.50 per month represents, as Mr. Hinrichs states, the average cost of the dwellings of this type in the lower 20 percent rent bracket in the District of Columbia. This includes the Washington slums. It includes dwellings and so-called apartments which are unfit to live in. It includes dwellings or apartments which should be wrecked and replaced.

Surely no one will contend that this lower 30 percent of the housing facilities in the District of Columbia represents decent housing. If anyone has any doubts about the question, I would suggest that he or she spend a few days and look over that type of housing. I did.

Take the city of Detroit in my own State. Exhibit I gives the total budget for a 4-person family at $1,798.05, itemizing it as follows:

Food, $675.24 or approximately $3.25 per person per week.

Clothing, $214.40, or approximately $53 per person per year.
Housing, $324.94, or $27 per month.

Fuel, heat, and light, $125.21, or $10.50 per month.

Household furniture and equipment, $38.86 per year.
Miscellaneous, $419.40 per year.

If we add the 1.8 percent increase, according to Mr. Hinrichs' letter of February 10, on all items, we find the total budget increased to $1,830.42. The rent remains practically the same. I know many people in the city of Detroit who would like to know where they can find a four- or five-room apartment or dwelling for a typical family of four including indoor toilet, bath, gas, heat, electricity, etc., for $27 per month. In fact, they would like to find one like that for twice that sum. Again, that $27 per month represents the average of the lowest 30 percent of all rented dwellings of this type in the city of Detroit. This includes slums and many dwellings that should be wrecked and replaced. Surely no one will contend that adequate, decent housing can be obtained in the city of Detroit or is being lived in at the present time as described by this table for $27 per month. Again I wish to state that Mr. Hinrichs simply took the relief budget of the WPA in 1935 and brought it up to date.

To present all views, I asked both the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations to furnish me their views on the question as to what constitutes a decent standard of living. Both of these organizations referred me to the figures of the Heller committee of the University of California, which made up a standard budget for a family of four. The following is a statement of the American Federation of Labor on this matter:

"COST OF MAINTAINING A FAMILY OF FOUR

"I. Health and decency living standard: The Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., collects prices each year for a budget of supplies needed to maintain a family of four in health and efficiency.

"For December 1944, for the United States as a whole, the figures of the Heller committee show the following:

a. Consumption items only (food, housing, clothing, etc.).

b. Consumption items plus taxes (Federal income and social-security taxes)

-

A year

$2,728

2, 956

"NOTE.-The Heller committee budget was priced in San Francisco in March 1941 and shows the following cost for the city of San Francisco (including Federal income and social-security taxes), $2,669.13. If purchase of war bonds up to 10 percent is included in this budget, it becomes $2,964.13.

"Cost of living is higher in San Francisco than the average for the United States.

"This is the Heller committee peacetime budget. (The Heller committee also has a wartime budget which reports wartime economies and accounts for durable goods which cannot be purchased. It is below the peacetime budget by about $400 yearly.)

"II. Labor Department maintenance budget: This represents a bare subsistence living standard for a family of four. This standard does not allow enough

income to permit savings against emergencies, nor does it allow adequate medical care or education. The standard is far below a so-called American standard of living.

"A. Raised by Meany-Thomas report cost-of-living figures. This budget was priced in 1935 and has since been brought up-to-date by cost-of-living indexes. The budget, therefore, differs according to what cost-of-living index is used. The figures below show the budget brought up-to-date by the Meany-Thomas costof-living figures:

"(Raised apparently refers to an upward revision of Labor Department figures.)

Labor Department maintenance budget adjusted to Meany-Thomas increase:

Consumption items only__

Including social-security and Federal income taxes.

$2, 113 2, 179

"B. Raised by Labor Department and Mitchell committee cost-of-living figures: Labor Department maintenance budget: Consumption items only_____

Including social-security and Federal income taxes_

$1, 782 1, 835" The Congress of Industrial Organizations report used the following language: "The Heller committee, of the University of California, has done the most comprehensive work in this field. Their last report, as of March 1944, gives $2,964 as the minimum amount necessary for a wage-earner's family of four to maintain the fundamentals of healthful and decent living in accordance with community standards under wartime conditions. A white-collar worker's family would need $3,721. These figures include a 1-percent contribution for War bonds, and are based on conditions in San Francisco.

A recent report, made by the New York Department of Labor, shows that the average woman worker living as a member of a family group requires $1,643.53 a year to maintain an adequate standard of living. This is an increase of almost 45 percent over the $1,130.93 necessary at the time of Pearl Harbor. Fourteen cities in New York State were covered in this study."

It is only fair to say, however, that, according to the Labor Department figures, there are only two cities in the 33 where living costs are higher than in San Francisco.

In 1937 the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia set forth a minimum budget for a single woman and in 1943 the Labor Department brought that budget up-to-date. That budget is as follows:

Estimated November 1943 cost of a weekly budget for a single woman approved Nov. 2, 1937, by the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia

Anyone who examines this budget knows that no single woman could like decently in the District of Columbia, in November 1943, for any $21.33 per week. Congress recognized that fact when it gave a flat $300 per year increase to the lower-bracket Government employees. The tragic part is that these figures have been and are being used in various cities as evidence upon which to base what is called a decent living standard wage scale.

Surely no one will contend that wage rates or incomes based upon these living costs would give the worker a decent living, certainly not as defined by the Presi

dent in his message to Congress recently when he said that a man has “a right to earn enough money to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation" for his family. That same family has a right to a decent home, good education, and adequate protection through old-age security. The fact of the matter is that the worker often finds this information used in determining his wage scale, forcing his living standard to a subsistence basis with just enough food to keep him and his family alive, with slum housing and enough clothing to keep the bodies of his family and himself covered.

Unless the Labor Department can give us cost-of-living figures based upon the right of every American to a decent living, including decent food, decent housing, and decent clothing, it had better discontinue publishing information along this line entirely. The publication of figures on cost of living, based upon a subsistence level such as were used in the relief system of the thirties, should be discontinued. Such figures are misleading, place the Department in a false light, and merely help to bring the standard of living down to the lowest subsistence level.

The question of what constitutes a decent living in each locality at a definite time is a difficult one which will require much research to establish and maintain on a current basis. It certainly is beyond the capacity of one individual. It is not my purpose to attempt to do so. Our income-tax laws fixing family exemptions are not based upon living costs. The fact is that, as living costs went up, tax rates went up and tax exemptions came down to a point where those laws have helped to reduce the standard of living of the low-income group far below even a subsistence level.

INCREASE IN LIVING COSTS

A great deal has been said as to the increased living costs during the past 4 or 5 years. Nearly every request by labor for increased wages was based upon the increased cost of living. I submit herewith the figures of three organizations which have done a great deal of work along this line.

(a) The Bureau of Labor Statistics of January 30 issued a report, which reads, in part, as follows:

"On December 15, 1944, the Bureau of Labor Statistics index of the cost of living of moderate-income families stood at 1.27 percent of the 1935 to 1939 budget and 2.1 percent above the December 1943 level."

The President's committee revised this upward 4 percent, or to an index of 1.31 percent. According to the Labor Department estimate, as revised by the President's committee, it takes $1.31 today to buy in living costs what could be bought for $1 in 1939.

(b) American Federation of Labor report: The research and information service of the American Federation of Labor in answer to my inquiry, wrote me as follows:

"The Meany-Thomas report shows that cost of living in the United States increased 43.5 percent from January 1941 to December 1943. From 1939 to December 1944 the increase was 46.4 percent. (Increases before January 1941 and after December 1943 are calculated on the basis of Labor Department figures, since we have no other information.)"

According to the American Federation of Labor estimates, it takes $1.46 plus today to buy in living costs what $1 bought in 1939.

(c) Congress of Industrial Organization figures. The Congress of Industrial Organizations, in answer to my request, wrote me as follows:

"In answer to your request, Living Costs in World War No. 2, by Philip Murray and R. J. Thomas, puts the rise in the cost of living between January 1941 and March 1944 at 45.3 percent. They make no estimate which dates back to 1939. The Bureau of Labor Statistics index, however shows a rise of 2 percent between March 1939 and January 1941. The total of 47.3 percent obtained by adding the two figures together corresponds closely to the 48-percent figure given by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics' Composite Cost of Living Indexes (farmers and workers) as the increase between March 1939 and March 1944.” According to the Congress of Industrial Organizations estimates it takes $1.47 plus today to buy in living costs what $1 bought in 1939.

(d) The Bureau of Agricultural Economics. According to the Bureau of Agriculture Economics Composite Cost of Living Indexes-Farmers and Workers-as quoted by the letter from the C. I. O., the increase between March 1939 and March 1944, was 48 percent. According to these figures it takes $1.48 today to buy in living costs what $1 bought in 1939.